House price rises 'must stop'

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

The job of the state is to provide a safety net for people who can't provide for themselves.
Sadly we have moved away from this principle so that everyone, irrespective of any willingness to work, has a 'decent' standard of living.
In providing 'decent' standard of living in terms of material possessions (housing, food, clothes, education, flat screen TVs etc) we have actively encouraged family breakdown, drug taking, millions of fatherless children, a whole class of the young who never wish to work etc)
All things can't be measured by material possessions we need to return to moral values and encourage and reward responsible behaviour.

Capitalism and the society that has followed it is dependent on increasing consumption. Things have gone really well over the last 30/40 years whilst this model has been followed. If you keep running anything, continuously draining it, without reinvesting in it it eventually falls apart.

Of course if we all did without our own material possessions that some believe differentiate them from others we could call it socialism. i know that is close to your heart.

Or perhaps you would prefer a strict Victorian puritanical existence with the few having the most and the "undeserving" surviving in the doss house.

CLAPTON wrote: »

By ignoring the asset value of state property, you ignore the opportunities of making better use of the money: money tied up on an unnecessary property portfolio could be used to improve the health service or education or important infrastructure, improving the property stock in other ways etc.

Selling the silver to keep the boat afloat.

We have sold off good portions of hospitals, schools, courts, libraries, roads etc.already. Many are in private ownership and we pay on the never never providing a handsome inflation linked dividend to the owners.

The property has a utility value. Rather than the a return there is a cost saving in ownership rather than renting.

Do you rent your property you live in, do you finance your cars on personal contract hire, do you rent your TV from "Redifusion", do you buy things on the never never?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

so if we have a failure of our cities then it's a failure of the majority and little to do with rental businesses.

Exactly the business doesn't care profit is the overriding concern either through rental or capital appreciation. They leave all that planning stuff to someone else they are unlikely to live there.

"All things can't be measured by material possessions we need to return to moral values and encourage and reward responsible behaviour."

As it is a business perhaps business rates should apply to BTL rental properties?

PPPPPP.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Exactly the business doesn't care profit is the overriding concern either through rental or capital appreciation. They leave all that planning stuff to someone else they are unlikely to live there.

"All things can't be measured by material possessions we need to return to moral values and encourage and reward responsible behaviour."

As it is a business perhaps business rates should apply to BTL rental properties?

PPPPPP.

whether you like it or not our cities are not planned.
none of our current cities have any master plan whether from private sector or the state sector.
the few places there is an overriding authority the mantra is allow nothing at all.

individual developments are in general designed by builders or by the end owner although have to fit into the local authorites general scheme
I know this is awful to those that think only centralised planning produces anything of value but I rather like our system

globalds

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes indeed, if the state planned better then total state control over all aspects of our lives would be utopia.
so the state having failed numerous times already we need more detailed better plans; and when they fail the answer will be more detailed better plans and when they fail.....................


on the whole rental businesses do not plan local environments or even individual properties but merely buy them on the open market.


so if we have a failure of our cities then it's a failure of the majority and little to do with rental businesses.

I think either you misinterpreted what I wrote ..Or you had something on your mind and decided to post your views on central planning that do not really represent a response of any sense to my post?

when you talk of failure ,what do you mean by " a failure of the majority " ?

bluffer

booming prices? not round me! they are at best flat if not slightly declining over the last year.

once again a london boom ( and a very few areas outside it ) are giving a nationwide bubble :rotfl: the london media centric mob are at it again.

globalds

CLAPTON wrote: »

whether you like it or not our cities are not planned.
none of our current cities have any master plan whether from private sector or the state sector.
the few places there is an overriding authority the mantra is allow nothing at all.

individual developments are in general designed by builders or by the end owner although have to fit into the local authorites general scheme
I know this is awful to those that think only centralised planning produces anything of value but I rather like our system

You really don't believe this drivel you post ...And then expect us to lap it up.
So A city like London has no plans ..The plans for Docklands , canary wharf , Straford and the Olympic legacy with all associated infrastructure projects ..all of this just bubbles up through the cracks ..sheesh man I thought it was worth a discussion

CLAPTON

globalds wrote: »

You really don't believe this drivel you post ...And then expect us to lap it up.
So A city like London has no plans ..The plans for Docklands , canary wharf , Straford and the Olympic legacy with all associated infrastructure projects ..all of this just bubbles up through the cracks ..sheesh man I thought it was worth a discussion

each was a local plan to meet the perceived needs of that locality

it was carried out by private enterprise for profit (except the Olympic development which by its nature was government decreed )

so no a city like London has no overall development plan

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

so no a city like London has no overall development plan

Are you having a giraffe?

If there was no overall development plan and it was all left to private companies, there would be no such thing as the greenbelt,

And where exactly does HS2 fit into your stroke of genius?

globalds

CLAPTON wrote: »

each was a local plan to meet the perceived needs of that locality

it was carried out by private enterprise for profit (except the Olympic development which by its nature was government decreed )

so no a city like London has no overall development plan

and those local ..if that is really how you wish to see them plans ...Are also considered as part of the greater effect and direction that the city of London moves ..a plan for London.

Shall we talk about my town ?
that was planned from inception and is still being planned today ?

AndyGuil

bluffer wrote: »

booming prices? not round me! they are at best flat if not slightly declining over the last year.

once again a london boom ( and a very few areas outside it ) are giving a nationwide bubble :rotfl: the london media centric mob are at it again.

Manchester out grew London. Manchester is up 21% YoY. Birmingham and Leicester did well too, up 10% and 11% respectively. Wales up 6%. It has spread further than London now.