Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

The Economist: " Britain’S Home-Ownership Manias Serve The Next Generation Ill"

Recommended Posts

.

Houses and prices

Whose backyard is it anyway?

Britain’s various home-ownership manias serve the next generation ill

Aug 12th 2010

201033brp001.jpg

NOT many people have heard of SNUB. Why should they have? Yet Stop Norwich UrBanisation, a group that fights “creeping” expansion, has recently redoubled its efforts to halt the construction of 4,000 new homes on prime agricultural land at Rackheath, to the city’s north-east. Although Broadland District Council, along with three adjacent boroughs, says it supports the new “eco-town” and is going ahead with a 200-house first wave, Snub insists that it must now take far more account of local objections.

The group has gained fresh impetus from the new coalition government’s abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), which in Labour days allowed centrally determined targets for new housing to prevail over local opposition. The plan is to devolve this task to local authorities, which are bound to take more account of local feelings. “A recipe for nimbyism,” says Michael Oxley, a housing expert at De Montfort University in Leicester.

Cala Homes, a house-building company based in Edinburgh, objects so strongly to the political volte-face that it is pressing for a judicial review. Its lawyers claim that revoking the regional strategies without putting in place a clear transition process is “unlawful”. For its part the government intends to come up with a new system that will tempt local councils into building lots of houses by offering them financial incentives, after a consultation that is likely to last well into next year. Others in the housing business talk of a “policy vacuum” meanwhile, which could restrain housing starts just as they are picking up again (see chart).

Housing in Britain is a hot issue. For all the economic gloom, prices are still so high that ever fewer young people can afford to buy a first home. As the chart shows, those who do are taking out mortgages that represent an increasing multiple of their income—and that is after coming up with a bigger down payment.

Paradoxically, many parents of would-be buyers are vehemently opposed to new housing developments in their own backyard, “without seeing the disconnect”, notes a planning expert. But Mr Oxley thinks the volume of new housing is only one factor affecting the real issue, which is affordability, or rather the lack of it.

201033brc072.gif

Average house prices in Britain did not correct themselves by as much as America’s after the credit crunch, despite a similar housing bubble fuelled by cheap loans. They dipped by just over 20% from peak to trough, on figures from the Nationwide building society, before resuming their upward journey; America’s fell by 32%, according to the Case-Shiller 20-city index. A slight check in Britain in July may be little more than a seasonal correction. Estate agents are nervous, but few expect the dynamics of the housing market to change dramatically.

Britons seem to have an abiding faith in the existence of an implicit floor under house prices. True, there are obvious constraints on the supply of housing caused by high land prices and planning red tape. Then too the aspiration to own a home—preferably a house, not a flat—is widespread, thanks in part to the perception that property is a one-way bet. And until recently banks have been all too ready to lend on it. None of these elements alone explains why British houses are overpriced by around 30%, according to The Economist’s index of house prices to rents, but they are all part of the mix.

Jeremy Grantham of GMO, an American investment-management firm, sees the prevalence of floating-rate, rather than fixed-rate, mortgages as a common factor sustaining “100-year” housing bubbles in Australia and Britain. Floating-rate mortgages last year reduced many borrowers’ payment burden as the Bank of England dropped its base rate to 0.5% and lenders adjusted their standard variable rates downward in response. Borrowers who might have thrown in the towel on a fixed-rate mortgage were able to keep up monthly payments at that lower level. (In America, by contrast, thousands of borrowers were hit by fixed-rate, low-interest “teaser” mortgages which reset to a higher rate after a year or so.)

But first-time buyers are not benefiting from these lower interest rates. Banks’ lending criteria have tightened. A few years ago a new buyer could get a loan by putting down just 10% of a house’s value; today he must come up with something closer to 25%. Higher-than-usual unemployment and erratic wage growth make it hard to find that kind of money. And in any case the ultra-low central-bank base rate will eventually have to rise, pushing up borrowing costs. It will then be even more difficult to get into the market.

Falling house prices are anathema in the eyes of the average Briton, or so it seems. On August 11th Savills, an estate agency, published its revised forecast for house prices until 2015: a drop in 2010 and 2011 was illustrated by rainclouds, whereas the 7% growth predicted for 2013 and 2014 basked in sunshine. And indeed when house prices sag consumers tend to lose confidence, which affects growth and jobs.

But with first-time buyers locked out in this way, the idea that business as usual in the housing market is desirable looks flawed. If more young people are to join the ranks of home-owners, house prices and related mortgages need to fall. The insistence on buying a house to live in, however, may in fact be misguided. In no other European country is home-ownership such an obsession. Yet according to a 2006 study British homes are on average smaller than those in Germany, France or the Netherlands, for example, and the difference has been widening.

More Britons might be more comfortable, both financially and domestically, if they could be persuaded to ditch their home-owning aspirations, and perhaps their nimbyism too. In 18th-century England even the rich were happy to live in rented accommodation. Now, for no very good reason, that has come to be seen as second-best.

SOURCE: http://www.economist.com/node/16793014

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More Britons might be more comfortable, both financially and domestically, if they could be persuaded to ditch their home-owning aspirations, and perhaps their nimbyism too. In 18th-century England even the rich were happy to live in rented accommodation. Now, for no very good reason, that has come to be seen as second-best.

While the article is otherwise sensible, anyone who can write those last three sentences is either a complete idiot or has never rented property in the UK. Where does one start with such asinine stupidity? Greedy slumlords fancying themselves as neo-feudal aristocracy? Unregulated letting agents with business ethics modelled on Rachman? ISPs with 12 month minimum contracts when an SAT is for 6 months? Section 21 or 22 or whatever, with endless fees for credit referencing, legal fees, contract fees, compulsory cleaning fees, inventory fees, fees for scratching our ars*s while we work out new ways of screwing you over? That look of disdain in other peoples' eyes when you admit "no, it's a rental", as you are very clearly made to feel you are a second-class citizen? And so on ad inf ad nauseam.

Until commentators of housing "get this" their articles are flawed.

Edited by munro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 18th-century England even the rich were happy to live in rented accommodation. Now, for no very good reason, that has come to be seen as second-best.

:angry:

Nothing to do with tenancy laws which offer no security to tenants then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this comment:

Every adult in Britain feels like a "property developer" because it is one of the few remaining sectors where they perceive they can "play businessman" and not be obliterated or taken over by foreign competition.

Cars, ships, textiles, investment banks, soccer clubs... almost every major, visible British business sector has been crushed by foreign competition... so the British have thrown in the towel and mostly retreated to trading houses between themselves in a giant pyramid scheme to make it feel like they're still good at something.

EDIT - and this one is ********:

The relevant fact is that houses in the UK have consistently outstripped returns from almost every other forms of investment accessible to ordinary people for decades.

Edited by guitarman001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the article is otherwise sensible, anyone who can write those last three sentences is either a complete idiot or has never rented property in the UK. Where does one start with such asinine stupidity? Greedy slumlords fancying themselves as neo-feudal aristocracy? Unregulated letting agents with business ethics modelled on Rachman? ISPs with 12 month minimum contracts when an SAT is for 6 months? Section 21 or 22 or whatever, with endless fees for credit referencing, legal fees, contract fees, compulsory cleaning fees, inventory fees, fees for scratching our ars*s while we work out new ways of screwing you over? That look of disdain in other peoples' eyes when you admit "no, it's a rental", as you are very clearly made to feel you are a second-class citizen? And so on ad inf ad nauseam.

Until commentators of housing "get this" their articles are flawed.

I agree. That last paragraph was really stupid, cr@p! We are tenants, have been for many years, and we hate it! You described it very well, by the way. I agree 100%. Sounds like this writer has no idea how frustrating it is to rent in Britain, with our current tenancy laws.

But up to there the article was good. I thought it would be useful to post it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

EDIT - and this one is ********:

The relevant fact is that houses in the UK have consistently outstripped returns from almost every other forms of investment accessible to ordinary people for decades.

" this one is ******** "

Let's see, 8 letters...

So, before the forum censorship, could it have been "b0ll0cks" by any chance? :)

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have the 10 page global housing bubble Economist article from 2003.

Brilliant article explaining why global house prices were in a massive bubble and were soon to collapse.

It another 5 years for the US to begin, 6 for Spain and Eire and ours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have the 10 page global housing bubble Economist article from 2003.

(...)

2003?! That is very interesting. I'll try to find it in their website.

If the article is at hand over there, could you please send me that article's title and/or date?

(If it is in some awkward or lost place, don't worry, don't bother.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2003?! That is very interesting. I'll try to find it in their website.

If the article is at hand over there, could you please send me that article's title and/or date?

(If it is in some awkward or lost place, don't worry, don't bother.)

Alas it is in one of about 20 plastic crates in my garage where most of my stuff is stored in the house I rent.

It has oft been quoted on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paradoxically, many parents of would-be buyers are vehemently opposed to new housing developments in their own backyard, “without seeing the disconnect”, notes a planning expert

No quite so in a local case near me the affordable homes were going to be built in an area WITH HARDLY ANY PUBLIC TRANSPORT thats what we objected to, no FTB buyer no matter how cheap the housing is is going to want to live there unless they had a car, you cant commute to the mainland to work when the first bus is not until 8am or the 8am bus does not connect with the interchanges in Ryde or Newport in order to get you to work by 9am if you work on the Island, coming back is even worse

AND they are further reducing the bus service. Oh and FORGET trying to get a bus after a night out the last one runs at 6.20 in the evening.

If someone had said we are building these homes and part of the plan is to give the area more buses to cope with the extra demand we would have been all for it ( no such undertaking was given) so we objected.

The new homes are now being built nearer to Newport where the buses run every 7 minutes and through the night, thats better all round for both the young home owners

and the environment..

had they built the homes where they wanted to I would bet that 1/2 would remain unsold.

I am all for building more homes but only in areas where the extra people and transport can be sustained and managed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 18th-century England even the rich were happy to live in rented accommodation. Now, for no very good reason, that has come to be seen as second-best.

Could have something to do with the fact that over your whole lifetime, renting is a lot more expensive than buying if you time your purchases well... Somebody who bought in the 90s is probably paying about the same on a repayment mortgage for their whole house as their 20something offspring are paying to rent one room in an HMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas it is in one of about 20 plastic crates in my garage where most of my stuff is stored in the house I rent.

It has oft been quoted on here.

:lol: Don't worry, I know exactly what you mean because most of my The Economists are in boxes too.

Actually I half suspected you could have the same problem. Cheers anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paradoxically, many parents of would-be buyers are vehemently opposed to new housing developments in their own backyard, “without seeing the disconnect”, notes a planning expert

No quite so in a local case near me the affordable homes were going to be built in an area WITH HARDLY ANY PUBLIC TRANSPORT thats what we objected to, no FTB buyer no matter how cheap the housing is is going to want to live there unless they had a car, you cant commute to the mainland to work when the first bus is not until 8am or the 8am bus does not connect with the interchanges in Ryde or Newport in order to get you to work by 9am if you work on the Island, coming back is even worse

AND they are further reducing the bus service. Oh and FORGET trying to get a bus after a night out the last one runs at 6.20 in the evening.

If someone had said we are building these homes and part of the plan is to give the area more buses to cope with the extra demand we would have been all for it ( no such undertaking was given) so we objected.

The new homes are now being built nearer to Newport where the buses run every 7 minutes and through the night, thats better all round for both the young home owners

and the environment..

had they built the homes where they wanted to I would bet that 1/2 would remain unsold.

I am all for building more homes but only in areas where the extra people and transport can be sustained and managed

Sorry Madamvice, but from what century are you from??? People can afford cars nowadays, you know?

Besides, that is their business, not yours!

:rolleyes:

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Don't worry, I know exactly what you mean because most of my The Economists are in boxes too.

Actually I half suspected you could have the same problem. Cheers anyway.

I think this might be it having done a google but you need to pay for it.

House of Cards

http://www.economist.com/node/1794873?story_id=1794873

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this might be it having done a google but you need to pay for it.

House of Cards

http://www.economist.com/node/1794873?story_id=1794873

Thank you!

Here:

A survey of property

House of cards

In many countries the stockmarket bubble has been replaced by a property-price bubble. Sooner or later it will burst, says Pam Woodall, our economics editor

May 29th 2003

“BUYING property is by far the safest investment you can make. House prices will never fall like share prices.” This is the advice offered by countless estate agents around the globe. In the absence of attractive investment opportunities elsewhere, home buyers have needed little encouragement: from London to Madrid and from Washington to Sydney, rising house prices have been the hot topic of conversation at dinner parties. Over the past seven years, house prices in many countries have risen at their fastest rate ever in real terms. And now institutional investors are also eagerly shifting money from equities into commercial property. Many property analysts scoff at the suggestion that another bubble is in the making. House prices may have fallen after previous booms, but “this time is different”, they insist. That is precisely what equity analysts said when share prices soared in the late 1990s. They were proved wrong. Will the property experts suffer the same fate?

This survey will examine investors' current love affair with both residential and commercial property (or real estate, as Americans call it). It will explore the latest trends in property prices around the globe and consider different methods of estimating fair value in order to assess whether there is a bubble. This may well be the single most important question currently hanging over the world economy. Given the fragile state of many economies, the bursting of a housing bubble could easily drag them into recession.

Property is probably the biggest business in the world. By one estimate, construction, the buying, selling and renting of properties and the imputed benefits to owner-occupiers account for around 15% of rich countries'GDP. Property also makes up around two-thirds of the tangible capital stock in most economies. Most important of all, property is by far the world's biggest single asset class. Investors have much more money tied up in property than in shares or bonds (see chart 1).

In this special report

* » House of cards «

* Acknowledgments

* Risky office affairs

* A boom out of step

* Castles in hot air

* Location, location, location

* Design flaws

* Heading for a brick wall

* Offer to readers

* Spaced out

Related items

* Property prices: The next bubble to pop?May 29th 2003

A lot more people own homes than own shares. In all the big developed economies bar Germany, well over half of all households are home-owners (see chart 2). In most of Europe and Australia, housing accounts for 40-60% of total household wealth, and in America for about 30%. And even in America the typical household on an average income holds six times as much wealth in residential property as in shares.

Yet, curiously, there has been much less economic research into the property market than into the stockmarket, the bond market or the foreign-exchange market. One reason is that until recently much of this property investment was held fairly passively. For most people a home was simply a place to live. For most firms offices were a necessary but relatively unimportant part of their infrastructure. Commercial property made up less than 5% of most institutional investors' portfolios. But now many people, having lost faith in shares, see their home as an investment that will appreciate rapidly in value. Financial institutions are also pushing up the share of commercial property in their portfolios. To both sorts of investor, property seems to offer attractively high returns—as well as a safe haven in an increasingly risky world.

Betting the house

Over the past few years, house prices have been booming almost everywhere except Germany and Japan. Since the mid-1990s, house prices in Australia, Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden have all risen by more than 50% in real terms. American house prices are up a more modest 30%, but that is still the biggest real gain over any such period in recorded history. Commercial-property prices in some big cities have also been looking rather frothy.

These property booms have been partly driven by economic fundamentals, but bubble-like symptoms abound. Real-estate investment has even made it into a TV series, “The Sopranos”. In one recent episode, the wife of Tony, the Mafia boss, suggested he invest in a real-estate investment trust (a fund which enables small investors to buy commercial property). Many viewers took her advice.

CSU839.gif

Rewards from investing in property in the past are certainly impressive. In Britain, for example, over the past ten years the total return from both commercial and residential property (including rental income) has been well over 10%, beating the return on equities or gilts. Over the past three years, British house prices have risen by 55%, whereas share prices are 40% down.

Over the past ten years, the total return from buying a house (including the implicit rental income) has exceeded the return from shares in half the countries in chart 3. But these figures understate the possible gains from investing in property. Unlike equities, most homes are bought with borrowed money, and the resulting leverage can greatly lift the return on the initial stake (or increase any loss). Suppose you had invested $20,000 in shares, which after five years are now worth $40,000, including reinvested dividends, implying an annual return of 15%. Then suppose you had used the $20,000 as a deposit on a $100,000 house that over five years had risen in value by a more modest 7% a year, to $140,000. Assume, for simplicity, that mortgage-interest payments and maintenance costs exactly offset the rental income. The average annual return on your deposit would have been almost 25%.

In addition, the taxman tends to treat housing far more favourably than financial assets. In most countries, owner-occupiers get tax relief on their mortgage interest payments or first-time buyers get a tax credit, and owner-occupiers are at least partially exempt from capital-gains tax. Admittedly the transaction costs of buying and selling property are high, but on reasonable assumptions the after-tax return from housing over the past decade has exceeded that from shares in most countries.

How long can the party last? Estate agents, builders, lenders, many economists and even Alan Greenspan, chairman of America's Federal Reserve, have all insisted that there is no house-price bubble. Rising house prices, the argument goes, are fully justified by low interest rates, rising real incomes, growing populations and a fixed supply of land. But this sounds a little like the “wall of money” argument used to defend inflated share prices in the late 1990s. Prices had to rise, it was said, because the number of shares in which pension funds could invest their billions was limited. Investors mistakenly came to believe that the traditional link between share prices and profits no longer mattered. Home-owners may be making a similar mistake today.

It is often argued that property is a much safer investment than shares because a share is just a (possibly worthless) piece of paper, whereas bricks and mortar are something tangible. Yet that tells us nothing about their relative value. Bubbles form when the price of any asset gets out of line with its underlying value.

Home prices are not listed daily in the Financial Times, but the same sort of valuation analysis can be applied to houses as to shares. The price you pay for a property should reflect the future rent at which you could let it. The fact that in many countries prices of homes and commercial buildings have been rising much faster than rents should be ringing alarm bells.

CSU694.gif

Housing is just as prone to irrational exuberance as is the stockmarket. Property is increasingly viewed as an easy way to make money. People buy a home in the expectation that its price will continue to rise strongly over time. Such expectations lie at the heart of all bubbles. Given the boom in the property market over the past few years, at the very least house-buyers betting on further rapid house-price gains are likely to be disappointed. Worse, there is a risk that house prices will take such a tumble that they take whole economies with them.

Vicious cycles

Swings in property prices can have a big impact on economic growth. Since the IT and stockmarket bubbles burst, rising property prices around the globe have helped to prop up the world economy. Rising house prices have boosted consumer spending by making people feel wealthier, offsetting the effect of falling share prices. Consumers have also been able to borrow more against the higher value of their homes, turning capital gains into cash which they can spend on a new car or a holiday. For firms, property is the main form of collateral for borrowing, so swings in commercial-property prices can also influence corporate investment.

CSU798.gif

But just as rising house prices help to boost spending, so falling house prices can cause economic pain. In an analysis of a number of earlier housing bubbles, the IMF's latest World Economic Outlook found that output losses after house-price busts in rich countries have on average been twice as large as those after stockmarket crashes. The average real decline after a house-price bust has been more modest than after a stockmarket crash (30% over four years against 45% over two-and-and-half years), but at the end of that period GDP had fallen by an average of 8% relative to its previous growth trend, compared with 4% after a share-price bust. The IMF also found that a sharp rise in house prices in real terms is much more likely to be followed by a bust than is a share-price boom.

There are three reasons why a house-price bubble might cause more harm on bursting than a stockmarket bubble. First, house prices have a bigger wealth effect on consumer spending, largely because more people own their homes than own shares. A study of 14 countries by three American economists, Karl Case, John Quigley and Robert Shiller, found that in most economies a change in property prices had at least twice as big an effect on consumer spending as a change in share prices of the same order.

Second, people are much more likely to borrow to buy a home than to buy shares. Some of them inevitably borrow too much and later have to curb their spending. Third, a decline in property prices also leaves some households with homes worth less than the amount they have borrowed, so housing busts have a greater effect on banks, which are typically heavily exposed to real estate. Falling house prices lead to an increase in banks' non-performing loans, and as their collateral shrinks, so does their capacity to lend.

This survey will conclude that the latest housing boom has inflated bubbles in several countries, notably America, Australia, Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain. Within the next year or so those bubbles are likely to burst, leading to falls in average real house prices of 15-20% in America and 30% or more elsewhere over the next few years, in line with average price declines during past housing-market busts. This time, however, with inflation so low, house prices will fall more sharply in money terms than they did in the past. In Britain as a whole, for example, average nominal house prices are likely to drop by 20-25%, and in London by much more. Significant numbers of owners may be left with homes worth less than their mortgages—especially as the proportion of owner-occupiers with mortgages exceeding 80% of the value of their homes is higher now than it was in the previous bust in the early 1990s.

There are already signs in some cities, such as London, New York and Amsterdam, that the housing market is cooling fast, but estate agents still insist that prices are unlikely to fall by much. Tell that to the couple who bought a four-bedroom house in San Francisco for $2.1m in 2000, then divorced and had to sell the house only two years later for $1.45m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's part of it - went on for 10 pages though I think.

At the time I was convinced that a massive house price crash was just months away... mug! :(

God almighty you're right!

I had not noticed, but each of these items below is a link to another article. Jeezus!

"In this special report

* » House of cards «

* Acknowledgments

* Risky office affairs

* A boom out of step

* Castles in hot air

* Location, location, location

* Design flaws

* Heading for a brick wall

* Offer to readers

* Spaced out

Related items

* Property prices: The next bubble to pop?"

And yes, I thought the bubble was going to burst in 2004, 2005, 200 ...you got the idea. At the time I didn't know that Brown the B@stard would keep inflating the bubble at any, any price. You were not a "mug", you, we just didn't expect this level of lunacy from a Chancellor.

And before anyone says that "all politicians are the same" etc., no, not at this level, and not a chancellor, not this bad. This was completely unprecedented.

_________________________

Edit: UK houses were already over priced in 2003, by more than 35%!

The current bubble has increased and distorted our "average" price.

CSU855.gif

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The younger generations will stick two fingers up to the UK, move abroad and enjoy a more balanced lifestyle instead of a lifetime of debt servitude.

This will leave the UK a hollowed out husk, with noone to look after the dribbling boomers in their nursing homes as they get older.

Ford's abandoned World War II airfield was a proposed site of an Eco Town. no longer. Main reasons below:

eco_1379698c.jpg

Campaign site: http://nofordecotown.blogspot.com/

And another moron b@stard:

"Ben Fogle attended the protest with his father, who lives nearby."

_44726541_fordprotest_fogle226.jpg

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2003?! That is very interesting. I'll try to find it in their website.

If the article is at hand over there, could you please send me that article's title and/or date?

(If it is in some awkward or lost place, don't worry, don't bother.)

There was a better article written on the 16th July called "In Come the Waves", it was featured on the cover of The Economist, explaining why the valuations were so ludicrous. The US bubble popped a year later, althought most people only became aware of the problems in 2007/08.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027?story_id=4079027

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a better article written on the 16th July called "In Come the Waves", it was featured on the cover of The Economist, explaining why the valuations were so ludicrous. The US bubble popped a year later, althought most people only became aware of the problems in 2007/08.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027?story_id=4079027

Thanks for that BandWagon.

The global housing boom

In come the waves

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

Jun 16th 2005

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

CSF103.gif

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

(...)

And then Labour politicians keep saying "nobody saw it coming" or, worse: "nobody could have seen it coming"! The lying moronic lunatic incompetent fecking b@stards! :angry: I can't believe that. Why? How? How come???????? It is well beyond me - to comprehend this level of incompetence. Well beyond.

So Brown was not aware of this? Or Blair? Or anybody in the cabinet? Or in the Treasury? Or in the FSA, or the BoE?

This is well beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most brits cant save £1000. Most probably dont see much more than that in cold hard cash during their entire lifetime. To have a six figure asset, even if it is balanced by a similar or even bigger six figure debt, is like some kind of financial aphrodisiac for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also worth saying 'eco-town' is usually newsspeak for 'high density social/undesirables housing.

One development in Wellingborough originally had planning permision for just over 300 family homes, which most people seemed accepting of. It later got resubmitted with plans for 1000-1100 flats up to 4/5 stories high. Obviously people were not happy with such a massive change to the plans.

http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/info/100006/environment_and_planning/525/wellingborough_growth/5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Madamvice, but from what century are you from??? People can afford cars nowadays, you know?

Besides, that is their business, not yours!

:rolleyes:

:angry:

Of course they can afford cars however I think you will find IN THIS CENTURY there is a problem with the amount of cars on the roads as it is - you know green issues etc etc

It makes PERFECT sense to build homes where there is public transport and not in semi rural areas where there is none.

Edited by Madamvice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.