Worth watching?

TruckerT

TruckerT wrote: »

How about making all new housing, public or private, available either by renting or by purchase (the builders, whether council or developers, would not be allowed to refuse either kind of deal)?

There could then be a right-to-buy for tenants, but without the massive price discounts which (IMHO) kicked off the whole casino culture.

TruckerT

ps - the infrastructure question is probably dependent on the size/scale of the development.

Milton Keynes is one of the places least affected by current economic failures, but it had an awful lot of money thrown at it when it started, and its infrastructure is superb.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

There could then be a right-to-buy for tenants, but without the massive price discounts which (IMHO) kicked off the whole casino culture.

TruckerT

The RTB certainly pumped money into the government from the private sector to keep the plates spinning a bit longer.

I am not so sure it was a deliberate policy to transition to a casino culture, rather that was an unintended consequence as we "progressed" along the journey.

TruckerT

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The RTB certainly pumped money into the government from the private sector to keep the plates spinning a bit longer.

I am not so sure it was a deliberate policy to transition to a casino culture, rather that was an unintended consequence as we "progressed" along the journey.

I agree that the casino culture was not part of the plan!

Banks were deemed to be trustworthy, and there to lubricate the wheels of capitalism. It was unimaginable that they would give all their (our?) money away on such poorly thought-out deals.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

I agree that the casino culture was not part of the plan!

Banks were deemed to be trustworthy, and there to lubricate the wheels of capitalism. It was unimaginable that they would give all their (our?) money away on such poorly thought-out deals.

TruckerT

I am not sure the three hi lighted words can ever be applied together.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that corrupt MEPs were paid to introduce added cost and complexity to vehicles? I would like to understand the basis of that claim. Did the manufacturers suggest stringent emission control targets would be in their interest? Perhaps the manufacturers thought it would be a good idea to build in costly failure and repairs to encourage early replacement and hence push up sales?

Without a sting operation it is impossible to prove;
however we do have proof that our westminster MPs accept cash of questions and influence.
Given the much lower level of scrutiny of MEPs so it would be a little naive to assume that MEPs are more virtuous.

The introduction of cats, particle filters, dual mass flywheels etc and the new MOT testing regime (EU requirement) will mean that most modern cars will be scrapped after 6/7 years.

ukcarper

TruckerT wrote: »

How about making all new housing, public or private, available either by renting or by purchase (the builders, whether council or developers, would not be allowed to refuse either kind of deal)?

There could then be a right-to-buy for tenants, but without the massive price discounts which (IMHO) kicked off the whole casino culture.

TruckerT

I can't see how that would work Builders would not build if they were forced to rent out at less than the market rent which lower paid workers can't afford.

As far as I can see the only solution for places like London is to build social housing, for employers to pay a living wage or carry on paying housing benefit.

Cornucopia

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you saying that a timber built house will sell for less than a brick built house? (other things being the same)

It depends on the area - because there are some fixed costs in construction that have already been beaten out of a deflated market in some areas.

However, if the average 3-bed semi is, say, £185k across the country, then, yes, a similar timer-built detached is likely to cost much less than that. I am looking at kit-houses that cost, say, £50k, and land plots that are £35-50k. Add construction/utilities to that, and I'd say it would be possible to bring in the project with a clear margin of maybe £35k. Whether the market would then value the timber house at £185k or £150k is something I don't yet know.

If you were doing this in bulk, then the savings could be much greater.

There are also some tricky issues involved in funding these kinds of builds. I have a positive reaction from Ecology BS, but I expect that they would be the only ones.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

Without a sting operation it is impossible to prove;
however we do have proof that our westminster MPs accept cash of questions and influence.
Given the much lower level of scrutiny of MEPs so it would be a little naive to assume that MEPs are more virtuous.

The introduction of cats, particle filters, dual mass flywheels etc and the new MOT testing regime (EU requirement) will mean that most modern cars will be scrapped after 6/7 years.

Seems odd that we should be making them more environmentally friendly and then simply scrapping them. Seems somewhat wasteful when so many parts will run for probably 3 times that long.

We might as well go back to BL and Vauxhall of the 70s.

I certainly don't intend to be scrapping at 6/7 years.

Wasn't there some thought given to reducing MOT testing to every 2 years under a certain age? I believe that got knocked back due to the the motor industry losing lucrative revenue making opportunities.

TruckerT

ukcarper wrote: »

I can't see how that would work Builders would not build if they were forced to rent out at less than the market rent which lower paid workers can't afford.

As far as I can see the only solution for places like London is to build social housing, for employers to pay a living wage or carry on paying housing benefit.

We have learnt in recent years that some areas are so essential to society that they simply cannot be allowed to fail.

Many planning applications are granted on condition that certain contributions are made to the community's needs.

It would be possible to require developers to provide rental housing at lower than market rates in order to be allowed to build houses for sale.

But I agree that it would make even more sense to embark upon a programme of council house building similar to the post-war one.

TruckerT

Conrad

Word got out that a house is profit machine and as ever more people got the message, demand rocketed.

I recall in the late 80's it was local immigrants that in the main lead the investing game - most indigenous Brits in my area simply never thought of such a thing as buy to let. I was a financial adviser for a while and found immigrants had a far greater resistance to packaged investments such as pensions, a general distrust - turns out their gut instinct was pretty good when you consider all the city / Banking frauds and rackets.