Yesterday, The Times published more stories in its new ‘housing crisis’ series.
We scoured them all, but could not find much evidence that the paper has discovered that part of the country which lies beyond the M25 – or even much in the way of new stories.
Surely the London mayor had already said that homes should first be marketed to Londoners rather than overseas buyers? And is the idea that the lesser bits of the green belt should be built on anything we haven’t heard before?
However, the Daily Mash seemed to get things spot on.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/for-fks-sake-dont-solve-the-housing-crisis-say-selfish-bastards-20180201143576
Comments (2)
Option 1 – Makes the country a better place to live? More concrete,brick and (road) congestion, less green spaces. I think I prefer a reasonably populated country rather than living in a country heading towards over capacity and congestion. (You can move to india or china if you prefer that lifestyle).
Option 2 – An awful lot of people would prefer less competition for jobs, healthcare, roadspace and education, better wage inflation, and protection of their national identity above GDP. Some might even sacrifice house price inflation for the former. In fact here’s a suprise; the Majority of the country would prefer those things and voted accordingly.
The problem you cite is caused by the very thing you are so keen to hang onto. Anyone that denies wage de-flation and house price inflation are not directly linked to mass immigration has frankly been brainwashed.
We are all complicit.
This country is obsessed by house prices always going up.
We have two choices – build more houses or reduce the number of people living here.
Option 1 – not a bad idea, get’s the economy going and makes the country a better place to live, it won’t reduce house prices, but it might slow the increases.
Option 2 – we could give it a name… (anyone?) is not a good idea because it would reduce our GDP AND reduce the value of our housing stock at the same time. Also, it’s remarkably difficult to do without causing horrendous problems during the transition period.
House price growth that is three times the rate of inflation whilst wages are static is sheer lunacy. It is building up a problem that we will not be able to cope with.
BTW, my name for option 2 could be something like Brexit, where Britain takes leave of it’s senses and exits the real world.
Can anyone answer a question for me?
If it took 44 years to decide to leave the EU after joining. Will it take 44 years to unwind it all? I bet it’ll take more than 2 or 4…