Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

Generali

toby3000 wrote: »

I know we're all supposed to have swallowed the line that we can't possibly borrow any more money, but simply put if they want to find the money they can.

Frankly I'd rather they borrowed the money to build council housing that will pay for itself over it's lifespan than continue to throw billions more at private landlords in the form of housing benefit.

If they let builders build then there's no need for the Government to borrow. The problem is that it's so hard to get planning permission.

antrobus

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

..... It's time the UK was brought in line with Germany and Holland!

One Germany and the Netherlands are very different in terms of housing provision. Two in Germany most housing is provided by BTL landlords thanks to the historic tax advantages.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've questioned this before. There seems to be enough money to build HS2 and extend the budget as required as and when.

How many houses would £50bn build?

It's not even lost money. The built houses would provide a calculated income.

If you don't build infrastructure how do people get to work?

The government spent most of the period from 1950-1980 showing why they shouldn't build housing. Google Roman Point to see why.

wotsthat

toby3000 wrote: »

Frankly I'd rather they borrowed the money to build council housing that will pay for itself over it's lifespan than continue to throw billions more at private landlords in the form of housing benefit.

I very much doubt that council housing has ever paid for itself.

Something like 1/3 of all council housing sold off under RTB is now owned by private landlords and probably part funded by housing benefit.

kwmlondon

Why is this policy different to the Conservatives's Help To Buy scheme? Why are people happy to have the sales market utterly f***d up yet whinge and moan when someone suggest sorting out the rental market? I'm not saying Labor have the solution, but there is a massive problem and we'd do better to discuss solutions than to get partisan about it.

And while I agree with the planing permissions issue being a factor, we don't vote in politicians who let large construction projects take place without a fight - we are all nimby's when it comes to the vote. It's our own fault.

cells

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

I might actually vote labour icountry to sincere about this! Btl and amateur landlords are running wild. The private rental sector is nothing but a way of taking advantage of those not in a position to buy their own or qualify for social housing. It's time the UK was brought in line with Germany and Holland!

Labour is the party of the poor

whst that means is that labour want the poor to stay poor and preferably get angry

Instead of promissing to build the 400-500k homes a year the country needs they are just promising to keep up the shortgage and pretend to help the poor by limiting rent price growth....they want you to stay a renter and they want yu to pay the current very high rent prices


vote for the party you think will deliver the most new homes (which may or may mot be labor)

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

If you don't build infrastructure how do people get to work?

Come on. I don't think anyone's suggesting building houses in a field with no roads, drainage or domestic services.

When discussing building houses, I (and I would think everyone else) means that you build the roads and services with them. I genuinely didn't think that needed explaining.

toby3000

Generali wrote: »

Free up planning permission for companies and individuals and they'd build more and better than the Government ever could.

British house builders are hardly building high quality housing. In fact, I believe after the crash when the government tried to get Housing Associations to buy up unwanted new-builds they couldn't because they didn't meet the basic size/quality standards they have in place.

toby3000

wotsthat wrote: »

I very much doubt that council housing has ever paid for itself.

Surely a lot of it must have? I have no idea of the figures, and obviously there were some disasters that had a very short life, but surely most council housing has had a long enough life span to have covered the cost of building it? Obviously RTB will have messed up the economics of it, but even then it should have paid for itself when you factor in the sale price (even at the reduced prices).

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How many houses would £50bn build?

It's not even lost money. The built houses would provide a calculated income.

Add in the fact that money could be saved on housing benefits (by taking the tenant out of private and into the buildings we own) and the money goes even further.

The taxpayer builds the houses (£xbn), pays the rent for the occupants in-perpetuity and then, because the occupant has 'paid' the rent for x years they get gifted the property and sell to private landlords.

No money lost there.