Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
RushRoad

Average House Price vs Gifts/Inheritences

Recommended Posts

I was wondering about average prices so I just had a look at zoopla and searched for Birmingham listing only houses, not flats, and on the list it shows 2,221 properties for sale. If one arranges the list from cheapest to most expensive if you then look at the house in the middle ie the 1,110'th one on the list that would be the median house asking price in Birmingham so I thought it reasonable that a couple earning the median full time wage should be able to buy those types of properties. Median (exc flats) asking house prices to median full time couple wages. However it occurred to me that some fraction of the properties on this list would be purchased not just by wages and savings of individuals but by things like inheritance money gifts or even lottery wins and things like investments that pay off 10x etc etc

So what proportion of properties should be excluded to find a more realistic average for people who only have their own resources to buy a home with?

My first inclination was to think well maybe the top 10% of properties are mostly purchased with generational/other wealth as help but having a look at those properties on the list I think its too few I also had a quick google for the scale of inheritances and it seems huge (roughly £70 billion annually and the data was a few years out so probably closer to £100 billion annually now) while I guess gifts are of a similar annual size so something in the region of £200 billion annually spread over hundreds of thousands of people. Anyway it looks like a significant proportion of people get gifts/inheritances/other forms of capital so what proportion of the upper range should be set off for people who have help to buy vs people who do not?

Looking at the pure Median Asking House Price in Birmingham shows £185,000

Removing the top 10% reduces the median price to £170,000

Removing the top 20% reduces the median price to £160,000

Removing the top 30% reduces the median price to £150,000

 

Is removing any portion fair if so which would be a good estimate I think at least 20% maybe more. If we take the 20% figure of £160,000 for the average asking house price in Birmingham then compare it to the median full time male income £30,782 plus the median full time female income £24,596 which combined would give £55,378

So median house price for people without help to combined full time working couple income ratio of 2.89 x

Just a quick reminder this does not include flats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose more generally what proportion of housing is fully or partly purchased via inheritances/gifts and other non earned income?

The sums look to be in the region of £100 billion annually for inheritances and perhaps the same again for gifts. £200 billion annually can buy a lot of housing where does all that money go? a lot of it must be to a bigger or better or even a first home. Even smaller amounts could be used as the deposit and geared up.

Something to consider when looking at affordability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inheritances are tricky ones.  Sure, there's that large overall figure as stated above, but at the same time there are many of us (myself included) who'll be lucky to receive £10k once the vultures pot has been divided out and fees reconciled.  

Especially true if your not one of those lucky souls where the departed left property in the SE where its raining HPI.   In other words whilst you do raise an interesting point, I'm not sure it can be relied on by many to help them make their first steps.

As you pointed out yesterday, HSBC's good 5yr fixed is 1.94%, with a 20% deposit.   For a £185k average place in Birmingham, 20% is £37k, and that's before we consider any other costs involved in such a transaction, as well as having a good enough credit profile to get the mortgage.

Edited by blackhole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RushRoad said:

the median full time male income £30,782 plus the median full time female income £24,596 which combined would give £55,378

Source for that data please. Looks like the mean average, not the median.

You're also cherry picking data - salaries in the capital often include a London weighting. What is the median salary in Birmingham??

I understand the rationale of removing the bottom and top 10% from a calculation of mean average - the whole point of using a median figure is to overcome this inadequacy of a mean average. You've applied that principle to the median though.

Any theory you're trying to push here has got holes large enough to fit a Challenger tank through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rantnrave said:

Source for that data please. Looks like the mean average, not the median.

You're also cherry picking data - salaries in the capital often include a London weighting. What is the median salary in Birmingham??

I understand the rationale of removing the bottom and top 10% from a calculation of mean average - the whole point of using a median figure is to overcome this inadequacy of a mean average. You've applied that principle to the median though.

Any theory you're trying to push here has got holes large enough to fit a Challenger tank through.

 

 

Those wage figures were not national averages they were for Birmingham and they were median full time male and female wages.

The ONS has a map which shows part time and full time wages by area its quite interesting. The stand out feature for me is that full time wages are quite reasonable across the country. Anyway have a look

 

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/interactive-how-do-earnings-vary-across-the-country/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blackhole said:

Inheritances are tricky ones.  Sure, there's that large overall figure as stated above, but at the same time there are many of us (myself included) who'll be lucky to receive £10k once the vultures pot has been divided out and fees reconciled.  

Especially true if your not one of those lucky souls where the departed left property in the SE where its raining HPI.   In other words whilst you do raise an interesting point, I'm not sure it can be relied on by many to help them make their first steps.

As you pointed out yesterday, HSBC's good 5yr fixed is 1.94%, with a 20% deposit.   For a £185k average place in Birmingham, 20% is £37k, and that's before we consider any other costs involved in such a transaction, as well as having a good enough credit profile to get the mortgage.

 

I know quite a lot of people who thought they would get nothing but they married into a rich family and ended up getting significant gifts/inheritances. If you assume 10% of the country is rich and 10% are well off there is a 20% change the person someone marries will also be from a rich or well off family.

Anyway yes I am aware plenty of people will get little to nothing but I wanted to discuss the fact that a lot of people will get a lot. Literally hundreds of thousands of people each year get significant sums. But how much of it flow into the housing market? My guess is a significant amount

Here are some stats a couple of years ago. Very significant numbers and sums

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-table-123-estates-notified-to-hmrc-numbers-and-tax-due

 

Keep in mind the figures are higher today and significant sums will/are gifted before death to reduce inheritance taxes or simply to get ones affairs in order before one is to old to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the rush to find a new paradigm, you are missing two important things:

  1. The distribution of inheritances. "£100 bn" annually means nothing without knowing something about the distribution, and the distribution is Pareto-like. From this recent paper, the top 10% of inheritances get 54-62% of inherited wealth depending on the measure used. So there is much less wealth to share around for ordinary families. And inheritances for first-time-buyer cohorts are small: median of £3,100 for age 25-34 and media £4,100 for age 35-44. At these levels, inheritance hardly makes a dent in affordability.
  2. Confusing stocks and flows. Housing wealth is a stock. To sustain current price levels, you are suggesting that all other stocks of wealth - realised stock gains, older generation's life savings, and...lottery tickets(?) - are liquidated and become a flow of wealth into the housing market. In other words, you want to sell-off other asset classes, directing the proceeds into the high-end of the housing market to maintain the illusion of affordability in the middle. But you can't have sustainable affordability if one stock of wealth relies on the constant depletion of the other.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

In the rush to find a new paradigm, you are missing two important things:

  1. The distribution of inheritances. "£100 bn" annually means nothing without knowing something about the distribution, and the distribution is Pareto-like. From this recent paper, the top 10% of inheritances get 54-62% of inherited wealth depending on the measure used. So there is much less wealth to share around for ordinary families. And inheritances for first-time-buyer cohorts are small: median of £3,100 for age 25-34 and media £4,100 for age 35-44. At these levels, inheritance hardly makes a dent in affordability.
  2. Confusing stocks and flows. Housing wealth is a stock. To sustain current price levels, you are suggesting that all other stocks of wealth - realised stock gains, older generation's life savings, and...lottery tickets(?) - are liquidated and become a flow of wealth into the housing market. In other words, you want to sell-off other asset classes, directing the proceeds into the high-end of the housing market to maintain the illusion of affordability in the middle. But you can't have sustainable affordability if one stock of wealth relies on the constant depletion of the other.   

 

I've posted a link to the actual data have a look at it its quite interesting.

Yes I know that a lot of the money will probably go to people maybe in their 40s/50s however they buy homes too. In my experience of people around that age they tend to upsize around then some with perhaps inheritance/gift help. Also it is not uncommon for younger people to get early inheritances/gifts I went to two weddings last year and was informed via gossip that they had received family gifts enough for significant deposits actually one was gifted enough to buy outright. Gift data is much harder to obtain as it probably isn't recorded anywhere.

I've said previously if you look at the housing market it is not a ladder but a step. Take the total stock of non social homes and divide by the annual transactions and you get a figure of about 20 years between house sales. If someone buys age 30 they buy again age 50 and that's it. It's been a housing step (not ladder) in the past too its not new.

Inheritances and gifts play a significant part in the housing market often not seen or discussed

 

As for your point 2 no that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying inheritances and gifts play a part in affordability. For instance as house prices go up so do inheritances which acts to some degree as a stabiliser. In fact if women are having fewer than two children each then once the parents and own then subsequently the generations will all get 'free' housing via inheriting a house or the sum to buy a house.

Definitely can't be discounted as irrelevant or negligible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blackhole said:

Inheritances are tricky ones.  Sure, there's that large overall figure as stated above, but at the same time there are many of us (myself included) who'll be lucky to receive £10k once the vultures pot has been divided out and fees reconciled.  

Especially true if your not one of those lucky souls where the departed left property in the SE where its raining HPI.   In other words whilst you do raise an interesting point, I'm not sure it can be relied on by many to help them make their first steps.

As you pointed out yesterday, HSBC's good 5yr fixed is 1.94%, with a 20% deposit.   For a £185k average place in Birmingham, 20% is £37k, and that's before we consider any other costs involved in such a transaction, as well as having a good enough credit profile to get the mortgage.

 

Take a look at the data for inheritences its data for 2013-14 year so 3 years old the figures will be even larger now (property stocks bonds all up plus the savings rate was positive over the last three years)

The data surprised me with the scale and distribution. I just do it justice with a summary so I'd say have a look but for people who don't want to go through the link a quick summary. Roughly

 

200,000 estates leave at least £80,000

85,000 estates leave at leat £300,000

30,000 leave at least £500,000

Keep in mind these do not include gifts before death which could potentially be more significant than inheritances especially for the younger and also its out of date 3 years so the sums for today are likely to be higher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RushRoad said:

 

Those wage figures were not national averages they were for Birmingham and they were median full time male and female wages.

The ONS has a map which shows part time and full time wages by area its quite interesting. The stand out feature for me is that full time wages are quite reasonable across the country. Anyway have a look

 

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/interactive-how-do-earnings-vary-across-the-country/

Nothing at that link tells me the data is for median wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Darby Ram said:

In the rush to find a new paradigm, you are missing two important things:

  1. The distribution of inheritances. "£100 bn" annually means nothing without knowing something about the distribution, and the distribution is Pareto-like. From this recent paper, the top 10% of inheritances get 54-62% of inherited wealth depending on the measure used. So there is much less wealth to share around for ordinary families. And inheritances for first-time-buyer cohorts are small: median of £3,100 for age 25-34 and media £4,100 for age 35-44. At these levels, inheritance hardly makes a dent in affordability.
  2. Confusing stocks and flows. Housing wealth is a stock. To sustain current price levels, you are suggesting that all other stocks of wealth - realised stock gains, older generation's life savings, and...lottery tickets(?) - are liquidated and become a flow of wealth into the housing market. In other words, you want to sell-off other asset classes, directing the proceeds into the high-end of the housing market to maintain the illusion of affordability in the middle. But you can't have sustainable affordability if one stock of wealth relies on the constant depletion of the other.   

 Where did you get the figures for inheritances for FTB cohorts?  

Would just point out that while sums actually stipulated in wills by grandparents may be relatively small, it's not at all uncommon for the main inheritors (e.g. children of the deceased) to pass all or much of their legacy straight on to their own children.  

I know personally of several such cases. 

Of course if there are several children of the deceased, and the inheritors have more than one child, the sums passed on will not onecessarily  be very great, even if the estate was sizeable to start with.  

However a niece and nephew of mine have been the main beneficiaries of the fact that their father was an only child, and inherited not only his parents' estate, but also that of a childless aunt he'd been very close to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RushRoad said:

I've posted a link to the actual data have a look at it its quite interesting.

[...snip]

As for your point 2 no that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying inheritances and gifts play a part in affordability. For instance as house prices go up so do inheritances which acts to some degree as a stabiliser. In fact if women are having fewer than two children each then once the parents and own then subsequently the generations will all get 'free' housing via inheriting a house or the sum to buy a house.

Definitely can't be discounted as irrelevant or negligible

Your data is on estates, not inheritances. The two are distinct. Moreover, your dataset is at such a high level of aggregation that it tells you close to zero about potential effects on the housing market. If you want to look at actual hard data, then read the 2011 paper I link to below. (I forgot the link before - sorry). If you can find a more up-to-date version, using the latest waves of the relevant survey data, then great.

But, to be honest, you are missing the wood for the trees here. Inheritances are not a new phenomenon. People have always inherited wealth that was once stored as houses and reinvested it in other houses. The only difference is that the sums of money are larger (and, as a consequence, the impact of liquidating and redirecting other forms of wealth into housing is smaller).

This comes back to the stocks and flows problem that I think you have not grasped. To prove your case, you need to show that something about inheritances/gifts has changed since the time when houses were more affordable. If housing wealth is simply being recycled, then nothing has changed etc etc. (You are also in the much more awkward position of proving that houses are affordable at a time when ownership rates have plummeted, but I'll let you address that one yourself.)

3 hours ago, Mrs Bear said:

 Where did you get the figures for inheritances for FTB cohorts?  

Would just point out that while sums actually stipulated in wills by grandparents may be relatively small, it's not at all uncommon for the main inheritors (e.g. children of the deceased) to pass all or much of their legacy straight on to their own children. 

Sorry, I forgot to include the link: it's this 2011 paper, Recent Trends in the Size and the Distribution of Inherited Wealth in the UK. The indirect inheritances point may well be addressed by one of the wealth surveys used in this paper. They use different methodologies, but I haven't looked into that aspect of it. Either way, it wouldn't change the shape of the overall distribution of wealth among age cohorts - which is captured by wealth surveys - and shows that the current (i.e., post-financial crisis, post-housing boom) batch of FTB cohorts have much less wealth than their predecessor cohorts did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

Your data is on estates, not inheritances. The two are distinct. Moreover, your dataset is at such a high level of aggregation that it tells you close to zero about potential effects on the housing market. If you want to look at actual hard data, then read the 2011 paper I link to below. (I forgot the link before - sorry). If you can find a more up-to-date version, using the latest waves of the relevant survey data, then great.

But, to be honest, you are missing the wood for the trees here. Inheritances are not a new phenomenon. People have always inherited wealth that was once stored as houses and reinvested it in other houses. The only difference is that the sums of money are larger (and, as a consequence, the impact of liquidating and redirecting other forms of wealth into housing is smaller).

This comes back to the stocks and flows problem that I think you have not grasped. To prove your case, you need to show that something about inheritances/gifts has changed since the time when houses were more affordable. If housing wealth is simply being recycled, then nothing has changed etc etc. (You are also in the much more awkward position of proving that houses are affordable at a time when ownership rates have plummeted, but I'll let you address that one yourself.)

Sorry, I forgot to include the link: it's this 2011 paper, Recent Trends in the Size and the Distribution of Inherited Wealth in the UK. The indirect inheritances point may well be addressed by one of the wealth surveys used in this paper. They use different methodologies, but I haven't looked into that aspect of it. Either way, it wouldn't change the shape of the overall distribution of wealth among age cohorts - which is captured by wealth surveys - and shows that the current (i.e., post-financial crisis, post-housing boom) batch of FTB cohorts have much less wealth than their predecessor cohorts did.

 

Your link of that paper while somewhat interesting is out of date looking at 1985-2005 so more than a decade old. Use this which is for 2013-2014 which will give you a lot more info on the subject

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541725/IHTNationalStatisticsCommentary.pdf

As it shows net estate value was £77 billion and it also shows the breakdown of estates how much was property how much cash how much insurance policies how much other buildings how much security etc etc. The value of estates being left has been increasing for a very long time, above simple wages, apart from a couple of years during the crash.

What I am trying to get at is that people do not only have income so Just looking at the male full time median income of £30k-31k and trying to fit that to affordability criteria does not do it justice. Instead there needs to be some factor to take into account the £100 billion in inheritances and £100 billion in gifts that will be received this year.

Just taking a simple model, Imagine 1/3rd of the population as children 1/3rd as middle aged and 1/3rd as old. Mostly this old 1/3rd is handing over £200 billion to the middle 1/3rd who make up about 22 million persons or roughly £9,000 each year on average. Of course very few people receive an inheritance each and every year its more likely that they get a £270k lump sum instead of 30 years x £9k per year.

We can further improve the model by noting that about half the population get nowt. So its £18k on average per year for those who do get.

 

So I want to propose a model, that society is split roughly 50/50. We have those who will not get inheritances who only have earned income and this group has a male full time earnings of about £30,000 annual. Then we have those who will get inheritances and they have full time male median earnings of £30,000 plus a mostly tax free £18,000 'annual' inheritance bonus.

 

We could even improve the model a lot more but I dont have the time right now so im going to propose something simple that can be refined by someone later using the actual data. Let us spit the population into 9 groups, A B C D E F G H I. The first half get no inheritances, A-E zero. F-I get all the inheritences/gifts but not uniformly lets assume (we can refine later with actual data) F gets 1/10th, G gets 2/10ths, H gets 3/10th, I gets 4/10ths

 

You then have a situation where all the 9 groups earn a median full time male earnings of £30,000 but they recieve different amounts of gifts/inheritences so you have something like

 

A =  £30,000 Median income

B =  £30,000 Median income

C =  £30,000 Median income

D =  £30,000 Median income

E =  £30,000 Median income

F =  £30,000 Median income + £7,300 'annual' inheritance 

G =  £30,000 Median income + £14,600 'annual' inheritance

H =  £30,000 Median income + £21,900 'annual' inheritance

I =   £30,000 Median income + £29,200 'annual' inheritance

 

This simplistic model while clearly not exactly right is probably far more correct than assuming a blanket everyone gets £30,000 median full time male earnings and completely ignoring the income people receive via gifts/inheritances.

So while someone might be on median earnings, that does not actually say where they stand without taking into account their gift/iinheritence position.

If someone gets no gifts/inheritences what they can buy (be it housing or schooling or the car they drive) is different from the same person also earning the median wage but does get gifts/inheritences.

 

What I am putting forwards was that it was never about income only. Fixed resources are allocated by total earnings/wealth which is earnings plus a portion of the annual £200 billion transfered from the old to the younger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RushRoad said:

This simplistic model while clearly not exactly right is probably far more correct than assuming a blanket everyone gets £30,000 median full time male earnings and completely ignoring the income people receive via gifts/inheritances.

(Emphasis added.)

He says "probably far more correct". It means "Here's some ludicrous horseshit that makes no sense to anyone but me".

Somewhere out there a buy-to-let landlord forum is missing its digital village idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 30% of estates gets burned through by care fees.

The median income is quite a bit lower than the mean income.

Most inheritance come to people when they are in thier  50s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This RushHour entity is spamming a daily new thread with complete garbage proclamations with made up figures and absurd assumptions. Wonder if its a Russian TrollBot! Maths or Empirical evidence is DEFINITELY not his/her strong point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Russian? Most Western nations have Web/propaganda departments now, openly interfering in forums and other internet areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RushRoad said:

 

Your link of that paper while somewhat interesting is out of date looking at 1985-2005 so more than a decade old. Use this which is for 2013-2014 which will give you a lot more info on the subject

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541725/IHTNationalStatisticsCommentary.pdf

As it shows net estate value was £77 billion and it also shows the breakdown of estates how much was property how much cash how much insurance policies how much other buildings how much security etc etc. The value of estates being left has been increasing for a very long time, above simple wages, apart from a couple of years during the crash.

I think it's fair to say that your statistical ineptitude is matched only by your ignorance of how research on wealth is done. You cannot research the distribution of inheritances using tax data, which is timely, you can only research it using survey data, which is not timely. The latest ONS survey on wealth, for example, covers the period 2012 to 2014. If there was a shortcut to doing this kind of research, it would not be "I've downloaded a spreadsheet from HMRC, I know about wealth now".

The value of estates increasing is irrelevant unless inheritances are being used in new ways. The implicit argument that you are making - although I am still not sure that you understand it - is that the stock of inherited wealth is being liquidated into the top of the market and that, somehow, this makes housing more affordable in the mid- and lower-ends. But the obvious point that people use windfalls to buy houses has always been true. So what you need to prove is "inheritances have somehow changed in composition and use since the mid-1990s and, despite falling ownership rates, this means that housing is actually affordable". How you plan to prove this when you don't understand what dataset tells you what is beyond me, but I look forward to your Nobel Prize.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

I think it's fair to say that your statistical ineptitude is matched only by your ignorance of how research on wealth is done. You cannot research the distribution of inheritances using tax data, which is timely, you can only research it using survey data, which is not timely. The latest ONS survey on wealth, for example, covers the period 2012 to 2014. If there was a shortcut to doing this kind of research, it would not be "I've downloaded a spreadsheet from HMRC, I know about wealth now".

The value of estates increasing is irrelevant unless inheritances are being used in new ways. The implicit argument that you are making - although I am still not sure that you understand it - is that the stock of inherited wealth is being liquidated into the top of the market and that, somehow, this makes housing more affordable in the mid- and lower-ends. But the obvious point that people use windfalls to buy houses has always been true. So what you need to prove is "inheritances have somehow changed in composition and use since the mid-1990s and, despite falling ownership rates, this means that housing is actually affordable". How you plan to prove this when you don't understand what dataset tells you what is beyond me, but I look forward to your Nobel Prize.  

 

'You cannot research the distribution of  inheritances using tax data'

I didn't do that you must be looking at one of the wrong tables on the list. I took a look at the ONS table which actually lists estates by band and number. Along the lines of x number of estates worth £300k-£500k. Y number of estates worth £500-£750k. Etc etc. Have a look at that table before you criticize me. Of course estates does not equal inheritences as most estates may go to 2-3 persons but that is not that big a problem if you assume it foes to 3 people on average just multiple the number of estates by 3 and divided the value of the estate by 3 to get the amount per person received

 

Anyway this is important

 

Inheritances and gifts are one way housing can go up in price yet not become as unaffordable as it first appears.

Let's assume a fictional capital city with 99% ownership and 1% rental called Landan. Let's assume that the city is home to 3 million children 3 million middle aged and 3 million old. In 2000 Landan house prices are £200,000 and they go up to £500,000 by 2017 while wages only went up 25% during that time. In real terms house price in Landan went up 100% so is it now unaffordable?

At first sight the answer seems clear prices are up 150% in nominal terms and 100% in real terms so they are a lot more expensive and less affordable right?

However that does not take into account inheritances. If every landan child receives 1 house as an inheritence (which is likely as 99% of the grandparents own) then for 99% of the kids they are insulated from house price movements. Only the 1% that won't inherit actually pay more.

In this fictional Landan example house prices doubled in real terms but so did inheritences received so actually affordability did not suffer at all. In 2000 house prices were £200,000 and the kids got a £200,000 inheritance as they turned into adults and in 2017 house prices were £500,000 and the kids got a £500,000 inheritence so no net movement/loss. The kids in this example need not live in grandpas house they could sell it and buy a different Landan house.

So clearly if one does not consider inheritances it paints an unrepresentative picture.

At least part of the reason why London got expensive yet has been sustainable for so long is because of this inheritance/gift factor. As house prices rose inheritances/gifts increases alongside.

 

Also don't jump to conclusions. My mathematics ability and analysis skills are quite good I have a highly mathematical degree from a top 5 university. There is a lot to this inheritance debate think it through before jumping to conclusions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   93 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.