Is Cameron a chicken?
Poll: Is Cameron a chicken?
Total Members Polled: 448
Discussion
Scuffers said:
So, just for clarity...
You saying that massive rise in population over the last 10 years has nothing to do with it?
You do understand the concept of supply and demand?
The UK population has grown 8.47% over the last decade. Hardly 'massive'.You saying that massive rise in population over the last 10 years has nothing to do with it?
You do understand the concept of supply and demand?
That increase doesn't even come close to explaining the 100%+ property price increases over the same period.
gregf40 said:
Scuffers said:
So, just for clarity...
You saying that massive rise in population over the last 10 years has nothing to do with it?
You do understand the concept of supply and demand?
The UK population has grown 8.47% over the last decade. Hardly 'massive'.You saying that massive rise in population over the last 10 years has nothing to do with it?
You do understand the concept of supply and demand?
That increase doesn't even come close to explaining the 100%+ property price increases over the same period.
1) 8.47% is not a trivial number (and that's a vast under estimate)
2) basic concept of supply and demand is that once supply is below demand, the effects on cost are not proportional.
'Many of us were told that house prices are so high because there are too many people and not enough houses.
While this is true, house prices have also been pushed up by the hundreds of billions of pounds of new money that banks created in the years before the financial crisis.'
http://www.positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/
While this is true, house prices have also been pushed up by the hundreds of billions of pounds of new money that banks created in the years before the financial crisis.'
http://www.positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/
fatboy b said:
As I've already said, Cameron is asserting who is in Charge.
This election, for me, is the clearest descision for a long time.
Freeloader and like the benefits = vote Labour
Want to work to make a life for yourself = vote Conservative
Any other vote = wasted.
It's taken a lot longer than anticipated owing to the Labour f
k-ups, but we're now ahead of all of Europe with our economy thanks to Cameron. Let's not forget that fact.
This election, for me, is the clearest descision for a long time.
Freeloader and like the benefits = vote Labour
Want to work to make a life for yourself = vote Conservative
Any other vote = wasted.
It's taken a lot longer than anticipated owing to the Labour f
k-ups, but we're now ahead of all of Europe with our economy thanks to Cameron. Let's not forget that fact.
Yazar said:
fatboy b said:
As I've already said, Cameron is asserting who is in Charge.
This election, for me, is the clearest descision for a long time.
Freeloader and like the benefits = vote Labour
Want to work to make a life for yourself = vote Conservative
Any other vote = wasted.
It's taken a lot longer than anticipated owing to the Labour fk-ups, but we're now ahead of all of Europe with our economy thanks to Cameron. Let's not forget that fact.
This election, for me, is the clearest descision for a long time.
Freeloader and like the benefits = vote Labour
Want to work to make a life for yourself = vote Conservative
Any other vote = wasted.
It's taken a lot longer than anticipated owing to the Labour f
k-ups, but we're now ahead of all of Europe with our economy thanks to Cameron. Let's not forget that fact.
gregf40 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You aren't in a worse off position - you have saved a huge amount of money - you just don't own a house (but you didn't before they came in to power).It is not just a population increase IMHO that is an issue, look at the number of people now buying properties as investments/alternative to pension funds.
The number of people renting has now gone up considerably to 10 years ago.
A friend of mine was looking to buy last year (which she and her Boyfriend now have), but one property she went to on an open house day (which was pretty ropey on all counts) had another 20 people viewing, half of which were investors.
The number of people renting has now gone up considerably to 10 years ago.
A friend of mine was looking to buy last year (which she and her Boyfriend now have), but one property she went to on an open house day (which was pretty ropey on all counts) had another 20 people viewing, half of which were investors.
Been good for the top London estate agents:
The report ranks the top 40 cities for "Ultra High Net Worth Individuals," meaning anyone with a net worth of $30 million or more. The ranking looks at business links, economic activity, quality of life, and the number of other super-rich people who live there
"In short, these are the cities where the wealthy congregate, work, invest, are educated and spend their leisure time," the report says.
In other years, New York has been number one, but this year London edged it out. Several of the top 10 cities are in Asia.
Here's the full list:
London
New York
Hong Kong
Singapore
Shanghai
Miami
Paris
Dubai
Beijing
Zurich
Tokyo
Toronto
Geneva
Sydney
Taipei
Frankfurt
Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-important-citie...
The report ranks the top 40 cities for "Ultra High Net Worth Individuals," meaning anyone with a net worth of $30 million or more. The ranking looks at business links, economic activity, quality of life, and the number of other super-rich people who live there
"In short, these are the cities where the wealthy congregate, work, invest, are educated and spend their leisure time," the report says.
In other years, New York has been number one, but this year London edged it out. Several of the top 10 cities are in Asia.
Here's the full list:
London
New York
Hong Kong
Singapore
Shanghai
Miami
Paris
Dubai
Beijing
Zurich
Tokyo
Toronto
Geneva
Sydney
Taipei
Frankfurt
Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-important-citie...
RichB said:
rankly with interest rates at an all time low for the last 5 years (or whatever) and £70k available as a deposit I fail to see why you can't buy a home. There's clearly more to the issue than you've made apparent and I suggest you'd be in the same position if we'd just had 4 years of Labour in power.
I don't doubt that Labour would have done (or tried to do) something similar, the most I can borrow is 130k on a good day. I have a totally clean credit history, no debts at all, work history is all ok, no dependencies, in fact it is a bit too go to be true really on that side of things, but you cannot get anything really other than flats now for 200k. It's not about the deposit really, it is the salary multiples and affordability checks that have now come in.
Funkycoldribena said:
gregf40 said:
The UK population has grown 8.47% over the last decade. Hardly 'massive'.
.
It grew the same amount as Bristol last year alone,and you don't call that 'massive'???.
Funkycoldribena said:
gregf40 said:
The UK population has grown 8.47% over the last decade. Hardly 'massive'.
.
It grew the same amount as Bristol last year alone,and you don't call that 'massive'???.
On average the population has grown 0.6% each year for the last decade.
If your pay had grown by 0.6% a year would you be posting about 'massive' pay increases?
mrpurple said:
gregf40 said:
If your pay had grown by 0.6% a year would you be posting about 'massive' pay increases?
If he was on £65squillion it would be a rather large amount. 
It might seem a lot to the average person - but the person receiving the extra money would hardly notice.
It's all relative.
gregf40 said:
No - not when you consider how big the UK is of course it's not.
On average the population has grown 0.6% each year for the last decade.
If your pay had grown by 0.6% a year would you be posting about 'massive' pay increases?
You can put it how you like,a whole cities worth of people in a year is a massive amount,there's just not enough infrastructure to cope with these amounts.On average the population has grown 0.6% each year for the last decade.
If your pay had grown by 0.6% a year would you be posting about 'massive' pay increases?
Funkycoldribena said:
You can put it how you like,a whole cities worth of people in a year is a massive amount,there's just not enough infrastructure to cope with these amounts.
And to visualise that, the whole population of the London Borough of Havering (Romford, Upminster, Hornchurch, Rainham), is only around 240,000, then you are effectively letting in a whole London Borough's worth of new people in each year!gregf40 said:
It wouldn't though.
It might seem a lot to the average person - but the person receiving the extra money would hardly notice.
It's all relative.
It is relative. But please compare it to population growth rather than salaries. It might seem a lot to the average person - but the person receiving the extra money would hardly notice.
It's all relative.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/populat...
The ONS said:
Since 1964 the population of the UK has grown by over 10 million people (18.7%). About half of this growth has occurred since 2001.
As you can see, last decade of population growth is somewhere around four times larger than it has been for the preceding four. That is a substantial difference.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff