Corbyn promises 'radical reboot' of council house building to tackle housing crisis

CLAPTON

MS1950 wrote: »

Well here's an apparently 'prize winning' alternative view published by the Adam Smith Institute promoting 'sweeping deregulation'......

But I'm not entirely sure whether it's intended to be satire or not....?

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/britain-needs-more-slums/

I don't understand your point.

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

Tender

"make a formal written offer to carry out work, supply goods, or buy land, shares, or another asset for a stated fixed price."

currently the council tenders for a developer to

1)buy the land, and agree to build a certain number of affordable houses to be sold to an HA housing trust as part of the contract (in addition to the usual HA requirement for planning (eg 50% HA instead of the planning documents usual 25%)
2) enter a JV agreement with a developer, by which the developer will submit plans on behalf of the council and then build the plans for either cash or for a share of sales proceeds (depends on the scheme)

how is this different from tendering as detailed in the post I quoted.. at the end of the day, the work will be done by the private sector, much as it is now, and so, costs wont fall, without a significant decrease in planning restrictions, which will benefit the private sector as well, who have the expertise and knowledge to implement schemes.

I don't believe this is what Corbyn is proposing but rather public funding of the building (whether by direct labour or by private builders).

MS1950

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand your point.

I posted it as an illustration of where it's possible to end up if you propose 'deregulation' as the solution to the problem.......

silvercar

and some Tories are cynically joining Labour and voting for Corbyn in the cynical view he's unelectable. Could they end up kicking themselves.

I know lots of tories who are doing this!

CLAPTON

MS1950 wrote: »

I posted it as an illustration of where it's possible to end up if you propose 'deregulation' as the solution to the problem.......

If it meets the needs of the potential users and the alternative is nothing at all, then I'm all in favour.

martinsurrey

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't believe this is what Corbyn is proposing but rather public funding of the building (whether by direct labour or by private builders).

so again, where is the cash going to come from? unfunded borrowing? and how will the cash be repaid, if all of the houses are used as social housing?

In an indirect route this already happens, a housing association gets its funds from the government, and uses them to buy affordable housing from the developers with the developer funding the build (generally 60% is paid on completion of the units), will this reduce the funds available to HA's?

and this doesn't reduce the main bottle neck, land and planning.

A nice headline, but not thought out very well.

MS1950

CLAPTON wrote: »

If it meets the needs of the potential users and the alternative is nothing at all, then I'm all in favour.

Well then - as I've suspected for some time - satire is dead as it's been overtaken by reality.....

For those who didn't get round to following the link to the Adam Smith Institute article I posted, here's a sample of what you say you're "all in favour" of:

"There has been a proliferation of not-houses in recent years, from houseboats to ‘beds-in-sheds.’ The reason is clear – Britain has a sore lack of proper slums. Government regulations designed to clamp down on ‘cowboy landlords’ restrict people’s ability to choose the kind of accommodation in which they want to live".

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/britain-needs-more-slums/

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

so again, where is the cash going to come from? unfunded borrowing? and how will the cash be repaid, if all of the houses are used as social housing?

In an indirect route this already happens, a housing association gets its funds from the government, and uses them to buy affordable housing from the developers with the developer funding the build (generally 60% is paid on completion of the units), will this reduce the funds available to HA's?

and this doesn't reduce the main bottle neck, land and planning.

A nice headline, but not thought out very well.

If social housing is going to be built, then it should be directly publicly funded rather than buyers of new builds having to fund both their own house plus social housing.

Corbyn is on record as saying he is willing to borrow more and tax more.

He has made no announcement of private sector building as far as I know.

martinsurrey

CLAPTON wrote: »

If social housing is going to be built, then it should be directly publicly funded rather than buyers of new builds having to fund both their own house plus social housing.

Corbyn is on record as saying he is willing to borrow more and tax more.

He has made no announcement of private sector building as far as I know.

So social hosing becomes more expensive to the public purse? without the subsidy from the private sector (in return for planning permission), which is passed onto new build buyers, that is the logical conclusion.

And without significant planning reform, the council would get blocked from building, by the council.

The rates HA's buy property's from developers is slightly higher than build cost, its the land cost that the private buyers subsidise, reduce the price of land and this subsidy falls away, you reduce land prices by freeing up planning (land gains value by about 1000%+ on successful planning).

I bang on about it again and again, the only way to get more houses built is to get land prices down to a sensible level, and you do that by opening up planning.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

.....The bottom line is that his policies aren't only popular with Labour voters but many others including top economists, and more importantly cynical non voters in previous elections.

The first hard truth is that the Tories didn’t win despite austerity, they won because of it. Voters did not reject Labour because they saw it as austerity lite. Voters rejected Labour because they perceived the Party as anti-austerity lite. 58% agree that, ‘we must live within our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority’. Just 16% disagree. Almost all Tories and a majority of Lib Dems and Ukip voters agree.

Labour lost because voters believed it was anti-austerity
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-lost-because-voters-believed-it-was-anti-austerity/

Least ways, that's what Jon Crudas says, based on the first findings of the Labour Party's inquiry into why it lost.