Wednesday, Dec 02, 2015

Sky News uses a well known HPC phrase

Sky News: Many New-Build Homes Like 'Rabbit Hutches'

Many new family homes being built in England are like rabbit hutches because they are too small to live in comfortably, a report has warned. It found that on average a new three-bedroom home sold outside London is four square metres short of what buyers need – equivalent to the size of a family bathroom. The study by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) compared the sizes of new three-bedroom homes on more than 100 developments across England against new, optional space standards introduced in October.

Posted by jack c @ 01:26 PM (7331 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

65 Comments

1. enuii said...

Parker Morris deja vu moment again, as over 50 years ago in 1961 a government report titled Homes for Today and Tomorrow proposed what became more commonly known as the Parker Morris standards.

The report aimed to 're-examine the kinds of homes that we ought to be building, to ensure that they will be adequate to meet the newly emerging needs of the future, as well as basic human needs'.

Revisited a number of times since the sizes quoted subsequently have not differed much from the original report and thus illustrate how they originally got it right. Unsurprisingly Stewart Baseley, executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation is quoted as saying that buyers of new build homes are happy with their houses and how they are designed. with the added threat that 'imposing space standards for new homes could make the "acute" housing shortage seen in recent decades worse.'

Perhaps he should ask them what they think after they have lived in them for 5 years.

Thursday, December 3, 2015 07:33PM Report Comment
 

2. cornishman said...

http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/britains-government-sponsored-national-housing-ponzi-scheme/

Anyone have an idea as to why this article from Tuesday was pulled?

It wasn't factually correct in places - but that wouldn't be enough to single it out for removal, would it? It did point out some home truths.

Friday, December 4, 2015 09:38AM Report Comment
 

3. icarus said...

Cornishman - I think there was a problem with the link on that post. I may be wrong but I think it took us to a truerepublica article other than the one you intended (and other than the one you've just mentioned).

Friday, December 4, 2015 06:28PM Report Comment
 

4. icarus said...

not sure where the rest of that post went....

....but I think the link you gave didn't correspond with your headline/post (and I don't think it was the one to which you referred just now @2.

Friday, December 4, 2015 07:39PM Report Comment
 

5. cornishman said...

icarus, yes there was a problem with the link. I had to google the headline to get the correct link. I can't remember who posted the original, but it wasn't me. There have been quite a few broken links on here before that have not been pulled - they just got ignored.

It seems to me that nowadays there is more and more censorship of stuff that is inconvenient for the establishment. Witness the way that some universities now ban controversial speakers. Universities used to be where students could discuss anything, no matter how un-PC, in order to extend their thinking.

I just wondered if there was some 'department' somewhere censoring internet postings/discussions where inconvenient truths were being exposed.

Saturday, December 5, 2015 08:23AM Report Comment
 

6. tenyearstogetmymoneyback said...

Back to sizes of houses........

I would be quite certain that when they were building Council Houses they were built to the Parker Morris standards. People used to comment that Council Houses were bigger and better built than the houses being sold in the private sector.

Interestingly the people I bought my first house from in 1986 (a small terraced two bedroom starter house) bought a large three bed semi ex council house not that far away which was an for exactly the same money having decided they wanted to start a family. Back then there was still quite a bit of stigma against Council Houses and Council Estates so the properties were cheaper.

Last time I looked the majority of the starter homes in Bay Tree Close were buy to let, something that didn't exist in 1986 despite there being a high turnover as people changes jobs and / or moved on to bigger places.

Despite studying "New Towns" in Geography in the 1970s what I didn't know until seeing it on a program recently was that in many of them the majority of the new build houses were council houses. However, back then there were strict criteria regarding income and employment to get one.

Saturday, December 5, 2015 09:44AM Report Comment
 

7. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

8. judgandury said...

OK, so after that I'd better contribute something.

"new build homes like rabbit hutches".

Not really true. The press have easy access to well indexed data sheets on the UK housing stock, so there is no excuse for this misleading article. I suppose the truth doesn't sell newspapers as well as a silly headline.

Here's the facts:

New houses are on average bigger than old houses. A snapshot picture from the 2012-13 English Housing Survey shows us that:

The long run average size of all UK homes is 92.3 m.

Whereas the average size of new houses build between 2002 and 2012 is 96 m.

For 2014, we have to switch to data from Energy Performance Certificates...

The average new build flat sold in 2014 was 65.5 m, compared to 59.4 m for second hand flats sold in 2014.

The average new build house sold in 2014 averaged 110.6 m, compared to 100.9 m for second hand houses sold in 2014.

The 'rabbit hutch' reputation comes from the 20 year period between 1981 and 2001 when new build homes only averaged a measly 82.7 m. Our houses are without doubt still too small but they are slowly getting bigger

Sunday, December 6, 2015 09:17AM Report Comment
 

9. mombers said...

@8 what about bedroom sizes? Would be interested to see data about individual rooms. Our flat was built in 1960 and is enormous compared to the new builds I've seen and especially to the flat conversions where a 'room' can be barely big enough for a single bed. We almost bought a conversion until we found out that the third bedroom would not be allowed to be occupied even by an under 10 year old if it was a council flat.

Monday, December 7, 2015 09:38AM Report Comment
 

10. Judgandury said...

I don't have access to numbers right now because I'm not at my desk but I can remember one statistic that might give a hint as to bedroom sizes: The average number of rooms in a UK dwelling has shrunk from 5.2 rooms to 4.8 rooms. It's a bit tenuous but it at least suggests that if houses have recently been getting bigger but with less rooms, then bedrooms have probably been getting a bit bigger.

I can also tell you that dwelling/bedroom sizes are quite era specific. For example in the inter-war period most council houses built had 3 bedrooms whereas in the post war period they proportionately built a lot more 2 bed units. The Parker Morris specified houses were actually quite stringy with a house 'for for four people" only having 72 square metres. Flats built in the 60s were often quite generously proportioned because the builders were suddenly enjoying the space efficiency of being able to go up 9 plus floors. It didnt stop people moaning that they preferred their old smaller t`q

Monday, December 7, 2015 11:18AM Report Comment
 

11. judgandury said...

I don't have access to numbers right now because I'm not at my desk but I can remember one statistic that might give a hint as to bedroom sizes: The average number of rooms in a UK dwelling has shrunk from 5.2 rooms to 4.8 rooms. It's a bit tenuous but it at least suggests that if houses have recently been getting bigger but with less rooms, then bedrooms have probably been getting a bit bigger.

I can also tell you that dwelling sizes are quite era specific. For example in the inter-war period most council houses built had 3 bedrooms whereas in the post war period they proportionately built a lot more 2 bed units. In the 70s and 80s many large houses were converted into flats which gave the impression that average sizes were falling more than they were in reality. The lauded Parker Morris specified houses were actually quite stringy with a house 'for four people" only having 72 square metres (that's from memory). Flats built in the 60s were often quite generously proportioned because the builders were suddenly enjoying the space efficiency of being able to go up 9 plus floors. It didn't stop people moaning that they preferred their old smaller terraced homes. With so many different era specific build types and occupancy trends, it's hard to get a clear picture but the overall average size increasing can only be a good thing. One of the most counter-intuitive things about new dwelling sizes is that houses up north are being built smaller than they are in the more land constrained south.

Monday, December 7, 2015 11:33AM Report Comment
 

12. pete green said...

I think Flashy has a point. The real issue is we have an affordability and allocation crisis. Which is why only a Land Value Tax will solve the issue to ensure mist people have adequate accommodation.

Monday, December 7, 2015 01:49PM Report Comment
 

13. judgandury said...

Sorry mombers, I was just about to post the exact data you wanted but any chance of an adult conversation has just ended. Remember what happens if you lie down with dogs.

Monday, December 7, 2015 02:42PM Report Comment
 

14. mombers said...

If we're paying the most expensive private rents and house prices in the world, we should have the biggest, most luxurious homes - to me that's what's wrong with the picture. This poor value would not be tolerated in any other industry.
I'd happily pay a landlord or home seller for the building, which they provide, and the community the land value, which they provide. Unfortunately, I had to fork over an astronomical amount of money to be near the tube, a park, a school, none of these things were provided by the person that I bought my flat from. As a very high earned income family, we get clobbered by tax to provide these things, and then clobbered again to buy access to them...

Monday, December 7, 2015 02:47PM Report Comment
 

15. mombers said...

@12 ?

Monday, December 7, 2015 03:28PM Report Comment
 

16. judgandury said...

"If we're paying the most expensive private rents and house prices in the world, we should have the biggest, most luxurious homes"

That is fantastically naive. I'm not alone in saying that I'd rather pay 1 million for a small house in Surrey than pay 500 K for a gigantic house in Nebraska. You keep getting these things wrong because you keep looking at everything through a millimetre wide economic prism. You are a clever chap so why do you stay so fanatical about something that keeps steering you wrong? Remember the rent/wages relationship you fanatically espoused here for years but didn't actually exist? Remember the LVT numbers your mate boasted about for years but got shown to be utter cobblers when he finally posted them? Do yourself a favour and move on from spamming the same old simplistic cobblers that keeps publicly tripping you up.



"This poor value would not be tolerated in any other industry"

Also very naive (and just plain incorrect). So called 'poor value' exists and is tolerated in almost all industries/markets. Is a designer pair of jeans really worth 4 times as much 501s? Is Messi really worth as much as 8 standard internationals? Is an exclusive moisturiser really worth 100 a pot. Is caviar worth 400 times as much as cod roe? Is Mayfair worth 40 times more than Plettenburg Bay? The list goes on forever. The answer is yes, if someone pays it, then it's worth it. The fact that 'poor value' is a perpetual fact of life in more than just your claimed housing market, is proof of three things. Firstly, you are not a good judge of value (so what makes you think you'd know how to tax it?). Secondly you don't really understand markets and the human behaviour that drives them and lastly there is arguably no such thing as poor value.

Monday, December 7, 2015 05:56PM Report Comment
 

17. pete green said...

Flashy what's all that got to do with LVT. Are you talking about Wadsworth numbers that you never proved wrong but kept referring to as wrong without ever refuting them?

Monday, December 7, 2015 10:09PM Report Comment
 

18. judgandury said...

"what's all that got to do with LVT. Are you talking about Wadsworth numbers that you never proved wrong but kept referring to as wrong without ever refuting them?"

Quite. There is no way you'd have understood a word of this or that discussion.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 07:25AM Report Comment
 

19. cornishman said...

judgandury, you make some good points (especially concerning a major flaw in my logic earlier). It's a shame you can't make them more courteously.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 08:00AM Report Comment
 

20. judgandury said...

courteously? You've got some front after the stunt you pulled last year. You know the one where you asked for my help to build a house and then admitted that you had only done it to check that I wasn't a Labour party official or some such. As I recall you then said that you already owned more than one house and were about to sail around the world on your yacht. 'kin lunatic.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 08:30AM Report Comment
 

21. mombers said...

@15 Wow, that's quite a lot of ad hominem there - let's keep it civil, eh?

A few articles ago you listed what you thought determined rents and none of them were to do with what the landlord does. I guess where we diverge after that is I believe that making lots of money from something that you don't create is inefficient and morally unfair. If taxes on what people do create themselves were low, it wouldn't be so bad, but businesses and employees face confiscatory rates at most levels of income. As a housing charity volunteer, I'm surprised at how complacent you seem to be with the status quo. Do you really think that it is an acceptable thing for the UK to have the highest private rents per square metre in the world?

Not sure what your point about Nebraska and Surrey is. There are willing buyers and sellers at the price points you described. The differences can largely be ascribed to the locations - build and maintenance costs do not vary that much, certainly not enough to explain the huge difference. I can look this up if you really want me to.

Designer jeans are a poor example to compare to housing in my opinion. Nobody has to buy designer jeans, or even jeans at all. The market in clothing is very competitive and there are many options for people to choose from at prices that are cost plus a normal profit, a healthy sign of a competitive, efficient, free market. This is simply not the case with housing. Council housing is the closest we get, but the supply is limited and shrinking, and it is not efficient for one section of the population to pay vastly different sums for the same home.

Messi - the football market is also very competitive and the best talent generally ends up in the best teams - you don't get overweight, slow players in the best paid positions, same with players with good natural talent but who don't train hard, i.e. keep creating value. Again, nobody has to pay for football - you can opt out almost entirely. I don't watch and by and large do not pay.

Re my being a poor judge of value, I'm not a surveyor but luckily there's a trove of data for professionals to analyse and come up with estimates good enough for the Daily Mail to use when reporting on just about any story - 'Binge drinking toddler stole wheelie bin from 1.35m home in Surrey' (h/t Mock the Week). This data generally serves us well in commercial property via Business Rates and in the mortgage market where banks can make good estimates on how much they can flog a home for if they have to reposes and hence how much of a mortgage they will give and at what rate.

To clarify my point, it is not that the overall value of very expensive homes is bad, it's the value attributed to the landlord or and home seller is. But we will never agree on who the location value should accrue to. If this was not clear, my sincere apologies.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 09:11AM Report Comment
 

22. judgandury said...

"Wow, that's quite a lot of ad hominem there - let's keep it civil, eh?"

I'll take that seriously when you stop conveniently turning a blind eye to the constant poor behaviour of your mates. Poor behaviour seems to be just fine to you when one of the lunatics agrees with you. One of them got banned for persistent bad behaviour and the other one has been banned several times under various names. Hypocrite. I've never been banned and unlike your pals I voluntarily changed my name when i got bored of it. The other week you pompously told me to go and read up on a topic before the penny very slowly dropped that you had been spamming a load of nonsense on the subject for several years. Take the splinter out and all that.

I shouldn't be amazed by how spectacularly you've missed almost every point above and it is hard to remain patient. We've been here before where I've had to spend a few hours explaining something to you whilst being heckled by your simple mates. To your credit you eventually get things but I will admit to being frustrated by how long it takes. I'm going downstairs to get a coffee but when I get back I'll tell you a few home truths about the nature of your constant data/evidence free spamming.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 11:13AM Report Comment
 

23. pete green said...

Flashy we are still awaiting your promised thoughts on why Land Value Tax would not work, which you suggested would involve capital flows.

I am still waiting,

Your refutation of Mark Wadsworth calculations, which you never did

I am still waiting

Perhaps I understand what you say well enough, and have learned much. But your disgust at Land Value Tax is just that and without any logic or calculation and you have not come up with any meaningful refutation of the issues of land monopoly.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 11:33AM Report Comment
 

24. p. doff said...

@13 ''I had to fork over an astronomical amount of money to be near the tube, a park, a school, none of these things were provided by the person that I bought my flat from''.

...and no doubt you will expect those same amenities (that you did not provide) to justify an astronomical amount when you eventually come to sell it.

Isn't that how it works? Location, location, location and all that!

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:01PM Report Comment
 

25. mombers said...

@21 can't wait! Enjoy your coffee, hope it refreshes your patience.

I think I'm pretty even handed at responding to ad hominem attacks directed at me, I'll leave it to you to defend yourself though, in your usual tone which I personally do not find very nice.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:32PM Report Comment
 

26. mombers said...

@23 it is my dream that LVT is brought in and the capitalised value of my land is vastly reduced. I have a very high income so what I lose on that I will gain in spades by being able to keep more of my private property and by not having to pay for a welfare state for all the unemployed and underemployment that taxes on capital and labour create.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 12:35PM Report Comment
 

27. p. doff said...

@25 Isn't that just a tad selfish. Many of us retired 'boomers' no longer have a high income and would lose out in spades having invested a lifetimes earnings and effort to achieve our goal of living rent free in a generously proportioned residence in a highly desirable area.

Are you one of Wadsworth's 'tax the old widows out of their mansions' brigade?

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 01:21PM Report Comment
 

28. judgandury said...

mombers, my best guess is that you are a decent enough bloke with intelligence but oh boy are you gullible. You have spent years repeating someone else's lines almost verbatim (the amazingly identical source is all available on the search function) without once thinking to check on their veracity. A good example is the so called rent/wages relationship you parroted here for years. How is it possible for someone to devote themselves to repeating someone else's spiel for years without once checking Google to see if it were true? It would only have taken you 2 minutes. Gullibility is the only explanation I can think of. Another example is above, where you parroted more of the stuff you've been spamming here for years. It took all of 30 seconds to dismantle it (did you really not understand or was your response just diversionary?), so how did you not work out that it wasn't true over the course of several years? Again it must be some sort of unquestioning gullibility where you don't bother to think or question what you've been told. It should have been obvious to you that the source of your misinformation is an absolute charlatan but I guess you couldn't see what was in front of your nose. Lets look at what we are dealing with. I first noticed him when he used to regularly boast about how much money he'd made out of btl and how he'd go back to it when prices fell. You've conveniently forgotten that inappropriate crassness? Honestly think it says nothing about him? He also used to lie about having no interest in politics. This comes from someone who stood for election as an MP and then founded his own political party. If that breathtaking lie didn't alert you to the presence of a charlatan, then nothing will. Take a look at the thread below. everything I've said so far is all there.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/2010/10/blog-grant-shapps-property-profits-30698.php

Going back to the standing for election thing. He was a prospective UKIP MP for goodness sake. OK, so I'm probably showing some political bias but surely anyone could see that roughly half of its' supporters are NF in disguise, as was shown during the last GE. I'm certainly not saying that he's NF but everyone knew the nature of the beast, so why be a part of something like that? We all know what UKIP think is a solution to a too high population, so you'll have to excuse me for taking note of the official presence of UKIP on a housing blog. Talking about ultra right wing credentials, have you forgotten that he spent two years here ranting on about sacking 1 million public sector workers? Do you think that's normal or rational? Do you think that those typically ultra right wing views signify nothing? Anyway, that's the sort of person you've chosen to parrot, so forgive me for not feeling particularly courteous.

The above should have made anyone suspicious about the veracity what was being claimed here about LVT. As I've said many times, I've got nothing in particular against it but the small crew of spammers here are completely clueless on the subject. It's ridiculous to talk about some centuries old theory without putting it into a modern context and therefore understanding its' limitations. It was devised in a very different world of agricultural Baldricks and landowners. It never envisioned today's technology or the ease with which capital, giant service industry companies and manufacturers can decamp to another country. When Honda set up their European manufacturing here, they did so in bunch of cheap soggy fields around Swindon. They spent countless billions on turning those fields into a world class manufacturing unit. If some clown came at them spouting 18th century economics effectively telling them that they didn't create the value, theyd decamp to another country in Europe. It wouldn't even cost them much because one of our delighted competitors would write them a blank check. It would be a shame because god knows how many years of campaigning and inducements it took to get them here. If some clown said to a business that they still have to pay full LVT tax despite making a loss or being in an investment cycle, they'd immediately look at the feasibility of decamping.

Its exactly the same with our giant service industries and several other manufacturers like Nissan. Now we've always been told here by our merry crew of cut and pasters that the main LVT targets are immovable, so they couldn't get away from the tax. They say that because someone with Squires and haystacks on his brain, said it the 1800s. Well Baldrick is gone and things are very different now. Trillions of pounds of capital can be moved away at the click of a mouse and nearly all of our biggest companies and manufacturers could and would naff off at the first hint of a loony government (that's for sure how theyd perceive it).

The only people whod still be trapped is the original target, a bunch of farting old toffs on their estates. Unfortunately most of them cant pay for a pot of Farrow and Ball without having to put some Zebras on the grounds, so you would not get enough revenue from them to fund the Basingstoke Civic centre. Ditto farmers many of whom need EU subsidies to stay in business.

Some of you will remember the LVT numbers I eventually cajoled out. I only had to gently point out the most obvious howlers before several posters typed out their incredulity with no come back (except for the usual diversionary abuse). These silly numbers also came with a pixie dust promise that everyone would be better off. However with probing it was admitted that the big service industries and manufacturers would have to pay more. This would have to be true because at present personal income tax returns dwarf corporation tax returns and we were assured that most individuals would pay less tax overall even with LVT on their property.

So there we have it, an 1800s idea from a time before globalisation, international mobility, computers and fibre optics etc. Many of the main tax targets could and would leave, end off. Still lets just ignore that practicality and spam on.

Just to be clear, I've nothing against the idea as long as it's put into context and properly understood. Unfortunately, as we've seen over the last few weeks, our merry bunch of cut and pasters are clueless on the subject.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 01:29PM Report Comment
 

29. judgandury said...

"@25 Isn't that just a tad selfish."

Oh yes .. but I don't think he can see it. He regularly talks about his 'very high earnings' and then in the next breath talks about a tax system where he thinks he'd have to pay less.

"Are you one of Wadsworth's 'tax the old widows out of their mansions' brigade?"

Yes, with bells on. He's even got the same script.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 01:57PM Report Comment
 

30. judgandury said...

Oh and by the way there can be no certainty that wadsworth is actually banned. Shortly after his numbers fiasco, he went absolutely bonkers and a load of his posts had to be deleted. He then claimed (so I'm told) to have been permanently banned by me because I owned this site. Now, I knew for sure that this was a lie because I don't actually own this site. Despite claiming to be 'permanently banned', he then popped up again a few weeks later, again talking about how I owned this site and also raving about some sort of public sector dependant company I owned. I'd never heard of this company but I did take note of his expressed disgust at the though of some sort of public sector company (just to show that despite his latest hobby subject, the public sector hatred remained). There's nowt so cantsaythewordanymore as folk.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 03:01PM Report Comment
 

31. mombers said...

All I can say is that you do appear to have a lot of baggage with MW and it's hard not to see it coming through all of your posts.

We have a housing crisis in this country, very few people would disagree with this. It's one of the worst housing crises in the world and requires radical solutions. I simply don't see any of your proposed solutions making much of a dent in the problem.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 05:03PM Report Comment
 

32. judgandury said...

"all I can say is blah blah" "a lot of baggage with MW blah blah"

The usual diversionary nonsense. When are you going to realise that you are diverting no one. Hundreds of people can still read everything above no matter how loudly you hum or how many fingers you have in your ears. As usual it's anything but face up to the inconvenient truth about your puppet master or the fact that you've spent years parroting and spamming a subject you demonstrably didn't understand. Heaven forbid you try to understand or even acknowledge the clear explanations given of the fatal flaws in your spiel or the criticism of your nastier ideas from other posters. Although on reflection, from what I've seen recently, I doubt you're capable or understanding them. I suppose we should be grateful that you didn't squeal 'ad hominem' which is what you lot normally do when your ridiculous comments and silly arguments have been busted and you've run out of your own torrent of ad hominem abuse.

I've just come across a very recent post of yours where you lied that mw got banned 'because he asked too many questions of flashman'. Very creepy. So what are you, dishonest in your own right or just a mindless parrot? Either way, you need to grow up and start thinking for yourself.

"I simply don't see any of your proposed solutions making much of a dent in the problem"

Yeah because building a lot more houses could never solve a shortage. You've earned a special Coco the Clown award for that one.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 07:05PM Report Comment
 

33. mombers said...

Just for the record, did you used to post under flashman?

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 08:09PM Report Comment
 

34. judgandury said...

You have the cheek to ask me a question after I've just caught you lying?

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 08:19PM Report Comment
 

35. pete green said...

Flashy you really have not addressed the LVT refutation or identified the errors in Mr Wadsworth's calculations. What you also need to take on board is your poor behaviour with threats to posters on this site and your a little disingenuous and probablly economic with the truth yourself. All very worrying.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 09:11PM Report Comment
 

36. judgandury said...

QED. Find someone very patient to explain what's been written above. They deserve a medal if they succeed.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 09:34PM Report Comment
 

37. mombers said...

Sorry for lying jaj. Don't worry about answering, let's get back onto a calmer discussion. How does your building plan work? Presumably you have a target - build x per year until y happens. Is it an affordability measure like price to income? Do you target absolute falls or aim for zero increases and then allow incomes to catch up? What happens if you simply can't build enough in any one year? I'm open to all suggestions.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 09:41PM Report Comment
 

38. judgandury said...

Apology accepted. You asked me earlier what I meant by if you lie down with dogs Well, you've just had to pick one off.

I find your request for me to put some meat on the bones of my plan a little mystifying. For several years, I've supplied a constant stream of hard data and analysis to this blog. I dont think too many would argue when I say that I've probably supplied far more than anyone else here. One of the things I find irksome about some of your LVT intrusions is that they invariably contain absolutely no data or evidence. In my time I have been a paid analyst, so I dont expect the same level of data supply or analysis from others but some would be nice. Compare and contrast my post @8 to any of yours here. I cant see a single piece of evidence or data. Nothing has been analysed or quantified. Your mates entry @11 is very typical. Not only is it illiterate and disjointed, it as per usual, provides no data or evidence . Absolutely nothing is analysed or quantified. Come to think of it I'm fairly certain that he has never provided a single data point to this blog. So (especially in light of your subsequent rent/wages crash and burn) please don't confront me with anything that looks like your go and read up comment. I read up on and understood this stuff decades before youd even heard of it.

I've posted details of 'my' plan several times before and I will do so again on a more suitable post. Have you forgotten that only a week or so ago I gave you details (on request) of what we consider to be the major planning obstacles and specifically what needs to be done about them? 'My' plan is actually lifted wholesale from the plan proposed by a housing charity I volunteer for. I only played a minuscule part in it but I'm nevertheless proud of it. I've done countless hours of menial, mind-blowingly dull data sifting for them and driven more than 20,000 miles visiting local authorities, so I think I am probably more qualified than most here to talk about the housing situation. Several years ago, I was met with enormous resistance on this site (especially from you lot) when I first started to alert people to the growing housing shortage/population growth but it's very different now. The so called plan has been almost completely agreed upon by all the political parties and housing research units, so they just have to do something about it now. You'll have seen that the government have just committed to paying builders 7 billion to build houses? That's one of the first signs that something concrete is finally being done. The Planning Inspectorate has also just been given instructions to let more appeals through (even the councils don't know that yet) and of course the Housing and Planning Bill 2015/16 is being rushed through right now. The Bill contains several elements from 'the plan'.

My irritation with LVT (but I have to stress only as put forward here) is that it is such a waste of time and energy. The obvious impracticality I highlighted above renders the discussion pointless. If the bulk of the main tax target can and would decamp (a possibility entirely unforeseen in the 1800s), then all you are left with is an inadequate tax base and huge unemployment. If the big corporations would tell you to do one when confronted with a tax that makes no allowances for losses or investment cycles, then why even talk about it? In an ideal world the large international corporations that are head-quartered here would all stay and pay more tax but the reality is that there is no way on god's earth that they would. The government has whole departments devoted to the struggle to keep them here as it is. They'd fall straight into the arms of a delighted competitor country who'd be offering them billions along with all the firstborns they desired. So you are left with two choices. You could water it all down (which defeats the purpose of a single tax concept) or you could instead place the bulk of the tax burden on many of the people you originally promised to relieve. Or I suppose you could pretend that the non-negotiable practicalities don't exist.

Why not put your energy into something practical instead? I volunteer about 4 hours a week doing research although I admit that some of it is so boring that I wish I was handing out sandwiches instead. If you are genuinely interested in the housing problem, then why not volunteer? Mungo and Crisis are actively recruiting volunteers. I think you'd get a new perspective on where to expend your energy if you saw the severity of the problem first hand.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 07:45AM Report Comment
 

39. hpwatcher said...

For several years, I've supplied a constant stream of hard data and analysis to this blog.

Clearly under a different name - as no user called judgandury has posted much previously....

So, I guess it's welcome back Flashy!

You know this great recovery you were *always* going on about.....where is it?

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 09:49AM Report Comment
 

40. judgandury said...

"clearly under a different name"

As I've already made clear. Got bored of the old one, asked for a new one.

"You know this great recovery you were *always* going on about.....where is it?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12029843/Fed-chairman-Janet-Yellen-sets-the-stage-for-US-rate-rise.html

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:00AM Report Comment
 

41. judgandury said...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/21/uk-income-tax-receipts-surplus-july

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:07AM Report Comment
 

42. judgandury said...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/duncan-smith-record-employment-rate-shows-we-were-right-to-reform

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:10AM Report Comment
 

43. hpwatcher said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12029843/Fed-chairman-Janet-Yellen-sets-the-stage-for-US-rate-rise.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/duncan-smith-record-employment-rate-shows-we-were-right-to-reform

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

Seriously, is that the best you can do? You have just proved my argument - thank you.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:49AM Report Comment
 

44. p. doff said...

@ 39. judgandury said...
"clearly under a different name"
As I've already made clear. Got bored of the old one, asked for a new one.

But you did take a bit of 'outing' there J&J ...after some initial diversionary tactics and bluster :-

As I've already made clear. Got bored of the old one, asked for a new one.
Looked up this flashman on the search bar and well I never. It turns out that reticent is actually flashman and a load more and pete green was outed by housepricewatcher and others for being the same as a bunch of banned people. Just like you he shouts straw at people in every old post while getting banned for stawing for England. Also looks to me from old posts like pete green or should i say sparticus has a total bunny boiler obsession with flashman. He's like a crying teenage girl with his flashman this and flashman that in almost every post. I hate him I hate him I lurv him. One of the clowns calls me flashman then the other steps in to defend flashman because he is flashman! Imagine how horrible it is in these jokers heads.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015 06:05AM

I'm not complaining, mind; I don't take blog sites too seriously but often find this one rather amusing. I rather like your posts.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 11:51AM Report Comment
 

45. judgandury said...

hpw, you should have said that you didn't actually want any proof. Silly me for thinking that record tax receipts meant that we weren't in a recession

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 11:58AM Report Comment
 

46. judgandury said...

p.doff

"but you did take a bit of 'outing' there"

You surely didn't expect me to not have a bit of fun with it first? The punters drop off sharply without a bit of fun. I'm still amazed by how many people are prepared to play the stooge though. Never forget their part in the entertainment. I abruptly switched back to flashmanesque half way through a thread weeks ago and openly said it was a new name. Weeks later, I still get the odd ah ha from one of our champion detectives.

"I rather like your posts"

Thanks. Likewise.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 12:12PM Report Comment
 

47. mombers said...

@37 I look forward to hearing the details of your proposals - specific targets (prices and rents) and time lines especially. What would the housing market look like in 15 years time when my kids start looking to move out? And no doubt you and others have done a lot of research into the political difficulties of trying to control prices and overcoming resistance to building - what's the roadmap to getting buy in from politicians?

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 12:57PM Report Comment
 

48. judgandury said...

I can give you most of that from memory. But you'd have to assure me first that whatever thread its on wont get spammed. Information is never really free.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 01:30PM Report Comment
 

49. hpwatcher said...

hpw, you should have said that you didn't actually want any proof. Silly me for thinking that record tax receipts meant that we weren't in a recession

You honestly call that proof?

The ''will they'' / ''won't they'' rubbish from the Fed...and we have already been through the nonsense in the UK which is being touted as a ''recovery'' but is really debt expansion. You live in a fools paradise if you want to, but some of us want to live in the real world.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 07:40PM Report Comment
 

50. judgandury said...

Oh dear, oh dear. I've just been sent a hilarious link to a site where the especially crazy LVTer reports that I said this:

"....Honda who only set up factories, according to flashy, to get some of the uplift in land value"

I can't pretend to be too surprised because it's been well documented that the poor bloke doesn't understand a word of what's been written (also see Fergus Wilson post) but his take on what I said in my posts above about LVT, couldn't be more half-wittedly incorrect if it was written by a lobotomised chimp. Or is he just brazenly lying because as we've seen above, they do that a lot? Either way it's all a bit desperate. I guess the loss of their beloved rent/wages relationship and their inability to answer my points above must have been some sort of tipping point.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 08:21PM Report Comment
 

51. judgandury said...

hpw, it's all a bit old now. Fair play to you though being the only one left in the 2008 re-enactment club. The others all gave up and bought a house.

I can't find an example in history of a recession coexisting with record tax receipts.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 08:28PM Report Comment
 

52. icarus said...

hpw - you and flashy may both be right - a recovery that's precarious because it's dangerously debt-fuelled.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 09:14PM Report Comment
 

53. hpwatcher said...

Fair play to you though being the only one left in the 2008 re-enactment club.

What happens next is going to be far worse. I don't need to convince anyone, it's never been more obvious.

hpw - you and flashy may both be right - a recovery that's precarious because it's dangerously debt-fuelled.

It's already going badly wrong - it's just that CB's are working in unison to swallow massive losses, to keep the myth of a recovery alive. I expect the Fed will back off once again this month from raising rates, although a mix of both IR rises and QE - targeting different types of lending - seems to be the most likely outcome.
Clearly the US is economically crippled; so it's all just a confidence game now. The true state of the economy will become all-too-clear in quite soon.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:41PM Report Comment
 

54. judgandury said...

hpw, you are misdirecting your anger. I am not personally responsible for the demise of your gold, hyperinflation and depression forecasts. Why don't you start a post on the economy and see if anyone will talk to you about it?

Thursday, December 10, 2015 07:12AM Report Comment
 

55. judgandury said...

@51 "you and flashy"

Now look here East, will you stop calling me flashy. I retired my Cherry Pickers when they were ripped to shreds by the insatiable Queen Ranavalona

Thursday, December 10, 2015 07:24AM Report Comment
 

56. hpwatcher said...

hpw, you are misdirecting your anger. I am not personally responsible for the demise of your gold, hyperinflation and depression forecasts. Why don't you start a post on the economy and see if anyone will talk to you about it?

Nice try, but the fact is that the world is going into a deep depression, including China. How much of a big loss did you make on your Asian investments? Did you get killed?

Sadly, for you, I sold most of my PM's in 2012, did pretty well actually. Since then, I have been slowly buying back in, coins only.

Thursday, December 10, 2015 09:29AM Report Comment
 

57. hpwatcher said...

@51 "you and flashy"

Flashman, Uncle Tom, judgandury

Do you change names frequently because you are so unpopular?

Thursday, December 10, 2015 09:32AM Report Comment
 

58. judgandury said...

Uncle Tom?

Only unpopular with sore losers

Thursday, December 10, 2015 09:47AM Report Comment
 

59. icarus said...

@54 - in future you should steer well clear of the likes of her and stick with dear old Elspeth. I mean Flashy should.....

Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:48AM Report Comment
 

60. mombers said...

@47 I'm sorry I can't agree to any terms before you tell me your grand plan. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to put it up for discussion, maybe you'd just prefer to troll LVT enthusiasts. You deceptively change your posting name, and have declared your self the unanimous winner of the whole LVT sinking Honda debater - sort of like a 'judge and jury' on the matter. I'm afraid your credibility is shot as far as I'm concerned and there's not really much point in going on. A pity because I think a lot of your ideas are interesting.

Thursday, December 10, 2015 01:37PM Report Comment
 

61. judgandury said...

"I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to put it up for discussion"

I've been doing that for years and given out countless amounts of data and planning information/procedure/news/law in the process. You on the other hand got caught out talking years of nonsense about the rent/wages relationship, had to apologise for lying, offer no data and have no answer whatsoever to the LVT points I made above. You can try to divert attention all you want but its all there in black and white. The truth is that I actually tried to leave you with your dignity intact. I've had all the data on the rent/wages relationship to hand for years but I had no interest in embarrassing you. You spoiled all that when you told me 'to read up on it', so don't blame me for the egg on your face.

Thursday, December 10, 2015 01:55PM Report Comment
 

62. mombers said...

OK jaj, just provide me with three figures:
*What level you want to push prices and/or rents down to
*How many homes need to be built every year to achieve this
*How long it will take
Politically, I suspect that a mass house building program is going to be very difficult to get going, and will take generations to bring us back to a situation where someone on a median salary without parental assistance can realistically get a secure home of any tenure. It is incredibly frustrating and the human misery it is causing is heartbreaking.

Thursday, December 10, 2015 02:04PM Report Comment
 

63. judgandury said...

Why am I reluctant? Because I suspect that you are not genuinely curious. You have never commented on the copious data I have put out before and in various forms I have answered your questions before

Friday, December 11, 2015 09:35AM Report Comment
 

64. mombers said...

*Sigh* I guess I'll just never get answers to the above. Or maybe I should just read every single comment of yours over the last few years and see if I can find them? Please, pretty please do me a favour and just answer the three questions

Friday, December 11, 2015 10:02AM Report Comment
 

65. judgandury said...

Posted on other thread.

Friday, December 11, 2015 02:09PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies