Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
MrXxx

Lies, Damn Lies And 'sums' According To The Media

Recommended Posts

So it looks as though we are into a massive housebuilding scheme if we vote in Labour...but how many are we talking about?

Well if we read the Daily Mail (rather than use it to wrap our chips) it seems that it is 200,000 per year upto 2020 .....

yet if we look at todays Guardian it seems that it is part of Labous aim to reach a TARGET of 200,000 per year IN 2020...

....and if we look at The Independent (is this not a misnomer in the world of UK media?) they report that Labours plans are to build 150,000 by 2020...

...one thing they do all agree on though is the cost £5 Billion ....well, the cost at the moment (but as we all know things don't always go to budget when you are using the Tax payers money)...

...either way, the need for housing in the last decade has been running at 250,000 per year to stand still, this hasn't been achieved so we have fallen even further behind, and the best case scenario doesn't even meet this value!

Methinks this is just electioneering....or perhaps I am just one of lifes cynics?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that they never say extra houses will mean cheaper houses? Because it won't. It's always "we need more houses because there aren't enough". There are enough houses, they're just too expensive. Labour can build 10,000,000 more houses, and all you'll see is empty estates of new-builds with nobody living in them because they're all going to be £120K 2 bed-flats, £190,000+ for 3-bed semis and £250K+ 4 bed detacheds. Price discovery is banned in the housing market.

Have Labour ever attacked Help to Buy?

Labour seem so quiet on so many things.

Edited by canbuywontbuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points CBWB....x number of extra houses is irrelevant if they are luxury penthouse in Mayfair.

Also, why is it they only ever talk about affordable housing now rather than social housing?....

.....perhaps because 'affordable' can mean a completely different thing from one person to the next (and so cannot be seen to be 'wrong') and perhaps also that social housing means that rent (read profit) would not be available to their 'friends' in the private sector (and their own BTL empires).......

...or perhaps I am just being cynical again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that the newspapers etc always seem to miss is that if the BoE can just print off £350 billion effectively for the banks then why is raising £5 billion such a palaver for building homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points CBWB....x number of extra houses is irrelevant if they are luxury penthouse in Mayfair.

Actually that's not true. If you increase the supply at the top end then it reduces the ripple effect from prime central London which drags up the price of everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would beg the question BB, why didn't they use the money for all of the nonsense schemes i.e.HTB, FLS etc to start a building scheme for social housing and getting a double whammy...reduction in housing benefit and a boost to the economy/jobs....seems so obvious that they must have a good reason that 'they' are not sharing with 'us'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CrashingIsles...is there a shortage of property at the tope end in London then?....I would think that at this end of the market a few extra houses is going to make little difference (but no, I don't have any figures to support this opinion :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would beg the question BB, why didn't they use the money for all of the nonsense schemes i.e.HTB, FLS etc to start a building scheme for social housing and getting a double whammy...reduction in housing benefit and a boost to the economy/jobs....seems so obvious that they must have a good reason that 'they' are not sharing with 'us'

+1, I've often wondered this myself... must be to maintain the bank's asset values against all the debt secured on them. What the country really required was/is not even on the policy radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CrashingIsles...is there a shortage of property at the tope end in London then?....I would think that at this end of the market a few extra houses is going to make little difference (but no, I don't have any figures to support this opinion :-)

Of course there's a shortage. More people want to live in Chelsea than there are properties available, hence the prices get bid up and those who lose out bid up the price of Fulham and Putney in turn and it all filters out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...one thing they do all agree on though is the cost £5 Billion ....well, the cost at the moment (but as we all know things don't always go to budget when you are using the Tax payers money)...

Why does it cost the government anything to build a house? Why can't private business/corporations/individuals do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it cost the government anything to build a house? Why can't private business/corporations/individuals do it?

Whilst I agree in principal; there has always been a government subsidy for homes.

Council house rents were always affordable, I believe they were subsidised, and had the added benefit of security for the tenant.

How something like this could ever be privatised in the form of housing associations I do not understand.

But yes, the private market should be just that, and not interfered with by meddling politicians for their own ends.

Edited by otters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there's a shortage. More people want to live in Chelsea than there are properties available, hence the prices get bid up and those who lose out bid up the price of Fulham and Putney in turn and it all filters out.

The trickle down effect - of debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my generation, the word 'Prefab' has a stigma.

But those old prefabs were nice bungalows and served their purpose.

Seems to me that in 1946, the government could address the housing problem in an effective and direct way.

Nowadays, all our paid mouthpieces, spouters and gabblers have no answer.

With modern techniques, factory built houses could be rather good.

Proper Parker Morris standards of space, storage etc.

A quickly laid standard concrete base with all services connected. Then a house of your choice assembled on the base.

Plastic moulding techniques could give every house an unique look, varying from rustic, Elizabethan, 'Star Trek' modern etc.

Of course, it would not enrich the building firms, the BTLers, MPs

It would seriously damage BTL empires and horror of horrors, encroach on the 'GREEN BELT'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point Byron, in 1946 the UK had a massive war debt (that it has only recently paid off), now I don't know how that debt compares with what we have today (in real terms) but it would be two questions, the first you have already highlighted I.e.they seemed to be able to solve the housing issue then so why not now and the second, what is the Tories urgency to pay off our debt so quickly through austerity measure (and its effect on the economy/growth) whereas previous politicians were happy to pay off our war debt over a much longer period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.they seemed to be able to solve the housing issue then so why not now and the second, what is the Tories urgency to pay off our debt so quickly through austerity measure (and its effect on the economy/growth) whereas previous politicians were happy to pay off our war debt over a much longer period?

i. they didn't have mass immigration of 300,000 per year

ii. I haven't see the Tories pay anything off, the debt will increase through to around the next general election in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i. they didn't have mass immigration of 300,000 per year

ii. I haven't see the Tories pay anything off, the debt will increase through to around the next general election in 2020.

Item i.

It's more - immigration is about 600,000 a year (and has been for several years) and net migration is currently about 300,000 a year. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i. they didn't have mass immigration of 300,000 per year

ii. I haven't see the Tories pay anything off, the debt will increase through to around the next general election in 2020.

Item ii.

The Tories will never pay anything off. UK public debt must increase without limit until sterling collapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Item ii.

The Tories will never pay anything off. UK public debt must increase without limit until sterling collapses.

It's not just the Tories, all career politicians are the same. They leave university with a PPE degree and scramble up the greasy pole with little thought of what is right for the country, their only objective is get into power and remain there as long as is necessary to obtain a few lucrative directorships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   37 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.