elections are won on a broad range of issues, while for some people it will be planning that will decide how they vote, for others, it will be
education, Iraq, NHS, Europe, etc
You’re clearly right FreedomERP
not just because elections are fought on a broad range of issues but because many people already own a house
But what I mean is that could Labour loose the election with the property crisis being a big nail in they’re political coffin, just like the NHS was
for Tories was in 1997?
Since the Tories are trying to attract new voters, they are therefore not attracting just you’re classic Tory type who own they’re own homes. I'm
thinking of the young couples-households who are resentful of seeing 40-50% of they’re monthly income (after national insurance tax) go on rent or a
Or just those people who would prefer to move out of a concrete cell into a more family sized house, but can’t because they can’t easily afford
These types the Tory party must attract.
Originally posted by Sminkeypinky
It's simply not true to pretend that all it takes to sort out every problem existing now is a 'green light' for private developers to build
where ever they like.
It’s the consequences of this particular view which is at the heart of year on year housing price crisis. You say…
But Sminkey hasn’t it occurred to you why these developers are holding onto enough land to build 225,000 houses?
Right now we can see examples of developers are sitting on their hands watching the sites they currently hold as undeveloped rocketing in
Could it be because they can
count on a year, on year increase in the value of these plots of land without having to invest anything?
And why’s that I wonder?
Could it be because the government isn’t granting enough planning permission in the first place?
What would happen (I wonder
) if there was a surge in planning permission
Do you really think these private money making machines (Land banks) would sit with they’re hands under they’re arses as (developable) land prices
They would be trying to develop them or sell them off as quickly as possible.
And what would that do (I wonder) to any other developable land owners late in the game? Why make them sell of what they had horded for themselves at
greatly reduced value.
A surge of say about 8 years worth of planning permission spread over 2 years would be all it takes to liberate this prime development land, and at
the same time pave the way for greatly reduced property prices.
Interesting that you proclaim such "hatred" for the Labour party and yet they are the ones actually doing something to bring back a public
housing stock sector to help the very people left behind by the market
This is almost laughable. The government are the only ones responsible for denying the planning permission needed to allow so much more (developable)
land to be developed. Either they know what they are doing, or the people advising the government on this issue are all very thick (something I
And if they know what they are doing then they are worthy of considerable contempt because of the plight of the low-low middle income groups.
The government controls this situation almost to the letter, in the same way every government (with a restrictive planning system) anywhere in the
world does. The basic principle is not enough permission = escalating house, house-land prices, it’s the reason why it makes sense to hold onto
Explaining My Hatred…
At face value it appears good-great the Labour government wants to build more council houses.
Yet why are they needed?
1. Is it because there is a shortage of land? With 60 million acres given to us by Weird and only 4.4 million of these developed I would answer no.
2. Is it because council houses are expensive to build?
Well with a general price tag of 30-60 thousand pounds many could say not.
3. Is it because planning system is so screwed, “supply and demand” itself prices these people out? I would answer that with a yes
(As said) the government has known all along whether it is granting enough planning permission or not. You only have to look at house prices to figure
that out. That’s my first reason for hatred.
Obviously the government is wise enough to know this creates problems with the very poor and that is why they are granting 3 million council owned
However it isn’t really necessary if only they would have a surge in planning permission.
So instead what they are doing forms part of
“sick” vision (second reason for hated
) where the only way the poor survive without falling into absolute poverty is to move into one these
council owned estate houses. If the government was some innocent bystander in this house crisis; then of course I would be happy they were building
all these council houses (so be it at taxpayers expense).
But I’ve looked at it more deeply (acknowledged they’re role in they’re chosen remedies necessity) and so instead it makes me mighty
. For a start I don’t like the kind of society with poor in one city area (the one with government housing) and everyone elsewhere. It
creates problems, and once more (with the construction cost of new homes relatively low) it’s not like it’s necessary for many of the future
tenants of these proposed future homes, not to be able to buy they’re own homes (instead of state rent). And my warning to the Labour Party is this
holds true twice given what Margaret Thatcher did.
And history does repeat (when the circumstances are right), and they’ll be even more ripe if the cost of housing in the private sector continues to
escalate-does not come down, due to too small central gov, local gov planning quotas.
Of course they’ll always be people where even the bricks and mortar cost of a house is too prohibitive (even for a mortgage). E.g. the 16 year old
single mum types (and other variants) so for these people council housing is obviously a necessity. But whether we’ll still be needing 3 an extra
million council homes for all these destitute types I don’t know. It could even be that we would have a council house surplus with the existing
But this will not happen until home prices resemble more what they cost to construct. And that is down to planning permission, something that’s
totally in government hands
For The Record
Sminkey I did not say developers should be allowed to “build where ever they like”.
I 100% applaud development free zones like nature reserves and national parks.
And for the most part I like the “Local Plan
” system used by local councils to allocate development (so that they can meet they’re
However this is where my support also stumbles a bit as it’s hard to applaud the current policy of seemingly allocating more housing wherever the
last boundary line of the local plan was. Instead I think we (in many areas) desperately need small gaps between one batch of housing and next, and
I'm not proposing these gaps be anymore than half a mile to two miles (you can casually walk two miles in about half an hour). The point is it would
allow greater sections of the populace to escape the urbanisation of they’re world (if only for brief moments of time).
One incentive for local councils would be if they could receive at least a percentage of the governments development tax. It would mean they might
want to more build nicer places to live, instead of meeting the governments targets by cramming as many people into one area as possible (like
But I believe there is a case for building on the countryside if average house plot (minimum requirements) demand that the councils to provide for
bigger gardens more often. Because this richly compensates Mother Nature for the wildlife potential she has lost to concrete, and if done
appropriately can give her a gain in terms of wildlife potential as I showed in this thread: www.abovepolitics.com...
The only thing I accidentally omitted was the effect of the humble domestic cat. These killing machines fed of biscuits and cans of tinned sheep-cow
can be unbelievably bad for bird populations. Therefore there is case that if new houses are to built further into
the countryside that they
should also be cat free. Many people would like this as it would mean they wouldn’t have to worry about some turd on their lawn, and whilst it would
be unpopular in it existing areas, it wouldn’t make much difference to people on the move and who therefore have the county-country at their
I completely agreed with everything you said about building on flood plains, providing that the infrastructure needed to drain water is
in fact built-maintained. But there is still a case for well planned new settlements, not only to avoid costs on civil engineering but also brake with
the pattern of evermore extending existing settlements so that the standard of living-happiness can be sustained higher for the next 100 years or more
(depending on long existing building will last).
(Currently) due to the massive profits to be made developers will reluctantly agree to put civil pumping infrastructure in place (so long as they get
they’re permission). However the cost of maintaining it is a long term economic drain, and though annually small it could easily be eliminated if
the developers (were in order to get they’re planning permission) required to contribute to the necessary infrastructure to put houses a new (but
still nearby) settlements (ones that could still won’t flood).
But as for this weather being a freak 150 year event? “Don’t bet money on it” is the message of most climate change experts.