skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s almost as if Sunak is actively encouraging the young to vote.
You're more of a James O'Brien kinda guy aren't you.Why does anyone take this guy seriously? It’s just his brother isn’t it?
You're more of a Spot's first book kind of guy aren't you.You're more of a James O'Brien kinda guy aren't you.
nah, there's a big feeling of "vote to get these out".I predict the lowest turnout since the great war.
Not sure Dave, send me your copy and I'll let you know.You're more of a Spot's first book kind of guy aren't you.
'They started it'
Fucks sake. Everyone deserves better, no ifs or buts, like I said, I agree with what he's saying, I think the younger generation have it hard, but I don't think fuck the elderly is the,way to solve it.
You're more of a James O'Brien kinda guy aren't you.
Who has said “fuck the elderly”?
Who has said “fuck the elderly”? As soon as someone suggests a rebalance you get your response of “won’t somebody think of the pensioners” and we go nowhere.
Who has suggested being against a rebalance? Young people need help, more now than theyve needed for a long time.
But why not bring one demographic up without brining another one down?
A rebalancing of house prices would be great, but it's very unlikely to happen.It’s a zero sum game. We can’t lower house prices for the young and keep pensioners house values high. We can’t build infrastructure and also protect pensioners views of the countryside. We can’t leave the EU for the pensioners and also stay for the young.
It’s not about bringing a demographic down, but about recognising that they aren’t the only demographic that matters and that the last 20 years or so have been massively skewed towards the old and that will need rebalancing. And as the saying goes, when you’re used to privilege equality feels like oppression.
As the guy says in the thread, the best advice I can give my kids is to leave the country unless there’s some signs of this changing.
A rebalancing of house prices would be great, but it's very unlikely to happen.
Bringing up the younger generations earning power is probably the most realistic way to sort that out but that brings its own issues.
Unless we legalise euthanising your parents in their 60s.
How do you do that, if the elderly make up the majority of voters?I strongly believe you can have decent care and pensions, and also not give pensioners veto on all development in the entire country.
How do you do that, if the elderly make up the majority of voters?
But why is it unlikely to happen? Because any government who did it would be voted out by the over 65s. And before we even got to the lower prices the local NIMBY pensioner group would have blocked any building.
I agree though, the best we could hope for is to raise wages and keep house prices where they are.
I strongly believe you can have decent care and pensions, and also not give pensioners veto on all development in the entire country.
I agree about planning reform though I'm not sure what the nimby demographic is. But we need to get things moving.
But it's more than just about planning. Lots of projects kicked in to touch recently due inflation and the eye watering rises in material prices.
And when we do build its 300k plus 3 bed, 2 bathroom jobs.
We need to think about what we're building as well.
Voter Registration can only be completed via snapchat, whatsapp or signal. polling stations open 22.00 hrs - 04.00 hrs.
How do you do that, if the elderly make up the majority of voters?
I mean, you can make the case that if the majority of voters are elderly, it’s not only good politics but good democracy to cater policy to their needs. ‘For the many, not the few’ and all that.I dunno man. It’s going to have to be done by an incumbent govt like anything not immediately popular to a majority of voters.
You need everything in the property ladder. Flats, 2-bed "starter" homes, 3- and 4-bed "family" homes and FAR more 2-bed bungalows for older people who want to downsize/de-complicate, thus freeing up the family homes for the ladder. ALL of these types need to be on EVERY sizeable development in order to maintain community life.Sorry what’s wrong with family homes? I’m lost.
Sorry what’s wrong with family homes? I’m lost.
Sorry what’s wrong with family homes? I’m lost.
Nothing. But if we want to get people on the property ladder then they're not the way to do it.
Pretty much what Offenham says, build starter homes, I'd also put something in place to stop them ever being sold as buy to let's.
You need everything in the property ladder. Flats, 2-bed "starter" homes, 3- and 4-bed "family" homes and FAR more 2-bed bungalows for older people who want to downsize/de-complicate, thus freeing up the family homes for the ladder. ALL of these types need to be on EVERY sizeable development in order to maintain community life.
And mix social housing (i.e. local authority or housing association) in with that lot too.
And we need to go back to "fair rent" assessments for private lettings, to stop landlords profiteering.
I mean, you can make the case that if the majority of voters are elderly, it’s not only good politics but good democracy to cater policy to their needs. ‘For the many, not the few’ and all that.
In our village, the local planning authority regularly undertake housing needs surveys to inform the decisions that are made by the planning committee. It was evident that there were many people who said they would want a 2-bed bungalow to move into, or a shared ownership starter home. So when the time came to put in an application to build on a piece of land that had been assessed as being needed for development, the clowns put in a load of 3, 4 and 5 bed houses, some 3 storeys tall. We fought back and got more social housing, distributed throughout the development (not stashed away at the back corner in a "hovel" where no-one could see them) and more bungalows. I was proud to be involved in the fight to get more of what our villagers had said they needed!Completely agree with social/council housing.
But we have a mechanism for this already. Property developers build where they can make money. They can make money because there’s demand from people to live there.
Rather than forcing people to move out into a hovel or whatever we can just build the houses people want where they want them.
Smaller houses take up less land (so you can more of them per hectare), are cheaper, and are what is needed for young people to start on the housing ladder.I’m not sure building smaller houses in a country with some of the smallest on the planet is a solution TBH.
It doesn’t matter what you build, more supply = lower prices across the board.
Johnny RichMan buys a house you deem as too big, he’s not bidding on the “starter home” against someone else, bringing that price down.
Right now house prices rise so much that they’re an easy investment for people with capital. You build a starter home and it’s worth investors buying it for rental because house prices are still rising.
I’m just stunned that we think a three bed semi is some kind of luxury.
Given your good points on this, this is a rubbish take.There appears to be an expectation among (at least some of) the younger generation nowadays that they should be entitled to move into a 3 bed detached from the off. It's called a property ladder for a reason.
It's not guesswork, Ian. It is taken from opinions expressed during a debate on the housing market on BBC 5Live with an invited audience of young people trying to get on the housing ladder. It was perhaps a small, unrepresentative sample, but isn't that what the BBC is meant to try and avoid?Given your good points on this, this is a rubbish take.
Smaller houses take up less land (so you can more of them per hectare), are cheaper, and are what is needed for young people to start on the housing ladder.
When i was growing up 35 years ago or so, the expectation was that you buy somewhere small and cheap to start out (mine was a new-build shared ownership 2-bed terrace), then you gradually move up the ladder as you can afford it.
There appears to be an expectation among (at least some of) the younger generation nowadays that they should be entitled to move into a 3 bed detached from the off. It's called a property ladder for a reason.
I’m not sure building smaller houses in a country with some of the smallest on the planet is a solution TBH.
It doesn’t matter what you build, more supply = lower prices across the board.
Johnny RichMan buys a house you deem as too big, he’s not bidding on the “starter home” against someone else, bringing that price down.
Right now house prices rise so much that they’re an easy investment for people with capital. You build a starter home and it’s worth investors buying it for rental because house prices are still rising.
I’m just stunned that we think a three bed semi is some kind of luxury.
Stop investors buying.
Ring fence certain homes away from them, how I don't know but I'm sure it a be done.
And no one said a 3 bed 2 bathroom semi is a luxury but it's definitely not your typical first time buyer property.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?