> we can build social housing at scale when the political will exists. Between 1945 and 1979, the country built an average of 126,000 council homes annually. The largest number built in a single year, 219,000, was achieved by a Conservative government in 1953
The more homes there are, the value of each home would drop. So the net worth of all home owners would drop, which is the majority of the country. I can’t imagine many people voting for it.
Another magic money tree article from the guardian. They were last complaining about unfunded spending and now they want more spending.
That’s not how controlling supply to keep the price high works. How will the great Ponzi scheme exist if everyone can have a house?
Also, where are we going to get the materials now the pound fell through its arsehole?
Building housing is the best way to get economy growing and creates lots of job aswell. The problem is that there so many red tapes and regulations it’s basically impossible to build massive amount of numbers of houses
I think we’re pretty much at capacity for building homes. It is limited by the availability of labour and materials.
People thinking it’s the government holding it back because it’s some evil scheme to keep the supply low and demand high. Which is dumb because there’s no regulations on how many houses you can buy/own. So you’d keep the supply low by buying all the new houses up to rent out for profit.
The real issue is skilled labour, building materials and all the red tape and council rules you need to pass to get building.
Is anyone surprised they built so many houses in 1953? Go live in one of those houses and you’ll see why.
Anyone can build an extension to their house for a new arrival to live in, so why don’t they?
We need Social Housing. My local council are pulling down council flats and homes and replacing them with affordable homes that no one can afford. Even though it’s illegal private landlords won’t take people on UC even if they work and just get topped up by UC. So where are people on low income meant to live? Subsquent governments have done nothing to stop the crisis we face today.
We can’t physically build anymore really, there isn’t enough tradespeople or materials for a start. Planning laws shouldn’t be any more lax in my opinion(for big developers) as the estates they build are already not amazingly well designed in my opinion.
The real driver of house price growth is interest rates
Because the availability of land to build housing on is artificially limited by green belts and overzealous planning departments that refuse planning permission for anything larger than a doll’s house.
Abolish green belts and neuter local authorities’ planning powers.
Where are all these homes going exactly? People don’t want to live in tower blocks, and I’m unconvinced that there is enough land to build new homes for everyone without taking away much need green land for food.
This country doesn’t even have the ability to control its own tax regime without scaring the global markets to absolute panic. Can you imagine the horror if we announced a national social housing scheme that would cost hundreds of billions more than the recent tax cuts? We are beholden to the banks, and there is nothing more to say than that. All of these ideas are literal fantasy in an ever declining nation that is closer to full on breakdown than social housing for all.
I see plenty of new homes being built but none of them are affordable.
Years of austerity has seen thousands upon thousands of low income housing leaving the hands of local councils and being taken over by landlords.
The delusion of austerity must be delt with first. Stop pissing away hundreds of billions to corporations who funnel their profits out of the UK and start refunding local authorities.
We got told the 700 billion debt after Labour left office ment we needed austerity and yet under it the Conservatives have wracked it up into the trillions despite slashing councils and public services.
I think its important to consider the negative impacts too, say we had a genuine mass home building push and prices dropped 25-40%, many people would be in negative equity, it would be impossible for them to sell their house and move to another part of the country if they got a job offer elsewhere, anyone who lost their job/became unable to pay their mortgage would have to realise the loss in equity and have 10-20 years of savings wiped out. Anyone who broke up with their partner (divorce is at 50%+!) and sold their house would have to realise the loss and not be able to buy a home for another 10-20 years (i.e when they are age 50 or something).
It would no longer be possible for them to move from a starter house to a larger one as they had a family with several children, as due to negative equity they lack a deposit after selling their starter home.
There would be huge turmoil in the financial markets as companies now are owed loans worth hundreds of thousands of pounds from people who have assets worth far less than that. Even “Safe” 65% LTV mortgages would become “Risky” 100% LTV mortgages triggering huge writedowns and increased capital requirements to cover potential risk losses.
Banks would need bailouts or nationalisation, pensions funds would have huge writedowns in value as large chunks of retirement savings are invested in the “lower-risk” mortgage market, the mortgage market would dry up substantially making it harder for anyone to get a mortgage and only at higher rates, pensioners would lose substantial value in the assets they thought would let them retire, a recession would be inevitable which would trigger more people losing their job and house and being forced to crystallise the drop in house prices and wipe out their life savings.
The people most impacted would be 25-40 year olds, who just about managed to get onto the property ladder and now have their past 10-20 years of savings potentially wiped out. Sometimes I wonder if that is intentional, the moment you buy your first house at 85-90% LTV instantly you flip from being a person desiring lower house prices, to someone who is absolutely screwed if house prices fall.
Because houses are an investment instrument. They are considered a safe bet because people always need housing, so this basic need can be exploited and monetized easily. This is done by artificially restricting housebuilding below the level of demand.
It is assumed that increasing housing need will always elevate prices. However this is not the case, as we are about to witness, when prices are so elevated as to outstrip buyer’s borrowing capacity, particularly as now when the cost of borrowing increases rapidly. Prices are therefore likely to correct lower, yet the need still not be met as only wealthy buyers will be able to purchase properties, which they then rent out at a profit. This increases inequality and leads to a concentration of property ownership among the wealthy while those of lesser means are obliged to rent. The only solution is drastic government intervention such as restricting buy-to-let or limiting the number of houses a person can own.
Because I don’t want to live in a Judge Dredd nationwide Megacity just because we cant say no to even slightly reducing immigration.
It reduces the prices of houses so people who own multiple properties, mainly tory voters and donators would lose money, so that can’t be allowed to happen.
Because we already have one of the highest population densities in the world and our green space needs to be protected. Maybe it’s time to have an adult conversation about our population and mass migration?
19 comments
> we can build social housing at scale when the political will exists. Between 1945 and 1979, the country built an average of 126,000 council homes annually. The largest number built in a single year, 219,000, was achieved by a Conservative government in 1953
> the 1970s witnessed a swansong of high-quality public housing in the low-rise, high-density schemes built most notably by the London boroughs of [Camden](https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/housing/21350883.they-something-special-remembering-camdens-housebuilding-golden-age/) and Lambeth. These generously financed, architect-designed schemes remain a model as we look to the future.
The more homes there are, the value of each home would drop. So the net worth of all home owners would drop, which is the majority of the country. I can’t imagine many people voting for it.
Another magic money tree article from the guardian. They were last complaining about unfunded spending and now they want more spending.
That’s not how controlling supply to keep the price high works. How will the great Ponzi scheme exist if everyone can have a house?
Also, where are we going to get the materials now the pound fell through its arsehole?
Building housing is the best way to get economy growing and creates lots of job aswell. The problem is that there so many red tapes and regulations it’s basically impossible to build massive amount of numbers of houses
I think we’re pretty much at capacity for building homes. It is limited by the availability of labour and materials.
People thinking it’s the government holding it back because it’s some evil scheme to keep the supply low and demand high. Which is dumb because there’s no regulations on how many houses you can buy/own. So you’d keep the supply low by buying all the new houses up to rent out for profit.
The real issue is skilled labour, building materials and all the red tape and council rules you need to pass to get building.
Is anyone surprised they built so many houses in 1953? Go live in one of those houses and you’ll see why.
Anyone can build an extension to their house for a new arrival to live in, so why don’t they?
We need Social Housing. My local council are pulling down council flats and homes and replacing them with affordable homes that no one can afford. Even though it’s illegal private landlords won’t take people on UC even if they work and just get topped up by UC. So where are people on low income meant to live? Subsquent governments have done nothing to stop the crisis we face today.
We can’t physically build anymore really, there isn’t enough tradespeople or materials for a start. Planning laws shouldn’t be any more lax in my opinion(for big developers) as the estates they build are already not amazingly well designed in my opinion.
The real driver of house price growth is interest rates
Because the availability of land to build housing on is artificially limited by green belts and overzealous planning departments that refuse planning permission for anything larger than a doll’s house.
Abolish green belts and neuter local authorities’ planning powers.
Where are all these homes going exactly? People don’t want to live in tower blocks, and I’m unconvinced that there is enough land to build new homes for everyone without taking away much need green land for food.
This country doesn’t even have the ability to control its own tax regime without scaring the global markets to absolute panic. Can you imagine the horror if we announced a national social housing scheme that would cost hundreds of billions more than the recent tax cuts? We are beholden to the banks, and there is nothing more to say than that. All of these ideas are literal fantasy in an ever declining nation that is closer to full on breakdown than social housing for all.
I see plenty of new homes being built but none of them are affordable.
Years of austerity has seen thousands upon thousands of low income housing leaving the hands of local councils and being taken over by landlords.
The delusion of austerity must be delt with first. Stop pissing away hundreds of billions to corporations who funnel their profits out of the UK and start refunding local authorities.
We got told the 700 billion debt after Labour left office ment we needed austerity and yet under it the Conservatives have wracked it up into the trillions despite slashing councils and public services.
I think its important to consider the negative impacts too, say we had a genuine mass home building push and prices dropped 25-40%, many people would be in negative equity, it would be impossible for them to sell their house and move to another part of the country if they got a job offer elsewhere, anyone who lost their job/became unable to pay their mortgage would have to realise the loss in equity and have 10-20 years of savings wiped out. Anyone who broke up with their partner (divorce is at 50%+!) and sold their house would have to realise the loss and not be able to buy a home for another 10-20 years (i.e when they are age 50 or something).
It would no longer be possible for them to move from a starter house to a larger one as they had a family with several children, as due to negative equity they lack a deposit after selling their starter home.
There would be huge turmoil in the financial markets as companies now are owed loans worth hundreds of thousands of pounds from people who have assets worth far less than that. Even “Safe” 65% LTV mortgages would become “Risky” 100% LTV mortgages triggering huge writedowns and increased capital requirements to cover potential risk losses.
Banks would need bailouts or nationalisation, pensions funds would have huge writedowns in value as large chunks of retirement savings are invested in the “lower-risk” mortgage market, the mortgage market would dry up substantially making it harder for anyone to get a mortgage and only at higher rates, pensioners would lose substantial value in the assets they thought would let them retire, a recession would be inevitable which would trigger more people losing their job and house and being forced to crystallise the drop in house prices and wipe out their life savings.
The people most impacted would be 25-40 year olds, who just about managed to get onto the property ladder and now have their past 10-20 years of savings potentially wiped out. Sometimes I wonder if that is intentional, the moment you buy your first house at 85-90% LTV instantly you flip from being a person desiring lower house prices, to someone who is absolutely screwed if house prices fall.
Because houses are an investment instrument. They are considered a safe bet because people always need housing, so this basic need can be exploited and monetized easily. This is done by artificially restricting housebuilding below the level of demand.
It is assumed that increasing housing need will always elevate prices. However this is not the case, as we are about to witness, when prices are so elevated as to outstrip buyer’s borrowing capacity, particularly as now when the cost of borrowing increases rapidly. Prices are therefore likely to correct lower, yet the need still not be met as only wealthy buyers will be able to purchase properties, which they then rent out at a profit. This increases inequality and leads to a concentration of property ownership among the wealthy while those of lesser means are obliged to rent. The only solution is drastic government intervention such as restricting buy-to-let or limiting the number of houses a person can own.
Because I don’t want to live in a Judge Dredd nationwide Megacity just because we cant say no to even slightly reducing immigration.
It reduces the prices of houses so people who own multiple properties, mainly tory voters and donators would lose money, so that can’t be allowed to happen.
Because we already have one of the highest population densities in the world and our green space needs to be protected. Maybe it’s time to have an adult conversation about our population and mass migration?