Government Policy On Housing!

[Michael]

yes, i admit i'm jealous but ......as someone who has no gripes generally with the capitalist system (warts and all there's no alternative).....housing , particularly smaller cheaper homes are a fundamental necessity like food and utilities...

IMO the rich should be able to speculate as much as they like with flats in Knightsbridge , oil paintings, precious stones, tulip bulbs and almost anything else but housing is a special case.......Many Tories say the imperfections in the market eg planning laws are determined through the political process so the system is just....

but it's clearly failing to provide now as well as it did in the past....

The government's first task is to make housing less attractive than other investments...........And i haven't a clue how this could be done (any ideas?) but moves along these lines would be easier and cheaper than trying to build enough additional houses to reduce prices.....

Trouble is your friendly down-to-earth ''working class hero'' Labour MP's most likely got his snout in the BTL trough....with TTRTR and the gang......

I can't recall specific instances but many Labour MPs have ploughed their housing allowances into BTL properties....and Michael Meacher who through courtesy of his executive wife ( a banker, I think) owns 6 properties was recently quoted as saying ''We don't need to build any more homes...There are plenty!''

20 years ago the Chinese would have called him a ''Capitalist Roader''

but i can think of a more appropriate name ....not repeatable in a public forum!

Edited September 15, 2005 by Michael

[dude]

There are some markets that are so important they must be regulated. Agriculture is one (done via the Common Agricultural Policy -- imagine food shortages) and housing is another.

This country has many problems, and what follows is not an exhaustive list . Firstly there is the policy to encourage everyone to aspire to become a home owner. Whilst laudable to some degree, not everyone can achieve this and some people don't want it. Allowing social housing to be moved into private hands, and then not backfill the loss is worse than shocking, it's dispicable; it was done for political reasons (we don't want those bloody socialists getting a foothold back in this country). [bTW: every day I'm happier because I know it is one day nearer THATCHER'S DEATH!!]

Social housing is important for those that don't want to become OOs as well as those who want to leave mum and dad and may aspire to become OOs.

Worse yet is the way our country is split up and owned. Is it right that you, as a multimillionaire, can be allowed to buy an enourmous tract of land and then claim it as your own, and prevent others from using it (or even walking on it)? I believe France has a law that allows you only to own so much land, thus preventing such abuse.

The thing that really gets my goat is leasehold. What's that all about? I bought a Barratt house -- a new house and it is sold as leashold. If you live in a terrace your ground rent will be a couple of quid a year. For Barratts it's about £100. And what do you get for that?

This is an ancient law that should be scrapped as soon as possible. All new houses should be sold freehold, and there should be a mechanism to move people out of leasehold and back to freehold. Another property management company bought the leases off Barratt and then said I could buy the lease off them for £4k! Are they F**KING nuts? A lease can be bought for about 10x the ground rent (or about £1k in my case). Greedy B*****DS.

That's what I think!

[right_freds_dead]

i agree. NuLab should have a housing policy.

[KerPlunk]

BBC has this today Call To Scrap Right to Buy

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are pettitioning the Scottish Executive to increase the amount of affordable rented accommodation.

From this article it looks like the Scottish Execitive is a bit more receptive to this attitude than Westminster

SFHA policy co-ordinator David Bookbinder said the housing shortage needed to be addressed

"The Scottish Executive has recently been making welcome new funds available for new housing development to improve the supply of affordable rented housing and this upward trend will need to continue,"

[MarkG]

Agriculture is one (done via the Common Agricultural Policy -- imagine food shortages)

You mean the CAP which pays farmers to _NOT_ grow food? That CAP?

[deano]

This has been extracted from a post at the top of the thread.

"Worse yet is the way our country is split up and owned. Is it right that you, as a multimillionaire, can be allowed to buy an enourmous tract of land and then claim it as your own, and prevent others from using it (or even walking on it)? I believe France has a law that allows you only to own so much land, thus preventing such abuse."

I have recentley seen construction on a piece of prime residential land, you could build at least fifty good sized houses. But what was being built made me feel ill. One huge house, I looked round it, it was enormous. The garge alone looked like a detached bungalow, the rooms were awsome. The whole thing is to be set surrounded by woodland and access only by crossing a private bridge. Guess what its to be called - Utopia, oh for f**** sake something has to be done.

Edited September 15, 2005 by deano

[MarkG]

oh for f**** sake something has to be done.

There's enough land in Britain for every person to have an acre to themselves. It's only planning laws that ensure that some people have huge houses while most people are crammed into tiny little crap-holes.

[dude]

You mean the CAP which pays farmers to _NOT_ grow food? That CAP?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, the same. Now I'm not saying that the CAP is perfect, but abolishing it would be a terrible move. Why the CAP is the way it is comes from history -- France wanted some lever to counter-balance the German industrial might after the war. So the CAP was designed around the French agrarian way of life.

That was then. It needs to be transformed to bring it up-to-date; but it mustn't be abolished! That way lies disaster. If it becomes a free market in food production high cash-value products will dominate, and low-value items will be ignored. Food storage (remember the butter mountains, wine lakes, et al?) will go to the wall (as they are too expensive to maintain) and we will be at the whim of the market place and the weather. Petrol shortages will pale into insignificance when you can't fill your belly.

Frightening.

So in summary I'm saying a CAP is good; how to make the one we have better is another point.

[stillill]

BBC has this today Call To Scrap Right to Buy

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are pettitioning the Scottish Executive to increase the amount of affordable rented accommodation.

From this article it looks like the Scottish Execitive is a bit more receptive to this attitude than Westminster

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you read the article, it seems to be for the sole reason of saving the Executives own yellow skin. By 2012, all homeless "households"(?) have the right to be housed. And if non-homeless council tenants need re-housed too, there won't be enough to go round if sell-offs continue.

So, to stave off a riot when council tenants are passed over for what may or not be junkie/dole-mounger/alchy/tramps in moving up to better accommodation, they're trying to stop newish council tenants buying their current homes.

The council-house RTB was obviously flawed when Thatcher kicked it off, but it was thought home-owners were more likely to vote Tory. (Er, not in Scotland, love...)

So, does the Executive see a coming rise in homelessness caused by evictions? And should tax-payers as a whole bail out these half-wits?

Edited September 15, 2005 by stillill

[MarkG]

If it becomes a free market in food production high cash-value products will dominate, and low-value items will be ignored.

You mean the same way that you can only buy 500 pound DVD players and there are no 50 pound DVD players on the market?

Food production in the UK would be far more efficient (and productive) if we weren't trying to sustain tiny little inefficent farms.

[Elizabeth]

The government's first task is to make housing less attractive than other investments...........And i haven't a clue how this could be done (any ideas?) but moves along these lines would be easier and cheaper than trying to build enough additional houses to reduce prices.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They could start by scrapping the Council Tax discount on second and empty homes?

EDIT:

A short sharp start that wouldn't take much to achieve (but how would the pollies cope with paying council tax on their constituency home?)

Edited September 15, 2005 by Elizabeth

[Harry Sacks]

Government Policy On Housing!, Should it change and if so how

Yes it should change.

How?

Ban second home ownership of existing stock, limit it to new build, or at least make it very expensive.

Change planning laws that favour developers of unsustainable energy wasting communities.

Encouage the use of traditional and alternative low impact building methods which improve the quality of everyone life. Relax planning in the countryside for those who want a modest home.

Stop paying rich land owners to do nothing or run shoots for the rich.

The number of homeless families or those in temporary accomodation has soared where I live. This, however only gets a few column inches. The papers are more interested in reporting on the poor hard done by farmers boo fvcking hoo.

The last thing the government want to do now is any of the above. Not while the gloat british public are rubbing their hands with glee for all the "wealth" that has been created at the next generations expense.

[Elizabeth]

Not sure I agree. I like the illusion of freedom, but if I owned a second home (dream on... got to start with a first!) and you stopped giving me tax breaks I might just think twice about the direction of my investment, unless I was really serious about the business aspect, which would mean that I would then pay great attention to quality to ensure a return.

[thargthemighty]

All the government has to do:

1. Stop restricting housebuilding so much.

2. Stop stealing so many houses for themselves (half of London housing is targeted for parasites of one kind or another).

Don't know how so many of you can whine on this site all the time without realizing that the Labour government have:

a) caused the house price problem

caused it deliberately

They even campaigned using high house prices as a selling point still got voted in.

Silver lining is, they promised high house prices...they always lie, so we can happily look forward to the crash.

[ajh]

They could start by scrapping the Council Tax discount on second and empty homes?

EDIT:

A short sharp start that wouldn't take much to achieve (but how would the pollies cope with paying council tax on their constituency home?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you joking?

In Australia second homes have an additional tax.

[Elizabeth]

All the government has to do:

1. Stop restricting housebuilding so much.

2. Stop stealing so many houses for themselves (half of London housing is targeted for parasites of one kind or another).

Don't know how so many of you can whine on this site all the time without realizing that the Labour government have:

a) caused the house price problem

caused it deliberately

They even campaigned using high house prices as a selling point still got voted in.

Silver lining is, they promised high house prices...they always lie, so we can happily look forward to the crash. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't like the idea of taxing the rich?

[Elizabeth]

Are you joking?  

In Australia second homes have an additional tax.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No ajh. I'm not joking. In Britain they give a discount on Council Tax for 2nd homes. It keeps the politicans happy because they all have their snout in the trough with a London home and an constituency home (and I believe (somebody correct me if I am wrong) that there is also some sort of tax deduction because they 'have to' live away from home, and at the same time they can let it out, and make a little extra squeeze again!)

EDIT:

And yes there is a capital gains tax on selling, but it is not nearly as high as the Australian version.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Elizabeth

[thargthemighty]

No ajh.  I'm not joking.  In Britain they give a discount on Council Tax for 2nd homes. 

Not really a discount. People with two homes pay more than people with one home, just not double the amount. Obviously, they tend to send their kids to school near only one of the homes so it would be absurd to charge them double.

They generally only use the services around one of the homes at any one time.

The rich multiple home owners are subsidising you single home owners/renters, but are you grateful??? Thought not.

[thargthemighty]

Don't like the idea of taxing the rich?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course I do. But unfortunately nobody has voted me in yet, so I'm not in a position to live the high life at their expense, unlike TB and his evil band of thieves.

[simon99]

The government policy on housing encourages people to invest in buying rental properties, totally the wrong approach if you ask me.

Also their Shared Ownership schemes for FTB's are going to drive prices higher.

Their housing policies are not going to help those of us who think prices are too high.

Edited September 15, 2005 by simon99

[brainclamp]

What astonished me was the fact the John Prescotts family are now multimillonares through BTL property, although he himself as housing minister only owns a couple of spreads.

All the tax breaks on property for BTLers should be removed. MIRAS should be brought in again.

Sadly, I guess the future for many is to be tenants living under ID cards, paying existiance tax and rents to this new landed class, people like John Prescots son.

[Elizabeth]

Not really a discount. People with two homes pay more than people with one home, just not double the amount. Obviously, they tend to send their kids to school near only one of the homes so it would be absurd to charge them double.

They generally only use the services around one of the homes at any one time.

The rich multiple home owners are subsidising you single home owners/renters, but are you grateful??? Thought not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you own double the property and take up scarce resources (ie. homes) then as far as I am concerned you can pay double and be thankful! Please don't bring the poor little kiddies into it. I don't have any, I still pay, and pay, and pay FOR YOURS but do I whinge? What does the council give back to me? Sweet FA. I don't use the social services, I don't use the schools, I don't use the housing. If you want to bring using less services into it, single people should have to pay a 1/4... I'm not advocating it by the way!!! But we've all got a sad story about why we personally should have to pay less tax and I don't see how double homeowners are a special case.

EDIT:and is this another wind-up?

Edited September 15, 2005 by Elizabeth