REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

Suggets you do read it all, unless you're trying to suggest that KPMG are some lunatic fringe communist co-conspirators. About half of it is lifted by way of copy and paste (no different to you posting lengthy links)

I think you need to clarify if you're 'qualitative' example is for commercial premises or domestic? - massively different dynamics in the respective markets. Also build to lets are not presenting the same problem as buy to lets. New build is introducing new supply, buy to lets aren't doing so to the same degree as it relies on recirculating existing stock

Also the idea that this is a pure market (resdiential lettings) is highly questionable. The government have made some very clear interventions that have turned it upside down (wasn't their intention admittedly) but they removed 250,000 new builds when they abolished the RES's. Scrapped the expansion towns programme, and have also introduced primary legislation through the Localism Bill which has led to major log jams in the planning system now, as empowered communities (in absolute contradiction of what Greg Clark said would happen) have systematically blocked new build proposals. It isn't a free market if you define that by being market led. The government have been a major comtributor to stoking up the recent bubble (even if they thought they weren't going to be). What this comes down is a fundamental misread by Clark and Pickles who were adamant that parents would want what was best for their children etc They might do if the benefits were restricted to their children, and their children alone, but if it's more fuzzy they've demonstrated that they prioritise what's best for themselves first, and if this means opposing new planning apps, this is what they've done.

<blockquote data-quote="Warbler" data-source="post: 2518960" data-attributes="member: 65228">Suggets you do read it all, unless you&#039;re trying to suggest that KPMG are some lunatic fringe communist co-conspirators. About half of it is lifted by way of copy and paste (no different to you posting lengthy links)I think you need to clarify if you&#039;re &#039;qualitative&#039; example is for commercial premises or domestic? - massively different dynamics in the respective markets. Also build to lets are not presenting the same problem as buy to lets. New build is introducing new supply, buy to lets aren&#039;t doing so to the same degree as it relies on recirculating existing stockAlso the idea that this is a pure market (resdiential lettings) is highly questionable. The government have made some very clear interventions that have turned it upside down (wasn&#039;t their intention admittedly) but they removed 250,000 new builds when they abolished the RES&#039;s. Scrapped the expansion towns programme, and have also introduced primary legislation through the Localism Bill which has led to major log jams in the planning system now, as empowered communities (in absolute contradiction of what Greg Clark said would happen) have systematically blocked new build proposals. It isn&#039;t a free market if you define that by being market led. The government have been a major comtributor to stoking up the recent bubble (even if they thought they weren&#039;t going to be). What this comes down is a fundamental misread by Clark and Pickles who were adamant that parents would want what was best for their children etc They might do if the benefits were restricted to their children, and their children alone, but if it&#039;s more fuzzy they&#039;ve demonstrated that they prioritise what&#039;s best for themselves first, and if this means opposing new planning apps, this is what they&#039;ve done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbler, post: 2518960, member: 65228"] Suggets you do read it all, unless you're trying to suggest that KPMG are some lunatic fringe communist co-conspirators. About half of it is lifted by way of copy and paste (no different to you posting lengthy links) I think you need to clarify if you're 'qualitative' example is for commercial premises or domestic? - massively different dynamics in the respective markets. Also build to lets are not presenting the same problem as buy to lets. New build is introducing new supply, buy to lets aren't doing so to the same degree as it relies on recirculating existing stock Also the idea that this is a pure market (resdiential lettings) is highly questionable. The government have made some very clear interventions that have turned it upside down (wasn't their intention admittedly) but they removed 250,000 new builds when they abolished the RES's. Scrapped the expansion towns programme, and have also introduced primary legislation through the Localism Bill which has led to major log jams in the planning system now, as empowered communities (in absolute contradiction of what Greg Clark said would happen) have systematically blocked new build proposals. It isn't a free market if you define that by being market led. The government have been a major comtributor to stoking up the recent bubble (even if they thought they weren't going to be). What this comes down is a fundamental misread by Clark and Pickles who were adamant that parents would want what was best for their children etc They might do if the benefits were restricted to their children, and their children alone, but if it's more fuzzy they've demonstrated that they prioritise what's best for themselves first, and if this means opposing new planning apps, this is what they've done. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?