RayC

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.

You do not know where I got my figures from because I did not state my sources, yet you confidently pronounce that "Your figures are high. Too high" without offering any explanation other than "They are nothing more than propaganda" and ".. in the real world those figures don't fit". The sources of the data in my previous post were, in fact, ONS; gov.uk and Statistica. I'm sure that these bodies will be interested to know why their figures are wrong and how they can improve their methodologies. I'll leave others to decide whether to give more weight to figures derived from these sources, or from the observations of one person who has a different narrative. Perhaps in your neck of the woods, and in your world, there is no housing affordability problem. Unfortunately, in many other parts of the UK and THE real world, a sizeable number of the population do have a real problem.

That might well be true but those figures need putting into context e.g. where in the UK are those properties located? In any event, it doesn't negate my previous comment i.e. that the average house now costs 8.5 times average earnings now. Some more data to support my case. Even the cheapest type of accommodation (flats) cost an average of £230k in the UK. The problem of housing affordability is, of course, even more marked in London. The average price of a flat (not all housing) in the cheapest London borough (Barking and Dagenham) is £250k. The average price for London flats as a whole is £558k. Even in my own borough - Lambeth - gentrified but hardly, Mayfair chic - the average flat will set you back £465k. UK average rental prices are £1200/ month (London - £2500) and UK average wages are £30k (London - £35k). £30k gives take-home pay of +/£2k/month; £35k gives £2300/month. These figures suggest that outside London 50%+ of average take-home pay goes on rent; in London it doesn't even cover the rent, so yes really, I'd say that there is plenty to see and discuss when it comes to the UK housing market and that there is an affordability problem for many of the UK population.

Not sure what you are referring to? The Olympics and/or the Oscars? No matter. It's interesting how you label data which shows a relatively superior UK performance as, "a load of drivel" whereas you accept data showing Australian superiorly at face value. Bias and inconsistency, perhaps?

Given that the average house costs 8.5 times average earnings now compared with 4 times in 1989 - plus the fact that annual rental inflation is currently 4.7% - I'd suggest that there is plenty to see and discuss wrt the UK housing market.

Perhaps you should direct your comment to the right person: GOAT mentioned the Commonwealth Games. I simply replied with facts showing the UK's superiority over Australia at a similar, but larger, global event where medals are harder to come by. As you raised the subject of acting, you might be interested to know that the 'Best Actor' or 'Best Actress' Oscar has been won by a Brit on 42 occasions: Australian actors have won these awards on a mere 6 occasions with only 3 of the actors actually born in Australia. (Source: Wikipedia)

While we're doing other sports and 'Whataboutary'. Performance at the Summer Olympics: GB&NI: Gold 284 Silver 318 Bronze 314 Australia: Gold 164 Silver 173 Bronze 210

I wouldn't like to call the world whinging team championship but I reckon that you've got the individual title sewn up.

Just offering a counter-example to your comment that all the UK has to offer is 'Old comedy and beer'. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment and you were instead inferring that UK (old) comedy and beer' are the best in the world.

Apart from Nobel prize winners, thriving cultural artists, Olympic champions, etc.

Fair point re Stokes' comment. In an ideal world, I'd agree that as far as far as possible nature - with a limited helping hand from the groundsman - should define the pitch. However, we both know that home captains have 'had a word' re the pitch since the year dot. In any event, imo the pitches haven't favoured either side. Before the series started, Australia looked to have the quicker (and better) bowling unit. However, imo so far that hasn't proven to be the case. Wood is the fastest bowler on show and both attacks have been evenly matched. Lyon is by far and away the best spinner on either side and his absence has meant that even if the pitch had broken up at Trent Bridge, it probably wouldn't have benefited either side nor will it do so at the Oval.

Then you'd be sounding the death knell for Test cricket. India are the major financial power in cricket but their interest centres around 20-20. Australia test matches against the likes of SL, BL, WI, Ireland, Zimbabwe get next to no one attending either home or away: Matches against England (both home and away) are the only Test series that are financially viable for those nations. Re the doctored pitches: What a load of old <deleted>. QED.

If the Irish experience is anything to go by then it will be a lot cheaper https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html That would depend and need to be agreed, but imo it should be largely limited to protecting the constitution and shaking hands at sporting events and diplomatic functions. There are many Commonwealth countries e.g. India who do not have the King as HoS. I struggle to see what purpose the Commonwealth serves today. It just seems to be something that's there.

It should be possible for the government of the day to tackle the (cost of the) refugee crisis and have a debate on constitutional reform simultaneously. According to Republic, the monarchy costs £345 m/ year. That should knock +/-10% off the current cost of processing refugees. https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

I can only repeat what I posted previously. By that line of argument every pressure group in the UK should therefore be expected to do something to address homelessness. In any event, why just homelessness? There are, unfortunately, almost an endless number of other problems which need addressing e.g. substance abuse, food poverty, etc. Democracy is not the reason. One criterion for democracy is freedom of choice. Individuals/ groups can choose not to participate in/ to a cause if they so choose. Once again, repeating myself, Republic is a pressure group. As the title suggests, groups such as Republic try to exert pressure to elicit change. This is usually - but not always - on a single issue and often - not always - their campaigns are aimed at getting the government to change the law. Pressure groups are not political parties in their own right. See previous paragraph. What rules/ laws (as an organisation) have/ are Republic breaking? Both the subject and the context are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Spot on. Just as any idiot should be able to understand the following: "Republic is a membership-based pressure group campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement with a directly elected head of state." (Source: Republic website). The RSPCA and Republic have one thing in common: They are single issue pressure groups not political parties. I disagree with your position on other things but, usually, your arguments are coherent. Unfortunately in this instance, you are letting your unswerving loyalty to the Crown cloud your ability to think rationally.

Republic is a pressure group with one aim; the replacement of the UK monarchy with an elected head of state. Why - as a group - should they be expected to campaign/ contribute to schemes aimed at helping Britain's homeless? You might as well criticise the RSPCA. As far as I'm aware they do nothing to aid the homeless (humans) either.

I do wish that people wouldn't introduce empirical evidence into the discussion!????

Entirely relevant. There may be instances like yours where the distance between buyer and seller does not matter, but it is a generally accepted principle that being closer to the market is an advantage: This seems to apply not only to goods, but also to financial services. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/23/why-distance-matters-in-trade/ https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2252~ff1d083655.en.pdf

On the assumption that the conditions attached to this deal are favourable, then this is good news. However, a bit of perspective is needed. As the article says, "It remains to be seen how much the deal actually benefits Britain’s growth prospects. Based on the government’s own estimates, the deal will raise long-term domestic GDP by just 0.08%, which will have little impact to offset European trade losses as a result of Brexit".

More from the man. I hope that something has been lost in translation; sadly, I doubt it. What hope for Thailand while these unelected "guardians" of Thailand pull the strings? "If there is condition to lead our country to conflict, like amending or abolishing Section 112 and the constitution, we can't allow that to happen," senator Somchai Sawangkarn said in a social media video ahead of the vote. "We will vote to protect people of the whole country because that is better than letting Thailand get a prime minister and coalition government who will be a danger and a threat to the country." (Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation website)

Pita is the chosen PM candidate of Move Forward and Pheu Thai. Between them, these two parties achieved 67% of 'Party List' votes cast and 49.9% of the 'Constituency' vote. Throw in the votes for the other parties in the coalition and I'd suggest that's a pretty compelling argument in support of Pita's nomination as PM.

You raise a good point. My opinion is that if this escalates into a nationwide protest - e.g. protests in Pattaya, Phuket, etc. as well as Bangkok - then tourist numbers will drop; otherwise, probably (tourism) business as normal.

Probably better off buying them in Margate unless you want to involve yourself in a lot of red tape????

If you can show where I have misinterpreted your comments, I will withdraw my remarks and apologise.

Nothing like taking quotes out of context, is there? Firstly, you questioned why EU nationals should be put off from mitigating to the UK post-Brexit. I pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that the withdrawal of freedom of movement had created a barrier to entry which did not previously exist. In the same post, you stated that, ".. a bit more scrutiny on tax and NI payments required when working". The implication being that this was not possible and/or more difficult pre-Brexit. I replied that there was nothing to prevent the UK authorities increasing their focus on tax avoidance pre-Brexit and that, moreover, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that their employees are made known to HMRC. Again, this is no different pre- and post-Brexit. Finally, you state that, "nationality of employees is irrelevant. That is until non-UK nationals need a new visa." When I ask you to explain this somewhat cryptic comment, you accuse me of creating ".. obstacles that are simply not there"!!! (huh?). I'm not going round in circles. I'm trying to navigate the 'Alice in Wonderland' environment which you create.