Politics Thread!

[tufty]

They are slums because they are illegal.

No, they are slums because the conditions are shitty. The conditions are shitty because that's the cheapest way to provide them. Making it merely legal to crap extensions all over the top and gardens of your property doesn't mean that the end result will be additional high-quality accommodation. There's nothing to stop (and 800+ a week to incentivise) the unscrupulous from getting permits to build extra living space on their roof, or a garage / workshop / shed in the garden, waiting till it's finished and checked off by the council, then renting it to half a dozen filthy immigrunts.

The only thing standing between the unscrupulous and mega-wonga is their neighbours, the people paying to live there aren't going to dob them in because that means losing the roof they have over their heads. So if people aren't getting ratted on by their neighbours *now* for *illegal* sheds with beds, what makes you think the situation is going to get better when building the sheds themselves becomes legal?

[pogo]

They are only living like that because the market is broken. They are paying £800 for a room in a shed because that won’t get you an apartment in London. You only see them in London as prices are much cheaper elswhere; you could rent a house for less than that around here. So fix the market and such places should cease to exist. It won’t happen overnight, it may take many years, but the aim should be to bring down prices to a point at which they make sense.

Worth pointing out that the market doesn’t need fixing just in London but nationally: prices are more expensive than they should be pretty much anywhere. But this means fixing the market elsewhere will also help London: cheaper prices elsewhere will take the pressure off London prices, either as more people commute or as more people and firms relocate out of London to cut costs.

[(o)(o)]

They are only living like that because the market is broken. They are paying £800 for a room in a shed because that won’t get you an apartment in London. You only see them in London as prices are much cheaper elswhere; you could rent a house for less than that around here. So fix the market and such places should cease to exist. It won’t happen overnight, it may take many years, but the aim should be to bring down prices to a point at which they make sense.

Worth pointing out that the market doesn’t need fixing just in London but nationally: prices are more expensive than they should be pretty much anywhere. But this means fixing the market elsewhere will also help London: cheaper prices elsewhere will take the pressure off London prices, either as more people commute or as more people and firms relocate out of London to cut costs.

Remarkable insight.

[gravy]

They are only living like that because the market is broken. They are paying £800 for a room in a shed because that won’t get you an apartment in London. You only see them in London as prices are much cheaper elswhere; you could rent a house for less than that around here. So fix the market and such places should cease to exist. It won’t happen overnight, it may take many years, but the aim should be to bring down prices to a point at which they make sense.

Worth pointing out that the market doesn’t need fixing just in London but nationally: prices are more expensive than they should be pretty much anywhere. But this means fixing the market elsewhere will also help London: cheaper prices elsewhere will take the pressure off London prices, either as more people commute or as more people and firms relocate out of London to cut costs.

And what do you mean by 'fix'

That's an incredibly loaded phrase when I comes to markets

[pogo]

The problem is at its core a problem of supply and demand. You can’t do much about demand (or at least the cure then is worse than the problem, such as withdrawing from the EU to stop immigration, and even that is not guaranteed to work). So you can only do something about supply, by building more homes.

That’s what I mean by fix: fix the mismatch between supply and demand by building more homes.

[merman]

The problem is at its core a problem of supply and demand. You can’t do much about demand (or at least the cure then is worse than the problem, such as withdrawing from the EU to stop immigration, and even that is not guaranteed to work). So you can only do something about supply, by building more homes.

That’s what I mean by fix: fix the mismatch between supply and demand by building more homes.

Changing the planning laws the way they have done will NOT increase supply.

The CBI, the building industry and many others have repeatedly said there is a SKILLS SHORTAGE.

Not enough builders. That's why there have been so few homes built in the last year.
And of course the tighter immigration laws mean that thousands of people who could have built new homes and contributed to the economy will be stopped from coming here.

[zip accident]

The CBI, the building industry and many others have repeatedly said there is a SKILLS SHORTAGE.

"Skills shortage" is employer talk for "wages are too high".

There is a shortage of doctors, it takes a long time to train them, and student grants were cut, but building labourers?

[pogo]

Yes, there’s no skills shortage of construction workers. There are millions out of work in Spain, Ireland and elsewhere after their housing busts and economic slowdowns. And there are maybe as many more in Eastern Europe who would come for the higher wages, as a million did from Poland when freedom of movement extended that far.

[VNVObit]

The CBI, the building industry and many others have repeatedly said there is a SKILLS SHORTAGE.

"Skills shortage" is employer talk for "wages are too high".

There is a shortage of doctors, it takes a long time to train them, and student grants were cut, but building labourers?

Brickies, electricians, plumbers, carpenters - all of which have served apprenticeships. There is a shortage of skilled workers and an unwillingness to take on and train apprentices (hence most Housing Associations and government contracts have number of apprenticeship clauses within contracts) as it is cheaper to take on skilled migrant workers (and yes some unskilled).

The problem is at its core a problem of supply and demand. You can’t do much about demand (or at least the cure then is worse than the problem, such as withdrawing from the EU to stop immigration, and even that is not guaranteed to work). So you can only do something about supply, by building more homes.

That’s what I mean by fix: fix the mismatch between supply and demand by building more homes.

As has been repeated on numerous occasions in this thread there is more to it than simply building new homes - infrastructure, schools, amenities, etc. coupled with control over land by developers who know just how many flats/houses to release in order to maintain or increase prices (after all they're maximising shareholder returns something you laud)

They are only living like that because the market is broken. They are paying £800 for a room in a shed because that won’t get you an apartment in London. You only see them in London as prices are much cheaper elswhere; you could rent a house for less than that around here. So fix the market and such places should cease to exist. It won’t happen overnight, it may take many years, but the aim should be to bring down prices to a point at which they make sense.

Worth pointing out that the market doesn’t need fixing just in London but nationally: prices are more expensive than they should be pretty much anywhere. But this means fixing the market elsewhere will also help London: cheaper prices elsewhere will take the pressure off London prices, either as more people commute or as more people and firms relocate out of London to cut costs.

Those sheds are in and around Southall (Ealing) where a 2 bed apartment rents for £950 to £1200 per month (check right move or zoopla). The people in the sheds are illegal and have no money to provide a deposit nor can hold a job legally. So even if there was sufficient supply and rooms could be rented they would not be in a position. They are being exploited by the shed owners who probably aren't declaring the income to HMRC either. That's not indicative of the entire housing market but a small and exploitative niche within the overall market.

Changes in recent years have made it easier for developers to reduce the number of social on site or even pay the council off to ensure there are none. Which sounds great in theory but councils have very small development programmes so not much is going to get built by them

HAs which have been building and stretching their balance sheets in order to provide new social housing (which has a lower value than the net cost to the HA in terms of loans they support) have been rightly shafted by Osborne and the Treasury (who've been looking to get their hands on HA balance sheets) introducing the 1% reduction p.a. for 4 years. The argument put forward by Osborne that they have enjoyed bumper increases in previous years is frankly academic as their costs have increased, grant has reduced dramatically, welfare reform has increased the risks around rent collection. This is after all the first year of a ten year deal that Osborne previous agreed with HAs (via the HCA) which in funders eyes (and HAs have £60bn in debt funding all the social housing they own) means the risk profile has changed with the expectation that those HAs which are rated (by Moody's, S&P) will have their credit ratings downgraded or negative outlook , leading to more expensive debt and therefore further reductions in development capacity

Coupled with the warning from ONS that actually all of this debt (and remember these are private organisations not quasi state organisations) could end up on the Governments accounts because of the interference and meddling

[pogo]

As has been repeated on numerous occasions in this thread there is more to it than simply building new homes - infrastructure, schools, amenities, etc. coupled with control over land by developers who know just how many flats/houses to release in order to maintain or increase prices (after all they're maximising shareholder returns something you laud)

I don’t laud shareholder returns. I am a believer in markets where they make sense but that means something quite different. It means e.g. if a firm fucks up like e.g. our banks then the shareholders should usually be the first to lose out, often being simply wiped out while customers, creditors, staff all get paid at least something.

The flaw in your reasoning is property development isn’t a monopoly. It isn’t a cartel. If it were the government could step in to break it up tomorrow but it really isn’t, it’s far too diverse, fragmented with firms with widely different outlooks and priorities. So if some firms tried to sit on land to keep up prices others would move to take advantage of the change in rules. Many of the rule changes will benefit existing properties anyway, not new build that developers control.

And infrastructure should be much less of an issue for extensions to existing properties and new build on brownfield. The roads etc. should already be there. Schools can add places or new ones can be built to match demand but that will become obvious as newly created homes are occupied.

[VNVObit]

As has been repeated on numerous occasions in this thread there is more to it than simply building new homes - infrastructure, schools, amenities, etc. coupled with control over land by developers who know just how many flats/houses to release in order to maintain or increase prices (after all they're maximising shareholder returns something you laud)

I don’t laud shareholder returns. I am a believer in markets where they make sense but that means something quite different. It means e.g. if a firm fucks up like e.g. our banks then the shareholders should usually be the first to lose out, often being simply wiped out while customers, creditors, staff all get paid at least something.

The flaw in your reasoning is property development isn’t a monopoly. It isn’t a cartel. If it were the government could step in to break it up tomorrow but it really isn’t, it’s far too diverse, fragmented with firms with widely different outlooks and priorities. So if some firms tried to sit on land to keep up prices others would move to take advantage of the change in rules. Many of the rule changes will benefit existing properties anyway, not new build that developers control.

And infrastructure should be much less of an issue for extensions to existing properties and new build on brownfield. The roads etc. should already be there. Schools can add places or new ones can be built to match demand but that will become obvious as newly created homes are occupied.

It doesn't have to be a cartel to be operated in such as way as to stifle demand. Not even suggesting collusion. In a functioning market competitors are aware of what each other is doing and behave accordingly. They're not turkeys so they don't vote for Christmas and chase the prices down - their model doesn't work on that basis and they all do it. There is competition when land comes on the market but that does not equate with shovels in the ground as developers like to have a pipeline (don't want to make profit in just one year). Landowners also don't tend to move in unison as there's betterment to consider (first phases don't generate the largest returns)

Extensions will be a marginal contributor at best and won't offset the capacity that Osborne has taken out of the housing sector, certainly not at the affordable end.

Schools can't just add places and you need land, teachers and funding (taxpayers) for new schools. Where's that going to come from with running surpluses??? Developers contributions fall way short of meaningfully making a dent on the total cost of ownership of a school.

Roads are there for factories but the demands on them from a residential population are quite different to industrial transport. Adequate parking, multiple entry/exit points for security, adequate turning space for municipal vehicles (fire engines, bin trucks, etc. ), adequate provision for pedestrians, links to public transport, etc.

What about hospitals, sewage, waste disposal? You seem to operate in a world where these things can be magicked up , well they can't and they need to be funded (largely from taxpayers in one shape or another).

[pogo]

Roads are there for factories but the demands on them from a residential population are quite different to industrial transport. Adequate parking, multiple entry/exit points for security, adequate turning space for municipal vehicles (fire engines, bin trucks, etc. ), adequate provision for pedestrians, links to public transport, etc.

What about hospitals, sewage, waste disposal? You seem to operate in a world where these things can be magicked up , well they can't and they need to be funded (largely from taxpayers in one shape or another).

Hospitals ? We’re not talking about building another new town, but small developments, sometimes very small ones on just a single property. This won’t be creating new people, just new or better homes for existing ones. These people already exist, using health, education, etc., probably mostly in the same local authority. It will of course reduce the pressure on e.g. social services caused by poor housing provision. Long term it should reduce the pressure on all sorts of transport as people are no longer forced into such long commutes by house prices.

Water, sewage, electricity will be needed. But they are always needed, and it would be pretty much impossible to sell new houses without them.

[VNVObit]

Roads are there for factories but the demands on them from a residential population are quite different to industrial transport. Adequate parking, multiple entry/exit points for security, adequate turning space for municipal vehicles (fire engines, bin trucks, etc. ), adequate provision for pedestrians, links to public transport, etc.

What about hospitals, sewage, waste disposal? You seem to operate in a world where these things can be magicked up , well they can't and they need to be funded (largely from taxpayers in one shape or another).

Hospitals ? We’re not talking about building another new town, but small developments, sometimes very small ones on just a single property. This won’t be creating new people, just new or better homes for existing ones. These people already exist, using health, education, etc., probably mostly in the same local authority. It will of course reduce the pressure on e.g. social services caused by poor housing provision. Long term it should reduce the pressure on all sorts of transport as people are no longer forced into such long commutes by house prices.

Water, sewage, electricity will be needed. But they are always needed, and it would be pretty much impossible to sell new houses without them.

Industrial = Brownfield

[Dio]

This won't be creating new people, just better homes for existing ones? That utterly defies logic.

Within half a mile of the lads' school, they've added 400 homes in the last ten years, an increase of a factor of about 2. Another 400 start next year. Are all those 800 families coming from the 500-or-so houses that previously existed within half a mile of the school?

[pogo]

But it happens all the time anyway, due to demographics, employment, retirement. A secondary school around here closed only a year ago, going from 1000 to no pupils in only a fe years, as it was no longer needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseberry_College

My point was that if you are building on brownfield sites, or expanding existing properties, you are doing so within towns and cities that already have school systems, hospital systems. Maybe they need to add a few places or move some services around but they would be doing so anyway, periodically reviewing provision as they normally do.