The Labour Government

[Manc in London]

People who bought their own homes via the right to buy scheme stopping the right to buy scheme for a lot of people.

The people's party.

Limiting RTB is a good thing. Temporary accommodation is a major contributing factor to some councils being on the brink of financial disaster

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

You're love of starmer is wierd where no criticism can be made in your eyes.

he was negative about trump, he should at least have the balls to leep to his conviction when it comes to the orange ****

insinuating my opinion is student politics pretty sad really, show a clear lack of debating skills.

I can say why I think starmer and lammy are what I said, their responses could have been diplomatic while also criticising the man and a sending a strong message we will not be party to amy of his bollocks, instead they backtracked and gave a weak response.


But carry on all who think polittics is about blindly followingno matrer what and not challenging when necessary.


Raynor is also a disapointment with her bollocks about tge vice president too.

Whatever the perceived shortcomings of the government, we can be thankful you’re not in charge of foreign relations at least.

 

[bluealf]

Limiting RTB is a good thing. Temporary accommodation is a major contributing factor to some councils being on the brink of financial disaster

another that is missing the point, funny that the ones who also missed it are still liking posts that mtp.

 

[tommybooth]

Right to buy a ship hole. Lovely.

 

[Brewster's millions]

People who bought their own homes via the right to buy scheme stopping the right to buy scheme for a lot of people.

The people's party.

And not paying the correct tax on it when they sell it as well.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

And not paying the correct tax on it when they sell it as well.

Lectures on corruption from a Tory supporter is so hypocritical.

 

[bluealf]

And not paying the correct tax on it when they sell it as well.

I wouldn't know about that tbh but I'd imagine all MP's do these things, similar with the second home con they had been getting away with for years.

 

[The perfect fumble]

This is a bizarre conversation, if you believe the housing crisis must be solved, just holding that belief means you're recognising a social need that as a society we have an obligation to solve, you've moved beyond "the market will solve all" to recognising it won't, because the market is not driven by social need, it's driven by profit. You've moved beyond "who gives a fuck?, I'm all alright" or even Scrooge's position of "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses" to recognising that this is an issue for us as a society, in a way the Victorians, for the most part, did not.

So if the market will not solve this problem, and you believe that it is a social need that must be solved, then the state must try to solve it and they must build social housing (the clue is in the name) to solve this social problem, and they must retain that social housing to continue to address this problem into the future, so right to buy can fuck off.

 

[inbetween]

This is a bizarre conversation, if you believe the housing crisis must be solved, just holding that belief means you're recognising a social need that as a society we have an obligation to solve, you've moved beyond "the market will solve all" to recognising it won't, because the market is not driven by social need, it's driven by profit. You've moved beyond "who gives a fuck?, I'm all alright" or even Scrooge's position of "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses" to recognising that this is an issue for us as a society, in a way the Victorians, for the most part, did not.

So if the market will not solve this problem, and you believe that it is a social need that must be solved, then the state must try to solve it and they must build social housing (the clue is in the name) to solve this social problem, and they must retain that social housing to continue to address this problem into the future, so right to buy can fuck off.

The problem is who is going to pay for that social housing?

If we need say 100,000 social houses then land values and the cost of building will see each house cost at least £100-200k so that's £10-20bn. If Labour could fill it then that's the Tory budget black hole gone already and not a penny has been spent on anything else.

It's also arguable that the main demand pressure on housing is immigration. The foreign born population is the only part of the UK population that is growing given birth rates are otherwise falling. I know immigrants are last in line for social housing but they still represent a huge part of total housing demand.

I'm in favour of immigration but there's a conversation needed as to whether we can truly cope with the current amounts.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

As usual, people are getting confused on here between a lack of housing, people having right you buy and landlords renting properties.

Rightly or wrongly you may fundamentally dissagree with landlords buying houses and renting them to earn a living, or governments of whichever persuasion giving people the right to buy social housing. However, as long as those houses are occupied this does not lead to a lack of affordable housing.

Landlords will rent out properties at the market rate and this is determined by supply.

The thing that leads to a lack of housing is simply demand outstripping supply. As a country we were building about 300 to 350 thousand housing units a year in the seventies, this dropped to about to about 200 thousand units in 80s and then dropped further in the 90s and the 2000s, where arround the global financial crisis we were building a low of about 120 thousand units a year. This has risen since then to 170 to 200 thousand units.

Compare this with our population, which was pretty steady with little or no growth during the 70s and 80s, since the mid nineties our population has been going up by 1 to 2 percent on average a year and in some years significantly more.

The simple fact is as a country we havent been building enough houses to accomodate everyone living here. This is the main reason for the ridiculous house and rental costs.

The reasons for us not building enough houses is complicated, but essentially the issues revolve arround an increasingly complicated and longwinded planning process combined with a lack of affordable money in the system, with the latter primarilly driven by interest rates.

 

[bluenova]

The problem is who is going to pay for that social housing?

If we need say 100,000 social houses then land values and the cost of building will see each house cost at least £100-200k so that's £10-20bn. If Labour could fill it then that's the Tory budget black hole gone already and not a penny has been spent on anything else.

It's also arguable that the main demand pressure on housing is immigration. The foreign born population is the only part of the UK population that is growing given birth rates are otherwise falling. I know immigrants are last in line for social housing but they still represent a huge part of total housing demand.

I'm in favour of immigration but there's a conversation needed as to whether we can truly cope with the current amounts.

Can you argue it then?

As far as I was aware, the main pressures on housing were an increasingly ageing population, and smaller average households. That's based on research conducted under the Tory Government.

 

[west didsblue]

Right to buy a ship hole. Lovely.

If you crash your ship into an iceberg you’ll get your ship hole for free.

 

[inbetween]

Can you argue it then?

As far as I was aware, the main pressures on housing were an increasingly ageing population, and smaller average households. That's based on research conducted under the Tory Government.

I don't really see how an ageing population would massively increase demand for housing versus 1.2m new people per year coming into the country? It would reduce supply over a long period of time but is the population really ageing faster than it's growing in size?

That 1.2m number is only offset by emigration which doesn't necessarily change housing demand at the lower end of the market because do people who live in social housing often decide to emigrate? Most emigration is work related (people who work for big companies) or retired people moving to warmer climates.

Smaller average household sizes could be explained by the simple fact that couples are having less children? You'd expect that to actually suppress housing demand because surely less children need less houses?

 

[inbetween]

Can you argue it then?

As far as I was aware, the main pressures on housing were an increasingly ageing population, and smaller average households. That's based on research conducted under the Tory Government.

And one final point, how do you physically build enough houses for 1.2m new people every single year? That is a city almost the size of Manchester every single year.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

And one final point, how do you physically build enough houses for 1.2m new people every single year? That is a city almost the size of Manchester every single year.

We haven't built 300,000 a year since the 70s, and even if we did that not would clear the backlog of people waiting.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The problem is who is going to pay for that social housing?

If we need say 100,000 social houses then land values and the cost of building will see each house cost at least £100-200k so that's £10-20bn. If Labour could fill it then that's the Tory budget black hole gone already and not a penny has been spent on anything else.

It's also arguable that the main demand pressure on housing is immigration. The foreign born population is the only part of the UK population that is growing given birth rates are otherwise falling. I know immigrants are last in line for social housing but they still represent a huge part of total housing demand.

I'm in favour of immigration but there's a conversation needed as to whether we can truly cope with the current amounts.

I hear what you're saying and I agree with much of it, but my answer is no.

Why?

Because you don't solve one seemingly intractable problem by making it conditional on solving another seemingly intractable problem, that way neither get solved. In fact, and I'm not accusing you of this, bad faith actors who have no intention of solving any of society's problems, always make them conditional on solving another problem that they also have no intention of solving.

 

[bluenova]

I don't really see how an ageing population would massively increase demand for housing versus 1.2m new people per year coming into the country?

That 1.2m number is only offset by emigration which doesn't necessarily change housing demand at the lower end of the market because do people who live in social housing often decide to emigrate? Most emigration is work related (people who work for big companies) or retired people moving to warmer climates.

Smaller average household sizes could be explained by the simple fact that couples are having less children? You'd expect that to actually suppress housing demand because surely less children need less houses?

As more of us live longer, we continue to live in houses, that someone else would be living in if we were dead.

The smaller house sizes is because more people are living by themselves, families are separating, people aren't living as long with family (ironically that last one is changing for young people, but the driver for new homes is still there). While there are complex stats around ethnicity and housing, one worth noting is that twice as many white people live in single person households, compared with Asian people. Given how the vast majority of the population is white, that's a hugely significant difference.

[Withdrawn] Fact Sheet 1. The need for homes

www.gov.uk

Net migration has never been close to 1.2 million a year. Apart from a couple of recent post-Covid years (when it peaked at 764k with ret), it's maxed out at just over 300k. This year is predicted to be back at around that level.

And, yes, I know your 1.2m ignored emigration, but dismissing emigrants as non-users of social housing, and assuming immigrants are, is just a guess. Given that the 764k was mostly made up of students, and people coming in as workers (many of whom would be covered by the minimum earning levels, or who would be exactly the same kind of mobile higher income workers that you've assumed most emigration involves), there's no reason to presume that they would take up more social housing than those leaving.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Didn't stop those labour party members taking advantage of it though and that is what the post was about.

I don't know any private landlords so not aware of their con scheme to buy somebody else's long term council house.

You weren't thinking laterally. Council houses sold at a discount are more likely to end up in the hands of private landlords when the person(s) who purchased those properties decides they want to cash in on it or decides they want to move to the Costa Del Sol and become an absentee landlord or they die and their relatives who inheirited it have similar ideas.

Landlords can overpay for properties more easily than owner occupiers and have more liquidity to renovate and charge higher rates.

Some properties may be in less desirable areas where "luxury" internal spec or short term lets/holiday rentals aren't as viable but they can still command high rents from tenants on housing benefit e.g. in less fashionable areas of London.

However I do know people who bought/ paid for their grandparents house and then moved in or sold it after they passed away.

Though again not what my post was about.

Anger as figures show how many Right To Buy homes are now privately let - Landlord Today

Over 40% of council houses and flats sold under the long-standing Right To Buy scheme are now owned by private landlords.

www.landlordtoday.co.uk

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

As more of us live longer, we continue to live in houses, that someone else would be living in if we were dead.

The smaller house sizes is because more people are living by themselves, families are separating, people aren't living as long with family (ironically that last one is changing for young people, but the driver for new homes is still there). While there are complex stats around ethnicity and housing, one worth noting is that twice as many white people live in single person households, compared with Asian people. Given how the vast majority of the population is white, that's a hugely significant difference.

[Withdrawn] Fact Sheet 1. The need for homes

www.gov.uk

Net migration has never been close to 1.2 million a year. Apart from a couple of recent post-Covid years (when it peaked at 764k with ret), it's maxed out at just over 300k. This year is predicted to be back at around that level.

And, yes, I know your 1.2m ignored emigration, but dismissing emigrants as non-users of social housing, and assuming immigrants are, is just a guess. Given that the 764k was mostly made up of students, and people coming in as workers (many of whom would be covered by the minimum earning levels, or who would be exactly the same kind of mobile higher income workers that you've assumed most emigration involves), there's no reason to presume that they would take up more social housing than those leaving.

You can talk about people living longer and being separated and some living in smaller social groups. But that's just semantics.

The main driver for a shortage of housing is that the population has expanded significantly compared to the number of houses we have built and our ability to actually build them.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You weren't thinking laterally. Council houses sold at a discount are more likely to end up in the hands of private landlords when the person(s) who purchased those properties decides they want to cash in on it or decides they want to move to the Costa Del Sol and become an absentee landlord or they die and their relatives who inheirited it have similar ideas.

Landlords can overpay for properties more easily than owner occupiers and have more liquidity to renovate and charge higher rates.

Some properties may be in less desirable areas where "luxury" internal spec or short term lets/holiday rentals aren't as viable but they can still command high rents from tenants on housing benefit e.g. in less fashionable areas of London.

Anger as figures show how many Right To Buy homes are now privately let - Landlord Today

Over 40% of council houses and flats sold under the long-standing Right To Buy scheme are now owned by private landlords.

www.landlordtoday.co.uk

They rent landlords charge is dictated to them by the demand. It's that simple.