London increased by 12.4% in 2015

padington

With new survey suggesting only 2% of the population thinking prices will not rise more in 2016 and a very fast increase ( 2% plus ) in last month of the year.

London property is still booming !!!

Jason74

Sadly I think you're probably right, but the fact that you are is pretty terrible news for anyone who actually gives a monkeys about social cohesion in the city as a whole

westernpromise

Jason74 wrote: »

Sadly I think you're probably right, but the fact that you are is pretty terrible news for anyone who actually gives a monkeys about social cohesion in the city as a whole

And for anyone who feels entitled to a cheap house.

Jason74

westernpromise wrote: »

And for anyone who feels entitled to a cheap house.

That really is a load of garbage. There simply is no argument that stacks up against the idea that houses costing the kind money they do in London is a very bad thing from a social perspective. I'm fortunate enough to be largely unaffected by it.

But the fact is that my modest little pad that I bought on one salary 14 years ago would probably be barely affordable for my wife and I on two good salarie if we were starting out now.. I don't look at that fact and think "haven't I done well". I look at it and wonder how on earth people starting out now are supposed to get on the ladder. And the fact that things are as they are can only be a bad thing for society.

padington

Jason74 wrote: »

That really is a load of garbage. There simply is no argument that stacks up against the idea that houses costing the kind money they do in London is a very bad thing from a social perspective. I'm fortunate enough to be largely unaffected by it.

But the fact is that my modest little pad that I bought on one salary 14 years ago would probably be barely affordable for my wife and I on two good salarie if we were starting out now.. I don't look at that fact and think "haven't I done well". I look at it and wonder how on earth people starting out now are supposed to get on the ladder. And the fact that things are as they are can only be a bad thing for society.

How much should they cost ? Free to the first person that asks ? If they were you may have never managed to obtain that flat because no one would have ever 'sold' it.

Maybe the free market should just be allowed to exist but anger should be levelled at the failure to create new supply given the demand. Problem again though with open borders making more and more demand. Quickly you end up with Brexit seeming like a good idea.

Either that or price controls and a lottery system with dynasties of families never moving because they were the lucky ones plus an much more depressed economy with more unemployment and less access to credit.

There's no free lunch. Older I get more I think the answer might be letting the prices go banana's but taxing the lucky ones more might be the better answer and using that money to create more social housing or movement to cheaper places in the uk plus encourage a share holding society.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

How much should they cost ? Free to the first person that asks ? If they were you may have never managed to obtain that flat because no one would have ever 'sold' it.

Maybe the free market should just be allowed to exist but anger should be levelled at the failure to create new supply given the demand. Problem again though with open borders making more and more demand. Quickly you end up with Brexit seeming like a good idea.

Either that or price controls and a lottery system with dynasties of families never moving because they were the lucky ones plus an much more depressed economy with more unemployment and less access to credit.

There's no free lunch. Older I get more I think is letting the prices go banana's but taxing the lucky ones more might be the better answer and using that money to create more social housing or movement to cheaper places in the uk plus a share holding society.

the issue is there ought to be sufficient housing for most people to have a 'reasonable home' : that is somewhere reasonable to bring up a family

price controls, lotterys etc don't address that real issue.
without a good match between supply and demand then 'controls' merely determines the 'lucky' ones.

effective immigration controls are an essential start and/or a massive UK recession that sends people back 'home'

westernpromise

Jason74 wrote: »

That really is a load of garbage. There simply is no argument that stacks up against the idea that houses costing the kind money they do in London is a very bad thing from a social perspective. I'm fortunate enough to be largely unaffected by it.

But the fact is that my modest little pad that I bought on one salary 14 years ago would probably be barely affordable for my wife and I on two good salarie if we were starting out now.. I don't look at that fact and think "haven't I done well". I look at it and wonder how on earth people starting out now are supposed to get on the ladder. And the fact that things are as they are can only be a bad thing for society.

So sell it for what you paid for it. That way "people starting out now" can "get on the ladder".

Jason74

westernpromise wrote: »

So sell it for what you paid for it. That way "people starting out now" can "get on the ladder".

That is probably, quite literally, the weakest argument to be found anywhere on the internet on any subject. Of course I can't do that, not least because if I were to do that, i would have nowhere to live. If I was to sell my place , it would only be to move to somehwere bigger in the same area. Given the way that prices have gone up in my local area since I bought, I could only make the move by selling my place for it's "market" value. And if I can't move, I do of course continue to need my place to live in, so am unable to sell it.

Now if someone would sell me their 3 bed semi in one of the roads I want to live in for 2002 prices, I will happily sell a ftb my 2 bed Maisonette for 2002 prices too . . . .but I think we both know that wont happen And the reason for that is that the power of any one individual to meaningfully change the market is pretty much nil. Therefore one way or another, we all have to "play the game". That reality however doesn't mean that people can't point out the very obvious fact that the game sucks.

But then, you're intelligent enough to know all of that already and were just trolling

Jason74

padington wrote: »

How much should they cost ? Free to the first person that asks ? If they were you may have never managed to obtain that flat because no one would have ever 'sold' it.

Maybe the free market should just be allowed to exist but anger should be levelled at the failure to create new supply given the demand. Problem again though with open borders making more and more demand. Quickly you end up with Brexit seeming like a good idea.

Either that or price controls and a lottery system with dynasties of families never moving because they were the lucky ones plus an much more depressed economy with more unemployment and less access to credit.

There's no free lunch. Older I get more I think the answer might be letting the prices go banana's but taxing the lucky ones more might be the better answer and using that money to create more social housing or movement to cheaper places in the uk plus encourage a share holding society.

And this is all is fair enough. I freely acknowledge that identifying the problem is the easy part, but solving it is another matter. My own preference would be higher taxes on anything not for primary residence, combined with rent controls to make sure that those costs were not passed on to the tenants in the case of the private rent sector. I would then look at massive public sector building across all tenures (I'm talking about a scale not seen for 50 years or more) to deal with the supply / demand mismatch.

Of course, that approach is not without some significant drawbacks, but I think that's probably true of any potential solution. My only issue really is with people who seem to see something that is a major social problem as being a good thing. I can only assume that its because they have a personal financial interest in things continuing as they are.

mwpt

Jason74 wrote: »

massive public sector building across all tenures (I'm talking about a scale not seen for 50 years or more) to deal with the supply / demand mismatch.

Of course, that approach is not without some significant drawbacks, but I think that's probably true of any potential solution.

My solution would be to lower availability of credit to BTL such that their ability to outbid OOs was effectively removed. We differ slightly in that I don't want to get rid of BTL. We need a private rental sector in some shape but we can at least try to put it on an equal footing. But this must come in combination with somehow incentivising the councils to release more land and grant more residential planning permission and perhaps giving central government grants to councils to clean up brownfield sites. Release plots of land to private sector bidding and let people build for themselves. We know better than the big builders what we want our homes to be like. BTL can still participate in the market but on an equal footing to OO.

Sapphire

Creating a draw in other parts of Britain than London and the South-east, so that people will want to live in other places than in London, is also crucial (as is immigration control). The north was once a major source of wealth for Britain, and much potential is being wasted because it isn't being revitalised (or at least not enough to draw people in). It's absurd that everything is focused around London, and that there is a London 'property market' that is being used as a store of wealth by foreigners who don't even live here, as well as by hedge funds and other financial institutions (not to mention creating a blight of horrible tower buildings ! la some Moscow suburb, aka 'luxury apartments' according to vested interests, in key London areas). Residential property should be for people to live in, not for speculation.