Sunday, Jun 15, 2008
100,000 homes built in 2008 - any buyers?
Observer: New homes slump worst since 1945
The number of homes built in Britain this year will plunge to its lowest level since 1945 and plummeting construction activity is expected to lead to the loss of 100,000 jobs. The country's most senior housebuilders confirm that completions will be around 100,000, some 70,000 less than last year.
Posted by mken @ 05:02 PM (3136 views) Add Comment
37 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. confused76 said...
"A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: 'There is a long-term fundamental mismatch between supply and demand... It is therefore essential for housebuilders to base their decisions on the economic fundamentals and longer-term trends. Builders need to ensure they are in the right place when the market picks up.'"
Fundamental.... mismatch.... demand .... supply... outstrips.... immigration.... divorces.... AHHHHH HAHH AHHAHHA AH
the words of the most notorious i@iot Professor Nikel still resonate in Carolin Flint's empty head
AHH H AHH HHA HAHA HH
2. taffee said...
dispells the theory of suply/demand imo...for a country with a supply housing problem(allegedly)...where are the homeless people?
if 94% of ftb(the forgotten next generation)...cannot afford a property,then prices need to fall 50-70%
why have we alienated out young?....will prove a total disgrace
3. Ijjhall said...
After what has probably been the worst week in his business career, Mark Clare, chief executive of beleaguered housebuilder Barratt, said: 'I look in the mirror and say, "What else should we be doing that we're not?"'
Er dropping your prices might be a start...
4. Cheekie Charlie said...
Please tell me why the home builders are not sitting on a mountain of profit after the boom years? Why not continue building at a reduced yield like in the normal times.
5. icarus said...
I challenge anybody to unpick the codswollop spouted by the DCLG spokesman and quoted by confused76. If you were the CEO of Barratts how would you profit from that advice? They needed a seer to interpret Apollo's pronouncements when these came out as gibberish from the mouth of the Delphic oracle. Maybe the DCLG should employ a seer.
6. it_is_going_with_a_bang said...
Its a joke a day at the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Why build house you cannot sell?
To go bankrupt maybe??? What a stupid thing to say.
If the government wants housing and it thinks it is needed then it should build the housing itself.
Not rely on market conditions to deliver solutions.
If Gordon Brown wants to deliver property into the market and provide homes then build social housing to rent.
Remove this stupid idea that private rental is in the interest of society.
7. icarus said...
Why doesn't the government buy up Barratts for its market cap + liabilities - disposable assets. It would get the company's 113,500 building plots for £17k each (as worked out by Mark W in a thread on this site a couple of days ago) and then it could use all the unemployed builders to build 113,500 houses for under £100k each, including the plot. It could flog each house for the best part of £200k, even in this market. This would solve a lot of problems. It may even get Broon out of jail.
8. jonb said...
Who exactly are you going to sell these £200k houses to?
You need to be earning £57k to afford one of them. Are there 113,500 people earning more than £57k who currently don't have a house, and in the market to buy one of your new builds? I think not.
9. Fedupwithhouseprices said...
Iracus you are a total ignoramus! I know I can say this HPC moderator cos you don't print any of my postings!!! :-)
10. icarus said...
If new houses were built at that cost there would be a lot of play in the system. You wouldn't build them all at once, there's plenty of scope to drop the price if necessary and some would go to social housing. Then there are benefits to the govt, such as lower unemployment among those involved in the building and marketing of residential property.
11. it_is_going_with_a_bang said...
You can see the dilema for Gordon Brown.
Obviously the government wants more homes but people cannot afford them.
If he builds more 'real' social housing, i.e. low cost rentals NOT purchases, then he will have a hand in destroying BTL completely.
That is why I don't believe he will do it. However, if he was forcibly removed by his party and then someone else stepped into his shoes, distanced themselves from his policies ( just look at the Blairs! ) then a real shift to building social housing could begin.
The only policies this government wants to promote are ones that involve supporting high house prices.
It seems as a country we can spend billions on war and weapons but when it comes to just building social housing for rental it's not worth the effort/
Shame on Gordon Brown.
12. Enas said...
I disagree with some of the people here. I am not rich but the mentality of you that the government must provide social housing for some while I have worked hard to buy my own house I believe is wrong. That's why this economy is uncompetitive and high taxed because people think that the government has obligations but individuals not. I think this communist system must change. Just look around to see how much corruption and abuse of the welfare sysytem exists. Milions are relying and abusing the system. Hard working individuals must not pay for the lazy ones. The less government interference and spending the better. Why do you think capital is preparing mass exodus from this country?? Wake up people in the name of socialism they are ripping you off. Look at your pay slips and the rest of taxes you are paying and ask what you have in return. Nothing. They are just wasting the resources of this country.
13. Letsgetreadytotumble said...
"Meanwhile, housing minister Caroline Flint told a meeting of housing experts last Thursday that she was working on plans to fast-track the release of huge swathes of public land to housing associations."
What public land. Is this our land if it's public?
I suppose the housing associations will build houses for more welfare tennants, therefore buying more Labour voters.
14. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
"It seems as a country we can spend billions on war and weapons but when it comes to just building social housing for rental it's not worth the effort"
Suggests conflict really is profitable then? The government doesn't do social housing because there is no money in it, but they are willing to spend billions on conflict.
15. growler said...
All true. I also don't fathom how you can still bang on about national need to build houses. The price has only gone up because people are unrealistically enabled to buy. So remove that unreal money, then what's left?
But: I am greatly suspicious of Stamp Duty yields. The government profit massively with this tax. The higher the prices, the more they profit. I am no great socialist, but why not invest the money from stamp duty in council housing??? It'd kill BTLers mopping up the FTBs.
16. harold said...
I wonder how long it's going to be before we have the headline: New homes slump worst EVER.
17. Claird said...
@3 icarus I work in close proximity to government quango and even though I am expert in my field and considerably more talented than any of the goons who pay my wages, I frequently do not understand a flipping word said. This government has gone so job-creation crazy that the perfectly intellient people in these senseless bureacracies have absolutely no idea what they are saying! They spout acronyms and jargon and as far as I can tell, have no clue whatsoever about what it is they are meant to want to achieve. I am leaving the public sector soon, but over the past 5 years I have felt increasingly like the newbie in the Stepford Wives or Alice through the looking glass. Are these people lobotomised? I think they are - by large salaries, excessive jargon which appears clever but is totally meaningless, and an obsession with applying for 'their own' jobs.
18. montesquieu said...
Icarus's idea has a lot of merit. the problem is that Broon is up to his neck in the Blairite dogma of dependence on the market to deliver social programmes (the irony of their struggle being there was hardly a fag paper between them on policy).
This would, though, be far better value for money than the Domestos policy adopted for Northern Rock (take money; pour it down the toilet; flush till it's all gone).
However I can see Broon's replacement - Alan Johnson is looking good to me right now - going for it. It's not going to be someone too close to either Broon or Blair, rather someone they think will help them with their traditional base. So forget the snotty kids that Broon has been promoting lately.
19. mark wadsworth said...
Icarus, ta for mention, of course the gummint could take over Barratts and do that, but the gummint probably doesn't need to pay £17k per plot, it can snap up a few acres of greenbelt for £5k each and give itself planning permission.
20. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
21. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
22. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
23. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
24. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
25. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
26. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
27. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
28. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
29. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
30. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
31. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
32. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
33. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
34. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
35. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
36. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
37. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.