Telegraph - Build Houses Quick to avoid a Marxist Revolution

[lostinessex]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/05/wake-nimbys-option-either-tory-housebuilding-marxist-social/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

" The mood of the country is changing, as demonstrated by the emergence of pro-building pressure groups, such as London Yimby and Create Streets. There are fewer cheers when house prices rise, and growing support for housebuilding “in one’s local area”. "

" When polled, the public increasingly deems falling house prices to be good, rather than bad; existing homeowners worry about their children and grandchildren, and are terrified that they will never be able to aspire to what they have. "

The mood is certainly shifting out there - but will anything actually happen?

[ftb_fml]

Same old crap though isn't it? Pointing the finger at a lack of stock shutting people out of the market, rather than all the factors actually responsible - cheap debt, lax BTL laws, minuscule interests rates, greed, profiteering etc.

Personally the last thing I want to see is more houses being built - all the villages in this area have seen hundreds of crappy over-priced bland-Bovis-boxes thrown up on their greenfield outskirts, no doubt in an effort to wring out as much profit as possible from the skyrocketing HPI. As usual apparently zero thought has been given towards the wishes and well-being of local residents or the growing burden on an already-stretched infrastructure which the government seems ever-more keen at under-funding. 

 

[Social Justice League]

What we need is 10 million decent new council houses built only for rent.  Enough so that we can house everyone with resources to spare.

Those who want a bigger house in a nice location can buy if they wish.

 

This model isn't what the scum banks want though.  They demand that every person takes out a 50 year mortgage as they pick up huge amounts of interest from the whole population.  This is what happens when you let private companies control the money supply.

[Errol]

Surely cut immigration first? Without stopping immigration you can't tell how many houses we might need.

[Fromage Frais]

Assuming the Marxists nearly won and assuming it lasts the whole 5 years.

Can this government build millions of houses and have people in them in time for the next election......no way.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 62% of households (circa 36 million in total) and falling.

So it looks like that 60% is the key and given the overpriced shite on the market from the elderly generation we will be taking that out in the next five years if not already as that was 15/16.

I dont like cutting things fine so I would aim for 65+% home ownership in time for the next election.  If 1% = 360,000 so if its 60% or under now to be certain your looking at 2,000,000 new home owning households needed to blitz it and be sure.

Thats nearly impossible I think so they are toast pending war or some labour shenanigans.

• Massive building
• Massive reductions in immigration
• hammering landlords so their properties are returned to owner occupiers
• Large correction 30% plus in House Prices to kill speculators.  Best would be IR rise for that.

Can they do all that in 5 years.......

 

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Fromage Frais

[giggler000]

2 hours ago, Fromage Frais said:

Assuming the Marxists nearly won and assuming it lasts the whole 5 years.

Can this government build millions of houses and have people in them in time for the next election......no way.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 62% of households (circa 36 million in total) and falling.

So it looks like that 60% is the key and given the overpriced shite on the market from the elderly generation we will be taking that out in the next five years if not already as that was 15/16.

I dont like cutting things fine so I would aim for 65+% home ownership in time for the next election.  If 1% = 360,000 so if its 60% or under now to be certain your looking at 2,000,000 new home owning households needed to blitz it and be sure.

Thats nearly impossible I think so they are toast pending war or some labour shenanigans.

• Massive building
• Massive reductions in immigration
• hammering landlords so their properties are returned to owner occupiers
• Large correction 30% plus in House Prices to kill speculators.  Best would be IR rise for that.

Can they do all that in 5 years.......

 

 

The last one they could do in minutes with a taps of puter keys - I don't think they will though.  would give the game away

[maverick73]

Build more houses or just raise interest rates to bring affordability back into the equation. Same droll nonsense, from a desperate angle to maintain this illusion of economic prosperity ?

[BorrowToLeech]

4 hours ago, Fromage Frais said:

Assuming the Marxists nearly won and assuming it lasts the whole 5 years.

Can this government build millions of houses and have people in them in time for the next election......no way.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 62% of households (circa 36 million in total) and falling.

So it looks like that 60% is the key and given the overpriced shite on the market from the elderly generation we will be taking that out in the next five years if not already as that was 15/16.

I dont like cutting things fine so I would aim for 65+% home ownership in time for the next election.  If 1% = 360,000 so if its 60% or under now to be certain your looking at 2,000,000 new home owning households needed to blitz it and be sure.

Thats nearly impossible I think so they are toast pending war or some labour shenanigans.

• Massive building
• Massive reductions in immigration
• hammering landlords so their properties are returned to owner occupiers
• Large correction 30% plus in House Prices to kill speculators.  Best would be IR rise for that.

Can they do all that in 5 years.......

 

 

What's to stop landlords buying all the houses that you've built?

[PopGun]

9 hours ago, ftb_fml said:

Same old crap though isn't it? [\quote]

Yep

Quote

Pointing the finger at a lack of stock shutting people out of the market, rather than all the factors actually responsible - cheap debt, lax BTL laws, minuscule interests rates, greed, profiteering etc.

Personally the last thing I want to see is more houses being built - all the villages in this area have seen hundreds of crappy over-priced bland-Bovis-boxes thrown up on their greenfield outskirts, no doubt in an effort to wring out as much profit as possible from the skyrocketing HPI. As usual apparently zero thought has been given towards the wishes and well-being of local residents or the growing burden on an already-stretched infrastructure which the government seems ever-more keen at under-funding. 

 

Spot on

Edited July 6, 2017 by PopGun

[henry the king]

The 2017 election changed the political landscape. Generation rent will radicalise till they get what they deserve, a chance to not be in perma debt. The funny thing is labour crushed the tories in every age under old people. That is because parents around 45 want their kids to be able to buy a house.

Check the fall off of the tory vote for everyone under 50 in 2017 compared to 2015. Yougov have the data and it is remarkable reading. 

At last the political landscape has changed in a huge way. Hpi is over. Because if the tories dont fix it in the next 5 years they will lose by a landslide. They have to make houses cheaper.

[henry the king]

And they have to make rents cheaper and more secure. And this will hurt investor returns alot. It is hilarious how badly housing investors are going to get hit. The political landscape demands renters rights and cheaper rents which means less yield which means cheaper housing. I have never seen a good situation in my life for a house price correction. The perfect storm is here!

[henry the king]

5 hours ago, Fromage Frais said:

Assuming the Marxists nearly won and assuming it lasts the whole 5 years.

Can this government build millions of houses and have people in them in time for the next election......no way.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 62% of households (circa 36 million in total) and falling.

So it looks like that 60% is the key and given the overpriced shite on the market from the elderly generation we will be taking that out in the next five years if not already as that was 15/16.

I dont like cutting things fine so I would aim for 65+% home ownership in time for the next election.  If 1% = 360,000 so if its 60% or under now to be certain your looking at 2,000,000 new home owning households needed to blitz it and be sure.

Thats nearly impossible I think so they are toast pending war or some labour shenanigans.

• Massive building
• Massive reductions in immigration
• hammering landlords so their properties are returned to owner occupiers
• Large correction 30% plus in House Prices to kill speculators.  Best would be IR rise for that.

Can they do all that in 5 years.......

 

 

Housing ownership will be 55% in 5 years. It will keep falling unless prices come down alot. If it is 55% then it will be a labour landslide. The tories polled 30% with those who do not own homes, with labour over 50%. They have no chance. The tories are dead unless they do something quickly. 

[zugzwang]

6 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

What we need is 10 million decent new council houses built only for rent.  Enough so that we can house everyone with resources to spare.

Those who want a bigger house in a nice location can buy if they wish.

 

This model isn't what the scum banks want though.  They demand that every person takes out a 50 year mortgage as they pick up huge amounts of interest from the whole population.  This is what happens when you let private companies control the money supply.

A national program of general needs social housing just like 1945. Homes fit for human consumption not Barwell's dog kennels and firetraps. Capital assets kept out of the reach of the City of London's parasitic wealth extractors.

[maverick73]

4 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

A national program of general needs social housing just like 1945. Homes fit for human consumption not Barwell's dog kennels and firetraps. Capital assets kept out of the reach of the City of London's parasitic wealth extractors.

Speculation is strife with emotions. The markets dropped 1% today, but the real sign came from the Bonds, Gilts & Bunds to expect rises in base rates across the entire G7.

 

[Bear Hug]

Housing crisis is a problem with multiple and easy solutions.  It is not some sort of long term equilibrium that requires lots of effort to resolve, just lots of spinning plates.  The only reason it exists is because property owners still hold the power.

- relax planning

- curb immigration

- raise interest rates

- tax multiple property owners

- tax foreign owners

- build more homes

- land value tax

- ban landbanking

- make being a landlord non-profitable

- tax unused empty properties

- restrict borrowing multiples

- restrict (tax) capital gains on property

- limit housing benefits

- remove tenants fees

We would not even need to do all of the above to get anywhere.  Just a few solid steps in two or three of these and the problem will solve itself.  

I believe this is happening already, I am just annoyed that it has taken so long. 

And I hope people start to see the bigger picture, rather than focus on one or two issues they consider important, particularly if they have some vested interest in it.  I.e.:

- I am fine with interest rates rising, just don't build near me

or 

- Let's build but we need interest rates low because I already have a massive mortgage and everyone (including Bank of Canada) says they are good

[Arpeggio]

50 minutes ago, henry the king said:

Housing ownership will be 55% in 5 years. It will keep falling unless prices come down alot. If it is 55% then it will be a labour landslide. The tories polled 30% with those who do not own homes, with labour over 50%. They have no chance. The tories are dead unless they do something quickly. 

It is 51%

Official figures concentrated on households, rather than people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38415213 Sorry for the large bold. I have seen people mention the official figures on numerous occasions here and I know it's wrong!

Whereas 51% is based on actual people (who vote) so more power to your point.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Arpeggio

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

1 hour ago, henry the king said:

Housing ownership will be 55% in 5 years. It will keep falling unless prices come down alot. If it is 55% then it will be a labour landslide. The tories polled 30% with those who do not own homes, with labour over 50%. They have no chance. The tories are dead unless they do something quickly. 

The only challenges here are:

1) A significant fall in house prices will blow up the banks, and under our current model, the economy which the Government won't let happen. That said, I am still not sure why the banks should get first dibs on newly created money. If the banks blow up, why not lend to firms and individuals directly or via challenger banks, instead of propping up failing institutions.

2) We do need to massively loosen planning rules, but right now, geriatric councillors are happy to side with geriatric nimbies and most MPs are too spineless to engage in planning matters or policy which in political terms is very makes reform hard. Basically for MPs planning is a win-lose thing, they win some support, but in the whole they'll lose support overall.

 

[TheCountOfNowhere]

13 hours ago, lostinessex said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/05/wake-nimbys-option-either-tory-housebuilding-marxist-social/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

" The mood of the country is changing, as demonstrated by the emergence of pro-building pressure groups, such as London Yimby and Create Streets. There are fewer cheers when house prices rise, and growing support for housebuilding “in one’s local area”. "

" When polled, the public increasingly deems falling house prices to be good, rather than bad; existing homeowners worry about their children and grandchildren, and are terrified that they will never be able to aspire to what they have. "

The mood is certainly shifting out there - but will anything actually happen?

The British establishment has endured for 100s of years.if they think throwing millions under the debt Juggernaut will maintain their privilege and position,  they will throw them under the wheels. To think anythink contrary is naive in the extreme. The British empire was built on the back of death, drugs and debt.millions died..the rich got richer.

[adarmo]

8 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

What we need is 10 million decent new council houses built only for rent.  Enough so that we can house everyone with resources to spare.

Those who want a bigger house in a nice location can buy if they wish.

 

This model isn't what the scum banks want though.  They demand that every person takes out a 50 year mortgage as they pick up huge amounts of interest from the whole population.  This is what happens when you let private companies control the money supply.

You would like to increase the housing stock by 40%?

We were offered an 18 year mortgage when we took out ours. We opted for a longer term because we would like extra cash to invest in the house over the next few years. 

Are you drunk?

[macca13]

42 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

It is 51%

Official figures concentrated on households, rather than people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38415213 Sorry for the large bold. I have seen people mention the official figures on numerous occasions here and I know it's wrong!

Whereas 51% is based on actual people (who vote) so more power to your point.

So 49% of people face retirement as renters.. How will they pay for that then? I'm sure they will all have whacking great pensions what with theses interest rates we currently have.. 

Shelter need to revise their figures for future homelessness me thinks, or our £25 billion housing benefits bill needs to be revised to £100 billion

[adarmo]

18 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

The only challenges here are:

1) A significant fall in house prices will blow up the banks, and under our current model, the economy which the Government won't let happen. That said, I am still not sure why the banks should get first dibs on newly created money. If the banks blow up, why not lend to firms and individuals directly or via challenger banks, instead of propping up failing institutions.

2) We do need to massively loosen planning rules, but right now, geriatric councillors are happy to side with geriatric nimbies and most MPs are too spineless to engage in planning matters or policy which in political terms is very makes reform hard. Basically for MPs planning is a win-lose thing, they win some support, but in the whole they'll lose support overall.

 

Agreed. If an MP sticks their neck out and approves a new development of 5,000 new homes they're probably in trouble come the next election unless all the newcomers decide to vote for him. Often though the lead time on these projects is such that many are not built by the time the MP or forward thinking councilor comes up for renewal and the local NIMBY f*cks turn out and bash them. 

The problem is that nobody sticks up for people who need these houses locally because often the people wanting to live in that area are priced out and live in a neighbouring cheaper area. 

[ExiledMatty]

I don't care where they build. The UK is 90% plus unbuilt anyway. Even flying over the South-east is eye opening with all the green fields.

More supply will reduce rents at worst and reduce house prices at best. 

Nimby's will just have to suck it up.

[thisisthisitmaybe]

6 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

The British establishment has endured for 100s of years.if they think throwing millions under the debt Juggernaut will maintain their privilege and position,  they will throw them under the wheels. To think anythink contrary is naive in the extreme. The British empire was built on the back of death, drugs and debt.millions died..the rich got richer.

And whenever there was trouble at home, the elite started a new war and put the revolutionary poor on the front-line in foreign fields to get blown to bits. 

[thisisthisitmaybe]

1 hour ago, ExiledMatty said:

I don't care where they build. The UK is 90% plus unbuilt anyway. Even flying over the South-east is eye opening with all the green fields.

More supply will reduce rents at worst and reduce house prices at best. 

Nimby's will just have to suck it up.

UK may be 90 percent, but not England, which now has the highest population density in Western Europe after the Netherlands. 

[henry the king]

7 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

The only challenges here are:

1) A significant fall in house prices will blow up the banks, and under our current model, the economy which the Government won't let happen. That said, I am still not sure why the banks should get first dibs on newly created money. If the banks blow up, why not lend to firms and individuals directly or via challenger banks, instead of propping up failing institutions.

2) We do need to massively loosen planning rules, but right now, geriatric councillors are happy to side with geriatric nimbies and most MPs are too spineless to engage in planning matters or policy which in political terms is very makes reform hard. Basically for MPs planning is a win-lose thing, they win some support, but in the whole they'll lose support overall.

 

The banks are alot stronger than they were and the loan sizes are smaller. I would guess they could deal with a crash ok this time