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

[Tired of Waiting]

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

You must be living in good housing conditions to say that. Because you haven't grasped yet how desperate the housing shortage is in Britain, how expensive and how cr@p housing is now. These eco-towns may not be perfect, but they are good, decent housing! FGS!

[Tired of Waiting]

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.

Sure, but cars are getting much cleaner.

It makes perfect sense to ALSO build homes where there is public transport. Build them in BOTH places.

You people are not getting it, aren't you? We need houses!

Stop finding lame excuses to block things!

BTW, I hope you have lobbied your local authority for the building of these houses near the bus stop.

.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Lucifer]

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

So people who live in social housing are "undesirables" are they? Nice sentiment.

[R K]

Pretty obvious from the OP graph how wages have been crushed by the last decade of increased glow ballism, offshoring, de-industrialisation, growth in Chindia etc etc.

Inflation evidently c. 6-7%

Ties in neatly with the concentration of wage growth and assets to the top of the pyramid.

We're simply witnessing the relative poor being shut out of the 'game'.

'Tis a return to the pre-war world.

I'm suprised the right-whingers aren't loving it to be honest.

[Lucifer]

Pretty obvious from the OP graph how wages have been crushed by the last decade of increased glow ballism, offshoring, de-industrialisation, growth in Chindia etc etc.

Inflation evidently c. 6-7%

Ties in neatly with the concentration of wage growth and assets to the top of the pyramid.

We're simply witnessing the relative poor being shut out of the 'game'.

'Tis a return to the pre-war world.

I'm suprised the right-whingers aren't loving it to be honest.

I think they are loving it...but only because they haven't realized yet that the top of the pyramid hasn't got room

for them and they're the next ones up for slaughter.

[chris25]

The trouble is with planning in this country is that developers are incentivised to develop nice areas and undeveloped areas because that is where all the planning gain is made - which is essentially a transfer of 'wealth' from the local residents to the developers.

We have so many horrible areas in this country, the balance should be tipped in favour of improving them. If people like green, leafy suburbs, make them all into green leafy suburbs. See - easy.

The real problem is there are too many people in this country.

[DeepLurker]

You must be living in good housing conditions to say that. Because you haven't grasped yet how desperate the housing shortage is in Britain, how expensive and how cr@p housing is now. These eco-towns may not be perfect, but they are good, decent housing! FGS!

I think that Sadman is on to something when he says that "new towns" often become dumps for "little people" who can be parked in rabbit hutches, e.g. I used to work in Skelmersdale and I heard several times (from Skemmies) that the place was designed as a dump for the worst council tenants of both Liverpool and Wigan

You say that these eco-towns are not perfect, and that's the problem - they are what the French call Banlieues, a way for the populations of the nearby solidly middle-class "market towns" to avoid accepting planning applications for rows of plain terraced houses/blocks of flats of the type that tend to be filled by those horrible "working class people". Better to send them all away to a shiny new "eco-town".

In fact I find the whole planning process behind these "new towns" to be distasteful - central planners decide that we need X houses of type Y, which will need Z pubs and Z1 supermarkets to service. Stinks of soviet planning to me. Why can't government simply do its job - lay down the streets, the utilities, and then let people build the houses that they want?

[Traktion]

The real problem is there are too many people in this country.

Population density in the UK is pretty similar to that of Germany, yet over there, you can by a huge house for about £200k (see thread the other day). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

The UK also has a much lower population density per sq/km of arable land (which you could build on or farm easily) - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_rur_pop_den_rur_pop_per_sq_km_of_ara_lan-per-sq-km-arable-land:

Germany: 171.83 people/km² of arable land

UK: 108.28 people/km² of arable land

(That list is rather interesting, when you see where we are in it)

There is plenty of room in this country, it's just that people aren't allowed to build on it (planning, environmentalists, NIMBYs etc).

[Traktion]

The trouble is with planning in this country is that developers are incentivised to develop nice areas and undeveloped areas because that is where all the planning gain is made - which is essentially a transfer of 'wealth' from the local residents to the developers.

We have so many horrible areas in this country, the balance should be tipped in favour of improving them. If people like green, leafy suburbs, make them all into green leafy suburbs. See - easy.

I wonder if this is an argument for zoning, where single houses get built by individuals, rather than estates by developers? It's easy to lobby for a big development not to go ahead, but would the same people be out every time a new, single, house was built? I would also think that the drip, drip, drip of single builds would be considered less of an issue for the lobbyists.

[Traktion]

Why can't government simply do its job - lay down the streets, the utilities, and then let people build the houses that they want?

This is what they do in Spain - there are often networks of roads and street lights, with houses yet to be parked next to them.

Maybe the Spanish take this a bit far, but you could zone the land, then when someone wants a plot, build in the infrastructure (within reason) around that point.

[tomwatkins]

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.

FFS leave it alone. Not all "Boomers" (get another term for that as well,played out) will rely on anybody. I have always looked after myself. Didn't receive a penny from my parents (too many of us and very little money) nor did I expect to. As far as I am concerned I DONT CARE if I receive a pension even though I am 60 next year. YOU look after me?? Do me a feckin favour. I will work till I drop. Oh BTW I love it. The Missus knows the score-if I ever dribble then take the gun out.

[Tired of Waiting]

I think that Sadman is on to something when he says that "new towns" often become dumps for "little people" who can be parked in rabbit hutches, e.g. I used to work in Skelmersdale and I heard several times (from Skemmies) that the place was designed as a dump for the worst council tenants of both Liverpool and Wigan

You say that these eco-towns are not perfect, and that's the problem - they are what the French call Banlieues, a way for the populations of the nearby solidly middle-class "market towns" to avoid accepting planning applications for rows of plain terraced houses/blocks of flats of the type that tend to be filled by those horrible "working class people". Better to send them all away to a shiny new "eco-town".

In fact I find the whole planning process behind these "new towns" to be distasteful - central planners decide that we need X houses of type Y, which will need Z pubs and Z1 supermarkets to service. Stinks of soviet planning to me. Why can't government simply do its job - lay down the streets, the utilities, and then let people build the houses that they want?

Fine, if you, or anyone else, has a better solution, great. But then, campaign in favour of this better solution, instead of against the current proposals.

[chris25]

Population density in the UK is pretty similar to that of Germany, yet over there, you can by a huge house for about £200k (see thread the other day). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

The UK also has a much lower population density per sq/km of arable land (which you could build on or farm easily) - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_rur_pop_den_rur_pop_per_sq_km_of_ara_lan-per-sq-km-arable-land:

Germany: 171.83 people/km² of arable land

UK: 108.28 people/km² of arable land

(That list is rather interesting, when you see where we are in it)

There is plenty of room in this country, it's just that people aren't allowed to build on it (planning, environmentalists, NIMBYs etc).

Germany population growth rate= -0.061% (2009)

Uk population growth= + 0.282% (2009)

Germany net migration: -13,000 (2009)

UK net migration: 163,000 (2009)

Immigration trends in Germany show net population loss

Preliminary statistics for 2009 released on Wednesday indicate that immigration to Germany rose above 700,000 for the first time in five years, but there were still 13,000 more people leaving the country than entering it.

Those who are leaving include both German and non-German citizens. The statistical office collects the data from the local government offices in the country, where all residents are required to register when they move in, and often to de-register upon leaving.

There were 721,000 registered arrivals in Germany in 2009. Of those, 606,000 were counted as foreigners, a six percent increase over the previous year. Over half, 58 percent, came from EU countries.

The remaining 115,000 were counted as Germans, either because they were citizens or because they were ethnic Germans from eastern Europe and central Asia.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5612321,00.html

Even the beloved Guardian admits the UK is going to "boom":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu

As I say on here like a parrot, yet no one seems to understand. It is probably because Brits are contioned from a young age to think any form of inward migration as a good thing.

The root cause of house price increase is population growth.

If the population decreases then the house prices decrease.

[Tired of Waiting]

The real problem is there are too many people in this country.

chris25, 40 years ago, in 1970, the UK had a population of around 55 million people. In the past 40 years it grew only by around 10%, by some 5 million, to around 61 million today. That is a very slow growth indeed. That is not the problem. Please, don't believe the tabloids. Check some reliable data for yourself.

Confouded had a thread about that some time ago, here: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=141693&view=findpost&p=2495819 There are some links there, to some data sources, such as the United Nations' World Bank.

.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Si1]

The root cause of house price increase is population growth.

If the population decreases then the house prices decrease.

b*llsh*t

[Tired of Waiting]

Population density in the UK is pretty similar to that of Germany, yet over there, you can by a huge house for about £200k (see thread the other day). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

The UK also has a much lower population density per sq/km of arable land (which you could build on or farm easily) - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_rur_pop_den_rur_pop_per_sq_km_of_ara_lan-per-sq-km-arable-land:

Germany: 171.83 people/km² of arable land

UK: 108.28 people/km² of arable land

(That list is rather interesting, when you see where we are in it)

There is plenty of room in this country, it's just that people aren't allowed to build on it (planning, environmentalists, NIMBYs etc).

Exactly.

And less than a quarter is used for agriculture - crops. Most is used for pastures - a very inefficient, low yield use of land.

[Tired of Waiting]

Germany population growth rate= -0.061% (2009)

Uk population growth= + 0.282% (2009)

Germany net migration: -13,000 (2009)

UK net migration: 163,000 (2009)

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5612321,00.html

Even the beloved Guardian admits the UK is going to "boom":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu

As I say on here like a parrot, yet no one seems to understand. It is probably because Brits are contioned from a young age to think any form of inward migration as a good thing.

The root cause of house price increase is population growth.

If the population decreases then the house prices decrease.

chris25, yes, the UK population had a little jump up with the eastern European immigration from 2004 to 2008. But now we are already having a net Emigration of eastern Europeans. And with the UK's economic weakness in the next few (many?) years this net-emigration should continue.

The "projections" you were quoting are based on 2004-2008 data, and then taking a straight line into the future, as if that growth were to continue for... like 20 years. They are already wrong. It is total rubbish.

That is why people are not "listening" to you.

It is you who should research your favourite topic again, but with updated data, and from reliable sources. Not tabloids! And not press releases, from anyone. Just data! Come on, you can do it. And it will be good news for you (since it looks like you don't like immigration, that is).

[Traktion]

Germany population growth rate= -0.061% (2009)

Uk population growth= + 0.282% (2009)

Germany net migration: -13,000 (2009)

UK net migration: 163,000 (2009)

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5612321,00.html

Even the beloved Guardian admits the UK is going to "boom":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu

As I say on here like a parrot, yet no one seems to understand. It is probably because Brits are contioned from a young age to think any form of inward migration as a good thing.

The root cause of house price increase is population growth.

If the population decreases then the house prices decrease.

That may be the case, but that's nothing to do with there being 'too many people in this country', it's to do with not building enough houses quickly enough to fulfil demand.

[Tired of Waiting]

That may be the case, but that's nothing to do with there being 'too many people in this country', it's to do with not building enough houses quickly enough to fulfil demand.

Nah, don't listen to him.

40 years of UK population "explosion" ?!

And about the future, see my reply to chris25, above.

Scepticus is right on this one. (And only on this one. )

[Tired of Waiting]

Personally I would like to see a government target for a sustainable and self sufficent UK population of about 15 million to be achieved over time of course.

New entrants to be let in proportion to achieving this target. If the population does not fall then they are not let in.

See if that policy doesn't result in reducing house prices and improving standards of living for those that remain and the young.

EDIT: Looking at your chart ToW, it looks like you've let in about half of my total target in the last 30 years!

"I" have let it in?!

Anyway: So, you are not very found of immigration then! I didn't know that! I thought you were just against free trade! (Bit odd for a "trader"...)

And about "self-sufficiency", bad news I'm afraid: To be "self-sufficient", giving up imports, the UK would in effect have to give up civilisation. The population would then fall to pre-Roman levels, of around 1 to 2 million - obviously to the fittest 1 to 2 million, you understand, as you would have to fight your way there. Are you sure you'd be amongst them?

.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Don't start that you pillock - I know from telling you off previously when you implied I was a racist that that was not the case. You're the 'libertarian' round here/survival of the fittest stuff.

How many people do you estimate this country can feed? I don't believe it is 1-2 million. And I know you are trying to put ridiculous things in my mouth (which I have to say is an exceptionally annoying habit of yours) - I do think we should exercise balanced trade on level playing fields that doesn't kow tow to the global capitalists arbitraging wages and conditions away.

EDIT: Just to add, it was only about 30 years before your graph started that we were forced to be largely self sufficient in food. Don't think we won't need to again. If we fill up to the gills like you are suggesting, the next time we would have to kill half the population or face a large proportion of people starving.

As you mature ToW you may gain a longer term perspective on things.

Again in bad mood hotairmail?! You must relax a little more. Calm down! Besides, you started... Come on...

OK, if you say so, "you are not racist, but, you are against immigration". OK then.

I am not a "libertarian". I am a liberal, classical sense, long tradition - liberal democracies, free markets, competently regulated, etc., quite middle of the road.

You said "self sufficient". I didn't put that in your mouth. That means without imports. Even our food production needs imported, oil-based, fertilisers. Anyway, you must know that without imports we would not be able to keep this complex modern economy. Nothing even close to it.

I support the WTO, and hope for continuing trade liberalisations. Labour and environmental standards are improving, all over the world. Progress exist.

I'm quite mature, thanks, and I love history.

I see, you are a boomer, and this thread annoyed you. Is that it?

(Off to dinner now. I'll try to come back later.)

[erranta]

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.

In the 90's the Government/City got all the little people investing in utility shares. They were then all wiped out in the City's Dot.com CON!

In 2001+ all the advertising and investment pressure advised everyone to pile into bricks and mortar - just like the banks/City/certain government people had planned.

TV House Price Brainwashing ramped to the MAX, with buy property with banking unregulated lax-lending principles UK/Europe/An other programs)

You can see how it was all put together by insider Vi's making themselves Billions in bonuses, in the process and down-the-line making Interest Only banking-serfs/bankrupting millions of 'homeowners'

[Tired of Waiting]

Love it. Another attempt at labelling to suit your preconceptions through wild extrapolation. You must read more carefully, I was carefully referring to 'maturity' not age. But your own bittereness you wear plainly on your sleeve.

And I'm not angry, I just don't like you and your pomposity.

Besides anything else, you have no conception of what a 'competently regulated free market' is. All fine words but totally meaningless coming from you where the status quo is apparently the aim. Do you not understand about the importance of balance in trade? How would you manage that? How would that fit in with those other fine words uttered by you, 'free trade'. You come across as a Labour 'third wayer' who fails to understand the danger we're being plunged into.

And let's be under no illusion, one man's regulation (or indeed lack of regulation) is another man's dinner.

As for 'improving environment globally', I won't even go there.

I'd rather you didn't answer this post actually. Just see if you can leave it there for once.

My pleasure, really!

PS: Floating currency.

[Guest Noodle]

Don't start that you pillock - I know from telling you off previously when you implied I was a racist that that was not the case. You're the 'libertarian' round here/survival of the fittest stuff.

How many people do you estimate this country can feed? I don't believe it is 1-2 million. And I know you are trying to put ridiculous things in my mouth (which I have to say is an exceptionally annoying habit of yours) - I do think we should exercise balanced trade on level playing fields that doesn't kow tow to the global capitalists arbitraging wages and conditions away.

EDIT: Just to add, it was only about 30 years before your graph started that we were forced to be largely self sufficient in food. Don't think we won't need to again. If we fill up to the gills like you are suggesting, the next time we would have to kill half the population or face a large proportion of people starving.

As you mature ToW you may gain a longer term perspective on things.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Noodle

[Tired of Waiting]

True to form I knew you couldn't resist having the last word.

Okay. So when someone doesn't operate a freely floating currency - what do you do then?

Your only sanction is to stop trade or place tariffs on imports.

Keep digging. China won't have any export markets soon.

And then you would have the break up of the Eurozone. And can Wales for instance cope with the same exchange rate as London? Admit it, you don't have an answer do you?

What about wage, social and environemental arbitrage? That's all okay?

Classical economics - it explains the huge development of the past couple of centuries, despite all the attempts, by many countries, of manipulating markets. Development and progress do exist, and they are happening right now too. Just calm down a bit.