That has been abundantly clear since day one of the Euro. You simply cannot have a central monetary policy and however many members operating their own fiscal policy. It's economic nonsense! Of course the less than hidden agenda has always been a federal Europe. They just conveniently forgot to explain that to the people of the countries involved, or indeed seek their opinion as to whether that was what they wanted or not. It seems to me that once you have handed over your fiscal policies to a central governing body, most of your powers as an independent state are gone.
My other opposition to the freedom of movement clause is that the UK is already the most densely populated of the EU's major economies. The vast majority of under 30s in this country have little hope of ever owning a home such is the competition for land and subsequent inflated value of housing. We require 250,000 (we're building c.150,000) new homes a year just to keep up with the current rate of population growth, let alone invoke an actual reduction in house prices. Frankly, we no longer have space for people in the places people want to live, and subsequently, we need to get a handle on immigration numbers (even if its temporarily) in order to catch up with demand.
There were a lot of organizations and people that stank to high heaven regarding the last crash (exactly one person, a small timer, was prosecuted for the epic swindle involving thousands of people and dozens of organizations), but Goldman Sachs might just take the palm. The process involved: 1. Load the administration with revolving door Goldman Sachs people to make it a government of Goldman Sachs, by Goldman Sachs and for Goldman Sachs. 2. Make Goldman Sachs too big to fail. 3. Gamble on the market so wildly it makes riverboat gamblers jealous. 4. If the gambles come off, pocket the winnings and dispense some sanctimonious words about having a right to your earnings when the topic of taxing them comes up. 5. If they don’t, get the government to cover your losses, which they’ll gladly do, both because so many people in it are revolving door Goldman Sachs people and because they don’t want to risk letting you tank. 6. Dispense sanctimonious words about evil government regulations if someone tries to make you small enough to fail. 7. Repeat.
Spot on, but you missed the bit about intentionally selling utter **** to clients. Absolutely criminal.
The very same Golman Sachs who so elegantly cooked The Greek balance sheet to make sure they met the debt requirements to join The Single currency. And don't tell me the EU didn't know, everybody in The City did!
The fact that nobody went to jail for this is both intolerable and, I think, completely unprecedented. In the old days they would at least cart away a scapegoat or three (for much smaller swindles). Although, to be fair, it does conform to what I have long thought is the first rule of American life: never steal anything small.
I partially agree with this, however, the reason for the lack of houses being built is due to the government not building enough and revising their targets each year, which Boris Johnson has been doing since he's his incumbency as Mayor of London. There has also been a lack of available land because land prices have been inflated; some estimates say it's as high as 170%. Then there's obviously the issue of private landlords and unregulated rents, whilst current house prices have also soared and there are also rich foreigners buying houses they've seen in magazines before they've actually been built. I don't think it's entirely fair to put the blame on immigration or population size for the lack of houses being built, especially when a lot of these immigration figures include overseas students and 'expats'. If we could build 300,000 new homes a year several years after WWII, there's no excuses for revising our housing targets down now. That's the fault of the government. Less than 2.5% of the UK has actually been developed and built on, so this idea that we have no room in the UK doesn't hold up to scrutiny I'm afraid.
And always steal from the poor and weak. There's a point to be made about jobs, infrastructure and pay, but you're right about foreign investment in the property market. Cameron even talked about it being used for money laundering. You know it's bad when he chimes in. He won't do anything about it, obviously.
But the notion that immigrants cause wage compression isn't true. Bosses and companies determine pay. Not foreigners - most of whom come here to work. Even for jobs. Blame the government for cutting jobs in the public sector, relaxing the rules for multinationals and not introducing a proper Living Wage for people.
It's supply and demand. If there are less options, then you have to pay more competitively. Your other points do influence things, but so does immigration.
Everyone with a job should be paid enough to live on. The government and greedy companies don't care about providing this or safeguarding the rights of workers and ensuring they're in a safe working environment. Foreigners from other countries will accept it because they are used to far worse. Suggesting that immigration is just as much a factor as the other influences I stated isn't fair at all.
My father (an accountant) told me - "If you owe someone £1, then that's your problem; if you owe them £1m, that's their problem." Same thing for criminal activity. Look at the failure rate of prosecutions from the Serious Fraud Office. Juries can't follow the information they're given and after months of listening to stuff they don't understand are only to keen to return to their lives by finding fraudsters not guilty.
The Serious Farce Office couldn't detect their own arse with a compass and a map! The equivalent of the keystone cops to serious fraudsters!
I've got a very purist attitude to all this. We are all citizens of the world and we should be able to live where we like. Enough people have died already squabbling over arbitrary borders painted on the surface. So I'm going to vote for any and every voluntary club of nations whatever it's apparent economic pros and cons.
I didn't say that it was as much of a factor as the other influences, just that it was one. You've already explained why.
I can remember cottages in Cheshunt being sold off for 25,000.Quarter of a million today.Mind you,at that time the average wage was less than 20 quid.Today it's Mickey Mouse money in their wage packet and they still can't afford to buy a house. I wonder if a lot of trailers are being bought today.......?
This is my profession Brunel and I can't let you perpetuate a load of ridiculous myths about it. Firstly blaming the current government / Boris for the national housing shortage is totally ludicrous, apart from 1 year under Gordon Brown every government since Thatcher has failed to build the required number of homes and permitted the gradual erosion of our social housing stock. It is a fundamental structural problem caused mostly by a finite supply of the commodity 'land' and the time and risks associated with releasing it. I'm afraid it's the other way around. Land values are inflated because of the very fact there's not much of it available. This is basic supply and demand economics, if there were loads of it available, it would be cheap Not really sure what your issue is with private landlords demanding market rates for an asset they own and for which they are subject to ever increasing costs. If a rent-cap was imposed in the current market it would be financially nonviable for most private landlords to operate and their properties would come out of the rental market altogether - good for buyers, less good for anyone wanting to rent. Foreign investment in the housing market is one of the few ways that houses actually get built in this country, for the very fact that other than institutional investors the British are notoriously hesitant about buying "off-plan", or even self-building for that matter. The only reason most developments get out of the ground is due to the preliminary funding provided by "off-plan" foreign purchases. But un-rented foreign safe-depositories are such a miniscule element of the market that they're barely worth mentioning in passing, despite what the Evening Standard would have you believe. I don't entirely put the blame on immigration, I'm saying it's a significant contributory factor. Post-war Britain When there was tonnes of land around, many of our cities were reduced to rubble, and there was so much development in suburbia that the Green Belt had to be introduced. Hardly a comparable situation. I don't know where your 2.5% figure comes from so can't comment. Estimates I've seen account roughly 90% of land to agriculture and forestry and 10% to buildings, roads and other developed areas - one of the highest in Europe.
You stating its your profession does not mean anything to me. I have no way of knowing whether you're lying or not and to be frank, I couldn't really care less. But to talk about my post containing 'ridiculous myths' when everything I have stated has come from information taken from the BBC and The Independent is just silly. You either aren't aware of the facts and figures or you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. They haven't been plucked out of thin air and even if you do work in anything regarding houses, you clearly have a particular agenda that you're trying to push. You absolving the mayor of his responsibilities when it comes to housing in London is testament to that. Please stop using the world ridiculous if you don't know how to use it. But since you insist. It certainly isn't 'ridiculous' because in an interview on LBC last Summer, Nick Ferrari asked Boris why he had kept revising his housing targets down and he kept deflecting from the question as he always does. So yes I can blame Boris. Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28438437. I agree with what you say about the gradual erosion of the social housing stock which is problematic, but that would clearly show my viewpoint is not 'ridiculous' after all if we can actually find some common ground. I'm not sure what the nature of the '' smiley was for, but it seems a bit unnecessary and childish. Given the way you've tried to debate with me on previous topics on this thread though, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Secondly, if you don't trust my opinion on it, I'm sure you can trust someone who works in the same field as you allegedly claim that you do: "... with councils and other statutory bodies unwilling to release land for less than the market price, we are hard pushed to make our development models work – and we are not the only ones. Time and again we are hearing from others in the housing arena that land is incredibly hard to come by for the right price. Surely it is time for councils to act in the best interests of their residents and release the land that is so desperately needed, and preferably for free. Politicians and councilors talk about the desperate and growing need to build more homes, but too few want to put their money where their mouth is and take the necessary hit on their purse..." - David Clare, Contractor. 'Market rates'? This is part of the problem - houses should be prioritised for those who need it, it should be a basic requirement for every human to have shelter, rather than being priced out because landlords can earn a quick buck from those that are wealthier. You are looking at this through the lens of someone who sees houses primarily as an investment. That is ethically and morally wrong. From Shelter: "There are now more than nine million renters in private rented accommodation, including almost 1.3 million families with children. Renting can be incredibly unstable, with soaring rents, hidden fees and eviction a constant worry. And it can mean living in dreadful conditions too – one third of private rented homes in England fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard." Most of what you've stated here is irrelevant to my point. I don't have an issue with foreigners or foreign investment. What I have an issue with is the fact that rich foreigners that have a bit more money will get prioritised to buy a house that they can use for something to play with and use as an investment at a time where there is a decrease in social mobility, an increase in homelessness and an increase in poverty within the U.K. I may have reservations about someone like Sadiq Khan becoming Mayor, but his plan for First Dibs for Londoners is something that, in principle, I do support wholeheartedly. Well, my view is that we should build on the Green Belt (and away from flood planes) but you're probably going to take issue with me saying that too. But then again, there are other people who support what I'm saying too. The actual figure is 2.27%. Don't believe me? Here, have some sources: Shelter: http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2013/11/a-fair-way-do-we-prioritise-golf-or-homes/ The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/may/21/six-reasons-to-build-on-green-belt BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 Here's the thing. You can think I'm spouting nonsense if you want to. That's your prerogative. But if you think I'm going to believe an anonymous individual on a forum over respected news sources and journalists from the BBC, Shelter, The Guardian and The Independent, you should think again.
Sooner or later Green belt building away from flood plains is the way it will go. Common sense dictates that it should. When I worked in the house building side of things, the costs associated with building a house were roughly 1/3 land, 1/3 materials and 1/3 labour. Perhaps that has changed a bit now as land prices have continued to go up with very little increase in labour costs. Perhaps WY, as he still works in the industry, could confirm/come up with more recent figures. If Councils/Government struck deals with builders, say provide land for 300 houses free of charge, the builder builds them, sells 200 and gives the council 100, everyone would be a winner. Now, if my boiler goes wrong or my roof needs repairing, I have to pay for it. One of the issues i see with the council owning houses is that they have to maintain them. This has to change. The tennent should have to insure and maintain their property, just as a house owner has to. Why should a tennent get something for nothing? In exchange for them maintaining their property they should have security of tenure for life. In the event that the tennent cannot aford the maintenance, the council should foot the bill but increase the rent accordingly until the bill is paid off. Finally I blame building societies and banks for inflating house prices rather than immigration. Supply and demand is a catalyst rather than a cause. When banks were lending 4 or 5 times peoples salaries with little or no proof of income, house prices rose accordingly. They always will. Sellers will hold out for as much as the buyer can afford.
The housing market is like any market. The laws of supply and demand will prevail. In this instance, we are talking, I assume, primarily about the London area housing market? That being the case, of course there are extraneous factors. It's where millions work every day, they want to live in or near their place of work. Again, the law of supply and demand takes over. I doubt that there's an oversupply of available building land available within greater London. Yes, there is greenbelt land on the outskirts of the capital, but then the 'nimby' factor comes into play. Politicians have to take this seriously as pissing off a lot of your constituents by building on their 'idyllic' piece of the sceptered isle is not good for their reelection chances. There's little doubt that foreign investment, much of it of dubious origin, has grossly inflated the central London market. This is not a phenomenon that applies solely to London, look at prices in any major world capital - sky high!
