Intervention ... my take on it all....

Graham_Devon

Was 1670 post war? I guess it was dependant on which war you look at. Though I was obviously looking at WW2.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Was 1670 post war? I guess it was dependant on which war you look at. Though I was obviously looking at WW2.

I was giving other examples of other very successful building programs, two of which are post WW2. Why is the post war UK house building program better than the opening up of scrubland in California for example? California has one of the greatest (the greatest?) regional economies in the world as a result.

If you have a best building program, presumably you have others you have discarded as not being up to scratch. Would you like to share your intellectual process?

CLAPTON

the thirties was the golden age of house building

wonderful semi and detached house with long gardens; all still standing and will last a few hundred years

no really planning control in those days of course

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aye, just arguably one of the most succesful house building programmes in the world was carried out post war. You call it terrible. Terrible why? because it didn't make money?

It genuinley helped millions. It was only capitalism that eventually destoyed it like it destroys pretty much everything else.

I've just looked up some council houses in my city. It looks as if they are operating on a rental yield of c2.5 - 3.0%.

You'd be having kittens if you discovered the average BTL was run on this yield. They're just breeding welfare dependence and the taxpayer continues to foot the bill.

It's genuinely helpful if you can get other people to subsidise your living costs.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

I've just looked up some council houses in my city. It looks as if they are operating on a rental yield of c2.5 - 3.0%.

You'd be having kittens if you discovered the average BTL was run on this yield. They're just breeding welfare dependence and the taxpayer continues to foot the bill.

It's genuinely helpful if you can get other people to subsidise your living costs.

Perhaps they still make a return at 3% if there is no debt associated with them. Arguably with government rates at 2% there is still the potential for them to be self financing (just). What is the point of the tax payer charging extra for something if it then needs to be subsidised by the taxpayer, through benefits, to pay the bill. It is just chasing the wooden £.

I am not sure that the provision of shelter is in itself breeding the welfare culture although it may be an element. Insufficient jobs paying a reasonable wage, social education, education all play apart.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Perhaps they still make a return at 3% if there is no debt associated with them. Arguably with government rates at 2% there is still the potential for them to be self financing (just). What is the point of the tax payer charging extra for something if it then needs to be subsidised by the taxpayer, through benefits, to pay the bill. It is just chasing the wooden £.

I just think government shouldn't be setting housing policy, building the houses and then managing the houses. They're not very good at running businesses.

They're trapped in a situation where it's the norm for anyone living in a council house is receiving a rent subsidy regardless of need - that's a political decision.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am not sure that the provision of shelter is in itself breeding the welfare culture although it may be an element. Insufficient jobs paying a reasonable wage, social education, education all play apart.

I was referring to the subsidy rather than the provision itself.

Anyone that can afford to pay a market rent should rather than looking for subsidies.

wymondham

CLAPTON wrote: »

wonderful semi and detached house with long gardens; all still standing and will last a few hundred years

Going off on a slight tangent I was talking to a carpet fitter the other day who said stairs in modern houses are made of chipboard??? He was not impressed as it means he can't fix carpet the standard way....

Anyway, I can't see chipboard lasting a few hundred years!

Loughton_Monkey

wymondham wrote: »

.....Anyway, I can't see chipboard lasting a few hundred years!

I'm sure it will, provided you don't nail gripper rods to it.....

Conrad

wymondham wrote: »

And to discussion - how wrong am I? what have I missed or misunderstood with the current policy? Why is the current path the right way and why is state intervention absolutely needed in all these private companies to ensure Government housing policy works?

My main priority if I were in Gov't would be improving the nation and I genuinely believe almost all MP's share this view despite the lazy, simplistic crowd view they are all pigs at a trough. I know plenty of wealthy people that work halve has hard by not being MP's.

This means delivering a balance of policies some of which will help you get re-elected and stay in power so you can deliver on your wider aim of improving the nation.

Sure the housing initiatives are a bit populist and designed to be vote winners, but that's just part of the craft of maintaining power, a lessor downside compared to being a conviction politico and losing power to the other team who you believe will damage the nation.


Being an armchair critic is far easier than making real world political decisions that look at things in the round.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

I just think government shouldn't be setting housing policy, building the houses and then managing the houses. They're not very good at running businesses.

They're trapped in a situation where it's the norm for anyone living in a council house is receiving a rent subsidy regardless of need - that's a political decision.



I was referring to the subsidy rather than the provision itself.

Anyone that can afford to pay a market rent should rather than looking for subsidies.

Aren't government playing with housing policy with schemes like FFL, help to buy, equity loans, right to buy.

If they can pay the rent in full surely people do. In theory there is nothing stopping a market rent being charged is there.

As to whether paying HB and claiming it back trough a rent charge or simply paying a reduced rent on a government property is a mute point.

Many large and small companies don't seem particularly good at running enterprises either I am not sure it is the sole fault of government.

It would no doubt be a political decision whether to encourage business investment areas to lift the prospects of the local population and therefore float them out of the mire. The south east is full of employment, apparently, but large numbers can't afford to live there but are needed to oil the wheels of the capital.

2 million households are on council waiting lists (according to reports yesterday). I don't think the private sector is going to resolve that without government housebuilding programmes. With an ever growing population that figure will get bigger.