Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

government housing policy

Since the right to buy was introduced, or even before that, no government in this country has had a sensible housing policy.

If we had a sensible housing policy, then we'd resolve a number of ills that exist currently.

So what have the government decided to do?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923

A system which has been under funded for years, & when properties have been sold from under them has been denied the profits from that sale to re-invest in more sustainable housing is now being decimated further.

I despair sometimes.

How is this going to benefit us?

How long until someone tells us the market will fix it? The market won't f***ing fix it. That is obvious. Look at where we were 15 years ago, & look at us now. It is a f***ing nonsense, it really is.

This is a backwards step.
It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
«1

Comments

  • bendix
    bendix Posts: 5,499 Forumite
    tough day lemonjelly?
  • bendix wrote: »
    tough day lemonjelly?

    Not really.

    A few select quotes:
    Mr Shapps also said he hoped to legislate later this year to create a National Home Swap Scheme, which would allow people in unsuitable accommodation - such as a pensioner who wants to move to a smaller home - to swap for something more suitable..

    This won't work though. All that'll happen is an exponential rise in complaints about families being overcrowded, seeking larger properties.
    The National Housing Federation said it had been told housing was likely to be one of the biggest losers in the Spending Review - with "doomsday" cuts anticipated which will see affordable housebuilding virtually grind to a halt.
    The federation, which represents England's housing associations, warned 50% cuts would "effectively shut the door on an entire generation of families on lower incomes by withdrawing billions of pounds worth of funding for affordable housing schemes".
    It also claimed more than 360,000 jobs would be lost in the construction industry every year if cuts on the scale being proposed were introduced.

    More jobs lost. Great eh?:doh::wall:
    It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
  • bendix
    bendix Posts: 5,499 Forumite
    In every crisis, there are opportunities.

    Go long on tents and corrugated iron, and short bricks and mortar.

    You know it makes sense.
  • what do you propose. are you in the ed balls camp - we should use the budgetary windfall* to build loads of new houses? everything is being cut, because it has to be. obviously more money needs to be spent on housing. more money needs to be spent on roads, and hospitals and universities as well.

    * = windfall for these purposes is defined as the difference between projected borrowing of £175 billon and actual borrowing of £166 billion.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    obviously more money needs to be spent on housing. more money needs to be spent on roads, and hospitals and universities as well.

    Why should this money come from tax payers?
    Why is it obvious?

    Lots of money is spent on those 3 things. Perhaps the existing money could be spent better.
  • Generali wrote: »
    Why should this money come from tax payers?
    Why is it obvious?

    Lots of money is spent on those 3 things. Perhaps the existing money could be spent better.

    my point is not that more money should be spent in those areas, but that you can build a compelling case for not cutting the budget of any government department you choose. however, any such argument in isolation ignores the elephant in the room.

    anyone saying that the social housing budget should not be cut and should in fact be increased is ignoring the fact that in order to implement such a policy, something else will have to be cut even more. perhaps lemonjelly can outline the solution, how many hospitals should be closed so that the social housing budget can be maintained?

    the labour solution is just to tax bankers more. they have no other stated policy. unfortunately such a policy only works once or twice: want to maintain the social housing budget, tax the bankers; want to maintain the defence budget, tax the bankers; want to maintain increases in NHS spending in real terms, tax the bankers. it's a great model but tax rates of 100% tend not to be effective.
  • PasturesNew
    PasturesNew Posts: 70,698 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    What I don't understand is this ....

    Developer buys land, with money borrowed at commercial rates. Developer borrows money to build property, with a profit margin in it. Developer sells houses, with rafts of people taking profits along the way (sales people, mortgage advisors, solicitors). BTL LL borrows money to buy one of these houses, at commercial rates.... and rents them out, more than covering his costs.

    So, why can't the Govt/councils:
    Borrow money at wholesale rates, build the same houses, cut out all the middle men and rent them out cheaper?

    Eh?

    Surely the house the developer built and sold at £200k could be built and rented (without profit) for £120k?
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    my point is not that more money should be spent in those areas, but that you can build a compelling case for not cutting the budget of any government department you choose. however, any such argument in isolation ignores the elephant in the room.

    anyone saying that the social housing budget should not be cut and should in fact be increased is ignoring the fact that in order to implement such a policy, something else will have to be cut even more. perhaps lemonjelly can outline the solution, how many hospitals should be closed so that the social housing budget can be maintained?

    the labour solution is just to tax bankers more. they have no other stated policy. unfortunately such a policy only works once or twice: want to maintain the social housing budget, tax the bankers; want to maintain the defence budget, tax the bankers; want to maintain increases in NHS spending in real terms, tax the bankers. it's a great model but tax rates of 100% tend not to be effective.

    The dumb part of UK housing policy is that builders aren't allowed to build the sort of houses British people want to live in (3 bed semis with a garden) where they want to live (edge of cities, decent train or bus service to the centre).

    Let people build and the market will solve most of the rest of the problem.
  • lemonjelly wrote: »
    Since the right to buy was introduced, or even before that, no government in this country has had a sensible housing policy.

    If we had a sensible housing policy, then we'd resolve a number of ills that exist currently.

    So what have the government decided to do?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923

    A system which has been under funded for years, & when properties have been sold from under them has been denied the profits from that sale to re-invest in more sustainable housing is now being decimated further.

    I despair sometimes.

    How is this going to benefit us?

    How long until someone tells us the market will fix it? The market won't f***ing fix it. That is obvious. Look at where we were 15 years ago, & look at us now. It is a f***ing nonsense, it really is.

    This is a backwards step.

    and private landlords will be rubbing their hands all the way to the bank.

    I didn't even know there was a social housing budget, where I live I haven't ever seen a new council house built and I doubt they spend any more than a tenner a year on maintenance :D

    Of all the places to save money, and really it irks me that we should have too. We're sucked into this fabrication put forwards by the red team and the blue team telling us that we are on the brink of economic apocalypse .... well if we've got no money left I can categorically state that I haven't got it, I've never had it and I don't know anyone that does... but somehow the footballers earn thousands of pounds a week, surgeons earn more implanted false boobs than they do replacing old ladies hips! It's a crazy world out there for sure....

    I'm not sure what any government could do to combat this hideous self serving material consumption disease but the very least they can do is make sure that they cover the very basics of human care, the most urgent need being accommodation, because so many other facets of life are dependent on having a decent roof over our heads. Capitalism has it's causalities, be they the elderly, the low incomed, the abused, the uncredit worthy, the disabled or the stupid... what are they supposed to do with themselves? live in shanty towns around the cities..... it makes me want to built a spaceship.
  • What I don't understand is this ....

    Developer buys land, with money borrowed at commercial rates. Developer borrows money to build property, with a profit margin in it. Developer sells houses, with rafts of people taking profits along the way (sales people, mortgage advisors, solicitors). BTL LL borrows money to buy one of these houses, at commercial rates.... and rents them out, more than covering his costs.

    So, why can't the Govt/councils:
    Borrow money at wholesale rates, build the same houses, cut out all the middle men and rent them out cheaper?

    Eh?

    Surely the house the developer built and sold at £200k could be built and rented (without profit) for £120k?

    Because council officials live on another planet? Maybe they just run them into the ground so they can be flogged off to housing associations.....then they can then concentrate their efforts on finding other activities to issue fixed penalty notices for?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.