UK Politics

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I have seen the impact of new housing where I live and the houses are build without the infrastructure in place. Village shops are closing down because there isn’t enough parking to cope with the additional demand, schools are full and can’t cope with the extra kids. 

 

What often happens is these dodgy house building companies promise to invest in changes to roads as part of contract for the labs, but do everything they can to delay. The houses are then full before the necessary changes have been made

so there is the argument of how it should be done properly, it isn't a reason that they should just not build new houses.

[charlierc]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

BRM_CreateStreets_New-Towns-Report_111224.pdf

... this is how I find one of the sites under consideration is right by the village where I live, likely to be in a position to eventually swallow it up huh. Great.

 

And I'm aware all these houses they wanna build have to go somewhere, but be nice to have a bit more warning.

 

Much as I'm aware this Britain Remade lot are a think-tank, although apparently some on the local council have heard whispers this is being considered and the MP isn't exactly denying things.

Edited Thursday at 08:17 PM by charlierc

[Neil]

6 hours ago, lost said:

 

I think it is just short of another Bristol. 40k a year over 5 year parliament, 2.3 average occupancy, I make that 472k. Google says Bristol is 483k.

house building is a great way of pumping the economy because of all the side benefits of couring people to move house.

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, lost said:

 

We were always told that was Leeds. Largest in Europe without mass transit apparently. Seems to be an issue with the UK generally.

Is that Leeds/Bradford as a combined? I keep seeing different stats for size of Leeds and I think it's got less-clearly defined borders.

[Ryan1984]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I have seen the impact of new housing where I live and the houses are build without the infrastructure in place. Village shops are closing down because there isn’t enough parking to cope with the additional demand, schools are full and can’t cope with the extra kids. 

 

What often happens is these dodgy house building companies promise to invest in changes to roads as part of contract for the labs, but do everything they can to delay. The houses are then full before the necessary changes have been made

I live on a new build estate and you’ve got it 100% spot on. A lot of saying wait for the council, who are unable to do anything until it’s handed over.

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

so there is the argument of how it should be done properly, it isn't a reason that they should just not build new houses.

Another unintended consequence is that by adding more houses the schools don’t have the places to take everyone in catchment and it ends up being decided on distance to the school which pushes up the prices of houses as you get closer to the school. For the good schools it’s effectively turning them into private schools, it’s just the extra money is going into the cost of the house and not the school fees.

 

I agree it’s not a reason not to do things properly, however my experience is things are not done properly and the houses are built before the proper steps are in place.

[steviewevie]

whoops

 

[steviewevie]

7 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Another unintended consequence is that by adding more houses the schools don’t have the places to take everyone in catchment and it ends up being decided on distance to the school which pushes up the prices of houses as you get closer to the school. For the good schools it’s effectively turning them into private schools, it’s just the extra money is going into the cost of the house and not the school fees.

 

I agree it’s not a reason not to do things properly, however my experience is things are not done properly and the houses are built before the proper steps are in place.

yeah, well we'll see. This will be one of the things the government will be judged on, and will likely be damaging no matter how turns out because they will most likely not hit these targets and in mean time will upset a lot of locals when they see nice open areas near them being built on. Same with net zero stuff. They've kind of set themselves up for a fall..want to do lots of hard, painful, disruptive stuff..like Attlee's govt but without the support that Attlee's govt had and without a post war all in it together vibe...and even his govt only lasted one term because the population were sick of all the sacrifices.

 

Really shouldn't be talking about next election but what is actually good for the country, but anyway the thing that both helps and hurts Labour is Reform...helps because still splits the right vote, hurts because they're 2nd in a lot of seats labour won...and there's always the possibility of a Tory-Reform deal. Big problem for Labour is they're literally f**king off everyone at the moment, who are they for?

Edited Friday at 07:40 AM by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

 

[charlierc]

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

whoops

 

Well no wonder they want a big uplift in house construction, given you'd have thought that will help that sector.

 

Or maybe it's a sign of the times given a lot of economies seem to be in a zero/low growth moment.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Well no wonder they want a big uplift in house construction, given you'd have thought that will help that sector.

 

Or maybe it's a sign of the times given a lot of economies seem to be in a zero/low growth moment.

it was Reeves and Starmer terrifying the sh*t out of everyone about their scary budget.

[Skip997]

6 hours ago, charlierc said:

Well no wonder they want a big uplift in house construction, given you'd have thought that will help that sector.

 

Or maybe it's a sign of the times given a lot of economies seem to be in a zero/low growth moment.

It’s obvious it’s all about money and growth (actually a bad thing environmentally).There are at least 600,000 empty homes in the UK, possibly around 1.5 million. We don’t need to so many new builds. 
 

Wonder how many government ministers have money in construction?

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

It’s obvious it’s all about money and growth (actually a bad thing environmentally).There are at least 600,000 empty homes in the UK, possibly around 1.5 million. We don’t need to so many new builds. 
 

Wonder how many government ministers have money in construction?

Would that it were so simple eh? According to this piece, there are an estimated 700,000 empty houses in the UK, of which around 250,000 have been empty for 6 months or more, but the process of being able to actually requisition these back is a pain in the arse. There's no legal ability for a council to just go "You didn't lose it so you lost it", and many might not have the money to do that anyway.

 

Although even if you got the 250k-odd back in circulation, that probably isn't going to be enough anyway given a decade or so plus of underinvestment in the housing sector. I say this as someone who lives between Oxford and Cambridge, in an area of high house and even high rental prices so am aware the wriggle room isn't really there.

 

I'm perfectly aware an economy based on endless growth is unsustainable but clearly as a species we're not yet in a position to have an honest chat on zero-growth economics by design and what that would require to work.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

It’s obvious it’s all about money and growth (actually a bad thing environmentally).There are at least 600,000 empty homes in the UK, possibly around 1.5 million. We don’t need to so many new builds. 
 

Wonder how many government ministers have money in construction?

Where are these 600,000 empty homes and how can the owners be forced to house people in them?

[Neil]

30 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Would that it were so simple eh? According to this piece, there are an estimated 700,000 empty houses in the UK, of which around 250,000 have been empty for 6 months or more, but the process of being able to actually requisition these back is a pain in the arse. There's no legal ability for a council to just go "You didn't lose it so you lost it", and many might not have the money to do that anyway.

 

Although even if you got the 250k-odd back in circulation, that probably isn't going to be enough anyway given a decade or so plus of underinvestment in the housing sector. I say this as someone who lives between Oxford and Cambridge, in an area of high house and even high rental prices so am aware the wriggle room isn't really there.

 

I'm perfectly aware an economy based on endless growth is unsustainable but clearly as a species we're not yet in a position to have an honest chat on zero-growth economics by design and what that would require to work.

I part own an empty retirement flat (was my mum's) that's been empty and for sale/or rent for two years.

[steviewevie]