Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
gruffydd

Riots, Fire, Anger At Tuition Fees Protest (,house Prices,)

Recommended Posts

So we can see housing is TOP of the agenda.

Good post earlier on regarding the dawning of realisation of being shafted - but do you REALLY think they're seeing it this way?

News had pics of the student 'perpetrators' all over the tv this evening.... talk about trying to put others off.

Balaclava =

£3

=

50% of 1 hour of minimum wage

or 6% of giro.

Money well spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to those riots and the people that took part in them, they were young and flexing their muscles ( which is all part of youth ) then those people got jobs settled down and had responsibilty. Many of the young today and those coming up now will not get jobs or if they do they will be very low paid jobs with little prospects and little security. They will not be able to settle down have kids and a home . That is the difference.

Bingo. Historically the middle class have been the primary source of stability in most societies, so when you destroy them you end up with a lot of people who have nothing to lose... traditionally the answer then has been 'bread and circuses' to distract them from their problems, but Britain can't afford much of that any more.

This is why Labour have historically worked to destroy the middle class and the Tories to build it up, but now all three parties are going down the same path... I can but hope that the end result won't be good for any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. Historically the middle class have been the primary source of stability in most societies, so when you destroy them you end up with a lot of people who have nothing to lose... traditionally the answer then has been 'bread and circuses' to distract them from their problems, but Britain can't afford much of that any more.

This is why Labour have historically worked to destroy the middle class and the Tories to build it up, but now all three parties are going down the same path... I can but hope that the end result won't be good for any of them.

Have been told that after world war 2 there was little work about and very few prospects , Churchill thanked the working class by telling them to get back to low paid jobs. That is why he was not re elected.

When the workers demanded the 40 hour working week, paid holidays, sick pay , and the NHS they were told this was immposible , but labour delivered this and in effect elevated the old working class who queued for a days work in London factories and docks to middle class compared to what they had had.

That was very radicall back then but it worked and we need something as radicall now. Not just shifting the chairs on the deck of the titanic . We are at a turning point who is going to take up the gauntlet.

They also had a massive house building programme , we need one now but it is not happening.

Edited by miko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been told that after world war 2 there was little work about and very few prospects , Churchill thanked the working class by telling them to get back to low paid jobs. That is why he was not re elected.

When the workers demanded the 40 hour working week, paid holidays, sick pay , and the NHS they were told this was immposible , but labour delivered this and in effect elevated the old working class who queued for a days work in London factories and docks to middle class compared to what they had had.

That was very radicall back then but it worked...

Suggested reading.

Churchill lost the 1945 election primarily because he had no plan or vision for the reconstruction period. Labour, on the other hand, embraced the Beveridge and Uthwatt reports and spent the last three years of the war selling them to the public as an insurance policy against a return to the 1930s.

The problem is that by prioritising the introduction of the welfare state over the reconstruction of economic infrastructure in the immediate post-war period, the Attlee government ensured that the UK's economy and standard of living lagged significantly behind those of other western European countries, really until the 1980s.

Edited by The Ayatollah Buggeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggested reading.

Churchill lost the 1945 election primarily because he had no plan or vision for the reconstruction period. Labour, on the other hand, embraced the Beveridge and Uthwatt reports and spent the last three years of the war selling them to the public as an insurance policy against a return to the 1930s.

The problem is that by prioritising the introduction of the welfare state over the reconstruction of economic infrastructure in the immediate post-war period, the Attlee government ensured that the UK's economy and standard of living lagged significantly behind those of other western European countries, really until the 1980s.

Labour repeated a similar exercise which won them the landslide in '97. We all know the result of that, once in power they just "invest" in the state as a long term policy, however the right on the other hand tend when in power to attempt to direct the country towards "prosperity". Through the eighties they failed to keep their definition of prosperity on message with the public. Hence the various political as well a public revolts.

Edited by Blod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that by prioritising the introduction of the welfarestate over the reconstruction of economic infrastructure in theimmediate post-war period, the Attlee government ensured that the UK'seconomy and standard of living lagged significantly behind those ofother western European countries, really until the 1980s.

Rubbish, Germany had/has a similar welfare system as the UK and the scandinavian countries have much better ones, that didn't stop them from achieving a high standard of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish, Germany had/has a similar welfare system as the UK and the scandinavian countries have much better ones, that didn't stop them from achieving a high standard of living.

A higher standard of living, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am baffled as to why politicians think that it is so important for young people to go to university. Unless they are going to learn things there that are directly relevant to their intended careers (such as medicine for doctors, or law for solicitors) then I don't see the point. If universities stuck to just vocationally-based degrees then funding wouldn't be an issue because it wouldn't be 50% going but the 5% who really need to.

Are you kidding, this is the great swindle of the century.

Create an environment where University degrees are essential, then get students/parents to pay for them, and voila! Unemployment immediately drops by millions, benefits no longer needed, and cost of education removed from the budget. Ain't it great to be a banksta politician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish, Germany had/has a similar welfare system as the UK and the scandinavian countries have much better ones, that didn't stop them from achieving a high standard of living.

I don't know about Scandinavia but Germany doesn't waste its welfare system's resources on paying large rents to private landlords. In Leipzig, social tenants receive a maximum of EUR 3.85 per sq m per month. That works out to about GBP 315 per month for a 1,000 sq ft apartment. There is housing available for anyone who needs it. Low social housing payments certainly haven't created homelessness.

At some point, I hope that someone can explain why paying high rents to private landlords for people who need help with housing in the UK is "progressive". I see it as regressive. It drives up the cost for housing for all and enslaves more people in the benefits trap regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding, this is the great swindle of the century.

Absolutely - most of the students I have met and known had no real interest in what they were studying they had just been cooerced into taking a degree by the education system. All the teachers I know who did PGCEs (I don't know anyone doing a 3 year education degree) said that they learned nothing about teaching from the course. I believe it has only just become government policy to teach teachers to teach because it was discovered (acknowledged) that these skills are rarely acquired through education training (BEds/PGCEs etc).

Sorry - don't have sources but this was in the press a few months ago (failure of teaching courses to teach teaching skills)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Scandinavia but Germany doesn't waste its welfare system's resources on paying large rents to private landlords. In Leipzig, social tenants receive a maximum of EUR 3.85 per sq m per month. That works out to about GBP 315 per month for a 1,000 sq ft apartment. There is housing available for anyone who needs it. Low social housing payments certainly haven't created homelessness.

At some point, I hope that someone can explain why paying high rents to private landlords for people who need help with housing in the UK is "progressive". I see it as regressive. It drives up the cost for housing for all and enslaves more people in the benefits trap regime.

Housing benefits do not drive up housing costs.

Excess FRB credit drives up housing costs. Large housing benefits are just one of the consequences of the above.

Cart...horse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish, Germany had/has a similar welfare system as the UK and the scandinavian countries have much better ones, that didn't stop them from achieving a high standard of living.

Not in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, they didn't. Western Europe and Scandinavia basically copied our welfare state and then enlarged it, in very rough terms starting in the early 1960s - i.e. infrastructural investment came first and a welfare state second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefits do not drive up housing costs.

(...)

Of course they do, what a silly assertion.

HB puts more money into the market than would otherwise be there; that money has to go somewhere, and as we are not very good at adding stock, some of it contributes to bidding up prices.

Of course, it's not the only thing driving up prices...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they do, what a silly assertion.

HB puts more money into the market than would otherwise be there; that money has to go somewhere, and as we are not very good at adding stock, some of it contributes to bidding up prices.

Of course, it's not the only thing driving up prices...

Housing benefit is set to the market average in a given area. This is stated government policy. In what way does that lead the market?

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of intereast rates on that debt

How much do you think the market average rent would be if houses cost £100? How big do you think the housing benefit would be at that point?

As I was saying...

Cart...horse...

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit is set to the market average in a given area. This is stated government policy. In what way does that lead the market?

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of intereast rates on that debt

How much do you think the market average rent would be if houses cost £100? How big do you think the housing benefit would be at that point?

As I was saying...

Cart...horse...

The fact that the state will pay up to 'x' amount per month for thousands of people in a given area means that the price of rent in that area is going to tend toward 'x' per month.

If the state then says it will only pay 'x-10%' per month, you'll almost certainly see rents decrease likewise.

There's no doubt that housing benefit supports higher rental prices. They charge the rents because they know the state will pay it. Cut what the state will pay and rental charges will fall too, it's pretty obvious is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit is set to the market average in a given area. This is stated government policy. In what way does that lead the market?

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of intereast rates on that debt

How much do you think the market average rent would be if houses cost £100? How big do you think the housing benefit would be at that point?

As I was saying...

Cart...horse...

And promptly pumped in at the shitty end.

Incidentally if even only 10% of all property were rented by HB payments, do you not think that it forces up prices? Do you not imagine that a house sitting empty for month after month might either be sold or rented out at a lower price?

As for "The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service." What ********.

Edited by RichB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit is set to the market average in a given area. This is stated government policy. In what way does that lead the market?

Because if the properties at the bottom end can be rented out at the average rent, the average will rise.

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of intereast rates on that debt

What a lot of rubbish.

Rents are set by what the market can bear, not by what the LL wants.

Because the LL always wants the maximum...

How much do you think the market average rent would be if houses cost £100? How big do you think the housing benefit would be at that point?

Rents would be whatever the market could bear.

If that gave a high enough return, BTLers would buy up property so they could rent it out. This would force purchase prices up.

As I was saying...

Cart...horse...

Not only have you got them the wrong way round, you seem to be saying that the cart can go faster by flogging itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And promptly pumped in at the shitty end.

Incidentally if even only 10% of all property were rented by HB payments, do you not think that it forces up prices? Do you not imagine that a house sitting empty for month after month might either be sold or rented out at a lower price?

As for "The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service." What ********.

IDS said in Parliament a few weeks ago that his department pays for 40% of the rental market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And promptly pumped in at the shitty end.

Incidentally if even only 10% of all property were rented by HB payments, do you not think that it forces up prices? Do you not imagine that a house sitting empty for month after month might either be sold or rented out at a lower price?

As for "The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service." What ********.

I'm sorry if you find the the points I have made are a bit complicated.

Would you like me to explain them to you?

Edited by tallguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if you find the the points I have made are a bit complicated.

Would you like me to explain them to you?

There is a condascending tone to your posts. Why is that?

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeedy...... :lol:

By the way, it's spelled "atrocious"

Yes that's very funny. Well done. You have scored a point.

[As you can see, I edited my spelling prior to you pointing it out.] Unlike your goodself/

The market average, by the way, is set primarily by the amnount of debt a BTL has to service. This is, in turn, is set by the of size of the debt and/or size of intereast rates on that debt

Still does not explain the rather condescending tone. Are you better than us?

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My father is in Hospital after a fall and despite having worked and paid taxes all his life was found by my family on Thursday in a hospital bed crying from pain and covered in his own Sh@t ,ignored by nursing staff with a cold meal on a tray he could not reach - thats being sold out mate and there are thousands like him

Sadly this is the norm nowadays. Both my mother and father experienced the same when they were in.

The nurses' station seems to be more like a social club than a place where professionals work from.

Not wanting to sound racist but "caring" seems to mean different things to different cultures. All of the nurses who've looked after my parents weren't natively British (could just about speak English) Those that looked after my parents certainly had a different idea of caring to me.

I shudder to think how many people die needlessly in this country through poor care.

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.

  • 294 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.