Herdanos wrote:I did read both articles (though they linked via some archive website rather than the source, so much of the page was covered by ads for Wickes) as well as briefly looking up the authors.
If we build loads of homes, loads of them will be bought by landlords.
Our system is far too skewed towards encouraging landlordism ahead of home occupier ownership.
Property companies are always going to favour building larger, more expensive homes as the returns are greater and it's easier to make more profit.
Local authorities are too crippled with care costs to even consider building social housing. Housing associations struggle to compete.
We desperately need to disincentivise landlordism alongside building homes. Otherwise all we'll end up doing is creating more landlords.
The Archive links get around the paywall that both sites have. The adverts are annoying but the 'x' button to close them is available (but tricky to spot).
Supply and demand applies to the housing market.
If we build 4 million homes, that will put huge downwards pressure on house prices and private market rents, this holds true whether it's owner occupiers buying them or landlords.
I don't think our system is skewed towards BTL vs owner occupier. Often both groups have overlapping mutual interests (restricting the supply / ease of building more homes) that go against the interests of those in the rental market.
How Britain’s Tories came to resemble the trade unions:Successive governments have caved to Tory backbenchers who have fought like picketing miners to restrict building.
Britain’s housing shortage is the Conservative equivalent of the “closed shop”, which shielded unionised workers from pay competition.
Insiders, who own homes, benefit from rising asset prices; outsiders pay the price.