RayC

You do know that they went off for rain yesterday, don't you? Do you think that fell from clear skies? Ever considered the possibility that -for whatever reason - the Aussie batsmen weren't as good and/or the English bowlers were better yesterday compared with Day 4? Clearly you know even less about cricket than me, especially if you think that this ball change was the biggest scandal in 30 years. It might have been a 5-run game without a ball change. It might also have been a 100-run victory for England. All if, buts and maybes.

I'm always keen to increase my knowledge when it comes to research. Perhaps you would be good enough to detail your approach? I'm still intrigued why you (seemingly) consider your findings a more accurate view of the 'real' world than the BBC survey, especially as you have both used Rightmove as a source?

Have you considered that the difference in overhead conditions on Day 5 might have played a part? Even if the ball was harder, we are talking about two openers who were well-set. Moreover, the changed ball didn't seem to bother Smith and Head too much for 25 overs and the best part of 100 runs. Maybe you think that the changed ball caused the last six wickets to fall for 70-odd? Sour grapes, perhaps?

Excellent series. Probably a fitting result although as an England supporter difficult not to think "if only" given rain cost us a likely victory at Old Trafford.

Literally a case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"????

Absolutely????

I don't. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the texts that explain the soundness of your statistical approach.

No Brit bashing here; only English bashing.

You certainly haven't proven the findings of the BBC/ Rightmove survey to be incorrect which is the subject of my posts. My knowledge of theoretical physics leaves a lot to be desired, so I can't offer an opinion regarding the existence of an alternative Blackpool in a parallel universe.

Notwithstanding that the findings of the BBC/Rightmove survey are the result of a nationwide survey with a large dataset - which has (presumably) followed a statistically valid methodology - and your findings are the result of "some simple searches" and a much smaller dataset, have you considered that it might be possible that your results are outliers, and not a true reflection of the 'real world'?

Care to elaborate for those of us slow on the uptake?

I hope that your health has improved. Your experience and the numerous surveys by reputable organisations pointing out the problems in the UK housing are all wrong. We are both lazy. The solutions are obvious: In my case, I should do my own research, which would clearly show that the various survey findings are all incorrect. In your case you simply " .... didn't search hard enough".????

Apologies. I forgot to post the link to the article previously. Not that it will make a blind bit of difference as you'll refuse to accept the evidence as it doesn't fit your narrative. (I'll save you the bother of looking for a city where you can get a 2-bed apartment for under £960/month: Dundee fits the bill. Therefore, there is no housing affordability issue' in the wider UK market excluding London) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66246223

But it is not just London. The article in the link is an extended version of the piece on yesterday's six o'clock news. The article is damning in its' own right but play around with parameters in the boxes and you will find that (1) in most UK cities, it is impossible to rent a 1-bedroom apartment for < £800 (2) those on mortgages are often finding that their monthly repayments have increased threefold. There will be exceptions but these are the norms. If this doesn't constitute major problems, I don't know what does.

Great. Just what I needed. Another month of trying to avoid mention of this soap opera.

Well I guess that depends upon how you define 'major'. Individual observation can be useful but too many people, like yourself, then extrapolate their own experience and assume that it applies to the wider population. Sometimes it does but in many cases such as this, it does not. My own experience of the current housing market is completely different to yours. You'd be lucky to buy a garage for <£200k in my borough and rents for pokey 1-bed flats are £1200+. According to the aggregated data, my experience seems closer to that of the wider population.

Then we are in agreement.???????? The use of the mean in data analysis has its' limitations. There are major problems in the UK housing market.

Only believe the figures that suit your narrative, eh? I also posted the 'real' projected figures which show that the UK is predicted to grow more slowly than the Eurozone and the wider EU this year. Falling off a cliff edge? Maybe not - although the 10% overnight decline in sterling when the referendum result was announced was quite a descent - more like, a steady slide down a steep hill. Where's those sunny uplands we were promised?

Nice bpit of cherry picking there. IMF revised GDP growth projections for 2023: UK: 0.4%; Eurozone: 0.9%; EU: 1%

Whatever the limitations of using the mean in analysing the housing market, the aggregated data set on which the analysis is based has greater validity than the observations of one individual. Your post seems to infer that there is no problem in your area. If so, it bucks the national trend: There was a piece on the six o'clock news this evening about the crisis with rental accommodation (in the North West in particular). I imagine that it will be repeated at 22:00 if you care to watch it. It offers further proof that there are major problems in the UK housing market.

I can see why you are confused: It's complicated. This might help explain things: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

You should hear what my Kiwi friends say about the Aussies. Actually, just as well you don't: I have to cover my ears; me being of a delicate English disposition.

Then why did you introduce The Commonwealth Games into the discussion?

My mistake. Apologies. Here you go. Performance at the Summer Olympics: England: Gold 229 Silver 268 Bronze 264 Australia: Gold 164 Silver 173 Bronze 210

I agree that averages can distort the data. I would prefer to use median values but I cannot find a source which gives median property prices. Nevertheless, averages can tell a story. A rough calculation: I'll assume that your figure for a first time property purchase of £142k is correct. The average rent in SW England is £993/ month. The median salary is £27k/year which gives take-home pay of £1820/month, and therefore an average disposable income of £827. Average food, transport, council tax and utility costs add up to +/-£520/month, which means that someone on a median income could save +/-£300/ month living a lifestyle where 'leisure time' involved absolutely no expenditure whatsoever and there was no contingency for clothing or unexpected events. If this median-income person wanted to buy a property in SW England and took out a mortgage based on 4*salary, they would need to find a deposit of £34k (142-108). Saving £300/month@5% compound interest, it would take them 8 years to save the deposit! +/-50% of the population would struggle more than this median-income person. There is an 'housing affordability issue' in the UK and it is not just limited to London.