Nimrod103 wrote:Please can people be more careful with quotes. I did not make the quoted statement.
I apologise for that. I did not intend to imply that you did.
Thanks to gvonge,Shelford,GrahamPlatt,gpadsa,Steffers0, for Donating to support the site
Nimrod103 wrote:Please can people be more careful with quotes. I did not make the quoted statement.
anon155742 wrote:I quoted white British, not white, so the 10 million includes millions of white skinned migrants who would be considered the same race as myself.
The point was in relation to the upward pressure on house prices and increased demand brough about by inward migration.
If you want it from another angle, the foreign born population is estimated at 9,539,000
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/populationoftheunitedkingdombycountryofbirthandnationality
An increase of 10 million requires a lot of housing.
funduffer wrote:Net migration is just one factor in housing demand, and I am more inclined to believe the affordability of cheap credit is the main driver for house price inflation, rather than increased demand due higher net migration, although this will be a factor.
Lanark wrote:funduffer wrote:Net migration is just one factor in housing demand, and I am more inclined to believe the affordability of cheap credit is the main driver for house price inflation, rather than increased demand due higher net migration, although this will be a factor.
^^^^ THIS
House prices fell in 2008-2010, that wasnt because millions of people suddenly left the country overnight. In fact in 2009 Net migration to the UK rose to 196,000.
servodude wrote:Lanark wrote:funduffer wrote:Net migration is just one factor in housing demand, and I am more inclined to believe the affordability of cheap credit is the main driver for house price inflation, rather than increased demand due higher net migration, although this will be a factor.
^^^^ THIS
House prices fell in 2008-2010, that wasnt because millions of people suddenly left the country overnight. In fact in 2009 Net migration to the UK rose to 196,000.
That makes so much sense, and seems so patently obvious, that I suspect it will be ignored completely because it doesn't fit the narrative of housing supply and affordability being an acceptible justification to espouse odious misanthropy
Lanark wrote:funduffer wrote:Net migration is just one factor in housing demand, and I am more inclined to believe the affordability of cheap credit is the main driver for house price inflation, rather than increased demand due higher net migration, although this will be a factor.
^^^^ THIS
House prices fell in 2008-2010, that wasnt because millions of people suddenly left the country overnight. In fact in 2009 Net migration to the UK rose to 196,000.
Nimrod103 wrote:Lanark wrote:funduffer wrote:Net migration is just one factor in housing demand, and I am more inclined to believe the affordability of cheap credit is the main driver for house price inflation, rather than increased demand due higher net migration, although this will be a factor.
^^^^ THIS
House prices fell in 2008-2010, that wasnt because millions of people suddenly left the country overnight. In fact in 2009 Net migration to the UK rose to 196,000.
Surely if house prices were responding mainly to the supply of cheap credit, they should have moved by the same amount across the whole country. This has clearly not been the case (https://www.cityam.com/what-175-years-o ... in-the-uk/ - see the section headed 'Regional variations in affordability' with the graph).
All regions took a major ramp up during the years of Brown's lax monetary policy 2000-2006. However, the graph clearly shows that in London and the SE (generally believed to be an area of immigrant concentration) prices have diverged strongly upwards relative to local salaries since the mid 1990s, while Scotland (generally believed to be an area of population stagnation) has flatlined since the financial crash.
It would be interesting to see the same graph extended to end of 2021.
Nimrod103 wrote:Surely if house prices were responding mainly to the supply of cheap credit, they should have moved by the same amount across the whole country. This has clearly not been the case (https://www.cityam.com/what-175-years-o ... in-the-uk/ - see the section headed 'Regional variations in affordability' with the graph).
Avantegarde wrote:A big supply of cheap council housing (several million new homes) would take all the steam out of the private rental market and that would flow into far fewer people being more or less forced to buy a home.
Lootman wrote:Avantegarde wrote:A big supply of cheap council housing (several million new homes) would take all the steam out of the private rental market and that would flow into far fewer people being more or less forced to buy a home.
But those millions of new council homes would not be "cheap". They would be as expensive to build as market-rate new homes. So they would only be "cheap" if they were subsidised.
Which leads to the question: Who is paying that subsidy?
You are basically arguing to go back to the policies we had and rejected over 40 years ago.
Lanark wrote:Lootman wrote:Avantegarde wrote:A big supply of cheap council housing (several million new homes) would take all the steam out of the private rental market and that would flow into far fewer people being more or less forced to buy a home.
But those millions of new council homes would not be "cheap". They would be as expensive to build as market-rate new homes. So they would only be "cheap" if they were subsidised.
Which leads to the question: Who is paying that subsidy?
You are basically arguing to go back to the policies we had and rejected over 40 years ago.
90% of the cost of new housing is getting the land with planning permission, that's something the government has full control of.
scrumpyjack wrote:The government has been a huge influence in causing house prices to rise (Help to buy, high % mortgages, low interest rates etc plus increasing population via immigration), and is terrified of anything that causes a drop in house prices because of fears of problems in the banking system, negative equity etc etc. Also a lot of tax is raised as a result of high house prices (stamp duty, IHT etc). So no government is going to do anything that causes house prices to collapse.
Lootman wrote:Avantegarde wrote:A big supply of cheap council housing (several million new homes) would take all the steam out of the private rental market and that would flow into far fewer people being more or less forced to buy a home.
But those millions of new council homes would not be "cheap". They would be as expensive to build as market-rate new homes. So they would only be "cheap" if they were subsidised.
Which leads to the question: Who is paying that subsidy?
You are basically arguing to go back to the policies we had and rejected over 40 years ago.
Lanark wrote:Lootman wrote:Avantegarde wrote:A big supply of cheap council housing (several million new homes) would take all the steam out of the private rental market and that would flow into far fewer people being more or less forced to buy a home.
But those millions of new council homes would not be "cheap". They would be as expensive to build as market-rate new homes. So they would only be "cheap" if they were subsidised.
Which leads to the question: Who is paying that subsidy?
You are basically arguing to go back to the policies we had and rejected over 40 years ago.
90% of the cost of new housing is getting the land with planning permission, that's something the government has full control of.
Right now there are lot of NIMBY interests which will vote against new building, but if current trends continue then by 2040 the majority of households will be renting so the votes may go the other way.
Lanark wrote:90% of the cost of new housing is getting the land with planning permission, that's something the government has full control of.
Right now there are lot of NIMBY interests which will vote against new building, but if current trends continue then by 2040 the majority of households will be renting so the votes may go the other way.
dealtn wrote:Lanark wrote:90% of the cost of new housing is getting the land with planning permission, that's something the government has full control of.
Right now there are lot of NIMBY interests which will vote against new building, but if current trends continue then by 2040 the majority of households will be renting so the votes may go the other way.
You think the materials, labour etc on a new house for sale at say £300k is about £30k?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests