Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Again, only a small fraction of land is built on. We are not about to become a 'concrete jungle' and build everywhere. A lot can be done by avoiding green belts but housing policy will be much more effective if they are reconsidered. Not only do green belts limit land availability but they artificially constrain cities, so pushing up prices in them. And the main beneficiaries are the few living in the green belt, who benefit from the better living environment within a short distance of the city.

As for land prices prices are only high as house prices are high. Do something to tackle house prices and land prices will fall. Again there’s no shortage – instead the large quantities you can’t build on, and can only farm on, is much cheaper. Converting farmland to land for homes will make it more valuable, potentially a windfall for the farmer, but that can be addressed through taxation if it is thought to be excessive.

[offyoutoddle]

We are not about to become a 'concrete jungle' and build everywhere.

Forgive me, but that is something that I won't take that off hand response as reassurance on.

I'm afraid I don't share your opinions or your convictions about what will happen to house prices in that event anyway, and I certainly believe that whilst it is obvious today we are not about to become a concrete jungle, one of the reasons we don't is the legislative reasons discussed here - the reasons you are discussing sweeping away as an 'anachronism'.

Housing will never be as cheap in the UK as it is in larger countries, and if the mechanisms your discussing were put in place to get that outcome, it would be to the detriment of people all over the country, not just a few living somewhere you personally don't.

[merman]

This right to buy extension is completely the wrong policy.

Not only does it reduce the amount of housing association homes (and is forcing them to sell at a big discount), but to fund the scheme councils will have to sell off "expensive homes".

When we have millions on the social housing waiting list, selling off social housing is a bad idea.

There's not even a firm guarantee to replace the homes being sold off with new stock.

It was a bad idea in 1980, and saw the number of new homes being built by councils slump.
It is an outstandingly bad idea in 2015.

[pogo]

I think housing will one day be as cheap as other countries, as there’s no reason why not; it’s only the artificial constraints placed on supply we have now that keep prices high even in the midst of a deep recession. Remove those constraints and prices should fall back to more normal levels, where they were only 20 years ago and we all coped with it.

And I'm not advocating abandoning all restrictions. Just adjust them so they properly allow for enough houses to be built. There are many ways to do this. Continue to allow councils a say over planning, but set much higher targets they have to meet (or planning will be taken out of their hands). Create new towns with entirely new planning targets. Draw up new green belts based on modern needs for leisure and access. All it needs is the political will to make it a priority. Treat the cause of the housing shortage, not the symptoms with things like Help to Buy which will only make things worse.

[zip accident]

I think housing will one day be as cheap as other countries, as there’s no reason why not; it’s only the artificial constraints placed on supply we have now that keep prices high even in the midst of a deep recession. Remove those constraints and prices should fall back to more normal levels, where they were only 20 years ago and we all coped with it.

And I'm not advocating abandoning all restrictions. Just adjust them so they properly allow for enough houses to be built. There are many ways to do this. Continue to allow councils a say over planning, but set much higher targets they have to meet (or planning will be taken out of their hands). Create new towns with entirely new planning targets. Draw up new green belts based on modern needs for leisure and access. All it needs is the political will to make it a priority. Treat the cause of the housing shortage, not the symptoms with things like Help to Buy which will only make things worse.

The problem with making more houses is that it would lower prices, and people who already live in houses owned by themselves or their relatives, who are probably a majority, would become theoretically poorer, and those people aren't prepared to allow that without making their views felt, quite possibly at the polls (without even taking negative equity iinto consideration, which would affect most people with mortgages if prices dropped to levels all potential buyers could afford).

[pogo]

So avoiding that one then.

Health? I think the best summary is here:

In their place comes not one but three give-aways - an extension of the right to buy, a doubling of free childcare and a promise that tax allowances will rise to ensure that the minimum wage is tax free. This after a series of others - not least the pledge to cut inheritance tax and spend at least £8 billion a year on the NHS.

What today's Conservative manifesto does not spell out is who will pay. Which budgets will be cut (police, colleges, councils…)? Which benefits will be stopped? Whose taxes will be raised?

David Cameron and George Osborne used to warn against unfunded spending commitments. They are gambling that their reputation as protectors of the public purse is good enough to risk looking like they can't wait to get spending again.

This parliament spending on health rose £5bn in real terms, despite the economy being in recession or only growing slowly for much of the session. An £8bn rise then is a little bit more ambitious, but should be easy to achieve with similar policies in a much stronger economy.

The broader point is that the Tories don’t need to spell out what they will do in as much detail as it boils down to “more of the same”, at least until the deficit is eliminated and debt is brought under control.

[Dio]

The problem with making more houses is that it would lower prices, and people who already live in houses owned by themselves or their relatives, who are probably a majority, would become theoretically poorer, and those people aren't prepared to allow that without making their views felt, quite possibly at the polls (without even taking negative equity iinto consideration, which would affect most people with mortgages if prices dropped to levels all potential buyers could afford).

I'm not sure. I don't think most individuals view things that way, not very often at least. I think it's much more of a problem when it comes to corporate owners and other large private landlords though, and they often have significant influence (on planning for one thing, since they invariably, indeed inevitably, know the system and the people better than average).

[pogo]

theoretically poorer

While those unable to afford housing are actually homeless. In practice most find a way, imposing on their family, or the government and taxpayer.

It is only “theoretically poorer”, as you only lose if you have to sell. But most people with houses aren’t going to sell any time soon. Unless they have to move, in which case high prices are as much a problem for them as anyone else, pushing up taxes and costs, restricting their choices. Once people have bought most people live in it until they die, at which point high prices are also a problem, making more people liable for inheritance tax.

The broader problem with high house prices and high variations in high prices is the economic cost. Where e.g. there are people who might move, from around here say to London for work, but they can’t afford somewhere to live. So you have high unemployment in the North East at the same time as skills shortages, or high wages to overcome them (so everything else costs more), in London.

[zip accident]

It is only “theoretically poorer”, as you only lose if you have to sell.

The amount of profit that would be made by downsizing, would be lower if house prices were lower. That's not theoretical. Negative Equity isn't theoretical.

I'm not saying that house prices shouldn't come down, I am saying that there are many house owners (and their relatives) who have real reasons for being very strongly opposed to it. There was a lot of pressure on house prices a couple of years or so ago, but sellers wouldn't sell at those prices, so it didn't happen.

[pogo]

The amount of profit that would be made by downsizing, would be lower if house prices were lower.

So we’re worried about people making profits on housing now ! But this is wrong anyway. If you want to e.g. downsize from a 3 bed house to a 2 bed house the differential should be and is mostly the same wherever you are. London prices are high across the board.

If you mean profits from relocating, from e.g. central London to the suburbs or to another town/city, then those profits are certainly available. But they shouldn’t be, as large regional variations are one of the main problems. The gains from moving away from London are the losses, or the sheer unaffordability, of moving the other way. And anyway people can only make such profits because of the massive rise in house prices in London – they have not earned them. Such unearned profits are one of the main way inequality arises and persists in capitalist societies.

[zip accident]

The amount of profit that would be made by downsizing, would be lower if house prices were lower.

So we’re worried about people making profits on housing now !

I personally don't care if some people make profits from selling their house. However the people making the profit will care rather a lot. Making current house owners less rich for the benefit of first time buyers will be unpopular with current houseowners. Who have votes, so no party is going to suggest they will do that in their manifesto.

[pogo]

People without their own homes have votes too, and for them the matter of how expensive houses are is rather more pressing. Businesses in London and the south east who find it harder to find staff because of high housing costs, reflected in the high regional variations in unemployment rates. Even people with homes have problems as high prices and differences limit their choices over where they can move.

There is one way though the democratic process stops houses being built. Many decisions about house building are taken locally. And people living locally almost always don’t want houses built, whether as they fear prices being driven down, or their services being affected, or just the loss of a view. The benefit if houses are built often is much greater than these concerns, but those that will benefit most are not local voters. They don’t yet live in the area. So their views don’t get considered.

That’s an argument though for taking such decision making out of the hands of local councils, local voters. Decide how many houses need to be built, break it down by local authority, then set targets for each to approve that amount each year, with penalties and sanctions for any that don’t. They can still choose where to build but have to build somewhere. Repeated across the country this would mean house building targets could be met without the government spending any money, except for planning it all.

[gravy]

This parliament spending on health rose £5bn in real terms, despite the economy being in recession or only growing slowly for much of the session. An £8bn rise then is a little bit more ambitious, but should be easy to achieve with similar policies in a much stronger economy.

The broader point is that the Tories don’t need to spell out what they will do in as much detail as it boils down to “more of the same”, at least until the deficit is eliminated and debt is brought under control.

You're just echoing Osborner and sound just as stupid as he does here:



Marr's right though, it'll be from drastic departmental cuts outside of the NHS. Trouble is there's a diminishing return on that front. Larger cuts than the previous term (not more of the same) in areas that are a lot less able to deal with it while lowering taxes.

Doesn't add up does it?

[zip accident]

People without their own homes have votes too, and for them the matter of how expensive houses are is rather more pressing.

More pressing doesn't mean they get more votes. There don't seem to be that many people actually homeless.

[VNVObit]

So avoiding that one then.

Health? I think the best summary is here:

In their place comes not one but three give-aways - an extension of the right to buy, a doubling of free childcare and a promise that tax allowances will rise to ensure that the minimum wage is tax free. This after a series of others - not least the pledge to cut inheritance tax and spend at least £8 billion a year on the NHS.

What today's Conservative manifesto does not spell out is who will pay. Which budgets will be cut (police, colleges, councils…)? Which benefits will be stopped? Whose taxes will be raised?

David Cameron and George Osborne used to warn against unfunded spending commitments. They are gambling that their reputation as protectors of the public purse is good enough to risk looking like they can't wait to get spending again.

This parliament spending on health rose £5bn in real terms, despite the economy being in recession or only growing slowly for much of the session. An £8bn rise then is a little bit more ambitious, but should be easy to achieve with similar policies in a much stronger economy.

The broader point is that the Tories don’t need to spell out what they will do in as much detail as it boils down to “more of the same”, at least until the deficit is eliminated and debt is brought under control.

Actually their manifesto makes no such pledge it states and £8bn by 2020 or over five years which is not the same as £8bn p.a.

spend at least an additional £8 billion by 2020 over and above inflation to fund and
support the NHS’s own action plan for the next five years

page 37

or if we go to page 38 we get this gem

We will implement the NHS’s own
plan to improve health care even further – the Five Year
Forward View. Because of our long-term economic plan,
we are able to commit to increasing NHS spending in
England in real terms by a minimum of £8 billion over
the next five years.

Implying it's per annum is disingenuous and misleading

As to more of the same, well that means closing A&Es and selling off NHS land for private development (current policy where I live) to reduce the gap as they reduce the number of A&Es here despite the fact that CQC declared the remaining A&E as requiring improvement (inadequate in September of last year) and the hospital as being inadequately led