I scan every article on housing and if immigration is not mentioned, I ignore it.
To quote Kemi Badenoch
“People – rightly – recognise that building more homes while doing nothing to bring immigration down is like running up the down escalator.
We’ll never get to where we need to with that approach, and we won’t persuade people to accept more homes if it is being done due to immigration failures. If we can bring immigration down to a sustainable level, we can then protect green spaces for our children and precious agricultural land.
And so controlling immigration is important to managing the pressures it puts on housing and public services. Building confidence in the Government’s ability to control immigration is an important foundation for ensuring a cohesive society.”
I was just thinking the same. I don’t want my taxes being used to pamper & coddle illegal immigrants (No I am not talking about genuine Asylum seekers). I am talking about those who come here illegaly, passing through numerous safe countries on their way. The fact that they are then allowed to commit any crime they choose without being advised that they have abused our hospitality & shown the door.
I was just thinking the same. I don’t want my taxes being used to pamper & coddle illegal immigrants (No I am not talking about genuine Asylum seekers). I am talking about those who come here illegaly, passing through numerous safe countries on their way. The fact that they are then allowed to commit any crime they choose without being advised that they have abused our hospitality & shown the door.
I scan every article on housing and if immigration is not mentioned, I ignore it.
To quote Kemi Badenoch
“People – rightly – recognise that building more homes while doing nothing to bring immigration down is like running up the down escalator.
We’ll never get to where we need to with that approach, and we won’t persuade people to accept more homes if it is being done due to immigration failures. If we can bring immigration down to a sustainable level, we can then protect green spaces for our children and precious agricultural land.
And so controlling immigration is important to managing the pressures it puts on housing and public services. Building confidence in the Government’s ability to control immigration is an important foundation for ensuring a cohesive society.”
All the talk though is of limiting legal immigration from ethnicities which go on to have high education levels and low crime rates though.
So, rest assured, the population will go even more boom boom, just that as a country Britain won’t get any associated benefits attached to it.
R Wright
1 year ago
No mention of our massive population boom then?
Ben Jones
1 year ago
For Tories to be discussing this now is a bit like the little fella with the silly moustache, in his bunker, moving his imaginary panzer divisions around a map of the Berlin suburbs.
Best the Conservatives take a little break and, while they’re at it, a long hard look at themselves. They have squandered thirteen years of power. Utterly squandered. Why? Because ‘broad church’ political parties no longer work, and the Tories are largely composed of Chancers, Blairites and Lib Dems.
And, yes, housing policy might be a nice place to begin.
Need to be honest about what Thatcher did and didn’t do first. She used ‘property ownership’ as an electoral bribe and then prevented councils building new council housing stock for the next generation. She had no long-term practical vision, just a canny understanding of how to buy a few million votes.
There will ALWAYS be a need for social housing. Any conservative who claims otherwise is a mentally subnormal cretin, economically illiterate and a danger to the public. Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty, just as it NEVER prevents obscene concentration fo wealth. REGULATION of capitalism can mitigate both those undesirable outcomes, but it can never fully eliminate it.
In the 1950s, building a million houses was pretty easy because of all the WWII damage. It was the easiest thing to do, not the hardest.
Now with too many people here and NIMBYs all over the place, it gets harder and harder to build new homes, except those which are designed to fail the needs of the renters/owners to maximise the profits of the builders. The interests of the builders are diametrically opposed to the interests of those that have to live in the homes and no politician has the guts to say so in public.
It’s about time the large building corporations were called to account for their anti-societal selfishness. I don’t expect that to happen because such corporations take care to bung the politicians. Grenfell Tower is a prime example of what happens when they do precisely that….
“Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty.” This is true (almost by definition) if by ‘poverty’ you mean wealth inequality, and false (by every observable data point) if by ‘poverty’ you mean absolute standards of living.
There’s massive evidence that capitalism makes societies richer, and that the rising tide also lifts the poorest boats – albeit not always as much as it lifts the highest boats. Capitalism is simply the distribution of economic benefits according to supply and demand in the market, so people who are better able to supply market demands, will end up with more benefits. Sad but true: there is an inherently unequal distribution among humans of the ability to satisfy market demands. As a result, economic liberalism will necessarily result in unequal outcomes… but (silver lining!) also result in a better allocation of goods and services among the poor.
After all, the poorest person in most wealthy countries is better off in terms of health care, nutrition, life expectancy, food choices, entertainment options, etc., than middle-class people were decades ago – and vastly better off than the poor in countries with non-functioning market economies or command economies. That’s why the poor in those countries are constantly pushing their way into our countries.
“Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty.” This is true (almost by definition) if by ‘poverty’ you mean wealth inequality, and false (by every observable data point) if by ‘poverty’ you mean absolute standards of living.
There’s massive evidence that capitalism makes societies richer, and that the rising tide also lifts the poorest boats – albeit not always as much as it lifts the highest boats. Capitalism is simply the distribution of economic benefits according to supply and demand in the market, so people who are better able to supply market demands, will end up with more benefits. Sad but true: there is an inherently unequal distribution among humans of the ability to satisfy market demands. As a result, economic liberalism will necessarily result in unequal outcomes… but (silver lining!) also result in a better allocation of goods and services among the poor.
After all, the poorest person in most wealthy countries is better off in terms of health care, nutrition, life expectancy, food choices, entertainment options, etc., than middle-class people were decades ago – and vastly better off than the poor in countries with non-functioning market economies or command economies. That’s why the poor in those countries are constantly pushing their way into our countries.
Need to be honest about what Thatcher did and didn’t do first. She used ‘property ownership’ as an electoral bribe and then prevented councils building new council housing stock for the next generation. She had no long-term practical vision, just a canny understanding of how to buy a few million votes.
There will ALWAYS be a need for social housing. Any conservative who claims otherwise is a mentally subnormal cretin, economically illiterate and a danger to the public. Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty, just as it NEVER prevents obscene concentration fo wealth. REGULATION of capitalism can mitigate both those undesirable outcomes, but it can never fully eliminate it.
In the 1950s, building a million houses was pretty easy because of all the WWII damage. It was the easiest thing to do, not the hardest.
Now with too many people here and NIMBYs all over the place, it gets harder and harder to build new homes, except those which are designed to fail the needs of the renters/owners to maximise the profits of the builders. The interests of the builders are diametrically opposed to the interests of those that have to live in the homes and no politician has the guts to say so in public.
It’s about time the large building corporations were called to account for their anti-societal selfishness. I don’t expect that to happen because such corporations take care to bung the politicians. Grenfell Tower is a prime example of what happens when they do precisely that….
Ben Jones
1 year ago
For Tories to be discussing this now is a bit like the little fella with the silly moustache, in his bunker, moving his imaginary panzer divisions around a map of the Berlin suburbs.
Best the Conservatives take a little break and, while they’re at it, a long hard look at themselves. They have squandered thirteen years of power. Utterly squandered. Why? Because ‘broad church’ political parties no longer work, and the Tories are largely composed of Chancers, Blairites and Lib Dems.
And, yes, housing policy might be a nice place to begin.
Neil Ross
1 year ago
Not a single mention of population growth caused by mass immigration! Wonder why? Back in 1998 when the population was 59 million the forecast for UK population in 2023 was 64 million, but instead it has reached 68 million – 4 million higher, The homes to accommodate the extra 9 million people have not been built instead ugly extensions and apartment blocks have appeared everywhere to try and fit them in. The price has been paid by the young, who have been duped into thinking mass immigration is a good thing. Will they change their views as they get older and realise the State is not going to help them!
Last edited 1 year ago by Neil Ross
Neil Ross
1 year ago
Not a single mention of population growth caused by mass immigration! Wonder why? Back in 1998 when the population was 59 million the forecast for UK population in 2023 was 64 million, but instead it has reached 68 million – 4 million higher, The homes to accommodate the extra 9 million people have not been built instead ugly extensions and apartment blocks have appeared everywhere to try and fit them in. The price has been paid by the young, who have been duped into thinking mass immigration is a good thing. Will they change their views as they get older and realise the State is not going to help them!
Last edited 1 year ago by Neil Ross
William Cameron
1 year ago
This article makes the oft repeated error that high house prices are caused by a lack of supply- ignoring demand.
The truth is that there is a lack of supply – but far far more significant is the excess demand caused by very cheap lending.
Now that interest rates are going up house prices are falling. This wouldnt be happening if it was a supply problem.
Cheap money has created a huge shift of wealth from those without assets to those with assets. The greatest theft in history. It has enriched asset owners and impoverished those without.
Speaking as someone who benefited from that cheap money – it’s worse than that.
The cheap lending, that caused excessive demand, goes to those with excess funds to pay 15-30% equity on properties – but not to the majority of the population who cannot afford that deposit, because the excess demand has inflated house prices too much.
And thanks to that same excess demand, there is a resulting jump in house prices. Hence, those who are rich enough to pay deposits originally become even richer as their investments in housing are highly leveraged (with near zero funding cost, remember?). Therefore they can pay a deposit to buy more houses, hence increasing demand further…
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic and incompetent.
I suspect the Bank of England’s inflation targeting ought to include property prices. The reality is that QE led to inflation – but it appeared in house prices not goods (until recently) and was allowed to run riot.
A technical factor is that banks only have to put up 50% of the capital to back a property loan compared to a commercial loan thus making it more profitable than commercial lending all other things being equal. If the BoE wanted to stabilise house prices the risk weighting could be used as a tool.
Speaking as someone who benefited from that cheap money – it’s worse than that.
The cheap lending, that caused excessive demand, goes to those with excess funds to pay 15-30% equity on properties – but not to the majority of the population who cannot afford that deposit, because the excess demand has inflated house prices too much.
And thanks to that same excess demand, there is a resulting jump in house prices. Hence, those who are rich enough to pay deposits originally become even richer as their investments in housing are highly leveraged (with near zero funding cost, remember?). Therefore they can pay a deposit to buy more houses, hence increasing demand further…
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic and incompetent.
I suspect the Bank of England’s inflation targeting ought to include property prices. The reality is that QE led to inflation – but it appeared in house prices not goods (until recently) and was allowed to run riot.
A technical factor is that banks only have to put up 50% of the capital to back a property loan compared to a commercial loan thus making it more profitable than commercial lending all other things being equal. If the BoE wanted to stabilise house prices the risk weighting could be used as a tool.
William Cameron
1 year ago
This article makes the oft repeated error that high house prices are caused by a lack of supply- ignoring demand.
The truth is that there is a lack of supply – but far far more significant is the excess demand caused by very cheap lending.
Now that interest rates are going up house prices are falling. This wouldnt be happening if it was a supply problem.
Cheap money has created a huge shift of wealth from those without assets to those with assets. The greatest theft in history. It has enriched asset owners and impoverished those without.
Martin Brumby
1 year ago
“Michael Gove – a passionate Unionist and, that rare thing, a genuinely intellectual politician…”
Would that be the same Michael Gove who revoltingly fawned on a teenage Swedish school truant who had been trained to mouth ridiculous GangGreen platitudes and claim that her (apparently very agreeable) childhood had been stolen? (Ignoring various child slaves ranging from from English Cities to the Congo, who had REALLY had their childhood stolen).
If Gove is a “genuinely intellectual politician”, then there is zero point zero hope for the rest of us.
Martin Brumby
1 year ago
“Michael Gove – a passionate Unionist and, that rare thing, a genuinely intellectual politician…”
Would that be the same Michael Gove who revoltingly fawned on a teenage Swedish school truant who had been trained to mouth ridiculous GangGreen platitudes and claim that her (apparently very agreeable) childhood had been stolen? (Ignoring various child slaves ranging from from English Cities to the Congo, who had REALLY had their childhood stolen).
If Gove is a “genuinely intellectual politician”, then there is zero point zero hope for the rest of us.
Vici C
1 year ago
Where do they live these “intellectual” politicians? Not in a county that is being blighted, sunk, destroyed, suburbanised to within the last ounce of soul with endless lego houses. Don’t dare talk to me about housing shortages when you have invited 10 million more people in the last twenty years to live here. You know why you need them: because of no investment in technology, education, innovation, because of selling our manufacturing and assets. Now a mad scramble of short term catch up and desperate attempt to stay in power. By employing cheap labour. Not very edifying. We have sold everything and now the land itself is disappearing.
Vici C
1 year ago
Where do they live these “intellectual” politicians? Not in a county that is being blighted, sunk, destroyed, suburbanised to within the last ounce of soul with endless lego houses. Don’t dare talk to me about housing shortages when you have invited 10 million more people in the last twenty years to live here. You know why you need them: because of no investment in technology, education, innovation, because of selling our manufacturing and assets. Now a mad scramble of short term catch up and desperate attempt to stay in power. By employing cheap labour. Not very edifying. We have sold everything and now the land itself is disappearing.
Michael W
1 year ago
I will never listen seriously to the Conservatives talk about solving the housing crisis or improving affordability whilst they keep increasing the population at such a rate. Net immigration was 500k last year, a record. What amazes me is the cognitive dissonance of people that moan about house prices but won’t take any criticism of the current rate of immigration. It may be a bubble but bubbles still require a basis of demand exceeding supply to avoid popping.
Also the reliance on private housebuilders self defeating. They are obviously not going to flood the market with houses to reduce prices. The current status quo suits them well. Strange coincidence that developers make such large donations to the Tory party.
Michael W
1 year ago
I will never listen seriously to the Conservatives talk about solving the housing crisis or improving affordability whilst they keep increasing the population at such a rate. Net immigration was 500k last year, a record. What amazes me is the cognitive dissonance of people that moan about house prices but won’t take any criticism of the current rate of immigration. It may be a bubble but bubbles still require a basis of demand exceeding supply to avoid popping.
Also the reliance on private housebuilders self defeating. They are obviously not going to flood the market with houses to reduce prices. The current status quo suits them well. Strange coincidence that developers make such large donations to the Tory party.
Roderick MacDonald
1 year ago
Michael Gove’s latest scheme is to take us back to the 70s by depriving landlords of their normal property rights, This is not Conservatism and it’s not even socialism lite. It is the hard core leftism of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. This is not the way to “intellectual reinvigoration” for the Conservatives.
Housing is too important to be left in the care of private landlords (if that’s who you’re referring to). The sooner they’re squeezed out and their “portfolios” released onto the market for young buyers, the better. Not a popular opinion round here, I suspect, but I speak as a former private landlord.
Yeah, but why make an exception for housing? Why not absolutely everything? Isn’t health “too important to be left in the care of private individuals”? Isn’t employment? But even that march towards a soviet style distribution system, is absolutely missing the point, which is this: having squeezed out private landlords out of their portfolios, you are *not* going to get properties migrating into the hands of the individuals who live in them, you are simply going to replace private landlords with… wait for it… corporate landlords. Like for example John Lewis. Why is this not blindingly obvious?
It’s so obvious it doesn’t warrant mentioning. Corporate landlords are already hoovering up property as private landlords bail out. What’s needed is the political will to police them properly and with a presumed bias in favour of tenants. But ideally I’d like to see right-to-buy extended to the private rented sector.
It’s so obvious it doesn’t warrant mentioning. Corporate landlords are already hoovering up property as private landlords bail out. What’s needed is the political will to police them properly and with a presumed bias in favour of tenants. But ideally I’d like to see right-to-buy extended to the private rented sector.
Yeah, but why make an exception for housing? Why not absolutely everything? Isn’t health “too important to be left in the care of private individuals”? Isn’t employment? But even that march towards a soviet style distribution system, is absolutely missing the point, which is this: having squeezed out private landlords out of their portfolios, you are *not* going to get properties migrating into the hands of the individuals who live in them, you are simply going to replace private landlords with… wait for it… corporate landlords. Like for example John Lewis. Why is this not blindingly obvious?
Housing is too important to be left in the care of private landlords (if that’s who you’re referring to). The sooner they’re squeezed out and their “portfolios” released onto the market for young buyers, the better. Not a popular opinion round here, I suspect, but I speak as a former private landlord.
Roderick MacDonald
1 year ago
Michael Gove’s latest scheme is to take us back to the 70s by depriving landlords of their normal property rights, This is not Conservatism and it’s not even socialism lite. It is the hard core leftism of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. This is not the way to “intellectual reinvigoration” for the Conservatives.
Peter Quasi-Modo
1 year ago
Look at the list of countries countries by home ownership rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
The highest rates of home ownership is in Romania (96.1%). Here in Scotland, many of the Big Issue sellers (by definition homeless) are from Romania. I think Scotland must have the other 3.9% of Romanians, but I digress. Coming in at 7th place is Cuba (90%). Fidel Castro was a massive fan of home ownership as a political goal. Now look down at the bottom of the table. In the bottom 7, you will find Austria (55.3), Germany (51.1%) and Switzerland (4.16%).
UK is 14th from bottom, with 63%. This article asks the government to nudge the UK towards the end of the table that includes Romania and Cuba and away from the Austria/Germany/Switzerland end.
I propose an alternative. The government should do nothing special about buidling new homes. Instead, they focus on fulfilling their election pledge to decrease immigration. That, combined with repatriating illegal immigrants, should free up a sufficiently large proportion of the housing market to trigger a slump in house prices.
Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Quasi-Modo
Peter Quasi-Modo
1 year ago
Look at the list of countries countries by home ownership rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
The highest rates of home ownership is in Romania (96.1%). Here in Scotland, many of the Big Issue sellers (by definition homeless) are from Romania. I think Scotland must have the other 3.9% of Romanians, but I digress. Coming in at 7th place is Cuba (90%). Fidel Castro was a massive fan of home ownership as a political goal. Now look down at the bottom of the table. In the bottom 7, you will find Austria (55.3), Germany (51.1%) and Switzerland (4.16%).
UK is 14th from bottom, with 63%. This article asks the government to nudge the UK towards the end of the table that includes Romania and Cuba and away from the Austria/Germany/Switzerland end.
I propose an alternative. The government should do nothing special about buidling new homes. Instead, they focus on fulfilling their election pledge to decrease immigration. That, combined with repatriating illegal immigrants, should free up a sufficiently large proportion of the housing market to trigger a slump in house prices.
Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Quasi-Modo
j watson
1 year ago
Key phrase – ‘…presuming that the party of property should be the party of the already propertied’. Yet protecting existing advantage (and middle aged Daily Mail readers!) fundamental part of the Tories DNA, and hence the dreadful mess they’ve got us all into on this key policy matter. One of a number of critical contradictions in Right Wing thinking that an extended period in power has just more starkly illuminated.
The Article though is weak on Policy responses. That in part one suspects is because we’ve let this become so big a problem that the potential Policy responses are really challenging and the Author feared to cite them – building/funding more homes; taxing 2nd Homes much more; incentivising down-sizing to free up under-occupation; increased capital gains to put brake on prices, tax changes to encourage release of rentals to market etc. These and others must be taken on, and not just to rebalance the market to aid our young, but because the British economy is far too weighted to investing in bricks and mortar. The low growth economy we have has it’s roots in this addiction.
I seem to recall Tony Blair, Gordon ‘flexible labour market’ Brown, Peter ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ Mandelson and Jack ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ Straw being every bit as keen on coolie labour as blue rosette crew have been. Or was the erasure of British cultural identity Labour’s only motive?
You can of course be relaxed about real entrepreneurs and job creators getting v rich and at same time also not favour over reliance on cheap, low skilled, or imported labour.
I suspect that in fact neither party intended ‘mass immigration’ (however one might define ‘mass’) and it has not been a deliberate strategy overall. Some immigration in specific areas, yes, but ‘mass’ unplanned? I favour a bit more c**k up always over conspiracy.
But once assumptions were shown not to hold it required a change in Policy. The more recent Policy change from those in power seems to have been whilst reducing EU free movement we’ll increase immigration from elsewhere and make it more difficult at same time to return asylum seekers too. These are explicit Tory/Right wing decisions quite arguably resulting from the contradictions Brexit and broader Right Wing thinking set inevitably in motion because of a broader dishonesty about choices we face.
But anyway the Article was about Housing, and as yet not heard any credible Right Wing politician convey how they could sort this. Let’s put the ‘red meat = it’s all down to immigration’ argument etc to one side. What are they proposing now, whether Sunak or likes of a Braverman?
Sophistry, it was an ideological pursuit championed by civil servants Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes that Blair signed up to. We’ve had 25 years of mass immigration, aligned with low interest rates, stagnant wages, falling productivity, lower GDP per capita. Under the Tories we have the highest tax burden in peace times, budget cuts all round while still importing hundreds of thousands of people year on year that our infrastructure and environment can’t cope with.
C**k-up, I would call it gross incompetence on an epic scale. What is Starmer proposing? He’s noticably quiet on immigration, why would that be?
Yes I wouldn’t argue greatly about c**k up or incompetence. Clearly both at best.
But that’s the past and we are where we are. Thus the question for the Right (which is in power at least for a further 20+mths), what’s the plan and proposition on the housing and home ownership problem?
And those on the Right critique’ing Sunak, what’s your plan?
Our governments have spent the last 30 years destroying our economy with short term policies that enriched their backers while all the time ignoring the evidence of the damage it was doing.
Solutions, all parties have promised to build 200k houses for the next 20 years and to reduce immigration to under 100k pa. They have failed miserably on both counts and will continue to do so. Any other measures like the ones you previously mentioned is simply window dressing.
Our governments have spent the last 30 years destroying our economy with short term policies that enriched their backers while all the time ignoring the evidence of the damage it was doing.
Solutions, all parties have promised to build 200k houses for the next 20 years and to reduce immigration to under 100k pa. They have failed miserably on both counts and will continue to do so. Any other measures like the ones you previously mentioned is simply window dressing.
Yes I wouldn’t argue greatly about c**k up or incompetence. Clearly both at best.
But that’s the past and we are where we are. Thus the question for the Right (which is in power at least for a further 20+mths), what’s the plan and proposition on the housing and home ownership problem?
And those on the Right critique’ing Sunak, what’s your plan?
Sophistry, it was an ideological pursuit championed by civil servants Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes that Blair signed up to. We’ve had 25 years of mass immigration, aligned with low interest rates, stagnant wages, falling productivity, lower GDP per capita. Under the Tories we have the highest tax burden in peace times, budget cuts all round while still importing hundreds of thousands of people year on year that our infrastructure and environment can’t cope with.
C**k-up, I would call it gross incompetence on an epic scale. What is Starmer proposing? He’s noticably quiet on immigration, why would that be?
You can of course be relaxed about real entrepreneurs and job creators getting v rich and at same time also not favour over reliance on cheap, low skilled, or imported labour.
I suspect that in fact neither party intended ‘mass immigration’ (however one might define ‘mass’) and it has not been a deliberate strategy overall. Some immigration in specific areas, yes, but ‘mass’ unplanned? I favour a bit more c**k up always over conspiracy.
But once assumptions were shown not to hold it required a change in Policy. The more recent Policy change from those in power seems to have been whilst reducing EU free movement we’ll increase immigration from elsewhere and make it more difficult at same time to return asylum seekers too. These are explicit Tory/Right wing decisions quite arguably resulting from the contradictions Brexit and broader Right Wing thinking set inevitably in motion because of a broader dishonesty about choices we face.
But anyway the Article was about Housing, and as yet not heard any credible Right Wing politician convey how they could sort this. Let’s put the ‘red meat = it’s all down to immigration’ argument etc to one side. What are they proposing now, whether Sunak or likes of a Braverman?
I seem to recall Tony Blair, Gordon ‘flexible labour market’ Brown, Peter ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ Mandelson and Jack ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ Straw being every bit as keen on coolie labour as blue rosette crew have been. Or was the erasure of British cultural identity Labour’s only motive?
… protecting existing advantage (and middle aged Daily Mail readers!) fundamental part of the Tories DNA …
In my view it is part of Conservative thinking (which is not necessarily that of the current party, of course) is to extend advantages of all kinds of ownership to the maximum number of people.
Nothing should delight and reassure conservatives (whether with a capital C or a small c) so much as extremely widely-enjoyed home ownership.
It is socialists who want the maximum families renting in socially-owned council estates; it was Margaret Thatcher who gave those renters the chance to own their homes.
World’s moved on. It arguably appears to be the moderate centre, maybe even centre left, that actually prepared to do what it takes to give everyone the home owning opportunity. The Tory Right drifted into just protecting those that already have. Actions speak louder than words as they say and the Tories been in power for 13 years and here’s where we are.
And it has been George Osborne and his blue Blairite, Davos-friendly successors who have worked hard to put the next generation back on rent: but this time, paid to their (literally) sponsors in Big Corporate Oligopoly, not the Municipal Council.
It’s analogous to the Enclosure of the Commons, though that at least did have one or two positive side-effects: this doesn’t.
The problem of course with this repetitive retort is Blair/Lab not been in power for 13 yrs (Blair – 16yrs even), and even Osborne not been in power for almost 7 years (although I’ve little time for Osborne’s austerity). Since then what the Brexit Tories done about this, other than make it much worse?
Now of course I know the next retort will be the last 7 years we either haven’t had a proper Tory Govt, or some other ‘blob’ has been stopping the Right sorting all this, or even perhaps the pandemic will be wheeled out. So perhaps the question is where is the coherent Brexit/Tory Policy development and granularity sellable to the British public that has at least been worked up ready to go that would start to address this issue?
The problem of course with this repetitive retort is Blair/Lab not been in power for 13 yrs (Blair – 16yrs even), and even Osborne not been in power for almost 7 years (although I’ve little time for Osborne’s austerity). Since then what the Brexit Tories done about this, other than make it much worse?
Now of course I know the next retort will be the last 7 years we either haven’t had a proper Tory Govt, or some other ‘blob’ has been stopping the Right sorting all this, or even perhaps the pandemic will be wheeled out. So perhaps the question is where is the coherent Brexit/Tory Policy development and granularity sellable to the British public that has at least been worked up ready to go that would start to address this issue?
World’s moved on. It arguably appears to be the moderate centre, maybe even centre left, that actually prepared to do what it takes to give everyone the home owning opportunity. The Tory Right drifted into just protecting those that already have. Actions speak louder than words as they say and the Tories been in power for 13 years and here’s where we are.
And it has been George Osborne and his blue Blairite, Davos-friendly successors who have worked hard to put the next generation back on rent: but this time, paid to their (literally) sponsors in Big Corporate Oligopoly, not the Municipal Council.
It’s analogous to the Enclosure of the Commons, though that at least did have one or two positive side-effects: this doesn’t.
… protecting existing advantage (and middle aged Daily Mail readers!) fundamental part of the Tories DNA …
In my view it is part of Conservative thinking (which is not necessarily that of the current party, of course) is to extend advantages of all kinds of ownership to the maximum number of people.
Nothing should delight and reassure conservatives (whether with a capital C or a small c) so much as extremely widely-enjoyed home ownership.
It is socialists who want the maximum families renting in socially-owned council estates; it was Margaret Thatcher who gave those renters the chance to own their homes.
j watson
1 year ago
Key phrase – ‘…presuming that the party of property should be the party of the already propertied’. Yet protecting existing advantage (and middle aged Daily Mail readers!) fundamental part of the Tories DNA, and hence the dreadful mess they’ve got us all into on this key policy matter. One of a number of critical contradictions in Right Wing thinking that an extended period in power has just more starkly illuminated.
The Article though is weak on Policy responses. That in part one suspects is because we’ve let this become so big a problem that the potential Policy responses are really challenging and the Author feared to cite them – building/funding more homes; taxing 2nd Homes much more; incentivising down-sizing to free up under-occupation; increased capital gains to put brake on prices, tax changes to encourage release of rentals to market etc. These and others must be taken on, and not just to rebalance the market to aid our young, but because the British economy is far too weighted to investing in bricks and mortar. The low growth economy we have has it’s roots in this addiction.
K Joynes
1 year ago
“Keir Starmer has said he would pursue a homeownership target of 70% if elected”
Won’t that conflict with the aim of his new chums in DAVOS/WEF to have us owning nothing and being happy?
Another platitude for him to put on his “Keirstone”.
Would the target be 70% ? What if it reached 80% ? Would that be better ? Or worse ?
Even if competent, I doubt a government can directly achieve such targets. To actually enforce such a target would likely mean some bureaucrat from central planning having to decide who should – and should not – own a house.
Yes, the government should run a sensible planning and tax regime and also act to limit population instability (immigration can be controlled – it is simply a matter of will). It should also stop deliberately inflating house prices through under-priced interest rates and ludicrous policies like George Osborne’s “help to buy” state support for some (not all) house buyers.
But trying to target specific ownership rates ?
Another platitude for him to put on his “Keirstone”.
Would the target be 70% ? What if it reached 80% ? Would that be better ? Or worse ?
Even if competent, I doubt a government can directly achieve such targets. To actually enforce such a target would likely mean some bureaucrat from central planning having to decide who should – and should not – own a house.
Yes, the government should run a sensible planning and tax regime and also act to limit population instability (immigration can be controlled – it is simply a matter of will). It should also stop deliberately inflating house prices through under-priced interest rates and ludicrous policies like George Osborne’s “help to buy” state support for some (not all) house buyers.
But trying to target specific ownership rates ?
K Joynes
1 year ago
“Keir Starmer has said he would pursue a homeownership target of 70% if elected”
Won’t that conflict with the aim of his new chums in DAVOS/WEF to have us owning nothing and being happy?
Will Will
1 year ago
Increased population resulting in increased demand not met by increased supply thanks to myriad special interests, and insanely low interest rendering property unaffordable. And that is just the property market. Capital markets and other forms of investment also distorted by low interest rates. Property isn’t just real estate.
Will Will
1 year ago
Increased population resulting in increased demand not met by increased supply thanks to myriad special interests, and insanely low interest rendering property unaffordable. And that is just the property market. Capital markets and other forms of investment also distorted by low interest rates. Property isn’t just real estate.
JR Stoker
1 year ago
What an excellent article, should be printed and sent to every Tory MP, lord, and activist.
It’s essential to remind them all what they ought to believe in – conservative liberalism in the tradition of both – and then to examine every policy and create new ones to reflect it. Then find leaders who can articulate that.
JR Stoker
1 year ago
What an excellent article, should be printed and sent to every Tory MP, lord, and activist.
It’s essential to remind them all what they ought to believe in – conservative liberalism in the tradition of both – and then to examine every policy and create new ones to reflect it. Then find leaders who can articulate that.
Over 45,000*illegal immigrants crossed the Channel on Lilos and rubber dinghies last year.
A mere 18,000 crossed Mare Nostrum**to make it to Calabria during the same period.
(* 5,000 more than the Roman Invasion of 43AD.)
(** The Mediterranean.)
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Over 45,000*illegal immigrants crossed the Channel on Lilos and rubber dinghies last year.
A mere 18,000 crossed Mare Nostrum**to make it to Calabria during the same period.
(* 5,000 more than the Roman Invasion of 43AD.)
(** The Mediterranean.)
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
The comments are far more interesting than the article. A nice attempt too revive the Tory ideal of a property owning democracy. A bit late in the fag end days of a Tory government. And despite this every town in every half decent bit of England is being ruined by new housing estates without proper infrastructure. Meanwhile we increase the population, sell empty properties to oversees investors, ignore decent housing stock which could be easily renovated, prevent older people and landlords from selling because of SDLT and CGT penalties, bit of a mess really.
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
The comments are far more interesting than the article. A nice attempt too revive the Tory ideal of a property owning democracy. A bit late in the fag end days of a Tory government. And despite this every town in every half decent bit of England is being ruined by new housing estates without proper infrastructure. Meanwhile we increase the population, sell empty properties to oversees investors, ignore decent housing stock which could be easily renovated, prevent older people and landlords from selling because of SDLT and CGT penalties, bit of a mess really.
Alan Bright
1 year ago
Fewer houses being built; increased population; more relationship breakdown (Mum and the kids in one property and Dad – by himself – in another); expansion of higher education (housing required for students living away from home temporarily). Those are the four main causes – have I missed any? Perhaps I have. I don’t think it’s just immigration – although that must play a part.
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Go back to the top again – Really Look at that Picture!
The mask is dropped – you can see quite clearly the Lizard faces under the disguise….so no, they have not lost their way – just that their way is to basically enslave us in the ‘New World Order’, which is not good for us.
In fairness, Fishy Rishi does manage to look more like a smirking iguana in that pic than any human should be able to. Perhaps he’s just swallowed a particularly tasty mouse.
Not sure about Goofy Gove, though – the man who went to Robert Gordon’s, the only independent school in Aberdeen, but now wants to slap VAT on top of school fees (already paid from 50% taxed income), stripping such school choice from yet another tranche of hard-working parents. Marinaded in his own hypocrisy, he looks more like a pig.
That he and Mordaunt and Gauke and so many like them are Tory MPs is a damning indictment on that wretched, wastrel ffrrrrrrraud of a party.
Education is yet another Tory fail. The state system got better and now is decaying again and all they can think of is weakly defending public schools.
How about some original thinking there? Say don’t financially attack private schools, but privatise the entire system, using education vouchers so every parent can select the school they want their child to go to? Get the government out of the education system other than compulsory schooling, minimum standards, and inspectorate.
Education is yet another Tory fail. The state system got better and now is decaying again and all they can think of is weakly defending public schools.
How about some original thinking there? Say don’t financially attack private schools, but privatise the entire system, using education vouchers so every parent can select the school they want their child to go to? Get the government out of the education system other than compulsory schooling, minimum standards, and inspectorate.
In fairness, Fishy Rishi does manage to look more like a smirking iguana in that pic than any human should be able to. Perhaps he’s just swallowed a particularly tasty mouse.
Not sure about Goofy Gove, though – the man who went to Robert Gordon’s, the only independent school in Aberdeen, but now wants to slap VAT on top of school fees (already paid from 50% taxed income), stripping such school choice from yet another tranche of hard-working parents. Marinaded in his own hypocrisy, he looks more like a pig.
That he and Mordaunt and Gauke and so many like them are Tory MPs is a damning indictment on that wretched, wastrel ffrrrrrrraud of a party.
Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Joy
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Go back to the top again – Really Look at that Picture!
The mask is dropped – you can see quite clearly the Lizard faces under the disguise….so no, they have not lost their way – just that their way is to basically enslave us in the ‘New World Order’, which is not good for us.
Chris W
1 year ago
After WW2 came the housing boom – somewhere to live for the new families. Great areas of green were taken to build family houses – no Nimbys standing in the way, no protests, electricity pylons in the back gardens, hot water, indoor toilets….
Now many of those family houses contain only only one or two older people. They tend to be privately owned and are no longer just places to live. They are a present for the children, a start in life if you like. But as family homes they are wasted.
Perhaps the state needs to compulsorily-purchase those houses which are under-occupied and provide instead one or two bedroom, cheap to heat new houses for the older people. I can imagine the resistance to this but it would provide new housing quickly.
I suggest we urgently need “the State” to have far FEWER powers, rather than more.
And from where is the money coming from, to “compulsorily-purchase” those houses?
Josef Stalin would certainly approve.
Perhaps a better step would be for the squanderous Corporate Pig-State to stop STEALING five- and six-figure sums in so-called ‘Stamp Duty’ and in some cases inflation-bloated CGT on sales, thus removing the capricious and draconian penalties that deter people from selling up THEIR OWN PROPERTY and downsizing to a more rational abode.
Have you considered that, at all, Chris?
I have considered many things. It is interesting that not one person on this site has a positive idea; plenty of criticism and blame. So, to wake you all up I come up with a semi-serious idea and morph straight away into Stalin.
It really is about time you old men on UnHerd woke up and came up with some positive suggestions.
I have considered many things. It is interesting that not one person on this site has a positive idea; plenty of criticism and blame. So, to wake you all up I come up with a semi-serious idea and morph straight away into Stalin.
It really is about time you old men on UnHerd woke up and came up with some positive suggestions.
This could be achieved by annually charging occupiers for the size of their property (in sq ft) after making an allowance for the number of residents (including children). With the right price/allowance combination this could make big houses unaffordable if they were under-occupied. Would replace council taxes/rates.
My parents have 4 beds/2 baths/2 big receps/a conservatory and garden. Two of their school age grandchildren live with their mother renting 2 beds/1 bath/1 small recep. Another lives with his mother in a 4 bed house that she owns. Different parts of the country, but still.
I suggest we urgently need “the State” to have far FEWER powers, rather than more.
And from where is the money coming from, to “compulsorily-purchase” those houses?
Josef Stalin would certainly approve.
Perhaps a better step would be for the squanderous Corporate Pig-State to stop STEALING five- and six-figure sums in so-called ‘Stamp Duty’ and in some cases inflation-bloated CGT on sales, thus removing the capricious and draconian penalties that deter people from selling up THEIR OWN PROPERTY and downsizing to a more rational abode.
Have you considered that, at all, Chris?
This could be achieved by annually charging occupiers for the size of their property (in sq ft) after making an allowance for the number of residents (including children). With the right price/allowance combination this could make big houses unaffordable if they were under-occupied. Would replace council taxes/rates.
My parents have 4 beds/2 baths/2 big receps/a conservatory and garden. Two of their school age grandchildren live with their mother renting 2 beds/1 bath/1 small recep. Another lives with his mother in a 4 bed house that she owns. Different parts of the country, but still.
Chris W
1 year ago
After WW2 came the housing boom – somewhere to live for the new families. Great areas of green were taken to build family houses – no Nimbys standing in the way, no protests, electricity pylons in the back gardens, hot water, indoor toilets….
Now many of those family houses contain only only one or two older people. They tend to be privately owned and are no longer just places to live. They are a present for the children, a start in life if you like. But as family homes they are wasted.
Perhaps the state needs to compulsorily-purchase those houses which are under-occupied and provide instead one or two bedroom, cheap to heat new houses for the older people. I can imagine the resistance to this but it would provide new housing quickly.
No mention of our massive population boom then?
I scan every article on housing and if immigration is not mentioned, I ignore it.
To quote Kemi Badenoch
I was just thinking the same. I don’t want my taxes being used to pamper & coddle illegal immigrants (No I am not talking about genuine Asylum seekers). I am talking about those who come here illegaly, passing through numerous safe countries on their way. The fact that they are then allowed to commit any crime they choose without being advised that they have abused our hospitality & shown the door.
I was just thinking the same. I don’t want my taxes being used to pamper & coddle illegal immigrants (No I am not talking about genuine Asylum seekers). I am talking about those who come here illegaly, passing through numerous safe countries on their way. The fact that they are then allowed to commit any crime they choose without being advised that they have abused our hospitality & shown the door.
Absolutely.
Oh there is, believe me.
All the talk though is of limiting legal immigration from ethnicities which go on to have high education levels and low crime rates though.
So, rest assured, the population will go even more boom boom, just that as a country Britain won’t get any associated benefits attached to it.
I scan every article on housing and if immigration is not mentioned, I ignore it.
To quote Kemi Badenoch
Absolutely.
Oh there is, believe me.
All the talk though is of limiting legal immigration from ethnicities which go on to have high education levels and low crime rates though.
So, rest assured, the population will go even more boom boom, just that as a country Britain won’t get any associated benefits attached to it.
No mention of our massive population boom then?
For Tories to be discussing this now is a bit like the little fella with the silly moustache, in his bunker, moving his imaginary panzer divisions around a map of the Berlin suburbs.
Best the Conservatives take a little break and, while they’re at it, a long hard look at themselves. They have squandered thirteen years of power. Utterly squandered. Why? Because ‘broad church’ political parties no longer work, and the Tories are largely composed of Chancers, Blairites and Lib Dems.
And, yes, housing policy might be a nice place to begin.
Need to be honest about what Thatcher did and didn’t do first. She used ‘property ownership’ as an electoral bribe and then prevented councils building new council housing stock for the next generation. She had no long-term practical vision, just a canny understanding of how to buy a few million votes.
There will ALWAYS be a need for social housing. Any conservative who claims otherwise is a mentally subnormal cretin, economically illiterate and a danger to the public. Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty, just as it NEVER prevents obscene concentration fo wealth. REGULATION of capitalism can mitigate both those undesirable outcomes, but it can never fully eliminate it.
In the 1950s, building a million houses was pretty easy because of all the WWII damage. It was the easiest thing to do, not the hardest.
Now with too many people here and NIMBYs all over the place, it gets harder and harder to build new homes, except those which are designed to fail the needs of the renters/owners to maximise the profits of the builders. The interests of the builders are diametrically opposed to the interests of those that have to live in the homes and no politician has the guts to say so in public.
It’s about time the large building corporations were called to account for their anti-societal selfishness. I don’t expect that to happen because such corporations take care to bung the politicians. Grenfell Tower is a prime example of what happens when they do precisely that….
“Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty.” This is true (almost by definition) if by ‘poverty’ you mean wealth inequality, and false (by every observable data point) if by ‘poverty’ you mean absolute standards of living.
There’s massive evidence that capitalism makes societies richer, and that the rising tide also lifts the poorest boats – albeit not always as much as it lifts the highest boats. Capitalism is simply the distribution of economic benefits according to supply and demand in the market, so people who are better able to supply market demands, will end up with more benefits. Sad but true: there is an inherently unequal distribution among humans of the ability to satisfy market demands. As a result, economic liberalism will necessarily result in unequal outcomes… but (silver lining!) also result in a better allocation of goods and services among the poor.
After all, the poorest person in most wealthy countries is better off in terms of health care, nutrition, life expectancy, food choices, entertainment options, etc., than middle-class people were decades ago – and vastly better off than the poor in countries with non-functioning market economies or command economies. That’s why the poor in those countries are constantly pushing their way into our countries.
“Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty.” This is true (almost by definition) if by ‘poverty’ you mean wealth inequality, and false (by every observable data point) if by ‘poverty’ you mean absolute standards of living.
There’s massive evidence that capitalism makes societies richer, and that the rising tide also lifts the poorest boats – albeit not always as much as it lifts the highest boats. Capitalism is simply the distribution of economic benefits according to supply and demand in the market, so people who are better able to supply market demands, will end up with more benefits. Sad but true: there is an inherently unequal distribution among humans of the ability to satisfy market demands. As a result, economic liberalism will necessarily result in unequal outcomes… but (silver lining!) also result in a better allocation of goods and services among the poor.
After all, the poorest person in most wealthy countries is better off in terms of health care, nutrition, life expectancy, food choices, entertainment options, etc., than middle-class people were decades ago – and vastly better off than the poor in countries with non-functioning market economies or command economies. That’s why the poor in those countries are constantly pushing their way into our countries.
Need to be honest about what Thatcher did and didn’t do first. She used ‘property ownership’ as an electoral bribe and then prevented councils building new council housing stock for the next generation. She had no long-term practical vision, just a canny understanding of how to buy a few million votes.
There will ALWAYS be a need for social housing. Any conservative who claims otherwise is a mentally subnormal cretin, economically illiterate and a danger to the public. Capitalism NEVER eliminates poverty, just as it NEVER prevents obscene concentration fo wealth. REGULATION of capitalism can mitigate both those undesirable outcomes, but it can never fully eliminate it.
In the 1950s, building a million houses was pretty easy because of all the WWII damage. It was the easiest thing to do, not the hardest.
Now with too many people here and NIMBYs all over the place, it gets harder and harder to build new homes, except those which are designed to fail the needs of the renters/owners to maximise the profits of the builders. The interests of the builders are diametrically opposed to the interests of those that have to live in the homes and no politician has the guts to say so in public.
It’s about time the large building corporations were called to account for their anti-societal selfishness. I don’t expect that to happen because such corporations take care to bung the politicians. Grenfell Tower is a prime example of what happens when they do precisely that….
For Tories to be discussing this now is a bit like the little fella with the silly moustache, in his bunker, moving his imaginary panzer divisions around a map of the Berlin suburbs.
Best the Conservatives take a little break and, while they’re at it, a long hard look at themselves. They have squandered thirteen years of power. Utterly squandered. Why? Because ‘broad church’ political parties no longer work, and the Tories are largely composed of Chancers, Blairites and Lib Dems.
And, yes, housing policy might be a nice place to begin.
Not a single mention of population growth caused by mass immigration! Wonder why? Back in 1998 when the population was 59 million the forecast for UK population in 2023 was 64 million, but instead it has reached 68 million – 4 million higher, The homes to accommodate the extra 9 million people have not been built instead ugly extensions and apartment blocks have appeared everywhere to try and fit them in. The price has been paid by the young, who have been duped into thinking mass immigration is a good thing. Will they change their views as they get older and realise the State is not going to help them!
Not a single mention of population growth caused by mass immigration! Wonder why? Back in 1998 when the population was 59 million the forecast for UK population in 2023 was 64 million, but instead it has reached 68 million – 4 million higher, The homes to accommodate the extra 9 million people have not been built instead ugly extensions and apartment blocks have appeared everywhere to try and fit them in. The price has been paid by the young, who have been duped into thinking mass immigration is a good thing. Will they change their views as they get older and realise the State is not going to help them!
This article makes the oft repeated error that high house prices are caused by a lack of supply- ignoring demand.
The truth is that there is a lack of supply – but far far more significant is the excess demand caused by very cheap lending.
Now that interest rates are going up house prices are falling. This wouldnt be happening if it was a supply problem.
Cheap money has created a huge shift of wealth from those without assets to those with assets. The greatest theft in history. It has enriched asset owners and impoverished those without.
Well said.
Speaking as someone who benefited from that cheap money – it’s worse than that.
The cheap lending, that caused excessive demand, goes to those with excess funds to pay 15-30% equity on properties – but not to the majority of the population who cannot afford that deposit, because the excess demand has inflated house prices too much.
And thanks to that same excess demand, there is a resulting jump in house prices. Hence, those who are rich enough to pay deposits originally become even richer as their investments in housing are highly leveraged (with near zero funding cost, remember?). Therefore they can pay a deposit to buy more houses, hence increasing demand further…
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic and incompetent.
I suspect the Bank of England’s inflation targeting ought to include property prices. The reality is that QE led to inflation – but it appeared in house prices not goods (until recently) and was allowed to run riot.
A technical factor is that banks only have to put up 50% of the capital to back a property loan compared to a commercial loan thus making it more profitable than commercial lending all other things being equal. If the BoE wanted to stabilise house prices the risk weighting could be used as a tool.
Well said.
Speaking as someone who benefited from that cheap money – it’s worse than that.
The cheap lending, that caused excessive demand, goes to those with excess funds to pay 15-30% equity on properties – but not to the majority of the population who cannot afford that deposit, because the excess demand has inflated house prices too much.
And thanks to that same excess demand, there is a resulting jump in house prices. Hence, those who are rich enough to pay deposits originally become even richer as their investments in housing are highly leveraged (with near zero funding cost, remember?). Therefore they can pay a deposit to buy more houses, hence increasing demand further…
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic and incompetent.
I suspect the Bank of England’s inflation targeting ought to include property prices. The reality is that QE led to inflation – but it appeared in house prices not goods (until recently) and was allowed to run riot.
A technical factor is that banks only have to put up 50% of the capital to back a property loan compared to a commercial loan thus making it more profitable than commercial lending all other things being equal. If the BoE wanted to stabilise house prices the risk weighting could be used as a tool.
This article makes the oft repeated error that high house prices are caused by a lack of supply- ignoring demand.
The truth is that there is a lack of supply – but far far more significant is the excess demand caused by very cheap lending.
Now that interest rates are going up house prices are falling. This wouldnt be happening if it was a supply problem.
Cheap money has created a huge shift of wealth from those without assets to those with assets. The greatest theft in history. It has enriched asset owners and impoverished those without.
“Michael Gove – a passionate Unionist and, that rare thing, a genuinely intellectual politician…”
Would that be the same Michael Gove who revoltingly fawned on a teenage Swedish school truant who had been trained to mouth ridiculous GangGreen platitudes and claim that her (apparently very agreeable) childhood had been stolen? (Ignoring various child slaves ranging from from English Cities to the Congo, who had REALLY had their childhood stolen).
If Gove is a “genuinely intellectual politician”, then there is zero point zero hope for the rest of us.
“Michael Gove – a passionate Unionist and, that rare thing, a genuinely intellectual politician…”
Would that be the same Michael Gove who revoltingly fawned on a teenage Swedish school truant who had been trained to mouth ridiculous GangGreen platitudes and claim that her (apparently very agreeable) childhood had been stolen? (Ignoring various child slaves ranging from from English Cities to the Congo, who had REALLY had their childhood stolen).
If Gove is a “genuinely intellectual politician”, then there is zero point zero hope for the rest of us.
Where do they live these “intellectual” politicians? Not in a county that is being blighted, sunk, destroyed, suburbanised to within the last ounce of soul with endless lego houses. Don’t dare talk to me about housing shortages when you have invited 10 million more people in the last twenty years to live here. You know why you need them: because of no investment in technology, education, innovation, because of selling our manufacturing and assets. Now a mad scramble of short term catch up and desperate attempt to stay in power. By employing cheap labour. Not very edifying. We have sold everything and now the land itself is disappearing.
Where do they live these “intellectual” politicians? Not in a county that is being blighted, sunk, destroyed, suburbanised to within the last ounce of soul with endless lego houses. Don’t dare talk to me about housing shortages when you have invited 10 million more people in the last twenty years to live here. You know why you need them: because of no investment in technology, education, innovation, because of selling our manufacturing and assets. Now a mad scramble of short term catch up and desperate attempt to stay in power. By employing cheap labour. Not very edifying. We have sold everything and now the land itself is disappearing.
I will never listen seriously to the Conservatives talk about solving the housing crisis or improving affordability whilst they keep increasing the population at such a rate. Net immigration was 500k last year, a record. What amazes me is the cognitive dissonance of people that moan about house prices but won’t take any criticism of the current rate of immigration. It may be a bubble but bubbles still require a basis of demand exceeding supply to avoid popping.
Also the reliance on private housebuilders self defeating. They are obviously not going to flood the market with houses to reduce prices. The current status quo suits them well. Strange coincidence that developers make such large donations to the Tory party.
I will never listen seriously to the Conservatives talk about solving the housing crisis or improving affordability whilst they keep increasing the population at such a rate. Net immigration was 500k last year, a record. What amazes me is the cognitive dissonance of people that moan about house prices but won’t take any criticism of the current rate of immigration. It may be a bubble but bubbles still require a basis of demand exceeding supply to avoid popping.
Also the reliance on private housebuilders self defeating. They are obviously not going to flood the market with houses to reduce prices. The current status quo suits them well. Strange coincidence that developers make such large donations to the Tory party.
Michael Gove’s latest scheme is to take us back to the 70s by depriving landlords of their normal property rights, This is not Conservatism and it’s not even socialism lite. It is the hard core leftism of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. This is not the way to “intellectual reinvigoration” for the Conservatives.
Housing is too important to be left in the care of private landlords (if that’s who you’re referring to). The sooner they’re squeezed out and their “portfolios” released onto the market for young buyers, the better. Not a popular opinion round here, I suspect, but I speak as a former private landlord.
Yeah, but why make an exception for housing? Why not absolutely everything? Isn’t health “too important to be left in the care of private individuals”? Isn’t employment? But even that march towards a soviet style distribution system, is absolutely missing the point, which is this: having squeezed out private landlords out of their portfolios, you are *not* going to get properties migrating into the hands of the individuals who live in them, you are simply going to replace private landlords with… wait for it… corporate landlords. Like for example John Lewis. Why is this not blindingly obvious?
It’s so obvious it doesn’t warrant mentioning. Corporate landlords are already hoovering up property as private landlords bail out. What’s needed is the political will to police them properly and with a presumed bias in favour of tenants. But ideally I’d like to see right-to-buy extended to the private rented sector.
The best policing would be an adequate supply of houses so tenants could take their business elsewhere if they were not being treated right.
The best policing would be an adequate supply of houses so tenants could take their business elsewhere if they were not being treated right.
It’s so obvious it doesn’t warrant mentioning. Corporate landlords are already hoovering up property as private landlords bail out. What’s needed is the political will to police them properly and with a presumed bias in favour of tenants. But ideally I’d like to see right-to-buy extended to the private rented sector.
Yeah, but why make an exception for housing? Why not absolutely everything? Isn’t health “too important to be left in the care of private individuals”? Isn’t employment? But even that march towards a soviet style distribution system, is absolutely missing the point, which is this: having squeezed out private landlords out of their portfolios, you are *not* going to get properties migrating into the hands of the individuals who live in them, you are simply going to replace private landlords with… wait for it… corporate landlords. Like for example John Lewis. Why is this not blindingly obvious?
Housing is too important to be left in the care of private landlords (if that’s who you’re referring to). The sooner they’re squeezed out and their “portfolios” released onto the market for young buyers, the better. Not a popular opinion round here, I suspect, but I speak as a former private landlord.
Michael Gove’s latest scheme is to take us back to the 70s by depriving landlords of their normal property rights, This is not Conservatism and it’s not even socialism lite. It is the hard core leftism of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. This is not the way to “intellectual reinvigoration” for the Conservatives.
Look at the list of countries countries by home ownership rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
The highest rates of home ownership is in Romania (96.1%). Here in Scotland, many of the Big Issue sellers (by definition homeless) are from Romania. I think Scotland must have the other 3.9% of Romanians, but I digress. Coming in at 7th place is Cuba (90%). Fidel Castro was a massive fan of home ownership as a political goal. Now look down at the bottom of the table. In the bottom 7, you will find Austria (55.3), Germany (51.1%) and Switzerland (4.16%).
UK is 14th from bottom, with 63%. This article asks the government to nudge the UK towards the end of the table that includes Romania and Cuba and away from the Austria/Germany/Switzerland end.
I propose an alternative. The government should do nothing special about buidling new homes. Instead, they focus on fulfilling their election pledge to decrease immigration. That, combined with repatriating illegal immigrants, should free up a sufficiently large proportion of the housing market to trigger a slump in house prices.
Look at the list of countries countries by home ownership rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
The highest rates of home ownership is in Romania (96.1%). Here in Scotland, many of the Big Issue sellers (by definition homeless) are from Romania. I think Scotland must have the other 3.9% of Romanians, but I digress. Coming in at 7th place is Cuba (90%). Fidel Castro was a massive fan of home ownership as a political goal. Now look down at the bottom of the table. In the bottom 7, you will find Austria (55.3), Germany (51.1%) and Switzerland (4.16%).
UK is 14th from bottom, with 63%. This article asks the government to nudge the UK towards the end of the table that includes Romania and Cuba and away from the Austria/Germany/Switzerland end.
I propose an alternative. The government should do nothing special about buidling new homes. Instead, they focus on fulfilling their election pledge to decrease immigration. That, combined with repatriating illegal immigrants, should free up a sufficiently large proportion of the housing market to trigger a slump in house prices.
Key phrase – ‘…presuming that the party of property should be the party of the already propertied’. Yet protecting existing advantage (and middle aged Daily Mail readers!) fundamental part of the Tories DNA, and hence the dreadful mess they’ve got us all into on this key policy matter. One of a number of critical contradictions in Right Wing thinking that an extended period in power has just more starkly illuminated.
The Article though is weak on Policy responses. That in part one suspects is because we’ve let this become so big a problem that the potential Policy responses are really challenging and the Author feared to cite them – building/funding more homes; taxing 2nd Homes much more; incentivising down-sizing to free up under-occupation; increased capital gains to put brake on prices, tax changes to encourage release of rentals to market etc. These and others must be taken on, and not just to rebalance the market to aid our young, but because the British economy is far too weighted to investing in bricks and mortar. The low growth economy we have has it’s roots in this addiction.
Or importing around 3 million people per decade.
An issue Labour won’t be discussing any time soon.
Another Tory/Right Wing contradiction – the desire for cheap labour, and even better if they didn’t need to pay for the schooling/training.
Nice, doesn’t matter if it’s the Tories or Labour. They are both guilty of using mass immigration as an ideological policy (a failed one at that).
I’m still surprised that you left it out in your original post.
I seem to recall Tony Blair, Gordon ‘flexible labour market’ Brown, Peter ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ Mandelson and Jack ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ Straw being every bit as keen on coolie labour as blue rosette crew have been. Or was the erasure of British cultural identity Labour’s only motive?
You can of course be relaxed about real entrepreneurs and job creators getting v rich and at same time also not favour over reliance on cheap, low skilled, or imported labour.
I suspect that in fact neither party intended ‘mass immigration’ (however one might define ‘mass’) and it has not been a deliberate strategy overall. Some immigration in specific areas, yes, but ‘mass’ unplanned? I favour a bit more c**k up always over conspiracy.
But once assumptions were shown not to hold it required a change in Policy. The more recent Policy change from those in power seems to have been whilst reducing EU free movement we’ll increase immigration from elsewhere and make it more difficult at same time to return asylum seekers too. These are explicit Tory/Right wing decisions quite arguably resulting from the contradictions Brexit and broader Right Wing thinking set inevitably in motion because of a broader dishonesty about choices we face.
But anyway the Article was about Housing, and as yet not heard any credible Right Wing politician convey how they could sort this. Let’s put the ‘red meat = it’s all down to immigration’ argument etc to one side. What are they proposing now, whether Sunak or likes of a Braverman?
Sophistry, it was an ideological pursuit championed by civil servants Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes that Blair signed up to. We’ve had 25 years of mass immigration, aligned with low interest rates, stagnant wages, falling productivity, lower GDP per capita. Under the Tories we have the highest tax burden in peace times, budget cuts all round while still importing hundreds of thousands of people year on year that our infrastructure and environment can’t cope with.
C**k-up, I would call it gross incompetence on an epic scale. What is Starmer proposing? He’s noticably quiet on immigration, why would that be?
Continuity c**k-up.
Yes I wouldn’t argue greatly about c**k up or incompetence. Clearly both at best.
But that’s the past and we are where we are. Thus the question for the Right (which is in power at least for a further 20+mths), what’s the plan and proposition on the housing and home ownership problem?
And those on the Right critique’ing Sunak, what’s your plan?
Our governments have spent the last 30 years destroying our economy with short term policies that enriched their backers while all the time ignoring the evidence of the damage it was doing.
Solutions, all parties have promised to build 200k houses for the next 20 years and to reduce immigration to under 100k pa. They have failed miserably on both counts and will continue to do so. Any other measures like the ones you previously mentioned is simply window dressing.
Our governments have spent the last 30 years destroying our economy with short term policies that enriched their backers while all the time ignoring the evidence of the damage it was doing.
Solutions, all parties have promised to build 200k houses for the next 20 years and to reduce immigration to under 100k pa. They have failed miserably on both counts and will continue to do so. Any other measures like the ones you previously mentioned is simply window dressing.
As of now, 18% of the population of England & Wales is BAME.
There will be tears!
Yes I wouldn’t argue greatly about c**k up or incompetence. Clearly both at best.
But that’s the past and we are where we are. Thus the question for the Right (which is in power at least for a further 20+mths), what’s the plan and proposition on the housing and home ownership problem?
And those on the Right critique’ing Sunak, what’s your plan?
As of now, 18% of the population of England & Wales is BAME.
There will be tears!
Sophistry, it was an ideological pursuit championed by civil servants Gus O’Donnell and Jonathan Portes that Blair signed up to. We’ve had 25 years of mass immigration, aligned with low interest rates, stagnant wages, falling productivity, lower GDP per capita. Under the Tories we have the highest tax burden in peace times, budget cuts all round while still importing hundreds of thousands of people year on year that our infrastructure and environment can’t cope with.
C**k-up, I would call it gross incompetence on an epic scale. What is Starmer proposing? He’s noticably quiet on immigration, why would that be?
Continuity c**k-up.
.
You can of course be relaxed about real entrepreneurs and job creators getting v rich and at same time also not favour over reliance on cheap, low skilled, or imported labour.
I suspect that in fact neither party intended ‘mass immigration’ (however one might define ‘mass’) and it has not been a deliberate strategy overall. Some immigration in specific areas, yes, but ‘mass’ unplanned? I favour a bit more c**k up always over conspiracy.
But once assumptions were shown not to hold it required a change in Policy. The more recent Policy change from those in power seems to have been whilst reducing EU free movement we’ll increase immigration from elsewhere and make it more difficult at same time to return asylum seekers too. These are explicit Tory/Right wing decisions quite arguably resulting from the contradictions Brexit and broader Right Wing thinking set inevitably in motion because of a broader dishonesty about choices we face.
But anyway the Article was about Housing, and as yet not heard any credible Right Wing politician convey how they could sort this. Let’s put the ‘red meat = it’s all down to immigration’ argument etc to one side. What are they proposing now, whether Sunak or likes of a Braverman?
.
Nice, doesn’t matter if it’s the Tories or Labour. They are both guilty of using mass immigration as an ideological policy (a failed one at that).
I’m still surprised that you left it out in your original post.
I seem to recall Tony Blair, Gordon ‘flexible labour market’ Brown, Peter ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ Mandelson and Jack ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ Straw being every bit as keen on coolie labour as blue rosette crew have been. Or was the erasure of British cultural identity Labour’s only motive?
An issue Labour won’t be discussing any time soon.
Another Tory/Right Wing contradiction – the desire for cheap labour, and even better if they didn’t need to pay for the schooling/training.
In my view it is part of Conservative thinking (which is not necessarily that of the current party, of course) is to extend advantages of all kinds of ownership to the maximum number of people.
Nothing should delight and reassure conservatives (whether with a capital C or a small c) so much as extremely widely-enjoyed home ownership.
It is socialists who want the maximum families renting in socially-owned council estates; it was Margaret Thatcher who gave those renters the chance to own their homes.
World’s moved on. It arguably appears to be the moderate centre, maybe even centre left, that actually prepared to do what it takes to give everyone the home owning opportunity. The Tory Right drifted into just protecting those that already have. Actions speak louder than words as they say and the Tories been in power for 13 years and here’s where we are.
And it has been George Osborne and his blue Blairite, Davos-friendly successors who have worked hard to put the next generation back on rent: but this time, paid to their (literally) sponsors in Big Corporate Oligopoly, not the Municipal Council.
It’s analogous to the Enclosure of the Commons, though that at least did have one or two positive side-effects: this doesn’t.
The problem of course with this repetitive retort is Blair/Lab not been in power for 13 yrs (Blair – 16yrs even), and even Osborne not been in power for almost 7 years (although I’ve little time for Osborne’s austerity). Since then what the Brexit Tories done about this, other than make it much worse?
Now of course I know the next retort will be the last 7 years we either haven’t had a proper Tory Govt, or some other ‘blob’ has been stopping the Right sorting all this, or even perhaps the pandemic will be wheeled out. So perhaps the question is where is the coherent Brexit/Tory Policy development and granularity sellable to the British public that has at least been worked up ready to go that would start to address this issue?
The problem of course with this repetitive retort is Blair/Lab not been in power for 13 yrs (Blair – 16yrs even), and even Osborne not been in power for almost 7 years (although I’ve little time for Osborne’s austerity). Since then what the Brexit Tories done about this, other than make it much worse?
Now of course I know the next retort will be the last 7 years we either haven’t had a proper Tory Govt, or some other ‘blob’ has been stopping the Right sorting all this, or even perhaps the pandemic will be wheeled out. So perhaps the question is where is the coherent Brexit/Tory Policy development and granularity sellable to the British public that has at least been worked up ready to go that would start to address this issue?
World’s moved on. It arguably appears to be the moderate centre, maybe even centre left, that actually prepared to do what it takes to give everyone the home owning opportunity. The Tory Right drifted into just protecting those that already have. Actions speak louder than words as they say and the Tories been in power for 13 years and here’s where we are.
And it has been George Osborne and his blue Blairite, Davos-friendly successors who have worked hard to put the next generation back on rent: but this time, paid to their (literally) sponsors in Big Corporate Oligopoly, not the Municipal Council.
It’s analogous to the Enclosure of the Commons, though that at least did have one or two positive side-effects: this doesn’t.
Or importing around 3 million people per decade.
In my view it is part of Conservative thinking (which is not necessarily that of the current party, of course) is to extend advantages of all kinds of ownership to the maximum number of people.
Nothing should delight and reassure conservatives (whether with a capital C or a small c) so much as extremely widely-enjoyed home ownership.
It is socialists who want the maximum families renting in socially-owned council estates; it was Margaret Thatcher who gave those renters the chance to own their homes.
Key phrase – ‘…presuming that the party of property should be the party of the already propertied’. Yet protecting existing advantage (and middle aged Daily Mail readers!) fundamental part of the Tories DNA, and hence the dreadful mess they’ve got us all into on this key policy matter. One of a number of critical contradictions in Right Wing thinking that an extended period in power has just more starkly illuminated.
The Article though is weak on Policy responses. That in part one suspects is because we’ve let this become so big a problem that the potential Policy responses are really challenging and the Author feared to cite them – building/funding more homes; taxing 2nd Homes much more; incentivising down-sizing to free up under-occupation; increased capital gains to put brake on prices, tax changes to encourage release of rentals to market etc. These and others must be taken on, and not just to rebalance the market to aid our young, but because the British economy is far too weighted to investing in bricks and mortar. The low growth economy we have has it’s roots in this addiction.
“Keir Starmer has said he would pursue a homeownership target of 70% if elected”
Won’t that conflict with the aim of his new chums in DAVOS/WEF to have us owning nothing and being happy?
Another platitude for him to put on his “Keirstone”.
Would the target be 70% ? What if it reached 80% ? Would that be better ? Or worse ?
Even if competent, I doubt a government can directly achieve such targets. To actually enforce such a target would likely mean some bureaucrat from central planning having to decide who should – and should not – own a house.
Yes, the government should run a sensible planning and tax regime and also act to limit population instability (immigration can be controlled – it is simply a matter of will). It should also stop deliberately inflating house prices through under-priced interest rates and ludicrous policies like George Osborne’s “help to buy” state support for some (not all) house buyers.
But trying to target specific ownership rates ?
Another platitude for him to put on his “Keirstone”.
Would the target be 70% ? What if it reached 80% ? Would that be better ? Or worse ?
Even if competent, I doubt a government can directly achieve such targets. To actually enforce such a target would likely mean some bureaucrat from central planning having to decide who should – and should not – own a house.
Yes, the government should run a sensible planning and tax regime and also act to limit population instability (immigration can be controlled – it is simply a matter of will). It should also stop deliberately inflating house prices through under-priced interest rates and ludicrous policies like George Osborne’s “help to buy” state support for some (not all) house buyers.
But trying to target specific ownership rates ?
“Keir Starmer has said he would pursue a homeownership target of 70% if elected”
Won’t that conflict with the aim of his new chums in DAVOS/WEF to have us owning nothing and being happy?
Increased population resulting in increased demand not met by increased supply thanks to myriad special interests, and insanely low interest rendering property unaffordable. And that is just the property market. Capital markets and other forms of investment also distorted by low interest rates. Property isn’t just real estate.
Increased population resulting in increased demand not met by increased supply thanks to myriad special interests, and insanely low interest rendering property unaffordable. And that is just the property market. Capital markets and other forms of investment also distorted by low interest rates. Property isn’t just real estate.
What an excellent article, should be printed and sent to every Tory MP, lord, and activist.
It’s essential to remind them all what they ought to believe in – conservative liberalism in the tradition of both – and then to examine every policy and create new ones to reflect it. Then find leaders who can articulate that.
What an excellent article, should be printed and sent to every Tory MP, lord, and activist.
It’s essential to remind them all what they ought to believe in – conservative liberalism in the tradition of both – and then to examine every policy and create new ones to reflect it. Then find leaders who can articulate that.
The conservatives have betrayed their core vote and the Labour Party are out of touch and hopeless. It’s time for a new populism. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/in-praise-of-populism?utm_source=direct&r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The conservatives have betrayed their core vote and the Labour Party are out of touch and hopeless. It’s time for a new populism. https://open.substack.com/pub/lowstatus/p/in-praise-of-populism?utm_source=direct&r=evzeq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Over 45,000*illegal immigrants crossed the Channel on Lilos and rubber dinghies last year.
A mere 18,000 crossed Mare Nostrum**to make it to Calabria during the same period.
(* 5,000 more than the Roman Invasion of 43AD.)
(** The Mediterranean.)
Over 45,000*illegal immigrants crossed the Channel on Lilos and rubber dinghies last year.
A mere 18,000 crossed Mare Nostrum**to make it to Calabria during the same period.
(* 5,000 more than the Roman Invasion of 43AD.)
(** The Mediterranean.)
The comments are far more interesting than the article. A nice attempt too revive the Tory ideal of a property owning democracy. A bit late in the fag end days of a Tory government. And despite this every town in every half decent bit of England is being ruined by new housing estates without proper infrastructure. Meanwhile we increase the population, sell empty properties to oversees investors, ignore decent housing stock which could be easily renovated, prevent older people and landlords from selling because of SDLT and CGT penalties, bit of a mess really.
The comments are far more interesting than the article. A nice attempt too revive the Tory ideal of a property owning democracy. A bit late in the fag end days of a Tory government. And despite this every town in every half decent bit of England is being ruined by new housing estates without proper infrastructure. Meanwhile we increase the population, sell empty properties to oversees investors, ignore decent housing stock which could be easily renovated, prevent older people and landlords from selling because of SDLT and CGT penalties, bit of a mess really.
Fewer houses being built; increased population; more relationship breakdown (Mum and the kids in one property and Dad – by himself – in another); expansion of higher education (housing required for students living away from home temporarily). Those are the four main causes – have I missed any? Perhaps I have. I don’t think it’s just immigration – although that must play a part.
Go back to the top again – Really Look at that Picture!
The mask is dropped – you can see quite clearly the Lizard faces under the disguise….so no, they have not lost their way – just that their way is to basically enslave us in the ‘New World Order’, which is not good for us.
Please take your meds.
Oh dear, it’s only Monday, I hope your week improves.
In fairness, Fishy Rishi does manage to look more like a smirking iguana in that pic than any human should be able to. Perhaps he’s just swallowed a particularly tasty mouse.
Not sure about Goofy Gove, though – the man who went to Robert Gordon’s, the only independent school in Aberdeen, but now wants to slap VAT on top of school fees (already paid from 50% taxed income), stripping such school choice from yet another tranche of hard-working parents. Marinaded in his own hypocrisy, he looks more like a pig.
That he and Mordaunt and Gauke and so many like them are Tory MPs is a damning indictment on that wretched, wastrel ffrrrrrrraud of a party.
Education is yet another Tory fail. The state system got better and now is decaying again and all they can think of is weakly defending public schools.
How about some original thinking there? Say don’t financially attack private schools, but privatise the entire system, using education vouchers so every parent can select the school they want their child to go to? Get the government out of the education system other than compulsory schooling, minimum standards, and inspectorate.
Well said 03 Guardsman Joy, you speak for millions!
As regards Gove may I suggest piglet rather pig?
Also to my generation he does bear and uncanny resemblance to the ‘Milkybar Kid’.
Education is yet another Tory fail. The state system got better and now is decaying again and all they can think of is weakly defending public schools.
How about some original thinking there? Say don’t financially attack private schools, but privatise the entire system, using education vouchers so every parent can select the school they want their child to go to? Get the government out of the education system other than compulsory schooling, minimum standards, and inspectorate.
Well said 03 Guardsman Joy, you speak for millions!
As regards Gove may I suggest piglet rather pig?
Also to my generation he does bear and uncanny resemblance to the ‘Milkybar Kid’.
Please take your meds.
Oh dear, it’s only Monday, I hope your week improves.
In fairness, Fishy Rishi does manage to look more like a smirking iguana in that pic than any human should be able to. Perhaps he’s just swallowed a particularly tasty mouse.
Not sure about Goofy Gove, though – the man who went to Robert Gordon’s, the only independent school in Aberdeen, but now wants to slap VAT on top of school fees (already paid from 50% taxed income), stripping such school choice from yet another tranche of hard-working parents. Marinaded in his own hypocrisy, he looks more like a pig.
That he and Mordaunt and Gauke and so many like them are Tory MPs is a damning indictment on that wretched, wastrel ffrrrrrrraud of a party.
Go back to the top again – Really Look at that Picture!
The mask is dropped – you can see quite clearly the Lizard faces under the disguise….so no, they have not lost their way – just that their way is to basically enslave us in the ‘New World Order’, which is not good for us.
After WW2 came the housing boom – somewhere to live for the new families. Great areas of green were taken to build family houses – no Nimbys standing in the way, no protests, electricity pylons in the back gardens, hot water, indoor toilets….
Now many of those family houses contain only only one or two older people. They tend to be privately owned and are no longer just places to live. They are a present for the children, a start in life if you like. But as family homes they are wasted.
Perhaps the state needs to compulsorily-purchase those houses which are under-occupied and provide instead one or two bedroom, cheap to heat new houses for the older people. I can imagine the resistance to this but it would provide new housing quickly.
I suggest we urgently need “the State” to have far FEWER powers, rather than more.
And from where is the money coming from, to “compulsorily-purchase” those houses?
The money comes from that saved by not building family houses.
The money comes from that saved by not building family houses.
Josef Stalin would certainly approve.
Perhaps a better step would be for the squanderous Corporate Pig-State to stop STEALING five- and six-figure sums in so-called ‘Stamp Duty’ and in some cases inflation-bloated CGT on sales, thus removing the capricious and draconian penalties that deter people from selling up THEIR OWN PROPERTY and downsizing to a more rational abode.
Have you considered that, at all, Chris?
I have considered many things. It is interesting that not one person on this site has a positive idea; plenty of criticism and blame. So, to wake you all up I come up with a semi-serious idea and morph straight away into Stalin.
It really is about time you old men on UnHerd woke up and came up with some positive suggestions.
Don’t allow net immigration of 504,000 in one year. There wouldn’t be too few houses if there weren’t too many people.
Was that positive enough?
Don’t allow net immigration of 504,000 in one year. There wouldn’t be too few houses if there weren’t too many people.
Was that positive enough?
I have considered many things. It is interesting that not one person on this site has a positive idea; plenty of criticism and blame. So, to wake you all up I come up with a semi-serious idea and morph straight away into Stalin.
It really is about time you old men on UnHerd woke up and came up with some positive suggestions.
It’s the thumbs down responses to posts like this betray the identity of Unherd’s status quo boomer audience.
This could be achieved by annually charging occupiers for the size of their property (in sq ft) after making an allowance for the number of residents (including children). With the right price/allowance combination this could make big houses unaffordable if they were under-occupied. Would replace council taxes/rates.
My parents have 4 beds/2 baths/2 big receps/a conservatory and garden. Two of their school age grandchildren live with their mother renting 2 beds/1 bath/1 small recep. Another lives with his mother in a 4 bed house that she owns. Different parts of the country, but still.
I suggest we urgently need “the State” to have far FEWER powers, rather than more.
And from where is the money coming from, to “compulsorily-purchase” those houses?
Josef Stalin would certainly approve.
Perhaps a better step would be for the squanderous Corporate Pig-State to stop STEALING five- and six-figure sums in so-called ‘Stamp Duty’ and in some cases inflation-bloated CGT on sales, thus removing the capricious and draconian penalties that deter people from selling up THEIR OWN PROPERTY and downsizing to a more rational abode.
Have you considered that, at all, Chris?
It’s the thumbs down responses to posts like this betray the identity of Unherd’s status quo boomer audience.
This could be achieved by annually charging occupiers for the size of their property (in sq ft) after making an allowance for the number of residents (including children). With the right price/allowance combination this could make big houses unaffordable if they were under-occupied. Would replace council taxes/rates.
My parents have 4 beds/2 baths/2 big receps/a conservatory and garden. Two of their school age grandchildren live with their mother renting 2 beds/1 bath/1 small recep. Another lives with his mother in a 4 bed house that she owns. Different parts of the country, but still.
After WW2 came the housing boom – somewhere to live for the new families. Great areas of green were taken to build family houses – no Nimbys standing in the way, no protests, electricity pylons in the back gardens, hot water, indoor toilets….
Now many of those family houses contain only only one or two older people. They tend to be privately owned and are no longer just places to live. They are a present for the children, a start in life if you like. But as family homes they are wasted.
Perhaps the state needs to compulsorily-purchase those houses which are under-occupied and provide instead one or two bedroom, cheap to heat new houses for the older people. I can imagine the resistance to this but it would provide new housing quickly.