The Guardian: House Prices are in Freefall

[iamnumerate]

2 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

I’m a single mother but I work and I’m not entitled to anything other than some help with nursery fees (daughter is older than 3 now) and child benefit.

Personally I think those single mothers who choose to be reliant on the state should be housed in some kind of homes for single mothers.  Like a commune. They could get together and provide childcare for each other etc.  

 

Good idea sadly unless someone like you becomes a politician I can't see it happening.

2 hours ago, spyguy said:

My argument is we need time limited, contrubtion based welfare bebefits.

Any singlpe parents that finds themselves with preious contruibus or runs out of time should be houses in a hostel.

TYhis way the state is not wasting money on private LL.

They would also indtrocude ordr/hurdles to the lifestyles - no dogs, no various boyfriends, warden could make sure the kisd are getting to school and looked after.

The days of 4k/m and hottub parties need to end.

 

 

+1

[jimmy2x3]

17 hours ago, A.steve said:

Am I alone in reading that... and understanding "Council housing... For slaves; for slaves; for slaves."?

It seems a systemic mechanism to entrench less privileged people as subordinates to home owners.

Am I over-reacting to identifying fully-functioning human beings as 'workers'... or, is reducing people to this a reasonable way to to categorise and marginalise an under-class?

 

the dream that becoming a slave you can work your way outta slavery is long gone. you will just continue to be that slave only now working even harder. 

but that is not washing so well now as too many have caught on that it dont matter what you do you will continue t just be a slave.

the solution, dont participate. we are seeing this starting to happen all over the world and we are just starting to notice it as a big thng here in the uk. now people that can work, that can take the many jobs available are just saying no, many working the bare minimum. better to start that lying around at 30 than 70 the outcome is just the same except you can lie around for longer. the housing and consumer led life thats been peddled is collapsing because one side has not held up their side of the deal for most people. of course it must be all they iphones the young bought.

 

 

[A.steve]

12 hours ago, regprentice said:

i think worker here just means "working class person with a job".

  I think the problem is that it means the person is just someone who requires such 'a job' to survive - and this defines them as a person.

8 hours ago, cnick said:

People digging and then backfilling holes........are they workers?

If they are doing it in a subordinate fashion, because someone else wants them to do that... then, yes... that would make them workers.  There is nothing about work that requires the expended effort to be productive for society.

6 hours ago, jimmy2x3 said:

the solution, dont participate.

I doubt that solution will have especially satisfactory results.

[bartelbe]

On 3/5/2023 at 3:47 PM, Smith said:

Not sure about Labour's proposed 'solutions', mind you.

"There is talk of a new mortgage guarantee scheme; the party’s first actions in government will include “helping first-time buyers on to the housing ladder and building more affordable homes by reforming planning rules”."

 

Pumping money, we don't have, into propping up a housing bubble. Our political class really are a bunch of f**king halfwits.

[pig]

On 05/03/2023 at 15:49, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:

Oh sheeet: not Nandy please... HPI props ahoy!

 

Social housing definitely gets my vote.

[Social Justice League]

16 hours ago, jimmy2x3 said:

the dream that becoming a slave you can work your way outta slavery is long gone. you will just continue to be that slave only now working even harder. 

but that is not washing so well now as too many have caught on that it dont matter what you do you will continue t just be a slave.

the solution, dont participate. we are seeing this starting to happen all over the world and we are just starting to notice it as a big thng here in the uk. now people that can work, that can take the many jobs available are just saying no, many working the bare minimum. better to start that lying around at 30 than 70 the outcome is just the same except you can lie around for longer. the housing and consumer led life thats been peddled is collapsing because one side has not held up their side of the deal for most people. of course it must be all they iphones the young bought.

 

 

100% agree.  Let it rot.

[29929BlackTuesday]

Has the title been changed to 'Crumbling' not 'Freefall'? Apologies if someone else has posted about this.

Crumbling sounds less terrifying.

[NoHPCinTheUK]

They’re not. 1.1 up mom. 
 

This isn’t a fall. 

[Smith]

32 minutes ago, 29929BlackTuesday said:

Has the title been changed to 'Crumbling' not 'Freefall'? Apologies if someone else has posted about this.

Crumbling sounds less terrifying.

Interesting. Yes, so it has. Crumbling is rather less dramatic than "in freefall". To be fair, headlines are written by subs, not the article's writer, so sometimes get changed because they don't fairly represent the content.

[Insane]

20 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

No, we have no kept pace with population but we have built some homes - this is a matter of public record - here. But I am highlighting that whilst we have not built enough homes (or, as you allege, we might not have built the right type of homes) ... the population hasn't doubled or tripled, and likewise with the number of households .... and certainly not in any kind of cadence related to house prices or house prices change across different tiers of housing.

Where did I say the population has doubled or tripled? If we had built anywhere near enough housing we would not have some London councils with 20+ year waiting lists, people living in housing not fit for human habitation, Sofa surfing, overcrowding and people still at home with their family's in mid life. 

20 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

As regards "amount of people who have bought property in the UK who don't live here" -> for the record - a "Household" is an account with a Local Authority which would include any property for which Council tax is due (discounted or not). And that would include any property regardless of the residency of the owner.

So that proves we don't know how many households we are housing if an account with a local authority is the way a household is counted. How many people are there living 2 and 3 family's to one account which shows up as only one household instead of 2 or 3. The way of counting a household is very inaccurate. 

 

20 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

And you haven't responded to what is actually my key point: whilst the stock of housing available will have specific implications for price ... it does not at all explain the variances in the price of housing ... you can see (and can't argue with) the low volatility in the population (or, for that matter the stock of actual households) in contrast with the volatitlity of price.

Have not got a clue what you mean by this. It makes no sense. 

 

20 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

I will say it clearly: the price of housing in the UK is impacted way more (by a significant margin) by the availability and price of finance than it is by the slow increases in population.

We have not had slow increases in population 500,000 more in 2021 is not a slow increase. The price of any product will be irrelevant if there is no demand. Demand comes first who pays what comes afterwards. 

20 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

It;s silly to think that the financial chaos of 2004->2009, and the bail out from 2008->2021 (and beyond: ZIRP, government ownership of private banks and so much more), and the current fluctuations (or, possibly, crash) in house prices is related to aything other than the cost of finance.

Cost is one element how much lent is another the ability to pay the most important. Lending people too much money they could not pay back whether the cost was X or Y lead to the Zombie banks going under. If I have a mortgage of 2x my salary I can comfortable pay a 10% interest rate , people even managed when they hit 15% and 16%. If I have a mortgage of 5X my salary small increase in cost matter.

Why did people borrow so much? Because they were competing in a market where demand outstripped supply. If they had a choice of housing options be it buying, renting socially, renting privately without having to outbid others they would not go to the total maximum ability to pay and past it to secure a roof. This is now being  proved while we have a dip in the sales market rents are rising fast. The government are currently outbidding private tenants to secure housing for Asylum Seekers. They would not need to do this if we had enough housing. Because more people need housing than the current. Supply. 

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

 

So that proves we don't know how many households we are housing if an account with a local authority is the way a household is counted. How many people are there living 2 and 3 family's to one account which shows up as only one household instead of 2 or 3. The way of counting a household is very inaccurate. 

 

 

You are right. The definition of household is

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/familiesandhouseholdsstatisticsexplained/2021-03-02

Quote

A "household" is (current definition, from 2011) one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. A household can consist of a single family, more than one family or no families in the case of a group of unrelated people.

 

So if I lived on an island with 2 houses and my neighbours' house collapsed and they moved in with us and slept in my box room. Then the ratio of houses to households would stay the same - but the housing situation would be very different.

Young people still living with their parents of course don't count because they are the same household

[AppleBob]

Instead of operating in a fair and reasonable manner, allowing accurate and 'substantially true' comments, the front line of Guardian moderators will disallow comments which are critical of New Labours policies which were instrumental in pricing millions of middle income earners out of housing.

Even if the comments are 'substantially true' and accurate and affected me personally.

I recently posted comments, critical of New Labour, which were removed, then I was been banned;

....we have recently detected further historic accounts related to you that were subject to sanctions and bans, meaning subsequent accounts were attempts to subvert moderation. Therefore your account will not be reinstated....

This turned out to be a complete lie.

I contested the ban by sending the editors an email, who reviewed the case then reinstated my account, overturning the ban, stating there was no evidence at all.

So blatant lying is not beyond the moderators of the Guardian, if it stops you posting a critical comment about New Labours horrific house price bubble.

SOE-Moderation-Guide.pdf (societyofeditors.org)

Quote

The Guardian probably gives the widest range of people the authority to decide whether the online item should be opened to comment, including section editor, page editor, article writer and, most frequently, the article sub-editor.

 

 

[AppleBob]

The Guardian Moderators seem to frame the narrative according to their own political bias. (And presumably their own financial interests?)

You can perform your own thought experiments under their articles.

For instance:

If I post a Bullish comment which shows that home owners should be voting for Labour, (such as the one below), they will allow it, and you cannot remove it.

Quote

There is an article on the Web, one of the main 'online mortgage advisor websites' urging homeowners to vote Labour, entitled;
'What Impact Will the Next PM Have on House Prices?'
It states that if you consider the 'total house price growth' (taking into account inflation), when house price growth data for all Prime Ministers Terms in office are combined, (Labour have been in power for 18.5 years, and the Conservatives for 27 years) its stunning to learn, that under Labour over that period, house prices growth was 115% and only 5% under the Conservatives....

But if you post a critical comment, which highlights something which Labour were responsible for, it will be removed;

Quote

In 1997 the national average house cost 3.3x national individual salary, (55k/16.6k=3.3x) and the average FTB was spending 17.5% of their take home pay on their mortgage, (3.3x was the 20thC median measure of affordability) but by 2008, that average FTB was spending 50% of their income on their mortgage; its even higher today.
 In 1997, Labour (shockingly) announced that they were making the BOE independent, within about fours hours of being elected, (secret meetings must have taken place beforehand) and since then we have been subjected to the longest prolonged period of the lowest level of IR for the last 5000 years.
Since records began.
Researchers from the FED and the BOE have shown unequivocally that if Banks had just raised IR, during the 2000-2006 Bubble phase, then this HPI could have been avoided.
The economy is entirely deliberate.
It took the BOE three hundred years to create the first one trillion pounds, and only eight years to create the second trillion, from 2000-2008. (As debt in a zero reserve system.)
Investment banks, poured hundreds of billions into the mortgage markets, in order to inflate the value on paper, before demanding a bailout.
Credit bubble. House prices tripled in Labours first decade, and they absolutely revelled in it. Pricing millions of middle income earners out of housing. They were all flipping houses for personal profit, and then when the Telegraph threatened to break the expenses scandal, Brown formed a three line whip to try and stop the information from becoming public knowledge.
 

I spent a few hours testing this theory on the day the article was published, posting numerous comments criticising new labours record on house prices and the Guardian moderators removed every single critical comment.....

They are very biased IMO.

[MARTINX9]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

You are right. The definition of household is

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/familiesandhouseholdsstatisticsexplained/2021-03-02

So if I lived on an island with 2 houses and my neighbours' house collapsed and they moved in with us and slept in my box room. Then the ratio of houses to households would stay the same - but the housing situation would be very different.

Young people still living with their parents of course don't count because they are the same household

This is why the proportion of the population who are homeowners is materially overstated.

An elderly woman living on her own - in a house she owns - next door to four private renters counts as 50 per cent homeownership on the official stats. But in fact the homeownership rate per capita is only 20 per cent.

[Aidan Ap Word]

9 hours ago, Insane said:

We have not had slow increases in population 500,000 more in 2021 is not a slow increase. The price of any product will be irrelevant if there is no demand. Demand comes first who pays what comes afterwards. 

 

Yes, prices are set on the margins. But prices have changed more in line with the availability of finance than tthe growth in the population. That is: they are both invovled. To pretend otherwise would only bear out in the data if the growth in house prices matched an inflation-adjusted growth in population.

Now if you had othered even to click on the links I provided (as in data supporting my points):

Chart and table of U.K. population from 1950 to 2023. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

• The current population of U.K. in 2023 is 67,736,802, a 0.34% increase from 2022.
• The population of U.K. in 2022 was 67,508,936, a 0.34% increase from 2021.
• The population of U.K. in 2021 was 67,281,039, a 0.33% increase from 2020.
• The population of U.K. in 2020 was 67,059,474, a 0.42% increase from 2019.

From: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/population

The popuation of the UK grew by 227897 - substanitally less than half of the 500k you allege. And - as clealy stated above: pretty much 1 third of 1 percent.

Also: it's faily consistent across the four years that are in the very heading of the page (and if you scroll down and see the graph, or check the data behind that you will find population growth as largely consistent for decades).

Now house prices, on the other hand have varied by a lot more than this (even, as would be necessary, adjusting for contemporaneous inflation).

So, in short: I "see" your 500k and I raise you actual facts.

 

[Insane]

3 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

So, in short: I "see" your 500k and I raise you actual facts.

Err we have been told net population increase for 2021 was 500k go and look it up. 

[mandyshoes]

22 hours ago, AppleBob said:

The Guardian Moderators seem to frame the narrative according to their own political bias. (And presumably their own financial interests?)

You can perform your own thought experiments under their articles.

For instance:

If I post a Bullish comment which shows that home owners should be voting for Labour, (such as the one below), they will allow it, and you cannot remove it.

But if you post a critical comment, which highlights something which Labour were responsible for, it will be removed;

I spent a few hours testing this theory on the day the article was published, posting numerous comments criticising new labours record on house prices and the Guardian moderators removed every single critical comment.....

They are very biased IMO.

I rang my GP the other day at 8.30 am

3 days later I had a consultant appt at local hospital

In for op on knee in 4 weeks

Expressed surprise at the excellent service and speed I had received to the consultant and asked for an e mail so I can records the excellent service I have had 

She started crying - gave me a hug - against rules I am sure

Said it made her day as they were all so sick of hearing how s++T the NHS is when most people geta  great service

As she said - " do not read the Guardian or listen to the BBC"

Went on to say that they pick up a few people who have not had a great service but ignore the millions who get fantastic service 

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, mandyshoes said:

As she said - " do not read the Guardian or listen to the BBC"

Went on to say that they pick up a few people who have not had a great service but ignore the millions who get fantastic service 

A friend of mine has a Daughter who is a GP. 

She has said it on many occasions " the NHS is not falling apart". 

[poohbear]

On 06/03/2023 at 07:48, regprentice said:

i think worker here just means "working class person with a job".

From the 1950s to the 1980s it was easy enough to get a council house and that was the expectation of any plumber, joiner, bricklayer. Maybe a wait on the list of up to 2 years, then you would get a family house with a garden. my council used to purposefully house families in the same street. there are still 3 families in my street with more than one house, my neighbours daughter lived in the house opposite her until she died.

council housing was an important part of the social fabric for working class people. It wasnt slavery, as you imply, and effectively offered the same rights as home ownership and many additional rights (some of my neighbours have recently had new fencing and new kitchens installed for free) Council rents for this secure lifelong tenancy were less than half what a mortgage monthly payment cost.

a few years ago some new housing association houses were built near me. the council shuffled its tenants about and moved many to the new houses because they were disabled approved, had downstairs toilets etc. and now the council had some older housing stock free for council tenants on the list. 3 houses next to mine became free so we waited to see who got housed .... 

So we got 3 single mums without jobs. One wasnt even british (Dutch).

New council housing is only going to work the way it should if its easily available to young families where the husband is doing an apprenticeship or similar. thats the way it was until the 90s, thats what labour should be bringing back  

Quite

I think what many people are actually failing to realise the current criteria for getting council housed.

Three people I know of who have just been housed by the council in the last year.

All under the age of 20

All single mothers

All not working.

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that if you are working or a single male or a couple you really stand no chance as there will be a forever cycle of those that are jumping to the top of the list for housing.

Indeed in the local area (Herts) some are reporting the council are not even adding their name to the waiting list.

[Homeless Millionaire]

2 hours ago, mandyshoes said:

I rang my GP the other day at 8.30 am

3 days later I had a consultant appt at local hospital

In for op on knee in 4 weeks

Expressed surprise at the excellent service and speed I had received to the consultant and asked for an e mail so I can records the excellent service I have had 

She started crying - gave me a hug - against rules I am sure

Said it made her day as they were all so sick of hearing how s++T the NHS is when most people geta  great service

As she said - " do not read the Guardian or listen to the BBC"

Went on to say that they pick up a few people who have not had a great service but ignore the millions who get fantastic service 

Wow. Thanks for that. 

[dpg50000]

11 hours ago, mandyshoes said:

I rang my GP the other day at 8.30 am

3 days later I had a consultant appt at local hospital

In for op on knee in 4 weeks

Expressed surprise at the excellent service and speed I had received to the consultant and asked for an e mail so I can records the excellent service I have had 

She started crying - gave me a hug - against rules I am sure

Said it made her day as they were all so sick of hearing how s++T the NHS is when most people geta  great service

As she said - " do not read the Guardian or listen to the BBC"

Went on to say that they pick up a few people who have not had a great service but ignore the millions who get fantastic service 

Possibly this is down to the "postcode lottery" - NHS performance will vary between areas. Certainly where I am (NW England), even pre-covid you had no chance of timescales like that. I have a back condition, and even in 2017 it took 6 months to see a specialist and, if I needed the op, it was an 18 month wait.

[iamnumerate]

58 minutes ago, dpg50000 said:

Possibly this is down to the "postcode lottery" - NHS performance will vary between areas. Certainly where I am (NW England), even pre-covid you had no chance of timescales like that. I have a back condition, and even in 2017 it took 6 months to see a specialist and, if I needed the op, it was an 18 month wait.

 

I think the post code lottery is even more fragmented than NW/SE etc. I read complaints on next door from people 2 miles from me saying that they can't get the GP - and I can always see mine.

[Aidan Ap Word]

On 07/03/2023 at 21:23, Insane said:

Err we have been told net population increase for 2021 was 500k go and look it up. 

I did.

I looked it up.

And I quoted the actual numbers several times in this thread alone. And I linked to a source. Then I used a calculator. Spoiler: it is not 500k. Net migration was 500k ... but that is not the same thing!

Chart and table of U.K. population from 1950 to 2023. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

• The current population of U.K. in 2023 is 67,736,802, a 0.34% increase from 2022.
• The population of U.K. in 2022 was 67,508,936, a 0.34% increase from 2021.
• The population of U.K. in 2021 was 67,281,039, a 0.33% increase from 2020.
• The population of U.K. in 2020 was 67,059,474, a 0.42% increase from 2019.

From: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/population

[Insane]

1 hour ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

I did.

I looked it up.

And I quoted the actual numbers several times in this thread alone. And I linked to a source. Then I used a calculator. Spoiler: it is not 500k. Net migration was 500k ... but that is not the same thing!

Chart and table of U.K. population from 1950 to 2023. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

• The current population of U.K. in 2023 is 67,736,802, a 0.34% increase from 2022.
• The population of U.K. in 2022 was 67,508,936, a 0.34% increase from 2021.
• The population of U.K. in 2021 was 67,281,039, a 0.33% increase from 2020.
• The population of U.K. in 2020 was 67,059,474, a 0.42% increase from 2019.

There are different figures all over the place. 

We have been told there were 1.1 million people who arrived in the UK during 2021 and 600,000 who left giving a net figure of an extra 500,000 people. I have seen this talked about by many different people on the internet the TV including the BBC Question time programme having MP's on their panel who did not deny this figure. So are they making up the figure I have quoted?  

[iamnumerate]

2 hours ago, Insane said:

There are different figures all over the place. 

We have been told there were 1.1 million people who arrived in the UK during 2021 and 600,000 who left giving a net figure of an extra 500,000 people. I have seen this talked about by many different people on the internet the TV including the BBC Question time programme having MP's on their panel who did not deny this figure. So are they making up the figure I have quoted?  

 

Have you calculated for the effect of deaths and births?

(Not sure about this just an idea).