Brown to build 3 million homes - Impact?

Turnbull2000

Melissa177 wrote: »

That said, I do wonder why people work for the government in our public services if they don't think the pay is that great. People make an economic decision when they take a job, and there are big benefits (ie, fewer working hours, decent pensions) to being a public sector worker. I refuse to believe that public sector workers are that hard up if the gov isn't having a problem recruiting.

The public sector being rewarded with a generous pension and holiday entitlements in lieu of lower pay is a bygone era, Melissa. There are numerous resources and reviews that show public sector pay overtook the private sector around 2004-2005.

The most recent public v private salary review is from the OME http://www.ome.uk.com/

The review is entitled 'The public-private sector wage differential for Full-time male employees in Britain'. However, this is for male employees only. And I quote...

The earnings gap between public and private sector employees is 11.7 per cent: Male full-time public sector employees earn 11.7 per cent more on average than do male full-time private sector employees.

Public sector graduate pay overtook private sector in 2006. From http://www.consultant-news.com

The Hay Group research reveals that for the first time, public sector starter salaries are above those being offered in the private sector.

The average salary for a graduate going into the public sector will be £21,445 this year – 7% above the average private sector wage of £20,035.

So in comparison to the private sector, you now have higher pay, a far more generous pension scheme that requires much lower employee contributions, retirement age up to 7 years earlier, higher annual leave entitlement, paid overtime and time-in-lieu, and little threat of the sack.

littlesaint

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

.....the two could go hand in hand, I think the birthrate among Asian families is four times that of traditional western families. As more folk enter from Asia, it would seem to make sense that those homes will be used up, as the younger generation of immigrants get away from the traditional Type 37 housing.

At least many more traditional Asian families use housing efficiently: they get married, have kids, stay together and invite gran to live with them too. So you get five or six people living in a house for four (or smaller). Whereas many non-Asian people in Britain are more wasteful with housing - ending up with the ridiculous scenario where one person is living in a three bedroom house.

One of the problems in this country is a lot of us are living in the wrong type of housing. You'll get the single young professionals who should be living in studios/one bed flats housesharing large properties, families of four living in two bedrooms flats, elderly people living on their own in four bedroom houses and so on.

There is enough housing for everybody, just not enough fiscal incentives to get people to use housing efficientley. I was heartened to learn recently that the high interest rates are encouraging families to look for lodgers - at least some people are doing their bit.

ceridwen

hi littlesaint

Sounds like we're now going into people having 2nd home territory! But yes - we do need incentives to encourage people to use existing housing more efficiently - and one of the first has to be discouraging 2nd homes. I have read it stated before that there is enough housing already in the country - if it is all used to live in. Needs must - if otherwise it is the drowning in a sea of concrete scenario! We do need to retain our countryside. There is all sorts of aspects to be considered here - and urgently - dont recall anyone making the point yet re the deliberate single-parent families (ie women who deliberately get pregnant, despite not being in a proper relationship of any description) - yet more housing need somewhere along the line too (we obviously need financial disencentives to get these women to think twice before getting pregnant).

Gorgeous_George

No Stamp Duty when downsizing would be a start.

Neither me nor my next door neighbours have kids at home and we have 9 bedrooms between us. I'm sure if I counted up the spare bedrooms in the street it would be more than 50%. That's until the kids and their partners and their kids turn up. Oh, and mother-in-law. I need a bigger house.



GG

Fulham_Mark

It's not 3 million additional homes as i understand it.

We build 120,000 new homes a year and need 200,000 a year apparently.

The 3 million figure comes form

1 - 120,000 each year that already get built
2 - additional homes that could be built on brown field and government land.
assuming the ALL get planning permission etc etc.

I think the effect is 50-60,000 additional homes per year max.

Goverment land is probably not where people want to live and god i hope they don't turn every disused military airfield into a Runcorn.

Remember that he's actually going to make quite a tidy profit from selling the land to developers right at the peak of the market.

And has made billions over the last ten years from stamp duty and somehow forgot to use any of this tax income on new housing until now...

If you live in a city i don't think there will be a big impact, if you live next to un-used goverment land then maybe it will.

Just my thoughts...

Guy_Montag

littlesaint wrote: »

You'll get the single young professionals who should be living in studios/one bed flats housesharing large properties,

I get you point about other things, but no-one, I repeat no-one, should have to live in a studio.

Generali

Guy_Montag wrote: »

1) If we actually see it I'll be surprised
2) It's going to culminate in 2020, we're not looking at 2 million new houses next year.

3 million by 2020. Hmm. There are no interim targets as far as I know so it's pretty unlikely they'll all be built.

If I were in BTL, I'd be sweating about increased amounts social housing being built myself. The queues for council housing are collossal. Presumably, most of those people are in privately rented accomodation at the moment. If our Scottish Socialist in Number 10 comes through on his threat to let councils build a load more slums of the future, there goes the supply of tennants.

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I think we need to encourage business out of london - so we should cut business rates to zero in the north east, & other depressed areas.

It worked for Docklands, the most successful post-war government regeneration policy that I'm aware of. Putting all these government jobs up north is just making things worse for them.

According to The Sunday Times, almost 60% of the GDP of NE England is government spending. It's almost 2/3rds in Northern Ireland. Get the government out of it and get businesses in there to create real jobs that create real wealth.

Guy_Montag

Generali wrote: »

3 million by 2020. Hmm. There are no interim targets as far as I know so it's pretty unlikely they'll all be built.

If I were in BTL, I'd be sweating about increased amounts social housing being built myself. The queues for council housing are collossal. Presumably, most of those people are in privately rented accomodation at the moment. If our Scottish Socialist in Number 10 comes through on his threat to let councils build a load more slums of the future, there goes the supply of tennants.

It worked for Docklands, the most successful post-war government regeneration policy that I'm aware of. Putting all these government jobs up north is just making things worse for them.

According to The Sunday Times, almost 60% of the GDP of NE England is government spending. It's almost 2/3rds in Northern Ireland. Get the government out of it and get businesses in there to create real jobs that create real wealth.

I think we've had this discussion before - I heard 40% & 50% respectively for the NE & NI - but it probably comes down to how you count it. The fact remains that in both cases it's too much. (Having said that in the case of NI it's basically bribing people not to fight too much & blow up parts of Belfast/Manchester/London).

Of course the labour party thrives in areas of deprivation & low entrepreneurship (is that a word).

epz_2

Generali wrote: »

3 million by 2020. Hmm. There are no interim targets as far as I know so it's pretty unlikely they'll all be built.

If I were in BTL, I'd be sweating about increased amounts social housing being built myself. The queues for council housing are collossal. Presumably, most of those people are in privately rented accomodation at the moment. If our Scottish Socialist in Number 10 comes through on his threat to let councils build a load more slums of the future, there goes the supply of tennants.

as apposed to the btl slums we are getting now lol

seriously though if someone were to throw up council houses (dear god dont let the council build them) with a minimum of say 25% private housing with restrictive rental covanants and an enhanced right to buy sceme it might prevent the areas being turned to slums.

in my opinion its the people that actually own a place than keep it together, council tenents dont give a monkeys usually and private renters can just move.

Generali wrote: »

It worked for Docklands, the most successful post-war government regeneration policy that I'm aware of. Putting all these government jobs up north is just making things worse for them.

According to The Sunday Times, almost 60% of the GDP of NE England is government spending. It's almost 2/3rds in Northern Ireland. Get the government out of it and get businesses in there to create real jobs that create real wealth.

tell me about it i am up in the socialist hell hole of scotland where almost everyone is either on benifits or working for the government in some way.

frankly as i really hope they scrap the banrnet formula soon, its mental listening to people in their 20s talking about getting put on long term sick so they dont need to make the biweekly visit to the dole office and pretend they want a job !!!!!!.

littlesaint

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I get you point about other things, but no-one, I repeat no-one, should have to live in a studio.

As it happens, I agree with you. I would rather live in a shared house any day. I was exaggerating for dramatic effect.