RayC

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.

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.