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

CLAPTON

MARTYM8` wrote: »

This would be excellent news - they can just have one massive sell off of their properties on the cheap to first time buyers.:D:D They won't of course - perhaps we need a game of call my bluff.

You can always spot the buy to let properties in any street - run down and badly maintained and often with anti social neighbours. From the perspective of owner occupiers we should welcome more homes owned by people who live there and care about the place - not absent landlords who dont as they only come round once a year to sign a new tenancy agreement!

Sorry to generalise - but its generally the case!

And frankly I have little sympathy for middle aged whingers who bought property on the cheap - and now want to profit by leeching off young people who are priced out of buying or off the taxpayer by getting their property paid for via housing benefit. Buy to let adds no value to society - it costs us big time! What we need is council housing for the poor - and owner occupier status for everyone else - it worked rather well in the 50s, 60s and 70s and much the better off society was for it

so you feel that
-the 500,000 immigrants that arrive in the UK each year should be either given council housing or be forced to buy their own property?
-and anyone leaving home for the first time should be given council housing or buy a property even though they are starting their first job with no deposit?
-or students going away to Uni get council houses or must buy

etc etc

sounds like something that Milliband will endorse very soon

antrobus

MARTYM8` wrote: »

.... What we need is council housing for the poor - and owner occupier status for everyone else - it worked rather well in the 50s, 60s and 70s and much the better off society was for it

No, the idea that council housing is only "for the poor" is a much more recent idea. As in the 'residualisation of council housing'; a post 1980s concept.

All that council housing built in the 50s, 60s and 70s was built in accordance with the original Tory conception of council housing as housing for the working class. Which would be most people.

jjlandlord

Times have changed, and for the better.

Housing for those who would otherwise not be able to find anything in the private sector, sure.
However, it is not the State's job to supply housing beyond this.

Now, I say "times have changed" but I'm no longer so sure when I read the enthusiasm for rent controls in some quarters.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

However, it is not the State's job to supply housing beyond this.

But they are - through housing benefits.

stator

jjlandlord wrote: »

Times have changed, and for the better.

Housing for those who would otherwise not be able to find anything in the private sector, sure.
However, it is not the State's job to supply housing beyond this.

I disagree. It's the state's job to look after people where the private sector has failed.
The current housing situation is clearly a farse so the government needs to step in.
Since councils were stopped from building housing we have consistently had a shortfall in the number of houses built vs the number of new houses needed. Hence the rip off house prices. The only reason it hasn't been dealt with yet is that middle class middle aged people think they have made a killing.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

I believe that's another issue, in the sense that councils always seemed to prefer the option of building a nice big council estate somewhere, so it would be a nice safe Labour ward, and allow a nice big private estate somewhere else which the Tories could have.:)

.

You do talk rubbish perhaps you can explain why many if not all Tory did exactly the same.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

I disagree. It's the state's job to look after people where the private sector has failed.
The current housing situation is clearly a farse so the government needs to step in.
Since councils were stopped from building housing we have consistently had a shortfall in the number of houses built vs the number of new houses needed. Hence the rip off house prices. The only reason it hasn't been dealt with yet is that middle class middle aged people think they have made a killing.

In what way has the private sector failed?
Why are other countries able to build more houses than us.
Do we lack the skills to build whereas they have the required skills?
Or is it our planning rules that prevent the land with planning permission from becoming available?

Try it out; go find land with planning permission near where you live.
Then try finding a local builder who would be willing to build.

Do come back and report on your experiences.

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

In what way has the private sector failed?
Why are other countries able to build more houses than us.
Do we lack the skills to build whereas they have the required skills?
Or is it our planning rules that prevent the land with planning permission from becoming available?

Try it out; go find land with planning permission near where you live.
Then try finding a local builder who would be willing to build.

Do come back and report on your experiences.

The private sector has failed because there is a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of houses per year. Maggies experiment of leaving the free market alone has failed to produce the number of houses needed, the only thing it did achieve is to make her middle class cronies rich.
The problem is mainly the land owners being greedy. But also all the S106 / CIL and social housing obligations imposed on developers. Builders can easily be trained up, that's not a problem. The solution is for the government to just compulsory purchase land for housing, build the houses, sell half of them off, keep half as social housing and use the proceeds to build more houses. Pay the land owner some compensation, based on what they were using the land for.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

The private sector has failed because there is a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of houses per year. Maggies experiment of leaving the free market alone has failed to produce the number of houses needed, the only thing it did achieve is to make her middle class cronies rich.
The problem is mainly the land owners being greedy. But also all the S106 / CIL and social housing obligations imposed on developers. Builders can easily be trained up, that's not a problem. The solution is for the government to just compulsory purchase land for housing, build the houses, sell half of them off, keep half as social housing and use the proceeds to build more houses. Pay the land owner some compensation, based on what they were using the land for.

if enough land was zoned for building, there would be plenty of people willing to buy and build.
It is the government that prevents the land being zoned for building.The government are the problem and not the solution

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

You do talk rubbish perhaps you can explain why many if not all Tory did exactly the same.

Why do you assume that I was only talking about Labour controlled councils? Why are you trying to use this thread to score party political points?