New housing white paper

GreatApe

CLAPTON wrote: »

In London, it would seem to me that the number of people is a significant factor in price, and that if credit was released then prices would rise by a significant amount. 3 million foreigners in London are sgnificant factor in current demand and so of price.

probably not as much as you are trying hard to portray.
For instance are you suggesting that if we had less migration London today in 2017 would be 5.5 million people rather than 8.5 million?

I feel London would more or less be the same population but instead of 3 million foreigners it would be 3 million white uk born. With more or less the same population and more or less the same economic output why would prices be much lower?

I would argue that London would more or less be similar (plus or minus 20%) but the rUK would perhaps be a bit cheaper but 3 million diluted among 60 is a lot lessor of an impact than 3 million over 8 million.

We also do not know how build rates would have been with 3 million fewer people. so while demand would be 3 million people less there would also have been less supply but probably not as big an impact as the 3 million fewer people.

In any event I am less concerned with either price or the percentage of people who are OOs, but with families being able to live in a family sized house.

you have said this a number of times yet its close to idiotic. 3 million fewer or more people wont have changed the size of the 28 million homes in the uk. You need to rewrite your statement to something like 'I am concerned about the occupancy level being 2.35 persons per house rather than 2.30 persons per house I lose a lot of sleep over this'

CLAPTON

GreatApe wrote: »

probably not as much as you are trying hard to portray.
For instance are you suggesting that if we had less migration London today in 2017 would be 5.5 million people rather than 8.5 million?

I feel London would more or less be the same population but instead of 3 million foreigners it would be 3 million white uk born. With more or less the same population and more or less the same economic output why would prices be much lower?

I would argue that London would more or less be similar (plus or minus 20%) but the rUK would perhaps be a bit cheaper but 3 million diluted among 60 is a lot lessor of an impact than 3 million over 8 million.

well, at least then the native born would have the advantage of the high paying jobs in London and the pleasure of living there.

20% less would be about 1,6 million people less which I would expect to have an effect on price.

20% more seem somewhat bizarre and incomprehensible

We also do not know how build rates would have been with 3 million fewer people. so while demand would be 3 million people less there would also have been less supply but probably not as big an impact as the 3 million fewer people.

no indeed

you have said this a number of times yet its close to idiotic. 3 million fewer or more people wont have changed the size of the 28 million homes in the uk. You need to rewrite your statement to something like 'I am concerned about the occupancy level being 2.35 persons per house rather than 2.30 persons per house I lose a lot of sleep over this'

as I've explained, my comments are about London and the SE.
the benefits of more properties compared to the number of people, occur at the margin and have significant impact particularly for young people.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This is just more government waffle as the Tory party is incapable of overcoming it's home counties constituents opposition to building anything anywhere ever. ..

Presumably that includes building anything in Aberdeen?.

Scotland House Prices - Up, up and away....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5179382

I suppose it's one thing to criticise a lack of house building, and another to exult in it's consequences. But it is quite funny.:)

westernpromise

The high paying jobs go to qualified people. If Brits don't get them it's because they're unfit to do so.

I go to lots of meetings in the City where 50% or more of the people in the room are non-Britons. Just because London is a major financial it doesn't follow that locals will get the high paying jobs.

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

The high paying jobs go to qualified people. If Brits don't get them it's because they're unfit to do so.

I go to lots of meetings in the City where 50% or more of the people in the room are non-Britons. Just because London is a major financial it doesn't follow that locals will get the high paying jobs.

Maybe UK born people could be expelled and the UK left to foreigners.

I'm sure 'remainers' would welcome this improvment in the UK standard of living.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

Presumably that includes building anything in Aberdeen?.

Scotland House Prices - Up, up and away....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5179382

I suppose it's one thing to criticise a lack of house building, and another to exult in it's consequences. But it is quite funny.:)

Not sure what your point is.

Given that I saw this coming many years ago and positioned myself accordingly, it would be fair to say that I love high house prices more than a fat kid loves cake.....

But when even people with vested interests in prices remaining high can see we need millions more houses and despite it being in their best interests not to build them pretty relentlessly harp on about this topic, as they think it's societally unsustainable not to do so, then it's probably long past time we got on with it....

GreatApe

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, at least then the native born would have the advantage of the high paying jobs in London and the pleasure of living there.

20% less would be about 1,6 million people less which I would expect to have an effect on price.

20% more seem somewhat bizarre and incomprehensible


no indeed



as I've explained, my comments are about London and the SE.
the benefits of more properties compared to the number of people, occur at the margin and have significant impact particularly for young people.

You will be smart enough to understand what I am about to say but I suspect you will disregard it as it won't fit your views.

The population of London would not be plus or minus 20% of what it is today, the price of homes would be plus or minus 20%. My best guess is -10% or the price they were about a year ago.

The population without the mass EU migration over the last 10 years would be almost exactly the same as it is today. Firstly its clear it would be no lower than 1 million less than today as that was the population ten years ago so why the stupid guess of 1.6 million fewer population?

The reason I am very confident the population of London would be almost exactly the same is the persons per home figure. Its fairly uniform in the English regions with London slightly higher. Why how do you expect London without the EU migration to be less populated when that would mean London would have a lower persons per home rate than the SE?

This also puts bullets in your 'big family sized homes for native Londoners'. Without EU migration London would be almost the same population the difference would be less accents in London and more English folk. So if London would be more or less the same population with more or less the same number of homes then migration or not we would not be living in any larger homes nor much less dense.

Then you jumped to....oh if the pesky migrants didn't force out the natives at gun point the natives would be the bankers and tech millionaires in London rather than road sweeps in stoke. I don't even know where to begin with that. It's so silly. The higher paid industries in London recruit UK wide and draw people into London. A lot of the tech scene is foreign born like the guys at deepmind who sold to google for £200m of they were not allowed into London they wouldn't have created that company in London and the money and jobs that go with it. So while you see the takers you are blind to the creators and bringers in the immigrant groups.

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not sure what your point is.

Given that I saw this coming many years ago and positioned myself accordingly, it would be fair to say that I love high house prices more than a fat kid loves cake.....

But when even people with vested interests in prices remaining high can see we need millions more houses and despite it being in their best interests not to build them pretty relentlessly harp on about this topic, as they think it's societally unsustainable not to do so, then it's probably long past time we got on with it....

I know what you mean, but having investment property, I've probably got a bit more vested interest in high prices than you, so I want to get out first, just a few more years (I've started the process now) would suit me fine.

CLAPTON

GreatApe wrote: »

You will be smart enough to understand what I am about to say but I suspect you will disregard it as it won't fit your views.

The population of London would not be plus or minus 20% of what it is today, the price of homes would be plus or minus 20%. My best guess is -10% or the price they were about a year ago.

The population without the mass EU migration over the last 10 years would be almost exactly the same as it is today. Firstly its clear it would be no lower than 1 million less than today as that was the population ten years ago so why the stupid guess of 1.6 million fewer population?

The reason I am very confident the population of London would be almost exactly the same is the persons per home figure. Its fairly uniform in the English regions with London slightly higher. Why how do you expect London without the EU migration to be less populated when that would mean London would have a lower persons per home rate than the SE?

This also puts bullets in your 'big family sized homes for native Londoners'. Without EU migration London would be almost the same population the difference would be less accents in London and more English folk. So if London would be more or less the same population with more or less the same number of homes then migration or not we would not be living in any larger homes nor much less dense.

Then you jumped to....oh if the pesky migrants didn't force out the natives at gun point the natives would be the bankers and tech millionaires in London rather than road sweeps in stoke. I don't even know where to begin with that. It's so silly. The higher paid industries in London recruit UK wide and draw people into London. A lot of the tech scene is foreign born like the guys at deepmind who sold to google for £200m of they were not allowed into London they wouldn't have created that company in London and the money and jobs that go with it. So while you see the takers you are blind to the creators and bringers in the immigrant groups.

OK you believe that immigration has no impact on the numbers of people living in London and no impact on prices.

and of course you believe that easier credit would reduce he prices in London

Certainly an amasing view but so beit.

chucknorris

CLAPTON wrote: »

OK you believe that immigration has no impact on the numbers of people living in London and no impact on prices.
Certainly an amasing view but so beit.

I think immigration will reduce after leaving the EU, and possibly dampen London house prices, and it is one of a few reasons (there are others) why I am now starting to sell up.