Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

If you want to involve party politics in this, right to buy was first mooted in Labour's 1959 manifesto.

Just look at graph and that tells the story. Some posters on here are so blinkered towards the Tories they can't see they make mistakes just as Labour have,obviously being blinkered is not confined to the Tory supporters.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Not in the interests of all the people, in the best interests of the city. We need more houses, the private sector isn't building enough and has never been able to build enough. Building houses is something councils can do and have done successfully in the past. The solution is obvious.

The private sector isn't building enough due to the planning rules and regulation.

In the period when there was large council house building taking place the general situation was somewhat different. Much war damage, vast areas of slums etc
The council allocated vast amounts of land as suitable for redevelopment and didn't apply the current draconic planning rules.
If the councils zoned sufficient areas for redevelopment then the private sector would build.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem as I see it that some people seem to think that only the private sector can solve the problem and others think only the state while what is needed is a mixture of both. I really can't see how you can build enough property in London and surrounding areas to bring prices down to a level where low paid workers could afford to rent let alone buy without help from government.

Presumably you mean you don't think that it is possible to build sufficient housing for peoples needs?
If we had enough then the price would fall whether or not that was council housing or private housing.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

Presumably you mean you don't think that it is possible to build sufficient housing for peoples needs?
If we had enough then the price would fall whether or not that was council housing or private housing.

Yes that is exactly what I mean, not for the country as a whole but London and the surrounding area. Out of interest how many properties do you think would need to be built in greater London to reduce rents by 60%. Your faith in private house building continues to astound me.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes that is exactly what I mean, not for the country as a whole but London and the surrounding area. Out of interest how many properties do you think would need to be built in greater London to reduce rents by 60%. Your faith in private house building continues to astound me.

my question was whether it is possible to build sufficient to meet the needs of the people whether or not they are privately owned or owned by the state?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

my question was whether it is possible to build sufficient to meet the needs of the people whether or not they are privately owned or owned by the state?

That's the question I answered but just to be clear I do not think it is possible to build enough property in London to meets the needs of all the people. By that I mean build enough properties to enable everybody to buy or rent with out help from government, you have to remember we live in the real world not a theoretical one. Why don't you answer my question how many properties do you think need to be built in greater London to reduce rents by 60%.

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

The private sector isn't building enough due to the planning rules and regulation.

In the period when there was large council house building taking place the general situation was somewhat different. Much war damage, vast areas of slums etc
The council allocated vast amounts of land as suitable for redevelopment and didn't apply the current draconic planning rules.
If the councils zoned sufficient areas for redevelopment then the private sector would build.

The current planning rules aren't that bad that they stop development. But private companies will build houses in a way that maximises profits. They won't consider local needs, or transport infrastructure. They also don't want to build too much so that prices will fall.

But the main problem is the land owners, they want too much money for any land that might be developed on. If the council 'zones' land for development the price of the land will increase and actually put off most development. Hence why councils using compulsory purchase orders could get the system moving.

thequant

stator wrote: »

No, obviously in that sentance I was talking about something Maggie STARTED

No where did I ever say the Blair or anyone else post Thatcher did a good job of building houses, quite the opposite. Since Maggie's reforms house building has been woeful under all governments. Primarily because nobody has reversed them and reintroduced council's building whole estates.

She had the idea of leaving it to the private sector, which completely and uttery failed. Quoting total houses build whilst she was prime minister is irrelevant since she didn't magically change the rules as soon as she came to power. If you look at the statistics you'll see that houses being built per year went down under Thatcher.

Here's a lovely graph since you can't understand what I am saying with basic english:


So you can see that Thatcher cut the number of council houses built and successive governments carried on with her policy. It has failed.

Don't forget John Prescott pathfinder scheme, which actively destroyed council house stock without it being replaced.


In one place in the northeast, in the mid 00's, council waiting lists were none existent. If you presented yourself to the council as homeless you were quickly housed.


Then came along John Prescott, whole council estates were demolished and not replaced. Those who owned their own homes had them compulsory purchased below market value. the council refused to home them because they had money from the sale. This money was then exhausted on private rentals. When said people went back to the council when the money ran out. They were told there's not enough council houses and these people are now living in B&B's


Maggie might have sold off the council stock, but at least that housing still existed. Until Labour came along and demolished it.


The policies of the Tories, did start the current housing problem. However that was due to ignorance as there was the belief that the Thacherite economic policy of monetarism in that private sector would pick up the slack.


However what did Labour, was not exacerbate the housing shortage through ignorance, they did it deliberately by flattening people's home.


Truly unforgiveable

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

That's the question I answered but just to be clear I do not think it is possible to build enough property in London to meets the needs of all the people. By that I mean build enough properties to enable everybody to buy or rent with out help from government, you have to remember we live in the real world not a theoretical one. Why don't you answer my question how many properties do you think need to be built in greater London to reduce rents by 60%.

If you believe that it is not possible to satisfy the housing needs of all the people then you have your own answer already, but my own best guess is
3,145,562.5

This is assuming that housing benefit is unreformed, immigration continues, economy continues to improve, Putin doesn't invade, SNP don't declare UDI

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

The current planning rules aren't that bad that they stop development. But private companies will build houses in a way that maximises profits. They won't consider local needs, or transport infrastructure. They also don't want to build too much so that prices will fall.

But the main problem is the land owners, they want too much money for any land that might be developed on. If the council 'zones' land for development the price of the land will increase and actually put off most development. Hence why councils using compulsory purchase orders could get the system moving.

the current planning rules are sufficiently complicated and expensive that it is often the case that there are only a few large builders able to compete.
If larger areas were zoned for development, the scarcity and hence the price would fall and would allow more smaller builders to compete.

I do a think that some of the scarcity value of land should be socialised (i.e. heavily taxed) for the benefit of the community and so fund infrastructure and social amenities.