Showing posts with label Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Housing. Show all posts

Friday, 6 October 2017

UK Housebuilders Completions and Productivity

In this blogpost I hope to provide evidence and data to show that the UK's top housebuilders as churning out houses as fast as they can, rather than holding back to preserve profit margins.

The Biggest Housebuilders

The UK's largest housebuilders in terms of completions, that is houses built in the years ending March 2016 and March 2017 are as follows:-


20162017
Barratt Development Plc17,319 17,395
Persimmon Plc15,171 15,588
Taylor Wimpey Plc13,808 14,112
Bellway Plc8,721 9,644
Redrow Plc4,716 4,918
Bovis Home Group Plc3,977 3,755
The Berkeley Group Holdings Plc3,776 3,905
Galliford Try Plc (Linden)3,078 3,296
Crest Nicholson Plc2,870
Countryside2,657
Quadrant Construction2,510 2,552
Bloor Homes Limited2,443
Keepmoat2,416
Miller2,380
Avant1,210 1,636
Nottinghill Housing1,170 1,151
Morris1,165
CALA1,151
PfP1,119
Guinness Partnership908

These figures are taken from the Annual Reports of each of the companies. The government's Department of Communities and Local Authorities records that the total number of home completions for 2016 was 139,840 and for 2017 it was approximately 153,000.

Therefore the top 20 largest housebuilders account for between 50% and 70% of all completions in the UK.

Past Decade Performance

By looking at previous Annual Reports we can build up a picture of year on year performance, since 2004, including the 2008 credit crunch.


The data is sparser the further back we go because I am lazy and cannot spend so much time looking for historic company reports.

A few observations:-

  • We can see that most of the companies have returned to approximately the 2008 levels.
  • 2007 and 2008 seem to be exceptional years rather than the result of steady year on year increases.

The year on year increase since 2008 is on average for all the companies 10% each year, however, there is some degree of bumpiness

Cost of Building

From studying the Annual Reports we can estimate the cost of building a house. If the total revenue for a company is X and the operational profit is Y, then X minus Y is the total cost of all the labour and materials and equipment. This ignores any admin expenses, back office overheads and interest on loans. By dividing total costs by the number of completions, we get an approximate cost per house.

For the top 14 companies the cost per house is as follows (using most recent data)

Cost per House
Barratt Development Plc£221,385.46
Persimmon Plc£155,902.71
Taylor Wimpey Plc£210,884.99
Bellway Plc£181,325.18
Redrow Plc£248,338.26
Bovis Home Group Plc£226,326.38
The Berkeley Group Holdings Plc£456,773.37
Galliford Try Plc (Linden)£232,736.65
Crest Nicholson Plc£276,376.31
Countryside£254,001.39
Quadrant Construction£126,895.77
Bloor Homes Limited£249,662.71
Keepmoat£441,556.29
Miller£194,117.65

We can see that the range is from £126,000 for Quadrant Construction to £456,000 for Berkeley. However, the average cost per home is around £222,800 (this is for 61% of the homes built).

We can speculate that these companies aren't trying to get build as efficiently as possible because their profit margins will easily cover expenses, and so it would be possible to build houses by far cheaper means, but this is literally the majority of the market accounted for.

Thursday, 9 May 2013

Londonland rents - a year later

One of the most popular posts on this site, as you can see from the sidebar, is my post from May 2012 about the average rents in each London borough. Admittedly a lot of traffic comes from google sending people here looking for a map of London boroughs, but anyhoo, its still an interesting topic.

Yesterday, on twitter Sarah retweeted comment from Emma Jackson about how rents in London were crazy and average rents in Newham had shot up 39% the last year. Alas this information came from a press release a year ago, but it got me wondering about what rents were like now that the Olympics is firmly in the past, and how rents have changed from last year.

So I dug out my old spreadsheet, went through the rightmove.com property website, and counted up how many two bedroom flats there were in each London borough at each price point, weaved some Excel magic and well here's a list of average rents last year and this year, and their percentage change.

London Borough 10 May 2012 08 May 2013 Change
Redbridge  £      1,080.05  £      1,193.77 110.53%
Hillington  £      1,112.92  £      1,201.08 107.92%
Merton  £      1,581.29  £      1,702.12 107.64%
Bexley  £         858.70  £         914.26 106.47%
Enfield  £      1,135.41  £      1,201.74 105.84%
Croydon  £      1,014.19  £      1,063.27 104.84%
Greenwich  £      1,332.97  £      1,387.40 104.08%
Waltham Forest  £      1,092.00  £      1,134.49 103.89%
Barnet  £      1,419.80  £      1,465.49 103.22%
Barking and Dagenham  £         967.14  £         994.93 102.87%
Ealing  £      1,578.19  £      1,606.16 101.77%
Sutton  £      1,029.41  £      1,046.86 101.70%
Southwark  £      1,840.94  £      1,869.72 101.56%
Hounslow  £      1,785.18  £      1,808.97 101.33%
Lewisham  £      1,224.56  £      1,236.24 100.95%
Kingston Upon Thames  £      1,402.73  £      1,412.13 100.67%
Brent  £      1,483.54  £      1,491.47 100.53%
Hackney  £      1,876.80  £      1,885.32 100.45%
Harrow  £      1,248.56  £      1,253.38 100.39%
Bromley  £      1,127.81  £      1,131.87 100.36%
Havering  £         967.49  £         963.83 99.62%
Kensington and Chelsea  £      2,856.73  £      2,820.08 98.72%
Lambeth  £      1,745.46  £      1,708.09 97.86%
Haringey  £      1,432.51  £      1,401.14 97.81%
Camden  £      2,359.67  £      2,307.76 97.80%
Newham  £      1,410.63  £      1,373.49 97.37%
Islington  £      2,217.82  £      2,139.80 96.48%
Westminster  £      2,796.06  £      2,696.96 96.46%
Wandsworth  £      1,844.08  £      1,756.62 95.26%
Richmond  £      1,927.33  £      1,834.90 95.20%
Hammersmith and Fulham  £      2,102.78  £      1,978.86 94.11%
Tower Hamlets  £      2,066.11  £      1,942.07 94.00%
City of London  £      2,817.34  £      2,474.32 87.82%

So, nothing too exciting there. From the raw data, it seems the increases and decreases Redbridge, Hillington, Tower Hamlets and City of London are caused mainly by either loads more properties coming onto the market since last year, or fewer properties being available.

On the whole, property in desirable boroughs is still more expensive than property in less desirable boroughs. Desirability here is mostly proximity to the centre of the capital city of the UK, which isn't really surprising. Kensington, Westminster, and City of London are still most expensive. Havering, Barking and Bexley are still the cheapest boroughs to rent in.

The average change in average rents for two bedroom flats since this time last year for the whole of London, by my calculations is about half a percent, so within the margin of error for the data.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

More on Londonland rents

I'm still thinking about that article by Eva Wiseman about how her generation will never be able to afford to buy property and rents are too high. And I'm ploughing through the RightMove property website looking at rents in different London boroughs.

Here's a chart I put together

I spent most of my Bank Holiday Monday scraping the data to make that map, and then this morning found almost the same thing is on the charity Shelter's website here, apart from they're a bit presumptive, rather than labelling average rents they suppose that you need to earn about 2.5 times rent for it to be affordable. Which is where Eva Wiseman's figure of £67,669  to live in Tower Hamlets comes from. Its using a rule of thumb to come up with a very precise figure. How much of your income to spend on rent is a very personal choice, rather than something to be foised on you by a charity.

Anyhoo, I digress...

Of course the City of London has the most expensive average rents, how could it be otherwise, its the centre of the capital, and so, of course the boroughs neighbouring it are going to be less expensive but still amongst the most expensive in the country.

If you want to buy property and you're Eva Wiseman or one of her minimum wage call-centre friends then don't look at the most expensive places in London, look to the cheaper boroughs, the more affordable ones.

Its just a little small-minded to assume that all of the British Isles except the centre of london is uninhabitable.

Here's a table of rents culled from various searches on RightMove:-

Up to £700 £800 £900 £1,000 £1,250 £1,500 £1,750 £2,000 £2,500 £3,000 £3,500 Total properties available Average monthly rent
City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 183 70 284 £2,817.34
Kensington and Chelsea 0 0 0 0 0 7 36 89 303 504 509 1448 £2,732.73
Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 5 80 175 526 471 644 1901 £2,649.53
Camden 0 0 0 0 1 44 187 185 342 213 132 1104 £2,261.44
Islington 0 0 0 0 13 57 158 165 236 183 70 882 £2,177.86
Hammersmith and Fulham 0 1 0 0 8 57 186 121 198 90 35 696 £2,045.98
Tower Hamlets 0 0 1 1 47 338 868 646 614 437 244 3196 £2,039.24
Richmond upon Thames 0 0 4 7 46 79 62 52 80 40 26 396 £1,876.70
Hackney 0 0 0 1 24 97 142 123 84 23 23 517 £1,836.94
Wandsworth 0 0 2 3 47 312 341 154 190 67 52 1168 £1,806.55
Southwark 0 0 0 3 106 167 223 144 130 62 26 861 £1,778.86
Hounslow 0 0 13 37 101 113 116 104 227 32 5 748 £1,756.28
Lambeth 0 0 1 10 98 211 208 108 105 64 21 826 £1,733.32
Ealing 0 2 3 15 96 298 160 69 75 14 7 739 £1,563.50
Merton 0 0 8 20 101 132 60 37 25 22 15 420 £1,555.48
Brent 0 2 2 7 82 118 148 30 10 3 0 402 £1,472.26
Haringey 0 0 2 14 150 106 99 25 23 4 2 425 £1,427.06
Barnet 0 0 5 35 245 296 132 37 19 19 7 795 £1,411.01
Newham 0 3 42 106 248 262 160 62 39 10 17 949 £1,395.84
Kingston upon Thames 0 0 0 15 113 111 34 9 7 4 6 299 £1,379.18
Greenwich 0 13 45 52 127 129 89 19 11 9 2 496 £1,318.35
Harrow 0 1 5 32 115 65 8 8 8 0 1 243 £1,248.56
Lewisham 0 2 32 62 159 95 24 18 2 4 0 398 £1,224.56
Enfield 0 2 13 60 301 66 6 0 0 0 0 448 £1,135.41
Bromley 2 4 44 75 132 68 9 1 0 0 0 335 £1,112.50
Waltham Forest 0 1 32 125 268 49 5 2 0 0 0 503 £1,092.00
Redbridge 0 0 23 51 53 9 0 0 0 0 0 136 £1,080.05
Sutton 0 0 23 51 53 9 0 0 0 0 0 136 £1,029.41
Croydon 0 3 92 164 129 21 2 1 2 0 0 414 £1,014.19
Barking and Dagenham 0 14 52 69 55 4 0 0 0 0 0 194 £967.14
Havering 1 16 68 52 44 11 0 0 1 0 0 193 £967.75
Bexley 1 29 58 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 £859.13

The table shows how many two bedroom properties there are to let at each price point in each London borough. For example, in Bexley there are 58 two bedroom properties to let at between £800 and £900 per month.

To use this table, first work out how much your household can afford to spend on rent each month, between a third and a half of your monthly income, then look at which boroughs have properties at that price point.

Easy peasy.

I get the impression that Eva Wiseman is a stroppy middle class snob frustrated that she can't afford to live in stylish and expensive Kensington and Chelsea, stamping her foot crying "But I don't want to live in Havering!".

What I don't quite understand though is how the number of properties available in each borough decreases as average rents decrease. For example, Tower Hamlets, one of the more expensive areas to live has over 3,000 properties available, and Sutton, one of the cheaper areas has only 136. Its like the opposite of supply and demand.

Sunday, 6 May 2012

The Londonland property market

In the Observer today Eva Wiseman has a column about how many people of her generation will never be able to afford to buy a house or a flat or whatever.

Reading it makes blood pour out of every orifice because of how wrong she is.
Because for most people I know, owning a house will no doubt remain a fantasy. It's something that's become clear over the past few years – that those of us who live in cities, whose jobs are not secure, who are flitting from call centre to job centre and back again throughout our 20s and 30s, whose parents don't have property portfolios, those of us who are single, or still trying to do art or music or something they dreamed of, are unlikely to be able to afford the deposit for a flat. ...

In my borough, Tower Hamlets (one of the poorest areas in the UK), the charity Shelter calculates that the annual earnings a tenant needs to make renting a flat affordable are £67,669. It's a figure I find difficult to read out loud without lisping, let alone conceive of earning myself. It's not achievable – in fact, it makes me feel like I'm going a bit mad. And it highlights the ever-lurking threat of homelessness – that slow slide over a year from being made redundant, to being priced out of your shared flat, to carrying your rucksack between friends' futons, and then, after a clipped conversation in their little blue kitchen, sitting on a bench at dawn with nowhere to go.
I live up in Walthamstow, which is about three miles up the River Lee from Tower Hamlets, I live in a pleasant rented two bedroom flat and the annual earnings for our household is around £50,000, rent is £800 a month. If we bought the place the mortgage would be about £700 a month.

I spend hours ploughing through the RightMove property website in my spare time, putting together graphs of rents and house prices for different areas, because this entertains my otherwise dreary time.

Average rents in Tower Hamlets £1,777 a month compared to about £1,690 a year ago, they're about up 5% about in line with inflation.

However, Walthamstow, three miles away has average rents of about £1,200 a month, up from £1,100 a year before, so more than £500 less than Tower Hamlets.

Eva Wiseman's friends, flitting between call centre jobs, presumably on minimum wage, are unable to buy flats in expensive areas. What's the problem? Why can't they live in Walthamstow, its a lot more affordable, its got a Waterstones and a Sainsburys, and an Asda.

If they really want to own a house, why not try in an area they can afford, rather than an area they can't afford.

Further more, I've lived on minimum wage recently, its difficult, there's only one minimum wage, its the same in London as it is in the rest of the UK. London's hellish expensive, its the most expensive place to live in the UK, of course.

So, if Eva's friends are flitting between call centre jobs, why not do it where the minimum wage goes a lot further. Average rents in Motherwell, are £513 a month.

Minimum wage is about £1,200 a month. You can't afford to live in Tower Hamlets on your own, in Walthamstow you could live there, but would starve. In Motherwell, you could afford two flats and still have money for the pub.

Eva Wiseman's problem and that of her friends, is that they think the house prices in the middle of London are normal, when actually they are abnormal compared to the rest of the country. She ought to cast her eyes further afield.

If she's looking for affordable housing, why is she looking at the most expensive places
Elsewhere in "prime" London – Chelsea, Mayfair, Knightsbridge – estate agents say they are seeing a buying "frenzy". One was recently quoted as having clients who are purchasing their sixth properties, or one for them and another for the kids. He recalled a buyer asking if he had any homes for sale for £30m. "I had one at £50m, so I said: 'Is there room for movement?', and they said no – the other children had £30m spent on their properties, so it wouldn't be fair."
There's plenty of affordable housing if you don't focus on the the >£30m end of the market.

Sunday, 18 July 2010

Sleepless and frustrated

I was up late last night, and then had a restless and fitful night. I had a piece I needed to finish writing, precious little time during the day when it wouldn't come. Doubt and uncertainty with the finished article.

Always doubt and uncertainty with finished articles. I'm tearfully grateful when certainty arrives.

Someone finally read my film treatment the other day, it was such a relief when they confirmed my doubts and uncertainties, I was grinning for hours.

Its just the awkward fraction of the autistic spectrum I inhabit. I could have just not bothered writing anything, written it off as another thing I'd planned to do, but didn't. It sure would have saved time and effort and made the world a nicer place.

But my head doesn't work that way, when there is an intention or a plan to do something right away then I feel the need to do it. That's normal right? Or no? The willingness to sacrifice the plan, that frustrates me.

Something that still plays on my mind even after many years was when I was helping a friend move from Glasgow to London. We'd hired a van and I figured if we drove at x miles an how, we'd get to London in daylight, and it would be easy to unload and have the job finished. The trip would use this much petrol, and cost this much money. But now I think should we have stopped more on the way, for lunch at a Little Chef, dinner at Watford Gap and who cares if we arrived at 2am and put off unloading til the next day? The journey would have been more pleasant, more relaxed.

Maybe we'd still be friends today, if we'd stopped at the Little Chef, abandoned the plan and loosened my embrace of the plan.

Anyhoo, about the frustration. I'd read a stack of blogposts, all during the week. Freakishly fast sprinter Usain Bolt can't run in the UK for tax reasons, under the UK government's tax regime, he'd be paying more in tax than he'd earn. Its a familiar story for the super-successful. I remember read that for years the Rolling Stones couldn't play in the UK because the tax and the costs would be more than they could make from the concert, regardless of how much they charged for tickets, the costs and tax would mean they'd make a loss. Government policy dictates the Rolling Stones tour schedule.

Elsewhere in the blogs was coverage of Vince Cable and the LibDems proposals for a graduate tax. I might have misread, and right now on a train, hammering this out on my blackberry, graduates would pay an extra 9% tax on their income, to pay for the ever increasing cost of further education.

Firstly, I'm sceptical of why the costs of further education keep increasing, what are they doing differently? Are the universities incapable of keeping costs down? Why does is cost proportionately more to educate a student now than it did ten years ago. Sure there are more computers, but entry level computing costs the same now as it did even twenty years ago, £300 for an Amstrad CPC, £300 for a crap desktop PC, £300 for ahalf decent netbook/laptop.

I'm not expert, but is it cos there are more university students now. That was some damn fool idea to get 50% of folk through university. Society doesn't need that many graduates, the population isn't smart enough for that many graduates. Everyone with an IQ of 101?

Or is it that further education costs more cos primary, and secondary education isn't educating enough, so now universities are have to teach people how to read and write, do addition and subtraction, derivatives and integration before they can start the meaty stuff of rocket science, particle science, manufacturing engineering and media studies?

I digress. Some spectacularly successful people didn't go to university and some did. Alan Sugar didn't. Anyhoo, at the top of the pay scale, high earners are going to be paying their 50% income tax, plus another few % for national insurance, say 10%, I dunno. But then some of them are going to be forking out 9% on top of that. Paying almost 70% in tax if you pay by the rules and neither avoid or evade tax. Its hardly an incentive to work at all.

Lower down the pay scale, a university degree is less of a benefit. You'll have half the people in the office are university graduates and half got where they are today by the hard slog of working on the shop floor, streets typing pool and getting promoted. These folk are all going to be doing exactly the same job, the same amount of effort day to day. Yet under a graduate tax system, half of them will be taking home less money for their labours.

The Daily Mash had it right with "the harder you work, the more you're taxed".

Some newspaper story earlier in the week about a Somalian family with seven kids who've been put into a huge £1,200,000 house in Kensington. Jesus Christ could they not have been deported to Hull and gotten a bigger place at the fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.

Mark Wadsworth can wade through the arguments for and against social housing and how in this case its just transferring money from the hardworking employed through government and a brief stop in the bank accounts of the residents and then into the pockets of the rich private landlord. Redistributing wealth upwards.

I was thinking, shit if I hadn't worked so hard in school and university and a succession of office jobs, I could be unemployed with seven kids in a huge expensive house.

Not only that but I often hear of families, living in accommodation paid for by various benefits who manage to run up arrears by not even paying the rent to the landlords, instead the money is spent on other things, fags, phones, plasma TVs and holidays abroad. I choke on my cappuccino til it comes out of my nose.

As an aside, during writing this I have now arrived at my destination, a pleasant bar in Camden. Last time I was here it was called the Oh Bar, now its called the Blues Bar. The barstaff, whilst friendly and helpful, don't remind me as much of the barstaff at the 13th Note in Glasgow like they did in the Oh Bar. There was one who looked like a b-movie Cameron Diaz, she is absent now.

Every blogger's favourite former ambassador was writing about slavery the other day, how folk work hard and forced by threat of violence to pay taxes to subsidise those who don't work. Those who chose not to work. The employed are the slaves now.

It was weeks ago that I came upon the realisation that I'm slaving away for forty hours a week to pay people who are getting more for free in benefits that I earn in a five years or something. It just seems a bit unfair.

Why more laws? Why more taxes?

That Somalian family in Kensington were offered other, cheaper places but turned them down. They didn't like the cheaper places.

Its a familiar story. This sense of entitlement from those who reside on benefits, that they are somehow entitled to free housing of their chosing.

Not me. I left home at eighteen to go to university hundreds of miles away, staying in halls of residences and flatshares with friends. The flatsharing continued after graduation. And as my friends peeled away for marriage and job elsewhere, I too left. I arrived in London with nowhere to stay, an afternoon on gumtree.com checking out different places within my price range soon found me a complete shithole of a flatshare which I tolerated for a few months until I found friends with a more pleasant flatshare.

Whilst I've always wanted a place of my own, with a garden and woodchip wallpaper that I put up and painted myself and walls lined with shelves, I know I can't afford it and so that's going to have to wait.

Not so for the unemployable who live on benefits, they expect the provision of their own houses, they demand it. Stamping their feet, and threatening to spawn. No thought of paying for it themselves or building their own route to the house of their dreams.

Its a minor bugbear of mine, the 'waiting lists' for social housing. Anyone can get on the waiting list, it would be really nice to get a nice house for free. When Camden New Journal says there's a waiting list of 18,000 people, I think is that all, there's only that many people who'd like a nice house for free?

So my solution to the ills of the nation is an income tax threshold of whatever the living wage should be, and then 40% tax, scrapping VAT and national insurance.

Or even just scrap National Insurance and make it so everyone has to get their own private medical and employment insurance scheme. Like you have for car insurance, the government doesn't run that, so why should they for health and employment. The voluntary charity sector can fill the gap for people who didn't insure themselves. Somewhere there will be a charity that judges even the worse case of self-neglect as worthy.

Its all bullshit this. Like Behind Blue Eyes, I look back at the city on fire and acknowledge my proxies. I'm not a high earner, nowhere near 50% tax, judging by my pay packet I earn so little I pay 17%. And my univeristy costs were paid off a long time ago. I escaped the benefits trap months ago, other than jealousy these issuesdon't concern me.

What frustrates me in reality is the huge credit card debts I ran up in my last tranch of unemployment. That's my own fault, I should have moved out of the expensive flatshare and found a cheaper shithole one instead of claiming Housing Benefit. I should have gone straight to Office Angels instead of the Job Centre Plus.

That's all in the past, now I just need to pay off my credit card. At the current rate I should be debt free by 2016. Sooner if I stop spending money on other things.

It not the folk who live on benefits or the government's tax regime, its just me spending, its entirely within my control. I can whine for days but its all bullshit.

Yesterday I bought a load of presents and for myself a new pair of shoes. Its debateable whether I need new shoes or not, where to draw the line, can I afford it or not, are the old ones a detriment to my employability and social or not.

No point even debating it. On Friday night I could have stayed in and not spent but instead I went out for a meal and then pints and pints, costing about the same as the shoes.

Even today, right now as I sup my second cappucino in the Blues Bar, ist cost me about the same. Could have stayed in my flat and not spent anything.

Sitting here in Camden cost me £3.20 for the train to Euston, £3.20 for the train to Camden, £5 for a couple of coffees and then maybe £3.20 for the train back home , that's 0.14% of my credit card debt.

More than getting over my creditcard debt, I really want an Xbox 360 Elite. Not some shitty red ring of death Xbox 360 Arcade, but a decent Elite with 120gb hard disc, that will play both new games and second hand original Xbox games like Warriors and Project Gotham Racing 2 where you can drive round cities like Edinburgh, Stockholm and Moscow. This Xbox 360 Elite will cost me around £150.

New shoes = Friday night out = 1/6 of a Xbox 360 Elite

My credit card debts = fifty Xbox 360 Elites

I'm a smart cookie. Sometime ago the computer I had that ran Quicken Accounts died a death, but recently on my wee netbook I wrote me some home finance personal household accounts software in Perl. I rule. It does neat graphs showing income and expenditure. How much and what proportions I spend on rent, my car, going out and pointless shit. I can easily see what spending needs to be reined in. And how to rein it in is all under my control, any reason not to is bullshit. I can reduce travel costs by moving closer to where I work, I can lower my communications costs by getting rid of this phone. I could live off rice and baked beans to cut down on food, or just sleep in my car to reduce my rent.

But I don't, for I am that Somalian family, stamping my foot, demanding this lifestyle and turning down the cheaper options.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Wednesday, 24 February 2010

Kids ages and fathers

In both of these stories I'm somewhat concerned by the ages of the youngest children and the relationships with the father.

Miss Essma Marjam: youngest child - 5 months
'I'm separated from my husband. He's a solicitor in Derby, but I don't know if he's working at the moment. He doesn't pay anything towards the kids. Things are quite difficult between us.
Miss Nimco Hassan Ibrahim: youngest child - 4 years
After eight months working as a bus driver, Mr Yusuf began living on benefits. When they were stopped in March 2004, he left the country.
Also I think I'm quite jealous of her TV, Playstation 3 and high speed internet connection.

Both these ladies appear to be taking the piss.

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Bookcase Dreams - Ikea Flarke discontinued

I am distraught.

Ikea have discontinued their Flarke bookcase. I was planning on buying eighteen of them for my new flat. One a week, for the bargain price of £14.99 each, until all the walls in my flat were clad in Flarke bookcases. But alas, they've been discontinued after I have amassed only one.

I wanted just matching bookcases, and whilst Ikea have many different ones, the Flarke is the only full height one I can fit in my car.

I'm very conscious of the price of petrol, vastly inflated by tax and fuel duty, so I have a very small and fuel efficient car, the Smart car. The Ikea Flarke bookcase is the only full size one that will fit in my car, that is, would have fitted in my car before it was discontinued.

Now buying eighteen bookcases may have been an insane plan, but it was inoffensive and achievable. And I reckon I could easily fill them all.

Here, this is my one sole Ikea Flarke bookcase.

The top shelf is populated with rock biographies, the next shelf down has fiction, then graphic novels, then novelty books that family buy me for Christmas and birthdays and books what I have written myself and finally the bottom shelf has non-fiction.

I reckon across the the country I have another three large boxes full of books in various storage facilities and then there's the matter of my CD, vinyl, cassette tape, DVD, VHS and reel tape collections which would look just grand on bookcases. I reckon to keep interior designers happy I could have put in a few ornaments, house plants and loudspeakers on the bookcases too.

But alas, this will now be very difficult. I have no larger vehicles to transport larger bookcases, I have no money to hire a larger vehicle and purchase a job lot of bookcases. My bookcase dreams have died.

I was distraught wandering round Ikea. Their cheapest sofa is the Klobo at only £89.99, to make up for the loss of my dream I thought to buy it, as a step up from sitting on cardboard boxes, but then I realised it was also too big to fit in my car, not to mention I can't afford it.

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

Why are we more crap now?

The other day I went along to a meeting at Camden Town Hall, I'm not entirely sure who organised it, or associated websites, I just scribbled notes of anything interesting I heard until I was told to stop.

The backstory is that Camden Council are currently trying to sell off some of its housing stock, whilst at the same time some groups are demanding that the council stop the selling off and build more council housing. A lot of the current housing stock is uninhabitable and needs repairs and upgrading.

An interesting thing that I scribbled was:-
Last year the council only just managed to repair and renovate 100 properties, whilst in the 1930s they were able to build 600 new properties from scratch in a year.
How can this be so?

Are we not wealthier and more skilled now?

Here's a pie chart I've knocked up, I've made up all the proportions myself.

I think I could be in the minority of people at the meeting in how I think the various factors are significant. Everyone was right, but how you divvy up the various factors is different.

For one, although building new houses costs money, Camden has a surplus of £80 million, and have neatly demonstrated that they're capable of spending it on hiring assistant directors with overblown salaries. I don't think that campaigning for more money to be extracted from taxpayers will be very significant in helping bring about the end result of more newly built council houses.

I think the biggest stumbling block now, compared to the 1930s, is planning permissions and health and safety and accessability regulations. They take up a load of time and effort and lawyers and experts on paperwork, before anything actually happens.

Sure, if the 'Political will' issue is resolved, somehow a whole raft of pro-house building councillors are elected, then they could ride rough shod over any planning restrictions and legalities, and reassign money from other areas of the council, but it's a difficult one to tackle. You gotta convince people to change their minds, to vote for other candidates than whoever they usually do.