Westminster Politics 2024-2029

[Pexbo]

What all governments have failed to understand is these costs get passed on to the tenant, or they sell up and reduce the available stock. Either way rental prices rise. The targeted attacks on the private rental market over the last decade have done little other than make it more expensive for all involved. Much the same will happen with a CGT rise.


Starmer couldn't have started worse if he'd tried and Reeves naively backed herself into a corner with the tax rise comments, and all the while Angela Rayner has been notable by her relative silence. Imo Labour's plan all along, Starmer will be the sacrificial lightning rod and before the 5 years is up we'll be facing Rayner as PM and then we will really see how bad the country can get.

Could you explain this one? How does a landlord selling up reduce available stock?


Also I particularly like how you couldn’t help but have a dig at Rayner. You couldn’t find anything to have a dig about so being “relatively quiet” seems like a smashing criticism.

 

[Buster15]

His meetings with Scholz and Macron, will be the outlier for further disscussions but as others have suggested it will mainly be about what happens if Trump gets elected and if he insists on Europe paying for its own defence.

I can only say what had been reported so far on the discussions with Germany. And Scholz has been reported as say that he wants to get the agreement signed within 6 months. So it didn't sound like a meeting simple to agree to further meetings.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

His meetings with Scholz and Macron, will be the outlier for further disscussions but as others have suggested it will mainly be about what happens if Trump gets elected and if he insists on Europe paying for its own defence.

Quite possibly but there's no question that France, Germany and the other Western powers will be aligned with or without the USA. The problem in Europe will be if Reform or Le Pen for example get into power.

The Customs Union is something entirely different. Some experts in the UK could explain it but the UK stopped listening to experts in 2016.

 

[Frosty]

True although I would put that down to more Tory incompetence.

Although the norm used to be olds hate labour because they thought comrade Corbyn was going to bring back communism and bin strikes. Now they hate labour because they worry Starmer is going to use boomers as a alternative fuel source.

If they had only voted Corbyn they could have burned the uncollected rubbish for warmth.

 

[Buster15]

His meetings with Scholz and Macron, will be the outlier for further disscussions but as others have suggested it will mainly be about what happens if Trump gets elected and if he insists on Europe paying for its own defence.

He already said last time that the nations of Europe must pay their way in NATO. And to be fair, that has had a reaction. That along with the russian invasion of Ukraine.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Ps..

This will be for captial gains as well, so just think of all the private landlords if you house it worth 325k anything you make from that is now subject to 40% tax.

Landlords are going to sell the houses before this gets imposed, people in the homes probably won't have deposits for a home, selling houses underneath the renter - because that's is what I'd do.

Knowing these feckers they'll probably try to tie the house value to council tax band or land value if its not been valued recently.

Won’t someone please think of the private landlords… the horror!

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

What all governments have failed to understand is these costs get passed on to the tenant, or they sell up and reduce the available stock. Either way rental prices rise. The targeted attacks on the private rental market over the last decade have done little other than make it more expensive for all involved. Much the same will happen with a CGT rise.


Starmer couldn't have started worse if he'd tried and Reeves naively backed herself into a corner with the tax rise comments, and all the while Angela Rayner has been notable by her relative silence. Imo Labour's plan all along, Starmer will be the sacrificial lightning rod and before the 5 years is up we'll be facing Rayner as PM and then we will really see how bad the country can get.

Which ‘attacks’?

Also… how will these sales reduce the housing stock?

 

[Red in STL]

What I'm saying is that if the seller of whatever goods to any EU country has to supply the documentation, certificates and everything that conforms to the standards , proof of origin etc etc etc;

But this is what happens worldwide, not just the EU. If you send a product from any country that is not the same Customs Union all this bureaucracy is there to ensure everything conforms and is traceable.

The amount of complete and utter b*ll*x that has been spread across the UK through the media and by politicians from the start of Brexit is truly moronic. So the public have no idea what is involved; The politicians have no idea what they're doing and the journalists have no idea what they're doing either.

It's not just the EU and the UK , it's everywhere including the US, Australia , any country you could name and the bureaucracy involved in many places is a hundred times worse in some places.

If you're in the same Customs Union, it cuts most of this out which is why it is totally and utterly insane for the UK to be outside it.

The selective reporting on the meeting yesterday seems to have failed to report that Scholz reminded Starmer that he has to implement the Brexit agreement in full. And there are another five years to go before it is fully implemented.

I don't disagree with the bolded, however, Turkey is not a member of the EU, it is in the customs union but with some exceptions on certain goods, (no idea what they are) therefore it's possible to negotiate some kind of deal that works for both sides, something you seem to discoount

 

[Maticmaker]

He already said last time that the nations of Europe must pay their way in NATO. And to be fair, that has had a reaction. That along with the russian invasion of Ukraine.

Yes, he did, I wonder if he will return to that position or insist on more.
Not sure what will happen if Harris gets in?

I can only say what had been reported so far on the discussions with Germany. And Scholz has been reported as say that he wants to get the agreement signed within 6 months. So it didn't sound like a meeting simple to agree to further meetings.

I agree this is part of a much larger/wider strategy from Starmer, in which mutual defence (both from external and internal foes!!) and is a start in clearing the ground for the future, including the possibility of the UK joining (rejoining) the Customs Union, in some form or other.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I don't disagree with the bolded, however, Turkey is not a member of the EU, it is in the customs union but with some exceptions on certain goods, (no idea what they are) therefore it's possible to negotiate some kind of deal that works for both sides, something you seem to discoount

It is in a Customs Union (very limited) as a sort of trial run to start to their accession to the EU and does not have the same benefits as those in the actual EU Customs Union. If you look back in the Brexit thread it was all discussed and explained in about 2017. Turkey will not fulfil the criteria to join the EU for many decades if at all.

Turkey have wanted to be a member of the EU for many years and then Farage sent out the scare signals that 80 million Turks wanted to invade Britain because of Freedom of Movement and the Brexiteers bought that.

The main reason why the UK don't want to be in the Customs Union is because they won't be able to make their own separate deals.
So far they've only succeeded in a worse deal with NZ than the EU negotiated just afterwards and Australia which will put the nail in the coffin of the British farm industry and which the Eu have recently called off negotiations with Australia.

Then of course there is the CPTPP which our friend Jonathan Reynolds, Labour Business Secretary, says is crucial for UK growth. He obviously missed the impact assessment which has been available publicly for a year or two which calculates it will boost UK GDP by 0.08% over the long term (15 years) which I find rather optimistic!!

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Anyway, I would presume Starmer was aware of this plan before it was released to the press.

My question is, where do they find all these incompetent people? It's just an endless trail of fools, with the Tories, -David Davies, Raab, Truss, Trevelyan, Badenoch and now Reynolds and Starmer from Labour.

 

[Buster15]

It is in a Customs Union (very limited) as a sort of trial run to start to their accession to the EU and does not have the same benefits as those in the actual EU Customs Union. If you look back in the Brexit thread it was all discussed and explained in about 2017. Turkey will not fulfil the criteria to join the EU for many decades if at all.

Turkey have wanted to be a member of the EU for many years and then Farage sent out the scare signals that 80 million Turks wanted to invade Britain because of Freedom of Movement and the Brexiteers bought that.

The main reason why the UK don't want to be in the Customs Union is because they won't be able to make their own separate deals.
So far they've only succeeded in a worse deal with NZ than the EU negotiated just afterwards and Australia which will put the nail in the coffin of the British farm industry and which the Eu have recently called off negotiations with Australia.

Then of course there is the CPTPP which our friend Jonathan Reynolds, Labour Business Secretary, says is crucial for UK growth. He obviously missed the impact assessment which has been available publicly for a year or two which calculates it will boost UK GDP by 0.08% over the long term (15 years) which I find rather optimistic!!

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Anyway, I would presume Starmer was aware of this plan before it was released to the press.

My question is, where do they find all these incompetent people? It's just an endless trail of fools, with the Tories, -David Davies, Raab, Truss, Trevelyan, Badenoch and now Reynolds and Starmer from Labour.

Starmer can't be that stupid. At least he knew which order to speak with the leaders of Germany and France.

 

[Jippy]

Which ‘attacks’?

Also… how will these sales reduce the housing stock?

Attacks is very tabloid, but there have been a series of massive tax hikes, including a 3% stamp duty surcharge, and erosion/removal of tax reliefs available. Loads more requirements too, like energy certificates etc...

That's even before you factor in higher interest rates.

There is a reason loads of BTL landlords have been selling up.

https://www.thetimes.com/business-m...-buy-to-let-mortgage-rates-interest-s88zlk06n

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Attacks is very tabloid, but there have been a series of massive tax hikes, including a 3% stamp duty surcharge, and erosion/removal of tax reliefs available. Loads more requirements too, like energy certificates etc...

That's even before you factor in higher interest rates.

There is a reason loads of BTL landlords have been selling up.

https://www.thetimes.com/business-m...-buy-to-let-mortgage-rates-interest-s88zlk06n

It’s not an attack, is it. The Tories did it as many regular folks started buying housing stock as investments and they increased taxation to restrict BTL as a mechanism only the truly wealthy could afford.

Either way, ending vampiric private landlords through taxation is wonderful. Tax them out of existence.

 

[Vidyoyo]

It’s not an attack, is it. The Tories did it as many regular folks started buying housing stock as investments and they increased taxation to restrict BTL as a mechanism only the truly wealthy could afford.

Either way, ending vampiric private landlords through taxation is wonderful. Tax them out of existence.

This is the kind of thing @Jippy is no doubt referring to.

The problem with demotivating landlords is that it leads to a supply issue with available rental properties. It's why rents have increased because demand isn't dropping but supply is. As a renter myself, it sucks.

The solution is - of course - to increase supply alongside punitive measures designed to stop landlords owning properties that normal people should own. Stopping multiple / foreign ownership would also be effective.

The tories were short-sighted, though probably just doing it to look tough while ignoring the central issue, and it appears labour will continue the trend.

I refer back to the end of line two - it sucks.

 

[Pexbo]

This is the kind of thing @Jippy is no doubt referring to.

The problem with demotivating landlords is that it leads to a supply issue with available rental properties. It's why rents have increased because demand isn't dropping but supply is.

The solution is - of course - to increase supply alongside these measures.

Are they demolishing these houses or leaving them empty while still paying the mortgage on them?

I’m still struggling to understand how this is diminishing the housing stock.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Starmer can't be that stupid. At least he knew which order to speak with the leaders of Germany and France.

Now, now.

Here's the outcome of the meeting between Macron and Starmer.

It's only in French straight from the Elysée but it's fairly similar to the German visit, defence, energy, security, irregular immigration. No "trade" or special "treaty" though.

https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macr...eir-starmer-premier-ministre-du-royaume-uni-1

Translation:

Spoiler: translation

The President of the Republic met with Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the Elysée Palace this Thursday, August 29, 2024.

The Head of State and the British Prime Minister first discussed the situation in Ukraine. They agreed that it was essential to continue supporting the Ukrainians for as long as necessary to guarantee the defence and security of the country as well as the entire continent.

The two leaders also discussed the situation in the Middle East and expressed their deepest concern about the rise in tensions in the region. The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister will continue their discussions with counterparts in the region, to call on all parties to de-escalate. They also reiterated their call for an immediate ceasefire, which would allow the release of hostages and entry into humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Continuing their exchange following the Summit of the European Political Community on July 18 in Blenheim, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister also discussed the prospects for the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Finally, the two leaders reaffirmed their desire to deepen bilateral relations, particularly in the areas of defence, security, and energy. They also decided to deepen their cooperation on irregular migration in the Channel, in particular in the face of human trafficking networks.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Are they demolishing these houses or leaving them empty while still paying the mortgage on them?

I’m still struggling to understand how this is diminishing the housing stock.

I'm talking about rental stock, not housing stock generally. If landlords sell then there's greater availability to buy but only if you have the cash and sadly many renters aren't in a position to buy. They're then the ones competing for stock from a smaller supply of rental properties on the market, hence why rents are rising (in addition to the usual culprit of higher inflation).

 

[Pexbo]

I'm talking about rental stock, not housing stock.

If landlords sell then there's greater availability to buy if you have the cash but many renters aren't in a position to buy.

So who exactly is buying these houses, if they’re not going to rent them or live in them?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

So who exactly is buying these houses, if they’re not going to rent them or live in them?

I’m tripping over this logic too.

There IS a case that multimillionaires will buy it all and absorb into trusts that can absorb costs as they’ll never sell. But you can legislate against that.

The smart move would be to have some kind of graded taxation. If you sell to your tenants you only get taxed 20%. Have a government scheme that works with tenants and landlords to facilitate sales, along with a partner bank. 5% deposit and a 2 year history of rent payments counted as evidence of ability to pay. Give those renters a special fixed rate deal at a sensible percentage.

We can remould the rental-owner part of our housing market with some bold moves. It’s not even that hard.

 

[Jippy]

It’s not an attack, is it. The Tories did it as many regular folks started buying housing stock as investments and they increased taxation to restrict BTL as a mechanism only the truly wealthy could afford.

Either way, ending vampiric private landlords through taxation is wonderful. Tax them out of existence.

As @Vidyoyo said, you need a functioning rental market. Many people aren't in a position to buy or don't want to.
The government should be ensuring more social and private housing is being built, but these things should all be happening in tandem.

I'm not complaining about the tax hikes on landlords as such, just pointing out it's not the cash cow that some think it is.

 

[Vidyoyo]

So who exactly is buying these houses, if they’re not going to rent them or live in them?

I'm willing to admit you've got me on the logic here but when I've asked my mum about it — she's a parasite estate agent — she says a lot of buyers tend to be cash buyers; the usual flash gits looking to expand their property portfolios.

I'll save you some misery but I've sat there on many evenings listening to her rants about how they usually buy and then raise the price of the rent compared to what it was before because they're looking to maximise their investment. What apparently is not happening so much is that rents are staying at a decent level for tenants, which I'd argue would be more likely to happen if you're dealing with a landlord who has one extra property they're renting out. Historically this was a more normal thing and personally I've always enjoyed dealing with those landlords more (they care about getting good tenants and usually maintain the property better). Couple in rises to interest rates and it really has been a bit of a perfect storm to get them to sell.

However, this also relates to one of the better changes the tories made during their tenure which was to make it exceptionally difficult to grant HMOs. What I gather was happening before was that a lot of properties were being sold off to property portfolio vermin and carved up into HMOs so it became hard for single/couples to find places for themselves.

Of course, it doesn't logically follow that those houses become unavailable as rental properties which is what I was arguing so feck you for making me concede my point I'll give you this one.

I think going back to @Jippy's original point, that's what a lot of these changes have done - disincentivised smaller landlords while not massively impacting bigger ones who can afford to weather the storm.

 

[Jippy]

I'm willing to admit you've got me on the logic here but when I've asked my mum about it — she's a parasite estate agent — she says a lot of buyers tend to be cash buyers; the usual flash gits looking to expand their property portfolios.

I'll save you some misery but I've sat there on many evenings listening to her rants about how they usually buy and then raise the price of the rent compared to what it was before because they're looking to maximise their investment. What apparently is not happening so much is that rents are staying at a decent level for tenants, which I feel would be more likely to happen if you're dealing with a landlord who has one extra property they're renting out. Historically this was a more normal thing and personally I've always enjoyed dealing with those landlords more (they care about getting good tenants and usually maintain the property better). Couple in rises to interest rates and it really has been a bit of a perfect storm to get them to sell.

However, this also relates to one of the better changes the tories made during their tenure which was to make it exceptionally difficult to grant HMOs. What I gather was happening before was that a lot of properties were being sold off to property portfolio vermin and carved up into HMOs so it became hard for single/couples to find places for themselves.

Of course, it doesn't logically follow that those houses become unavailable as rental properties which is what I was arguing so feck you for making me concede my point I'll give you this one.

I think going back to @Jippy's original point, that's what a lot of these changes have done - disincentivised smaller landlords while not massively impacting bigger ones who can afford to weather the storm.

The measures do seem to have been more aimed at small-time landlords. Most folk with 1-3 BTL properties are not so much 'vampiric', more trying to fund a pension given the demise of final salary schemes.

Even if you try and force loads of landlords to sell, not sure how you get over the affordability hurdle to turn many renters into buyers. Engineering a housing crash will whack the whole economy and leave hundreds of thousands in negative equity.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The measures do seem to have been more aimed at small-time landlords. Most folk with 1-3 BTL properties are not so much 'vampiric', more trying to fund a pension given the demise of final salary schemes.

Even if you try and force loads of landlords to sell, not sure how you get over the affordability hurdle to turn many renters into buyers. Engineering a housing crash will whack the whole economy and leave hundreds of thousands in negative equity.

Why do you think there’s a barrier to renters buying property? Other than rents being so violently high that people can’t save a penny.

I’m misunderstanding everyone numbers I expect.

Regarding vampiric… I know of people that have bought a second property on the same street and rented it, and celebrated it. Well done. Your community is buying you a house. Honestly, the badge of honour that is N+1 property ownership needs to die. Those folks are killing society. End it as an option, ‘The Market’ that people laud so much, will fill the void for investment avenues.

 

[M16Red]

Won’t someone please think of the private landlords… the horror!

I know people that use this method for retirement plans, the yield from a second home rental is about 6-8% and where the rental is, is important because home value can increase.

Most of the time it's under a buy to let, but if the cost of the rent doesn't cover the mortgage then, just pull the rental and sell it - then stick the money into an ISA, pension and stocks. Slowly moving the money to members of the family.

But some will raise rents to cover the extra tax, the idea that they are all evil is wrong - they've already paid tax on the money they are using to buy the home with - even higher stamp duty 325k Stamp is 12K.

What I think most posters don't understand is that these private rental are for normal people who are saving, I've seen this happen before. Rental sold on a rolling contract and boom the chap had to move with his kids far away from his kids old school.

But I wouldn't worry too much about this socialist government doesn't what anyone to own anything, they want us all to rent.

I think the states have large rental management block like Gray Star that hold a large number of housing and control rental costs.

If the word private investors start to be aligned with housing, then we are in a bad way.

 

[Sweet Square]

If they had only voted Corbyn they could have burned the uncollected rubbish for warmth.

 

[Jippy]

Why do you think there’s a barrier to renters buying property? Other than rents being so violently high that people can’t save a penny.

I’m misunderstanding everyone numbers I expect.

Regarding vampiric… I know of people that have bought a second property on the same street and rented it, and celebrated it. Well done. Your community is buying you a house. Honestly, the badge of honour that is N+1 property ownership needs to die. Those folks are killing society. End it as an option, ‘The Market’ that people laud so much, will fill the void for investment avenues.

The housing mutiple to income, the country being a low wage, high tax economy are obviously huge factors.

People now have to provide for their own retirement and not all are comfortable with stocks and bonds etc...There's CGT on the sale of second homes too.

As an aside, we didn't put the rent up for our single mother tenant, who renewed this month, and we let her move to monthly payment to help her out with affordability.

 

[11101]

Which ‘attacks’?

Also… how will these sales reduce the housing stock?

Stamp duty increases
Numerous tax increases on allowable expenses.
Mortgage offsets removed.
Increased red tape like energy performance certificates which are unworkable on older properties.
Daft requirements on new builds.
Difficult planning processes.


And im talking about rental stock, which is a very necessary part of an efficient housing market whether you like it or not.

What usually happens is smaller and better landlords are forced to sell to large corporate (and more unscrupulous) landlords whose first order of business is to raise the rent. My agent every year asks me to jack the rent up at least £50, which I never do, but to be frank in the next 12 months I'll look to sell up because it's becoming not worth it. The next owner will probably put the rents up about £500.

It all comes down to a population that is rising over twice as fast as the housing stock, and whatever targets the government shout about there's not a huge amount that can be done about that in the short to medium term.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I know people that use this method for retirement plans, the yield from a second home rental is about 6-8% and where the rental is, is important because home value can increase.

Most of the time it's under a buy to let, but if the cost of the rent doesn't cover the mortgage then, just pull the rental and sell it - then stick the money into an ISA, pension and stocks. Slowly moving the money to members of the family.

But some will raise rents to cover the extra tax, the idea that they are all evil is wrong - they've already paid tax on the money they are using to buy the home with - even higher stamp duty 325k Stamp is 12K.

What I think most posters don't understand is that these private rental are for normal people who are saving, I've seen this happen before. Rental sold on a rolling contract and boom the chap had to move with his kids far away from his kids old school.

But I wouldn't worry too much about this socialist government doesn't what anyone to own anything, they want us all to rent.

I think the states have large rental management block like Gray Star that hold a large number of housing and control rental costs.

If the word private investors start to be aligned with housing, then we are in a bad way.

Their pension is being paid for by someone else. That’s all I disagree with.

If a government looked a quarter century ahead and said ‘we can’t afford to build, please pay to build a new house and in 25 years you’ll pay zero capital gains / inheritance on it, but you MUST sell it’… great!

These kind of models need to change on 20 year cycles. Populations, cities and economics change. We cling to old paradigms, dogmatically. It’s so silly.

But buying housing stock and renting it out, expecting a positive yield is a factor in tearing apart society. It fecks it.

Renting shouldn’t cost more than the mortgaged cost. It’s a non starter. It’s full on trickle down economics insanity. We onboard it as our parents are doing it. Punishing our neighbours to get ahead, then wondering where all the money is going and remaining silent over social cohesion disappearing.

It dumbfounds me.

 

[VorZakone]

Out of curiosity, is there a dedicated thread on the Caf on housing policy? I'd be quite interested in the subject. Questions like how supply affects rents, whether we should move away from "housing is an investing asset" mentality etc.

 

[11101]

The housing mutiple to income, the country being a low wage, high tax economy are obviously huge factors.

People now have to provide for their own retirement and not all are comfortable with stocks and bonds etc...There's CGT on the sale of second homes too.

As an aside, we didn't put the rent up for our single mother tenant, who renewed this month, and we let her move to monthly payment to help her out with affordability.

Buy land as they're not making any more of it. That's the mantra of much of older Britain. Unfunded pensions are now the exclusive preserve of the public sector, Gordon Brown screwed over private pensions, and they've lived through one too many crashes to trust stock markets. Then we had nice low interest rates to plump up the Treasury which had the happy byproduct of free mortgages for all.

Housing should not be seen as in investment but government policy has made it that way. The way to fix that is to provide a more attractive alternative, not drag it down to be just as shit as the other options.

 

[M16Red]

Their pension is being paid for by someone else. That’s all I disagree with.

If a government looked a quarter century ahead and said ‘we can’t afford to build, please pay to build a new house and in 25 years you’ll pay zero capital gains / inheritance on it, but you MUST sell it’… great!

These kind of models need to change on 20 year cycles. Populations, cities and economics change. We cling to old paradigms, dogmatically. It’s so silly.

But buying housing stock and renting it out, expecting a positive yield is a factor in tearing apart society. It fecks it.

Renting shouldn’t cost more than the mortgaged cost. It’s a non starter. It’s full on trickle down economics insanity. We onboard it as our parents are doing it. Punishing our neighbours to get ahead, then wondering where all the money is going and remaining silent over social cohesion disappearing.

It dumbfounds me.

If someone doesn't have 30k to hand then what are they ment to do?

I used to rent for years we worked it out at 110K enough for two deposits, but we simply didn't have it.

A mortgage round me for a three bed with 10% down is... £1,778 a month for 325k home. Is that okay?

 

[Sir Matt]

Gareth Dennis is a great advocate for railways and railway safety. This is embarrassing that the new Rail Minister wanted him sacked for pointing out Euston is dangerously overcrowded at times.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Stamp duty increases
Numerous tax increases on allowable expenses.
Mortgage offsets removed.
Increased red tape like energy performance certificates which are unworkable on older properties.
Daft requirements on new builds.
Difficult planning processes.


And im talking about rental stock, which is a very necessary part of an efficient housing market whether you like it or not.

What usually happens is smaller and better landlords are forced to sell to large corporate (and more unscrupulous) landlords whose first order of business is to raise the rent. My agent every year asks me to jack the rent up at least £50, which I never do, but to be frank in the next 12 months I'll look to sell up because it's becoming not worth it. The next owner will probably put the rents up about £500.

It all comes down to a population that is rising over twice as fast as the housing stock, and whatever targets the government shout about there's not a huge amount that can be done about that in the short to medium term.

Whats a healthy number? (I don’t know it either).

I’ll never get past an idea that population rising faster than housing stock sees any need at all for the rising population to buy property for the folks that own one. That makes zero sense.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

If someone doesn't have 30k to hand then what are they ment to do?

I used to rent for years we worked it out at 110K enough for two deposits, but we simply didn't have it.

A mortgage round me for a three bed with 10% down is... £1,778 a month for 325k home. Is that okay?

That’s exactly it. You could have serviced a mortgage. Instead you bought a house for someone else.

We don’t need masses of 100% mortgages. But you should have been able to use rental payments as evidence of ability to pay, and government backed schemes could have helped you. If the government (rather than private landlords) forever owned 10% of your house… would you care? Course not. When you sell, the government can take its 10% of uplift, or keep it for a later date.

We can do this shit. But we just follow the same worn path to wealth inequality.

It’s not to say ‘all renters should buy’. We need rental properties for social and geographical mobility, migrants, whatever. But I reckon we need one tenth of what we have.

 

[Buster15]

Now, now.

Here's the outcome of the meeting between Macron and Starmer.

It's only in French straight from the Elysée but it's fairly similar to the German visit, defence, energy, security, irregular immigration. No "trade" or special "treaty" though.

https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macr...eir-starmer-premier-ministre-du-royaume-uni-1

Translation:

Spoiler: translation

The President of the Republic met with Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the Elysée Palace this Thursday, August 29, 2024.

The Head of State and the British Prime Minister first discussed the situation in Ukraine. They agreed that it was essential to continue supporting the Ukrainians for as long as necessary to guarantee the defence and security of the country as well as the entire continent.

The two leaders also discussed the situation in the Middle East and expressed their deepest concern about the rise in tensions in the region. The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister will continue their discussions with counterparts in the region, to call on all parties to de-escalate. They also reiterated their call for an immediate ceasefire, which would allow the release of hostages and entry into humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Continuing their exchange following the Summit of the European Political Community on July 18 in Blenheim, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister also discussed the prospects for the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Finally, the two leaders reaffirmed their desire to deepen bilateral relations, particularly in the areas of defence, security, and energy. They also decided to deepen their cooperation on irregular migration in the Channel, in particular in the face of human trafficking networks.

I just couldn't resist saying that.
But thank you for the translation.

 

[M16Red]

That’s exactly it. You could have serviced a mortgage. Instead you bought a house for someone else.

We don’t need masses of 100% mortgages. But you should have been able to use rental payments as evidence of ability to pay, and government backed schemes could have helped you. If the government (rather than private landlords) forever owned 10% of your house… would you care? Course not. When you sell, the government can take its 10% of uplift, or keep it for a later date.

We can do this shit. But we just follow the same worn path to wealth inequality.

It’s not to say ‘all renters should buy’. We need rental properties for social and geographical mobility, migrants, whatever. But I reckon we need one tenth of what we have.

There are Government schemes to help, like the help to buy. We didn't buy a house for someone else, that couldn't buy a flat round here.

We also have part ownership houses, I someone that actually sub let a shared ownership home.

Whats a healthy number? (I don’t know it either).

I’ll never get past an idea that population rising faster than housing stock sees any need at all for the rising population to buy property for the folks that own one. That makes zero sense.

It's pretty easy, a home takes about a 7 month to build - look at the boat numbers to day (I'm using this because, I've just read it) at 500 that's two people 250.

My housing estate (202) took 14 months (multi up) to build on green land - roads, gardens, lights, flooding prevention etc. One day of inbound and 14 month housing build = housing.

Demand is simply out stripping supply. We aren't even speaking about the 90k on the local housing list.

Even when when I look at social house, this new estate has 20%. Rest start at 325k all the up to 710k

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

There are Government schemes to help, like the help to buy. We didn't buy a house for someone else, that couldn't buy a flat round here.

We also have part ownership houses, I someone that actually sub let a shared ownership home.



It's pretty easy, a home takes about a 7 month to build - look at the boat numbers to day (I'm using this because, I've just read it) at 500 that's two people 250.

My housing estate (202) took 14 months (multi up) to build on green land - roads, gardens, lights, flooding prevention etc. One day of inbound and 14 month housing build = housing.

Demand is simply out stripping supply. We aren't even speaking about the 90k on the local housing list.

Even when when I look at social house, this new estate has 20%. Rest start at 325k all the up to 710k

Don’t bold half a sentence you ninny!

Also… don’t wang on about boat numbers. It’s inconsequential in a functioning society.

With regards to ‘we didn’t buy a house for someone else’. No. Not in full. But you paid £110k in rent. You bought a large part of one for who owned it. The next tenant will complete the job.

With regards to your housing estate example… BUILD LOW LEVEL ESTATES! I live in a gorgeous two bedroom flat. It’s in a 3 level block of maybe 30. There are 3 adjacent blocks that are 25% larger, plus a row of 18 cottages that old people live in. I have neighbours and community and social Cohesion. It’s anathema to live in apartments outside London for people for some reason. Just put them in the right places at the right size with the right social mix and sensible laddered costs, and watch those areas thrive.

It’s piss easy.

 

[M16Red]

Don’t bold half a sentence you ninny!

Also… don’t wang on about boat numbers. It’s inconsequential in a functioning society.

With regards to ‘we didn’t buy a house for someone else’. No. Not in full. But you paid £110k in rent. You bought a large part of one for who owned it. The next tenant will complete the job.

With regards to your housing estate example… BUILD LOW LEVEL ESTATES! I live in a gorgeous two bedroom flat. I have neighbours and community and social Cohesion. It’s anathema to British people for some reason. Just put them in the right places at the right live with the right social mix and sensible laddered costs, and watch those areas thrive.

It’s piss easy.

I lived in flats as well and grew up in them.

I was just given you an example, oh the flats take even longer to build - but I agree.

Then when they get pissed off with the stairs, they'll either save or move into rented

 

[Berbasbullet]

That’s exactly it. You could have serviced a mortgage. Instead you bought a house for someone else.

We don’t need masses of 100% mortgages. But you should have been able to use rental payments as evidence of ability to pay, and government backed schemes could have helped you. If the government (rather than private landlords) forever owned 10% of your house… would you care? Course not. When you sell, the government can take its 10% of uplift, or keep it for a later date.

We can do this shit. But we just follow the same worn path to wealth inequality.

It’s not to say ‘all renters should buy’. We need rental properties for social and geographical mobility, migrants, whatever. But I reckon we need one tenth of what we have.

Do you follow Gary Stevenson by any chance? He bangs this drum over and over. Basically the rich are buying all our assets and the rest of us will find it impossible soon.