May promises to help first time buyers

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

After 2020 what's the likelihood of the triple lock being retained?

I guess it depends on how much the Tories think they need those votes. After all Labour can promise to keep it without having to worry about how to afford it.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

I guess it depends on how much the Tories think they need those votes. After all Labour can promise to keep it without having to worry about how to afford it.

I don't see this as an issue to cause a huge swing to the Labour party. If Labour commit to keep it. What's their plan to fund it. Words are easy. As part of a cohesive plan to control the budget spend and keep the deficit reducing a different matter. If the choice is NHS or pensions the outcome seems fairly predictable.

People are at least starting to auto enrol into pension schemes. So the tide has turned.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Even if London population growth went to zero London is going to need 800,000-1,000,000 additional homes to account for a lower occupancy rate (primarily driven by single occupancy demand)

At the current build rate of ~25k units a year (assuming that could be sustained while wages and materials and regulations go up but real house prices go down) it would take 30-40 years

The same applies notionally with a need for 5-7 million additional homes even with a static population

your solution to this problem is to deliberately introduce another 1.5 million (or more) people into london over the next 10 years instead

good plan.

wymondham

Just keep intimidating Carney to put up rates - that'll sort the housing market out, help savers and annoy Carney - job done!

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

your solution to this problem is to deliberately introduce another 1.5 million (or more) people into london over the next 10 years instead

good plan.

I'm not sure there is a huge problem even in London

Last time I checked if I am not mistaken London had an occupancy rate of 2.45 vs 2.30 for the rest of the uk (rounded to the nearest 0.05)

A solution would be to reduce London over supply of social homes. inner east London is >60% social homes. Islington/Tower-Hamelets/Hackney/Southwark are all >40%. If overall the London social stock was sold down to the UK average and those people moved out to rUK then London occupancy rate would be lower than rUK. There is no need for 40-60% of inner London to be social homes especially when some 60% of those homes have not a single tenant works yet are within walking distance of the three big London employment hubs of westminster city docklands. That is my solution

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I'm not sure there is a huge problem even in London

Last time I checked if I am not mistaken London had an occupancy rate of 2.45 vs 2.30 for the rest of the uk (rounded to the nearest 0.05)

A solution would be to reduce London over supply of social homes. inner east London is >60% social homes. Islington/Tower-Hamelets/Hackney/Southwark are all >40%. If overall the London social stock was sold down to the UK average and those people moved out to rUK then London occupancy rate would be lower than rUK. There is no need for 40-60% of inner London to be social homes especially when some 60% of those homes have not a single tenant works yet are within walking distance of the three big London employment hubs of westminster city docklands. That is my solution

yes indeed but that isn't going to happen.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes indeed but that isn't going to happen.

none of the solutions are easy politically

did the Tories not bring in something about councils having to sell their most expensive social homes as they become vacant

ruggedtoast

May promises to help first time buyers. Like a fox promises to help succulent little chickens.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

May promises to help first time buyers. Like a fox promises to help succulent little chickens.

still can't bring yourself to discuss actual policies
only nonsense anger and (faux) rage : how are your parents theses days toxic?

ruggedtoast

And true to form, along comes a non succulent, stringy, old c0ck.