The Housing Crisis is Even Worse Than You Think | Aaron Bastani meets Vicky Spratt | Downstream
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Vicky Spratt is a London-based journalist and campaigner who writes on housing and the rental crisis. Her book Tenants is out now with Profile Books.
_________________________________________________________
Support Novara Media for as little as £1 a month:
novaramedia.co...
Buy Novara Media merch here:
shop.novaramed...
I was at the gas station and noticed a car full of belongings and a lady with her dog. I gave her $20 and she just started bawling and was extremely grateful. When I was in my 20’s I was homeless for 2 months and lived in my car. I know how it feels to be in that situation.
I always wonder how can the typical family with average income afford a higher rate+ more expensive home? in my area multi generational home is becoming the norm . Don’t forget to add the inflation which just this week was 9.1 on the CPI , producers index 11.3, it’s going to be a rough ride for sure
This is why being informed pays off. I see any financial market condition as a plethora to make wealth. I had my $80k diversified and it has grown by 3x in the past 7 months with compounding, venturing doesn’t necessarily boil down to funds but you also have to be informed, be patient and back it up with good guidance
@@bsetdays6784 Not a good time to brag while people are hurting tho im keen to know how are you able to achieve all that given that the market has being a mess most of the year?
@@evitasmith6218 Eleanor Annette Eckhaus " a fiduciary Finacial Advisor i employed in order to reduce my risk of a permanent loss of capital and portfolio's overall volatility. Her approach and strategies are top notch. You can lookher up for more info she's well renowned
I just looked up this person out of curiosity, and surprisingly she seems really proficient. I thought this was just some overrated BS, I appreciate this.
"Whilst living in a slum was often seen as proof of criminality, owning a street of them merely got you invited to the best social occasions."
-- Feet of Clay, Terry Pratchett
I am not joking when I say that I think spending so much of my teenage years reading Terry Pratchett is a big part of why I grew up to be as left-wing as I am. GNU Terry Pratchett
Steal a little your a criminal, steal a lot & they make you a king !
Love Terry Pratchett.
Only most Slumlords have the privilege of visiting such "projects" inorder to purchase various key properties.Yet still hate with a passion,the very same people,who they purchase to claim such properties,or even socalled tend to assist them.And of course still outsource, to attend or even get invited to all the best, of such proper social occasions!
Foreign oligarchs & money laundering. Your own selling you out.
With this rentier class we've gone back to feudalism.
In many ways worse, at least back then it wasn't too hard to find a scrap of land to build a house on the sly. There were no planning regulations outside of most big towns. There also were often laws enshrining the right to occupy empty properties.
obviously, if you were a Serf it sucked, but even then the Lord had obligations to provide you with a home or a place to build one and land sufficient to feed your family. Your obligations of how many days you had to work on the Lord's land were limited too. You just couldn't leave the land voluntarily. But now you can work more days than a medieval peasant ever did and still might lose your home....
@@queenvagabond8787 The British people have themselves to blame for this situation. If they don't like it, then change it.
Land "Lords"
@@paulheydarian1281 but...but...we like being subservient to our masters
Her knowledge is so impressive as well as her understanding of the complexity of all these interacting systems. We need more voices like these in mainstream politics to guide new policy otherwise we’re doomed.
No, we need someone who researches the WHOLE country rather than espousing assumptions.
She is a college grad with thoughts. You can’t say we need more socialized housing with out saying where the money is coming from.
@@shiner8375 exactly! Otherwise you won't be taken seriously.
Agreed
From taxes? We are 31 trillion in debt. I’m sure the Uk is similar. One homeless guy where I live has destroyed 3 public housing units. Until you fix that, no solutions possible. Just like children, give a toy and they will not take care of it. I want my taxes spent on my police, roads, education, and yes a helping hand.
As a renter in my late 50s this is depressing
Me too
for me also.
💯
The situation is very similar here in the U.S. I, too, am a renter in my late 50s whose single, and there's virtually no chance I'll be able to buy a house at this point in my life. As one who has far less in retirement savings than I'll need to maintain the modest lifestyle I've lived so far, I feel a lot of anxiety and uncertainty about what the future will bring. There are many people here in the U.S. in the same situation.
Not quite in my 50s but me too...
I’ve worked in local authorities all over the country as a Housing Officer for over 20 years. It’s always been super busy throughout that time but I’ve truly never seen anything like what’s happening right now. The spike in homelessness is off the scale. Even people who work hard in full time jobs can’t afford privately rented property so their only option is social housing. The wait for social housing just gets longer and longer and longer and people are stuck in substandard temporary accommodation for longer and longer, often outside of their own local authority area making life impossible for those caught up in all of this! Right to buy was the worst thing to EVER happen to housing in the UK.
I have never seen that it is so bad in the pharmacy right now ,lloyds was busted ,closing store in Asda ,Tesco ,Boots is thinking of selling .It is so bad in the pharmacy and we can't strike like NHS just bureaucratic people try to overload pharmacy job
Even the right to buy lot got screwed over in the end, when councils do compulsory purchase orders to bulldoze estates to make way for luxury apartment blocks, they look for any excuse to pay below market rate.
ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
@@piotrwojdelko1150 whole fabric of Britain is decaying like old cloth frayed .
That's the eletist plan
Make ordinary life so dire and insecure that the popular is happy with their burgers and booze
@@GreatSageSunWukong Or HS2
We want to see these videos on public tv channels! This deserves huge visibility.
what you can do, is share it with everyone you know
In the USA individuals/families are living in motels, cars/RVs, or on the street .. working full time jobs but can't afford the rent .. this is happening all over the country and steadily getting worse but nobody on the federal level is even talking about it .. the masses need to take inspiration from the French people and take back the power
Maybe all the homeless workers could strike at once?
Maybe all the workers strike at once and bring the system down. Workers Strike Back!
TAKE BACK WHAAT POWER, SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONTROL ALL PRICES, THE GOV CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BUT TO BUILD MORE APARTMENTS AND HAVE RENT CONTROL IN THEM, THAT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION, TO THE PROBLEMS
La Terreur?
I'm now 53 and have been in private rented property for most of my adult life because I couldn't afford a mortgage as a single person. I've lived in properties with mold, rats and leaking roofs. Private landlords do not care as long as they're getting rent. I've complained to the council but nothing is ever followed up. After 5 years after falling out with my landlord and having to go back to my fathers I finally got a nice little flat from the council. I've been here for 3 months and I couldn't be happier. I agree successful governments have done nothing about the housing crisis.
Same
Just like in Australia, the UK population has close to wall to wall corporate media so you get permanent right wing governments that always screw over the people.
So the elites want us back to a feudal system where the few have it all .... and the rest of us...
Own nothing and be 😅🎉 ....
I am afraid there were no successful governments. There have been a bunch of incompetent governments in succession.
I live in a hostel. It really is exhausting and disheartening to live each day with this kind of instability. I'm 40 this year and I work in healthcare. Very dismal and people are in far worse situations than I. I loathe this corrupt greedy system.
It's a population problem, not a system one, the system worked well when the population was far fewer.
@@Theother1089 This is the elephant in the room tbh, and it's one that leftists and anti-capitalists - either wittingly or unwittingly - ignore.
Britain is not a large country. Much of our land-mass that is not yet built upon, is not built upon for good reason. The answer is not to simply just "build more houses!" until our entire landscape goes from green to grey and we become the Hong Kong of Europe.
Don't get me wrong, I've not love for the Conservatives, and in terms of actually *conserving* anything in this country, they've been about as useful as a chocolate teapot. However, the crux of the housing/property crisis is not caused by Tory incompetence. It's caused by the sharp, significant rise in our country's population, predominantly via immigration, over the past 20 - 30 years. Local infrastructure, including the housing market, gets completely skewed by this shift, and can't cope with the demand. The housing crisis is worse in the areas that, surprise surprise, have seen the most influx of immigration and overall population increase (London, Manchester, Bristol, etc).
What's worse, recent data released by agricultural and food companies in the UK estimate that the population is actually far higher than the Government's purported £67m. It's more like £80m. The populations of numerous areas of London for example, have more than doubled since 2000. That just isn't sustainable in any way shape or form, regardless of your political leanings on immigration from an ethics standpoint.
Sure, but to let and portfolio landlords *are* a problem, and the UK doesn't have as much support for renters from a regulatory perspective as alot of other countries in Europe do, but at the end of the day, all of this is akin to us being in a sinking boat and pointing at our shipmate scooping in extra water from the sea with a cup as the reason for us sinking, when in actuality we're ignoring the gigantic hole in the bottom of the boat...
@@harrypike731 were all products of our environment, and although most people think they're free thinkers, they're not.
We in the UK are brain washed to think we should subsidise the rest of the world.
@@harrypike731 The population make-up has changed and the system has failed to keep up. It's not the 1960's anymore.
We should have more apartments and small properties for people to rent and that would take some of the pressure off the actual housing market.
I don't want a house and I don't need a house and (judging by the amount of competition for even the most abyssmal properties) there must be quite a lot of people in the same boat). And speaking of boats, I know that there has also been a steady increase of pressure on the type of people who live on boats (or in vehicles) over the past 10 or so years which has also been driving those people onto the council housing lists. It's played right into the hands of landlords (MPs and their friends for example).
@@Theother1089 The system requires growth to function- without more labour you can't have more growth so you either need more people or you need to replace them and in that case you are challenging the right of people to exist. It is all well and good to say that the population is too large- what are you going to do? Allow people to starve so you can lower the population? Perhaps the problem is increased life expectancy as old people on pensions are no longer contributing. Again, you can't very well euthanize them! Or better- billionaires and millionaires get way more than they have contributed and waste more resources as a group than poor people do, we could just deal with our wealth accumulation problem. Stop allowing them to have yachts and private jets and other things that are unsustainable!
A true journalist is a rare thing
I feel so lucky that at the age of 50 I was able to buy a house two years ago. It was my brother's house, so I had fortunate circumstances. The area I live in isn't the best, and my house needs a bit of work doing to it, but I'm just thankful that I'm not having to be ripped off by rogue landlords anymore.
The fact that this is considered lucky..is a telling sign of where we're at in society. Lucky to have your own place at the age of 50
oi mate give me a house mate would you
@@SmithWhite-pf9kq indeed - I'd paid mine off at age 49.
Building cost has gone through tge roof. Also the dollar is constantly being devalued. Any home is a decent investment . At least the value is still there.
I read 'Tenants' earlier this year and it was a real eye-opener on the cruelty and hardship tenants face. I'm a millennial and this resonates with the experiences of my peers and colleagues. Well done to Vicky in exposing these crimes. Glad she mentioned Kwajo who is a legend for his work on this.
It's a real pain in the hole to not have the basic stability of a home.
She absolutely blew me away and this interview was absolutely fantastic. So impressed by her knowledge and compassion, truly inspiring.
Complicated with no end in sight.
Sensationalism in the highest
This is a wonderful discussion. Vicky please keep doing what you’re doing
This recent run of Sunday interviews really has been so brilliant. Letting them run past an hour and allowing the slower more considered pace seems to allow a much more effective discussion than most podcasts etc
I could listen to Vicky Spratt for hours; didn't want this discussion to end. Please invite her back before too long
An interview that make me proud to be a Novara supporter. You will not find an interview of such importance to so many people across the current media landscape.
ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
Well done Novara for constantly banging the housing drum. If we improved the housing situation, we'd improve so many other things in our society. The housing situation is one of, if not the biggest problem in this country.
Joe, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
I’m 45 mins in and probably will stop because it’s so depressing the situation this country is in. I’m a homeowner with two young children and I despair at what it will be like when they’re older
It is worth watching Gary Stevenson to see how unequal wealth continues to drive this.
@@tonychorley4936 Gary is someone I subscribe to and is fantastic at explaining the problem with wealth distribution and where things are heading. I hope he starts to get a larger following, he is brilliant.
Same, I'm shocked the rapid population influx hasn't been mentioned, as if it isn't happening and a factor!
Why despair? They will be living with you until you croak it, then takeover ownership.
@@johnnybgood3909 I’ll sell up and live in a box before that happens! 😂
This was so sobering. I got chills. This is a worldwide issue for developed countries. Homes have stopped being homes and become engines for income. In the end, no one really wins.
This is a masterclass in interviewing. They almost interview each other and they are listening and learning as they go. We get so used to egos, people talking at each other, La La headphones and so much reasoned, considered and balanced thought. Instead of “thought” I nearly said argument but there was little need for argument.
No one mentioned the population increasing, I looked at stats while listening to this. The most obvious factor but never mentioned, why?
@@justinshore5566 Maybe because that's been happening for last five thousand years?
@@toby81tube the video is about a housing crisis and the population is vastly increasing but no biggie?? Unreal!
ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
@@toby81tube You and your brain made contact yet?
"Humanitarian emergency " perfectly put. Our poor housing attributes to so many bad things in our society. Children growing up in cramped conditions, parents tryna bring up kids in those same conditions. Everyone suffers. It's absolutely disgusting.
Excellent,comprehensive and insightful discussion.The corruption in favour of private landlords,vulture funds and politicians is so alarming.
Yes 🙌 im sick of having to live like Charlie Bucket's grandparents when I work full time 💀✋
I'm disabled and have no choice but to claim housing benefit it hasn't go up in my council area since at least 2010 yet rents where I live have skyrocketed
Same, apart from this year. Plus it’s really hard to find landlords who’ll accept people who receive HB when there’s such fierce competition.
Same . I need a bungalow and less than 1 showing a week in Newcastle upon Tyne. They are selling them the housing associations.
The same in America. I am a veteran, six years of college and work six days a week and live in a tiny run down travel trailer = camping. My landlords have all lied to me about the agreement being long term and have been evicted 4 times in the last 3 years because they decided to sell. It has cost me over $25,000 in the last twelve years in moving and fixing up expenses ( in America the landlord expects you to spend your own money to make a place livable and then jacks up the rent because it’s nice). The point, it’s how the working class stays poor. You just can’t save to build equity.
Incredible amount of knowledge about a subject that puts those who work in parliament to shame. Great conversation!
I don't think they feel any shame. Many of them are wealthy landlords!
Excellent video! It is crucial to recognise that this is a global problem. Many of the things Vicky Spratt describes can be found here in Australia. Even Germany, whose housing and rental market is much better regulated, is suffering a crisis.
I have been homeless and I have been a home owner. 3 times. I have lived in 8 different states in the USA. I am now a late middle aged man with health problems and struggling to make it on $1200 per month. THIS IS BY DESIGN!!!! WHY? because in order to keep their wealth the rich MUST keep the poor as poor as they can and exact as much as possible from them. This is not a problem in the UK, or the USA.... its a GLOBAL problem and it is BY DESIGN!
The poor will always struggle. There have been countless revolutions in the past yet it always reverses to the landlord - setf model.
This is a global problem. International investment banks are the ones jacking cheap credit , bailouts , and hedge funds into economies, in that order. Social housing is anathema to the banks and their profiteering.
Global problem because they're all on it together!
If the government stop selling council properties and force housing developers to build more social housings instead of building properties to sell privately at higher prices then we wouldn't see huge problems!!!
@@NeoFreshair it's not a problem for oligarchy. Rentier capitalism. It's the whole point of it.
@@NeoFreshair not sure how the government can force developers to build anything.
@@lukemclellan2141 They could threaten them, in not allowing them to build anything?
Liam, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
I live in rented accommodation and have been subject to a no fault evictions seven times in twenty years, courtesy of landlords selling their ‘asset’. It is happening again and I suspect my present landlord wants to get me out to get someone else in who will pay far more rent (even though my rent has gone up £50pcm for the last two years). I didn’t know Thatcher was responsible for making my housing experience hellish through Section 21 evictions.
I started stacking to SAVE wealth. I've always been the type of person to spend my entire paycheck. I hate having money just sit in the bank. I am under pressure to grow my reserve of $950k. before I turn 60, I would appreciate any advice on potential investments.
I can feel your pains. New guys need to realize the risks that come with all of this. You could lose it all and you could win it all. It goes both ways. Second, what works for A may not necessarily work for B and you should not be a bandwagon investor. A good number of folks are raking in huge 6 figure gains in this downtrend, but such strategies are mostly successfully executed by folks with in depth market knowledge.
@@devereauxjnr Factos!! Since the market became extremely volatile and pressure increased (I should be retiring in 17 months), I took the decision to work closely with a financial advisor. It has already been 9 months and counting, and I have made approximately 600K net from all of my holdings.
@@user-3456rtu That's impressive, my portfolio have been tanking all year, tried learning new strategies to gain in the current market but all of that flew right over head, please would you mind recommending the Adviser you're using.
@@322dawgg My advisor is the quite famous NICOLE DESIREE SIMON She has been making a fortune online worth millions of dollars in digital assets for a select few for years. Lately, these types of services have appeared that allow you to copy the results of the experts. She demonstrates how to copy it automatically using that system.
@@user-3456rtu Thanks for the info, i found her website and sent a message hopefully she replies soon.
I was a young teenager in London in the 80's. I remember the conservatives claimed "Right to buy" would liberate housing and people. Thatcher even claimed they would copy the Singapore model (My friend Mr Lee she claimed!). I looked at the prices jump, I looked at my parents income in East London and I was concerned.
With respect to Singapore as a Model, Thatchers team conveniently missed some key points. Firstly Singapore, since independence has constantly purchased back freehold property to place it under government control in perpetuity. Fairly easy for small island but it does mean the Government gains control. In Singapore as a citizen you can obtain a Government subsidized mortgage on a 99 year lease from your Government landlord. The Government manage the housing stock, with over 80% of citizens in ownership. Government makes sure no one can buy multiple social housing apartments (one per family, with allowances for multi-generation families).
Additionally, ghettos are prohibited, so each apartment tower has a balanced mix of the ethnic profiles of Singapore. Each township has all the amenities, staple shopping, clinics, sports halls and tracks, car parking, police station, etc. etc. Private housing is a segment of the market in Singapore where the "Free Market" is allowed to rule, with a lot of the consequences stated by Ms Spratt, BUT it's a small percentage and again the majority of it is also 99 year leasehold and of course ultimately owned by the Government in the long run.
*There is no perfect system*, but Singapore demonstrates capitalism can work, but it only works with key baseline controls on fundamentals with a socially conscious throttle.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, he led from 1959 to 1990 is the world’s most successful post-colonial nation.
Just like in Australia, the UK population has close to wall to wall corporate media so you get permanent right wing governments that always screw over the people.
So the elites want us back to a feudal system where the few have it all .... and the rest of us...
Own nothing and be 😅🎉 ....
I grew up in Miami Beach for some time and I remember my parents paying $200 a month in 1988 for a spacious one bedroom apartment. That same apartment today is $3000 a month. Literally a 1500% increase in 35 years. Yet the federal minimum wage and wages in general have barely budged.
Wages and housing have nothing in common. They are two completely different markets.
@@zuzanazuscinova5209Theyre connected for people in the real world.
I worked in california in about 2001 when 9 11 happened ... I was getting paid about 15 dollars an hour at that time. We stayed with friends I dont know what their rent was tbh ... I think their parents paid their rent bit I was amazed to find out the minimum wage is only recently gone up to 16 dollars an hour when one of my jobs back then I was getting 20 dollars for being a hostess and lots of cocain if I wanted it from my boss ugh! And another job was 15 dollars for making sandwiches and another was a dollar a wrap to make sage bundles on the beach. 😂 no you can't smoke it! Lol! But it blew my mind I was getting more then than people today in some states.
@@zuzanazuscinova5209they have one thing in common. People need wages to pay rent. 😂
@@zuzanazuscinova5209what a silly thing to say - don’t know about you .. but I use my wages to pay rent
I am a priviledged white male that used to be an estate agent in London and I agree with Vicky on all her points. This situation has most probably been driven by the banking sector as they are the big winners. Multiple private property ownership needs to banned. It should be one property per person and properties should be taxed if they are left vacant for more than 6 months. Property is a limited resource and demand has outstripped supply. This has been the main cause of almost all of our social problems.
Professorclueless, is that the best you can up with?
@@iainhutchinson345 What you got? Oh, let me guess ...
I'm white straight and male. I've left the UK. It's finished for me..
@@shabbos-goy9407 Where'd you go, anywhere nice?
@@shabbos-goy9407 I want to leave Australia for the same reasons.
Great talk. But disappointing that they did NOT mention how world banks colluded to artificially boost the value of houses by pushing the house ownership with big mortgages. And how record house prices was a direct result "inflation" but flooding the housing market with lots of money printing disguised as mortgage products This is a well recorded fact that came in light of the 2008 crisis.. Most of the millionaires in the UK made their millions in property.
It's very hard to get people to stop looking at the effects of problems (which is always the quick (mentally lazy?) option) and get them to try to find the root cause of them instead. As well-meaning as this young lady is, she is making the same mistake.
While you are correct in saying that the banks have been the ones forcing governments to lower interest rates, lending many multiples of income, bundling, repackaging, hypothecating, selling and re-selling the same loans to investors (read:Pension funds) etc. that is also the result of the problem rather the 'real' cause.
Once you've been conditioned to believe that you MUST relinquish control over much of your life and your assets to a bunch of strangers, it is only a question of time before these kinds of calamities will occur.
The only unknown, is how deep and for how long the disaster will continue as such a system of nanny-state infantilization guarantees that the very worst in society will be attracted to positions in the entity being given the control.
It's supply and demand that controls house prices, huge population rise in Britain = sky high prices, huge population decrease like Italy = homes selling for 1 euro.
@@Theother1089 Price increases in anything, when due to supply and demand, are relatively small and/or short-lived as long as government and banks don't intervene to maintain the increase.
However, price 'booms' are NOT the result of supply and demand. They are entirely the result of artificially induced inflation via increased money supply and credit expansion - as Faraz said. House price booms are no different.
i.e. The population of the UK has not increased 10 fold+ since the low of 1983 to account for the 10x increase in average house price since then. So, that increase is not due to supply and demand. As can be seen by the homeless on the streets, more people needed a place to live in 2022 than ever before. So the 'demand' was very high, the supply didn't change much but the prices dropped. The reason for the drop was not supply/demand but interest rate increases after a long period of artificially low rates.
If you could only borrow 3x salary, the average price wouldn't - couldn't increase as much as if buyers are able to borrow 10x their salary because their maximum bid size is 3 times lower - no matter how much they liked the property.
Then, to enable 10x (and more) borrowing, interest rates had to be artificially held down to keep the monthly payments at around the same level for the average salary to pay it.
The Italy example is not a good one. Those houses are in very remote, unpopulated areas with poor infrastructure, services and they're derelict.
e.g Liverpool (and some other parts of the UK) have £1 houses for sale that are not in remote areas and where populations have increased.
@@Kevin6805 I disagree, if something remains short of supply, it will be expensive until more is produced or demand falls.
There's 'poor' Donald Trump(former US) president in the dock for asset appreciation, and what about other individuals doing the same...so corrupt.😀😀😀
We need about a few hundreds of thousands like Vicky!❤🙌🏻
This destruction has been happening since the eighties, but no one's been listening.
Now people are in shock.
Little nightmare America that's what Britain's become.
We're heading toward an L.A. future with thousands living in tents and cars.
I spent two years homeless, having to live with three men who are doing up different houses As they were in the building trade they come over from Poland, and in order for me to stay there I had to make all of them happy. I ended up in a different bed every night As well as cooking and cleaning for them, I had to rely on my looks to stay with them.
When I was caught in so cold bed and breakfast it was horrendous, absolutely disgusting. In fact there were lots of bed and breakfasts, full of people who are in desperation to be housed, I spent nearly 11 months there, jumping through hoops. I am now housed in a tiny village where I know, no one and I’m desperate to leave, but I am grateful to actually have a roof over my head now but for sure.
At least you can trade on your looks.. Blokes don't have that luxury..
@@stevenwatsham5973 certainly not desirable for women, but always a fall-out option. There's a reason why it's men who are the majority % of homeless, and also suicides.
@@stevenwatsham5973doesn't sound all that luxurious to me
@@harrypike731No, it is not in the least desirable. She was in a desperate situation!!
I’m 60 and renting - and there are many many of us - one bad bit of luck in 2008 and we had to move out of our house (which we had only owned for four years anyway)…. It is a huge problem!!!!
I’m a 68 year old home owner with no mortgage, but have huge anxiety about the state of housing, partly because I have children and a grandchild. I don’t understand why others of my age would be complacent.
I'm very concerned about my son who can't afford to rent a flat on his own. He tells me there is no point in looking for a long term partner because he wouldn't want a family without being able to provide a secure home. He can not even take on a pet dog because of his insecure housing situation. At 30 years old and in full-time employment, he sees no future for himself. My wife and I own our house, but if we need residential in our older age, the house will have to be sold to pay for our care. Something no one talks about.
@@therealrobertbirchall - I fully empathise. My son was paying 53% of his income for a room in an overcrowded house while he was doing his PhD. When he ran out of funding he had to move back in with me. He doesn’t want to live in a house share again, but it’s almost certain he won’t have any other option. He too feels very pessimistic about his financial future.
My daughter is a little older and has a really good income. She and her husband were lucky enough to be given money from his grandmother for a mortgage deposit. Although she’s in a privileged position, the cost of the mortgage on a doer-upper, plus childcare, etc will leave them with very little money for other things. There’s something very broken when even SHE is going to struggle financially.
At least though she feels like she has a future, unlike your son and mine. However, I’m well aware that another downturn could wreck her future too.
@@therealrobertbirchall as a millenial, I had taht exact same conversation with my father. my two sisters have boyfriends who make good money, but both partners are working full time as well and they also just have housing cause the mother of the partner of one of my sisters has an old farm and let them renovate it and live there together with her. even with their double salary, they still probably would have had problems finding a good house and paying for it if not given this opportunity. I also had discussions with my father moving back from where i currently live and work cause he sees that if it wont be me overtaking the home, it is the same situation, it will have to be sold and they go into an elderly care home or something. it hurts me but at the moment i am also in a probationary period for a new job, switched already career 3 times at 30 years and fear for my future, I do not see me getting good rent, stable living conditions any time soon. how am I supposed to start a family that way if I can not even secure myself? Western societies at the same time get older and live longer, meaning less people have to do more work. I do not really see a solution to this except maybe new housing concepts, i.e. elderly living together with younger students, more migration and so on. but even with these remedies, it is gonna be tough.
@@therealrobertbirchall Get your property put into a trust while you still can. Get son's name on the deeds. Don't hang about.
@S Apps I'm actually working on that but my solicitor says that doing so might be construed as hiding assets to avoid paying care costs.
Incredible video and a real mirror to our country. Vicky is doing a brilliant job, what a hero.
One of the most interesting interviews I’ve seen in a long time Thank you to both of you Excellent
The longest NHS waiting times on record.
The highest tax rates in over 70 years,
Predicted lower growth than Russia in 2023 and the worst housing crisis since ww2
This Tory government is record-breaking!
This aint ever getting fixed while parliment is full to the brim with landlords.
Moving people out of their communities and the networks that support them based on a bedroom count seemed to me to be a vile price of social engineering.
Didn't save the taxpayer a penny ( whatever savings were made were spent on beaurocracy)
@@lordsummerisle852 From memory i think it was made very clear, in advance, it would cost more than doing nothing. At the same time IDS was crying and telling people he had no problem living on a benefit level income on his daddy's estate...
Wow, dipped in initially while eating my breakfast and ended up enthralled and listening to the entire conversation. It's interesting to hear that Vicky fell foul of the "Help to Buy" scheme and I can also understand how it happens. It's also interesting to hear about rent protests and I believe it's a reflection in general as to why we as a country are afraid to properly protest anything. The threat of real harm, either legally, financially or both is a really effective deterrent, especially when you're already living a very precarious existence.
Help to buy got me a bigger and better house that I could afford at the time, I sold it for 33% more than I paid 6.5 years later
Why don't we have a buying strike? Still pay the rent but don't buy anything but the most basic food for a month. Retailers could put pressure on the govt then. I would exclude "mum an pop" businesses from that strike though.
@@Loundsify which is great if you want to leave the area and move to a low cost country like Thailand.
@@beth1979 rents, energy and food are the most many can afford. Some deal with no food or energy. They need to pick one instead of having both.
I live in a village in Lincolnshire, the vast majority of homeowners are retiree's, very few family's, there are about four council houses, most have been sold off. If you were brought up in a seaside town it's impossible to buy or rent a house, again the majority of house owners are well off second home owners or retiree's.
I'm a single Dad, aged 58 with a teenage daughter There is no work here, no public transport, there's no way we can move as benefits pay less than the rent is on our house. When my daughter moves out in the next year or two I will be homeless. I've been homeless before, but now I'm older with mobility issue's: I'm dreading the future. Can't get a job, can't move, can't afford to rent, we're fucked.
Same in Newcastle the outer villAges I’m disabled and I live in absolute fear as a single woman
I was evicted under Section 21 (no fault of mine, good tenant, looked after property, paid on time etc) and my landlady lied about why she was evicting me, she said she was selling but really she wanted her friend to move in and me and my 7 yr old to move out. The council eventually helped me but only after my son and I were homeless for over 6 months, and my landlady took me to court and lied to the court and won. Vicky interviewed me a few years ago and wrote an article about it. I was very thankful to her for helping me speak out❤
@SassySam the landlady won because the court found in her favour (because as I found out later, she lied about wanting to sell the house I was renting) therefore I had to leave AND pay her court costs
This is an incredible conversation.
I'm a boomer, born just after WW2 in a privately rented house … but with 3 bedrooms, two 'living' rooms, kitchen bathroom, garden back and front. I accept totally the idea that there is a housing emergency. It began with Thatcher and never stopped after that. The rules made it almost impossible for councils to replace those sold. I just get edgy over one thing and that comes up quite often on Novara which is overgeneralising to the extent of "boomers are all comfortable home owners" when some live in great poverty
Not all Boomers are selfish either. My dad is your age and sold his house 2 years ago and moved into seniors housing. He sold the house below market value to a young man who wanted to start a family. I don't know a single other case of this happening.
My friend did this too when selling her house. Sadly now there are property developer buyers pretending to be to young couples trying to buy their first home so they can get a bargain and then rent it out.
I'm a GB Boomer . Many my age that I know , don't own a home . There's several reasons this can happen : chose not to enter market , employment problems and divorce . If I'm not mistaken , the UK population has increased significantly in the past twenty or so years . A lot of base-price labour from Europe would be the mainstay of cheap rental accom . Governments the world over have been withdrawing for 40 years from supplying Public Housing . It's a lot of tax expenditure and doesn't last long enough to cover it's cost whatsoever .
I lived in Public Housing in the fifties and sixties . It was sold off in the eighties .
@@npet6842 In the 1980s, councils were instructed that they must make their housing stock available for the tenants to buy at a low cost (rather than market value). At the same time the councils were not permitted to use the receipts towards new building. This was because the Thatcher Government believed in privatising every aspect of public spending possible. Sadly the private sector costs more because of profits. In addition their policy led directly to the huge shortage of public housing we now experience.
A lot of people blame Thatcher, she certainly was marmite, but she never foresaw the huge population rise, probably 20 million since she was elected, it's continuing to rise, putting strain on every level.
This makes me weep 😢. Ours is not a civilised society. God help us
Vicky is the type of Progressive we should support in getting to where she can make the most difference
Ban anyone owing 2nd property until all are housed , invest in mass housing programme & either put min/wage £35 p/h or force house prices down to 1980's levels
@@cujimmi The only way to solve this is for house prices and wages to come closer together. Either you massively reduce the price of houses, or you raise wages. You aren't going to win much political capital by reducing the value of baby boomers' primary asset, so wages must rise.
great, now wake up and have your muesli..
@@cujimmi simple solution - constrict the money supply by taxing wealth
Wealth redistribution is now inevitable because inequalities have destroyed societal cohesion. What is the purpose of being wealthy if the community you reside in and the society you are part of is in crisis? It will be detrimental to everyone, not just for those who are poor.
@@arun_arutchelvan 'There is no such thing as society.'
Excellent interview...addresses the issue perfectly...Housing is a huge problem but ignored by elites...
Vicky
You are incredible!
it’s so so important that this interview goes mainstream.
Please don’t give up.
It must be very very hard to see what you see daily and keep going.
How do I see and hear more from you!
There is a simple phrase which describes this process....
*TERMINAL STAGE CAPITALISM*
Sigh
Odd the increase in population didn't come up when it is a key factor. 10m extra people over 20 years will certainly increase house prices.
Vicky, thank you for your incredible journalism and your commitment to the vital publication of this huge housing and financial issue
Anna, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
Vicky is amazing, so articulate
I had to move 16 times in 10 years, most of that was when I was self employed... Will never own my own home, or be able to retire at this rate
This is an incredible conversation. Two incredible people discussing something close to my heart cohesively and easy to follow. Thank you
ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
As a homeless disabled person I am experiencing the housing crisis first hand and instead of being homed safety I am a part of Generation homeless because of selling off the social housing stock that has not been replaced by any government in the past forty years, if it wasn't for my friend I would be on the streets in my wheelchair so thank you Thatcher and the Neoliberalism Project that has failed the country.
Dam dont be fooled, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
That would not have happened to you in Finland where the Constitution of Finland mandates that public authorities "promote the right of everyone to housing". In addition, the constitution grants Finnish citizens "the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care", if needed. It is against the law not to help to accommodate a homeless person. Not to mention a disabled one!
@@lukei6255 Finland has many great benefits about it, however the Conservative party has never looked to them for inspiration, the closest the Labour party got to it was the post war years for the Boomers, which then sold out their children and Grandchildren because apparently all those benefits were some how preventing Making Britain Great Again, which I am sure Liz Truss is exactly what they truly wanted along with the thirty billion being wiped of the value of the country. Well, they did pay off their mortgage ages ago... 🧨
Brilliant! Amazing girl....we need more like her. Do keep it up, please.
The days of Fair Rent Regulation and Protected Tenancies have gone.
Great podcast. I live in Australia and here it’s a very similar story. The housing crisis is becoming a housing catastrophe.
Same in Europe. Global problem. The French are doing the right thing.
Vicky Spratt is brilliant! As a renter I feel scammed. Its sad and terrifying.
I'm a Gen Xer who, because of various reasons, has missed the boat on being able to buy a place. As someone who is self employed and at the age of 45, I'm just not an interesting option for any bank and I couldn't afford it now even if they did accept me.
They're not homeless.
They're victims of political negligence.
Powerfully description.
the taking away of legal aid was a big turning point for all the services falling apart there is no democracy without equality before the law and there can be no equality before the law when you have no access to representation or appeal to the authority of the court. its a massive story and no-one talks about it.
Vicky graduated from Oxford University in 2010, and began her degree in 2006. So she is currently 34? She spent years in fairly well-paid jobs, so my question is why did she only have a 5% deposit? I'm similar age and finally bought a flat a couple of years ago in London, and I earn far less than she does, but my deposit was over 20%. Can never understand why people with decent jobs don't seem to save their money.
Also, re Kelly's story, whilst it is absolutely awful what happened to her son, is the reason they couldn't afford a car that they had so many children? Having 5/6 kids is going to eat away at your money, and you'd need a fairly large car to accommodate them all. Additonally, you don't need to own a car, they could have called an Uber or got a taxi, which is what most of us have to do if we have to get to the hospital urgently. I had to get myself to hospital in a medical emergency as I couldn't get an ambulance. I can't drive, none of my housemates had a car, we got an uber.
They had been living in the area for 6 weeks when he had the asthma attack, that's plenty of time to learn where the hospital is. She says in the i-news article that you know these things when you have kids, all the reason why they ought to have learnt it when they had to move. We all have to deal with change, even as a homeowner, there's always the possibility that you will lose your job and your home and have to move to an area you're unfamiliar with. He likely did develop asthma as a result of the temporary accommodation, but he died due to a medical error and the parents not knowing where the hospital was.
Furthermore, I don't think the GP not knowing the family has any bearing on an incorrect prescription. Any relevant medical history would have been on his records.
lots of reasons why people fail to save a lot of money - have you seen the first 10 minutes of the film Up? I'm the same age as this woman and my husband and I have saved money for the past decade, but random unforeseeable events slashed our savings time and time again. I have saved all my life, but still have to dip into savings when unexpected things occur. We have had to move back in with parents three times because of just blind bad luck. My husband was in university for 7 years, so it was just me on a low income, thankfully his degree was a good one and landed him a job straight away, which is why we could move out and save more, but we lost 3k just rebuying all the things we had to sell or had to give up in the previous moves - we didn't even have plates or chairs when we moved in three years ago! We got ourselves sorted, and a house might be on the horizon now. I know people better off and people worse off than me, but everyone's personal circumstances are different and random things just happen to you. We're all just a series of unpredictable, uncontrollable bad events away from being homeless.
@@leonie7754 both of my parents died before I was 21, I ended up "homeless" for 2 years as I was living in backpackers hostels, the income I had at that time meant I couldn't afford to rent a room. I also have a disability which means the jobs available to me are rather limited. I have also been single my entire life, largely due to this disability. I never had the luxury of HAVING to move back in with my parents as I didn't have parents. My father died from Alzsheimers and my mum from cancer. The equity in the house went to my dad's care and when my mum got ill she had to give up work and was declared bankrupt as there was nothing to pay off the mortgage with, which meant I got nothing when they died. My grandparents had both passed away when I was under 10, on both sides. My father was an only child and my mother's only sibling lived in Australia. So, no wider family network.
But I still saved once I had a job and a roof over my head and I can guarantee you that Vicky's circumstances were far better than mine in the 10 years leading up to her house purchase.
She even bought her 1 bed flat with her partner...so, I get what you mean, but I'm not buying it. Her latest article reveals that she not only had parents but also grandparents when she bought her flat, her grandad helped her buy a sofa. She also grew up in Oxted which is commutable distance from London and she has said herself she is middle class, but also south east middle class. so worst case scenario she had parents to go and live with if she couldn't afford rent or had an unexpected expense. She wasn't even in London most of the time for her job, but was travelling around the UK, presumably on company expenses.
I would love to know what uncontrollable circumstances this white, pretty, Oxford graduate, gallivanting around the UK in a journalism role, who grew up in a commuter town in Surrey with her middle class family, who had a partner to buy with, I would love to know what uncontrollable expenses she had that meant she only put down 5% at most.
Her flat was a 1 bed, she mentions 500k value in the video. So, that's £25k for 5%. She mentions that she was looking at properties in her early 20s and I think she bought 2 years ago, at circa 33 or 32. She also bought with a partner, so, assuming there is an equal split, she put down £12.5. Which means she saved just over a grand a year. Look at the jobs she's done over the years, those are not low paying jobs. I could understand someone only being able to save £100 a month or less on an average salary, but she was not on an average wage. And we know she definitely isn't now, cause the article also says she's buying out her ex, which means that she must have earnings high enough to make up for his.
I have friends in London who are in their mid to late 20s, who are very much like Vicky. Earning £60k plus. They don't budget at all. Their idea of "hard times" is not being able to go on holiday. They go out for bottomless brunch every week, pay £120 for their gym membership, go to gigs all the time, buy the best make up, pay £150 for their hair every 2 months, and own designer handbags, and then complain that their rent has increased from £800 to £900 pcm, which has largely been done by landlords trying to cover THEIR uncontrollable expenses. These people are spending 2k a month on excess, but blame that £100pcm for them being unable to save. £60k is a good salary in London if you don't have kids and make the effort to save in some areas of your life.
I know one woman who came to London on an opening salary of £37k - not bad for a 22 year old!! Her parents even gave her £12k to help her out until she was earning more. By 26, she was on £62k. That £12k was depleted, she had no savings, her parents had to help her with a deposit for a new room. She blamed it on the landlord raising her rent from £750 to £860 over the years. I was living in the same house, working 2 jobs at the time with a combined income of £35k. My room cost the same as hers and I still saved £500 a month.
EDIT: take a look at her Instagram. Two trips to Mexico and one to Canada and I've only looked back over 2 years. I have one word for Vicky: "waagh".
Totally agree
Student loan repayments take many years to pay off too before you can save up for a house. Rents go up every year. It is hard for many.
Once I heard from an old rich man's mouth 'what would be of the rich if there were no poor people for the rich doing charity?'
Dylan dont be fooled, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
I wish I could talk to Vicky Spratt. Her brain is just awesomely spot-on, all throughout this video. Hidden homelessness and mould-ridden 'temporary' fixes are just toxic. I've lived this way much of the last ten years, and starting to pay attention to my physical/mental health.
The Japanese intergenerational mortgage thing is a myth. It started in the midst of their real estate bubble and even then was only applicable to a fringe minority of cases, and never saw broad scale uptake. Housing in modern Japan is actually a depreciating asset because they aggressively over build, because, unlike us, they LEARNED from their mistakes...
I personally think that high house prices cause decline in population later.
It happened in Japan, in the west the population decline is usually filled with immigration yet there is still decline anyway.
They have a declining population and it's still only depreciating in the rural backwaters where you aren't going to find work.
And yet they also have a city problem where the rural houses ..beautiful amazing buildings are going to ruin in the country while people struggle to afford space in the city. They seem ok with the small size though and their rents seem reasonable for their wages compared to our disparity... but it is still a shame to see their rural areas decline so badly.
I was born grew up and educated in Eastern Europei .While living there i never saw a begging person or a homless person or so eone living in the Street .it was a socialist country at that time .The education and healthcare system were excellent
The way housing regulations and the lack of being able to buy land to build your own home in this country has made his madness of prices out of reach for most people.
I was lucky to be young in the 90s and able to get a decent home but my children are leaving this country for better housing opportunities abroad.
The same here in America 😢 if they come here just tell them to buy land or go to the Rustbelt to live.....hope they can work remotely. Good luck limey !!!! Love from NYC
That is astonishing to me. In Eastern Europe it's very common to just buy a piece of land and build a house on it yourself. Provided you have the skills of course.
That is deliberate. It is to prevent us becoming home and landowners, and to keep prices and rents up. The corrupt government's and big corporations are deliberately leading us back to serfdom!!
It’s despicable that we have dozens of council estates in cities all over the country, especially in London, that have been sold to developers & sat vacant for years while homelessness has sky rocketed. The council houses got sold off to tenants, but the large estates all got sold off for bottom dollar to developers of luxury flats.
Why are the governments doing nothing about rent control????????
We need 1 bedroom apartment to go back to $400/Month! Wages are too low to save! Homelessness is getting out of control!
Their depopulate the poor and disabled agenda
My girlfriend and I are paying 1100 a month to live in Bristol and our washing machine is broke, no tumble dryer to begin with, a freezer 3 times the size of our fridge, no dishwasher so we spend about 20-30 minutes a day cleaning dishes and there is also a rat.
Such poor conditions it is actually depressing
Half that price in Plymouth.
Have you heard about Acorn, the renters union? They're strong in bristol and frequently successful
You need to talk to your landlord. No landlord wants a rat infested property. The washing machine is an opportunity for the landlord to provide a washing machine with built in dryer which reduces indoor condensation. A dishwasher is not yet a human right. Why don’t you volunteer to supply and fit one as part of a new twelve month contract? If the answer is no then you know where you stand.
Actually, compared to Australian rentals, that sounds good! We don't get washing machines, fridges, freezers, etc with rentals. Often no insulation, lots of mould issues, mice/rats/ants common... And rent costs are thousands of dollars a month just for crappy matchstick or asbestos houses. Also, they are no caps on rental increases and people can be evicted for no reason.
The housing crisis in Australia is absolutely terrible 😔
I've got 2 rescue cats and we never have rats or mice even in near plague conditions. It's not a cheap option though and you will get vet bills and have to pay for food and litter obviously. But they are a bright spot for this household and they're always happy.
Dishwashing is something normal people do and you can use the time to chat over the day's events and bond.. So it's down to the washing machine, tumble drier and fridge.
In Australia we have to bring our own, so it's difficult to understand the issue there. I have a massive freezer and use it to buy bulk, including vegetables which I wash cut and put in plastic bags.
The most serious issue to me is the cost of heating and cooling. This is insanely high in England and Australia. But in England you have near brutal winters, but our summers can be brutal too. Lack of insulation is really appalling. I installed my own in the ceiling and it made a huge difference.
The mortgage system isn't set up to benefit the person taking the loan, it's another case of "the house always wins". An interest only mortgage is essentially a lifetime lease that gives people the perception of owning their own home, and the compounding nature of interest on mortgages mean that over the course of a 25 year mortgage the cost benefit is completely skewed in favour of the mortgage provider. There should be a purge of the mortgage system removing the interest only option and having a base rate that equates to a lifetime rate for the 20/25 year term, that would be a proper fixed rate and would give much more control and oversight for the average home buyer
There are interest only mortgages? Jesus. My family have always paid for things by saving up and then buying things. Yes even our house which my granny paid 4k for my aunt paid 40 k for and is now worth at least 400k id say. But hopefully will be mine some day. And then my kids. The idea of borrowing for anything now rather than saving for something in the future is just some sort of Christian thing my family always did and in a way thank god because for that 4k they probably would have paid 6k and for. That 40 k probably paid 60k and I sure as hell wouldn't have 600k to pay for a 400k house. God I'm so lucky.
@@Padraigp I am unsure if you were agreeing, joking, ranting or just showing off your inheritance. Whichever it was you brought no value to either me or my initial comment !!
@@EamonCoyle OK thats fine. You don't have to understand or find value if you don't. Maybe somone else will.
@@Padraigp Respect to ya sir !! Despite the negative tone it wasn't meant with malice. I do hope someone finds value if there was a deeper message I missed but I just didn't really get it personally. Happy Sunday to ya anyway....
Loved this! So informative and real, thank you Novara
Jose, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
AMAZING! We need more brilliant minds like Ms. Spratt's in the U.S.
An excellent, excellent, informed discussion
No mainstream party is currently focused on the direction of travel and how we need to fix it
My mother told me they could have bought a house in chiswick for 30k in the 1970s her work mate was selling but my father declined the offer, now the same house is over a million. I grew up on a council estate, the one I was raised on is gone, the council booted everyone out and the area is now luxury apartments with studios starting at 400k, we estate dwellers both stick together, camaraderie and have rivalries with other estates so I grew up very well aware of the other estates for miles around and which were safe or no go areas for me, most of them are gone now, the councils will happily try to find any loophole to get out of housing people and kicking them off the council books, they don't seem at all bothered about then having to pay those people more money in housing benefit for them to live in the private sector then they were paying in the social housing, its all a scam most politicians are landlords or their families are.
The problem is with treating residential property as investments rather than critical infrastructure.
Novara should hire Vicky or commission reporting from her.
When people can't afford to live, they have to compensate for the extra costs, usually by not having kids.
If immigration and illegal immigration is allowed to go unchecked as it has done for nearly 20yrs of course there will be a housing shortage not mention the NHS and education, it really is a shocking state of affairs, our childrens futures have been thrown away.
Yes - read through all the comments before yours. No mention of an extra 10 million people to house after Tony Blair. The left refuses to admit to this elephant in the room. The left have brought this crisis upon themselves (and everyone else).
I'm surprised that immigration is so often kept out of the discussion of house prices. There are many factors at play and they all need to be handled correctly in order to solve the problems we now have.
Extremely interesting conversation, not heard of Vicky Spratt so thanks for the introduction :)
An inciteful, wonderful conversation. Thank you.
Think you meant insightful because of her deep understanding. She is not inciting as she is not being angry or unreasonable.
Mind boggling! I have recently narrowly avoided being evicted with my 6 children. Thank you, pandemic. Much of what you are discussing sounds too familiar. I have had to use all of my inner strength and ingenuity. My then husband has been badly affected with respect to his mental health. Now he is considering working abroad. We are now separated.
This will be the title of a UA-cam video in 5 years time, in 10 years time, in 20 years time. I’ve rented for the last 13 years, it’s always been bad and exploitative, it’s just worse now. Nothing will be done about it.
Keep at it Vicky. I grew up in council housing and was the only one of 5 siblings who went to university in the early 70s. I joined a group called Gingerbread trying to help families in poverty in urban Leeds. One lady lived in a back to back house in a cobbled street. She was a widow with 3 young children and looked what must have been 20 years older than she was. The toilet was outside with an inch of water on the floor. There was rehousing but councils were building horrible mega housing projects like Hunslet Grange which rapidly deteriorated with cracks and leaks. 50 years on it infuriates and saddens me to see how little progress has been made.
Always thought what she said there at the end, we want house prices to go up, cause people feel wealthier and spend more. Do they not realize that this is a system that soon spirals out of control, or do they just hope it happens when they are out of power?
If the project isn't gonna completed within 4 years why bother?
If theres political pressure to do it but it won't be completed during your term why care about the quality of it?
its one of the downsides of our current system that only cares about short term so house market just needs to not crash during their term, education is all about optics as the gains from actual good education reform won't be felt for +10 years and even the energy crysis I think it was about 10yrs ago Nick Clegg said there was no point in bulding new nuclear power plants as they would take +8yrs to build...... sure would've been nice to have them to fall back onto now
When the property developers are amongst the biggest donors to the Tory party, what do you expect? They're in charge of policy.
From Oregon, US...one of the best videos I've ever seen.
Absolutely brilliant conversation. Thank you so much.
That angry, wheezing sound you can hear down the internet is me, not holding my breath, that Starmer and the next Labour government are going to do anything more than every other government that came before to fix this problem...
ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.
To them escalating house prices is not a problem. In the same way immigration isn't a problem. These are tools they use to prop up our economy and consolidate control of the population. Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak like these things.
Thanks Richard from Bro Chris Lambert
In 2012 my partner and I were evicted because our home owning neighbours took a dislike to us and decided to make a nuisance with the letting agent and landlord. They had been harassing us, we had contacted the police, but the police blamed us. We felt it was all transphobia. The trauma has never gone away, our relationship didn't survive.
Brill discussion. Thank you both. Great work.
The so called "housing crisis" is a distraction from the actual problem: real incomes in Europe have been collapsing for many years due to a currency debasement because of ECB buying government debt and literally printing money. This has eroded not just the value of the currency but the value of labor income because the increase of wages and salaries has by far not matched the increase of money supply. Prices of all assets have went up accordingly to reflect the increased money supply in circulation.