Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Oki

Members
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Oki

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. Are all in their late nineties (at least). And didn't they vote to join the EEC in the first place?
  2. But, but, but, I saw an article in The Guardian that said young adults in well paid full employment enjoy living in houseshares like unwaged students, that it was the new trendy lifestyle choice of a more socialistic generation. Was I misled?
  3. The Kraken Wakes is perhaps the most appropriate book of the period given the sea level rise. Then read The Road Then watch Threads to cheer yourself up.
  4. A Fun Story About Flood Risk And How Britain Handles It. So everyone remembers Sam Notaro right? he was the guy that bunded his house when floods were imminent so it looked like this: Well the thing is, this guy knew he was building on flood plain and originally tried to get PP to build on piles around four/five feet tall as is commonplace in the flood zones of the Netherlands. It is cheap and 100% effective unless the piles are overtopped and the bare earth under the house is an excellent soakaway. He was told by the LPA that despite being on a flood plain, building a floodproof house like that was Completely Verboten. It would apparently have made his house 'unacceptably tall'. When he heard of floods being imminent in the next couple of days he called the Environment Agency to ask if it was legal to bund his property and was told 'permission is required for that, expect it to take about six weeks.' shit wept.
  5. Labour don't want to fix the housing crisis. in electoral terms it is the best thing to happen to them in half a century - which is why they worked so hard to cause it. Labour might build a lot of council and association housing (for lifelong rent, in marginal constituencies and rammed full of loyal Labour voters) but expect every attempt to build houses for owner-occupation or increase owner-occupation to fail just as thoroughly as every other effort for the last forty years Conservatives cannot fix the housing crisis. Much as they need a certain level of owner-occupation to win elections (absolutely essential) they cannot risk offending their current electoral base and are left with the utterly impossible task of creating more home-owners at current prices. Articles like this aren't useful since they perpetuate the notion that this all happened by some sort of accident and that those in power (who caused it) are trying to fix it and just can't think of a way!
  6. From the comments: truk10 7h ago 6162 A little bit of perspective 1. 200k empty homes is only 0.8% of housing stock 2. 200k is only 9 months worth of the number of new houses required 3. All that is needed for a house to be empty is that no one has lived in it for six months - this can include elderly people taken into care/hospital, deceased estates being sorted out, people doing up places before moving in, houses about to be demolished etc 4. Many empty homes are flats above shops which are impractical to rent because of security/ noise/smell issues 5. Many empty houses are in areas with no jobs or amenities Yes, there are obviously examples of houses that can and should be brought back into use but the number of empty homes is not actually a crisis and even if you brought them all back into use immediately, you've only kicked the real problem (we don't build enough new homes) down the road for 9 months and then you're back when you started in terms of the housing crisis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- so that saves me a job :-)
  7. The rich have always made the poors sleep under bridges. Charging them half a million is a new twist.
  8. Do you think the modern middle class oxbridge educated heads of the Labour Party give one singular **** about the original movements aims? They care about power.
  9. Are you kidding? the Tories have never given a rats ass about any except the landed and propertied, after universal suffrage occurred they had a problem - from composing the entire electorate by definition as only landowners were allowed to vote they became a tiny minority. The Tories solved this by realising that if only half the electorate were permitted to own one half of one house each they could be convinced they had common cause with the Duke of Westminster ( 140,000 acres), Duke of Atholl (145,700 acres) and Duke of Buccleuch (240,000 acres) etc. Genius, and as soon as they had they had the necessary electoral demographics they shut up about housebuilding and home ownership and went full pro landed/propertied and pro land/property inflation. As they had always done. As the dumb plebs rub their hands with glee as their half of a crappy small hovel goes up ten grand lets not think about how this effects those who own tens of thousands of houses and have bankrolled the Tory party since its inception. Labour of course want a private home ownership level of zero so lets not hold out any hope there either.
  10. You think public infrastructure should be be built by anything other than public money, why? This infrastructure, is it used by the houses themselves or by people? all other things being equal do people who are inadequately housed use less infrastructure? Urban sprawl? decently sized houses on decently sized plots is what I call it. The average American enjoys a quality of housing that in this country is the preserve of millionaires. Bring it on. Unless, that is, there is a large demographic in this country who deserve to be forced to live in conditions that the great and good of this country wouldn't tolerate for a second - 'the plebs must squeeze together so Rupert and Mercedes have room to ride their horses!'.
  11. Every product on earth is owned by someone, just not the same person and they can't all have your business.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.