rentbug Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Here's some more interesting stats. Latest figures 2013 - source: CIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate UK population growth is negligable, we are 147th of a list of 233. People are generally living a bit longer and take that away and most Western and developed countries have a falling population. It is the change in household demographics that is affecting the housing market most. More single or low number households and an expectation of keeping a 3 bed house into old age for a childless couple and eventually single person widow/er. After my mum died my dad had a three bed to himself for 14 years. My mother in law also has a three bed to herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Who cares? I'd be more worried about how so many people in this country think its OK to vote for the massively illiberal ZanuLabour party. I guess the same folks who think more democracy is a bad thing. People who like the feel of a boot on a human face, forever. Edited June 25, 2014 by EUBanana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Here's some more interesting stats. Latest figures 2013 - source: CIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate UK population growth is negligable, we are 147th of a list of 233. People are generally living a bit longer and take that away and most Western and developed countries have a falling population. It is the change in household demographics that is affecting the housing market most. More single or low number households and an expectation of keeping a 3 bed house into old age for a childless couple and eventually single person widow/er. After my mum died my dad had a three bed to himself for 14 years. My mother in law also has a three bed to herself. Ok you have done a sensible post. And I agree with what you say about more single people living in houses. With 1.8 children per couple the need for housing should be falling. However living longer more single people immigration Are the three factors that are increasing the need for houses. Some one on this forum gave the figures of 40% , 20% and 40%. You are saying that their are 200,000 a year coming which will require 100,000 homes if they are all couples. We only built 112,000 houses last year. Maybe it's a bad time to have more immigrants with domestic demand increasing as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I ask again, which of the main parties do you support and why? Also, do you work for one of them? Actually, don't bother to answer that, shills invariably deny their agenda. Your attempts to ridicule people who vote for UKIP ("a bit thick", "ROTFLMAO", " la-la land" etc) are not endearing qualities. What people are saying in terms of UKIP supporters being on average boomers and retirees, less educated, etc, are all based on known data. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572187/The-secrets-ballot-box-Tories-earn-Labour-voters-rent-home-Lib-Dems-better-educated-Ukip-voters-white-retired.html If that doesn't suit your beliefs, then, well, tough, it's still the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 UKIP don't want to build houses, they don't represent the young. They are just A N Other party. Millions of people are not coming here. Why can you not see these facts? 2/3 of new household formation in the UK results internally, 1/3 is due to immigration. So stopping immigration would help, but having building grinding to a halt which is effectively what UKIP want, would cause much much more of a housing deficit than stopping immigration would prevent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Tradingeconomics has some informative charts which include charts showing the growth of the UK population (and data for other countries as well) going back to 1960. The population charts are based on figures from Eurostat. http:// www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/population From their chart it looks like since 2001 the UK population growth has been rapidly increasing by about 300,000 to 400,000 per year for most years but in recent years it's been increasing by about 500,000 to 700,000 per year and from the chart trend it's starting to grow at an almost exponential rate. Edited June 25, 2014 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 What people are saying in terms of UKIP supporters being on average boomers and retirees, less educated, etc, are all based on known data. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572187/The-secrets-ballot-box-Tories-earn-Labour-voters-rent-home-Lib-Dems-better-educated-Ukip-voters-white-retired.html If that doesn't suit your beliefs, then, well, tough, it's still the truth. It's not a case of suiting my beliefs. Which part of it is the truth? The part that says "almost all UKIP voters are white and retired" or the part that says that 38% of UKIP voters are retired? With such glaring contradictions, I wouldn't agree that "it's still the truth". Not that I care anyway. What really pleases me is to see how rattled the recent UKIP support has got the established parties and their supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 House of Commons speech, 11/11/'47. DYOR The speech to which you refer can be read here. Churchill talks in it about various democratic countries, and there is much debate about various institutions such as the nature and form of a second chamber. I can even see a mention, in passing, of Switzerland. But nowhere can I see that he is excluding Switzerland from his discussion of democratic governments. But I'm happy to be proven wrong, if you want to point out the relevant paragraph... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Maybe it's a bad time to have more immigrants with domestic demand increasing as well. I think one of the biggest issues (in terms of housing) that comes from immigration is that many newcomers will be drawn to an area where there are already an established number of people from the same background. Where I am now there are very few immigants and one of the very few UKIP councilors. Such is the fear of immigrants. A decade or so back we lived in London and in a very mixed ethnic area, mainly Ghanian origin. For people from Ghana it was a good place to be - others that speak your language and shops that sell a taste of home. My immidiate neighbours were from Ghana (very lovely people BTW). I enjoyed living there into the whole BTL thing started and the area began to become run down. More and more unemployed people (of all backgrounds) moving in on housing benefit and being a nuisance - mainly as they were bored and frustrated with life and didn't need to go to bed to get up to go to work. Music at 03.00 is no fun if you have a meeting at 07.30 The people coming in from overseas do create localised hotspots of confontation. But to my mind the biggest disruption has been the growth of BTL and fact that people with no prospect of work are supported by housing benefit in the midst of working people. I don't blame those people on the dole - how the hell are you supposed to get a job when your rent is 400 quid a week? It is a poverty trap caused by sky high rents, caused by mental HPI. To an outsider it could have looked (if you didn't look hard) that our issues were due to people coming from overseas - our Somali neighbours for example. (They calmed down after they realised no on was going to shoot them - what life must be like where they came from I cannot imagine). But the truth was the troublemakers were English people on the dole. Please don't misunderstand me - I've been unemployed myself in my youth - it is tough. But when I was 20 I rented a 3 bed house and it was the same money as my single person's dole. I got a job in a factory a month later and paid the rent in full and lived OK (with overtime). JSA is what now? £80 a week? Rent me a three bed detached with a nice garden for £80 a week please. Immigration does cause some issues - that is clear but it is not The Problem. Stopping it (immigration) will change nothing. Seeing it as a scapegoat just blinds people to the real issue - overpriced housing and mental rents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 2/3 of new household formation in the UK results internally, 1/3 is due to immigration. So stopping immigration would help, but having building grinding to a halt which is effectively what UKIP want, would cause much much more of a housing deficit than stopping immigration would prevent. I would say that the 2/3 is a temporary thing. With 1.8 children per couple the long term demand for houses should be falling. If People are living 10% longer we may need to build 10% more houses. Longevity isn't going to keep rising forever. Yes a lot of people are deciding to live on their own I think this trend will stop before everybody decides to be single. BTW I am pro building more houses and I am not anti foreigners. How many people can we feed when the oil runs out. above is a weeks rations last time we couldn't import food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 How many people can we feed when the oil runs out. Not many. Modern agriculture uses a variety of fossil sources to get the (amazing) productivity we enjoy. Most nitrate fertilisers are from gas that is millions of years old. However, it's fair to say neither oil nor gas are likely to run out soon, just get jolly expensive. Also as oil from crops gets increasingly used for automotive needs (biofuel) the cost will go up. What is needed is a source of power that doesn't come from millions of years ago but from what is available today. Solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro all can cut fossil use. All of them can offer a bright new future and jobs for thousands of people. With the right agro-technologies (e.g. hydroponics) we can create plenty of food too. The real problem is that there are large numbers of people that prefer to live in la-la land rather than face up to the opportunities of renewables. But above all the mineral oil companies need to pretend it's OK to burn the stuff otherwise their reserves are worthless and their share price with them. As we are all focussed on housing on this forum it's interesting to note that a move to renewables could have a massive positive on housing too. Better insulation and solar panels make for lower bills. Moving production to more remote areas could (hopefully) allow us to spread out a bit instead of all wanting to live in a big city that is already built up. Of course (to keep on track with the point of the thread) it is interesting to note that UKIP are part of the climate change denier nutjob group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not many. Modern agriculture uses a variety of fossil sources to get the (amazing) productivity we enjoy. Most nitrate fertilisers are from gas that is millions of years old. However, it's fair to say neither oil nor gas are likely to run out soon, just get jolly expensive. Also as oil from crops gets increasingly used for automotive needs (biofuel) the cost will go up. What is needed is a source of power that doesn't come from millions of years ago but from what is available today. Solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro all can cut fossil use. All of them can offer a bright new future and jobs for thousands of people. With the right agro-technologies (e.g. hydroponics) we can create plenty of food too. The real problem is that there are large numbers of people that prefer to live in la-la land rather than face up to the opportunities of renewables. But above all the mineral oil companies need to pretend it's OK to burn the stuff otherwise their reserves are worthless and their share price with them. As we are all focussed on housing on this forum it's interesting to note that a move to renewables could have a massive positive on housing too. Better insulation and solar panels make for lower bills. Moving production to more remote areas could (hopefully) allow us to spread out a bit instead of all wanting to live in a big city that is already built up. Of course (to keep on track with the point of the thread) it is interesting to note that UKIP are part of the climate change denier nutjob group. I will have to say I am against almost all UKIP policy's. But I do believe in a referendum and I think politicians are all crooks and I want them over here where we can keep an eye on them. We can't do anything about IDS and his EU benefit unless we get the power back within these shores. Even then we only seem to have governments that work against us. At least we can demonstrate in London How do you demonstrate in Brussels? It would be quite bad being hit over the head by a British policeman and thrown in the cells. How do you fancy that out in Belgium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Direct democracy in my opinion would lessen the influence of nimbies. At the moment Councillors make decisions based on who shouts the loudest or protests, if everyone got a vote on the issue you dilute the nimby influence. The ability to get rid of MPs would be great, but haven't we been promised this before by a variety of parties and it has never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Direct democracy in my opinion would lessen the influence of nimbies. At the moment Councillors make decisions based on who shouts the loudest or protests, if everyone got a vote on the issue you dilute the nimby influence. The ability to get rid of MPs would be great, but haven't we been promised this before by a variety of parties and it has never happened. I would like to see the house of lords gone and then the people getting the vote instead. The government should still have the final say but will lose badly at the next election if they don't convince us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I will have to say I am against almost all UKIP policy's. But I do believe in a referendum and I think politicians are all crooks and I want them over here where we can keep an eye on them. We can't do anything about IDS and his EU benefit unless we get the power back within these shores. Even then we only seem to have governments that work against us. At least we can demonstrate in London How do you demonstrate in Brussels? It would be quite bad being hit over the head by a British policeman and thrown in the cells. How do you fancy that out in Belgium. I am happy with the referendum - it is our right as citizens. The last demo I went on was in Paris. Bruxelles is quite nice and I could easily have half a day shouting at the coppers then some nice mussels and chips in the Grande Place. Only the UK Police hit you - they are just government paid thugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The ability to get rid of MPs would be great, but haven't we been promised this before by a variety of parties and it has never happened. You can get rid of MPs. Then they replace him/her with another one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.