Rents soar to (another) record high

mayonnaise

stator wrote: »

Abolish green belt. No need for them to be in London anymore :money:

No, let's not destroy our last bits of urban green just to pander to a low effort, instant gratification generation.

stator

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, let's not destroy our last bits of urban green just to pander to a low effort, instant gratification generation.

Baby boomers?

lisyloo

Baby boomers?

Huh?
Most of them have experienced sacrifice, a good work ethic.

Some have been lucky to retire early due to increased longevity, but why do you think they are low effort and instant gratification.
I'm Gen X and I remember different times when we didn't have credit, so there was no instant gratification and I'm younger than them.

cepheus

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects Sep 20
On introducing rent controls on private landlords:
Support - 70%
Oppose - 19%
(via YouGov / 17 - 18 Sep)

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects Sep 20
On introducing rent controls on private landlords:
Support - 70%
Oppose - 19%
(via YouGov / 17 - 18 Sep)

that probably represents people's view

but will rent controls

-increase the total number of properties being built
-change the balance between OO and rented
-improve or restrict peoples' ability to move for job opportunities
-improve or restrict peoples' ability to move due to family increase/decrease
-provide housing for the 630,000 arrivals in the UK each year
-provide housing for the 800,000 leaving their parents home each year?

etc

Sapphire

It's all the fault of the baby boomers, don't you know? :T:j:beer::rotfl:

chucknorris

cepheus wrote: »

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects Sep 20
On introducing rent controls on private landlords:
Support - 70%
Oppose - 19%
(via YouGov / 17 - 18 Sep)

The devil is the detail though! What exactly were they voting/polling on? and who was being polled/voting?

When the labour party were talking about rent controls before the election it was simply that rents couldn't be increased more than inflation during the rental agreement (they were proposing something like a 3 year duration). That is a very different scenario to the rent controls of the past.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, let's not destroy our last bits of urban green just to pander to a low effort, instant gratification generation.

Errr, wouldn't that apply to anyone who's ever bought any house?

They were all built on once green land.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

"Bought to rent" and "built to rent" are two completely different things.

Not in the case of newbuilds.

As has been explained to you many times, most newbuild houses are built to order, they usually don't build them on spec and wait for them to sell...

The trigger for a house to get built is the order from a customer.

If more customers show up, they'll build more houses, and if fewer customers show up they'll build fewer houses.

There is currently something like a 3 year supply at current build rates of plots with planning permission.

Mortgage rationing continues to be the main obstacle to getting more houses built...

And restricting the ability of landlords to buy just means fewer houses get built.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not in the case of newbuilds.

It really is the case.

The houses you mention are not specifically built to rent out.

They are built to sell to whoever buys them.

Built to rent, as you implied, is building a property which can only be rented out and not sold on the open market.

This is basic stuff