Are we expecting BOE to remain at 4.75% on 8th February 2025?

MobileSaver

Altior said:

It's births and deaths as well as immigration. But even in very simplistic terms, that plan means you are only standing still.

Better to be standing still than going backwards. I don't think there's much argument that we need more housing in the places that people want to live so building more new housing will at least stop the situation from getting even worse.

Altior said:

How about having net migration of 300K ? That is a lot easier to achieve than building hundreds of thousands of new homes,

The far-right may disagree but I'm not sure we should be setting an arbitrary net migration target based on what we think it may or may not do to house prices. Similarly we should really be doing what's best for the long term benefit of the country, not simply what's easiest to do right now...

sevenhills

MobileSaver said:

The far-right may disagree but I'm not sure we should be setting an arbitrary net migration target based on what we think it may or may not do to house prices. Similarly we should really be doing what's best for the long term benefit of the country, not simply what's easiest to do right now...

The arbitrary target was below 100,000 for many years. The Government need to have a plan to build more houses, we have built on greenbelt for decades, they need to stop pandering to those in nice houses that dont want more houses.

MattMattMattUK

Immigration is a complex factor, but in general terms it is much too high in the unskilled category and much too low in the skilled category. We also need to stop using it as a excuse to not train British people in the right skills and to get our huge amount of economically inactive people and many of those on long term benedits back into work and paying for themselves.

It comes down to short term and long term needs as well. In the short term we need more doctors and nurses amd the only way to meet that need is immigration, in the medium to long term we should be training as many as we need and not depriving poorer countries of the doctors that they train. In the short term we need more produce pickers, there are many people who are unemployed who, where physically able, should be made to do those jobs or have their benefits stopped, in the long term those jobs will be replaced by machines.

dougson

Altior said:

This was the claim that the graph was in response to:

we have essentially stopped any of the next generation (without a significant push up from the bank of mom/dad/nan/grandad) from ever owning their own house.

Evidently that is not the case. A longer time span would be useful, however the graph does show I feel that it is correlated with the usual economic cycle. So I would predict a fall away in this and the next few years (not exactly a brave call!)

That's a totally valid response and I get that in normal circumstances 15 years is a pretty reasonable range to use.

My personal opinion, and I could be totally inaccurate, is that the graph shows a period when it became inaffordable for most young people to buy. 

I'm 41, single, and was a FTB in 2019, but only managed to do so as a result of inherited wealth. I don't know anybody of my age who has got on to the property ladder without two decent incomes, or without inheriting. This is probably heavily influenced by my having mostly lived in the Sussex, where housing prices are way above average and wages far less so.

Naturally I understand my situation is anecdotal and circumstantial, it's why I was interested to see how it looks relative to historic norms. 

MattMattMattUK

sevenhills said:

MobileSaver said:

The far-right may disagree but I'm not sure we should be setting an arbitrary net migration target based on what we think it may or may not do to house prices. Similarly we should really be doing what's best for the long term benefit of the country, not simply what's easiest to do right now...

The arbitrary target was below 100,000 for many years. The Government need to have a plan to build more houses, we have built on greenbelt for decades, they need to stop pandering to those in nice houses that dont want more houses.

It is not "people in nice houses that dont want more houses", it is that we need to avoid building on the green belt, or indeed undeveloped land, where at all possible.

There are lots of brownfield sites in many parts of the country that would be great to build on, developers would rather build on green fields because it is cheaper and so more profitable. Where I live it is only in the last decade that the brownfield sites have started to be used and even then there are many more applications made for green field sites. Additionally building on green field sites means either felling woodland or removing farmland from production, both are huge negatives, so the loss of utility of that land needs to be factored in. 

sevenhills

MattMattMattUK said:

 Additionally building on green field sites means either felling woodland or removing farmland from production, both are huge negatives, so the loss of utility of that land needs to be factored in. 

I live in a house that was farmland in 1960, so I would be a hypocrite if I objected to others doing the same.

Our population, the worlds population is unsustainable, but people need to live somewhere.

MattMattMattUK

sevenhills said:

MattMattMattUK said:

 Additionally building on green field sites means either felling woodland or removing farmland from production, both are huge negatives, so the loss of utility of that land needs to be factored in. 

I live in a house that was farmland in 1960, so I would be a hypocrite if I objected to others doing the same.

The key factor is that we make the right decisions now, not based on the past. We cannot sustain the destruction of farmland and habit, just because we did it in the past does not make it acceptable or rational now.

sevenhills said:

Our population, the worlds population is unsustainable, but people need to live somewhere.

They might need somewhere to live, but unless we tackle population growth we will eventually run out of space not just to live, but to feed ourselves, to have wildlife, etc. Globally we need to be targeting population decrease, the UK should aim to have a flat population within a decade, a falling population by 2050. Globally all countries need to aim to return to 1990s population levels by 2100 or we are going to run out of resources to sustain ourselves.

Altior

MattMattMattUK said:

Immigration is a complex factor, but in general terms it is much too high in the unskilled category and much too low in the skilled category. We also need to stop using it as a excuse to not train British people in the right skills and to get our huge amount of economically inactive people and many of those on long term benedits back into work and paying for themselves.

It comes down to short term and long term needs as well. In the short term we need more doctors and nurses amd the only way to meet that need is immigration, in the medium to long term we should be training as many as we need and not depriving poorer countries of the doctors that they train. In the short term we need more produce pickers, there are many people who are unemployed who, where physically able, should be made to do those jobs or have their benefits stopped, in the long term those jobs will be replaced by machines.

I don't feel like this applies to nurses at all. Of course you have very skilled/experiences nurses at the upper end (ICU etc), but any shortages were driven by policy failure such as making it a requirement to have a degree to be an entry level nurse. Totally absurd imv. Any problems can be rectified by the correct domestic policy (on the job education, bursaries etc al). I see absolutely no reason why an individual seeking to be a nurse should need to have a levels and a degree. 

Fully qualified doctors and consultants are a different story. But by definition are mobile, and very well off. Out of interest I'd like to see the numbers leaving and entering the UK, however properties that consultants can acquire are not going to tangibly impact the wider market.  

hildosaver

Altior said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Immigration is a complex factor, but in general terms it is much too high in the unskilled category and much too low in the skilled category. We also need to stop using it as a excuse to not train British people in the right skills and to get our huge amount of economically inactive people and many of those on long term benedits back into work and paying for themselves.

It comes down to short term and long term needs as well. In the short term we need more doctors and nurses amd the only way to meet that need is immigration, in the medium to long term we should be training as many as we need and not depriving poorer countries of the doctors that they train. In the short term we need more produce pickers, there are many people who are unemployed who, where physically able, should be made to do those jobs or have their benefits stopped, in the long term those jobs will be replaced by machines.

I don't feel like this applies to nurses at all. Of course you have very skilled/experiences nurses at the upper end (ICU etc), but any shortages were driven by policy failure such as making it a requirement to have a degree to be an entry level nurse. Totally absurd imv. Any problems can be rectified by the correct domestic policy (on the job education, bursaries etc al). I see absolutely no reason why an individual seeking to be a nurse should need to have a levels and a degree. 

Fully qualified doctors and consultants are a different story. But by definition are mobile, and very well off. Out of interest I'd like to see the numbers leaving and entering the UK, however properties that consultants can acquire are not going to tangibly impact the wider market.  

Work with many nurses do you? Their job has grown much more complex in the last twenty years with additional responsibilities and skills required. I agree there should still be an option to get into nursing without a degree but many in nursing benefit from the current training. They just should get paid better than they do. The fact you don't think a nurse even needs a levels or a degree shows your view of what they do as being a lower skilled job. You couldn't be more wrong.

sevenhills

MattMattMattUK said:

Globally we need to be targeting population decrease, the UK should aim to have a flat population within a decade, a falling population by 2050. Globally all countries need to aim to return to 1990s population levels by 2100 or we are going to run out of resources to sustain ourselves.

But that isn't going to happen, it's unrealistic to think it will, so we need more house building.