sf-02

It would only be covered if someone puts out a press release which is repeated wholesale with no analysis. They are cut and paste factories. They'll jump at estate agent stories fed to them. 1) no work and 2) it pleases their advertises in the industry

Most local papers are owned by two or three big companies and all are dire. Both sites you link to are owned by "Reach" under the "Live" banner who put out complete dross and rehashed press releases. Reach own the Mirror, the express and the Daily Star. They just announced 550 job losses.

Because its for the coming decades. The UK cancelled some projects after WW2 and various other major events such as the 70s slump which then cost more later on. We cancel things again and again and it doesn't work. Given the country is currently being paid to borrow then go for it. We are one of the very few major nations with no high speed network despite density to support it. Costs seem way too high but that's not a reason to cancel outright. The population will keep rising, people will still want to travel, bosses will ensure workers will still have to travel and in 20 years time people will say how did we do without it. Also need to remember HS2 is not just about quick new links or commuter travel at 200mph. It frees up an entire major railway line for local rail transport to serve tens if not hundreds of thousands of new homes, and a massive increase in freight which reduces road maintenance budgets. Freight wont be going anywhere for some time.

TC has helped the bubble going along with all the other props. Is there a number of people now on UC? I know tax credits payout are down a few billion in the past couple of years. Havn't got the data to hand but was HMRC data.

£16k of savings won't get a deposit in most of the country. Not even 10% of a 200k place which rules out pretty much all the south and much of the north. It basically stops any UC claimant being able to save enough for a home at current prices. I guess people will stash it.

So I was reading into UC and it can't be claimed if savings of more than 16k. The old tax credit system didn't have that. Yet who can buy a house with 16k sayings, even with help to buy? That's got to hit affordability levels. The roll out may be slow and delayed, but it is happening. more and more people are coming under UC even if its just moving to another authority area.

The site is an absolute pit too. Grotty as hell around the old Upton park stadium. The nearest tube is on the slow District line and not even that close to central London. No way will the premium they've paid for a new build there last 5 years.

Not sitting but standing. It was packed inside. No toilets on those suburban trains. Power was already off and had been for some time on track and trains stuck in darkness. 4+ hours of that and no surprise when the station was yards away.

No mention that central government cut £700 million in funding to TfL? That's the main reason. The answer isn't to cut money for London but raise transport funding and devolution for the rest of England. England is very odd in not spending much on infrastructure. In many developed countries most cities are adequately funded. Its not Berlin or Frankfurt for gov scraps. Paris or Marseille. Beijing or Shanghai. Here the gov love playing regions off against each other. Now London is the only major world city with no gov assistance on transport operating costs. Wouldn't be so bad of there was adequate devolution to raise money locally but there isn't. The congestion charge does not do it. The rest of England has crap buses as deregulated in 1986. Local Authorities were banned from running profitable routes but had to provide subsidies for non profitable routes with no ability to cross subsidise. Even in the States cities don't function that way let alone the rest of Europe or Asia.

Greenwich Council must be one of the iffiest around. How many schemes they draw up to push up prices is amazing. It's apparently a "Labour" council in London with a dire shortage of truly affordable homes. Yet they are going to pay mortgage deposits using taxpayers money. http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2018/01/30/greenwich-council-now-using-taxpayer-money-to-pay-mortgage-deposits/ It wasn't enough deciding to spend at least £65 million on buying homes off the market instead of using money to build outright. http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2018/01/18/greenwich-council-spending-65-million-buying-more-private-homes/

Do you mean moving to towns in the middle of nowhere or other big cities? I've not met one person yet in their 20s and 30s who left London and went to other great UK cities and didn't ask why they didn't do it sooner. The music scene for example in so many cities is thriving and dying in London due to high costs and it taking forever to get to gigs in the reducing number of venues. Same with a whole bunch of cultural activites.

Nah. Manchester, Newcastle, Bristol, Glasgow, Brighton and many more cities offer loads. But their economies are often sucked dry by centralisation (less so Glasgow). In London a person ends up living in zone 6 and it takes them 2 hours to get home from a gig. It's a 10 minute walk in other cities. Loads of people buy the myth and go to London then leave. Particularly those from dull towns. Those youngsters in other UK cities see it as the overhyped place it is.

30% right to buy income. The other 70% borrowing or using reserves.

The figures in the article show average homes purchase is £395k! Many more than that can be built on their own land at £223k a unit. Not directly as govt bans it but using their own not-for-profit off-shoot which avoids caps and can borrow from banks as any developer does. They aren't doing this.

A month or two ago I put up on here how Greenwich Council in London were to spend £46 million buying homes from the market. Now it looks like another £65 million. http://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2018/01/18/greenwich-council-spending-65-million-buying-more-private-homes/ It's the least cost effective way to spend Right to Buy income by a mile according to figures. Helps homeowners though. This is a Labour council. Not Corbynite though. More a mix of right wing Labour and clapped out councillors in seats for decades. Who knows how many are landlords or multiple homeowners. If this is replicated at other councils the sums must be huge. Surely this needs a lot of exposure?