JNugent wrote:
wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently
like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the
reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.

A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about
ten
miles at most. Are you suggesting that there are open
fields
within that area?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to
60 miles (probably not a lot more, unless one lives
adjacent to a
motorway interchange).

You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross
before
you can do anything more than 30mph and even that is
pretty
ambitious as an average speed, especially considering
the fact
that you'll face congestion and a lot of traffic lights.
I'd be absolutely amazed if you could travel as much as
60 miles. Even
half that seems optimistic.

Who said anything about either living or working at
Charing Cross?

For goodness sake, it's even quoted in your post (and this
one).

Charing Cross is mentioned (as the centre of a particular
circle of which 15% is built-up) - but there is no mention
or claim of either *living* or *working* there.


To refresh your memory of GH's post - " the reality is that approximately
15% of the land within 1 hours commute of charring cross is built on."

Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in
message
.4...
Living many miles away from where you work and having
to
travel a long distance to get there is something that
should be discouraged. Not encouraged so that the rich
can
buy another castle and leave it empty for most of the
year.

Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses
in
such areas? The main problem is the lack of supply that
is
driving up the prices.

errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is
greed.

So why do we not have the same situation with cars? Cars
themselves can be bought for less now than ever in real
terms. This is due to the fact that there is far greater
supply so people buying cars can shop around for a good
deal. The laws of supply and demand will always work
things
out, and in the housing market, the market is artificially
being held high by restricting supply.


If you were to take note of news broadcasts you would have
noticed that the present government took action to force
down the price of cars.

Another part of the reason is that houses last
considerably longer than cars generally speaking. But just
for the hell of it, see what price you would have to pay
for a Mk1 Cortina now, it will be significantly above it
price when new.



The government action to reduce the price of cars has not
really made much difference. Cars are still even cheaper in
other EU countries. The main reduction in price of cars
between now and 20 years ago has been increased competition
in the market, increased efficiency in car production and
fewer trade restrictions.

Thankfully we have a far greater choice these days and
don't have to buy Mk1 Cortinas. People who wish to buy
"classic cars" are obviously free to do so.

Hmmm, You compared the difference in price rises between cars and houses. I
used the analogy of a Mk1 Cortina to illustrate that cars also increse in
value over time.

Is using an analogy something you are not familair with?

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to
someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people who
would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip on
reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves.

"Purditer" wrote in
message ...

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to
someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people
who
would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip
on
reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves.



How sad.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


But the net result is that buying a holiday home is
depriving someone else of a permanent home.

Only if there is a local shortage of housing. If you buy in
France, for example, there are tax advantages to buying a
new property, so there are lots of older properties around
that nobody wants. They are the ones invariably offered to
the British buyers.

Colin Bignell

Just in case you hadn't noticed this discussion has nothing to do with
France or any other country outside the UK.

I suspect the same would be true in parts of Britain, but I don't know the
housing situation well enough across the country to be able to give specific
examples from the UK. Although second home owners are blamed for pushing
prices up in rural areas, they probably first went there because the locals
wanted better wages than they could get locally, so they moved out,
depressing the local house market and making the houses cheap enough to
attract outside buyers.

Colin Bignell

"Purditer" wrote in
message ...

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to
someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people
who
would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip
on
reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves.

Noblesse oblige, or a strong sense of socialism.

Colin Bignell

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.
The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.
S'funny, that.
Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the
point that Thatcher forced it to end. A subtle but
distinct difference that is obviously lost on you.

The more so because it was a lie.

So it wasn't a Thatcher government the introduced the "Right to Buy"
legislation then?

No.

As you would know (if you were not simply motivated by unthinking knee-jerk
socialism - if you'll forgive the tautology), the RTB:

(a) was introduced under the Edward Heath government of 1970-1974, and
(b) only applied to council houses - and certainly not to tied cottages on
farms.

Try again?

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a
motorway interchange).

You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross before
you can do anything more than 30mph and even that is pretty
ambitious as an average speed, especially considering the fact
that you'll face congestion and a lot of traffic lights. I'd be
absolutely amazed if you could travel as much as 60 miles. Even
half that seems optimistic.

Who said anything about either living or working at Charing
Cross?

For goodness sake, it's even quoted in your post (and this one).

Charing Cross is mentioned (as the centre of a particular circle
of which 15% is built-up) - but there is no mention or claim of
either *living* or *working* there.

The claim referred to Charing Cross and areas within 1 hour's commute
of it. The reply to that said 1 hour's commute of Charing Cross (the
reference to Charing Cross was left implicit

*Very* "implicit" - deeply hidden, in fact. So much so that it wasn't
mentioned.

Your reply to that was that a one hour journey by car can take a person
"(easily) up to 60 miles".

That's right. Wassamarrerwidat?

You said that in reply to a post that was
clearly talking about a one hour commute from Charing Cross.

No - the point was about how much of SE England is "built up". And my
extension of that was a response to your claim that one can only travel 30
miles in an hour in SE England (which is nonsense, isn't it?).

If you
fail to see that or the relevance of Charing Cross to all this,

As a point, it is tangential. "Charing Cross" is traditionally used as a
reference point for the centre of London - as one might have thought you
would know (but apparently not). The point made by the previous poster was
about *SE England* (not Charing Cross per se), and was not predicated upon
everyone in the reguion having to get to Charing Cross each working day.

there's nothing I can do other than recommend attending English
classes to improve your reading comprehension.

My English language and comprehension skills are not at fault.

You misinterpreted what I wrote because you didn't read it properly and
hadn't properly understood GH's point in the earlier post.

wrote:

To refresh your memory of GH's post - " the reality is that
approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours commute of charring
cross is built on."

Thank you, but there was no need at all to take the trouble. Charing Cross
is a phrase used to represent Central London, and the post effectively meant
that *SE England* is only 15% built-up. In such conditions (as I'm sure you
know) a 60 mile commute inside an hour is not impossible. Indeed, *I*
frequently do a 67 mile journey (not in London of course, but certainly in
SE England) in about 70 minutes - during the morning and evening peaks, too.

But apparently, that's not possible...

wrote:

Mikael Armstrong wrote:

Another part of the reason is that houses last
considerably longer than cars generally speaking. But just
for the hell of it, see what price you would have to pay
for a Mk1 Cortina now, it will be significantly above it
price when new.

[ ... ]

Thankfully we have a far greater choice these days and
don't have to buy Mk1 Cortinas. People who wish to buy
"classic cars" are obviously free to do so.

Hmmm, You compared the difference in price rises between cars and
houses. I used the analogy of a Mk1 Cortina to illustrate that cars
also increse in value over time.

I used to know a lot of people driving Mk1 Cortinas (evn had one myself for
a short while).

They all fell to bits (cars were rubbish then compared with today's superior
products).

In order to be worth anything at all now (infact, in order to still
*exist*), a Mk1 Ford Cortina would have had to have love and attention (not
to mention spare parts) worth *many thousands of pounds* lavished on it. If
you'd just parked it on your driveway, it would have simply rotted away.
Cheaper to buy a secondhand Ford Focus.