At the dinner table you can’t go for seconds until everyone has had their firsts. I don’t understand why the same principle isn’t applied to the basic necessity of housing.
Private buyers should always be given priority over landlord buyers. “Do you plan to actually live in this property you’re buying?” If the answer is no, someone else who actually *would* live there goes in front of you.
I am a bit of an idiot idealist though and maybe that could result in many different problems, but I’ll support anything that makes homes more accessible to people who actually want to buy them for the purpose of… well, living in them.
Seems like an actually good plan if all points can be implemented.
I do however take issue with “In particular, housebuilding should prioritise key workers on low wages that make our communities run – the nurses, the shop workers, the teachers, the care workers, the farm workers.” This push on “key workers” is ridiculous, it’s 100% pandering and nothing more.
…and just how many MPs have second homes?
Yeah. There’s your answer. It will never happen.
Here’s the summary of 5 point plan.
1. Let’s give councils the power to quadruple council tax on holiday lets and empty second homes.
2. Set a minimum floor on the number of homes for local people. Floor must be at least 51% and give councils the power to adjust it upward.
3. Councils should have the power to introduce an affordable community infrastructure levy on empty and under-used second homes – to support the last shop in the village, the pharmacy, the post office, the pub.
4. Focus on building more genuinely affordable zero-carbon homes – to buy, to rent and to socially rent – with a preference and priority for local people and in particular, key workers.
5. Introduce a discount lock for future renters and purchasers of these affordable first homes.
With so many people having so much money invested in property, only a brave government would do something that would benefit the average person. Even if you ignore BTL landlords with large portfolios, there are a lot of people who are depending on their house or second home to finance their retirement. Fixing the housing market would mean having to tell them that is no longer an option, which would go down like a cup of cold sick. In a country where property porn is so popular, trying to persuade people that change to the housing market is not only necessary but a good thing is a tall order. Does any party really have the balls to do that?
Labour has had control of Wales forever and done absolutely nothing this entire time. Meanwhile snp have had control of Scotland and done loads of different things.
Someone I know recently had an offer accepted on a house. They offered at asking price, whereas apparently multiple investors offered above asking price. Despite this, my friend was accepted. The couple selling the house sold it to my friend based on the fact he would be living in the house, and not converting it to flats. It was their family home and had lived there for over 30 years. I think this should start to become more the norm, and it really gave me hope to get on the ladder one day.
ITT lots of completely unworkable complex fantasy ideas to fix what is simply a shortage of supply. Just fucking build more houses, particularly social housing. Only nobody will, because most voters are home owners and house prices are sacrosanct.
I am so behind a boost in owner-occupation. I say this as both a landlord and a tenant – I had to move out of my house and rent elsewhere for my children….
House prices are seen as a measure of economic success -the higher the better. This is so very wrong – it means that other investments are under-performing.
Owner-occupation brings with it so many non-economic benefits – if you live in your house you care about it and look after it. If you let it you see it only as a source of income (though I am hoping to move back in to my house when my children grow…). It also distributes wealth and makes people more invested in their surroundings and local environment.
Boomers landlords “But… but what will I do with my 400k investment?! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! You should try working harder instead of being lazy and complaining.”
We need punitively higher taxes for owning subsequent homes. At the very least if the rich are buying up multiple houses let them fund a few new ones a year.
Could do with a council tax reform in with it. Which of course is politically unviable sadly.
*”This manifesto is simple but bold…”*
I disagree, it’s confusing and timid.
The current problems that most people are facing is down to the decline in the welfare state. It was the welfare state that made it possible for ordinary people to ‘get on’, for the first time ever.
The welfare is not benefits, that’s just what right-wingers wanted everyone to believe.
Just build more houses.
People in the UK over-think this problem because they don’t want to admit that they value unproductive industrialised farm-land over places for people to live.
You can give owner occupiers a better deal but only by giving renters a worse deal.
Or you can just build more housing.
Let’s put first homes first.
And second homes banned.
Xénophobes are so weird. I have yet to hear them complain about foreign companies/individuals buying up Properties and land.
Surely owning large swathes of land at the expense of British people is more worrying than a few people in dinghy’s staying in a shit BnB and getting £70 a week.
Banning holiday lets would be the first step, followed by an outrageously high tax on homes that aren’t a main residence (of anybody, regardless of who the owner is).
>with a preference and priority for local people
I agree with all of this but I’m unsure about the “local people” focus.
If I want to move to Devon and it’s my first and only home it shouldn’t matter if I’m local or from Inverness.
I’d also add: for me, it’s not asking too much for a couple who have worked hard and saved to own a second home. They should have extra taxes but let’s not go crazy.
Instead, the focus should be on 3rd, 4th, 50th homes. Fuck those people. Fuck those corporations. That, I imagine, is much more of an issue than Mark & Sue getting a holiday home in St Ives.
The Conservative’s and Thatcher turned the housing market into big business, part of the sucker deal was to sell of state owned and run housing, council houses.
They needed to replace the revenue from North Sea oil somehow.
Look were we are now, a housing market run as big business.
Buy to let mortgages should be taxed much higher or better banned.
I don’t mind being forced to sell my second home, just so long as I can keep the others.
One big thing would be to ban all foreign building ownership for residential. Need to be a British citizen or have at least 10 years notable tax payments.
Half of London isn’t owned by anyone who actually lives here, it’s one of the main reasons why that city, and others as well, are cost prohibitive and overly draws property developers to concentrate on housing in a limited number of cities. Foreign investors inflate the markets. If you were a builder, why wouldn’t you redevelop a place in London, rather than in a small town up north?
Ban foreign ownerships then give in 2 years and see how the market responds. I honestly think this would massively change the whole UK market.
22 comments
At the dinner table you can’t go for seconds until everyone has had their firsts. I don’t understand why the same principle isn’t applied to the basic necessity of housing.
Private buyers should always be given priority over landlord buyers. “Do you plan to actually live in this property you’re buying?” If the answer is no, someone else who actually *would* live there goes in front of you.
I am a bit of an idiot idealist though and maybe that could result in many different problems, but I’ll support anything that makes homes more accessible to people who actually want to buy them for the purpose of… well, living in them.
Seems like an actually good plan if all points can be implemented.
I do however take issue with “In particular, housebuilding should prioritise key workers on low wages that make our communities run – the nurses, the shop workers, the teachers, the care workers, the farm workers.” This push on “key workers” is ridiculous, it’s 100% pandering and nothing more.
…and just how many MPs have second homes?
Yeah. There’s your answer. It will never happen.
Here’s the summary of 5 point plan.
1. Let’s give councils the power to quadruple council tax on holiday lets and empty second homes.
2. Set a minimum floor on the number of homes for local people. Floor must be at least 51% and give councils the power to adjust it upward.
3. Councils should have the power to introduce an affordable community infrastructure levy on empty and under-used second homes – to support the last shop in the village, the pharmacy, the post office, the pub.
4. Focus on building more genuinely affordable zero-carbon homes – to buy, to rent and to socially rent – with a preference and priority for local people and in particular, key workers.
5. Introduce a discount lock for future renters and purchasers of these affordable first homes.
With so many people having so much money invested in property, only a brave government would do something that would benefit the average person. Even if you ignore BTL landlords with large portfolios, there are a lot of people who are depending on their house or second home to finance their retirement. Fixing the housing market would mean having to tell them that is no longer an option, which would go down like a cup of cold sick. In a country where property porn is so popular, trying to persuade people that change to the housing market is not only necessary but a good thing is a tall order. Does any party really have the balls to do that?
Labour has had control of Wales forever and done absolutely nothing this entire time. Meanwhile snp have had control of Scotland and done loads of different things.
Someone I know recently had an offer accepted on a house. They offered at asking price, whereas apparently multiple investors offered above asking price. Despite this, my friend was accepted. The couple selling the house sold it to my friend based on the fact he would be living in the house, and not converting it to flats. It was their family home and had lived there for over 30 years. I think this should start to become more the norm, and it really gave me hope to get on the ladder one day.
ITT lots of completely unworkable complex fantasy ideas to fix what is simply a shortage of supply. Just fucking build more houses, particularly social housing. Only nobody will, because most voters are home owners and house prices are sacrosanct.
I am so behind a boost in owner-occupation. I say this as both a landlord and a tenant – I had to move out of my house and rent elsewhere for my children….
House prices are seen as a measure of economic success -the higher the better. This is so very wrong – it means that other investments are under-performing.
Owner-occupation brings with it so many non-economic benefits – if you live in your house you care about it and look after it. If you let it you see it only as a source of income (though I am hoping to move back in to my house when my children grow…). It also distributes wealth and makes people more invested in their surroundings and local environment.
Boomers landlords “But… but what will I do with my 400k investment?! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! You should try working harder instead of being lazy and complaining.”
We need punitively higher taxes for owning subsequent homes. At the very least if the rich are buying up multiple houses let them fund a few new ones a year.
Could do with a council tax reform in with it. Which of course is politically unviable sadly.
*”This manifesto is simple but bold…”*
I disagree, it’s confusing and timid.
The current problems that most people are facing is down to the decline in the welfare state. It was the welfare state that made it possible for ordinary people to ‘get on’, for the first time ever.
The welfare is not benefits, that’s just what right-wingers wanted everyone to believe.
Just build more houses.
People in the UK over-think this problem because they don’t want to admit that they value unproductive industrialised farm-land over places for people to live.
You can give owner occupiers a better deal but only by giving renters a worse deal.
Or you can just build more housing.
Let’s put first homes first.
And second homes banned.
Xénophobes are so weird. I have yet to hear them complain about foreign companies/individuals buying up Properties and land.
Surely owning large swathes of land at the expense of British people is more worrying than a few people in dinghy’s staying in a shit BnB and getting £70 a week.
Banning holiday lets would be the first step, followed by an outrageously high tax on homes that aren’t a main residence (of anybody, regardless of who the owner is).
>with a preference and priority for local people
I agree with all of this but I’m unsure about the “local people” focus.
If I want to move to Devon and it’s my first and only home it shouldn’t matter if I’m local or from Inverness.
I’d also add: for me, it’s not asking too much for a couple who have worked hard and saved to own a second home. They should have extra taxes but let’s not go crazy.
Instead, the focus should be on 3rd, 4th, 50th homes. Fuck those people. Fuck those corporations. That, I imagine, is much more of an issue than Mark & Sue getting a holiday home in St Ives.
The Conservative’s and Thatcher turned the housing market into big business, part of the sucker deal was to sell of state owned and run housing, council houses.
They needed to replace the revenue from North Sea oil somehow.
Look were we are now, a housing market run as big business.
Buy to let mortgages should be taxed much higher or better banned.
I don’t mind being forced to sell my second home, just so long as I can keep the others.
One big thing would be to ban all foreign building ownership for residential. Need to be a British citizen or have at least 10 years notable tax payments.
Half of London isn’t owned by anyone who actually lives here, it’s one of the main reasons why that city, and others as well, are cost prohibitive and overly draws property developers to concentrate on housing in a limited number of cities. Foreign investors inflate the markets. If you were a builder, why wouldn’t you redevelop a place in London, rather than in a small town up north?
Ban foreign ownerships then give in 2 years and see how the market responds. I honestly think this would massively change the whole UK market.