I guess you don't live in London. Where would you build these houses? There really is no room.



Landlords are supposed to declare their rent as income and pay tax on it. I suspect many don't.

I am in danger of adopting a left-leaning policy, but I would support 60 or even 70% tax on rental income. Too many people are using houses as investments and it is depriving others of places to live and put down roots.

Especially many of our newly adopted immigrants.
They deserve the chance to get their feet on the first rungs of the property ladder to integrate, invigorate and diversivy our proud multi-cultural 21st century society.

I live in London and was looking into moving out into one of the surrounding counties (Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Buckinghamshire) I had a few estate agents around to value my house. They've valued it between 215k and 225k.

My house is tiny, in fact it must be on the very limit of the definition of 'house'.
It's a back to back terrace with 10sqft front garden, downstairs is open plan front room/kitchen with a bathroom (en suite size) and a bedroom big enough for a double bed and wardrobe.
This apparently is a first time buyers property, 215k is a first time buyers? In the area I'm from in the north a ftb property is 40k for 215k I can get a 5 bedroom detached house with front and rear garden and garage.

London is scandalous, for working class/lower middle class people will be working 35 years to pay off a house. I'm fortunate and only have 8 years currently but I feel for ftb now. My house has dropped and risen in 7 years by 40k.
40k in 7 years and you feel for those saving money for a deposit, it's rising quicker than they can save.

Introduce Land Value Taxation and you'd be surprised at how much land suddenly became available

Back on the old social housing debate again eh ?

Said it before and I'll keep on saying it - when I was in the building trade from '74 to '84 the company I worked for were involved in the construction and refurbishments of tens of thousands of council or housing association properties the vast majority of which were central government funded - have a look if you can't recall or aren't old enough to know, at which colour of government were in power during those years, the answer is both Red and Blue governments and the Red government were far, far more left than they are now and the Blue government was, well, somewhere like where Tony Blair ended up, but still...

You might also check what the economy was like during those years, it was up and down and when it was down it was on its knees, you kiddies may not know about three day working weeks (and three days pay) because there wasn't enough electricity to run the country, but there were rough old times in that decade.

All of which begs the question - how the hell could we afford to build hundreds of thousands of local authority and housing association rental properties and MOST IMPORTANT, rent them out at rates that didn't feel like you were having your wisdom teeth pulled out when you signed the lease ?

The answer is of course, political will and public attitude.

As we know from Standee and his experience in this line of work in recent years, social housing for rent is now looked upon as short term and emergency housing, at some point in the preceeding 40 years we as a society have changed our attitudes to social housing in a massive 180 degree swing, it is now just not the done thing for a young couple to think about putting their name on a council list even if their council had properties for them, not only that we are now happy to stigmatise social housing tenants as non-workers, scroungers and cheats for having too many bedrooms and leaching from the rest of us to pay for their luxurious mansion style extra bedroom houses.


I'm fairly sure its not me thats gone mad but sometimes I doubt myself.

Most of Herts (except say Watford is very expensive). Beds. maybe a good bet but commuting is more expensive.

Something in The Sunday Times today about how the UK is, or will shortly be, the fastest growing Western economy.

Growth built on a housing bubble and consumer debt?

Where have we heard that one before?

I actually wanted to move back up North but the wife vetoed it, I'd lined work up and everything. This is a kind of compromise the areas I've earmarked are Letchworth,Tring and Hitchen but keeping my options open. I shop in Watford(Harlequin)...no thanks to living there.

The prices are rising at a silly rate though, I don't know what can be done though, it's getting silly that all the service workers, nurses...basically your normal average wage worker can't afford to live in London, rich foreigners buying central properties they only stay in probably 3 weeks a year is turning it in to a giant ghost city.

Oh the irony, welcome to the South West of the last ten years.

Rich Londoners buying 2nd homes and cottages, driving out the local population and leaving whole villages with hardly a light shining from Sunday to Thursday nights but everything illuminated on Fridays and Saturdays. Then the leary bastads complain that the local pub and village shop have closed.

After flat lining for four years. Big whoop.

This growth is still miniscule compared to that which has been seen in all major economies whilst we were held in recession by the towel folder's ridiculous policies.

Never mind, at least they've got borrowing under control...

Why are you repeating this rubbish? It's embarrassing for you.

Looks down, reads Ajw71's sig...

Quite wrong and flies in the face of the facts.

"There is now growth across virtually the whole economy" source The Guardian

Although it is possible to have a recovery without a rise in consumer spending, that recover is likely to be very weak because consumer spending accounts for almost two thirds of our GDP (62%) therefore expecting all the growth to come from the remaining 38% is asking too much.

Evidence: In the final quarter of 2013 consumer spending rose at a slower rate (2.4%) than the overall GDP (2.7%) This rise in consumer spending was dwarfed by the increase in investment 8.7% and business investment 8.5%

Of course consumers played their part in the recovery. Of the 2.7% rise in GDP, 1.5 percentage points came from consumer spending. Their contribution to growth, just over half, was however smaller than their long-run 62% share of GDP

All three of the main sectors of the economy grew over the past year; industrial production by 2.3%, services by 2.7% and construction by 4.3%.

As for "consumer debt" most of this borrowing is in the form of mortgages to finance house purchase, not current spending. The pre-crisis norm, using housing equity for holidays, cars and kitchens, went into reverse in 2008 and is still in reverse now.



Well I guess this rubbish you keep quoting is from that discredited fraudster Danny Blanchflower whose crystal ball has been a bit cloudy for several years now.


Source: ST

Err....we have just had the five consecutive quarters with growth! Your comment is more like a Big poop!

another example of Austerity working www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201

another example of Austerity working www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201

Quote ="SmokeyTA"another example of Austerity working www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201'" I think you are mistaken. You have chosen an example of greed working. For a serious fraud case to be stopped after defendants claimed they could not get adequate representation because of cuts to legal aid is a first. What a great defence. The government has reduced the legal aid fees in very high cost cases (VHCC) by 30% so we now have barristers refusing to take VHCC because now a QC will only earn about £100,000 for working on it and a junior barrister will now earn only £60,000. These latter day Rumpoles may be feeling just a slight pinch but you can hardly say this is austerity.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"another example of Austerity working www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201'" I think you are mistaken. You have chosen an example of greed working. For a serious fraud case to be stopped after defendants claimed they could not get adequate representation because of cuts to legal aid is a first. What a great defence. The government has reduced the legal aid fees in very high cost cases (VHCC) by 30% so we now have barristers refusing to take VHCC because now a QC will only earn about £100,000 for working on it and a junior barrister will now earn only £60,000. These latter day Rumpoles may be feeling just a slight pinch but you can hardly say this is austerity.

I have said it before on other threads - despite the image of 'fat cat' lawyers, there is no money in criminal law.

A newly qualified solicitor or barrister will probably earn £20K before tax, if that. A barrister will have to fund their own expenses and will not get holiday pay either. This is having spent several years studying and then a year or two as an apprentice, before being allowed to call themselves a qualified lawyer.

Once you gain several years experience, the absolute top-wack is about £40K-£60K depending on what you are doing, how hard you are prepared to work, and how many unsociable hours you rack up.

There are a small number of very experienced solicitors and barristers working on VHCC. I do not begrudge them the money, as it is peanuts compared to what could be made in other areas of law. They could make considerably more in something like commercial or chancery, where newly qualifieds can earn £100K p/a from their first day of starting work.

You may get paid £60K for a VHCC case, but that will probably represent the best part of a year's work, on which you will pay 40% tax. And during this time you probably won't be working on anything else either.

As the article states Legal Aid costs about £2bn a year with half of that going on criminal defence. This is not peanuts! and anyway barristers are really actors who do it because they like dressing up in funny clothes. I have never met a poor one yet.

Its market conditions in motion, HM Government has pitched a bid which is too low if as noted in the article that not one single barrister has agreed to the lowered amounts, if such cases cannot be brought to court in a fair way then its a result of the low bid, the markets will rule as always.

On the subject of criminal legal aid, you really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You just see a bottom line figure and assume it is a lot of money, without understanding any of the complexities behind it.

Of course, this is what the Government want you to do.

Well it would be helpful if you could provide some detail to prove that you do know what you are talking about because so far it is just your opinion.

So far your opinion is based on assumptions. You have assumed that I have no idea of criminal legal aid, you have assumed I am not aware of the complexities of criminal law and you have further assume that I believe what the government want me to...whatever that means.

I am not taken in by government spin but neither am I taken in by a very rich and powerful Temple lobby.

The government has listened to the Law Society and have made changes to their initial proposals. The proposals require better efficiency and will initially consider better use of technology – for example holding short hearings by telephone or web or video-based applications. It will also consider ways of cutting the number of pre-trial hearings that require defendants in custody and advocates to attend court. This is not aimed at reducing hourly pay when working - but reducing cost that could be avoided.

Leveson’s review is expected to make recommendations for changes to the Criminal Procedure Rules to maximise efficiency and support the implementation of any changes proposed.

My comments were aimed at the barristers and not the solicitors who in many cases do earn very little when doing legal aid work.

Not answering my questions Elpers.

Typical Tory .

Quote ="Lord Elpers"I think you are mistaken. You have chosen an example of greed working. For a serious fraud case to be stopped after defendants claimed they could not get adequate representation because of cuts to legal aid is a first. What a great defence. The government has reduced the legal aid fees in very high cost cases (VHCC) by 30% so we now have barristers refusing to take VHCC because now a QC will only earn about £100,000 for working on it and a junior barrister will now earn only £60,000. These latter day Rumpoles may be feeling just a slight pinch but you can hardly say this is austerity.'" it's a good job you haven't relied on figures from an untrustworthy source with form for overestimating barristers personal income isn't it. www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/r ... 032014.pdf Oh.........

Quote ="Lord Elpers"I think you are mistaken. You have chosen an example of greed working. For a serious fraud case to be stopped after defendants claimed they could not get adequate representation because of cuts to legal aid is a first. What a great defence. The government has reduced the legal aid fees in very high cost cases (VHCC) by 30% so we now have barristers refusing to take VHCC because now a QC will only earn about £100,000 for working on it and a junior barrister will now earn only £60,000. These latter day Rumpoles may be feeling just a slight pinch but you can hardly say this is austerity.'" it's a good job you haven't relied on figures from an untrustworthy source with form for overestimating barristers personal income isn't it. www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/r ... 032014.pdf Oh.........

A thing or two about qualifying as a barrister.

The quickest way to do this is, generally, to do a qualifying law degree. This lasts for 3 years. You then pay a whopping £17K to do the Bar Professional Training Course (formerly the Bar Vocational Course). Which takes a year.

The next stage is possibly the hardest in the whole process. You have to get something called pupillage, which is basically an apprenticeship year working as a trainee barrister, or pupil as they are called in the profession. So that's 5 years in total before you are a proper barrister, assuming you go straight through the system without any delay.

Pupillage is hotly contested, with chambers frequently getting 200-500 applications per pupillage on offer. Statistically speaking, your chances of getting a pupillage are around 20%, and if you don't get one within 5 years of completing the BPTC you start looking for a new career.

Assuming you want to work in crime expect to be paid £12K - £15K for your pupillage year (compared with £40K in a commerical set). Once you complete this you are then a fully qualified barrister. Hopefully the chambers you did you pupillage at will take you on, but they might not. In which case you are looking for a new chambers.

Assume you are taken on. So, you have made it and are ready to start earning the big bucks. Wrong!

You are self-employed. You fund all your own expenses. You fund all your own professional development. You will travel all over the country doing y little hearings in return for peanuts. Before you are allowed to do anything half-decent.

Instructing solicitors will be slow in paying you, your clerk will not chase them because the chambers you are at will want work from them. And you will not chase them for fear that they will not send you future work. (I know people who were receiving cheques in 2012 for work carried out in 2009.)

You will be up all night prepping cases and you can kiss goodbye to a social life or other half.

Eventually you might get some good cases, but even then don't expect to earn much more than £25K in your first couple of years. Being self-employed, you will have to make your own pension contributions and there is no holiday pay.

After around 2 years you will realise that the bloke selling second hand Mondeos down the local car garage is making more money then you, and you will either diversify you practice away from criminal law, or leave the profession altogether.

I have friends practising crime who are 5 years qualified. They earn around £40K per annum before tax, possibly slightly less. Legal Aid pay rates are so poor (not been increased since the mid 90s) that it is very difficult to earn more.

The only people earning much more are very experienced (10 years + qualified) and probably working on serious cases all the time. Or people doing the VHCC stuff.

The junior end of the independent criminal Bar is absolutely stuffed. And the going rate for a junior CPS barrister is about £35K.

Either way, there is bugger all money in criminal law. The average earnings of a criminal barrister are about £37K before tax. And people are leaving to do other stuff in droves.

You probably think this is a good thing, and that there are too many 'fat cat' lawyers. And whilst £37K may be a decent salary in Hull, it is bugger all in London.

And trust me, when you are the one picked by up the police for something you haven't done, you will be demanding the best representation. And you won't get it. Because anyone half-decent will have left to practise something else worth doing.

In the alternative, you may find yourself in crown court being represented by a solicitor-advocate. They have never done a pupillage and get their Higher Rights of Audience on a 3 day course with a quick exam at the end. And it shows.