IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Lib Dems Want to Build 300,000 Houses a Year
Simon Kirby
post Aug 17 2012, 08:39 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



The Grauniad reports that the lib dems are proposing to build 300,000 house each year. Does that include Sandleford then?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Aug 17 2012, 08:58 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



I doubt they will actually build a single one.........

Developers will clamour for the opportunity to build, and the party of the environment will release new sites so they can.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Aug 17 2012, 09:07 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



It seems to me that the proposals are mainly geared towards social tenants. No problem with that but Thatcher converted us all from house renters to house owners. Is this a Libdem attempt at a reversal of that.
The large estate at the top of Turnpike was built as a council rental estate which was sold off cheaply to ownership when it was fashionable. Should we go down this route again, build, rent, sell.?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Aug 17 2012, 09:21 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Aug 17 2012, 10:07 PM) *
It seems to me that the proposals are mainly geared towards social tenants. No problem with that but Thatcher converted us all from house renters to house owners. Is this a Libdem attempt at a reversal of that.
The large estate at the top of Turnpike was built as a council rental estate which was sold off cheaply to ownership when it was fashionable. Should we go down this route again, build, rent, sell.?

It's a thoroughly socialist proposal. To be honest I don't know what I think of the idea. I'd sooner the state kept it's nose out of what should be a free market and largely deregulated house-building along the lines of a presumed consent for anything sustainable, so ideologically I really don't like council housing (or whatever it is we're supposed to call it now).


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 18 2012, 09:18 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Houses are twice as much as they aught to be. Relying on the private sector would be futile as they are not interested in building the type of houses the country needs. Interesting as it was the private sector that invented 'social housing', but back then they also created jobs so that people could afford live in them.

Although I don't know how long 'social housing' will remain useful for some as I understand that rents have been soaring: usually twice the interest rate it seems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nothing Much
post Aug 18 2012, 01:21 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,690
Joined: 16-July 11
Member No.: 6,171



Strange that the only ones that survive in very central London are the Peabody buildings
Harold Wilson cheerfully opened an area of housing that became a rookery. Murders,theft. It was rebuilt twice.
Another area has been taken down and is being rebuilt .Another rookery

Perfectly adequate housing. A bit crowded after the war. Shoreditch and Hoxton were hit hard.Just a big field now.
So the folks had to pack a suitcase and find a roof just over the canal.It was all demolsihed before my time.

A big outcry and they took another look. So I still live in a house built a long time ago.I think Napoleon was still alive.
They are building the new estate ones as Georgian replicas for sale! The ones they demolished.
ce
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Aug 18 2012, 01:23 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 18 2012, 10:18 AM) *
Houses are twice as much as they aught to be.


I'm not sure how you arrive at a twice figure. The price of the land today and has been for the last few years, is the first major cost. This is followed by the charges levied by the council, structural engineers and architects. Then when planning is approved and that seems to take forever these days, every man and his dog want some cash from you in S106 payments. The library, education, road transport, the cycling lobby et al.
This is followed by the cost of materials and of course yet another cost the building inspector. Labour costs are astronomical, plumbers, electricians, gas engineers and brickies all want a substantial share.
Then, when it's finally built the agents take their cut selling it and of course the bank want their money back with interest.

You might want to work out the cost of a house build yourself and I'm sure you may feel differently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 18 2012, 01:57 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Aug 18 2012, 02:23 PM) *
I'm not sure how you arrive at a twice figure. The price of the land today and has been for the last few years, is the first major cost. This is followed by the charges levied by the council, structural engineers and architects. Then when planning is approved and that seems to take forever these days, every man and his dog want some cash from you in S106 payments. The library, education, road transport, the cycling lobby et al.
This is followed by the cost of materials and of course yet another cost the building inspector. Labour costs are astronomical, plumbers, electricians, gas engineers and brickies all want a substantial share.
Then, when it's finally built the agents take their cut selling it and of course the bank want their money back with interest.

You might want to work out the cost of a house build yourself and I'm sure you may feel differently.

I arrived at my figure based on people's ability to pay. Land prices have soared because house prices soared. The governments have sold off housing stock too cheap and haven't reinvest in new stock; we have now arrived at a housing problem.

Average wage is said to be ~£24k, but I would imagine a typical wage is a lower than that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Aug 18 2012, 05:04 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 18 2012, 02:57 PM) *
I arrived at my figure based on people's ability to pay. Land prices have soared because house prices soared. The governments have sold off housing stock too cheap and haven't reinvest in new stock; we have now arrived at a housing problem.

Average wage is said to be ~£24k, but I would imagine a typical wage is a lower than that.



Land prices have soared because there's so much less of it around. Supply an demand. Anyway,, if no one can afford to buy, who is buying all the houses they're building now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Aug 18 2012, 06:29 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Penelope @ Aug 18 2012, 06:04 PM) *
who is buying all the houses they're building now?

Well somebody is, because I noticed a sign saying there are only 4 apartments left in the old Luker building. According to the NWN property guide, prices start at £250,000.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Aug 18 2012, 06:37 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 18 2012, 07:29 PM) *
Well somebody is, because I noticed a sign saying there are only 4 apartments left in the old Luker building. According to the NWN property guide, prices start at £250,000.


Must be all us wicked landlords (pauses to cackle and put on pointy hat).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Aug 18 2012, 08:25 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 18 2012, 02:57 PM) *
I arrived at my figure based on people's ability to pay.


OK I want a new car but never mind how much it cost to build I only have the ability to pay a third of the market price.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Aug 18 2012, 08:54 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 17 2012, 10:21 PM) *
so ideologically I really don't like council housing (or whatever it is we're supposed to call it now).


I know what you mean, but let's be honest, it's not the Council Houses, or the Social Houses that are the problem. It's often the people who live in them. Terrible 'value judgement' I know, but show me a high crime area in Newbury, a high Drug use area, a high Vandal area, and I'll show you a Council Estate. (or whatever Sovereign call them now).

The Houses don't cause the problems....it's the people in 'em.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 18 2012, 09:05 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Penelope @ Aug 18 2012, 06:04 PM) *
Land prices have soared because there's so much less of it around. Supply an demand. Anyway,, if no one can afford to buy, who is buying all the houses they're building now?

The people who can afford them of course, but there are a LOT that cannot due in the main to the housing policies of governments since the 70s. I repeat: land prices have soared because of the cost of housing - which has soared (compared to wages) since the 70s.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 18 2012, 09:10 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Aug 18 2012, 09:25 PM) *
OK I want a new car but never mind how much it cost to build I only have the ability to pay a third of the market price.....

Well that is exactly the problem we have now. Government policies have seen to it that a large percentage of the population cannot afford a private house. As the government are not building any more, it is left to the private sector who are also not interested in building 'affordable' housing. And if people have to spend most of their money in housing, they have little left to 'grow the economy' we keep hearing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 18 2012, 09:21 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Aug 18 2012, 09:54 PM) *
I know what you mean, but let's be honest, it's not the Council Houses, or the Social Houses that are the problem. It's often the people who live in them. Terrible 'value judgement' I know, but show me a high crime area in Newbury, a high Drug use area, a high Vandal area, and I'll show you a Council Estate. (or whatever Sovereign call them now). The Houses don't cause the problems....it's the people in 'em.

I can guarantee you now that the people responsible for creating all the sh*t in the economy now, live in fantastic housing, and the cost to people's livelihood they are responsible for pale into insignificance compared to the plebs you refer to here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Aug 18 2012, 09:31 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 18 2012, 10:21 PM) *
I can guarantee you now that the people responsible for creating all the sh*t in the economy now live in fantastic housing, and the cost to people's livelihood they are responsible for pale into insignificance compared to the plebs you refer to here.


Ahh the politics of envy, again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 18 2012, 09:36 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Penelope @ Aug 18 2012, 10:31 PM) *
Ahh the politics of envy, again.

What envy? I'm not envious and I think your argument is misplaced. I'm not moaning about how rich people are, I am moaning people's myopia in what they regard as anti-social. There are individuals walking free that have cost this country billions and have help put people in to a life of relative poverty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Aug 18 2012, 09:57 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Penelope @ Aug 18 2012, 06:04 PM) *
Land prices have soared because there's so much less of it around. Supply an demand. Anyway,, if no one can afford to buy, who is buying all the houses they're building now?

There is plenty of land around - but planning laws stop it from being used. It is the planning system that inflates the price of land.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Aug 19 2012, 09:33 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Aug 18 2012, 09:54 PM) *
I know what you mean, but let's be honest, it's not the Council Houses, or the Social Houses that are the problem. It's often the people who live in them. Terrible 'value judgement' I know, but show me a high crime area in Newbury, a high Drug use area, a high Vandal area, and I'll show you a Council Estate. (or whatever Sovereign call them now).

The Houses don't cause the problems....it's the people in 'em.

That wasn't what I meant. When I say I'm ideologically opposed to council housing I mean that I'm opposed, as a matter of principle, to the state supplying housing. I see the role of the state to provide our common goods such as roads, defence, rubbish collection, policing, social and health services, but I don't see that the state has a role as a landlord. I believe that the role of the state is to enable individuals and private enterprise to provide the nation's housing needs.

I agree with blackdog; planning laws are central to the housing crisis because it's planning law that creates planning uplift and inflates house prices, and I agree with Exhausted too that the state is bleeding the home-buyer dry with all the miscellaneous charges for this and that. I would like to see planning regulation slashed with a presumption in favour of sustainable development. I think there is a need for some minimal building regulations but I'm not impressed with the green loby imposing excessive obligations over and above a prudent level of energy efficiency which do nothing but support the green ecconomy.

Of course without planning uplift there wouldn't be building land available - farmers wouldn't tend to see their land because that's how they make their living, and farms would again be owned by farmers rather than the Church of England Pension Fund and such which just let it to farmers until they can make a killing by developing it. To overcome this I think there is a very good argument for compulsory purchase powers for housebuilding land.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th January 2022 - 01:01 AM