Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Saving For a Space Ship

private sector has failed. Only councils can be trusted to build the homes

Recommended Posts

Thats no going to fix the percieved unfairness in the housing market. It may provide housing for the more needy but wont do anything for anyone not on benefits. The JAMs wont see anything out of it. Another race to the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, oldsport said:

If there ever is another massive council house building programme, can anything be done to prevent a future Tory government flogging them off on the cheap to buy votes?

Yes, right to buy should be repealed. Anyone with a brain can see that unless we have aglut of council house building and plenty being built to replace those being purchased privately, it has to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JustAnotherProle said:

Yes, right to buy should be repealed. Anyone with a brain can see that unless we have aglut of council house building and plenty being built to replace those being purchased privately, it has to go.

Social housing need should be assessed yearly.

It should never go to non uk nationals.

It should only be allocatec to people with a local connection and fulltime employment.

Do those snd youll find loads of social housing appears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JustAnotherProle said:

Yes, right to buy should be repealed. Anyone with a brain can see that unless we have aglut of council house building and plenty being built to replace those being purchased privately, it has to go.

I can't see any problem as long as the money made is 100% put back into building *new* council houses. If I'm living in a council or HA house and I can afford to buy the council/HA out, then surely it means that somebody on the waiting list gets a home that they wouldn't otherwise have got (at least not as quickly)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

 The private sector has failed. Only councils can be trusted to build the homes we need

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/oct/16/private-sector-fail-house-building-councils?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter 

Looking at the copuncils, they've cant be trusted either.


The UK needs a change of governance and some strict laws on how the publics money is collected and spent.

 

Good luck finding a public sector worker willing to stand up for the tax payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Looking at the copuncils, they've cant be trusted either.


The UK needs a change of governance and some strict laws on how the publics money is collected and spent.

 

Good luck finding a public sector worker willing to stand up for the tax payer.

This the true reason why any government should be heavily restricted. It's incredible that so many on this forum would entrust the same body that  has consistently screwed them to solve the problem. A non-problem in the first place. Because government, local or national, shouldn't be involved in housing business or meddling with people's incentives in the first place. Only allow people that can sustain themselves into the country - easily solved if all property were privately owned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Social housing need should be assessed yearly.

It should never go to non uk nationals.

It should only be allocatec to people with a local connection and fulltime employment.

Do those snd youll find loads of social housing appears.

I doubt we could trust a council to fairly assess anyone.  I worked with a guy who left his wife and kids so she was on her own just to get to the top of the list because after waiting 2+years they got nowhere and it was effecting there relationship not to mention where his kids got to school and how they got to it.   How would they assess it because simply kicking people because your family has changed or you got a better job which might be temporary would be disastrous.  Organising moves just because you fall between categories etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

This the true reason why any government should be heavily restricted. It's incredible that so many on this forum would entrust the same body that  has consistently screwed them to solve the problem. A non-problem in the first place. Because government, local or national, shouldn't be involved in housing business or meddling with people's incentives in the first place. Only allow people that can sustain themselves into the country - easily solved if all property were privately owned...

Private ownership of land is the government meddling in housing. 

What stops you building a home isn't the government, it's the fact you don't own land. 

Why don't you own land?  Because the government says someone else does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, giggler000 said:

I doubt we could trust a council to fairly assess anyone.  I worked with a guy who left his wife and kids so she was on her own just to get to the top of the list because after waiting 2+years they got nowhere and it was effecting there relationship not to mention where his kids got to school and how they got to it.   How would they assess it because simply kicking people because your family has changed or you got a better job which might be temporary would be disastrous.  Organising moves just because you fall between categories etc.

At the mo the system is gamed to fux.

Need to take a step back and allocate for sicial need and prioritise working fsmilies not scummers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, regprentice said:

Thats no going to fix the percieved unfairness in the housing market. It may provide housing for the more needy but wont do anything for anyone not on benefits. The JAMs wont see anything out of it. Another race to the bottom.

The hope is that council housing removes some of the rewards attached to landlording.  By removing that layer of demand, it would benefit even those who want to buy a house.

It would also benefits tax payers. It makes no sense at all to spend 20bn on housing benefit in order to maintain the pretence of 'private sector' housing provision.

In a sane world, the government would grant itself planning permission on cheap land and collect that rent for itself. 

The building and maintainance could be contracted out to the private sector, or not, that's largely irrelevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, oldsport said:

If there ever is another massive council house building programme, can anything be done to prevent a future Tory government flogging them off on the cheap to buy votes?

Labour had many years in which they could have reversed Right  to Buy. 

But they didn't.  Now why was that, I wonder?  Could it possibly be because they thought it would lose them votes?

As for local councils, I don't see that they've necessarily been very pro active in insisting on certain standards for the 'affordable' sections of private developments.  An ex-colleague's son and family moved into a 2 bed flat, an 'affordable' rental that was part of a large, private development. 

The kitchen had no window and the 2nd 'bedroom'  wasn't even big enough for a full size single bed, only a toddler bed. 

The council wasn't Tory at the time - it was LD. 

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were sufficient social housing this whole question of whether or not you have a right to it wouldn't arise. The working and middle classes scrapping amongst themselves over crumbs off the table is classic divide and conquer. 

The government's sole job is to address market failure. The housing crisis is about as clear an example of market failure as you'll see. 

Individuals are struggling to get access to finance and enter the housing market. The government has no such problem. It can borrow vast sums far more cheaply than almost anybody else. It has the scale to deliver a social housing program which would force shoddy btlers to compete or go bust, provide good quality employment for hundreds of thousands, provide better quality housing for millions, improve access to education and community cohesion through increased stability and preventing the formation of sink estates by bringing higher income people back in to social housing, increase the tax take through improved life outcomes and more money circulating in the economy now that ludicrous rent demands don't have to be met and make a great return on investment as employed individuals flock to rent from them instead of the shysters they do now. 

The whole thing is so ******ing obvious but, blinded by our right wing media, we can't seem to see it for some reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hullabaloo82 said:

If there were sufficient social housing this whole question of whether or not you have a right to it wouldn't arise. The working and middle classes scrapping amongst themselves over crumbs off the table is classic divide and conquer. 

The government's sole job is to address market failure. The housing crisis is about as clear an example of market failure as you'll see. 

Individuals are struggling to get access to finance and enter the housing market. The government has no such problem. It can borrow vast sums far more cheaply than almost anybody else. It has the scale to deliver a social housing program which would force shoddy btlers to compete or go bust, provide good quality employment for hundreds of thousands, provide better quality housing for millions, improve access to education and community cohesion through increased stability and preventing the formation of sink estates by bringing higher income people back in to social housing, increase the tax take through improved life outcomes and more money circulating in the economy now that ludicrous rent demands don't have to be met and make a great return on investment as employed individuals flock to rent from them instead of the shysters they do now. 

The whole thing is so ******ing obvious but, blinded by our right wing media, we can't seem to see it for some reason. 

Is the market failure in housing?

Why was Grenfeel house full of migrants who really shold not have been i nthe UK.

The real market failure is allowing migrants into the UK who cannot support themselves.

Set a minium wage of 300k (single) 60k( adult). Throw out any non EU migrants not achieving that. Then see how much social housing is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

 The private sector has failed. Only councils can be trusted to build the homes we need

 

Private sector is profit driven within the planning laws.  They seem to be doing what private businesses are supposed to do.

Planning laws keep supply low, credit keeps demand high.

Your suggestion only works if councils give themselves planning permission that would not have been granted to private companies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

 

Private sector is profit driven within the planning laws.  They seem to be doing what private businesses are supposed to do.

Planning laws keep supply low, credit keeps demand high.

Your suggestion only works if councils give themselves planning permission that would not have been granted to private companies.

 

Where I live the Council has an active policy of not contesting planning applications unless it is absolutely cut and dried. Reason? Lost a court case a couple of years ago, forked out a few mil and are now risk averse.

Result? Thousands more house? Nope. A handful of executive houses and a shit load of land banking? Correctamundo.

Market failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hullabaloo82 said:

Where I live the Council has an active policy of not contesting planning applications unless it is absolutely cut and dried. Reason? Lost a court case a couple of years ago, forked out a few mil and are now risk averse.

Result? Thousands more house? Nope. A handful of executive houses and a shit load of land banking? Correctamundo.

Market failure. 

Those with deep pockets get to outspend the council in court, no suprise. Any market failure is due to the planning system where only those with big £ (or "influence") get to manipulate the system.  Individuals simply can't take the risk.

I've had my fights with the planners, going to appeals etc and got nowhere trying to do something sensible.  Neighbours, parish council and local MP tried to help but I got nowhere playing by the rules. I found that permitted development loopholes were the only way to get anything done for an individual without risking big court costs.

The planning system is the failure.   So as I said before, getting councils to build only works if they give themselves permission that a private company or individual would not have got.

I don't think the builders are that interesting in land banking for its own sake (just ensuring a pipeline of future work). They make money on house sales but more importantly, when the planning permission is gained. They don't gain as much just sitting on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2017 at 6:50 AM, Mrs Bear said:

Labour had many years in which they could have reversed Right  to Buy. 

But they didn't.  Now why was that, I wonder?  Could it possibly be because they thought it would lose them votes?

As for local councils, I don't see that they've necessarily been very pro active in insisting on certain standards for the 'affordable' sections of private developments.  An ex-colleague's son and family moved into a 2 bed flat, an 'affordable' rental that was part of a large, private development. 

The kitchen had no window and the 2nd 'bedroom'  wasn't even big enough for a full size single bed, only a toddler bed. 

The council wasn't Tory at the time - it was LD. 

My point wasn't really party political.

What I'm wanting to know is whether there is any way to build social housing without it at some point being sold off cheaply for votes under some sort of RTB scheme? I've read that no parliament can bind its successors so my first thought is that there isn't anything to stop this happening if a future government wants to do it.

If taxpayers spend say £200 billion building 2 million new homes it would be pretty galling if £100 billion is later given away in discounts for party advantage.

 

Edited by oldsport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:10 AM, VeryMeanReversion said:

I don't think the builders are that interesting in land banking for its own sake (just ensuring a pipeline of future work). They make money on house sales but more importantly, when the planning permission is gained. They don't gain as much just sitting on it.

I am also puzzled why they would do so too. Either land banking isn't as bad as some claim or there is a real economic reason to do so.

The only reason I can figure out, is if large corporate builders can borrow large amounts of money via the city and use that to block out smaller building companies buying the same land it makes sense, even if they pay a small amount interest on this money it may well be less than the advantage of squeezing out competition to keep the resulting house sale price high.  Unless anyone knows different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldsport said:

My point wasn't really party political.

What I'm wanting to know is whether there is any way to build social housing without it at some point being sold off cheaply for votes under some sort of RTB scheme? I've read that no parliament can bind its successors so my first thought is that there isn't anything to stop this happening if a future government wants to do it.

If taxpayers spend say £200 billion building 2 million new homes it would be pretty galling if £100 billion is later given away in discounts for party advantage.

 

Arranging the firesale of a capital asset you've only just laboriously acquired? Political suicide, I'd suggest, even if there's nothing legally that could be done to prevent it. But really, the most compelling argument against the idea is that it doesn't make economic sense. The Corbynites understand that the financialisation of the housing market since 1985 is the root cause of our economic ills, and see a program of general needs social housing as a necessary but incomplete corrective. Even the Tories appear latterly to have recognised the extent to which runaway hpi has disenfranchised the young. Two back-to-back housing bubbles have left the UK on its knees, with private sector debt some 165% of GDP, more than twice the long-term average. What advantage is there to be had in orchestrating a third? You don't fix a structural failure with a wrecking ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 5:50 AM, Mrs Bear said:

Labour had many years in which they could have reversed Right  to Buy. 

But they didn't.  Now why was that, I wonder?  Could it possibly be because they thought it would lose them votes?

As for local councils, I don't see that they've necessarily been very pro active in insisting on certain standards for the 'affordable' sections of private developments.  An ex-colleague's son and family moved into a 2 bed flat, an 'affordable' rental that was part of a large, private development. 

The kitchen had no window and the 2nd 'bedroom'  wasn't even big enough for a full size single bed, only a toddler bed. 

The council wasn't Tory at the time - it was LD. 

But he won 3 elections is what the balirites always tell us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 5:31 PM, oldsport said:

If there ever is another massive council house building programme, can anything be done to prevent a future Tory government flogging them off on the cheap to buy votes?

1. Some people had lived in their council housing for many years paying rent, they would have almost repaid in rent what it was worth when they moved in if it had been a loan.

2. The problem was not them buying it but the homes sold not being replaced.....the bigger problem was as soon as they were purchased they in many cases were rented back to the council at a rent far higher.....turned into buy to let back to the council.

3.  New council housing  tenants should be reviewed every five years, there to house low paid workers at a rent that allows them to save a deposit for their own home.

4. Therefore a stepping stone into buying something nice but different they can one day own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:50 AM, Mrs Bear said:

Labour had many years in which they could have reversed Right  to Buy. 

But they didn't.  Now why was that, I wonder?  Could it possibly be because they thought it would lose them votes?

I guess all the people who wanted to buy their council house had already done so became a non-issue.

I do think though the sale of council houses is far more minor contributor to the present day mess than people will accept - if not irrelevant.  Although legal ownership of the house changes it still physically exists to house its occupants so has no impact on the supply side.  The failure to build any more in the following decades does make a difference as population growth happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 297 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.