ciderpunk

What's the problem with a falling birth rate ? The EU population is rising nicely thank-you, thanks to net immigration and there is no need whatsoever to up the birth rates (even though they have been increasing very recently in the UK). Global population rises by the second. In any case, what is actually wrong with a shrinking population ? There are plently of economic and environmental reasons to decrease the population.

How so ? In my area of north London, when an elderly person dies, their relatives can't wait to liberate the cash that's tied up in the house. The fastest I've seen a sign going up is two weeks post mortem and one month seems pretty typical. The idea of a bereaved family leaving an empty house lying about is not realistic these days - I'd say once you hit your seventies as a home owner, your nearest and dearest see you as a winning lottery ticket and have already planned what they are going to do with the cash. Bereaved? Laughing all the way to the bank more like. Incidently, Newham Council have started repossessing empty homes; http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=31433

This guy did well for himself - until he got caught.

That's the default legal position in the UK. Any intellectual property created in the process of employment belongs to the employer - they had no need to state it explicitly. What you need to do is not just remove those clauses but add a clause stating that you retain the appropriate rights. This does not constitute legal advice, I am not a lawyer and this is off topic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5062786.stm

If you want the legal protection afforded by marriage then you should get married. To be placed in a situation where the outcome of a split - which can occur for a myriad of reasons - may depend on the whims of a judge or the quality of your legal representation is neither fair nor desirable.

Moreover, 'there are none so blind as those that will not see'.

In case anyone wants to know what it looks like. I don't know which one it is. Maybe the graffiti counts as a valuable architectural feature?

That's true but bear in mind that Scotland has similar sparse areas too. Their density is roughly 65 persons/km^2 which is closer to, but still three times, that of Sweden. Immigration alone has not increased house prices - my post was addressing your questions on population. However, immigrants only need to rent to increase demand, they don't need to buy as they are sustaining a BTL market. There are many factors for the current bubble all of which are more than adequately described in these fora but here's a quick summary; increased money supply from lenders, lower interest rates, second homes, sustained low rates of new-builds, increased popularity of BTL, reluctance to invest in stocks or elsewhere, restricted land supply, personal and institutional investment (domestic and foreign), increased population and switch to single occupancy. How these quantifiably contribute to the demand/supply curve is the core debate.

Henley house at 26% discount. If I can get it to a nice spot on Hampstead Heath, I'll be sorted although it'll probably be the start of a London favela.

The UK population is increasing to the tune of approximately 300,000 people per annum. While there is a contribution from births, the bulk is made up by immigration - almost entirely by adults in the 18-35 age range. It is important to stress the age demographics of immigrants - it is not the same as the UK population and thus the demands they create on the economy or the environment cannot be simply scaled as percentage of the population. These figures do not include illegal immigration as there are no reliable estimates of this but it is thought to be significant (i.e. in the thousands per annum) and similarly comprised of adults. For comparison, the average population density of Sweden is 20 persons per square km whereas in the UK it is 244. Spend a moment thinking what life in Sweden would be like with that density (i.e. x12) and how much that plot of land would cost then. There is also a significant shift to single person occupancy - 33% of all households will be single-person by 2011 according to government estimates (based on current level of 70% of new households being single occupancy). Any change in the law in regard to cohabitation rights could see this increase substantially. All that said, there are still some 690,000 empty homes in Britain. Further Information http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.susta...le.numbers.html http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7588&x=8&y=12 http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1150232 http://www.emptyhomes.com/ Edit: Forgot to add empty homes.

We do know it is to the tune of 100 billion euro (as loaned by Irish banks) but at present rates that's probably a dozen garages in Highgate or Islington. I wonder how many additional loans are from foreign banks? I am still flabbergasted by that figure.

Missed this but I have long suspected that economic growth is partially predicated on population growth. The government figures ignore hundreds of thousands of workers so the per capita figures are totally skewed. In fact, the Migration Watch chaps caught them out along similar lines; http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/faqs.asp

Give us a wave the next time you pass by

I think you mean children and not siblings.

From earlier threads... http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/stor...z&n=97701239&x= http://www2.myhome.ie/advice_news/article_...=0&news_id=1894

They're clearly too busy - handing out loans to the lending banks. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/stor...z&n=97701239&x=

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=30857

1. Not a home owner 2. Read housepricecrash.co.uk 3. Bird 'flu 4. ? 5. Profit!

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=30829

This was a savings scheme from 2001/2002 and which is now coming to maturity. It was like a turbo-charged TESSA/ISA which the government contributed to (plus tax exemption until the account matures). Like ISAs, the money could be held in a diverse range of investments - not just cash deposits - and some people may not get back what they expected. It is extremely unwise to release large amounts of cash into an economy at once - they should have more incentives to keep it where it is rather than spend it. Much of the money is expected to be injected into housing (of course!); http://www2.myhome.ie/advice_news/article_...=0&news_id=1894 A rather better wheeze that the Irish government got up to at that time was the setting aside of a few billion euro for future pension provision; http://www.budget.gov.ie/2001/Chapter2.asp And its value five years later? Edit: Neglected to mention the 23% exit tax payable on the SSIA gain.

It is often useful to remind people of the statistics; * BBC News (Oct 2005) * Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (May 2006) * Mayoral Report - Empty Homes in London 05-06 (PDF) That report says that in London (April 2005), there were 36,200 privately owned homes which have been vacant for longer than six months. * ODPM publications related to Empty Homes.

You say 'claim' as if it dubious in some way. Don't you believe it ? There is indeed a Home Office scheme that pays £3000 to those asylum seekers that wish to be voluntarily repatriated (under certain terms and conditions). Similar 'assisted voluntary return' schemes have been in existance for a number of years - it is cheaper to offer the carrot than to use the stick. As for sources, this has been extensively covered in all the national media but you should probably ask the Home Office directly given your apparent depth of skepticism. Personally, I don't think this has too much to do with house prices, although it could be argued that the money could be spent on housing stock (for instance) or that the bounty is only encouraging illegal immigration (which increases demand for housing).

Well that's great in principle but the authorities don't seem to enforce it. Take the infamous Afghan plane hijackers. They landed in Moscow first before heading for the 'asylum' seeking paradise known as the UK. Clearly the Russians didn't offer a suitable standard of living or provide a sufficiently loop-hole ridden legal system.

If you stick people in prison, they cost an average of £35-37K per annum so that's not good for taxes. A more imaginative approach would be mandatory conscription. Let's say 5 years with Her Majesty's best, serving in Iraq or Afganistan for instance. This would be handy as many of them come from these areas so they have local knowledge and speak the language. It also enables them to sort out their own destiny without risking the lives of those people born thousands of miles away and who have no connection or moral responsibility. Can't see this helping house prices much though as it is the legal immigrants that are increasing demand on a huge scale. The tide will turn at some point when the eastern economies grow to reasonable levels and the UK is in recession.