I don't think most people can say they need a second home.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Fair shout, it's a challenge. Although I'd like to know what the structural barriers are to the private sector building 50% more properties than they do, and tackling those. It's not as if they won't be able to sell every house they build.
If you ban owning second homes does that mean that everyone has to immediately sell them? What effect does that have on everybody's property values and the economy in general? Chaos, I reckon.
You're not thinking about the big picture. It's 2027, and although the private sector are still building the same amount of houses they've actually doubled the number of houses available.
That's because you and your family now have a chance to buy an even smaller house than before! Come down to the latest Persimmon site, located just across from Bob's Slaughterhouse and Farm Shop, and check out our new four bedroom semi-houses. Where two families share a normal four bedroom* home, but there's a big tent in the shared back garden. That's mean there's technically 8 bedrooms per plot - four for each family! Each with enough space for a double bed**!
*under new government legislation, which Persimmon continue to ignore just like they did in 2024, a "bedroom" constitutes any room with three walls and at least one square meter of space.
**under new government legislation, a "double bed" can also be replaced with a ceiling mounted hammock during construction (or a hammock dumped on the floor since new government legislation also states that new build houses no longer require ceilings.
Building new homes is an area where Labour has to use its large majority in the commons.
Money is the key, and the government hasn't got any (apparently) so it has to squeeze where necessary, threaten where necessary, consult with local authorities/homeless organisations on the numbers on the waiting lists/homeless/in unsecured accommodation. It will need to get at construction companies sitting on their shovels, light a fire under the planning people dragging their feet, tell any NIMBY's those days have gone and adapt what ever finances need adapting, to make sure twelve months from now the diggers are digging, the the bricks and mortar are being used. People will by then start to believe you mean what you say and those struggling to find homes are now looking forward to a home of their own, with some hope. Those first in the queue will be hiring removal firms, planning their gardens/window boxes, maybe at new furniture, do-it-yourself kits for flat pack stuff, etc.
Sounds great, get to it Prime Minister, you have the troops, change the rules, start to move the dial.
Money is the key, and the government hasn't got any (apparently) so it has to squeeze where necessary, threaten where necessary, consult with local authorities/homeless organisations on the numbers on the waiting lists/homeless/in unsecured accommodation. It will need to get at construction companies sitting on their shovels, light a fire under the planning people dragging their feet, tell any NIMBY's those days have gone and adapt what ever finances need adapting, to make sure twelve months from now the diggers are digging, the the bricks and mortar are being used. People will by then start to believe you mean what you say and those struggling to find homes are now looking forward to a home of their own, with some hope. Those first in the queue will be hiring removal firms, planning their gardens/window boxes, maybe at new furniture, do-it-yourself kits for flat pack stuff, etc.
Sounds great, get to it Prime Minister, you have the troops, change the rules, start to move the dial.
Build quality needs improved as well though. I'm sick of looking for our first family house and visiting show homes - apparently the best these charlatans can come up with - only to find something that looks like it's going to fall apart before they even finish fixing the items on the "snagging list" we'll undoubtedly have once we move in.
New homes are great but people shouldn't be forced to make do with subpar products purely because there's nothing else available.
Also, it would be nice to see a garage that can actually properly fit a car in it.
You can not ban owning 2nd or owning multiple houses because of what that could mean to the rental sector can you.
The vast majority of rental houses are owned by individual property developers who buy up houses, refurbish and then let them out.
Great, they're half arsing it already. Just build homes - why would the private sector do it? Whats the incentive for them to flood the market and reduce prices?!
Sounds great, apart from the fact that some house builders will have bought land for development with a projected ROI.
And part of that ROI requires a particular sale price based on supply and demand.
The greater the supply, the lower price. And the lower the price the lower the ROI.
That is why builders always want to build detached houses instead of so called affordable houses.
Exactly.
Yes, of course, not suggesting anything substandard, all 'new build' has to be up to standards on everything, including insulation etc. The government is in the driving seat that's the point.
"Snagging work' is a good example (know from my own experience) contracts have to penalise excessive abuse of this term(*), something that has to be reflected in the contract. Also basic size and shape needs to conform. The government has to ensure these matters, not by standing over people, but making the plans made, capable of precise implementation/operation.
(*) There will always be some snagging work, but this has gotten out of hand in recent years, both in nature of the work 'left undone' and the time taken to 'make good'
And somewhere to charge the EV.
The official line is that there is no money left (not quite, but there is no desire to borrow and invest).
If only we lived in a country where Parliament was sovereign and could pass laws to change this stuff.
Of course, all this has to be reviewed and amended by law where necessary. There is not a hope in hell of delivering more houses unless the Government intervenes, the whole point of having a massive majority in the commons is to 'move the dial'.
Land owners, builders etc. should not be allowed to dictate overall supply, they need to make a profit, of course they do but ROI has to help promote, not restrain, the availability of homes.
Counterintuitively, I expect the sheer act of building more homes would force up standards. If people have more choice of what to buy, then poor quality homes would go unsold or suffer a heavy price penalty.
It also results in more choice, which reduces prices and ends up with people in negative equity which means they're stuck so can't buy. It needs to be done, but there's so many variables to it all and impossible to get spot on.
See, I think it's all very positive except for this part. Target just means they have to put that in the planning permission application. What happens after they build them is that the developers just say, 'Oh, yeah, sorry - turns out we couldn't do that after all.' The wording should be changed from target to deliver.
Fair enough, there need to be real consequences in place if it isn't delivered upon.
Satire is dead. Google Pottery Gardens, Lancaster. Just along from the local slaughterhouse, and then in the ‘Leisure Park’ you have the butcher Country Style Meats (owner of allegedly enjoys forcing himself on female members of staff)
Exactly this is the sort of change needed, with the penalties implicit... if it takes changes in the law, then so be it.
Always find it annoying how politicians pretend they only get to see our finances the first day they come into office. They think so little of the public when they pull this shit.
I wonder when the first U-turn will be, anyone think we'll make a month before they break a manifesto policy?
I wonder when the first U-turn will be, anyone think we'll make a month before they break a manifesto policy?
This thread is depressingly cynical. Sure, Labour is just making a lot of noise right now. But they’re the right noises! I hope they can deliver - I think they mean what they say about getting construction and growth going.
I am as keen as anyone to see our new government succeed.
And yes there is some scope for government intervention.
But we are talking about the private sector here and you can not make a limited company do something that could adversely affect its finances.
Whatever is done has to be sustainable in the long term, both financially and ecologically.
We are already building some of the smallest houses in Europe.
The government needs to step in and pay for the affordable homes bit. It's not profitable for private housebuilders and i dont see how they can force them to build more without unintended consequences elsewhere. Developers need to hit a specific roi on a project and affordable homes already mess with that. Forcing them to build more is not the answer.
A large chunk of a house building cost is related to unnecessary red tape. That would be an excellent starting place. The last affordable homes project i was involved in, probably more than 10% of the price was eaten up by nonsense with the planning department. It made a 120k flat into a 130-140k one and added 6 months to the build.
A large chunk of a house building cost is related to unnecessary red tape. That would be an excellent starting place. The last affordable homes project i was involved in, probably more than 10% of the price was eaten up by nonsense with the planning department. It made a 120k flat into a 130-140k one and added 6 months to the build.
I agree with you, but the fact that Starmer is saying little, even now he's in the driving seat, may hide that things are worse than what he and his cabinet thought and they were, and therefore right to manage expectation with a limited number of promises, in the beginning.
The fact that many of the Tories 'big guns' have fled the field and the troops left are wandering in a post battle-weary' daze, suggests that perhaps only the 'head honchos' in the Tory party knew how bad things really were?
There is a 'wiff' of real monetary concern, which may mean Starmer will sooner or later have to decided to put the country on an 'economic war footing'... hope I am wrong, but the silver lining is that the government will have more time to plan properly for spending wisely, when we turn the corner.... i.e. when the time is right!
Fingers crossed!!!
A labour government and that Rachel Reeves is now the chancellor of the exchequer. Starmer leadership bid was based on a more electable and competent version of Corbynism and Labour in opposition was about the tories as ''bad'' managers. Which sounds mad but worryingly imo it's what the party leadership and a lot of labour supporters think.
Can somebody steelman the argument for me for the increase in housing supply in a way that doesnt utterly feck over people with existing mortgages? and how would this practically work?
To be clear, i am actively of the opinion that house prices are way too high in relation to our wages, we dont have enough properties in relation to our population and growth and we have a rental market that exaserbates social issues and needs cleaning up for multi home owners.
But how do we do this in a way that if someone tomorrow buys a home for 400k on a 30 year mortgage, the day after they announce a complete change in housing policy and we snap our fingers and the private sector rapidly ramps up planning and production, landlords have to ditch a few of their rentals for the open market, how does that person not be utterly fecked when the house prices start depreciating?
To be clear, i am actively of the opinion that house prices are way too high in relation to our wages, we dont have enough properties in relation to our population and growth and we have a rental market that exaserbates social issues and needs cleaning up for multi home owners.
But how do we do this in a way that if someone tomorrow buys a home for 400k on a 30 year mortgage, the day after they announce a complete change in housing policy and we snap our fingers and the private sector rapidly ramps up planning and production, landlords have to ditch a few of their rentals for the open market, how does that person not be utterly fecked when the house prices start depreciating?
Because building 50% more destroys the ROI on the land they've bought to do it on. And if you push the land prices down through providing more supply anybody who has bought a house in the last decade is sat on a loss and can't sell, further killing the market.
Right now developers can't sell every house they build. All the big housebuilders are going slow on sites to save costs as they can't shift all the properties they have. Interest rates and mortgages are still too high for most.
Tory thinktank Centre for Policy Studies praises Reeves's speech on growth and planning
The Centre for Policy Studies, a pro-Tory thinktank run by Robert Colvile, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, has released a statement praising Rachel Reeves’ speech on growth and planning. (See 12.44pm.) Colvile said:
The Centre for Policy Studies, a pro-Tory thinktank run by Robert Colvile, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, has released a statement praising Rachel Reeves’ speech on growth and planning. (See 12.44pm.) Colvile said:
The government estimates that a “1% increase in the housing stock leads to a 2% fall in house prices if nothing else changes. The impact on private rents is thought to be similar. In practice, the effect of supply is offset by factors that increase demand such as population and income growth, and can be (and in the UK usually is) swamped by them so that housing costs rise over time.”
Source (excellent paper on housing supply vs prices): https://www.london.gov.uk/media/102...There is a broad,short-term and local effects
The UK’s existing housing stock is around 25 million homes. That means building 250k per year would in theory reduce prices by just 2% if nothing changes. But things are changing - immigration and new household formation means demand for houses is growing.
Effectively, we need to build 250-300k houses per year just to stop prices accelerating again once interest rates start to fall.
There are all sorts of other interesting positives of increasing supply covered in the paper.
I hope with a massive majority the government can get its own way, otherwise what's the point. Labour will never get this chance again. Boris blew (with the help of Covid) his +85 majority, I hope Starmer doesn't do the same thing.
Yes, of course there is a balance to be struck, with the private sector and with the trade unions, everybody needs to remain within the tent and help to hold up the pole as well!
However the government has to be determined, if necessary to put the country on a war footing (economically speaking)... your country needs you is a card Starmer will have to play, and play carefully at that.
You can hear the NIMBY's now, every weekend a march down Whitehall protesting this or that... what Starmer has to balance, is what his government is proposing is it for the great good of the majority of people in this country... if it passes that test, then he pushes on regardless.
A labour government and that Rachel Reeves is now the chancellor of the exchequer. Starmer leadership bid was based on a more electable and competent version of Corbynism and Labour in opposition was about the tories as ''bad'' managers. Which sounds mad but worryingly imo it's what the party leadership and a lot of labour supporters think.
Have you got many examples of people arguing that Starmer was going to represent a competent 'Corbynism'?
For me the counter argument would be that the market is already overinflated in terms of house prices, and to continue keeping prices artificially high it means hundreds of thousands will forever be priced out of owning their own home and stuck with potentially predatory landlords.
I also want to say "if someone got a mortgage that stretched what they were able to afford then that's partly their own faults and the fault of banks allowing it", but I really would want to say it in a non-dickish way. All I keep thinking back to is the financial crash of 2007 and how a lot of folk really didn't learn anything from it.
So i completely agree and understand, what im saying though is if A) house prices are too high relative to wages, B) immigration and population growth needs a further increase in supply, if we pick a number of houses to be built a year that takes this all into account that supply increases past just migration and population growth but also to the level required for the existing population to get a non shit home and can afford it, how do we do this in a way that doesnt completely wipe out anyone with a susstantial existing mortgage? or is it just a "shit luck really, we need to focus on people who cant get a mortgage over those who currently have one?"
It's been 72 hours an already people are melting down over this.
It's truly amazing.
It's truly amazing.
Other than the Brylcreem'd knight of the realm himself doing it at every single leadership hustings, which doesn't count, presumably?
We can't afford laws because of Putin.
The goldilocks economic scenario would be nominal house price growth of 1%, inflation of 2%, and nominal wage growth of 3%.
That would mean that affordability improves gradually over time as wages and inflation grow faster than house prices, reducing the real cost of housing, without the nominal value falling for existing homeowners.
Effectively you slowly inflate away the excessive cost of houses.
Totally agree with what you've said, but what is the actual real world impact of the bolded? because the reality is most people who are buying mortgages arent "stretching beyond what they were able to afford" their monthly payments are more than affordable and still less than renting, they arent going to be thrown out on the street but they are being stuck with a depreciating asset that is going to lock them out of moving home ever and will in all likelyhood feck over their future financial prospects because the system has told them for their entire lives they need to own a home as part of owning a home is that its an asset with a resale value hence the "housing ladder" in addition to it being cheaper than renting overall.