[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Stopping people buying just for the purpose of letting would be a nice plan too.

STOP LETTING LETTING HAPPEN

Slogan of the century

Who are people who want to/have to rent going to rent off though?

Also I'm inherently uncomfortable with the notion of banning things.

There is however a tax relief available for letting property where you can deduct your mortgage interest (among other things) from your rental income for tax purposes.

That and just build a strawberry float ton more flats/houses.

Ecno » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:28 pm wrote:That and just build a strawberry float ton more flats/houses.

Yeah on all that readily available land we have. As a nation we shouldn't be building more and more housing when there's plenty already, it just happens to be in the hands of landlords who get way too good of a deal to ever sell

There's tonnes of space that could be built on in Britain, outside London we're quite a sparsely populated country.

I thought Mark Carney made a really good point when he said ""There are not sufficient houses built in the UK. To go back to Canada, there are half as many people in Canada as in the UK, twice as many houses are built every year in Canada as in the UK".

The growing consensus is that more houses have to be built; there isn't sufficient housing available for the growing population.

The problem isn't necessarily 'space' in terms of population density; it's a matter of space that's actually commercially available. The problem is that most of our cities are surrounded by green belts that can't be sold or built on, making the actual land available horrendously overpriced and meaning that even new builds would price first time buyers out of the market in order to turn a profit.

Ecno » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:28 pm wrote:just build a strawberry float ton more flats/houses.

This.

Skarjo » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:36 am wrote:The problem isn't necessarily 'space' in terms of population density; it's a matter of space that's actually commercially available. The problem is that most of our cities are surrounded by green belts that can't be sold or built on, making the actual land available horrendously overpriced and meaning that even new builds would price first time buyers out of the market in order to turn a profit.

Remove the profit incentive?

Moggy » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:39 am wrote:

Ecno » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:28 pm wrote:just build a strawberry float ton more flats/houses.

This.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Remove the profit incentive?

This is why I find it hard to take the hardcore left seriously on here; solutions are either over simplified and ignore all practical problems or are totally unrealistic.

Is there not a more objective way of deciding where we should be building and which areas of the country need the most help? For instance something like an average wage of people under thirty in a given area against the average house price?

"practice problems" such as 'oh gooseberry fool we've let a small group of landlords own most of the housing in the country'; "is there a more objective way..." no, housing's needed in every town because it's where people are and where jobs are.

It's equally hard to take you seriously when your action is to dismiss the "over simplified" solutions and then offer nothing more than a basic question in return. It wouldn't be "totally unrealistic" if the government had any strawberry floating interest in serving the population, but if we take that approach what's the point in proposing any political change because the chance of it being introduced is surely "unrealistic", all the claim of unrealistic does is attempt to silence any debate.

Hime » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:19 pm wrote:

Moggy » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:39 am wrote:

Ecno » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:28 pm wrote:just build a strawberry float ton more flats/houses.

This.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Remove the profit incentive?

This is why I find it hard to take the hardcore left seriously on here; solutions are either over simplified and ignore all practice problems or are totally unrealistic.

Is there not a more objective way of deciding where we should be building and which areas of the country need the most help? For instance something like an average wage of people under thirty in a given area against the average house price?

I am "hardcore left" because I think developers should be allowed to build a lot more homes? Creating profits for private builders and for people to buy and sell homes is now left wing?

It is hard to take people seriously when they use simplistic terms like "hardcore left". Why not use other words like "leftie", "liberals" (remember the italics), "reds" and "commies"?

Irene Demova » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:28 pm wrote:"practice problems" such as 'oh gooseberry fool we've let a small group of landlords own most of the housing in the country'; "is there a more objective way..." no, housing's needed in every town because it's where people are and where jobs are.

It's equally hard to take you seriously when your action is to dismiss the "over simplified" solutions and then offer nothing more than a basic question in return. It wouldn't be "totally unrealistic" if the government had any strawberry floating interest in serving the population, but if we take that approach what's the point in proposing any political change because the chance of it being introduced is surely "unrealistic", all the claim of unrealistic does is attempt to silence any debate.

So how have people ever afforded to buy houses? If you're going to punish landlords where does it stop? Should we punish large farming organisations or supermarkets for making a profit from food - another vital commodity, how about the developers who make a huge profit on building the houses?

A basic question that asks for a realistic approach rather than 'just build' or 'blame landlords. I totally agree with the idea of building new houses but there is so much more to it than that.

I'll try and find something to back this up when I get a minute but I would imagine it's never been easier to get a mortgage than now.

Moggy wrote: I am "hardcore left" because I think developers should be allowed to build a lot more homes? Creating profits for private builders and for people to buy and sell homes is now left wing?

More the ignoring of all the difficulties involved. Why are developers not allowed to build more homes?

What happened to TESCO using their land bank to build houses on?

Would love a job working for their estates department.

Hime » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:46 pm wrote:

Moggy wrote: I am "hardcore left" because I think developers should be allowed to build a lot more homes? Creating profits for private builders and for people to buy and sell homes is now left wing?

More the ignoring of all the difficulties involved. Why are developers not allowed to build more homes?

How was I ignoring difficulties? The question was how do we get cheaper houses, the solution is we build more houses. I didn’t realise you wanted an in depth analysis on the current housing situation in the UK. Maybe I should have written a full Masters level dissertation on the issues?

I realise the problem is green belt land and the attitude of the NIMBY people. The solution is still to build more houses though, the Government can scale back the green belt or make planning permission easier to obtain, the developers can then build houses and the population can then buy those houses. Sorry if that is too simple or hardcore left wing.

Moggy » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:51 pm wrote:

Hime » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:46 pm wrote:

Moggy wrote: I am "hardcore left" because I think developers should be allowed to build a lot more homes? Creating profits for private builders and for people to buy and sell homes is now left wing?

More the ignoring of all the difficulties involved. Why are developers not allowed to build more homes?

How was I ignoring difficulties? The question was how do we get cheaper houses, the solution is we build more houses. I didn’t realise you wanted an in depth analysis on the current housing situation in the UK. Maybe I should have written a full Masters level dissertation on the issues?

I realise the problem is green belt land and the attitude of the NIMBY people. The solution is still to build more houses though, the Government can scale back the green belt or make planning permission easier to obtain, the developers can then build houses and the population can then buy those houses. Sorry if that is too simple or hardcore left wing.

Yes, clearly asking for more detail than "build more houses" is completely unreasonable. We may as well clear up a few more issues in a similar manor:

How do we address the skills shortage in the UK? - Train more people.

How do we reduce the level of unemployment? - Get more jobs.

So the government scales back on the green belt land, the NIMBY people have a change of heart and are open for change for the common good, the poor old developers who just want to aid the growing number of people who can't afford housing can now start building. Loads of affordable housing gets built, everyone is happy - The end. Hang on, what about the effect on the national housing market?

Hime » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:12 pm wrote:

Moggy » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:51 pm wrote:

Hime » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:46 pm wrote:

Moggy wrote: I am "hardcore left" because I think developers should be allowed to build a lot more homes? Creating profits for private builders and for people to buy and sell homes is now left wing?

More the ignoring of all the difficulties involved. Why are developers not allowed to build more homes?

How was I ignoring difficulties? The question was how do we get cheaper houses, the solution is we build more houses. I didn’t realise you wanted an in depth analysis on the current housing situation in the UK. Maybe I should have written a full Masters level dissertation on the issues?

I realise the problem is green belt land and the attitude of the NIMBY people. The solution is still to build more houses though, the Government can scale back the green belt or make planning permission easier to obtain, the developers can then build houses and the population can then buy those houses. Sorry if that is too simple or hardcore left wing.

Yes, clearly asking for more detail than "build more houses" is completely unreasonable. We may as well clear up a few more issues in a similar manor:

How do we address the skills shortage in the UK? - Train more people.

How do we reduce the level of unemployment? - Get more jobs.

So the government scales back on the green belt land, the NIMBY people have a change of heart and are open for change for the common good, the poor old developers who just want to aid the growing number of people who can't afford housing can now start building. Loads of affordable housing gets built, everyone is happy - The end. Hang on, what about the effect on the national housing market?

You didn't ask for more detail. You posted this:

This is why I find it hard to take the hardcore left seriously on here; solutions are either over simplified and ignore all practical problems or are totally unrealistic.

Is there not a more objective way of deciding where we should be building and which areas of the country need the most help? For instance something like an average wage of people under thirty in a given area against the average house price?

The second paragraph might have gotten you a post with a proper answer, but the first paragraph was hardly designed to make people want to answer you seriously.

But to answer you, the NIMBY people are not going away, but through government legislation we can ensure that developers can build on more land and that NIMBYs cannot derail everything.

I don’t know which housing market you are talking about as I was talking about the national housing market. I am not proposing building 5 million homes in the south east (although I am not against that if the south east needs it). We need to look at where there is a huge demand for homes and build accordingly.

Please accept my apologies then, that comment wasn't supposed to be offensive.

If 5 million houses were built around the country wouldn't that devalue property across the nation? What about all the people who will now be sitting on negative equity?

Who cares? A house is a place to live not a strawberry floating investment

Hime » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:38 pm wrote:Please accept my apologies then, that comment wasn't supposed to be offensive.

If 5 million houses were built around the country wouldn't that devalue property across the nation? What about all the people who will now be sitting on negative equity?

Yes it would devalue property and put some people into negative equity. I would feel sorry for those people (and I might be one of those people if values dropped drastically!) but house prices are ridiculous at the moment. Pricing out almost everybody under 30 or everyone on lower wages is not a great way for our property market to be.

My brother is in a situation at the moment where he has £18k saved up as a deposit and because of his low wages can still not afford to buy anything other than 1 bed flats. I would happily take a hit on my property value if it helped people get on the ladder.