A Conspiracy That Raises House Prices

[StainlessSteelCat]

Fraid I'm not impressed by all of the conclusions of the article either. There's no shortage of land for building on and actually no real shortage of existing housing either (whether it's the right type of housing, too expensive or in the most desirable places is another matter).

After all - at least 30% of the houses for sale in East London that I've visited have been empty. This tells me that demand can't be that great even in Olympicsville. So why is supply (in the form of crappy expensive new build flats) increasing?

The planning system definately has problems - but I'd quite like some countryside left thank you (even if it is largely monoculture).

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

“What lies behind the artificial scarcity of building land is, instead, a conspiracy of vested interests, above all of existing homeowners

Looks as if he has never read Kevin Cahill`s researched book " Who Owns Britain"

Therein lies the true VIs who can build what they like on their land measured by the square mile.

[balamory]

Looks as if he has never read Kevin Cahill`s researched book " Who Owns Britain"

Therein lies the true VIs who can build what they like on their land measured by the square mile. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cahill's book is a pile of ill researched cr@p and is full of basic errors and distorted arguements. Cahill is an old style socialist who doesnt like the fact that some people are born with more money than others.

Please explain how these VI's can build what ever they like on their land. If this is true why dont they build lots of houses because, as someone already mentioned, land with planning permission is worth more than 1m an acre, while farm land is worth at best 3k.

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

Cahill's book is a pile of ill researched cr@p and is full of basic errors and distorted arguements. Cahill is an old style socialist who doesnt like the fact that some people are born with more money than others.

Please explain how these VI's can build what ever they like on their land. If this is true why dont they build lots of houses because, as someone already mentioned, land with planning permission is worth more than 1m an acre, while farm land is worth at best 3k.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, back to the old style socialist are we. Well he writes brilliant c**p then. His book received many rave reviews in the press and no negative ones.

Why do the rich landowners refuse to register their land with the LR, and has not the Duchy of Cornwall sold off land over the years for urban developement as other big landowners including the church. They own thousands of acres which are not farm land.

These big landowners are not interested in money, they see land as a measure of their wealth ( as some cultures measure cattle as theirs ) and guard it jealously, besides the handouts and grants they receive see them ok for finances.

In one part of Essex there are thousands of houses built on land which was once part of a massive private estate.

Maybe I should have put the part of building what they like differently, as, they could sell off certain parts of their land which would receive planning permission.

Who Owns Britain

This is a critique of both the landowning artistocracy and the Land Registry. Cahill argues that our present system of landownership is of material detriment to the vast majority of homeowners in the UK, while many of the wealthiest landowners in the country pay no rates and actually receive money in the form of grants and subsidies. 

Kevin Cahill is a former army officer who has worked at both Westminster and European parliaments as an advisor and researcher. He is the author of books on business, trade and politics and helped produce the Sunday Times Rich List, as well as being a widely published investigative journalist.

[MrB]

Yes, but the tripling of house prices in the past 10 years is entirely due to speculative demand, fuelled by overly lax lending.  The population hasn't changed much in terms of numbers, age or marital status in that time.

But if we could build where we liked, the country would become a building site whenever an upcycle occured, then a concrete wasteland in the downcycle.  We'd also need a lot more infrastructure to serve the newly urbanised areas.

You'll always get speculation whenever there's a whiff of easy money in the air and there's no regulation in place to prevent it.

Agreed!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with doogie, too much is made of the tight supply issue.

I reckon our population has increased 10-15% over the last 10 years.

House prices have gone up 250-300% over the same period (at the same time roughly 150,000 houses per year have been built).

Demand is from the new breed of BTLer buying up traditional FTB residences.

(More BTL mortgages over the last few years than new properties built!)

And supply issues IMO are cheifly to do with money supply. Lots of cash, lots of liquididty in the economy, 'cheap' borroed money etc., which has to find a home for itself. The home it finds is always likely to be homes ironically.

[Property Dreamer]

Feel free to shoot me down but how about an end to borrowing against one's principal private residence (home)? I'm not an economist but to me the idea that people can borrow against a 'possible' rise in the 'perceived value' of their house seems very shakey. If people constantly borrow money against their house how will they ever pay off the loan? Does it not encourage irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing such as we hear about every day? Does (has) it not lead us to this point where the mere suggestion of a HPC is met with vitriol and a splatering of spittle on one's lapels. So much now hangs on keeping this wagon rolling that the thought of a wheel coming off fills 70% of the population with horror.

[The Masked Tulip]

UK planning rules, IMPO, are simply a device for keeping the inbred descendents of the Saxon and Norman... and German... rulers rich and the rest of us poor.

If you look into such things you will be gobsmacked how little Rights the average British person has - believe it or not but we are not even considered good enough to be 'Commoners'... It is obscene and mocks the very idea that we live in a modern democracy with Rights for all.

[MongerOfDoom]

Fraid I'm not impressed by all of the conclusions of the article either. There's no shortage of land for building on and actually no real shortage of existing housing either (whether it's the right type of housing, too expensive or in the most desirable places is another matter).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there is enough of land for building on then how do you explain the vast disparity between the value of land with and without planning permission? Are you suggesting there is anywhere in the UK where this difference is small? If housing is expensive then it seems very plausible that there is a shortage.

After all - at least 30% of the houses for sale in East London that I've visited have been empty.  This tells me that demand can't be that great even in Olympicsville. So why is supply (in the form of crappy expensive new build flats) increasing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not sure that houses being sold without anyone living in them at the time is an indication of anything much. Only a small proportion of the housing stock is for sale at any one time. The way I see it, rents are a good indication of how much demand for housing there really is. You might think that rents are cheap but many others who have to commute long distances to London will likely disagree. I do not know if their commuting time could be reduced by building more housing around London but it certainly would have that effect in many places in the South East.

The planning system definately has problems - but I'd quite like some countryside left thank you (even if it is largely monoculture).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No-one suggests abolishing the countryside. I do however entirely fail to see the point of growing grain in fields right next to an existing town. The people who are currently forced to commute could live there instead, and I am puzzled about how anyone benefits from them not being allowed to. Growing nothing but grass in such places is less comprehensible still. Actually, I can see why there is opposition to new development from the existing residents. This is not a good reason for declining a planning permission unless we decide not to ever do anything even slightly unpopular with anyone. The pension reform that will have to happen sooner or (likely) later springs into mind for some reason.

Thanks,

MoD

[StainlessSteelCat]

If there is enough of land for building on then how do you explain the vast disparity between the value of land with and without planning permission? Are you suggesting there is anywhere in the UK where this difference is small? If housing is expensive then it seems very plausible that there is a shortage.

I am not sure that houses being sold without anyone living in them at the time is an indication of anything much. Only a small proportion of the housing stock is for sale at any one time. The way I see it, rents are a good indication of how much demand for housing there really is. You might think that rents are cheap but many others who have to commute long distances to London will likely disagree. I do not know if their commuting time could be reduced by building more housing around London but it certainly would have that effect in many places in the South East.

No-one suggests abolishing the countryside. I do however entirely fail to see the point of growing grain in fields right next to an existing town. The people who are currently forced to commute could live there instead, and I am puzzled about how anyone benefits from them not being allowed to. Growing nothing but grass in such places is less comprehensible still. Actually, I can see why there is opposition to new development from the existing residents. This is not a good reason for declining a planning permission unless we decide not to ever do anything even slightly unpopular with anyone.  The pension reform that will have to happen sooner or (likely) later springs into mind for some reason.

Thanks,

MoD

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Re: The disparity in cost between land with planning permission and without. Imagine you're a land owner and you get planning permission. You know a developer can build a house for £70K but the house + land is worth £300K. Are you going to sell the land for it's agricultural value - say £10K? Nope I thought not.

Re: Housing is expensive. What has made it so - particularly over the last 3-4 years (where in many places the cost of buying has doubled). Demand must have massively increased to support such a rise - so what's happened? Has the population suddenly massively increased in the last 3-4 years and they all need to buy houses? Have planning laws suddenly got a lot tougher? Or is more likely that people are speculating - in the light of historically cheap loans and fewer restrictions? And why hasn't renting got more expensive too?

My rent/income ratio has never been lower. I currently pay twice what I was paying as a student in the early 90s in Wales - yet my income has increased by 10 times and I live in London in a marginally nicer house. My rent/income ratio peaked around 1999 - where it was about a 1/4 of my income - it is now about 1/10.

All of this suggests to me that planning isn't the core of the problem. Relaxing planning restrictions at the periphery often leads to further relaxation later. The result could be a massive suburban sprawl like many cities in middle America.

Grass can be cool - depends if it is just a monoculture of one species or is a true meadow of old supporting many 100s of species. I'd need a lot of convincing to give the second up for a bunch of new builds when so many current places are lying empty.

[erranta]

UK planning rules, IMPO, are simply a device for keeping the inbred descendents of the Saxon and Norman... and German... rulers rich and the rest of us poor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget "The Lost Tribe of Dan" amongst that lot - alive and well in the British Isles!

Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. Genesis 49:17

[MongerOfDoom]

Re: The disparity in cost between land with planning permission and without. Imagine you're a land owner and you get planning permission. You know a developer can build a house for £70K but the house + land is worth £300K. Are you going to sell the land for it's agricultural value - say £10K? Nope I thought not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there was enough land to build on then the owners would compete for the available demand from developers until the price approached that of agricultural land. If there is plenty of both kinds of land then there is no reason why just the granting of a planning permission should massively change the price of a particular piece of it.

To put it another way, if there really is enough land for building on then why don't housebuilders put more houses on it? It would surely be just pure profit. I hope you don't really mean "there is enough of land at whatever price it is that there is enough of it"

Re: Housing is expensive. What has made it so - particularly over the last 3-4 years (where in many places the cost of buying has doubled). Demand must have massively increased to support such a rise - so what's happened? Has the population suddenly massively increased in the last 3-4 years and they all need to buy houses? Have planning laws suddenly got a lot tougher? Or is more likely that people are speculating - in the light of historically cheap loans and fewer restrictions?  And why hasn't renting got more expensive too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't doubt there is a bubble. It might not have happended if it was clear that additional supply of housing would be forthcoming every time prices rose. Even a small additional demand can generate large increases in prices that would not occur under a more flexible planning regime.

My rent/income ratio has never been lower. I currently pay twice what I was paying as a student in the early 90s in Wales - yet my income has increased by 10 times and I live in London in a marginally nicer house. My rent/income ratio peaked around 1999 - where it was about a 1/4 of my income - it is now about 1/10.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for you. Rent is however a signifficant expense for much of the population as evidenced by the increasingly long comuting times, as well as the cramped conditions in which many people live.

BTW, I don't know how much rent you pay either now or when you studied in Wales but the suggestion that everyone can accommodate themselves in London for just double the cost of student accommodation in 1999 seems difficult to reconcile with market rents in London. Surely, that would be a bit of an achievement even in Wales.

All of this suggests to me that planning isn't the core of the problem. Relaxing planning restrictions at the periphery often leads to further relaxation later. The result could be a massive suburban sprawl like many cities in middle America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may not be such a bad thing. Some people may like to live that way. I am not sure why you want to stop them. Anyway, if you are right about there being sufficient housing then only a small amount of relaxation would be needed.

Grass can be cool - depends if it is just a monoculture of one species or is a true meadow of old supporting many 100s of species. I'd need a lot of convincing to give the second up for a bunch of new builds when so many current places are lying empty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lying empty? Maybe in some parts of the country but not around where I live. I don't think anyone would deliberately leave housing unoccupied if there was demand for it.

Let me ask you another way. Suppose there was a brownfield site next to where you live. How much time a day would you be willing to contribute to turn it into a park with various kinds of grass growing there? If it is less than an hour a day, why do you think it is fair to expect others to give up just as much time in commuting so that another patch of grass can be preserved? Only about 8% of the UK is built on. There would still be plenty of grass left even if everybody got to use twice the amount of space they have now.

Thanks,

MoD

[StainlessSteelCat]

If there was enough land to build on then the owners would compete for the available demand from developers until the price approached that of agricultural land. If there is plenty of both kinds of land then there is no reason why just the granting of a planning permission should massively change the price of a particular piece of it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point - but part of the massive difference in value is down to the speculative bubble. My belief is that there is quite a bit of land available but it is largely held by the building companies who drip feed it (complete with crappy flats etc ) onto the market during the booms to maximise profit.

To put it another way, if there really is enough land for building on then why don't housebuilders put more houses on it? It would surely be just pure profit. I hope you don't really mean "there is enough of land at whatever price it is that there is enough of it"

I don't doubt there is a bubble. It might not have happended if it was clear that additional supply of housing would be forthcoming every time prices rose. Even a small additional demand can generate large increases in prices that would not occur under a more flexible planning regime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps because they want to create the impression that land is scarse and charge a premium for shoeboxes built on it?

Good for you. Rent is however a signifficant expense for much of the population as evidenced by the increasingly long comuting times, as well as the cramped conditions in which many people live.

BTW, I don't know how much rent you pay either now or when you studied in Wales but the suggestion that everyone can accommodate themselves in London for just double the cost of student accommodation in 1999 seems difficult to reconcile with market rents in London.  Surely, that would be a bit of an achievement even in Wales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My current rent is just double the cost of my student accomodation in Wales in 1993. Sure it is a dive - but it's a better dive than my student accomodation in Wales was. It is also not forever as I'm saving to try and buy somewhere outright in a couple of years time.

I suppose some people might like to live in surburbia - but it won't necessarily decrease your commuting time (probably increase it as the jobs will still be "in town").

Lying empty? Maybe in some parts of the country but not around where I live. I don't think anyone would deliberately leave housing unoccupied if there was demand for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shelter has put the number of empty houses in Scotland at 30K - and the number of empty private houses in London is around 43K. Nationally the average is around 3%.

1 in 25 houses lying empty (Scotland)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3737597.stm

Empty homes in London 2004

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/housing/emp..._homes_2004.pdf

Let me ask you another way. Suppose there was a brownfield site next to where you live. How much time a day would you be willing to contribute to turn it into a park with various kinds of grass growing there? If it is less than an hour a day, why do you think it is fair to expect others to give up just as much time in commuting so that another patch of grass can be preserved? Only about 8% of the UK is built on. There would still be plenty of grass left even if everybody got to use twice the amount of space they have now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm probably the worst person to pose this question to. From the age of 15 to 21 - I volunteered with the BTCV every weekend (and 2 or 3 days/week in school/uni holidays) to do exactly that. In my time, I've built ponds in inner cities, planted trees next to A roads, landscaped parks (including planting various species of native wildflowers and grasses). I then had a busy period with career and all until 5 years ago - when I spent another couple of years working Sundays to do the same after I moved to London.

Empty green spaces are still needed - even or especially in cities - as they add to people's quality of life. One of the reasons I like east London so much as it seems to have quite a bit of it. That said - given the choice between brownfield or greenfield development - I'd usually go with brownfield. Perhaps we can agree on this?

Nice chatting,

GC

Edited to correct and add references for numbers of empty houses

Edited September 24, 2005 by greencat

[MongerOfDoom]

Shelter has put the number of empty houses in Scotland at 30K - and the number of empty private houses in London is around 43K. Nationally the average is around 3%.

1 in 25 houses lying empty (Scotland)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3737597.stm

Empty homes in London 2004

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/housing/emp..._homes_2004.pdf

3% is the equivalent of everyone not using their accommodation for about a week and half every year I am sure it does not mean that but two thoughts occur:

It may be that people want to leave their housing unoccupied occasionally and so the rate cannot be decreased much (e.g. someone taking a short-term job abroad could sensibly do so). In other words, the vacant housing cannot be made available for use without coming close to violating the owners' (or indeed the tenants') rights, and so the existence of such housing does not necessarily mean that there is no housing shortage. [this would be consistent with a claim in the BBC story: "It urged politicians to take action, but the Scottish Executive dismissed the figures as misleading, saying the majority of vacancies were temporary."]

If the apparent shortage of housing could be fixed by building 3-4% more of it then that would certainly do no apreciable damage to the environment. I am not sure if an argument other than environmental impact has been suggested in this thread as justification for not allowing development on green belt land. I wonder if this means we agree that there would be little to lose by reforming the planning system so as to allow this?

Empty green spaces are still needed - even or especially in cities - as they add to people's quality of life. One of the reasons I like east London so much as it seems to have quite a bit of it. That said - given the choice between brownfield or greenfield development - I'd usually go with brownfield. Perhaps we can agree on this?

Certainly. I am not at all against green spaces. It is just that I would rather have them around me than all stuck together and called the green belt.

Thanks,

MoD

[Smell the Fear]

If the apparent shortage of housing could be fixed by building 3-4% more of it then that would certainly do no apreciable damage to the environment. I am not sure if an argument other than environmental impact has been suggested in this thread as justification for not allowing development on green belt land. I wonder if this means we agree that there would be little to lose by reforming the planning system so as to allow this?

Certainly. I am not at all against green spaces. It is just that I would rather have them around me than all stuck together and called the green belt.

Where do you propose to do all of the new building? Unfortunately people prefer to live in established communities. London has higher house prices than the rest of the country because people want to live there. Building outside of London will have little impact on their desire to stay in London. Take Thamesmead for example, in the "Thames Gateway" where a large number of homes have been built recently. People who live in London have no desire to live there.

I think you need to accept that your extreme free market principles, which have had free rein in the property market in recent years (in the form of easy money and the lack of limitation on speculation) are mainly responsible for the mess we are in.

You may argue that it is better to have unrestricted markets, but property perhaps deserves better protection than other markets due to the fact that it is an essential component of our infrastructure. As the FT article points out, there have been serious economic and social consequences. These are so serious that they should be minimised where possible, not allowed to run their course over many years, causing havoc for whole generations of this country's citizens.

Edited September 24, 2005 by Smell the Fear

[Smell the Fear]

Actually, I can see why there is opposition to new development from the existing residents. This is not a good reason for declining a planning permission unless we decide not to ever do anything even slightly unpopular with anyone.

This comment seems somewhat at odds with your usual assertion that we must not do anything that affects the property rights of individuals. If you build a pile of legoland houses in what was previously a beautiful vista for a homeowner, the value of their property will drop, in some cases considerably. If you build more roads and railways to supply these new houses, property owners close by will suffer from exhaust and noise pollution, and the value of their property will drop. If the residents of the new nearby houses are of a lower socioeconomic grouping the innate British snobbery will dictate that house prices must drop.

You are effectively misappropriating property (the worth of the original countryside dweller's property) and redistributing it for the common good.

Make up your mind: are you a rabid right wing conservative or a hardline socialist? You really should put a little more thought into your posts.

[MongerOfDoom]

This comment seems somewhat at odds with your usual assertion that we must not do anything that affects the property rights of individuals.

Where did I say that? I am not in favour of trampling over anyone's property rights. Neither am I in favour of destroying the economy or abolishing civil liberties, both of which you seem to advocate in your ever-so-moderate posts.

If you build a pile of legoland houses in what was previously a beautiful vista for a homeowner, the value of their property will drop, in some cases considerably. If you build more roads and railways to supply these new houses, property owners close by will suffer from exhaust and noise pollution, and the value of their property will drop. If the residents of the new nearby houses are of a lower socioeconomic grouping the innate British snobbery will dictate that house prices must drop.

I did say it would be unpopular with current homeowners. I did not say it would be unpopular without a reason. The government currently help themselves to a large proportion of everyone's wealth, so maybe we should keep things in perspective. Besides, if you are going to pursue such an extreme argument then you will need to explain why the homeowners' rights are more important then those of the landowners who are not allowed to build on their land.

Make up your mind: are you a rabid right wing conservative or a hardline socialist?

What possible reason could anyone have for thinking I might be either? This must be the first time I got called a 'hardline socialist', especially by someone who would abolish mortgage lending as well as the entire banking system.

You really should put a little more thought into your posts.

That is always good advice. I hope you are paying attention.

MoD

[MongerOfDoom]

Where do you propose to do all of the new building? Unfortunately people prefer to live in established communities. London has higher house prices than the rest of the country because people want to live there. Building outside of London will have little impact on their desire to stay in London. Take Thamesmead for example, in the "Thames Gateway" where a large number of homes have been built recently. People who live in London have no desire to live there.

I do not know enough about London (and have said so in my post). Elsewhere you can start by building on the greenbelt. Such development would be close to existing facilities, and you could mandate that sufficient infrastructure be built at the same time. I suspect that "Thames Gateway" would not be getting built if no-one wanted to live there. It might be that many of the future inhabitants would rather live elsewhere but it will nevertheless be the best place they can afford. They would presumably have to live somewhere even less agreeable if "Thames Gateway" was not built.

I think you need to accept that your extreme free market principles, which have had free rein in the property market in recent years (in the form of easy money and the lack of limitation on speculation) are mainly responsible for the mess we are in.

I find it implausible that the bubble would have happened if it were not for restricted supply of housing. It might or might not be the case that the supply is restricted for artificial reasons that benefit no-one in the long term. We will hit a limit on how much housing can be built in Britain eventually but it seems there is strong evidence we are nowhere near that point yet.

I am not sure what kind of speculation you mean. BTL is a way of providing rental accommodation to those who want it. It might be that many of the recent entrants chose to invest in the expectation of quick capital gains but in principle it is a perfectly respectable way of making money, and so cannot be easily stopped. Some people might choose to live in a larger house on the basis that 'it makes more money than they do' but this is already discouraged through council tax and cannot be entirely stopped in any way consistent with the preservation of civil liberties. It is not even obvious that speculation is the cause of the bubble - it might be that no-one would speculate on rising house prices if they were not already rising for some other reason.

What kind of speculation do you have in mind, and how would you stop it? Similarly, how would you make money less 'easy'? As always, suggestions that do not involve any need for a police state or the abolition of the banking system would be more helpful than those that involve either.

You may argue that it is better to have unrestricted markets, but property perhaps deserves better protection than other markets due to the fact that it is an essential component of our infrastructure. As the FT article points out, there have been serious economic and social consequences. These are so serious that they should be minimised where possible, not allowed to run their course over many years, causing havoc for whole generations of this country's citizens.

I never disagreed with much of this. It's just that no-one has a practical way of regulating the market that would be unlikely to have disastrous consequences elsewhere. We have discussed this several times now, and I am still waiting for you to suggest a solution without obvious holes. My way of minimising the consequences would be to increase supply.

MoD

[Smell the Fear]

I never disagreed with much of this. It's just that no-one has a practical way of regulating the market that would be unlikely to have disastrous consequences elsewhere. We have discussed this several times now, and I am still waiting for you to suggest a solution without obvious holes.

MoD, just because you are prepared to type "it wouldn't work" a hundred times doesn't mean you are right. Just because you say that holes are "obvious" doesn't mean they are there.

[MongerOfDoom]

MoD, just because you are prepared to type "it wouldn't work" a hundred times doesn't mean you are right. Just because you say that holes are "obvious" doesn't mean they are there.

I was hardly the only one to notice. That is very much the point about *obvious* holes.

Anyway, perhaps it would be better if you could reply to my posts and explain why the holes I pointed out do not, in fact, exist. So far you apparently suggested i) abolishing fractional reserve banking, ii) allowing every adult to own no more than house, iii) ban on mortgage lending, iii) ban on lending to non-residents, iv) government imposed lending limits implemented through the good offices of PC Plod investigating the income of everyone who asks for a mortgage, v) reforming the economy so it would be impossible to get into debt, vi) making it very hard for anyone to deposit money in an interest-bearing account, and those are just the ones I can recall. You were not able to support any of these suggestions with arguments but made up for it by calling people 'idiots' and other personal attacks.

Maybe you should stop repeating that you are right, and instead explain *why* you are. I asked you before to explain why I was wrong. That time you admitted that you could not because you did not know whether I was wrong or not. Well, once again, it is time to put up or to consider the traditional alternative. If you prefer the former, you can work back through the various threads where you made the above suggestions and reply to posts that point out the numerous holes in them.

Thanks,

MoD

[balamory]

Oh, back to the old style socialist are we. Well he writes brilliant c**p then. His book received many rave reviews in the press and no negative ones.

Why do the rich landowners refuse to register their land with the LR, and has not the Duchy of Cornwall sold off land over the years for urban developement as other big landowners including the church. They own thousands of acres which are not farm land.

These big landowners are not interested in money, they see land as a measure of their wealth ( as some cultures measure cattle as theirs ) and guard it jealously, besides the handouts and grants they receive see them ok for finances.

In one part of Essex there are thousands of houses built on land which was once part of a massive private estate.

Maybe I should have put the part of building what they like differently, as, they could sell off certain parts of their land which would receive planning permission.

Who Owns Britain

Kevin Cahill is a former army officer who has worked at both Westminster and European parliaments as an advisor and researcher. He is the author of books on business, trade and politics and helped produce the Sunday Times Rich List, as well as being a widely published investigative journalist.

I didnt use the term "old style socialist" as a term of abuse, but because it best describes what Cahill is.

Cahill is living in the wrong century. Does land really confer "social status"? In Victorian times, yes, but not these days. Do you seriously think that any land owner would turn down a multi million pound planning gain because selling a few acres would impact their status. This is rubbish.

You say that land owners get subsidies. Its more accurate to say that farmers get subsidies. For arable land these are around 80 pounds per acre. Thats not much economic incentive to hang on to your land if you could get 1m per acre for building land. As I have said before, the problem is the planning system, not a conspiracy by land owners to rig the value of building land.

Why dont land owners register their land with the LR? Let me ask you, why should they? Who cares? It costs thousands of pounds to register a sizeable area of land so what is the point. In the countryside everyone knows who owns what. If you ask someone they will tell you.

Finally, thanks for the Cahill quote. It outlines one of the many errors in his book. Landowners pay rates and coucil tax just like everyone else. I dont know where he got that gem from.

[Smell the Fear]

I was hardly the only one to notice. That is very much the point about *obvious* holes.

Anyway, perhaps it would be better if you could reply to my posts and explain why the holes I pointed out do not, in fact, exist. So far you apparently suggested i) abolishing fractional reserve banking, ii) allowing every adult to own no more than house, iii) ban on mortgage lending, iii) ban on lending to non-residents, iv) government imposed lending limits implemented through the good offices of PC Plod investigating the income of everyone who asks for a mortgage, v) reforming the economy so it would be impossible to get into debt, vi) making it very hard for anyone to deposit money in an interest-bearing account, and those are just the ones I can recall. You were not able to support any of these suggestions with arguments but made up for it by calling people 'idiots' and other personal attacks.

Maybe you should stop repeating that you are right, and instead explain *why* you are. I asked you before to explain why I was wrong. That time you admitted that you could not because you did not know whether I was wrong or not. Well, once again, it is time to put up or to consider the traditional alternative. If you prefer the former, you can work back through the various threads where you made the above suggestions and reply to posts that point out the numerous holes in them.

Thanks,

MoD

If you look at the poll I conducted on the need for banking reform you will see that the vast majority agreed that reform is required. I don't recall anyone ever agreeing with your "we can't change a thing or else the sky will fall on us" stance.