So if cheap houses are so good for the economy....

chucknorris

chucky wrote: »

Don't go down to his level. He's looking to disrupt the thread from Hamish's points. This way the valid point is hidden in his muddling. It's his standard routine.

He's seething isn't he, to be honest watching a movie with my wife and dog (OK he might not be able to follow the plot but he wags his tail when I ask him about it) is my next priority tonight. So I bid you goodnight chucky, and you too graham although I suspect that you will be typing angrily for some time yet.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you have a regional economy based largely on unionised industries and mining, then elect some right-wing nutcase hell bent on destroying unionised industries and mining, then when you finally get rid of her put nothing in their place other than a few call centres, it can't come as much of a surprise when those regions fail to do well.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

If you have a regional economy based largely on unionised industries and mining, permanently on strike, hell bent on destroying these industries, then when you finally get rid of the unions, nothing will go in their place other than a few call centres, it can't come as much of a surprise when those regions fail to do well.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's one of the most ridiculous, serious posts I've yet seen on these boards.

Those on strike were not hell bent on destroying the industries, but I would assume you would rather they worked purely to throw some crumbs to their children in place of a normal meal at tea time. Afterall, they couldn't afford much more, hence why going on strike.

Feel free to thank me with your "Complete Nonsense" username, which is rather amusing, but rather worrying that you are spending so much time doing this sort of stuff.

Phew!

I went downstairs for a couple of large gin & tonics. Watched a bit of TV. Had dinner. Came back up here, and what do I find?

Tantrums!

Hundreds of toys thrown out of the pram!

Accused of doing "serious" posts!

Oh dear. What nerve have I touched now?

Calm down, dear.

boltneck123

Graham_Devon, from reading this thread, I can understand why you think some of the posters think they are better than other people and look down on others.

However, I did see the humorous side to this

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

If you have a regional economy based largely on unionised industries and mining, permanently on strike, hell bent on destroying these industries, then when you finally get rid of the unions, nothing will go in their place other than a few call centres, it can't come as much of a surprise when those regions fail to do well.

I am from the East Midlands, those from the South may categorise me as Northern, and those from the North may categorise me as Southern. I don't really care, I am just from the UK.

It makes me laugh that people are squabbling, calling the North stupid and the South selfish - when yet, we have a prime-minister (Political allegiances aside for just one moment people) that is trying his absolute best to pull the North and the South together to strengthen our economy. You all seem to be seemingly intelligent people so I can assume that you are aware of this. If you don't believe this then fair enough.

You all claim to all be members of a Debate forum, discussing topical issues, such as politics and the economy, yet you bicker and argue like dare I say, children. What is even more ludicrous, is I am probably amongst some of the youngest posters.

Now, HAMISH_MCTAVISH, back to you thread topic (I am going to ignore the Detroit bit, since that is not in the UK)

why are ministers being urged to "abandon Northern cities" which have some of the cheapest land and house prices in the UK?

Surely the North of England should be booming by now?

---

Well I do not know why it isn't booming, the cost to buy a house in the Midlands I know, is much cheaper than in London and the other Southern areas of the UK. Further North seems to be even cheaper, I have taken a casual look on the Internet.

I for one will be looking for every opportunity to buy more property in the Midlands and further North on the cheap, land is land and they are not making anymore. (unless you count land reclaiming, I think the Japanese have done it, do it).

I am by no means a historian, but as the old saying goes, history repeats itself (well it is not the exact saying, but it has a tendency to repeat), I have faith for the north. The mines have gone, and a huge amount of manufacturing all but disappeared. We will find something else to make, we stopped using water wheels and moved to steam, then electricity. The North does not make no where near as much textiles as it used to, but there will be something else come along. Maybe high-tech manufacturing or more service industry.

Perhaps if the Scottish go independent then they might start holidaying here, since we are the closest sunny place to them :P and we can gain from more tourism in the North.

Loughton_Monkey

chucky wrote: »

Oh dear...

Angry much...

chucknorris wrote: »

He's seething isn't he, to be honest watching a movie with my wife and dog (OK he might not be able to follow the plot but he wags his tail when I ask him about it) is my next priority tonight. So I bid you goodnight chucky, and you too graham although I suspect that you will be typing angrily for some time yet.

Now look here boys. I think you might be winding the boy up a tad. You wouldn't catch me doing that sort of thing. We need to show a bit of respect, especially for those people who feel the need to raid the bins for food to put on their tables.

Some would call this

Graham_Devon wrote: »

hypocrisy

Others would more correctly call it irony.

I think Hamish's rather perceptive post has rather fooled some people, who should (if they disagreed) be able to put forward some rational argument. But none is forthcoming. Firing a broadside at everyone else is, for some, the only way they can react.

Loughton_Monkey

boltneck123 wrote: »

However, I did see the humorous side to this.

Many thanks. Please award yourself a biscuit.

I have in mind my late mother-in-law who was very pleasant and well meaning in many ways. Whenever round her house at a time when "Minder" was on [one of my favourite programs], my wife and I encouraged her to watch it and get to enjoy the cleverness of it.

However, it always ended up with her refusing to watch it for any length of time, for the simple reason that "that Arthur Daley was a nasty person. Didn't treat his minder very well". The brilliant writers of that excellent series would be turning in their graves.

Woooooooooooooooooooooooosh!

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.......Houses, land and commercial premises are seriously cheap in many parts of the UK.

Why aren't those places booming?

Well I suspect it could be partially due to these areas having staunch labour councils, who don't see the need for vibrancy or efficiency. This would give most of the residents no confidence whatsoever that the area (and perhaps their house prices) will improve over time.

Employers could move in at much lower costs, perhaps, but need to feel confidence that there is a catchment area of willing and educated workers. All they see is hoodies, drug dealers, and ne'erdowells roaming the streets. There may well be a lot of decent people around, but they are perhaps cringing behind their curtains, frightened to venture too far out.

I've worked up in the North West myself. Working in Liverpool was OK because I lived on the Wirral in Heswall, and not Toxteth, to which I never went. Then in Manchester, where I found Wilmslow quite a civilised and wealthy place to live, but only a few miles from Moss Side.

But it certainly flies in the face of any theory that says cheap housing is the 'key' to happiness and prosperity. Almost the reverse!

boltneck123

You have me lost, not my generation I think.

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Well I suspect it could be partially due to these areas having staunch labour councils, who don't see the need for vibrancy or efficiency. This would give most of the residents no confidence whatsoever that the area (and perhaps their house prices) will improve over time.

Employers could move in at much lower costs, perhaps, but need to feel confidence that there is a catchment area of willing and educated workers. All they see is hoodies, drug dealers, and ne'erdowells roaming the streets. There may well be a lot of decent people around, but they are perhaps cringing behind their curtains, frightened to venture too far out.

I've worked up in the North West myself. Working in Liverpool was OK because I lived on the Wirral in Heswall, and not Toxteth, to which I never went. Then in Manchester, where I found Wilmslow quite a civilised and wealthy place to live, but only a few miles from Moss Side.

But it certainly flies in the face of any theory that says cheap housing is the 'key' to happiness and prosperity. Almost the reverse!

According to Mr Osborne, the people cringing behind closed curtains whilst others go to work are the very people who need to be re-educated.

TruckerT

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.....why are ministers being urged to "abandon Northern cities" which have some of the cheapest land and house prices in the UK?

Surely the North of England should be booming by now?

And Detroit should be the boomiest city in America?

Just sayin....:D

Maybe it's because I'm right and the economy leads house prices rather than house prices leading the economy.

After all, house prices are generally low in the US yet she has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world.

Think of the price of other so-called 'risk assets'. Do high prices for shares, office space, shopping centres, farmland, machine tools, art and fine wine lead to a strong economy or does a strong economy provide more spare cash to be invested in these asset classes?

A 'house price crash' does nobody any good as it....well we've seen the impact that the crash in US house prices had on the rest of the world so there's no point in revisiting that. As to rising house prices being a pre-requisite for prosperity? I simply can't see any good reason for a causal link.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Maybe it's because I'm right and the economy leads house prices rather than house prices leading the economy.

After all, house prices are generally low in the US yet she has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world.

You will be saying next that houses changing hands at high prices demonstrates that they are affordable rather than that they are unaffordable...