Shoot first

[BlueMax]

I'm willing to be convinced that house price rises are a direct result of immigration, but I think it has more to do with increased expectations and rising standards of living.

80 years ago the average worker would have expected to live in private rented accomodation. 40 years ago they were still renting but this time the Government was the landlord. 25 yrs ago the Goverment of the day introduced the Right to Buy scheme. Millions of renters got the chance to buy a home at a knockdown price. That was significant. Britain quickly became a nation of property owners rather than renters. Houses have been seen an investment ever since.

One reason for house price increase is that it is a market targeted by international banks. Compared to lending money to poor countries, selling mortgages secured with for brick & mortar in rich countries is very safe business. Increased money supply in turn leads to more people buying houses, people owning more than one property. Increased demand in turn result higher house prices.

Downside is that people expect higher salaries so that they can afford to pay their mortgages. Higher salaries mean cost of products and services becomes higher, making the country less competetive in international trade.

 

[SCIDB]

Dean's supply and demand is partly right, but that's not entirely economics.

I think you will find it is based on economics. House prices have not risen due to immigrants. Chris (hexspurt) has made some very good points in his post. People (the masses) buying houses has mushroomed in recent times. Most people used to rent. This due to mortgages becoming easier to get hold of, lower interest rates and people buying their council houses.

Back in the 80s, the rise of 95% to 100% mortgages meant that you don't need to have a big deposit. A lot of houses were less that twice peoples salaries. You could get a mortgage 3 times (or more) of your salary. This meant that you could go further in what you could buy. The government encouraged people to buy their homes so the stampide began.

Sale of houses has been offers around the asking price. This has meant in practice selling to the highest bidder in most cases. So with houses being quite low and people having more money to play with, they could go over the asking to get their new abode. An dthis is what happened.

Certain indemand areas rose the quickest but all areas rose in value as alot people went to buy.

Also the housing market was made up of more first time buyers and single people. People are also earning more. Add to this your 2nd, 3rd etc time buyers and sellers and you get a active market.

there is price fixing. look at the obscene inflated prices of new builds. these bear no comparison to older stock, prices are highly inflated.

This is supply and demand again. There is a big market for new housing. So profits can be quite good for house builders. They will charge what the market will stand and what they think they can get away with.

yes supply and demand, too much supply, too high population density.

There is plenty of space for people to live in this country. Some people want to live in certain areas, like London so it's more crowded that say living in parts of Scotland. A lot of this is due to the growth of industry and commerce in cities over the centuries.

I know a person who owns 12 houses, from my reading a very good paper, this sort of thing is rife, people all over buying houses to make cash on, happened next door to me, , some greedy young upstart taking housing and nicking good people's cash, all he does is buy and sell houses, they ain't a commodity to trade, they are for decent people

in my not so humble opinion, it should be one person one house.

Can you blame people for buying more than one house? Houses have for a long time been an excellent investment. I known a number people who own more than one house. If you rent it out, it is a good source of income. Plus the value will be usually greater when you sell. There will always be a market for renting out houses and flats.

More houses to suit many people pockets and in wider range of houses need to be built. Plus more use should be made of empty houses flats and buildings.

SCIDB

 

[Matt F]

............and irresponsible lending ......

Too right. I was amazed when chatting to a mortgage adviser the other day.

I knew that, based on our incomes, the other half and I would be able to borrow quite a bit. I was expecting maybe up to £400K based on the rules that used to be in place (not that we want a mortgage that big incidentally).

He did a few calcs, applied a few uplift factors and then told me that a number of lenders would happily let us borrow £713K!!

Absolutely ridiculous.

Now, in our case, we don't want or need anywhere near that much but there must be plenty of people on more regular incomes who are offered mortgages way above what they should be and who will find themselves in serious trouble should interest rates take an upward turn.

Whilst we're on about property, I'd also like to have a moan about Stamp Duty. Was there ever a more blatant example of a Government dipping its greasy paw into people's profits on an investment that is supposedly free of Capital Gains Tax?

Putting the second Stamp Duty band up from 1.5% to 3% was bad enough but not revaluing this band in line with house price inflation is criminal. Out of interest, had this band been increased in line with house price inflation, buyers wouldn't start paying 3% stamp duty until the property price exceeded around £600K!! The stamp duty start price would be around £180K using the same formula.

Perhaps I should write to our Chancellor and remind him that the bands need revaluing. I'm sure he would read it with interest and make the necessary adjustments.

I know, I must be dreaming: :SLEEP:

Matt.

 

[Matt F]

There's shedloads of immigrants and assylum seekers in Glasgow, Edinburgh and much of the lowlands - especially where there's redundant housing stock the locals don't want!

When I said Scotland desperately needs immigrants I was referring to their well publicised need to attract well qualified immigrants who can come in and do a variety of skilled/professional jobs.

In fact I believe Scotland are rather peeved at the UKs new tougher plans for immigration as this will negatively impact Scotlands need to attract dare I say high quality immigrants.

Matt.

 

[Matt F]

You what ? Their asylum policy has come in for more stick than almost any other. It's both racist and cruelly inhumane. Their Woomera detention centre (in the middle of an inhospitable desert) for asylum seekers who's cases have yet to be heard is little better than a concentration camp.

Without wishing to be pedantic, is their policy actually racist though? Do they treat assylum seekers from different countries, different races, colours or religion differently? Or do they have one policy that applies to ANYONE seeking assylum there?

On the immigration side, I thought their policy was pretty strict no matter where you are applying from, UK included. I know they score people on skills, age etc. so you could argue that they are discriminating against those things but I'm not aware an applicant can gain or lose points based on his or her skin colour or race.

Matt.

 

[Dev]

Matt,

Take a look at this link:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_Policy

I found a lot of links like it and apparently the policy survived until 1970s. I found other links that suggest that unofficially the policy still survives.

 

[Matt F]

Matt,

Take a look at this link:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_Policy

I found a lot of links like it and apparently the policy survived until 1970s. I found other links that suggest that unofficially the policy still survives.

Interesting stuff and quite an eye-opener.

It does seem that the practice was shelved 25 years or so ago but, as you say, whether elements of it continued on an unwritten basis is another matter.

Matt.

 

[michaelab]

Without wishing to be pedantic, is their policy actually racist though? Do they treat assylum seekers from different countries, different races, colours or religion differently? Or do they have one policy that applies to ANYONE seeking assylum there?

Imagine for a moment that New Zealand somehow got overrun by some tyrranical despotic dictatorship and thousands of (mostly white) New Zealanders were fleeing the country to avoid persecution and turning up in boats on the Australian coast. Do you for one second imagine that they would be treated the same way as the Indonesians, Afghans and Iraqis that arrive the same way - ie, locked up in a detention centre on some remote Pacific island or in a prison camp in the middle of the desert? Of course they woudln't!

Similarly, if those Kiwis were arriving on UK shores it's almost certain they would get a very different reception from the African and Asian asylum seekers. People would probably be offering to put them up in their houses and I can imagine the Daily Mail running a feel good piece about the "Dunkerque Spirit" helping out those poor people. Similarly, the BNP and its sympathisers like LCD and lhatkins wouldn't be complaining about "all those Kiwis taking our jobs and housing".

It's an unfortunate fact that the unspoken "problem" that people have with asylum seekers is that they're invariably non-whites from Third World countries.

Michael.

 

[Matt F]

...various...

I actually agree with you. I guess the ultimate test of whether an assylum policy is racist would be if the situation you describe (white, english speaking assylum seekers) arose.

The likelihood of this happening of course is virtually nil which the countries in question are probably quite relieved about.

Matt.

 

[johnhunt]

Michael/Matt

i think eastern europeans get much the same treatment. They fit that catagory; many are white and speak english. From my dad's army history qualification i think , in a sense, US servicemen got comparable treatment during WW2.Again most were white and spoke english.

 

[ats]

The shooting of the innocent man is at Stockwell is a tradegdy. However, the day after four terroists have tried to blow themselves up on the Tube and Bus network it's probably not advisable to run from armed Police when they've ordered you to stop and then hurdle the ticket barrier at a tube station whilst wearing a heavy coat in the summertime.

I'm not making light of what happened just trying to put it into some context. The police have a difficult job to do & if it had been a suicide bomber who ran onto the tube and blew himself up we would be asking 'why wasn't he stoped'.

 

[johnhunt]

on the 11th page of this thread suddenly there was clarity...........

 

[lhatkins]

The shooting of the innocent man is at Stockwell is a tradegdy. However, the day after four terroists have tried to blow themselves up on the Tube and Bus network it's probably not advisable to run from armed Police when they've ordered you to stop and then hurdle the ticket barrier at a tube station whilst wearing a heavy coat in the summertime.

I'm not making light of what happened just trying to put it into some context. The police have a difficult job to do & if it had been a suicide bomber who ran onto the tube and blew himself up we would be asking 'why wasn't he stoped'.

That was what I was trying to say, just didn't come out the same way.

 

[auric]

Yep, "shoot to kill" and "shoot to kill to protect" are not the same thing.

 

[Lt Cdr Data]

Michael, I do object, the bnp support forced repatriation of all coloured people, I do not.

There is a difference in sensibly limiting numbers as opposed to forced repatriation. yes?

Do you label all people who think the country is too full as being bnp, if so that attitude is very judgemental, mistaken, bigoted and intentionally loaded to cause offence.

oh yeah, you can offend a british white guy cos he ain't got no values or religion left, but you can't offend an asian guy, its racialist. its a cultural phenomenon, if I judge a white person, that's ok, but if I judge an asian, that's racialist.
sorry, that's relative. I think for myself and don't follow the herd. Its not ok to call someone fat, that's just as bad as saying something racialist. its a judgement upon their person.

if minorities are OVER represented, that's racist against white people. and just as bad. oh but its not, as whites can't be the victim of racism. that IS the attitude.

its got to the stage you pick a minority over a white person even if they are slightly less qualified to do a job, just to meet an imposed target.

that's how stupid we are getting, you choose the best person, regardless of colour. If they are coloured, fine if they are white, fine. but these guys who can't think are doing ridiculours things.

the unbelievable liberal bias at times can be so narrow minded, blinkered and more intolerant than the bnp, indeed, probably worse than the bnp in the prejudice and bias.

the left is just as bad as the right, in fact I don't know quite what left and right means, remember I haven't done politics at all.

I will stay in the middle.

back to the brazilian

the cops were following the guy, why did someone suspected be allowed to get along to a tube station b4 being challenged and stopped.
that's police incompetence.

the cops were plain clothes, understandable he ran.

 

[Dev]

Data,

I'm not going to address your post point by point but just want to say that it's all a matter of perception. Where you see "minorities over representation" thousands will point to higher unemployment amongst certain sections. For every Islamic fundamentalists there are literally thousands of peace loving "Islamic looking" people that just want to get on with their lives. Ironically it is this majority that often suffers in any backlash. It's never quite all clear cut.

This thread was about an innocent life being lost and perhaps the debate should be about if/how it could have been prevented and how not to repeat the same mistake. This is assuming that we have all the facts before us which we clearly don't. So until we do, perhaps all we can do is spare a thought for the victim's family and for the policemen involved. I can't imagine what they are going through having taken an innocent life.

 

[lhatkins]

It could have been prevented if he was challenged when he left the bombers house, it should not have been allowed to get as far as it did, what where they thinking?

I've removed the rest as it appears I was basing my opinions on inaccurate media coverage. my apologies.

 

[SCIDB]

Data,

I'm not going to address your post point by point but just want to say that it's all a matter of perception. Where you see "minorities over representation" thousands will point to higher unemployment amongst certain sections. For every Islamic fundamentalists there are literally thousands of peace loving "Islamic looking" people that just want to get on with their lives. Ironically it is this majority that often suffers in any backlash. It's never quite all clear cut.

Very good points there, Dev.

I would like to comment further on Ian's (Data's) points and some of the other points. But I have to go out yet again for a all day birthday bash.

I will comment tomorrow.

SCIDB

 

[Dev]

It could have been prevented if he was challenged when he left the bombers house, it should not have been allowed to get as far as it did, what where they thinking?

Quite possibly it could have been prevented and these are the sort of questions that need to be answered.

There must have been a connection with this man to the bombers as why else was he leaving their house? I'm still not convinced this is as innocent as the media makes out, its probably a small and circumstantial connection, we shall see, if the bombers talk, they may throw some light on the this.

I cannot believe how anyone can come up with such a narrow minded view. He came out of a BLOCK OF FLATS, not a house. Would you convict everyone in that block and what about other suspects arrested, some of them also lived in blocks of flats. Do you assume every one of their neighbours is guilty by association? Even if he (Jean Charles de Menezes) did share a house with any of the suspects, how can you be certain that he had any knowledge or sympathy for them or their cause?

Do you actually believe that if Jean Charles de Menezes was in any way associated with the bombers that the Police would not have mentioned it? It would have helped to justify their actions. We have already been told why he might have ran.

BTW, how did you conclude that he had connections to Islamic fundamentalists? He had a Christian sounding name, at least to me.

 

[michaelab]

BTW, how did you conclude that he had connections to Islamic fundamentalists? He had a Christian sounding name, at least to me.

He was a Catholic, like most Brazilians. He had no connection whatsoever to the bombers other than living in the same block of flats, along with dozens of other people .

Michael.