https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/...ousing-crisis/

Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/...ousing-crisis/

On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work. However, that
doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person who wrote the article
want to blame.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Â* Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

I do believe if someone else had posted the link it would have given the
subject far more credibility.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work. However, that
doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person who wrote the article
want to blame.

Your post is the extreme antithesis of Harry's. Do you have any reason
to question any of the statistics quoted in the article? (Apart from
disliking the conclusions than can be drawn).

On 18/03/18 09:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Â* Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

I do believe if someone else had posted the link it would have given the
subject far more credibility.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly
because its population is growing at around twice the national
average. Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people,
particularly people in their thirties with families, are moving out of
London but even more are moving in; principally highly qualified
people in their 20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to
work. However, that doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person
who wrote the article want to blame.

Your post is the extreme antithesis of Harry's. Do you have any reason
to question any of the statistics quoted in the article? (Apart from
disliking the conclusions than can be drawn).


OK:

Net immigration (Office of National Statistic figures) between 1998 to
2017 was 4.5 million. This is not an insignificant figure in 20 years.
UK population in the same period went from 58.5 to 66 million.

In the same period an estate of flats (one of which I bought in 1995 for
£45k) are now valued at £235k (identical flat just along, 2017 Land
Registry data).

Sure, there are other factors (irresponsible mortgage lending, higher
divorce rates [related to the PP's note that occupancy factors are
lower] leading to further market pressure) but it would be very hard to
claim the massive increase in population and consequent demand has no
link with the value of limited housing.

On 18-Mar-18 9:57 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Â* Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

I do believe if someone else had posted the link it would have given the
subject far more credibility.

Would anybody else, without the same anti-immigration agenda, have
posted it without the sort of caveats that I have raised?

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly
because its population is growing at around twice the national
average. Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people,
particularly people in their thirties with families, are moving out of
London but even more are moving in; principally highly qualified
people in their 20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to
work. However, that doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person
who wrote the article want to blame.

Your post is the extreme antithesis of Harry's. Do you have any reason
to question any of the statistics quoted in the article? (Apart from
disliking the conclusions than can be drawn).

I have no reason to doubt the figures. I am simply pointing out that the
idea of a housing shortage is a regional, rather than a national,
concept, and that, while immigration cannot help but affect the demand
for housing, it is not the only factor and may not be the most
important. Even if the population level had remained static since the
1950s, the occupancy level would mean that we would now need two and a
half times as many dwellings to house the same number. Life expectancy
for men has also risen by 19% since 1951 and by 16% for women, also
increasing demand for housing.
--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:55:35 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 18-Mar-18 9:57 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build
stuff that only rich people can afford to buy.
Â* Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

I do believe if someone else had posted the link it would have given
the subject far more credibility.

Would anybody else, without the same anti-immigration agenda, have
posted it without the sort of caveats that I have raised?

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly
because its population is growing at around twice the national
average. Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people,
particularly people in their thirties with families, are moving out of
London but even more are moving in; principally highly qualified
people in their 20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to
work. However, that doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person
who wrote the article want to blame.

Your post is the extreme antithesis of Harry's. Do you have any reason
to question any of the statistics quoted in the article? (Apart from
disliking the conclusions than can be drawn).

I have no reason to doubt the figures. I am simply pointing out that the
idea of a housing shortage is a regional, rather than a national,
concept, and that, while immigration cannot help but affect the demand
for housing, it is not the only factor and may not be the most
important. Even if the population level had remained static since the
1950s, the occupancy level would mean that we would now need two and a
half times as many dwellings to house the same number. Life expectancy
for men has also risen by 19% since 1951 and by 16% for women, also
increasing demand for housing.


It's not just housing the migrants (EU or otherwise) are putting pressure
on. It's just about every form of infrastructure you can think of. I
don't blame them, not for a second, they're only trying to better their
lives; but this has been very badly managed by those in government who
surely must have seen it coming - yet did NOTHING.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:38:37 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work.

That's funny. ISTR people like you trying to BS us that all the more
qualified people would be deserting London in droves if we voted to leave
the EU!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On 18-Mar-18 11:37 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:38:37 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work.

That's funny. ISTR people like you trying to BS us that all the more
qualified people would be deserting London in droves if we voted to leave
the EU!

My concern would be more that their jobs would be leaving the country
and they would follow. However, the figures I have been using only go up
to 2015, so any post referendum effect won't show.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:00:47 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

My concern would be more that their jobs would be leaving the country
and they would follow. However, the figures I have been using only go up
to 2015, so any post referendum effect won't show.

There's still hope, then? LOL! ;-





--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On 18/03/2018 11:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:38:37 +0000, Nightjar wrote:

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work.

That's funny. ISTR people like you trying to BS us that all the more
qualified people would be deserting London in droves if we voted to leave
the EU!



The claim is if we leave the EU not if we vote to leave.
We have yet to leave so you can't claim that it wont happen.

On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:

Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Why do you just not call him a useless racist **** and be done with it?


Treat yourself, there are plenty other suitable words in the dictionary
if you want to use them.

Do not use big words or the ****ing ****** will have trouble
understanding them.

--
Adam

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:02:04 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:

Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Why do you just not call him a useless racist **** and be done with it?


Treat yourself, there are plenty other suitable words in the dictionary
if you want to use them.

Do not use big words or the ****ing ****** will have trouble
understanding them.

Of course you could attempt to enlighten him using logical reasoned
argument based on the actual facts.

That's assuming the "useless racist ****ing ****** ****" could
understand.

It's damned fortunate that no migrant that I have come across has
similar views, I, no doubt like many others have a tendency to sort
strangers into ready made stereotyped boxes.

It would only take two or three of harrys ilk to turn me off an entire
country :-(

AB

On 18/03/2018 15:06, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:02:04 +0000, ARW
wrote:

On 18/03/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:

Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Why do you just not call him a useless racist **** and be done with it?


Treat yourself, there are plenty other suitable words in the dictionary
if you want to use them.

Do not use big words or the ****ing ****** will have trouble
understanding them.

Of course you could attempt to enlighten him using logical reasoned
argument based on the actual facts.

That's assuming the "useless racist ****ing ****** ****" could
understand.

It's damned fortunate that no migrant that I have come across has
similar views, I, no doubt like many others have a tendency to sort
strangers into ready made stereotyped boxes.

It would only take two or three of harrys ilk to turn me off an entire
country :-(

AB



Where do we get all the nurses from?




--
Adam

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 09:38:43 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work. However, that
doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person who wrote the article
want to blame.

--
--

Colin Bignell

If there were no migration, the population would have fallen.
There would be plenty of houses for everyone and they'd be cheaper.
Only the Guardian comes out with crap like yours.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...k-an-overview/
Where do you suppose all the millions of migrants are living?

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 09:38:43 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work. However, that
doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person who wrote the article
want to blame.

--
--

Colin Bignell

If there were no migration, the population would have fallen.
There would be plenty of houses for everyone and they'd be cheaper.
Only the Guardian comes out with crap like yours.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...k-an-overview/
Where do you suppose all the millions of migrants are living?

Migrants are paying taxes, they are coming here and "hitting the
ground running". They support the NHS and buy/ pay for housing.

The true scum to b lame are babies and toddlers, they never paid a
penny into the system and are the prime reason for house buying.

These leeches will suck the country dry for years, and when they come
of age will fill every prison in Britain.

Sent them back, thats what I say. It may be a trifle difficult with
teens, but with a good set of tyre levers......


AB

On 18/03/2018 15:26, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 09:38:43 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work. However, that
doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person who wrote the article
want to blame.

--
--

Colin Bignell

If there were no migration, the population would have fallen.
There would be plenty of houses for everyone and they'd be cheaper.
Only the Guardian comes out with crap like yours.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...k-an-overview/
Where do you suppose all the millions of migrants are living?

Migrants are paying taxes, they are coming here and "hitting the
ground running". They support the NHS and buy/ pay for housing.

They also pay taxes so in-work benefits can be paid out.

You also have it spot on, they pay for housing, hence stoking demand.

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 15:26:59 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 18 March 2018 09:38:43 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Mar-18 8:35 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Really? I thought it was the greedy bar stewards who want to build stuff
that only rich people can afford to buy.
Brian


Harry only wants to see a single cause that he can blame on people he
doesn't like.

Two major factors are that we are living longer and fewer people are
living in one dwelling - an average of two per dwelling today, as
compared to five in the 1950s. The problem is also not that there are
not enough houses; there are around 5.2% more places to live than
households wanting wanting to live in them. The problem is that the
housing and the households are not in the same places.

London is one of the worst places for a shortage of housing, partly
because of a lack of suitable places for development and partly because
its population is growing at around twice the national average.
Immigration does play a big part there. A lot of people, particularly
people in their thirties with families, are moving out of London but
even more are moving in; principally highly qualified people in their
20s, both British and foreign, coming to London to work. However, that
doesn't fit the profile that Harry or the person who wrote the article
want to blame.

--
--

Colin Bignell

If there were no migration, the population would have fallen.
There would be plenty of houses for everyone and they'd be cheaper.
Only the Guardian comes out with crap like yours.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...k-an-overview/
Where do you suppose all the millions of migrants are living?

Migrants are paying taxes, they are coming here and "hitting the
ground running". They support the NHS and buy/ pay for housing.

The true scum to b lame are babies and toddlers, they never paid a
penny into the system and are the prime reason for house buying.

These leeches will suck the country dry for years, and when they come
of age will fill every prison in Britain.

Sent them back, thats what I say. It may be a trifle difficult with
teens, but with a good set of tyre levers......


AB

Most migrant don't pay any tax.
Most money they earn is sent back "home".
They are here to keep the general wages low and property prices high and rising so the likes of Tony Bliar can benefit from their property portfolio.

On 18-Mar-18 2:54 PM, harry wrote:
....
If there were no migration, the population would have fallen.
There would be plenty of houses for everyone

There are plenty of places for people to live - 5.2% more dwellings than
household that want to live in them. They just aren't in the same
places. However, even if the population had not changed since 1951, we
would still ned 2.5 times as many houses as we did then, simply to allow
for the change in occupancy rate. If you also allow for the increase in
average life expectancy, you would need to add another 15-18% to that.

and they'd be cheaper.

In 54% of the country, house prices have fallen over the past few years.
Again, it is just not in those places where people want to live.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:33:47 -0700, harry wrote:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/...-explains-the-
housing-crisis/

Bliar was so keen to curry favour with his globalist controllers he
didn't consider the knock-on effects of mass immigration: housing
shortage, pressures on GP surgeries, higher water demand, school class
sizes, etc etc etc.
****.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On 18/03/2018 07:33, harry wrote:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/...ousing-crisis/


I've usually got time for Shriver - but that article is so bad it looks
like a stitch-up. It's wrong on just about every matter of fact.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
harry wrote:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/...ousing-crisis/

Trying to rustle up subscriptions for your favourite magazine again, harry?

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.