news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Neil said:

Think it's mostly about avoiding a house price crash and the recession that would follow Cos that would f**k people more than high house prices do.

I’m sure they do a bit but the policies that they put in place don’t make things better all in all and will keep the majority of people in renting. If they truly cared their policies would be different. 

[lost]

3 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

What is Labours big plan ?

Reduce immigration to 200k apparently

[steviewevie]

 

[Rufus Gwertigan]

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

[lost]

14 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

developers don't want to build too many new houses to keep prices high...

I'm not even sure that is the problem. From housing completions there seems to have been a natural 200k ceiling for dwellings built since the 1980's that has gone up and down a little with economic cycles. All 3 parties have been in power during that time and promised to build more and all have failed. I think it would need reform of the planning system and as we have seen recently that involves removing regulation which some people think is cutting corners.

 

Quote

voters who will moan about their houses prices going down. 

Yep that is a point with affordable housing. If the government somehow gets say a 3 bed house built and on the market for £90k will there still be people willing to pay £170k for an identical house? Simply that becomes the new price for all houses of that type in the postcode on the market.

Edited December 27, 2023 by lost

[Neil]

18 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

The problem for Labour with this is two fold...

1, it won't work because it doesn't tackle one of the core issues which is developers don't want to build too many new houses to keep prices high...

2, if you read it from the perspective of the average tory voter they want to win over at the next election its toxic...  Greenbelt development, reducing the power of locals to say no, forcing land owners to sell at much reduced rates and development of Greenbelt land sees homes built near a lot of tory voters who will moan about their houses prices going down.  Basically a massive vote loser.

These poll leads won't matter anything when an election kicks off and this stuff is headline news.

the govt can exert pressure on developers to play nice via the planning rules. The planning rules give govt a lot of control - govt controls the price of houses via the amount of new land they allow to be built on.

housebuilding is great for the economy, cos its self-funding, and gives everything else in the economy a boost.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

I’m sure they do a bit but the policies that they put in place don’t make things better all in all and will keep the majority of people in renting. If they truly cared their policies would be different. 

its not about caring or not its about the ability to make a difference. no one know how to fix housing. things have gone too far to easily change things.

[Neil]

15 minutes ago, lost said:

Yep that is a point with affordable housing. If the government somehow gets say a 3 bed house built and on the market for £90k will there still be people willing to pay £170k for an identical house? Simply that becomes the new price for all houses of that type in the postcode on the market.

generally people don't want new houses they want something with a bit of character, and not on the edge of town like most new housing. there's plenty of cheap houses around the UK - just not where people want to live.

[lost]

20 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

 

https://www.norfolklive.co.uk/news/norfolk-news/developers-norfolk-accused-land-banking-873227

Well the article does mention the nutrient neutrality laws which I refered to earlier.

But what was net immigration this year? google says 745,000. So at the average of 2.36 people per dwelling thats about 315,000 houses needed to cover those new people before you factor in extra demand from people already here. I don't think we are anywhere near the level where house builders need to limit supply at the risk of oversupplying the market. In fact I'm amazed at how well prices have held up off the back of some pretty unprecidented interest rate rises.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

its not about caring or not its about the ability to make a difference. no one know how to fix housing. things have gone too far to easily change things.

The ways to fix housing are build more houses, relax planning, cheaper borrowing and legalisation to support home ownership over buy to lets.

The Tories will never do all that because it would mean less money for their landlord friends.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

The ways to fix housing are build more houses, relax planning, cheaper borrowing and legalisation to support home ownership over buy to lets.

all of those things have their own associated bad effects.

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

When you say relax the planning...  You realise the planning departments don't just sit there with their fingers up the bums.  The rules already massively favour green lighting developments over not doing so ?   The tories actually made changes a few years back under Eric Pickles to do just that.  Its much easier now to green light housing developments.

If you further relax the reforms and build on green field land the danger from pollution and impact on wildlife etc will be great.  

Fixing the housing crisis as no easy answers.  But one clear win to me is to start taking action over the run down and unoccupied properties in the country.  Compulsory purchase of any property unused for 12 months or more would have a big impact.  Fix, rent or sell it, or lose it style laws would help.  

There are plenty of new developments green lighted not being built due to the developer issue I raised.  Fix that and we might be able to start making some progress.  A national house building scheme run by government and not private sector would help as well.

Instead we hear the usual waffle thats been said for 10 to 20 years and result in us missing every target.

You're suggesting that the state seizes private property. Good idea but it's never going to happen.private property is sacred in Britain.

[Neil]

Public doesn't trust Govt to deliver all the infrastructure (schools, doctor's,etc) that loads of new houses need alongside the houses.

Dunno how it worked out but often the developer only got planning permission by promising to build that stuff too.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

You are right but doesn't mean I am wrong 😛   

There are something like 260,000 long term empty houses in the UK.  Its madness when you think about it.

https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/

It's a good idea but just about politically impossible. If someone tried it there'd be too many problems (legal , etc) that it probably won't seem worth the trouble.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

all of those things have their own associated bad effects.

I’m sure they do have some bad effects on other areas but at some point we are going to have to take a hit elsewhere if we are serious about housing. The only bad effects that seem to matter are the ones that impact the Tories. I think only the staunchest Tory defender would try to claim they do anything at all to solve the housing crises. 

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I’m sure they do have some bad effects on other areas but at some point we are going to have to take a hit elsewhere if we are serious about housing. The only bad effects that seem to matter are the ones that impact the Tories. I think only the staunchest Tory defender would try to claim they do anything at all to solve the housing crises. 

They've missed their target but I think they've had more houses built than has been done for ages. It's an improvement if so. Most not cheap enough but you can't do good housing on the cheap.

[Neil]

There's quite a lot of brownfield building happening around me. Most looks low quality squeezed into a space too small. cant see it being desirable to the types who complain they can't buy.

[Neil]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

In ten years time does anyone really think we look back and say - Labour solved the housing crisis 😛 

No because there isn't a solution to do that.people want to live in the places where other people already live.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

People seem to buy them 😛   New development don't struggle to sell 🙂 

They do struggle cos people don't want to live in out of town developments they want a house on this street, this area.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

They've missed their target but I think they've had more houses built than has been done for ages. It's an improvement if so. Most not cheap enough but you can't do good housing on the cheap.

Yep, they missed their target then scrapped it altogether showing how unserious they are about the issues. It’s nowhere near good enough and is the biggest single reason why many find it difficult to get on the property ladder

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yep, they missed their target then scrapped it altogether showing how unserious they are about the issues. It’s nowhere near good enough and is the biggest single reason why many find it difficult to get on the property ladder

People struggled to get on the ladder in the past too. The market worked by always having houses to buy just out of reach. If they weren't out of reach anyone could buy and then demand is greater than the stock which is pretty much what has happened.

[steviewevie]

8 hours ago, Neil said:

There's quite a lot of brownfield building happening around me. Most looks low quality squeezed into a space too small. cant see it being desirable to the types who complain they can't buy.

near where I live they're replacing an old precinct, which was not long ago still full of shops, with flats/houses and a few shop units. I think with any of these new housing plans they have to have some that are "affordable", not sure if that is nation wide thing or just manchester..

[steviewevie]

8 hours ago, Neil said:

People struggled to get on the ladder in the past too. The market worked by always having houses to buy just out of reach. If they weren't out of reach anyone could buy and then demand is greater than the stock which is pretty much what has happened.

yeah, but the way house prices have increased vs wages the last two decades is silly.

[steviewevie]

I guess just have a mortgage for life, pass it on to your children...

[Neil]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I guess just have a mortgage for life, pass it on to your children...

Problem with that is that everyone could do that. Are there enough houses to do it? what happens when the houses run out. we're back where we are now.