Homes in the UK still very cheap/affordable

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

my post questioned whether you believe there is scope for producing more goods and service per working person over the next few years.
Only a 'remain' bigot could possibly misunderstand that simple neutral question.

What has that to do with how affordable or not homes are in the various regions of the UK?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

What has that to do with how affordable or not homes are in the various regions of the UK?

that would be obvious to a fair minded intelligent person

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

that would be obvious to a fair minded intelligent person

maybe get back on track with this tread, there are more than enough dedicated brexit threads for you to post on.


homes in most the uk are affordable/cheap.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

maybe get back on track with this tread, there are more than enough dedicated brexit threads for you to post on.


homes in most the uk are affordable/cheap.

agreed ..........................................

gfplux

Filo25 wrote: »

I was under the impression though that there isn't actually much of a shortage of airport capacity in the rest of the country, Manchester certainly is running at well below capacity, its only an issue in London and the South East to the best of my knowledge. You could increase capacity all you like but if the demand isn't there it won't generate additional flights or long term economic benefits.

Good point Filo, however my argument is with the cause of the demand. If you keep feeding the demand without thinking how to encourage demand elsewhere.
For all I know the demand for more capacity is from the airlines. If they ABSOLUTELY knew that no more capacity was being created at Heathrow and Gatwick they would try to build business in the other airports. That then might put pressure on the Government to improve the road and rail links. That means no extra run ways AND no night time flights OR shorter more dangerous gaps between landings.
Who knows.
What I do know. If we do nothing to discourage the flow of people to the South East we are doing a disservice to the rest of the country.

[Deleted User]

I guess UK homes are now more affordable if you're buying them with a deposit saved in Euros!

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

Good point Filo, however my argument is with the cause of the demand. If you keep feeding the demand without thinking how to encourage demand elsewhere.
For all I know the demand for more capacity is from the airlines. If they ABSOLUTELY knew that no more capacity was being created at Heathrow and Gatwick they would try to build business in the other airports. That then might put pressure on the Government to improve the road and rail links. That means no extra run ways AND no night time flights OR shorter more dangerous gaps between landings.
Who knows.
What I do know. If we do nothing to discourage the flow of people to the South East we are doing a disservice to the rest of the country.

in would seem the government has been pursuing that very policy for the last 20 years and more.

cells

gfplux wrote: »

Good point Filo, however my argument is with the cause of the demand. If you keep feeding the demand without thinking how to encourage demand elsewhere.
For all I know the demand for more capacity is from the airlines. If they ABSOLUTELY knew that no more capacity was being created at Heathrow and Gatwick they would try to build business in the other airports. That then might put pressure on the Government to improve the road and rail links. That means no extra run ways AND no night time flights OR shorter more dangerous gaps between landings.
Who knows.
What I do know. If we do nothing to discourage the flow of people to the South East we are doing a disservice to the rest of the country.

The disservice is trying to stop the flow, people and businesses move to particular areas as they are more productive in those areas this is despite quite a high business rates differential eg a 2000 sqm office in the middle of stoke probably has a rates of close to £0 after the small business reliefs while the same in zone 1 might be closer to £500,000 rates.

Instead of trying to do that the government should realize the councils made a silly mistake by overbuilding council homes in zone 2 London (some areas are 60% council homes) and they should sell off that council stock down towards 20% and move the non working residents to stoke-on-trent.

If I am not mistaken there are 1.2 million residents in social homes in London where no one in the household works. If you move those 1.2 million out, another 0.6 million persons will follow this demand resulting in circa 1.8 million fewer people (0.6 million fewer jobs) in London.

If this was done over a 20 year period it would stabilize the population and #jobs in London while rUK would grow by ~8-10 million persons and 4-5 million jobs.

Rich2808

cells wrote: »

The disservice is trying to stop the flow, people and businesses move to particular areas as they are more productive in those areas this is despite quite a high business rates differential eg a 2000 sqm office in the middle of stoke probably has a rates of close to £0 after the small business reliefs while the same in zone 1 might be closer to £500,000 rates.

Instead of trying to do that the government should realize the councils made a silly mistake by overbuilding council homes in zone 2 London (some areas are 60% council homes) and they should sell off that council stock down towards 20% and move the non working residents to stoke-on-trent.

If I am not mistaken there are 1.2 million residents in social homes in London where no one in the household works. If you move those 1.2 million out, another 0.6 million persons will follow this demand resulting in circa 1.8 million fewer people (0.6 million fewer jobs) in London.

If this was done over a 20 year period it would stabilize the population and #jobs in London while rUK would grow by ~8-10 million persons and 4-5 million jobs.

It's a nice idea but it's never going to happen.

These social tenants mostly have lifetime security of tenure and more significantly they vote Labour - and Labour run most local councils. Most of the workless households comprise pensioners and the disabled and single parents and are disproportionately from BME groups - imagine the horror and outrage and cries of racism if any one suggested moving them to Stoke. No one cared when average earners were socially cleansed by rising house prices from inner London - but they would never do it to the workless poor.

cells

Rich2808 wrote: »

It's a nice idea but it's never going to happen.

These social tenants mostly have lifetime security of tenure and more significantly they vote Labour - and Labour run most local councils. Most of the workless households comprise pensioners and the disabled and single parents and are disproportionately from BME groups - imagine the horror and outrage and cries of racism if any one suggested moving them to Stoke. No one cared when average earners were socially cleansed by rising house prices from inner London - but they would never do it to the workless poor.

Something like 5% of the social stock becomes vacant each year as people move on or die. Within z1-z3 those homes should not be relet but sold off.

Another option is to possibly give the tenants £100k to move out of London. For that £100k they can buy outright a home in stoke. The council can then sell the vacated flat in inner London for £300-600k the government pockets the difference and we get a population decline and jobs moving out of London to Stoke

Yes indeed its unlikely to happen but so are all the other proposals of building more homes or convincing businesses to move to stoke without moving the demand.