Why UK House Prices will continue to rise

Spursex

Spursex

Alert Team
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article46802.html

So f**king depressing really, the proof of how badly labour screwed this country up just keeps on biting us.
 
Sorry, a bit clearer here than a screen grab:<br /><br /><br /><br />&quot; ..It cannot be under stated how disastrous were the immigration policies of the last Labour government and their ineptitude in gauging the consequences in terms of opening the flood gates at a time when many other more competent european governments of such as Germany and France restricted immigration that acted as a funnel that sucked in 2 million eastern european immigrants into Britain's debt fuelled economic boom that has resulted in what amounts to catastrophic out of control immigration that is more than 20 TIMES that which Labour expected would take place, policies that as a consequence of being a part of the EU are STILL contributing towards out of control mass immigration that even former senior Labour Government Ministers such as former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw are stating were catastrophic:<br /><br /><em><strong>&quot; The predictions were completely catastrophic, I mean they were wrong by a factor of ten, in other words it wasn't 13,000 per year but it was something like 130,000 a year&quot; - Jack Straw<br /><br />The actual rate of annual immigration was 240,000, near 20 times the Labour governments propaganda that continued for many years into Mid 2000's despite clear evidence of mass immigration being under way.</strong></em><br /><br />So in my opinion the only thing that will bring what amounts to an exponential rise in UK house prices to a halt is REAL IMMIGRATION CONTROLS, which neither of the three mainstream parties will ever actually implement.<br /><br />For in-depth explanations for why UK house prices are rising see the UK Housing Market Ebook (FREE DOWNLOAD).<br /><br />The bottom line where house prices is concerned is 'its immigration stupid'
 
I'm not so sure on that 'Ex. What about the recent report, suppressed by Cameron, that showed a net benefit from immigration to the UK economy? He's forced the authors to re-write it, so that it suits the anti immigration agenda now being propagated. That doesn't sound like a fair and open debate, to me.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 8/8/2014 09:32

I'm not so sure on that 'Ex. What about the recent report, suppressed by Cameron, that showed a net benefit from immigration to the UK economy? He's forced the authors to re-write it, so that it suits the anti immigration agenda now being propagated. That doesn't sound like a fair and open debate, to me.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not accurate. It's main conclusion is that because it's helped contain labour costs for low cost labour work, it's benefited business more than any other sector of our society. It wasn't asked within it's remit to consider the wider social and infrastructure costs.

What Cameron is afraid of is that the backlash pre-election from wavering voters about our inability to control our borders will have on voter intentions.

Controlled, skills based immigration is an absolute positive, but what we've suffered and are suffering is the consequences of over a decade of exactly the opposite.

If we'd had an immigration policy that Australia and others have had for many years then much of our infrastructure problems wouldn't nearly be on the scale they are now.

edit:: I should add;

The NHS Trust I advised I saw at first hand the huge resource swamping cash sucking black hole that such non-stop massive influx's had - it was devastating, it was like trying to contain a tsunami.

It's why no matter how much cash was chucked at the NHS (and believe me it was), we could never ever get in control of our skills and resource shortages, and it's why any progress that was being made before this mass influx started simply couldn't be maintained and why many trusts started to fudge and even lie about targets (so that the cash would keep rolling in). The trusts were confronted with near impossible tasks and subsequently standards for skilled jobs and non-skilled jobs were being continually lowered with the end result being what we all knew - that care standards would have to keep dropping...

It was and still is a mess.


Edit, sorry H, but this evidence based position as an extract is long too.....






mpact of Immigration

12. The major impact of immigration is on the population of the United Kingdom. On Census day 2001 the population stood at 59.1 million. Ten years later the population had grown by over 4 million, the largest increase since 1911, and stood at 63.1 million.

13. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) projects that the UK population will reach 70 million by 2027, an increase of 5.9 million on the most recent population estimate of 64.1 million in 2013. This is based on the principal projection under which net migration continues at a rate of 165,000 per year. Under this scenario 60% of population growth is attributable to future immigration, either directly or indirectly from the additional children. The remaining population growth will come from the UK’s existing population, including births to immigrants already here. The reality is that, unless net migration is brought down, the UK population will increase at a faster rate than the principal projections suggest. This is because the latest data shows that net migration in 2013 was 212,000, and the average of the last ten years was much closer to the ONS high projection under which net migration runs at 225,000 a year.

14. Government produced household projections show that migration has a significant impact on housing and that immigration at current levels will account for 36% of all new households in the next 20 years.

15. Immigration is having a significant impact on primary school places in England. In the 2012/13 academic year there were 4.060 million primary school pupils in England. The Department for Education projects that this figure will rise to 4.571 million by 2017/18 yet there are only 4.4 million places available leaving a shortfall of around 155,000 places. (See here) A recent report commissioned by the Department for Health estimated that the NHS spent £2 billion per year treating temporary migrants demonstrating the impact on health services across the country. (See here) Health tourism is also a problem however the exact impacts in terms of costs are difficult to identify. Immigration also impacts on the environment as a larger population will use more land, energy and natural resources and will produce a greater carbon footprint on the environment.

Economic Benefit

16. Migrants add to overall GDP but they do so roughly in line with the proportion that they add to the population meaning that the average resident is no better off financially. The only major inquiry ever conducted in the UK was carried out by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords in 2007/08. In April 2008 they reported that "We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration - immigration minus emigration - generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population." As regards the contribution of migrants to the Exchequer, they concluded that "The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups." (See here) These findings have been endorsed by the OECD which found in its annual report that ‘estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration vary, although in most countries it tends to be small in terms of GDP and is around zero on average across OECD countries.’ (See here)

17. A recent study by academics at the Centre for Research and Analysis on Migration at University College London found that between 1995 and 2011 all migrants in the UK received £95 billion more in services and benefits than they contributed in taxes. Breaking this figure down, it was claimed that EEA migrants contributed £9 billion more than they consumed whereas non-EEA migrants consumed £104 billion more than they contributed. (See here)

18. However, a Migration Watch UK analysis of this report questioned their finding that recent EEA migrants contribute more in taxes than they receive in government expenditure and suggests that the contribution is in fact neutral. (See here)

 
How I wish I was around 35 years ago when you could buy a house for 5k.

Then get the billion percent pay rise in the middle of the mortgage.
 
But at that time, 35-40 years ago, when I was first married, wages were VERY much less and more comparitive to house prices. OK we had more opportunity to buy (if you were aware of doing so) but still needed some savvy as to how to negotiate the mortgage market. We were fortunate, bought our first house for around £6K and then quickly moved with the market, selling up and buying our second house quite soon. This allowed us to buy an old house that needed attention and put our loose capital into the renovation. We then moved on again and upgraded to a larger house, once again picking a dilapidated property to invest in. We're now on our 4th house which gives us good collateral and even now still being renovated and increasing that collateral. The trouble with this of course is that you don't get a better life necessarily because all your assets are tied up in a building.

Even now I would always advise people to try and buy their own home because houses never really lose value, they only fluctuate in the market. At least you assets are pretty secure, even in a money break down situation.
 
Yet you had the luck of the big pay rises which our generation will never have. I work with somebody who bought his house for 5k. He was 25. By the time he was 38 he had paid the house off because the boom of pay rises. He went from £20 a week to 25k in a 20 year period. I have heard countless stories from family members about this type of thing as well.

This bloke is 71 years old, has three quarters of a million in the bank, pensions coming out of his arse yet he still works as he is a greedy fecker.

Easier said than done these days to buy a house. Unless you save from a young age, get a reasonable job, meet somebody you want to marry, the chances of getting a house are virtually zero.

I am lucky I am a home owner, but I saved from the age of 6 years old. Took me to I was 28 to get the dream house. No help from anyone but the bank. If you can call that help the way they screw you over with interest rates. Which will go up another £300-£400 a month within the next year. Great.

Cost of living prices are shocking compared to wages. People just don't earn enough money these days. It's a massive problem and if this government and bankers are not careful we will be in another rescission because of their greed. I can see thousands of people losing homes because of this interest rate hike over the next year. It's sickening.
 
To top it off the banks screw you over another £500-£1000 to just re new your mortgage. They do this every two of five years if you have a fixed mortgage. Add that up over a 30 mortgage. That is a deposit for a house just from that. They are robbing thieving scum bags that line their pockets from the weak who are desperate to be on the ladder. Idiots like me basically.
 
Real Deal - 10/8/2014 18:18

To top it off the banks screw you over another £500-£1000 to just re new your mortgage. They do this every two of five years if you have a fixed mortgage. Add that up over a 30 mortgage. That is a deposit for a house just from that. They are robbing thieving scum bags that line their pockets from the weak who are desperate to be on the ladder. Idiots like me basically.
Click to expand...

RD,

I feel for the younger generation, the 'baby boomers' and those who came in the 60/70's have really f**ked them over badly...and it will literally be decades to sort out the mess we've left them - they're projecting now that around 40% aged 35 will still be living with their parents!!

Yet we still can't control our borders.

 
Doesn't look like Cameron will change that either EX. Might need a tyrant type to stop the immigration problem.

Really don't know who to vote next year. Labour isn't happening know matter what.
 
Real Deal - 10/8/2014 20:33

Doesn't look like Cameron will change that either EX. Might need a tyrant type to stop the immigration problem.

Really don't know who to vote next year. Labour isn't happening know matter what.
Click to expand...

We just simply need to get the feck out of the EU, until then we don't have a hope in hell of controlling the huge immigration still taking place.

Trouble is RD we have 3 career politicians in charge of the 3 main parties, none of which have ever had a real job in their life. Even labours shadow chancellor says that no one trusts them to run the countries finances properly after labour gov after labour gov fcuks-ups! Why would you trust them now?

It might end up a protest vote, but if I vote on the main policy that concerns me the most then irrespective of some of their members stupidity, Nigel and UKIP is looking more and more attractive. Until we get out of the EU, we're be doomed to see this countries social problems just get bigger and bigger and more intractable.
 
I was too young to understand about politics when Labour got into power in 97. But I know what destruction they have caused nearly 20 years on. So they will never get a vote from me.

Agree EX. UKIP are looking the most attractive at the moment. I'm sure there will be many twists and turns between now and Election day.

 
vote Green if anyone surely.

currently trying to buy a house and you think after you've saved your deposit you are in..........how wrong were we.


we have gone through two failed house sales since these new regulations. each time the mortgage evaluator comes in and demands a full structural,timber and damp and electrics survey.

timber and damp is the biggest scam market ever - they will always find damp and always charge from 4k upwards, in which the bank says we'll lend you all the money bar the survey costs. so either the seller is forced to reduce price, or you have to put down extra after saving for months for your deposit....

.....and the surveys come to around £1500.

we have lost over £3k and are having to re-build our deposit yet again because greedy bankers are covering their arses with all sorts of unecessary shite. would consider one of those 5% deposits but fuck me if I'm getting screwed with those ridiculous interest rates.




would never vote UKIP. not even to improve my personal housing situation - they are a filthy racist,sexist, snobby party that will fuck anyone over who isn't a white male in the 40% tax band.
 
and where did this all start? the "right to buy scheme" under Thatcher in the 70's. selling government owned houses off on the cheap, so that people could split said houses up into 4 separate dwellings and charge their mortgage 5 times over. disgraceful. and those are the people that are complaining about the "feckless" young people that haven't got any jobs and living with their parents.........the same generation that have been robbed and are paying through their nose to fund said persons mortgages and will consequently be paying their pension and healthcare costs as they retire.


THAT'S where this all started.

and then OSBOURNE brings in his "help to buy" scheme so that rich folk get a second house for themselves. ******* stupid. cretins the lot of them. no wonder I have so much trouble choosing a party come election time. Green all the way by the looks of things.
 
Spurfect11 - 11/8/2014 12:13

vote Green if anyone surely.

currently trying to buy a house and you think after you've saved your deposit you are in..........how wrong were we.


we have gone through two failed house sales since these new regulations. each time the mortgage evaluator comes in and demands a full structural,timber and damp and electrics survey.

timber and damp is the biggest scam market ever - they will always find damp and always charge from 4k upwards, in which the bank says we'll lend you all the money bar the survey costs. so either the seller is forced to reduce price, or you have to put down extra after saving for months for your deposit....

.....and the surveys come to around £1500.

we have lost over £3k and are having to re-build our deposit yet again because greedy bankers are covering their arses with all sorts of unecessary shite. would consider one of those 5% deposits but fuck me if I'm getting screwed with those ridiculous interest rates.




would never vote UKIP. not even to improve my personal housing situation - they are a filthy racist,sexist, snobby party that will fuck anyone over who isn't a white male in the 40% tax band.
Click to expand...

Sorry Spurfect, that's nonsense - the housing shortage had nothing to do with Thatcher and buy to let; if anything it caused a surge in affordable renting..

As long as go as 2006, labour were being warned of what the surge after surge of immigration was doing to the housing stock, see:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2006/6/19/government-denies-immigration-causes-housing-

Even the gov of the day was pointing to social demographic changes as being the main reason i.e. more people staying single longer of choosing to live alone..

Home ownership peaked in 2003 and has been declining ever since. Back in 2004 the Barker report showed that we needed to build 245,000 homes a year to simply be able to cope with the population growth brought about by the immigration surges in the previous decade.

I do however agree that the 'help to buy' simply exacerbated a short term problem and was more about fixing confidence in asset purchases than it was about fixing the house market.

It had nothing to do with Thatcher, except to say it introduced millions of families to home ownership, something they'd never ever would have been able to ever contemplate before then.

I'm sorry about your purchasing travails - but clearly most professionals act within their professional guidelines and if they think these surveys are necessary then I'd tend to believe them, of course you can always decide to look elsewhere and let the sellers have the argument - that normally works a treat..
 
But Ex - allowing people to afford to buy their own home has to come with responsibilites. obviously I want to see everyone owning their own home. Right to buy benefited one generation at the expense of the next.

But want happened in the early 80's was essentially a giveaway on around a million council homes (50% discount was often the case) in which many said houses were turned into rent farms where newly greedy house owners charged extortionate rent to make 2 or 3 fold profit on their mortage, and in turn allowed them to buy 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes etc etc.

which is the reason we have such imbalance - the rich owning the lions share and increasing rent to keep the minions in check. If the right to buy scheme had been introduced with an imposement on how much could be charged then we would be in a different situation. where you could only ever make a 10% profit on your house buy renting. we would soon see many more first time buyers getting their own homes and seeing a rise in a 1:1 house ownership. surely that is the goal? each family owning 1 home.


right to buy screwed that up big time and has exponentially allowed those fortunate few who were offered their council house to control the renting population as they head into a very, very kushty retirement owning the majority of the housing market

 
by the way - do you honestly think immigrants are coming in and buying homes? of course not they are paying rent to rich home owners bourne from the right to buy scheme.
 
Right to Buy reviewed

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/HRD28.pdf

Key points:

The Right to Buy has resulted in much higher sales of properties than
previous discretionary policies; over 2 million dwellings have been sold
under the Right to Buy and related policies.

The Right to Buy has had an uneven impact regionally and locally. The
remaining social rented housing stock is disproportionately concentrated in
areas with a lower demand for housing and fewer opportunities for
employment.

Levels of discount on Right to Buy purchases have averaged around 50 per
cent. This, with the high quality of most of the properties purchased, has
meant that the great majority of purchasers are very satisfied.

Purchasers have tended to be long-established residents living in the more
attractive and saleable properties which they intend to continue living in.
Evidence from more recent purchasers suggests that a higher proportion of
purchasers buy with the intention of moving on.

The Right to Buy, alongside other policies, has contributed to the increased
concentration of low-income households in the social rented sector and in
particular estates.

When resold, former council houses are rarely the cheapest homes on the
market and purchasers are often already home-owners. The evidence suggests
that open market purchasers often move on after a short period and that the
turnover of properties is high.


Basically it made purchasers very happy.

i.e. it turned social housing into a playground for wannabe capitalists at the expense of todays 20/30 somethings.
 
latest help to buy scheme makes already rich landords richer, and renting tenant poorer


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n01/james-meek/where-will-we-live


the whole thing is a sham

look no further than Fergus Wilson for the right to buy scheme personified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.