Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

I think the point is that it's not a clear relationship between "housing availability" and "house prices". Those 100s - 1000s of homes will be purchased at a high price, and the effect on the market would be minimal. As the data makes clear, the absurd rise in house prices does not match the rise in population.

Don't forget most won't be owned outright either and shared ownership is seen as the way to get people on the housing ladder whilst allowing developers and their backers to continue milking them for rent.

[Torquemada 1420]

Negative equity is shitty. However at the end of the day, assuming they can keep up the mortgage payments they still get to have a house, just so do lots of others as well.

Little sympathy for anyone higher up the property scale who is screwed by -ve equity (or their banks........ don't forget them and their influence in all of this): serves you f**king right for over extending in pursuit of social status.

2 decades ago I suggested the maximum borrowing for a HOME should be 90% LTV and the maximum LTV for BTL should be legislated at 50%. You'd have a very different landscape now.

[Biffer]

This is madness. Part of me thinks/hopes the bubble bursts, part of me thinks it's reached 'too big to fail' stage. No government of any stripe could hope to survive the kind of crash that is possible.

This goes some way to explain how, un-enthusiastically the Tories passed Magnitsky legislation, & how infrequently it's being used.

The amount of dirty money invested in propping up Londons property market must be awesome; but everyone knows that if the music stops ....

And it's why the Cameron Greensill story won't be a major talking point in Britain.

People just refuse to believe the UK is corrupt. Because the people who set the conversational agenda are corrupt themselves and don't want it to be discussed. So we discuss the Royal Family instead.

Flat whites and avocados are why people can't buy houses. The Tories were trying their best is how their mates made a tonne of cash. Lord Rothermere and the Barclays are true patriots in their feathered tax haven nests etc etc etc.

Our entire economic strategy for the last thirty years has been a Ponzi scheme based on ever increasing house prices.

It’s the reason governments don’t build housing; if they do, the entire economic model collapses.

We have a consumer led economy, and that requires consumer confidence. High house prices make people feel richer than they actually are and that makes them more comfortable borrowing money, to buy stuff they don’t need, and keep driving consumerism.

This because we deliberately destroyed our manufacturing base instead of investing in new manufacturing, science and tech. So there’s no core to the economy any more, just hand wavy confidence.

[Paddington Bear]

From Parliament a few weeks ago:

Failing to meet housing need
Estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at up to 345,000 per year, accounting for new household formation and a backlog of existing need for suitable housing. In 2019/20, the total housing stock in England increased by around 244,000 homes. This around 1% higher than the year before – and the amount of new homes supplied annually has been growing for several years – but is still lower than estimated need.

We're not building enough houses, therefore the price goes up. If house building kept up with demand prices would not go up in the same way. House prices have risen 10% in a year because of an increase in demand, the house price levels of the last few years should be an aberration rather than a benchmark.

If we build new houses in a critical mass in places people want to live we will see prices fall.

I get your point on location, however I'm playing the ball in front of me rather than the one I'd like to face. It would be great if there were genuine economic competitors to the SE, but there isn't so there's no point refusing to build houses where there are jobs.

[Hal Jordan]

Whatever is built will be woefully insulated shoeboxes based on 20th century tech.

[I like neeps]

From Parliament a few weeks ago:

Failing to meet housing need
Estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at up to 345,000 per year, accounting for new household formation and a backlog of existing need for suitable housing. In 2019/20, the total housing stock in England increased by around 244,000 homes. This around 1% higher than the year before – and the amount of new homes supplied annually has been growing for several years – but is still lower than estimated need.

We're not building enough houses, therefore the price goes up. If house building kept up with demand prices would not go up in the same way. House prices have risen 10% in a year because of an increase in demand, the house price levels of the last few years should be an aberration rather than a benchmark.

If we build new houses in a critical mass in places people want to live we will see prices fall.

I get your point on location, however I'm playing the ball in front of me rather than the one I'd like to face. It would be great if there were genuine economic competitors to the SE, but there isn't so there's no point refusing to build houses where there are jobs.

With wfh the jobs could be in different places though. You could build WFH type communes but that's I realise futuristic mumbo jumbo and no govt could pull of that level of planning.

It's not just building of course. We have a super star Chancellor whose economic policies to encourage house buying happen to encourage house price inflation even more.

[Paddington Bear]

From Parliament a few weeks ago:

Failing to meet housing need
Estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at up to 345,000 per year, accounting for new household formation and a backlog of existing need for suitable housing. In 2019/20, the total housing stock in England increased by around 244,000 homes. This around 1% higher than the year before – and the amount of new homes supplied annually has been growing for several years – but is still lower than estimated need.

We're not building enough houses, therefore the price goes up. If house building kept up with demand prices would not go up in the same way. House prices have risen 10% in a year because of an increase in demand, the house price levels of the last few years should be an aberration rather than a benchmark.

If we build new houses in a critical mass in places people want to live we will see prices fall.

I get your point on location, however I'm playing the ball in front of me rather than the one I'd like to face. It would be great if there were genuine economic competitors to the SE, but there isn't so there's no point refusing to build houses where there are jobs.

With wfh the jobs could be in different places though. You could build WFH type communes but that's I realise futuristic mumbo jumbo and no govt could pull of that level of planning.

It's not just building of course. We have a super star Chancellor whose economic policies to encourage house buying happen to encourage house price inflation even more.

Wfh could plausibly change the agenda, I think you'll find more people moving to a longer commute a couple of times a week which clearly would make a difference. If we never have to be office based though, I suspect there'll be a lot of jobs moving to Bangalore.

[Biffer]

From Parliament a few weeks ago:

Failing to meet housing need
Estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at up to 345,000 per year, accounting for new household formation and a backlog of existing need for suitable housing. In 2019/20, the total housing stock in England increased by around 244,000 homes. This around 1% higher than the year before – and the amount of new homes supplied annually has been growing for several years – but is still lower than estimated need.

We're not building enough houses, therefore the price goes up. If house building kept up with demand prices would not go up in the same way. House prices have risen 10% in a year because of an increase in demand, the house price levels of the last few years should be an aberration rather than a benchmark.

If we build new houses in a critical mass in places people want to live we will see prices fall.

I get your point on location, however I'm playing the ball in front of me rather than the one I'd like to face. It would be great if there were genuine economic competitors to the SE, but there isn't so there's no point refusing to build houses where there are jobs.

With wfh the jobs could be in different places though. You could build WFH type communes but that's I realise futuristic mumbo jumbo and no govt could pull of that level of planning.

It's not just building of course. We have a super star Chancellor whose economic policies to encourage house buying happen to encourage house price inflation even more.

Doesn’t matter where we ‘could’ build houses, we won’t. The economics doesn’t allow it.

[Insane_Homer]

Former U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, left, and Lex Greensill, founder of Greensill Capital, in Saudi Arabia in January 2020. Mr. Cameron accompanied Mr. Greensill to a meeting with Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

[Torquemada 1420]

From Parliament a few weeks ago:

Failing to meet housing need
Estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at up to 345,000 per year, accounting for new household formation and a backlog of existing need for suitable housing. In 2019/20, the total housing stock in England increased by around 244,000 homes. This around 1% higher than the year before – and the amount of new homes supplied annually has been growing for several years – but is still lower than estimated need.

We're not building enough houses, therefore the price goes up. If house building kept up with demand prices would not go up in the same way. House prices have risen 10% in a year because of an increase in demand, the house price levels of the last few years should be an aberration rather than a benchmark.

If we build new houses in a critical mass in places people want to live we will see prices fall.

I get your point on location, however I'm playing the ball in front of me rather than the one I'd like to face. It would be great if there were genuine economic competitors to the SE, but there isn't so there's no point refusing to build houses where there are jobs.

What's the point of quoting the stupid c**ts who helped create this mess in the first place and have a vested interest in continuing to perpetrate it? Ironic on a thread titled "Tory Scum" although it was really Brown who set this particular demon free.

You still can't, or won't grasp that this has f**k all to do with supply and demand.

Here is a chart from a report I wrote back in 2017

[tabascoboy]

I'm no expert at all so here's a daft question (maybe we just need a new "We need new houses" topic!):

A standardly high desirability postcode area XXN in comfy commuter land has an average house price for 3/4 bed semis at let's say £500 000. On average let's say 25 matching properties are up for sale at any time

A large new housing development has just resulted in 50 x 3/4 semis built within this area.

At what price will the new properties be placed on the market?

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm no expert at all so here's a daft question (maybe we just need a new "We need new houses" topic!):

A standardly high desirability postcode area XXN in comfy commuter land has an average house price for 3/4 bed semis at let's say £500 000. On average let's say 25 matching properties are up for sale at any time

A large new housing development has just resulted in 50 x 3/4 semis built within this area.

At what price will the new properties be placed on the market?

Here's a different perspective. Back in the 80s, the maximum multiple of income you could borrow was 2.5x joint. Now it's possible to routinely obtain 4.5x and even 5x is possible.

Anyone see a problem with this picture?

BTW, assuming the buyers had a £100k deposit then a joint income of early £90k pa would be needed now and £160k back in the 80s.

[Paddington Bear]

From Parliament a few weeks ago:

Failing to meet housing need
Estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at up to 345,000 per year, accounting for new household formation and a backlog of existing need for suitable housing. In 2019/20, the total housing stock in England increased by around 244,000 homes. This around 1% higher than the year before – and the amount of new homes supplied annually has been growing for several years – but is still lower than estimated need.

We're not building enough houses, therefore the price goes up. If house building kept up with demand prices would not go up in the same way. House prices have risen 10% in a year because of an increase in demand, the house price levels of the last few years should be an aberration rather than a benchmark.

If we build new houses in a critical mass in places people want to live we will see prices fall.

I get your point on location, however I'm playing the ball in front of me rather than the one I'd like to face. It would be great if there were genuine economic competitors to the SE, but there isn't so there's no point refusing to build houses where there are jobs.

What's the point of quoting the stupid c**ts who helped create this mess in the first place and have a vested interest in continuing to perpetrate it? Ironic on a thread titled "Tory Scum" although it was really Brown who set this particular demon free.

You still can't, or won't grasp that this has f**k all to do with supply and demand.

Here is a chart from a report I wrote back in 2017

I don't get why the graph is relevant. We have a deficit of over 100,000 homes a year compared to demand. Are you seriously saying that if we ran a surplus of the same for five years prices wouldn't fall?

[Torquemada 1420]

I don't get why the graph is relevant.

Quite.

[SaintK]

Former U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, left, and Lex Greensill, founder of Greensill Capital, in Saudi Arabia in January 2020. Mr. Cameron accompanied Mr. Greensill to a meeting with Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

From Politico website

By Playbook’s count it is 43 days since the FT’s Jim Pickard first sent David Cameron’s spokesperson a right of reply about his lobbying for collapsed Greensill. After weeks of tenacious reporting by the FT and the Sunday Times, yesterday Boris Johnson ordered an independent inquiry into the firm’s activities, with Cameron agreeing to give evidence. Today parliament has its say, as Labour calls an Urgent Question at 12.30 p.m. and tries to drag Chancellor Rishi Sunak further into the mire.

Nigel Boardman, the lawyer in charge of the probe, was a partner at Slaughter & May in 2013 when it opposed the then-PM David Cameron’s lobbying reforms, arguing they “may have the effect of stifling productive, even essential, dialogue between legislators and those who consider the implications and practicalities of relevant legislation on a day-to-day basis.” Given Boardman’s review will have license to recommend changes to lobbying regulations, that perhaps doesn’t give the best first impression.

Most papers carry some form of speculation that the PM is enjoying watching his old rival squirm. The FT’s Seb Payne quotes a senior Tory MP claiming “Boris is getting his vengeance on Dave,” and another former Tory minister saying: “Boris will love nothing more than throwing Dave under the bus.” A Cameron-era SpAd messaged Playbook yesterday: “Only two people could know about the texts between him and Rishi, and he is hardly going to leak against himself.”

Much of how the story has blown up this week is down to Cameron’s Sunday night statement in which he, it’s fair to say, failed to grasp the severity of the situation he finds himself in. The former PM’s dismissal of reports about how much he stood to make from Greensill, while refusing to confirm the actual figure, was blasé at best and arrogant at worst. His rejection of criticism over his camping jolly with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman because he apparently raised human rights under the stars stretched credibility. And, crucially, as HuffPost’s Paul Waugh wrote last night: “Cameron’s own admission that he should have used ‘the most formal of channels’ failed to grasp that an ex-PM really shouldn’t be lobbying anyone in government for profit.”

And they may want toi have a look at this one as well?

The Times’ George Grylls and George Greenwood reveal that Illumina, the American health care firm Cameron also lobbies for, secured a £123 million contract with the department of health. Cameron denies lobbying on any Illumina contracts and says his role at the firm was to promote the benefits of genome sequencing.

[fishfoodie]

I'm sure the Bumblecunt is loving seeing Cameron getting reamed; but as usual from him; he isn't looking into the future, for the consequences to himself; when he's out of office, & whoring himself, the way Cameron is now.

If he does nothing; then he's handing a stick to Labour to beat them with; & if he does something; he's dramatically reducing his future; legal; employment opportunities.

[Paddington Bear]

I don't get why the graph is relevant.

Quite.

Interested in your response to this part:
'We have a deficit of over 100,000 homes a year compared to demand. Are you seriously saying that if we ran a surplus of the same for five years prices wouldn't fall?'

[Calculon]

Don't know if this is really relevant but in China they are building a ridiculous amount of new homes, despite over a fifth of urban housing standing empty. House prices are still skyrocketing. Rents are usually pretty affordable though.

[SaintK]

Sir David King former government chief scientist pulling no punches

Boris Johnson’s government has been accused of corruption, privatising the NHS by stealth, operating a “chumocracy” and mishandling the pandemic and climate crisis, by Sir David King, a former government chief scientist.
“I am extremely worried about the handling of the coronavirus pandemic, about the processes by which public money has been distributed to private sector companies without due process,” he told the Guardian in an interview. “It really smells of corruption.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... scientist

[Tichtheid]

Regarding housing, Brighton & Hove has a population of a little over two hundred and ninety thousand people, the two universities have a little over thirty thousand full time students. There is a large technical college and several smaller private A Level colleges which specialise in getting foreign students into Oxbridge. There are several language colleges for foreign students, but for the purposes of this it's only really the university numbers that are relevant (mainly because that was the only official numbers I can find in a hurry).

Of the thirty thousand students, 80% of them rent accommodation during term time (estimated), and ten thousand of them rent PSBA (purpose built student accommodation), which leaves fourteen thousand students paying an average of £6K per year to buy someone else a property, or a market worth eighty four million pounds per year to private landlords, and that is only the part with published numbers.

If you were a student here you wouldn't rent in Hove, the universities are situated at the other side of the city, so the pressure for rents comes mainly on the Brighton side.

This in turn pushes up rents for everyone, including UC claimants.

[tabascoboy]

Don't know if this is really relevant but in China they are building a ridiculous amount of new homes, despite over a fifth of urban housing standing empty. House prices are still skyrocketing. Rents are usually pretty affordable though.

It's just my gut feeling that in this age free market competition just doesn't apply in the same way to homes as it does to for example cars. A VW Golf is a VW Golf is a VW Golf, but homes are pretty much unique and personal and individual ones and some locations will have many more potential buyers than some others. The only way new build homes are going to cost less IMO than similar existing ones on the market is if they are either very cheap builds or the developers are somehow forced to sell cheaply.

And in addition even a resulting 25% drop in massively over-inflated house prices still means they will be overpriced out of reach to first time buyers and others, assuming of course also a reversal of the hysteria over the dread of falling house prices constantly whipped up by the Mail/Excess.

Plus as I mentioned before large developments still depend on the capacity of services infrastructure to support an increase of local population.

[robmatic]

Regarding housing, Brighton & Hove has a population of a little over two hundred and ninety thousand people, the two universities have a little over thirty thousand full time students. There is a large technical college and several smaller private A Level colleges which specialise in getting foreign students into Oxbridge. There are several language colleges for foreign students, but for the purposes of this it's only really the university numbers that are relevant (mainly because that was the only official numbers I can find in a hurry).

Of the thirty thousand students, 80% of them rent accommodation during term time (estimated), and ten thousand of them rent PSBA (purpose built student accommodation), which leaves fourteen thousand students paying an average of £6K per year to buy someone else a property, or a market worth eighty four million pounds per year to private landlords, and that is only the part with published numbers.

If you were a student here you wouldn't rent in Hove, the universities are situated at the other side of the city, so the pressure for rents comes mainly on the Brighton side.

This in turn pushes up rents for everyone, including UC claimants.

Students tend to flatshare as well, so they are competing for family-sized homes.

[Tichtheid]

Don't know if this is really relevant but in China they are building a ridiculous amount of new homes, despite over a fifth of urban housing standing empty. House prices are still skyrocketing. Rents are usually pretty affordable though.

It's just my gut feeling that in this age free market competition just doesn't apply in the same way to homes as it does to for example cars. A VW Golf is a VW Golf is a VW Golf, but homes are pretty much unique and personal and individual ones and some locations will have many more potential buyers than some others. The only way new build homes are going to cost less IMO than similar existing ones on the market is if they are either very cheap builds or the developers are somehow forced to sell cheaply.

And in addition even a resulting 25% drop in massively over-inflated house prices still means they will be overpriced out of reach to first time buyers and others, assuming of course also a reversal of the hysteria over the dread of falling house prices constantly whipped up by the Mail/Excess.

Plus as I mentioned before large developments still depend on the capacity of services infrastructure to support an increase of local population.

I'm going to be parochial again

Average wage in Brighton - £28k
Average house price - £410k

There is very limited scope for building as we have the South Downs to the north which is a National Park and the sea to the south. There is no way to build west as that is already merging. They can't really go east because that is either other towns or part of the Downs

[Tichtheid]

Regarding housing, Brighton & Hove has a population of a little over two hundred and ninety thousand people, the two universities have a little over thirty thousand full time students. There is a large technical college and several smaller private A Level colleges which specialise in getting foreign students into Oxbridge. There are several language colleges for foreign students, but for the purposes of this it's only really the university numbers that are relevant (mainly because that was the only official numbers I can find in a hurry).

Of the thirty thousand students, 80% of them rent accommodation during term time (estimated), and ten thousand of them rent PSBA (purpose built student accommodation), which leaves fourteen thousand students paying an average of £6K per year to buy someone else a property, or a market worth eighty four million pounds per year to private landlords, and that is only the part with published numbers.

If you were a student here you wouldn't rent in Hove, the universities are situated at the other side of the city, so the pressure for rents comes mainly on the Brighton side.

This in turn pushes up rents for everyone, including UC claimants.

Students tend to flatshare as well, so they are competing for family-sized homes.

Yeah, the average rent I quoted takes that into account, you get five people in what was a three bedroomed house, paying a combined thirty grand a year. The three bedroomed terraced house will be converted into an HMO, putting a room in the attic, converting the living room into a bedroom and building a conservatory on the back of the kitchen in a postage stamp "garden" to serve as a communal space.

We have so many of them here that only some streets are now allowed to have a new HMO established.

[fishfoodie]

I'm going to be parochial again

Average wage in Brighton - £28k
Average house price - £410k

There is very limited scope for building as we have the South Downs to the north which is a National Park and the sea to the south. There is no way to build west as that is already merging. They can't really go east because that is either other towns or part of the Downs

Well there's still the Z-Axis

[Insane_Homer]

[Tichtheid]

I'm going to be parochial again

Average wage in Brighton - £28k
Average house price - £410k

There is very limited scope for building as we have the South Downs to the north which is a National Park and the sea to the south. There is no way to build west as that is already merging. They can't really go east because that is either other towns or part of the Downs

Well there's still the Z-Axis

Some people are already thinking that way

[fishfoodie]

I'm going to be parochial again

Average wage in Brighton - £28k
Average house price - £410k

There is very limited scope for building as we have the South Downs to the north which is a National Park and the sea to the south. There is no way to build west as that is already merging. They can't really go east because that is either other towns or part of the Downs

Well there's still the Z-Axis

Some people are already thinking that way

Why just go up ?, you could get the whole Morlocks & Eloi thing going.

[Sandstorm]

High rise blocks with large, sea-facing balconies are common around the world, no reason why Brighton can't do the same. Unfortunately those apartment blocks also end up being high-end properties that only the rich can afford.

How many small 2 bed flats - sold to only 1st time buyers - do you need to squeeze into a 25 story tower block on the seaside before you break even?

[fishfoodie]

High rise blocks with large, sea-facing balconies are common around the world, no reason why Brighton can't do the same. Unfortunately those apartment blocks also end up being high-end properties that only the rich can afford.

How many small 2 bed flats - sold to only 1st time buyers - do you need to squeeze into a 25 story tower block on the seaside before you break even?

Building two bed flats is surely the worst possible option.

They might be more affordable initially; but you can't raise a family in one; & the gap in the market is for properties you can do that in.

Mods: Is it worth hiving off these posts to a UK Property thread ?

[tabascoboy]

High rise blocks with large, sea-facing balconies are common around the world, no reason why Brighton can't do the same. Unfortunately those apartment blocks also end up being high-end properties that only the rich can afford.

How many small 2 bed flats - sold to only 1st time buyers - do you need to squeeze into a 25 story tower block on the seaside before you break even?

Building two bed flats is surely the worst possible option.

They might be more affordable initially; but you can't raise a family in one; & the gap in the market is for properties you can do that in.

Mods: Is it worth hiving off these posts to a UK Property thread ?

Where I am, almost all development is currently apartment builds.

[fishfoodie]

High rise blocks with large, sea-facing balconies are common around the world, no reason why Brighton can't do the same. Unfortunately those apartment blocks also end up being high-end properties that only the rich can afford.

How many small 2 bed flats - sold to only 1st time buyers - do you need to squeeze into a 25 story tower block on the seaside before you break even?

Building two bed flats is surely the worst possible option.

They might be more affordable initially; but you can't raise a family in one; & the gap in the market is for properties you can do that in.

Mods: Is it worth hiving off these posts to a UK Property thread ?

Where I am, almost all development is currently apartment builds.

Of course. It's what the developer makes the most money off of; & what it's easiest for them to sell. It's what happens when you let the developers decide what to build; instead of having a proper planning policy; that focuses on what society needs; as opposed to what'll make the developers the most money.

[Insane_Homer]

The man investigating why the Chancellor pushed his team to give Greensill access to a Covid loan scheme works for the law firm that advised the Treasury on that scheme.

You couldn't make it up.

[Biffer]

I'm no expert at all so here's a daft question (maybe we just need a new "We need new houses" topic!):

A standardly high desirability postcode area XXN in comfy commuter land has an average house price for 3/4 bed semis at let's say £500 000. On average let's say 25 matching properties are up for sale at any time

A large new housing development has just resulted in 50 x 3/4 semis built within this area.

At what price will the new properties be placed on the market?

They won’t all be released to the market at the same time. Small bundles so they don’t disturb the price point.

[Biffer]

Don't know if this is really relevant but in China they are building a ridiculous amount of new homes, despite over a fifth of urban housing standing empty. House prices are still skyrocketing. Rents are usually pretty affordable though.

It's just my gut feeling that in this age free market competition just doesn't apply in the same way to homes as it does to for example cars. A VW Golf is a VW Golf is a VW Golf, but homes are pretty much unique and personal and individual ones and some locations will have many more potential buyers than some others. The only way new build homes are going to cost less IMO than similar existing ones on the market is if they are either very cheap builds or the developers are somehow forced to sell cheaply.

And in addition even a resulting 25% drop in massively over-inflated house prices still means they will be overpriced out of reach to first time buyers and others, assuming of course also a reversal of the hysteria over the dread of falling house prices constantly whipped up by the Mail/Excess.

Plus as I mentioned before large developments still depend on the capacity of services infrastructure to support an increase of local population.

Housing can never be a free market.

1. There’s a substantial barrier to entry into supply side of having very significant capital to start supplying
2. There’s a fundamental barrier to exist on demand side that you need somewhere to live
3. There’s a societal requirement that all demand is met, so there can’t be a most efficient price point
4. Supply side will never have enough contributors to be in the position that any of them could leave without disrupting the market
5. There’s a lot of (very necessary) regulation on the supply side, so forced conditions on transactions
6. Demand side is not voluntary, everyone needs a place to live, so it’s a forced transaction
7. Planning is always going to be there, so there is a quota on production

And many other technical points. If anyone thinks that housing is a free market they’re economically illiterate.

[SaintK]

The man investigating why the Chancellor pushed his team to give Greensill access to a Covid loan scheme works for the law firm that advised the Treasury on that scheme.

You couldn't make it up.

Yes, it will be a full, wide ranging enquiry.

[Sandstorm]

Building two bed flats is surely the worst possible option.

They might be more affordable initially; but you can't raise a family in one

1 billion families outside the UK disagree with you.

"3 bedrooms or I'm not interested!"

Ok your majesty!

[Tichtheid]

In order to build highrise seaside apartment blocks along the Brighton and Hove sea front you'd have to start by demolishing about four miles of this stuff

[Slick]

The man investigating why the Chancellor pushed his team to give Greensill access to a Covid loan scheme works for the law firm that advised the Treasury on that scheme.

You couldn't make it up.

Yes, it will be a full, wide ranging enquiry.

Jeremy Heywood, "the best civil servant, like, EVA", would have an awful lot to answer for as well.

[SaintK]

Yes, it will be a full, wide ranging enquiry.

Jeremy Heywood, "the best civil servant, like, EVA", would have an awful lot to answer for as well.

Indeed, it will certainly tarnish his halo!
This whole "Inquiry" will end up just like the inquiry into bully in chief Patel........nothing will come of it