That is unfortunately true. Nothing like the so called good old days eh to bring people out in a chorus of Rule Britannia.
Some parts were good but far from all of it.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
That is unfortunately true. Nothing like the so called good old days eh to bring people out in a chorus of Rule Britannia.
Some parts were good but far from all of it.
Houses ought to be akin to a utility.
But far too often, they are treated as a commodity. An investment class. This is primarily because of the high cost. And that is not going to change, even if the country builds a lot more houses.
And that is because of the very high interest rates being charged.
Just look at what you would have to pay for a very modest interest only mortgage of sat £250,000. You are looking at well over £1000/month in interest alone.
Yes, very true... but 'mea culpa', I once came near to it when our local Labour party went 'dip-stick' lefty.However, I told my old man what I intended and he threatened to disown me, or worse still refused to help me buy my tickets (league match ticket books)for OT, if I did.
Because lots of other people didn't vote for such a government....right now however we might just have a chance if Starmer holds his nerve.... that is with his own back-benchers as well as the opposition!
Whilst I do recall the oil crisis, the one that sticks in my memory was the 3 day week, I was still at school, no school 2 days a week was just fine by me- but no electric meant no TV, freezing cold baths and a shortage of candles and such like meant early nights, it was as boring as hell after daylight hours!
It was.... 'Covid curfews' had nothing on the 3 day week
Very true, the government however is going to have to 'pull a rabbit out of the hat' some where along the line on housing otherwise they can forget net zero.
A large proportion of people (likely to rise significantly in the next decade) are not going to worry about what might happen in 50 + years if they have no proper accommodation, including security of abode, or a realistic promise of such within the next ten years.
Labour will get one chance at this and they are doing right to take it steady.... but not too steady!!
Last edited:
Yeah, this government is definitely going to change it
However, I told my old man what I intended and he threatened to disown me, or worse still refused to help me buy my tickets (league match ticket books)for OT, if I did.
Because lots of other people didn't vote for such a government....right now however we might just have a chance if Starmer holds his nerve.... that is with his own back-benchers as well as the opposition!
It was.... 'Covid curfews' had nothing on the 3 day week
Very true, the government however is going to have to 'pull a rabbit out of the hat' some where along the line on housing otherwise they can forget net zero.
A large proportion of people (likely to rise significantly in the next decade) are not going to worry about what might happen in 50 + years if they have no proper accommodation, including security of abode, or a realistic promise of such within the next ten years.
Labour will get one chance at this and they are doing right to take it steady.... but not too steady!!
TBH it's going to be virtually impossible for any government to change it without some kind of massive subsidy, the cost of housing is, in large part down to the supply and demand, increase the supply the demand goes down, and as result prices also go down, sounds great, until you realise that 300K house you bought is now worth 200K but you're still paying 300K for it - negative equity is going to be the biggest problem that will need to be fixed IMOYeah, this government is definitely going to change it
My Dad's family are all City fans, as far as a LMTB I was on my own there!
However, I told my old man what I intended and he threatened to disown me, or worse still refused to help me buy my tickets (league match ticket books)for OT, if I did.
Because lots of other people didn't vote for such a government....right now however we might just have a chance if Starmer holds his nerve.... that is with his own back-benchers as well as the opposition!
It was.... 'Covid curfews' had nothing on the 3 day week
Very true, the government however is going to have to 'pull a rabbit out of the hat' some where along the line on housing otherwise they can forget net zero.
A large proportion of people (likely to rise significantly in the next decade) are not going to worry about what might happen in 50 + years if they have no proper accommodation, including security of abode, or a realistic promise of such within the next ten years.
Labour will get one chance at this and they are doing right to take it steady.... but not too steady!!
But this is the trade off. Either people take the hit on their artificially inflated properties or the problem gets worse for young people. As is the neoliberal way, we've prioritised profit over people's wellbeing again. Housing is essential so should be treated as such. The government needs to build huge amounts of houses and take the decision away from those looking to profit off of other people's misery. I would also like to see incremental and exponential tax on those who own multiple properties to the point where home hoarders are forced to sell. Perhaps for 1st time buyers there could be some kind of money put aside to alleviate negative equity.
No government will let people take a hit like the first bolded section, it's political suicide and would hit the existing average homeowner the most
Second point is a vaild thing to do but in reality won't solve the problem, as much as people talk about having multiple properties they are still a substanial minority
A starting point would to introduce rent control, that takes away some of the incentives to the buy-to-let market, compulsory purchase orders to bring property back in to public ownership as well, those are ways to bring back some affordabilty
The government could impose CGT on sales of main residences. Why would that be so unthinkable? You only have to pay when you sell and therefore when you have liquidity. It is the system in some European countries.
There’s already a problem in this country with boomers holding on to 3+ bedroom houses when it’s just one or two of them living there.
The stock of large family houses that is currently being occupied by one or two elderly people with 2+ bedrooms left empty is preposterous.
But if you coordinate inheritance tax rules with CGT rules, would they still have that incentive to hold on?
But you’re imposing it on the sales meaning there is even less motivation to move.
I get that but, if we are talking about boomers, they will be moving sooner or later (feet first or otherwise).
Obviously house building is a key to this question but it also goes beyond simple housing to questions of social mobility. We are heading to a situation in the next 10-20 years where a key determinant of societal status will be whether you were lucky enough to inherit a huge amount of money from real estate. Tax seems to be the most obvious way to tackle that source of inequality.. What would you suggest to address what is admittedly a difficult issue?
Or worse still, with the NHS in ruins, it’s not lost to CGT or IHT - it’s leveraged for care fees.
True. Having an honest public debate on this issue (thinking back to May’s dementia tax proposal in 2017) would be a start as it’s certainly easier to go on about dinghies crossing the Channel and trans women.
There's also another issue with CGT, a young couple live in a perfectly adequate 1 bedroom flat want to start a family, to do so they would need to move, CGT would make that very difficult
Maybe you give some transitional relief for the first 10 years or so but the imposition of CGT would help normalise the market and stop it being seen as the safest, most tax efficient way to invest your money.
Surely OO family homes are excluded from CGT? If not then that is insane.
Supply is the principle problem that has created the price inflation over many decades.
My father in law worked as a fireman in London but lived out in Kent because it was cheaper. He always had at least one other job at the same time to help make ends meet, whether it was painting & decorating, labouring, doorman at a casino then doing his primary job as a fireman.
I understand why you are angry but those people deserve to live in their family home for as long as they want. It’s their home. The failings of the government in not building enough housing stock has forced you to take your anger out on each other rather than the common denominator
Do you think it’s right that you have single people or couples in their 70s-90s in four bedroom houses, often with 2 or 3 of the bedrooms completely unused while there is families of 5 living in two bed properties?
That’s not a housing stock issue, that’s a common sense issue. We should be doing everything we can to make it easy for those people to vacate those houses and move into more appropriate accommodation.
Of course some don’t want to move from the family home, and nobody should be forced to but there is a lot that would happily downsize if the logistics were easier because these large properties are too much work to maintain.
So the discussion is about making it easier for them to do just that, not putting more barriers up.
I might be misunderstanding here but everyone seems to be advocating for more private housing to be built? Isn't the solution to build more council houses?
And to make it easier there needs to be more stock, back to my point again.
in general nobody should be made to feel pressure to move out of their family home. It’s not right.
My parent in laws are 77 and 85 and live in a 4 bedroomed house in Kent. They don’t want to move and why should they? They are in a housing estate with mostly other old people at this stage, they have friends nearby and close to the doctors and other facilities. They are also close to where one of their daughters is buried. Why should they move if they don’t want to?
I didn’t say either way just for more stock to be built. But yes a lot more council housing and affordable scheme housing needs to be built
If you could read my whole post before replying it would be more productive
I did but I don’t agree with your assertion that “lots” will want to move. Old people want to stay where they feel safe, somewhere familiar so in many cases it’s the home that they are used to. In some cases they may want to move closer to some of their kids.
You don’t think that “lots” of old people in the UK are living in a house that is far too big for them and are overwhelmed with the idea of downsizing but you do think that “some” are?
Would you like to provide some sort of quantifier for what might qualify as “lots” vs “some”?
Given the scale of what's required it has to be both but public investment isn't really a thing anymore.
If the government had the balls to start a building program building energy efficient sustainable homes it would help net zero and the housing issue.
All these talks of shock to the market or devaluing peoples homes seems ridiculous to me. It's not even remotely possible to build so many so quickly that'll impact house prices.
We just need to start slowly gradually fixing the housing supply, relying on private isn't going to that. It's just policy announcements for show so that once again politicians can pretend they're useful.
Ah I see we are fixing the public spending black hole with more austerity because that’s worked for the last 14 years.
At least we know why the tories were so confident when they said Labour will raise taxes when they got in. Sounds like it is necessary
At least we know why the tories were so confident when they said Labour will raise taxes when they got in. Sounds like it is necessary
Who says a house is too big for them? You?
That should be their choice if it is or isn’t.
Old people seem to be the targets in threads around here, their house is too big for them, they have too much money, they shouldn’t be allowed to pass their house on to family.
It’s all a bit barking up the wrong tree for me.
And I’ll leave it at that. Dont feel the need to reply. You’ve set your mind that the solution is to take it out on older people and I think that’s not right. Let’s leave it at that.
Why are you choosing to completely ignore this bit of my post again?
If you can point out where I said at any point that old people should be forced out of their home then I’ll be happy to continue the conversation but you’re going off on some weird tangent creating a straw man argument because… well only you know that.
If it’s not already clear to you at this point, the argument I’ve been making is that there is a lot of old people that are in houses that are far too big for them and they find both the maintenance and general upkeep of these houses overwhelming and the cognitive load of downsizing equally daunting and we should be doing all we can to help them move because there is families that do need that additional space and are stuck in houses that are too small for them.
There’s really nothing controversial there but do carry on
Everyone still looking at housing in the short term.
SOmeone said further up that government can't afford to oversee a hit to house prices because of the cost in votes.
But the country cannot afford NOt to reset housing by building council homes. Remember, over 60% of what is now referred to as the welfare budget is pensions payments, including pension credits. The next biggest is housing benefit.
What do you think happens when we get a generation retiring when more people are renting than own a property? Because that is the 4inevitable consequence of where we are going. The cost of retirees that still need £1000 a month to keep a roof over their heads will collapse the entire system.
Change has to come. Whether politicians like it or not.
SOmeone said further up that government can't afford to oversee a hit to house prices because of the cost in votes.
But the country cannot afford NOt to reset housing by building council homes. Remember, over 60% of what is now referred to as the welfare budget is pensions payments, including pension credits. The next biggest is housing benefit.
What do you think happens when we get a generation retiring when more people are renting than own a property? Because that is the 4inevitable consequence of where we are going. The cost of retirees that still need £1000 a month to keep a roof over their heads will collapse the entire system.
Change has to come. Whether politicians like it or not.
My grandparents downsized once they started struggling with the stairs. Old people who want to downsize definitely exist.
Agree that no one should be forced from their homes, but at the same time i also agree there needs to be some incentives for them to downsize, which i think is what you are saying so not sure why GB is pushing back so much.
However, this is a smaller issue, more houses need to be built.
There is also the issue of so many empty properties which the gov is doing nothing about. Even where i live, a few doors down its been about 15 years since the old lady passed away and nothing has been done with it, if i had to guess its some sort of inheritance issue amongst the kids. But it's tragic that a 3 bed property has been empty for over a decade when a generation of kids could have been raised in it.
The problem is we treat property as a commodity/investment while it should be a basic need/utility. Only way to achieve this is to build more and tax the hell out of people who have made business out of it.
So our chancellor will today tell parliament that she's discovered a £20bn black hole in public finances, pretending this is new information despite being widely discussed by everyone but Labour and The Tories during the election.
Looks like we'll be cutting our way to economic growth, again.
Looks like we'll be cutting our way to economic growth, again.
Is this really 'shocking new news'?
The Tories have been saying the country has been broke for the last 14 years to get away with their policies.
It isn’t but this guy might be surprised
Still waiting on that pivot we were told was coming once they were elected.