Can you argue against the greens?

Graham_Devon

You might think it will be quite an easy task to argue against a Green party spokesperson.

So I put something to you...

Today, locally, I heard someone from the Green party stating that when it comes to housing, the mainstream parties are "doing the same thing and expecting a different result".

By that, he meant relying on, and incentivising private builders to build the amount of homes the UK needs and dig us out of the problem we face.

At no point over the last 60 years have private builders built the amount of homes we have needed. We've incentivised them time and time again, but te amount they build, over the long term, is pretty much static.

So can you argue against what the Greens are saying? Or do we have to simply admit that council type housing is needed if we ever want to build enough homes?

stator

I wouldn't attempt to, I've been advocating council lead building for ages :beer:

However their policies on Nuclear Power and HS2 rule them out for me

Cornucopia

Is there any information on what prevents houses from being built? I'd be particularly interested to know where planning approval features.

More generally, I suspect that if the UK went Green in isolation (from the rest of the World), it could be incredibly damaging.

Generali

I think the point they're missing is why Britain doesn't build enough houses. That she doesn't is clear but that's not the same thing as saying that more houses couldn't be built in a better way.

For example, forcing developers to build 'affordable' housing probably doesn't help the number of houses being builtm Ditto the multi year battle that developers face simply to get a house built.

What was successful in the past was building New Towns and before that the Garden Cities. Designating an area of land to put thousands of new homes on.

Why not do it the Aussie way? Create a new town/suburb and have a range of plot sizes and a range of pre-approved houses you can put on those plots.

Thrugelmir

Words don't build houses. People with skills do. Along with the required materials.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

I think the point they're missing is why Britain doesn't build enough houses. That she doesn't is clear but that's not the same thing as saying that more houses couldn't be built in a better way.

For example, forcing developers to build 'affordable' housing probably doesn't help the number of houses being builtm Ditto the multi year battle that developers face simply to get a house built.

What was successful in the past was building New Towns and before that the Garden Cities. Designating an area of land to put thousands of new homes on.

Why not do it the Aussie way? Create a new town/suburb and have a range of plot sizes and a range of pre-approved houses you can put on those plots.

I think that it would be hard to get the necessary density with regard to plot sizes by doing in the Aussie way, but agree re new towns. Even in relatively built up Herts, there's far less urbanisation in the east of the county. You could easily fit a couple of smaller, additional towns in there.

princeofpounds

It's a totally stupid argument, or rather a stupid solution to a misunderstood argument. The only reason the private sector can't build a bigger number of houses is planning permission. They have been further hindered by the associated Section 106 and other building taxes which form part of the system. There has been a problem with financing in the years immediately after the 09 Lehman crisis, but you can see from the chart that is a secondary issue.


It's not hard to see; the cost of building a modest house is not high, it is the scarcity of building land that makes it expensive. For the price I bought my house, I could have built 3 equivalent houses on the field at the edge of the village, if bought at agricultural land prices.


There is nothing special about this; many people who are priced out could easily afford to build a home doing the same.


Plus, it has been done before. The private sector alone was able to build 300k houses a year in the 1930s, quite easily. A bigger number than almost any point on the chart above. Then there was a war, and then planning in its modern form came along.


The only reason state housing is supposedly required now is because it gets an easy pass through the obstacles the state itself puts in our way.


So it really annoys me that people like the greens think the solution to a problem is the same originator as the problem itself. But then they probably ultimately want to collectivise all land ownership anyway.

CLAPTON

it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider the implications of make a level playing field between new and pre-existing houses by levying the same taxes and levies on both.

What is the logic of levying a tax to building social housing on new house sales and not on already loved house sales?

princeofpounds

What is the logic of levying a tax to building social housing on new house sales and not on already loved house sales?

Not sure there is one. At least for society - there is a perfect rent-seeking logic for the local government.


As much as I complain about planning, I do think there is a case for some infrastructure contribution from new housing.


It works perfectly well for utilities; you pay for a connection to be established based on some economic principles which, whilst not perfect, do roughly reflect the cost involved.


But for planning permission given by councils, these contributions are often totally arbitrary. For example, one council I know has decided that they would like to make new house buyers pay for swimming pools, and so have come up with an arbitrary 'swimming pool contribution' for every new house, along with associated bureaucrat to manage it (because these are complex calculations involving at least four numbers on a calculator you know).


God forbid the customers of swimming pools should pay for swimming pools, or that general taxation should pay for them if they are a valuable public service.


But I have no object to, for example, councils specifying the quality of roads they will end up adopting to match those already in existence, perhaps ordering the installation of a bus shelter on a large development, etc.


But for social housing, there is no logical link.


For the council though, it makes loads of sense. Through the mechanism of planning permission, they control ALL the building land and ALL the uses it can be put to (or at least the categorisation of uses). That's pretty Stalinist, to be honest.


So why not demand a price for this very valuable asset you have? People are coerced into paying it.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

princeofpounds wrote: »

So it really annoys me that people like the greens think the solution to a problem is the same originator as the problem itself. But then they probably ultimately want to collectivise all land ownership anyway.

Nail on the !!!!ing head right there.

When Bennett had her car crash on LBC, I realised after a while that she was serious. She actually thought she was going to be able to build hundreds of thousands of homes by axing BTL mortgage interest relief. Obviously it wouldn't raise the required cash to buy the land, so she would allow the state to appropriate it. Steal it, in other words.

With that, and her "state wage" garbage, it's clear she's nothing but a washed up communist. No thanks.

Back to the OP, as stated above, the solution is simple and cheap - relax planning restrictions. The provincial city I live in 2 hours away from London has at least half a dozen law firms with a planning law department. Around 100 solicitors drafting section 106's all day for corporate clients to satisfy the whims of local authority - totally unneccesary. I'm married to one, and even she can see the pure folly.

Kendall80

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Nail on the !!!!ing head right there.

When Bennett had her car crash on LBCQUOTE]


That woman is one big car crash. Whenever I watch her i'm always waiting for the next mistake.


Caroline Lucas would be a far more competent leader.