At least estate agents are happy. Image: Getty.
Show Hide image

Two charts that show why London home buyers are totally screwed

Everybody move to Paris.

More hilarious news from the London housing market. In the year to June, the average house price in the city climbed 25.8 per cent. The average price has now breached £400,000 for the first time.

To put that in a context, a healthy mortgage is generally agreed to cover no more than 90 per cent of a property's value, and to represent a maximum of 4.5 times the borrowers' income. So a couple of first-time-buyers hoping to buy an average London home would need a joint income of £78,000, putting them in the richest 4 per cent of households in the country. Oh, and they'll also need £40,000 in the bank.

Should you already own your own home in the city, and are consequently mystified that anyone could consider this a problem – congratulations on successfully having been born at the right time.

All this looks a lot like a bubble – prices are rising at their fastest rate since 1987, and look what happened then – but it's in the nature of bubbles that we can't be certain we're in one until they burst. So in the mean time, here are two charts.

The first one compares price increases in London with those in various other major world cities, over the course of 2013. (They’re a bit out of date because December was the most recent month for which we could find enough figures.) We've compiled it using data from the Bank of International Settlements, and the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Prices Index: the various indexes it's based on work in slightly different ways and cover slightly different things, so we're not claiming the figures are anything more than indicative. Nonetheless, they do give you a sense of the trends in various cities.

London is an outlier – but it's not the only place having a crazy house price boom. Prices have gone nuts in Sydney and Shanghai, too. The difference is, of course, that Australia and China both have much faster growing economies than the UK, much of which still remains in the doldrums.

All that said, it looks like a great time to buy a nice pied-a-terre in Paris, if you've got the cash to hand.

This second chart uses data from government research, asking the public whether they were in favour of building new houses in their area. The polling was conducted in 2011, so it's just possible attitudes have changed in the mean time. Either way, though, it explains rather a lot.

In inner London, where land is scarce and most people rent, everyone wants more housing. But in outer London, where there's more space, and where any major new housing programme is realistically going to have to begin, opposition to house building is stronger than the national average. In fact, people in outer London oppose house building more strongly than people in any other region of England.

So to sum up, we're screwed.

This is a preview of our new sister publication, CityMetric. We'll be launching its website soon - in the meantime, you can follow it on Twitter and Facebook.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. He is on Twitter, almost continously, as @JonnElledge.

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland