Shapps: UK may never build enough houses

paulmapp8306

The problem in the assumption that "we couldnt build enough in the boom" or "theres nothing we can do" is complete rubbish.

Why? because it assumes all the new homes are going to be SOLD .....

In fact at least 50% of ALL new homes should be state funded and used as social housing. The builders dont HAVE to sell them - they are paid to build them but dont own them. Mortgages dont HAVE to be readily available because their social rental properties.

WHY ARE WE OBSESSED WITH BUYING HOMES IN THIS COUNTRY !!!!

For those that wnat to - or more importantly can afford to, and have the background for tlenders to lend to - fine. BUT they will always (or 95% of the time) choose to buy. Its the rest that CANT afford or DONT have the background that need the housing.

Another thing while Im ranting .. "affordable housing" !!! !!!!!! A SOOOO over used term - generally mentioned by people who have NO CLUE what AFFORDABLE means !!!! Its certainly not new builds on schemes - where you pay as much, or in most cases MORE than just buying. Schemes mean NOTHING unless ist actually reduces the final price you pay.

Degenerate

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i'm not an expert at all on these things but it seems to me that government should step in here. it's as clear an example of market failure as one could ever wish to see. government should just build a million new state-owned houses, most of them to be let out at [slightly lower, as supply increases and HB is capped] market rates - or even sold off immediately, albeit at a market price rather than pointlessly discounted - & as such not cost government anything in the long term. the current mob of building firms have had years & years to sort it out but failed regardless of market conditions. but there's really no reason for there to have been an expectation that they could do this. the private sector has been building just about as many houses as it ever did, albeit with a small dip caused by the credit bubble deflating. but it never came close to building as many as the state sector used to and probably never will. exceptionally foolish for shapps to infer from this that there'll never be enough built. and infuriating since it was his party wot created the situation in the first place.

That graph lacks context, in that during the peak of Local Authority housebuilding a substantial amount of it was replacing dilapidated housing no longer considered fit for human habitation. You would have to factor demolitions in to get the true picture. That said, I basically agree with your premise that the Tory-led ideological annihilation of Local Authority housing played a very big part in getting to where we are now.

What I doubt is that the Government will ever reverse course in a dramatic enough manner to make any difference now. We're never going to see the sort of Labour Governments that we had from the 40s through to the 70s again, and that is the only sort of Government that would commit to social housebuilding on that scale. Thatcher won that argument, even Labour turned away from that scale of intervention, and now we are living with the consequences.

the_flying_pig

Degenerate wrote: »

That graph lacks context, in that during the peakof Local Authority housebuilding a substantial amount of it was replacingdilapidated housing no longer considered fit for human habitation. You wouldhave to factor demolitions in to get the true picture....

Well, I was partly using it to argue that 200k+ builds p.a. by the privatesector would be massively outside the historical precedent. It does thatreasonably convincingly.

The second thing I used it to argue was, I suppose, that there *is* aprecedent for state housebuilding on the required scale. I think you quiterightly point out that this may not be fully true, that special circumstancesbeyond just replacing housing lost in WW2 were at play.

Degenerate wrote: »

…[the above quote] said, I basically agree withyour premise that the Tory-led ideological annihilation of Local Authorityhousing played a very big part in getting to where we are now.

What I doubt is that the Government will ever reverse course in a dramaticenough manner to make any difference now. We're never going to see the sort ofLabour Governments that we had from the 40s through to the 70s again, and thatis the only sort of Government that would commit to social housebuilding onthat scale. Thatcher won that argument, even Labour turned away from that scaleof intervention, and now we are living with the consequences.

I agree that seismic change is needed & that seismic isn’tsomething that governments of any colour tend to like. But such change it willhappen if things are allowed to get to a point where a very large proportion ofthe voting population wants it. Might take a long time, of course. But in, say,20 years’ time, people born in 1982 will be 50 years old. The median voter willhave demanded change by then.

CLAPTON

the reason why it's been difficult to build enough houses is your palnninmg laws;
there is not enough land zoned for building

although at the moment there is a general view that builders are hoarding land this could be addressed in several ways
-land value tax that would mean that the land with planning permission is charged tax as if it were actually built on
-land sales to direct small developers and self builders

but changes in the planning laws are key