I've just watched Evan Davis talking to Andy Burnham on Newsnight... Burnham successfully said absolutely nothing of significance! Reminds me of "Yes Minister/Prime Minister" when Jim Hacker was going to put himself forward for PM!
I've just watched Evan Davis talking to Andy Burnham on Newsnight... Burnham successfully said absolutely nothing of significance! Reminds me of "Yes Minister/Prime Minister" when Jim Hacker was going to put himself forward for PM!
Here in London, we have a spatial planning document called the London Plan. This document sets out how many homes they plan to build over the next fifteen years. The London boroughs feed in their own projected housing building figures, using their own area action plans, into the London Plan. If London isn't building enough housing then you have to look at Boris Johnson's performance as he has overall responsibility for the London Plan. Currently London is building less than half of its needs.
Last year, I attended a conference at the City Hall, the home of the GLA, where I heard the reasons why the housing targets were not met. Once you understand basic planning processes then all this rhetoric about the Greens not being good at maths or the leftist failing to come up with the solution are not very helpful to this debate. The problem isn't protected land either.
One of the main problems is land banking where over 200,000 homes could be built right now since they've already gained planning permission. Currently, there are no mechanisms to force the builders to build these homes.
Last edited by Top_gun; 31-07-2015 at 01:02 PM. Reason: minor editing - no changes to meanings.
Land banking is a very large cornerstone of a lot of house building companies financial plans. You may not like it but a house building company has to own land to build on it. And you can't just snap purchase land, these things have to be thought out and considered, planning permission is never quick at the best of times and one small upset and things get delayed.
I agree, companies who's only activity is purchasing land, acquiring building permission and then re-selling when the price is right are an issue, I just don't think it's the major issue.
Steam - ReapedYou - Feel free to add me!!
Corbyn: I'll reindustrialise the North
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33771351
It begs the question "how?" though. Encouraging private sector companies with tax breaks and/or incentives or public industries with have a history of inefficiency and bureaucracy? He might be on to a vote winner though as the conservative government has u-turned on the rail infrastructure in the north in relation to their "northern powerhouse" spiel. If he takes a pragmatic, effective stance on housing too he might suddenly not be the toxic leader many (including myself) originally thought.
Last edited by The Hand; 04-08-2015 at 02:20 PM.
No silly, all you need are good intentions!
It won't matter that there will be a massive capital flight, good intentions conquer all.
Just look at Greece, they where in a spot of bother before, they had only just had their first quarter of growth since Austerity cuts came in. Thanks to the arrival of a party that promised to end Austerity, things are looking so much better. Just don't ask about the Manufacturing PMI, or the GDP, or the employment rate but if someone does, blame someone else!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
The fact is Labour doesn't need that money to spend. They could just sell of the plots of empty land with planning permission. That would be something.
The other issue is entirely the elephant in the room as far as New Labour went, immigration. Look at our population growth, it's mostly due to new comers. London is seen by many as one of the most attractive cities in the world, I dare say that if you can't find a job in London, you won't find work anywhere.
That is complex as having foriegn investment makes it easier to build the new houses you just mentioned above.
So basically what the've announced this budget.
I would say to get rid of most social housing completely, it creates a ghetto divide. If someone who is on median income is struggling, why give someone on a lower decile free accommodation to a higher standard. You are just subsidising the person who profits from that subsidised persons labour.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
It's going to depend so much on the next 4 years. If we continue a nice gentle GDP growth, slowly start to raise base rates, such are the hints we had recently, then frankly they will have no chance. I would imagine that we would see fascism rise before Corbyn if these trends keep up.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Agreed. Any government seen to be doing well with the economy has to be seen to be stepping on it's own wotsit rather badly to get booted .... like a rather arrogant and condescending attitude coming from Thatcher.
The last election result was a cautious, guarded and unenthusiastic endorsement of austerity, but it was nonetheless an endorsement. If, and it's definitely an "if" the economy continues to slowly improve, and if living standards improve, the deficit reduces or is eliminated, and no major cockups manifest, then I judge Labour barely have a chance with a centrist leader. With Corbyn, zero chance. But there's some big if's in there, and 4.5 years is a long time in politics.
That wouldn't be enough. To deal with a housing crisis the size the SE has, any Government WILL need to spend to resolve it.
It does make it difficult, but if successive Governments aren't doing anything themselves then foreign investment becomes essential. Build houses yourself, and you rely less on that foreign investment.
Er, no. They reduced tax reliefs for landlords, they didn't abolish them, if that's what you are referring to. Most people on here creamed their pants about the removal of the tax credits for the third child, but I don't hear anyone asking for the removal of tax reliefs for landlords. Quel suprise. No doubt it will be hid behind the false argument of reliefs keeping rents down. Not doing a good job of that is it? Why isn't the Government taxing houses that stay empty most of the year, that make virtually contribution to the local community?
So rather then creating a Ghetto divide (although in my experience, the only people I ever hear using those sorts of terms tend to be those who are intimidated by said 'ghettos'), you want to clear the ghetto and move those from a lower decile out on to, where exactly? There are many reasons why social housing is important, not least because not everyone bases everything on monetary value or ability to pay. Do you know how much housing associations invest in local communities on services that are available to all? if you do, then that's one reason why you keep social housing and if you don't you should go look it up. But even from a purely selfish point of view, does anyone from London want it to become like Paris, where the centre is the preserve of the rich and, ultimately, incredibly boring whilst the outskirts are complete dumps? Why would anyone want that for anywhere in the UK? When one of the main attractions of London is it's vibrancy and diversity, helped in no small part by it's mix of social and private housing, projects to rid it of social housing would be counterproductive, unless you want to turn London into somewhere like Singapore or Dubai, 2 of the dullest places on earth.
But then you say this:
If the government is doing a good enough job, then foreign investment isn't needed? I agree with that.
However, if you ban foreign investment, then the government has no 'competition' for want of a word. Simply the situation would be worse.
I think I posted what a good idea reducing the tax benefits of BTL was, but it can't be done too swiftly, much the same way I think that tapering child benefits, that is not giving them to children borne a year out is a good idea, I don't think you can tax too heavily too quickly without creating serious issues. One of my concerns about BTL is the leveraged nature of those who do it. Many are simply unaware of the risk, instead thinking themselves smarter than everyone else because no one has ever seen a black swan (Talib).
The fact is look at the rental yields in London right now, 3-5%, wow. That is a market people are in obviously because they expect the bond to be worth more, not for its coupons so to speak.
If we simply solve the lack of stock in the market, via population control, changes to planning rules etc (mandatory times for completion, applications only valid for 2 years say), then having the high competition of landlords is a good thing!
I actually spat my coffee out on this one. You've no idea at all what you are talking about, live in Singapore for a week.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Well yes, but barring armageddon, any situation could always be worse, but that doesn't excuse an Government sitting on it's hands. So you don't need to ban foreign foreign investment, but reduce the reliance on it, whilst at the same time building yourself, which costs money.
Why not do away with it all together for, say, 5th and subsequent properties? Why should landlords be subsided at all so that they speculate on property prices? If I were that middle income person unhappy that I'm spending a disproportionate percentage of my monthly earning on housing, it's not at the social housing occupant I'd be looking at.
Do you think I would've have named somewhere I'd never been as boring? I can believe that for anyone who works in finance, Singapore is a wet dream. Anyone looking for comercialism and a desperate attempt of a country to be trendy but failing miserably, then Singapore must be heaven, but for anyone looking for say, identity or culture, it's not so great, unless keeping singapore tidy is ones idea of culture. One of the blandest city/countries I've ever been to, but I can see why it would appeal to a certain type. I did quite like the climate though.
Cool, so we aren't going to ban foreign investment, because we've agreed that would just make the situation worse. Instead we'd compete with it! Woo, isn't this free market stuff good for optimisation!
Because they aren't really being subsidised. If they created a company then the accounting rules would allow such deduction and netting off.
The other thing is renting in itself isn't that bad. Lots of my friends who don't own a property have no idea of the shock costs that you suddenly have to cover. In flats service charges and extraordinary costs can be hard to manage, hell I just had £4k for plumbing.
What we need to focus on is supply and demand, not artificial measures that control inflation. The simple fact is there is much higher demand than 10 years ago, and no real change in supply. We've got people moving to London who are happy to pay £800 a month for a grotty flat share. Hopefully as the economies of europe improve that situation might change a little, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yup. It is the most likely outcome. Or you think Marina Bay / Clarke Quay is representative of Singapore.
A place that you visit is what you make of it. I've been to some places which are un-pleasant mostly due to my skin colour, and places that you feel are immediately accessible.
So you've got to remember that most of Singapore is new. As such there is little heritage or history, but as a mix of culture goes it's unlike any city I've ever visited. A quick visit to a Hawker Centre in the middle of an HDB shows this. The emphasis put on arts, music, parks and healthy living results in all sorts of entertainment, sports and the like. I've had meals from around the world at £2 a plate that are better than ones I've had in Michlen stared establishments of their origin. The diverse mix of people that make up Singapore are wholly responsible for this.
But what is even more amusing to me, is that Singapore has a massive, integrated social housing program. I can't believe how utterly ignorant of the place you are. It's like you didn't even walk a PCN route. Any Singaporean citizen has free housing provided, these are clean, well maintained and feel nothing like a ghetto because of how well integrated they are. The only difference is that a private condo, the type a foreigner has to rent, might have a pool. The one I was living in had a worse playground than the HDB, and I used their swimming pool and gym for £2 a visit as I wasn't a resident. Residents get free vouchers every time they attend as the gym is free they are effectively paid to go.
I could learn more about culture and history sat around in the Hawker Centres, than I can in any European city I've ever lived in or even just visited. I'm not saying it's without problems, racism is rampant towards certain Indians (even the upper-middle casts) and immigration continues to be a point of contention for many, as is the fear of their neighbours. But for a diverse multi-cultural capital, I can't think of one that is better integrated and offers such depth of exploration of peoples heritages. You just have to make a tiny bit of effort.
But sure, just come to London and just go to Westfield with a quick stop at Harrods and judge the UK on that then!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)