The Politics Thread 4

[Grumpy David]

The worse the housing issue gets (renting costs more than home ownership, but houses cost so much only the Bank of Mum & Dad can really help for those lucky few), the more and more likely it becomes that a party planning radical increases to the supply of housing will win.

The Tory dream of a property owning democracy is great, and Labour's desire to increase council housing is great too.

What housing needs is a joined up approach rather than constant talk, no action, or mere tinkering around the edges. Changing direction every time a new government is formed will never allow the long term planning required to fix 3 decades of chronic undersupply combined with 2 decades of rapid population growth.

[Lex-Man]

twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/965916512941953024

Interesting analysis that further suggests the perception that the 18-24 vote exploded in last year's election is wrong.

I think that should suggest Labour still have a huge amount of work to do if they think non-voting young people are going to sweep them into office. Not sure it changes the unsustainability of the core Tory vote, where they were only most popular with the over 50s.

I think people are often talking about two different things though. I seen young people defined youth as the under 35's not 25's. So their may have been a youth quake if you measure voting increases by the under 35's. There seems to be a swell in people between the ages of 25-44 voting according to that link.

[Regginator3]

Jeremy Corbyn threatens to make bankers 'servants of industry' in fresh attack on City 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... sh-attack/

Haha

[Vermilion]

The worse the housing issue gets (renting costs more than home ownership, but houses cost so much only the Bank of Mum & Dad can really help for those lucky few), the more and more likely it becomes that a party planning radical increases to the supply of housing will win.

The Tory dream of a property owning democracy is great, and Labour's desire to increase council housing is great too.

What housing needs is a joined up approach rather than constant talk, no action, or mere tinkering around the edges. Changing direction every time a new government is formed will never allow the long term planning required to fix 3 decades of chronic undersupply combined with 2 decades of rapid population growth.

The problem with housing, is that in recent years, net migration has been running at over 200,000. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a lot of the issues we have now, whether it be a lack of housing, too few hospital/school places, congested roads etc are largely due to the system being unable to cope with so many extra people (the system was having trouble with a high population in the 90's, let alone now). Governments have encouraged high levels of migration as a means of short term economic gain, but did little to make sure that the systems we have here would be able to cope, it's largely been a problem of their own making as had there been proper planning and infrastructure spending to begin with (even now there is a basic lack of common sense, Westbury is one example of where tons of new houses are being built, yet all the traffic from the new estates is being funneled on to the narrow and congested A350 with no prospect of any future bypass), then the country might not be in the mess it is now.

[Regginator3]

The worse the housing issue gets (renting costs more than home ownership, but houses cost so much only the Bank of Mum & Dad can really help for those lucky few), the more and more likely it becomes that a party planning radical increases to the supply of housing will win.

The Tory dream of a property owning democracy is great, and Labour's desire to increase council housing is great too.

What housing needs is a joined up approach rather than constant talk, no action, or mere tinkering around the edges. Changing direction every time a new government is formed will never allow the long term planning required to fix 3 decades of chronic undersupply combined with 2 decades of rapid population growth.

The problem with housing, is that in recent years, net migration has been running at over 200,000. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a lot of the issues we have now, whether it be a lack of housing, too few hospital/school places, congested roads etc are largely due to the system being unable to cope with so many extra people (the system was having trouble with a high population in the 90's, let alone now). Governments have encouraged high levels of migration as a means of short term economic gain, but did little to make sure that the systems we have here would be able to cope, it's largely been a problem of their own making as had there been proper planning and infrastructure spending to begin with (even now there is a basic lack of common sense, Westbury is one example of where tons of new houses are being built, yet all the traffic from the new estates is being funneled on to the narrow and congested A350 with no prospect of any future bypass), then the country might not be in the mess it is now.

I agree that the population increase has become unsustainable (though it isn't just immigration, it's also things like an ageing population meaning we're dying later which is a good thing). What's also troubling is how people don't like talking about this for fear of being lumped in with rabid racists.

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

[Lex-Man]

The worse the housing issue gets (renting costs more than home ownership, but houses cost so much only the Bank of Mum & Dad can really help for those lucky few), the more and more likely it becomes that a party planning radical increases to the supply of housing will win.

The Tory dream of a property owning democracy is great, and Labour's desire to increase council housing is great too.

What housing needs is a joined up approach rather than constant talk, no action, or mere tinkering around the edges. Changing direction every time a new government is formed will never allow the long term planning required to fix 3 decades of chronic undersupply combined with 2 decades of rapid population growth.

The problem with housing, is that in recent years, net migration has been running at over 200,000. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a lot of the issues we have now, whether it be a lack of housing, too few hospital/school places, congested roads etc are largely due to the system being unable to cope with so many extra people (the system was having trouble with a high population in the 90's, let alone now). Governments have encouraged high levels of migration as a means of short term economic gain, but did little to make sure that the systems we have here would be able to cope, it's largely been a problem of their own making as had there been proper planning and infrastructure spending to begin with (even now there is a basic lack of common sense, Westbury is one example of where tons of new houses are being built, yet all the traffic from the new estates is being funneled on to the narrow and congested A350 with no prospect of any future bypass), then the country might not be in the mess it is now.

I agree that the population increase has become unsustainable (though it isn't just immigration, it's also things like an ageing population meaning we're dying later which is a good thing). What's also troubling is how people don't like talking about this for fear of being lumped in with rabid racists.

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

We should just make everybody go to the carousel at 35.

[That]

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

New births by themselves will break our infrastructure if it's kept in its current state. Cutting immigration, the most economically useful part of our population growth, would be like dealing with a twisted ankle by cutting off your leg. You say there's no solution -- maybe you're right, but we're heading for a dystopian future regardless of the rate of immigration if so.

[Hypes]

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

New births by themselves will break our infrastructure if it's kept in its current state. Cutting immigration, the most economically useful part of our population growth, would be like dealing with a twisted ankle by cutting off your leg. You say there's no solution -- maybe you're right, but we're heading for a dystopian future regardless of the rate of immigration if so.

Well Brexit Bulldog David Davis did say it wasn't going to be like Mad Max, so maybe Judge Dress?

[Lex-Man]

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

New births by themselves will break our infrastructure if it's kept in its current state. Cutting immigration, the most economically useful part of our population growth, would be like dealing with a twisted ankle by cutting off your leg. You say there's no solution -- maybe you're right, but we're heading for a dystopian future regardless of the rate of immigration if so.

Well Brexit Bulldog David Davis did say it wasn't going to be like Mad Max, so maybe Judge Dress?

Judge Dress?
Is that just the same as now, but we all wear those white wigs all day long?

[Regginator3]

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

New births by themselves will break our infrastructure if it's kept in its current state. Cutting immigration, the most economically useful part of our population growth, would be like dealing with a twisted ankle by cutting off your leg. You say there's no solution -- maybe you're right, but we're heading for a dystopian future regardless of the rate of immigration if so.

Immigration is absolutely economically beneficial. Unfortunately, it isn't quite so beneficial to the housing market.

It's also worth pointing out that whilst immigration is a net positive to the economy at the moment (obviously), that doesn't mean it is permanently sustainable. There is always going to be a case if diminishing returns in that aspect, and we're slowly reaching it as it puts extra pressure on health services, school places and housing demand that is increasingly not matching by their extra tax contributions and their employment in public service jobs such as nursing (Brexit really is not helping that). Cutting net migration isn't an immediate thing but it does need to be done at some point, and nobody seems to know when. Its also certainly not our only (and definitely not the biggest) problem by any stretch of the imagination.

[Lex-Man]

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

New births by themselves will break our infrastructure if it's kept in its current state. Cutting immigration, the most economically useful part of our population growth, would be like dealing with a twisted ankle by cutting off your leg. You say there's no solution -- maybe you're right, but we're heading for a dystopian future regardless of the rate of immigration if so.

Clearly the solution to all the worlds problems can be found in Logan's Run

[Moggy]

Corbyn strikes back.

twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/966017263815061504

[Vermilion]

The general solution seems to be "well we need to build EVEN MORE!" which is obviously ridiculous, even if our government was competent enough and building significantly more houses than now it wouldn't be enough to cope with demand, it isn't sustainable.

As i briefly mentioned in my previous post, while the consensus seems to be that more house building is needed, such plans are also largely happening without the additional extras needed to supplement them. Massive investment is needed in road and rail for a start, the main routes in central southern England have seen no meaningful investment for the last 25-30 years. The railway rolling stock on the main line here are 158 units from approx 1990, and the road network here last had a new dual carriageway (A36 Beckington) around the same time roughly. If you were to try and drive a lorry from Poole to Bath, you'd find yourself using a road which would be listed as unclassified in other parts of the UK due to it's endless sharp blind bends and incredibly narrow stretches that were originally built for horse & carts, yet despite all this, the govt and councils are still deciding to build more and more houses under the false belief that the rest of the system can cope.

[satriales]

The lack of housing is only part of the problem. When houses are built they are being snapped up by landlords before anyone else can get a chance to buy. Long term we're heading into a direction where a few rich people own a large percentage of all the houses, and a large portion of the population are cut off from owning anything, just like with money.

[Vermilion]

I will also add that the whole issue of 'affordable housing' is a joke, i sure as hell can't afford one of these 'affordable homes' and neither can anyone else living around here in my age group.

[Grumpy David]

The lack of housing is only part of the problem. When houses are built they are being snapped up by landlords before anyone else can get a chance to buy. Long term we're heading into a direction where a few rich people own a large percentage of all the houses, and a large portion of the population are cut off from owning anything, just like with money.

That wouldn't reduce the supply of housing, just the ratio of houses to buy vs houses to rent.

George Osborne killed the BTL market. New BTL applications are down 80%.

3% surcharge on stamp duty e.g. 300k purchase costs a FTB £0, a home mover £5,000 and a landlord £14,000.

The "stress tests" changed from the most common of "5% of mortgage balance, divided by 12, then times 1.25" so that 300k property with 25% deposit has a mortgage of £1171 so it's likely that you'd get about £1200 in rent and it would pass this test. It's now quite common to see "5.5% of the mortgage, divided by 12, times 1.45" so that same property now needs £1495 in rent which isn't going to happen on that price range. Meaning you either need to put down a far bigger deposit, look at lenders doing easier stress tests (but with higher interest rates) or buying via a LTD company which is not without complications or additional costs.

Then finally, the tax changes phasing out mortgage interest as a deductible essentially means you are taxed on revenue, not on profit.

I don't have much sympathy for landlords, but that gravy train has come to an end and unless they knock down the property they buy, they aren't reducing the supply of homes.

Given it was the Tories who killed BTL, makes you wonder what a Corbyn government would do, get his USSR secret agent chums to chuck them in Gulags or something.

[Moggy]

get his USSR secret agent chums to chuck them in Gulags or something.

The same ones that organised Live Aid/Nelson Mandela concerts?

It's been obvious for almost 20 years that we are not building enough houses. But I don't see that changing any time soon, NIMBYs will put a stop to any mass house building and we will continue to have this problem for the next couple of decades.

[satriales]

There's also the problem that with 'Help to buy' the government now owns part of many properties and so would lose out if prices were to decrease.

[satriales]

...

Lots of good points. I'm not sure if it's had such a big effect yet, but maybe it's early days and the tide is turning.

[Lagamorph]

There's also the problem that with 'Help to buy' the government now owns part of many properties and so would lose out if prices were to decrease.

Not really. The government get back their original contribution even if the price falls when the house is sold. If the price goes up they get back more than their original contribution. The only waybto avoid paying back more is to pay back the Help to buy loan before selling.

Either way the government gets back a minimum of what they put in so doesn't lose out.