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

Crashy_Time

cells wrote: »

if London had an occupancy rate of 2.0 - 2.1 it would imo be very affordable.

So for london to BOTH grow to 10 million persons by the year 2040 and to have truly affordable homes it needs 4.7m - 5.0 million homes. Currently there are about 3.5m homes. So London needs some 1.2 - 1.5 million homes over the next 25 years

or 48k to 60k new homes per year

the GLA target for new builds is i believe 48k new homes a year.....what London achieves is less than half of that

Cells, your frantic multiple posting makes you seem very desperate, are you by any chance a BTL landlord with very large mortgage debts? :rotfl:

jjlandlord

antrobus wrote: »

Anything else is simply a case of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Or of fishing for votes ahead of an elections... People do believe all these promises although they spend the rest of the time berating politicians for being full of hot air.

- If you vote for us we'll make your rent cheaper.
- How?
- We'll just force your landlord.
- Genius!

They play the same tune on energy bills, salaries, etc.

We should really launch a campaign to complain that cars are unfairly high-priced, and they'll promise to have all cars sell for £5k.

That somehow reminds me of something... Wasn't that tried somewhere during the 20th century?

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

You must be thinking of a different country. That's not the history of Singapore.

My bad.. It may be the work of fiction or a poor memory. It was an article I read in the 70s in a dentists waiting room magazine (might even have been the Readers Digest).

IIRC, the story went that a number of private landlords gained a grip on a major share of the private rental market and then colluded on prices. The government was trying to discourage this and spread ownership while encouraging personal saving via special funds (provident funds). The state gained control of the private rental market by what the article referred to as "nationalisation".

I've read about these savings and funds elsewhere but not the landlord thing. Then again, I don't know what censorship and freedom of speech/publication is like there, and I don't know how that process fits in with their current attitude to foreign investment; might be something not to go on about.

This article covers some of the current housing situation. The time the original article was referring to may well have been the 60s.

Maybe my poor memory then. It just struck me at the time that it was an unusual step in a westernised economy. Communist countries did stuff like that all the time.

Edit: looks like it happened in 1966 -there's a link in a later post.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

you are assuming ocupancy rate needs to stay stead which is silly....

The correct term is average household size

The occupancy rate for housing is something different. It relates to the proprtion of housing that is occupied, rather than not being occupied, as in vacant.

As far as I can see there is no relationship between average household size and the affordability of property.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

Or of fishing for votes ahead of an elections... People do believe all these promises although they spend the rest of the time berating politicians for being full of hot air.

- If you vote for us we'll make your rent cheaper.
- How?
- We'll just force your landlord.
- Genius!

They play the same tune on energy bills, salaries, etc.

We should really launch a campaign to complain that cars are unfairly high-priced, and they'll promise to have all cars sell for £5k.

That somehow reminds me of something... Wasn't that tried somewhere during the 20th century?

Except this is all a straw man argument, as no party, or indeed, MP has suggested they will "make rents cheaper".

What they have said is that they will look to introduce rent controls. Which means that when your rent gets more expensive, it doesn't increase above the level of inflation.

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

.....This article covers some of the current housing situation. ....

The article does say that;

Recent rapid population increases in a low interest rate and high global liquidity environment has resulted in accelerated house prices increases in Singapore.

A bit like the UK then.

And then goes on to say that the "Singapore housing market is unusual" because of the "extensive intervention of the government in regulating housing supply and demand in both the HDB and private housing sectors".

Which would lead one to conclude that extensive government intervention hasn't prevented acclerated house price increases.

NB. HDB = Housing & Development Board - Singapore's public housing authority

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....What they have said is that they will look to introduce rent controls. Which means that when your rent gets more expensive, it doesn't increase above the level of inflation.

That's not what Ed M was promising last time he got vaguely specific on the matter. He was proposing that "An 'upper limit', on rises will be put in place based on average market rates".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27225421

jjlandlord

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What they have said is that they will look to introduce rent controls. Which means that when your rent gets more expensive, it doesn't increase above the level of inflation.

Which would make rents cheaper...

If this caps increases to an amount less that it would otherwise have been, it makes rents cheaper than they should have been.
If his caps increases to no more than inflation it makes rents cheaper in real terms.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

Which would make rents cheaper...

If this caps increases to an amount less that it would otherwise have been, it makes rents cheaper than they should have been.
If his caps increases to no more than inflation it makes rents cheaper in real terms.

Right.

So an increase in prices makes things cheaper....

.....Based on the assumption that the increase could have been higher?

You learn some idiotic piece of information every day here. I take it train ticket prices are cheaper every year? As they too are pegged to inflation.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right.

So an increase in prices makes things cheaper....

.....Based on the assumption that the increase could have been higher?

You learn some idiotic piece of information every day here. I take it train ticket prices are cheaper every year? As they too are pegged to inflation.

Graham, he obviously means:

Potentially cheaper than they might otherwise be, if allowed to be increased above the rate of inflation.