https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/housing-outlook-q1-2024/
It's Torsden Bell so I going to be confident he's done the maths.
Last edited:
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
It's Torsden Bell so I going to be confident he's done the maths.
I think we need to do all those things, but first and foremost we need to build many more houses in the places people want to live. Eg if that means London becomes a skyscraper city, then so be it.
People are being fecked right at this moment though - new housebuyers, people wanting to start families, tenants looking to rent, rising homelessness. We need to build.
If we had enough houses, we would not need to specifically build "affordable housing"
Last edited:
Says the MP paid over 6 grand by GB News in just the last ten months, it clearly doesn't cost too much buy Jenkyns' lobbying power
Sounds like you are advocating for the government to build.... Albeit a ton of care / retirement homes?
I agree the govt needs needs to make it far easier to build, so the market can supply the housing there is clearly the demand for.
Last edited:
Actually it's the opposite, it's the trying to tax landlords out of existence that has increased rents by about 10% a year since they started. We now realise the market functioned, just about, before they started getting involved. Now it's well and truly fecked.
The government needs to understand private rentals are a key part of the housing market and not something to be eradicated.
But what will prevent the skyscraper cities becoming simply a collection of stacks of investments owned by overseas landlords extracting the wealth of those people who need to live there? There's zero sign that any government wants to do anything to address that issue.
Prioritising the build first does not go any way to solving these problems and is likely to exacerbate others.
But why not show us the evidence that backs up his statement and leave us without doubt?
Yes, you're right with your first point, and I had considered the fact that landlords will most likely pass on any more modest tax on to the tenant. That's why we need a more radical solution. Rent controls/caps being a first step, perhaps.
I disagree with the second and think that there should be limits on how much housing an individual or company can stockpile.
Not necessarily a taxing issue, it's more about the rise of Air BnB and similar.
Private landlords can make far more profit on their property listing it for short-term rentals through Air BnB than they could via the traditional rental market. So more 'stock' leaves the rental market to the short-term letting, meaning that demand increases, meaning an increase in rental rates.
I don't have a problem with limiting the amount of "rental investment" that an overseas buyer can make. Those are details. The basic problem is lack of properties in the first place, which governments like to try to then "solve" with stupid financial approaches that either subsidises prices or worsens them, but doesn't actually address supply.
Last edited:
I think there is a lot of evidence that price controls don't work (via rent controls). Subsidies don't work (via Help to Buy). Both those are just ways to not to actually address the problem, which is a lack of supply of houses. Just build more houses! Build a million a year for the next 5 years. Think of all the problems it'd solve.
Because it's just a twitter thread, his evidence is in the reports from the Resolution Foundation, which is his organisation. I put a link to one in FYI.
But you're not thinking of the massive problems that can cause, when we usually have developments that concentrate soley on housing, so that local amenities and roads on the outskirts that are already at capacity get overwhelmed. And because of this, locals object to developments and nothing happens for years. And this is on top of the loss of green spaces and damage to the environment.
We have almost 300,000 empty houses in the UK. Let's start by bringing those back into usage.
I'd say that bringing the existing care homes and similar facilities into public ownership and removing the profit from the chain would probably be sufficient as a first step.
I read it and he seems to be making totally different points, mainly about the cost, size and quality of our housing, relative to other countries and nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the ownership of the properties. We already know British houses are smaller and older than those in the US etc.
Why are they? And to what end? How many private rented homes should there be?
I believe zero. I realise that’s unrealistic. But I also can’t see an argument for anyone having a portfolio of properties.
What circumstances can you outline to support a huge private rental market?
Asking in good faith.
Those communist judges at it again...
Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...powers-for-protests-unlawful-high-court-rules
Suella Braverman acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalise protests, court rules
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...powers-for-protests-unlawful-high-court-rules
So, build the amenities as well. 300k houses is a small number, maybe 10 to 15x less than the number needed, and chances are many aren't even where people need to be. It is not a serious response to the scale of the problem
And yes, it may have environmental impacts, but we also have a lot of cities that could be considerably denser than they are now.
China built a bunch of new cities from scratch and the lib dems are celebrating building a new staircase at Surbiton station.
Towns and cities change.
Last edited:
If you are going to solve the problem of care for the elderly then let's focus on that, that's big enough all by itself.
The solution to the housing crisis isn't going to be about stacking millions of 80 year olds in government run care homes, and flogging their houses to people who still won't be able to afford them.
Proposed water charges,
How much do companies want to increase their bills by?
Estimate are for average bills. Costs will vary depending on a property's rateable value
So like........ Southern Water - 91% increase to £915
South East Water - 35% £330
Dŵr Cymru - 43% to £702
Northumbrian Water and Essex & Suffolk Water - 26% to £530
Hard to know what to say.
How much do companies want to increase their bills by?
- Southern Water - 91% increase to £915 a year by 2030
- Thames Water - 59% to £749
- Hafren Dyfredwy - 56% to £676
- Severn Trent - 50% to £657
- Wessex Water - 50% to £822
- Yorkshire Water - 46% to £682
- Dŵr Cymru - 43% to £702
- United Utilities - 38% to £666
- South East Water - 35% £330
- Pennon - 33% to £644
- Portsmouth Water - 31% to £157
- SES - 30% to £315
- Anglian Water - 29% to £682
- Northumbrian Water and Essex & Suffolk Water - 26% to £530
- Affinity Water 25% to £294
- South Staffs & Cambridge Water - 24% to £221
Estimate are for average bills. Costs will vary depending on a property's rateable value
So like........ Southern Water - 91% increase to £915
South East Water - 35% £330
Dŵr Cymru - 43% to £702
Northumbrian Water and Essex & Suffolk Water - 26% to £530
Hard to know what to say.
By all means let them, as long as they are prepared to commit to a 20 freeze on dividends. I wonder if their shareholders will agree with the price hikes then?
But why would people be able to magically afford new build homes that will be priced at market value?
Are all these fecking bastards (all utility companies) trying to bankrupt us all?! I can barely afford to do anything anymore and I am certainly better at managing money than most.
It’s all taking the fecking piss and actually living these days is becoming so hard! Can’t even afford to holiday in the UK as that has become unaffordable.
What's the alternative? Nationalised water? It wouldn't work, the water quality would be worse, the waste dumping just as bad, and the costs even higher thanks to public service waffling and the whole jobs for mates attitude those folk have.
Don't believe me? Just look at places where water is nationalised like Northern Ireland or Scotland, and look at how bad their services are... Oh, wait. They're not actually that bad... Well, in that case just look at how wasteful they are, and how their charges are going up this year by a mammoth... 4 to 8%......ah feck.
I'm off to drink some nationalised tap water. I bet it looks and tastes like shit.... Yum. Dammit again.
SorryHad me in the first half ngl
Of course, Thats how you have the money in Scotland for this....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqq04v75p9o
Its been a weird days news today.
Exactly. Nationalise services, save money, spend it on folk shagging each other. It's what Churchill would have wanted.
Not to mention in university towns turning houses into house shares or converting them into flats forces families out of city centres
So… The Tories have been in power for 5000 days.
In that time, they’ve added £300m to the National Debt. Per Day.
Anyone voting Tory is thick as feck.
In that time, they’ve added £300m to the National Debt. Per Day.
Anyone voting Tory is thick as feck.
Or to put it another way, we have accrued twice as much debt in the last 14 years than we did in the previous 316.
But you need to account for the ludicrous inflation rate in that time! (That they caused)
fecking labour
Because we build at such a level that prices begin to come down.
Total pie in the sky stuff. Since 2010, about 2,000,000 new homes have been built in the UK. In the same period the average price has increased from £160k to £260k - over 60%. How many millions more will we have to build to get the prices to come down?
Your math doesn’t math.
We already have more properties than people. It’s who owns it, which ones are filled and by whom that’s the problem.
Thats the thing. After the 2008 debacle, I am not saying that this is happening to the UK, but in the US trust funds are investing in real state by the billions. You can't compete and they have a recurrent revenue at your expenses. That is why not only utilities should be nationalized but the housing.
It should not be a business because is a necessity.
More properties than people? The latest statistics I could find was that there was 25m dwellings as of 2022, with a population of 67m.
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...welling-stock-estimates-england-31-march-2022
The issue is as much as building the right type of homes, specifically social housing, as well as a scheme for building new homes.
It’s a simple supply and demand market, so the pricing will only start to decline once supply outstrips the demand.