London increased by 12.4% in 2015

mwpt

Sapphire wrote: »

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.

I agree with this to some extent. Definitely agree about the requirement for more economic activity outside of London. Sounds like Bristol is perhaps the next big one, rather than Manchester or Birmingham?

Also to add that at some point in the future, it really won't make much sense to build any further in the inner London zones. I don't know how far away that is but at that point what happens to prices in zone 1, or even zone 2?

westernpromise

Jason74 wrote: »

Of course I can't do that, not least because if I were to do that, i would have nowhere to live. (

So you don't value social cohesion that much then. It's other people's houses that are too expensive. Yours is priced at what you need.

Traffic jams are caused by other people's cars.

westernpromise

Sapphire wrote: »

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).

If I want to start a hedge fund or a coffee trading house or an ad agency or an architectural practice, I can recruit the staff I need in London. Birmingham not so much.

The state has no answers. The state's acts are the problem.

Building houses is not an answer. I didn't vote to let 8 million immigrants in. I don't want a new town built for them next to mine. I'd rather ration property by price.

Jonbvn

Sapphire wrote: »

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,

You do realise that the real answer is fire-bombing, with Wood Green as the epicentre?;)

Graham_Devon

westernpromise wrote: »

So you don't value social cohesion that much then. It's other people's houses that are too expensive. Yours is priced at what you need.

Traffic jams are caused by other people's cars.

Pretty silly argument IMHO. As per all your points on this thread.

westernpromise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Pretty silly argument IMHO. As per all your points on this thread.

It's a precise mirror of the post I'm responding to, Graham. Property prices are too high, boo hoo; but I'm not about to do anything about it by selling my own property at what it should sell for, no way. I need to sell my property at these prices. It's other people's houses that are too expensive and need to become cheaper. What are They going to do about it? What aren't They making other people's houses cheaper?

In the same way, if other people would get off the ʎpoolq road, there would be no traffic jams; there would just be me.

Jason therefore actually agrees with the level of prices that he finds so objectionable.

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

It's a precise mirror of the post I'm responding to, Graham. Property prices are too high, boo hoo; but I'm not about to do anything about it by selling my own property at what it should sell for, no way. I need to sell my property at these prices. It's other people's houses that are too expensive and need to become cheaper. What are They going to do about it? What aren't They making other people's houses cheaper?

In the same way, if other people would get off the ʎpoolq road, there would be no traffic jams; there would just be me.

Jason therefore actually agrees with the level of prices that he finds so objectionable.

the issue is about the socio - economic response to high house prices and not about ineffective personal actions.

westernpromise

The "socio-economic response" is either the state (which makes things worse) or the sum of individuals' actions.

If someone thinks prices are too high, you can either sell for what you think they should be, or not sell and accept that you actually agree with these values but want to signal a bit of virtue. Alternatively, demand that other people be taxed.

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

The "socio-economic response" is either the state (which makes things worse) or the sum of individuals' actions.

If someone thinks prices are too high, you can either sell for what you think they should be, or not sell and accept that you actually agree with these values but want to signal a bit of virtue. Alternatively, demand that other people be taxed.

demand can be reduced by limiting immigration
supply can be increased by building more houses

a single immigrant or a single house will make no measureable difference

padington

If we have rent controls, how should they be controlled ? Cheap enough for you, cheap enough for professionals, cheap enough for those on minimum wage ?

Say we set every one bed flat at £250 a month, we will have mahoosive housing crash. Government might pull in much less in tax. The idea of paying of the government debts might suddenly seem like a pipe dream. Before you know Blighty might start getting circled by sharks. Investors pull money out. Everywhere building half built. A bank or two might go bust. Government lets them. You discover a member of your family has lost almost their life savings. Interest rates go shooting up. More bankruptcies. No one in London will ever give up their subsidised flat. No dynamic city anymore. Huge black market involved in bribing people to move ...

Sometimes you just can't push back a tidal wave of demand or you kill the city, demand drains away, no one wants to live in London. Then we've thrown the baby out with bath water.

Maybe rent controls but just a little bit, that's doesn't really effect anyone but makes a load of paper work ?

Maybe averagely restrictive and just make a minor black market, kill tax intake a bit, cause only a minor problems for economy, keep the insentive to never move because otherwise you go to the back of the queue. Suddenly it's not how hard you worked but who you know that counts to finding a nice place ...

I'm not sold.