Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Greedy landlords rub their hands with glee as Londoners queue in the cold to buy flats

editor said:
He... "told the Evening Standard that he hoped house prices and rents would skyrocket even further in London so he could make more money."
Click to expand...

Can you point me to a source which quotes him verbatim as saying that as the ones you have linked to date do not appear to demonstrate that.

Secondly, what is an acceptable rate of return on an investment - or more to the point, what level should acceptable investment income be morally capped at between (i) go up quite a bit, and (ii) skyrocket, and why?
 
The simple answer to house prices in London though is to build more bloody housing.

Simple supply and demand stuff. Supply is rock bottom, demand is sky high - address the first and go from there.

The problem is a lack of supply and a surfeit of NIMBYs who don't want their local area to change because it upsets their sentimental idea of where they live.
 
Diamond said:
Can you point me to a source which quotes him verbatim as saying that as the ones you have linked to date do not appear to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...
I'm just going by was quoted in the press, and that is what I reacted to. If you're saying he didn't say that then my opinion may well be different.

What evidence have you got that the Standard made up the quote?
 
editor said:
I'm just going by was quoted in the press, and that is what I reacted to. If you're saying he didn't say that then my opinion may well be different.

What evidence have you got that the Standard made up the quote?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the fact that the Standard didn't dare to quote him directly...

I'm not in any way saying that you were to blame for their slightly mendacious reporting but the fact that you were so keen to seize upon it demonstrates, again, your lack of analysis.
 
killer b said:
While I'm loath to pitch in on this bellend's side, it isn't a quote.
Click to expand...

It is an indirect quote. It should be based on what he actually said; reporters do make stuff up sometimes, but I wouldn't assume every indirect quote is completely fabricated.

I'm not sure the problem in London is a lack of property building, actually. East London in particular is using every single available patch of land to build new flats (and occasionally houses) on. Very few are social housing and the prices are out of most Londoners' reach, but the building isn't a problem.
 
I've responded to the quote but I'm really not going to waste time trying to find out if the Standard made up the exact words or not.

However, back to greed. I'd say cash-in landlords increasing rents by at least triple the rate of inflation look pretty greedy to me.
 
Diamond said:
Perhaps the fact that the Standard didn't dare to quote him directly....
Click to expand...
So where is your 'analysis' to support this totally unsupported claim that the Standard didn't "dare" to quote him directly?

What would they be scared of? Please elaborate.
 
Diamond said:
The simple answer to house prices in London though is to build more bloody housing.

Simple supply and demand stuff. Supply is rock bottom, demand is sky high - address the first and go from there.

The problem is a lack of supply and a surfeit of NIMBYs who don't want their local area to change because it upsets their sentimental idea of where they live.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, there's loads being built but they're safe deposit boxes for investors, not homes for Londoners. In 2013:
The question of who buys new homes in London is a matter of ongoing speculation in the media. The activity of investors, particularly from overseas, has become the subject of intense interest – and sometimes criticism. This study aims to identify who buys new homes in London and why. Having reconciled disparate sources of information on the subject, the following picture emerges of who bought new homes in London in 2013:
• Buy to Let investors: 48%
• Buy to Sell investors (speculators): 5%
• Build to Let investors: 8%
• Owner occupiers – outright purchase: 32%
• The final 7% of units are those homes that were originally permitted as market sale units, but end up as affordable units usually to be delivered as shared ownership homes.
Click to expand...
http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/Who_buys_new_homes_in_London_and_why_A4_web.pdf

So 68% of homes are bought for investment reasons of one sort or another ie. the majority of buyers are interested in prices and rents going up further and have no intention of living in those homes.
 
maomao said:
Bullshit, there's loads being built but they're safe deposit boxes for investors, not homes for Londoners. In 2013:

http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/Who_buys_new_homes_in_London_and_why_A4_web.pdf

So 68% of homes are bought for investment reasons of one sort or another ie. the majority of buyers are interested in prices and rents going up further and have no intention of living in those homes.
Click to expand...

That is not an argument against further supply and I suspect you know that already.
 
maomao said:
Bullshit, there's loads being built but they're safe deposit boxes for investors, not homes for Londoners. In 2013:

http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/Who_buys_new_homes_in_London_and_why_A4_web.pdf

So 68% of homes are bought for investment reasons of one sort or another ie. the majority of buyers are interested in prices and rents going up further and have no intention of living in those homes.
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, it's 61%, not 68.

However, those people buying a second home for their theatre trips would count as owner-occupiers too. It would be interesting to know how many of new owner-occupiers in 2013 were living there as their only home.
 
editor said:
So where is your 'analysis' to support this totally unsupported claim that the Standard didn't "dare" to quote him directly?

What would they be scared of? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Their professional reputation - making up directly attributed quotations does not tend to make for a successful journal.
 
Diamond said:
Their professional reputation - making up directly attributed quotations does not tend to make for a successful journal.
Click to expand...
For someone that was giving lectures about the supposed lack of analysis shown in my posts, this really is piss weak stuff. You've got no evidence at all to back up your assertion that a journalist didn't "dare" attribute a quote. You're just making shit up.
 
Diamond said:
That is not an argument against further supply and I suspect you know that already.
Click to expand...

Where do you expect further supply to come from? Everything's being used right now.

Compulsory purchasing empty homes would help; funnily enough, that would include quite a few of those new builds - at least 5%, the buy to sell investors.
 
editor said:
For someone that was giving lectures about the supposed lack of analysis shown in my posts, this really is piss weak stuff. You've got no evidence at all to back up your assertion that a journalist didn't "dare" attribute a quote. You're just making shit up.
Click to expand...

Whereas you fell for a journalist "making shit up" because it fitted your confirmation bias...

Again, demonstrate to me that the individual in question used the phrase "skyrocket".

Any chance of that happening or are you just "making shit up"?
 
scifisam said:
It is an indirect quote. It should be based on what he actually said; reporters do make stuff up sometimes, but I wouldn't assume every indirect quote is completely fabricated.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even appear in the original article in the standard, only in the indie article which quotes it.

No-one outside newspapers uses the word 'skyrocket' in the context that journalist used it - certainly not chinese investors.
 
scifisam said:
Where do you expect further supply to come from? Everything's being used right now.

Compulsory purchasing empty homes would help; funnily enough, that would include quite a few of those new builds - at least 5%, the buy to sell investors.
Click to expand...

Get rid of the Green Belt to start with.

Beyond that, stop making it so ridiculously difficult to redevelop land within the M25.
 
Diamond said:
Whereas you fell for a journalist "making shit up" because it fitted your confirmation bias...
Click to expand...
Hold on. What evidence have you got that the journalist made the quote up or that I "fell" for anything? Please back up this bizarre claim.
 
editor said:
Hold on. What evidence have you got that the journalist made the quote up or that I "fell" for anything? Please back up this bizarre claim.
Click to expand...

Your line of reasoning is as unstructured as it is clouded.

What do you specifically require clarity on?
 
Diamond said:
Your line of reasoning is as unstructured as it is clouded.

What do you specifically require clarity on?
Click to expand...
1. You suggested that the Standard "didn't dare" to quote the investor directly. Why would a journalist be in such fear?
 
killer b: yeah, it might well be made up. But it is a quote, and it shouldn't, legally, be made up. Try it out by changing it to "he said he wanted the flat so that he could use it as a site for buggering kittens" and wondering if that would count as misattribution.

Diamond said:
Get rid of the Green Belt to start with.

Beyond that, stop making it so ridiculously difficult to redevelop land within the M25.
Click to expand...

The green belt isn't in London. And if it's hard to redevelop land then it doesn't seem to be stopping people.
 
There's something of a difference in tone between the actual quote and the journalese summary in the indie don't you think?
 
killer b said:
There's something of a difference in tone between the actual quote and the journalese summary in the indie don't you think?
Click to expand...

There is. But, come on, newspapers are not actually supposed to misattribute even indirect quotes, so it's reasonable to react to the quote as if it was actually said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

frogwoman
Jas Athwal - Labour MP owns several London flats full of ants and black mould
Replies
14
Views
930
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Bingoman
Conservatives delete their twitter account lol
Replies
27
Views
907
ska invita
ska invita
Serene
Right-wing pundit Candace Owens now barred from New Zealand as well as Australia
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
2K
emanymton
emanymton
Nigel
First Sikh Court To Be Established In Britain: London
Replies
15
Views
769
tonysingh
tonysingh
danny la rouge
Time is Up for The Times, which is going down the pan, and doesn’t rhyme with pie.
Replies
1
Views
200
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
Back
Top Bottom