Attitudes [to house prices] are changing

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

Who pays for the YouGov research? If it was Shelter, it would explain it.

You're right, I should have said shelter. Seems to me the implication is that the data is less helpful to shelter in its 'raw' form. Possibly fewer people wanting prices to fall than rise, who knows, we can't see the numbers.

It's not very interesting anyway as 100% of the respondents could say they want house prices to halve and they would increase regardless as giving answers in a survey doesn't make the supply of housing increase.

ukcarper

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't know what political persuasion Shelter is, but I am in the group mentioned above and I don't want house prices to rise. I want ordinary people on ordinary salaries to be able to buy a house on the equivalent of one income, (or two maybe in London), like we did.

Some friends of my son's live in London,they are in their thirties and one of them is a teacher. They can still only afford to live in a shared house with six other people. This is not right, imho.

They could moved out and commute like thousands of people have done I had to do just that 40 years ago.

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You're right, I should have said shelter. Seems to me the implication is that the data is less helpful to shelter in its 'raw' form. Possibly fewer people wanting prices to fall than rise, who knows, we can't see the numbers.

It's not very interesting anyway as 100% of the respondents could say they want house prices to halve and they would increase regardless as giving answers in a survey doesn't make the supply of housing increase.

Of course the 'client' pays for YouGov research. On a more sinister note, YouGov does its research over the internet with registered people who want to earn a few bob. These people give their hobbies, interests, current voting intentions, previous voting habits etc.

So if I wanted to be cynical [I know you will find that extremely hard to believe of me] I would suggest that it's a case of "What result do you want Mr client?" and then the questions are carefully worded and offered to a carefully selected constituency of hte panel who can be relied upon to give the 'right' answers.

seven-day-weekend

ukcarper wrote: »

They could moved out and commute like thousands of people have done I had to do just that 40 years ago.

They have only moved there recently, to find work, like we are supposed to do.

I think they do live on the outskirts. Are you saying that people with ordinary jobs (and even some professionals), should not live in London? How is a cleaner, a carer, a cook, a barista, a shop assistant, supposed to afford the commute? Londoners would soon grizzle if no-one was able to do these jobs because of the cost of living/commuting in London!

chucky

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

They have only just moved there, to find work, like we are supposed to do.

I think they do live on the outskirts. Are you saying that people with ordinary jobs (and even some professionals), should not live in London? How is a cleaner, a carer, a cook, a barista, a shop assistant, supposed to afford the commute? Londoners would soon grizzle if no-one was able to do these jobs because of the cost of living/commuting in London!

People with ordinary jobs can buy property in London and the surrounding areas. Maybe not in the areas they want to choose but none of us get everything we want.

The problem may arise in what your definition of 'ordinary jobs' or 'ordinary salaries' is.

chewmylegoff

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

They have only moved there recently, to find work, like we are supposed to do.

I think they do live on the outskirts. Are you saying that people with ordinary jobs (and even some professionals), should not live in London? How is a cleaner, a carer, a cook, a barista, a shop assistant, supposed to afford the commute? Londoners would soon grizzle if no-one was able to do these jobs because of the cost of living/commuting in London!

That's just life. How many single baristas working in other cities can afford their own place in the city?

A teacher could easily afford their own place in London - with a starting salary of £25k in outer London it is perfectly possible to find somewhere to rent for £600-800pcm. Commuting by bus in London isn't particularly expensive. The reason that people houseshare is not because they can't afford to live in London but because they can't afford to live in the bits of London that they want to live in on a single salary.

Once you put two salaries together (I.e. sharing with your partner rather than with other single people) then you can afford to live somewhere which isn't a complete dump.

ukcarper

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

They have only moved there recently, to find work, like we are supposed to do.

I think they do live on the outskirts. Are you saying that people with ordinary jobs (and even some professionals), should not live in London? How is a cleaner, a carer, a cook, a barista, a shop assistant, supposed to afford the commute? Londoners would soon grizzle if no-one was able to do these jobs because of the cost of living/commuting in London!

People have always had to commute and low paid people have never been able to buy it's nothing new.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And what percentage want them to stay the same or rise?

Here's the results page

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rdmu1z8nj7/YG-Archive-Shelter-results-101013-house-prices.pdf

Thing is with poll's you need to understand the demographics of those being polled.

You can see here there is a divide depending on age level.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/06/21/great-house-pricing-divide/



Interestingly, more data is available here which shows : -

Of Homeowners: -
64% want prices to go up
29% want then to stay about the same level
4% want them to go down and
3% don't know

I's interesting as it also shows the political bias and when you consider the largest percentage of the population are homeowners and the demographics of homeowners are more likely to vote, you can see why the government supports house prices.

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

64% want prices to go up
29% want then to stay about the same level
4% want them to go down and
3% don't know

I's interesting as it also shows the political bias and when you consider the largest percentage of the population are homeowners and the demographics of homeowners are more likely to vote, you can see why the government supports house prices.

So Graham got it wrong (again), what a shock,

Loughton_Monkey

chucky wrote: »

So Graham got it wrong (again), what a shock,

That can't possibly be?

I'm so shocked, I need a drink.

Sun having gone down over the yardarm, I shall go and have a very large gin & tonic and try to get over this revelation.