That's a really big assertion. Housing associations have been at the forefront of inner city renewal for a number of years. They operate within a regulatory system that private landlords just don't face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Printable View
That's a really big assertion. Housing associations have been at the forefront of inner city renewal for a number of years. They operate within a regulatory system that private landlords just don't face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
What happens when you sell of social housing. Tax payers money straight into the pockets of the rich
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgeeat...64903544315905
@georgeeaton
High private rents mean the UK now spends more on housing benefit each year than on most government departments – today's
@NewStatesman
Chart of the Day. https://newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-d
Just wondering on what level?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I agree re the urban renewal bit, but private landlords as a rule don't work in that area most are letting existing properties and in that area Housing Associations have worked to less stringent legislation for years, it's only recently they've been asked to improve their smoke alarm provision to match what private landlords have had to provide for some time as an example.
Social landlords - Housing Associations and Councils are heaviny regulated compared to private landlords. You can get a flavour of that here: https://www.housingregulator.gov.scot/Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
My company manages on behalf of both private and social landlords.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
From a Tenant perspective the legislation is more onerous on the private side however the Scottish government is working to bring the social sector in line with the private.
I do get that the corporate governance side is more complicated on the social sector tho.
Apologies if you're talking about England, they do have a way to go, we're trying to operate those properties we have to the higher standards we have here, if so I'd agree with you on every level.
I'll second that as everything we do as a social housing landlord is always based on what the Regulator expects.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanut Shaz
You obviously don't work for the Port of Leith then ?
You obviously don't work for the Port of Leith then ?[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Tonight’s panorama is worth a watch for anyone interested in this subject.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eventually got this episode on the iplayer. It's criminal what greedy landlord's get away with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-...team=editorial
Badly need to build more housing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That whole episode shows a massive failure of governance. It should be criminal to rent out property with mould at that level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Plenty of new house building along the east Lothian coast to north Berwick. Just the wrong kind, big houses for commuters, not the 1 and 2 bedroom houses that are needed for rent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
YeahQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Any landlord that makes deliberate false statements on applications , makes alterations to properties without relevant permissions , breaks building regulations , or lets rooms to people that do not comply with minimum standards should have their properties compulsory purchased by the local authority who should refurb. it and add it to their housing stock .
Once a few dozen offending landlords have lost their slums it might make others wary of completely disregarding the rules that exist.
Couldn’t agree more. If you want to be a landlord then there should be a responsibility to meet minimum standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep £350,000 cheap boxes instead of a good selection of family and single occupancy homes. The government can't leave it to developers they need to take control. NIMBY's are also a massive problem, for wind, nuclear and solar tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I'm not sure of the legalities of it but could one of the governments in the UK embark on a house building project then set up a nationalised mortgage company that puts up a deposit for the buyer and acts as mortgage provider but holds a share in the property that is then repaid when the house is sold? Broadly similar schemes exist in Scotland already but it's still reliant on the buyer having a sizable deposit contribution, housing stock being available from private sector partners and a mortgage being approved by a selected panel of lenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
When it comes to housing the private sector is failing. The fault of that isn't entirely at their door of course but it's a failure nonetheless. As has been pointed out above we seem to get either expensive 2 bedroom flats that are of little use to families, those on low incomes or those looking for single occupancy or we get 3, 4 and 5 bedroom developments that price out a huge chunk of young families. I think a lot of first time buyers would be more than happy with a small but functional 2 or 3 bedroom house, maybe with a little garden to keep on an affordable development that was an updated version of the building of the schemes a few decades ago. Mix in good quality homes for social housing with those looking to buy and you could give people something to be proud of.
Such housing exists but it's largely being built for the mid market sector. There's developments of nice little houses in Craigmillar and Pennywell (and I'm sure elsewhere too) . A mix of flats and houses but there's not enough and it's still keeping people trapped in the rent trap and not really addressing the underlying issue. Scale that up and have a real drive to open up both high quality social housing and genuinely affordable housing to buy and you could start to solve the problem. Unfortunately there is too much vested interest in property and land development among politicians for that to ever happen.
The govt can do all those things if the political will is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It makes you wonder why we haven't, after nearly 16 years of SNP government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
One of the areas where I've become deeply disillusioned by the lack of will to force change
The Scottish govt can’t because they don’t have the borrowing powers. Not an Indy point though because it’s the same in England.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
It’s a mad system where govt across the UK is struggling for money but something that can make them money and ease the burden on the tax payer is not being done for idealogical reasons. Building and renting out homes could be very profitable for councils all across the UK. However they are not allowed to borrow the money to invest in it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think such an idea would also drive the bad landlords out the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There would still be a need and a desire for private rent and the guys who look after their properties and treat their tenants fairly would be highly desirable to those either not qualifying for social rent or looking for something a bit more exclusive. The 'slum landlords' exist purely because of the dearth of housing available and make their money from desperation. They drag the name of all landlords down and removing that scarcity of housing removes one of the only reasons people use them.
Does the devolved settlement really prevent the Scottish Government from investing in different models of social housing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I've thought that councils/government should be doing this in partnership for a long time now. We've created a total monstrosity of a housing market in this country. No infrastructure planning to accompany it either.
Someone else might be able to explain the exact rules but the amount that can be borrowed to invest is tiny. To be fair, Scotland builds more than anywhere else but it’s minuscule still. I think we build about a 1000 a year these day but when I was born in 1970 we build 35k a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Lack of housing is having a crippling effect on our economy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stats on housing completions here: https://www.gov.scot/publications/ho...ouse-building/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is that 35k in Scotland. Unbelievable drop crazy that no uk party wants near sorting itQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The lack of social housing is causing huge harm to our young people. In my view right to a home is a fundamental mark of a progressive society. Anyone who works and contributes should be able to live in the area they come from, it's an affront to decency that the inflated costs of housing make that such a challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As I get closer to retirement (not that close sadly), I ponder my mortgage burden and pension and think that I would have been retiring in my early 60's if I'd been in an affordable rented home. Instead old buzzards like me cling on until their dotage.
I grew up in Leith in the 70's and 80's, as much as the gentrification has brought positives, it's also deeply saddening to see how people have been priced out of their communities.
Not able to post at any length just now (sigh of relief for all) but councils did have access to prudential borrowing which allowed them to build, topping up with SG monies, and pay the cost back over future rents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65148719
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d284af334a.jpg
I did say this would happen. Rent freezes do not work. They never do. It’s been tried all over the world and it’s a failure everywhere.
If you want low rents then build loads of houses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Evictions are still a problem too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...t-proceedings/
https://twitter.com/resi_analyst/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
House prices back on the up again. We need to start building again.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4800934b58.jpg
I doubt the graph for Scotland looks much better. We need to relax planning laws and encourage more council house building.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Their are good developers who are desperate to get on and build houses but their are so many obstacles to overcome that sometimes it becomes unfeasible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Yes. The planning system is strangling housebuilding here. And it is stopping economic growth. It’s grim and I don’t se anyone changing it. We’ll just keep throwing ever more money into the houses already built.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the solution is to build more council housing. This would take a whole group of people out of the market for private renting and marginal owner occupation. I don't think you can compel building housing for sale. Developers will only build if they can make profits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You can speed up the rate developers build by starting to tax land that is not being used. I agree that the state needs to get involved in building as well though. I think though that the rules on borrowing for the SG and local councils will need changed at Westminster for it to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Freeing up the planning system though is entirely on the SG, as is the system of taxation on land. Tax can be a very powerful weapon in changing behaviour. If we are serious about wanting more housing then there are lots of things that can be done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sunak talking about bringing back a variation of Help To Buy.
It does get people into the housing market of course but does nothing to solve the underlying issues. It was a failed policy before and it will fail again.
Help to buy is a direct state subsidy that pushes up prices for everyone. Its not the only one. Housing benefit does the same thing. We are shovelling tax payer money into housing and the net result is actually a negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good luck getting a mortgage. Oh and if you do. It'll be at 5%. Utter shambles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Govt does something they know won't help. Surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's the classic macro/micro tension. It will stimulate house prices at a macro level but people who get it will like it. Similar to the right to buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Some years ago Gordon Brown proposed that mortgages should be long term fixed, as is the case in many other countries. His rationale was that variable mortgages constrained government use of interest rates to manage the economy (because of the impact on people with variable rate mortgages). This was attacked on the basis that people might pay more with a fixed. But the key point was that it took out risk. How real is that risk? On Black Wednesday in 1992 rates started at 10%, went to 12% and finished at 15%. All on the same day!Quote:
Originally Posted by DH1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I remember this as I bought my first flat 6 weeks later, paying 8.5%.
It'll help property portfolio owners. Unlikely that they care about anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Impressive building figures in the 60’s and 70’s of around 300,000 new builds a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Trouble was they were having to demolish hundreds of thousands of slum houses at the same time so the number of extra houses created was not as good as it looks.
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Amazing. We need more expensive housing apparently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1654402072870043650
Very interesting stats on house building. Mirrors what has been said before, the reason the youth aren't turning right wing as they age is the don't have wealth to protect.
If the graph was going in the other direction we'd have the green lobby complaining that it's unsustainable and too much growth!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He didn't say that at all in the 17s clip you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He was asked if it's a good thing that home prices are falling and said no. That's not the same thing at all.
How many home owners do you think would say otherwise??
I'm no expert, but if people regard a house as being somewhere to live rather than an investment, then house price rises are, in general, surely a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Of course, for those with second, third properties etc, house price rises are excellent.
The problem we have now is that first time buyers are spending a massive amount of their income on a mortgage, money that could be going into other areas of the economy.
House price rises relative to average income is fine. They've been outstripping this for decades though, and that's surely only going to create problems.
Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk
Only if you're a buyer!Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
If you own your own home, the last thing you want is to see the price fall, or worse still, leaving you with negative equity. For a lot of people, there home is there only meaningful asset.
Think of the news headlines any time you see prices falling - nobody is pleased when it happens.
Building huge amount of new homes is the answer. Problem is, nobody wants them built near them. Environment, roads, schools, doctors etc etc being used as the excuse.
It may be tough on the younger generation, but they will also be one of the first generations where most of them will inherit their parents homes. That was generally only available for the well off previously.
If you have no intention of moving, the value is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
If you are planning to move, within the same environment, price falls across the market are largely irrelevant. If you sell your house for a lower price in a depressed market, the likelihood is that you will have to pay less for your next house in that same market.
There is a large body of work from many sources that suggests a ‘huge amount of new homes’ is not really the answer at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
The evidence suggests that it’s almost impossible to build your way out of high prices in any sensible manner. To increase the available housing stock by a big enough percentage is simply not feasible in any reasonable timescale.
To understand high prices it’s useful to understand the root cause and the evidence suggests that lack of primary supply is not a meaningful contributor.
By far the biggest contributors have been policy (think the buy to let boom…now brought to a shuddering halt by the belated tax rule changes), stamp duty increases squishing the secondary market (fewer people move as it’s so expensive to do so thus limiting supply at any one point) and of course the biggest culprit of all; availability of credit and the cost of that credit.
I totally understand that the build build build mantra seems intuitively obvious in terms of a basic supply and demand dynamic but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
We do build significantly less that comparable European countries who have lower property prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think yes, and no.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
House prices increasing is only really good for anyone that's more likely to downsize than anything else. I own a house, and would look to move in a bit and probably to a more expensive house - if there's a universal (I appreciate that’s not how it works) 10% drop in the market tomorrow that is actually good for me on that front.
Of course it's also true that relatively new into my mortgage (and even more so for those who bought more recently than myself) then a large crash could result in being in a higher LTV bracket at the next remortgage, or even have the concept of negative equity hanging over their head. Should my circumstances drastically change and for whatever reason I want to sell up and not buy something else then I'm more limited after a crash (or even stuck if it's bad enough), or if I were looking to do some sort of equity release.
We do have one of the highest population densities in Europe, notwithstanding the Scottish Highlands, which is roughly the size of Belgium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There are a number of inhibitors on supply, a number of varying factors shaping demand. It is no wonder the housing market is so distorted but building ever more houses is a simplistic answer to a complex question.
Absolutely. There are many factors at play in the UK market. That’s just one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
https://twitter.com/resi_analyst/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Is a good follow on Twitter on these issues. It’s complicated, which is why it’s being ignored. Best just to launch another counter productive help to buy scheme.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Leaving prices to the side for a moment, whenever there's talk of homelessness on the news, it always comes round to there being a shortage of homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
So, even taking all your points into account, do we not still need a huge number of new homes being built every year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sorry, can't agree on that point at all.
Anyone looking to reportage for any reason, get additional borrowing for home improvements or whatever, leave their home to their kids or considering equity release in their later years are very much affected.
Personally, I've never known or heard anyone say they were pleased if their house value stagnated or fell. I'd be really surprised if I ever do hear that.
Of course but I think that if house prices are outstripping inflation then that’s not a good thing. And when they are outstripping inflation for 50 years straight as they have done in the UK then that is unsustainable.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Housing is sucking in every spare bit of capital in the UK to the point that we don’t invest in anything else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi!Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk
Is the solution more affordable homes available for people to buy, or more homes in general available for rent?
I think in general, most people still prefer buying to renting, but accept there will always be a need for rental properties. I've no idea of the numbers or proportions though.
Could a government legislate to pretty much ban anyone owning more than one property, thus eliminating the entire private landlord / tenant system? Forcing loads of properties on to the market at the same time would also see prices everywhere fall ;)
Could councils buy homes from existing landlords and then rent them out as affordable housing?
Could they legislate to make it that you have to be living in, or have lived lived in the UK for X number of years, to buy a property?
Just throwing some thoughts out there. Pretty radical stuff, and a bit of an unfair attack on existing landlords, but if you're going to fix a problem that's been 50 years in the making, you're going to need to do something special / different!!
Interested to hear why, if you're happy to share?!Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
I'd be interested in banning overseas buyers who have the sole intention of renting the properties out or at least a vastly inflated stamp duty on those types of buyers who predominantly don't pay taxes on the income of those rentals. Properties are being bought up in blocks of 10, 20, 30 properties at a time and just handed over to letting agents to manage.
It'll also be interesting to keep an eye on the new Skipton 100% mortgage deal for people who can show they've got a good credit rating in the rental sector. 5.49% interest rate IIRC which isn't that bad in this market.
The tax system in Scotland means that there are very few people now going into buy to let. The numbers no longer stack up.
LBTT now works out at about 8-11% which is too high to make it a worthwhile investment.
The UK govt tax treatment (there is no longer tax relief on mortgage payments) of landlords, especially higher rate tax payers is also a massive disincentive.
All these costs get passed onto the tennant as the end user is always the person who pays but it also puts people off investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or is it a shortage of availability of suitable housing?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
It’s a subtle difference but there is plenty of empty or under occupied homes that wouldn’t need a huge building programme to mitigate the issue if they were brought into the mix.
Clearly building new homes is part of the answer but it’s not THE answer.
And that’s before you even begin to work out what type of home needs built, where it is built and how you build it at an ‘affordable’ cost.
Again there is plenty of evidence that new builds are actually a premium priced product and building them does not lower surrounding prices of existing stock but actually raises them.
I certainly don’t have all the answers that’s for sure but it’s also true the law of unintended consequences lives strong in the housing market.
I've long thought that rising house prices are bad for the vast majority of working people. Like the railways, water, power etc I feel housing is a vital infrastructure and should be controlled for the most part by the state. The way it is going we are just making the situation worse year on year. There needs to be a plan where future population numbers, technology requirements, climate change and building communities that work with proper schooling, health and wellbeing resources are all taken into account.
I live in Newtongrange and there is a massive development planned and approved. The infrastructure simply isn't there to support it. The idea is it would be a 15 minute city type city set up but all the resources are already in place and oversubscribed. It is simply a developer maximising profit and the existing village will negatively impacted with traffic and further dilution of vital services. If I look at my village it is surrounded by what looks like farmland. However, much of that land is already owned by developers having been sold by the good Duke who owns most of the county. I suppose that is a bit of NIMBYism on my part but I would have no issue if what was being built included the resources that were required to support the new occupants. If the village grows as do services and infrastructure that is fine but this is like expecting a 1.0L Fiesta to start towing a massive caravan.
I would like to see housing/land reform as the number 1 priority of the Scottish Government. It is fundamental to the common good and there needs to be some far sighted thought and solutions that look at the next couple of hundred years not the next election or brown envelope. I like the idea of 15 minute cities and I think I would go down that route but not piggy backed onto existing towns. I would go the new town route and build self contained communities, completely powered by onsite renewables with a community that is designed to have the needed doctors, nurses, cleaners, sparks etc within its number. I don't think it could be done in the current financial model but then the world is doomed if we continue down that path.
Tinkering is not going to solve the housing crisis and for me that crisis is really a lack of functioning communities alongside crumbling and overused infrastructure more than just bricks and mortar. Britain is completely broken and it needs a blank sheet of paper approach not more doodling over the scribbles of past government incompetence.
A combination of 'the greater good' and the fact that house price rises have been outstripping income rises since probably the 70s.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Don't get me wrong, a crash would be a nightmare for a lot of people, I'd much prefer a steady drop in relation to wages over the next 10-20 years. Not going to happen though.
The whole thing is a bloody mess, and it's been perpetuated by all our governments' short term approach over the years.
Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk
Their house alone in isolation? Or as part of a general market decline?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
If it's the later then I'd imagine anyone active in the market would be happy enough for their house value to fall along with everyone else's. Within limits.
A few year ago I got a new boiler installed in my flat in Longstone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
The plumber that did it generally worked for 1 client, an elderly lady that owned over 300 flats in Edinburgh. She was in her late 80s and had built up the portfolio with her husband over the years.
It just feels wrong that one person / company can own so many properties.
I remember when I bought the flat as a new build, I could have left it a month or so and then sold it for a decent profit. Thinking this is maybe something people do?
https://www.theguardian.com/business...box=1683792161
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I get that some will disagree with that amount of ownership as a principle and fair enough, not going to argue that.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
But I’d suggest that those types of rental businesses are what the sector needs (there is after all an indisputable need and demand for rental properties) as they are much more likely to be run correctly as a long term business, where maintenance and associated rental returns are at the core.
One of the biggest issues (and drivers of price inflation) has been the ‘speculate to accumulate’ types who have the ability to leverage short term and are simply looking for quick investment returns.
That type of investment is coming to an end due to the tax changes and may have short term consequences in raising rents but I think it’s one positive change that has finally happened and will help to stabilise the market over the long term.
The council used to be that rental business. It worked very well until Thatcher destroyed it. I'm not convinced the private sector does a great job of providing the accommodation needed and that would particularly go for these volume landlords. I don't think anyone should be allowed to own a home they don't live in for at least 2 or 3 months every year or at the very least the tax on owning one should make it impossible to profit from rental income.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
That’s already happening. Buy to let business is no longer economical.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
And while I think we should restart building council houses, let’s not forget that councils were pretty crappy landlords back in the day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I remember the state that some councils allowed their housing stock to get into but I also know there was a number of well kept council stock that served the country well.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
I’m not going to argue one way or other to be honest. Both public and private landlords can be very good or very bad and everything in between from what I can see.
I also think if someone wants to own two houses then they should be free to do so without punitive taxation but I also get the fact that too many ‘holiday homes’ can be significantly negative in some communities.
In other words I well comfy on the fence here [emoji1787]
But that’s maybe the point there should be balance and I’ve no definitive answer as to how that equilibrium can be found. What I do know is that many of the policies of the past and the present from all parties appear to have simply made the situation worse each time.
So maybe some mega interventions are required? But if so what and how can anyone say with any confidence that such interventions will actually have the required impact…which I assume is somehow making the housing market accessible for most (if not all) at a fair income / cost ratio.
So I’ll stay nice and steady on this fence in this subject for now I think [emoji12]
They were by no means perfect but at least the rent was affordable and there wasn't any no fault evictions etc. It would be interesting to see if the councils winding down their in house provision of building and other trades coincided with the housing stock deteriorating. My view is that the Tories always take out investment, privatise in-house provision to increase cost and reduce service, and then sell off what belongs to the public at vastly reduced cost. The only difference in housing was there were many benefactors that were working people. The big reason though was to make home ownership the norm which made striking harder and drove up house and rent prices so the rich and banks etc would profit. Giving the workers something was a bitter pill worth swallowing for the long term gain to the rich. Many of those ex-council houses are again being rented but for a huge mark up and without the security that they once had. I'm glad that it is becoming less economical to allow others to buy houses for you. I just wish it was a deliberate policy rather than an outcome of the mismanagement of every part of society and the economyQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I'm not sure of Edinburgh but in West Lothian most towns had a council yard which employed tradesmen of all skills, plasterers, roofers, joiners, decorators, plumbers, electricians etc those yards are now all but gone and they were huge employers, ironically the land they were on has now been sold off to private sector housing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Serious question: would you be comfortable with all private landlords putting their properties up for sale i.e. only social housing left for rentals and what would you think the outcome would be?
It very much is a deliberate policy. Both the UK and Scottish governments have said so at the time of their changes that the policy was to discourage private landlords. It’s been SNP policy for a long time and the Greens have just cranked it up a bit. George Osbourne’s changes were to force small investors out in favour of large investors such as pension funds etc. They paid big dollars to the Tories for those changes. Its why you see all the student flats getting built. These things don’t just happen by accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Also, no fault eviction is long gone in Scotland. In fact evictions are banned totally just now in Scotland. It’s one of the reasons rents are rising faster here than in England. The rent freeze is the biggest reason.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would be quite happy if the council had a way of CPOing private rental properties so they were in control of purchase prices. I'd also like to see a controlled crash of housing prices with taxes used to make any second or further homes reduce in value drastically and the market reduce over time. Get housing, both bought and rented, back in line with wages and I would go further when they have reset and have both rent control but also house price control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
More secure tenancies for a lower price if done correctly would be the outcome if the council owned all rental properties. That would require resources and a solid plan and neither are likely given the way resource is syphoned off and the lack of any planning from government beyond a single election. It would be very difficult now as all the infrastructure that maintained housing has gone. Lots of land, as you said sold off, so harder to create new developments. The public also seem to think their house being worth huge sums is good for them. It is if you own more than one but a house is worth a home if you only have one and the general direction of travel is upsizing so that means high prices are bad.
If even half that happened I doubt another house would get built in the UK. Almost everything you posted was nonsense that would have the opposite effect to which you intend.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
There is nothing stopping the state from building houses now. They should get on with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1657...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is one of these posts that would be greatly enhanced by the .net poster saying if the link is to illustrate a point, and if so, what that point is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’ve only had a cursory look but the two things that jumped out were:
Cheap and abundant housing would be ‘great’. Also cheap and abundant energy would be ‘great’. Am I missing something more significant here?
And Nissan doesn’t like one of its inputs being expensive. As a private sector business with a core mission to deliver profit for its owners/shareholders, that hardly comes as a surprise?
I was watching Iron Man with my youngest and trying not to appear distracted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I was pointing out that the lack of housing affects the rest of our economy as well, as alluded to in the tweet.
You say that cheap and abundant energy and housing would be ‘great’ as if it’s unachievable? As if we have no control over these things?
Our electricity is the worlds most expensive. That’s a problem if we want industry in this country. And that goes for housing too. It will deter talented people from coming here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The bit I didn't really get was the writer saying that cheap, abundant housing and energy was a strategy. That's not a strategy. It might be an outcome or it might be an enabler ot it might be contextual circumstances. It's not a strategy though.
Putting 'great' in inverted commas wasn't so much about it being unachievable - though there are countless examples of governments failing to achieve it, especially with housing. Failing to even define how they would try to achieve it.
We could have cheap, abundant housing if we diverted money from other priorities and built loads of multi-storey concrete tower blocks, like the ones that mark some of the fringes of Edinburgh, but I suspect that's not what most people have in mind. I think it is easy to make banal sweeping statements such as the writer saying they are for something no one would say they were against - is anyone calling for less houses that are more expensive to boot? In reality, there are a multitude of factors that impact on housing, as have been highlighted on this thread - whether infrastructure or lenders' appetite for risk or whatever.
To some extent you could argue whether cheap and abundant are 'good' things. Does 'abundant' mean urban spread into rural land, more development on greenfield or on flood plains etc etc. We have very high population density yet are fairly low on average household size - should we be challenging the narratives that exist around what is public good and private good and which we value more?
We don’t live that densely here in Scotland. Not even England is as densely populated as some Euro cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
https://citymonitor.ai/environment/t...s-europe-3625#
I do think we should be redirecting some of our resources in this country towards building more housing. It’s not popular and no political party wants to do it but IMO it needs done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
agreed, but also very much depends on who is doing it, and what their plans for it are. the other problem is that peoples' morals in terms of pricing, are largely outsourced to 'market rates'. obviously things are more expensive to build at the moment, but profits aren't part of the answer for this. wealth and asset inequality is soaring - it's time for re-distribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If it was market rates then they would be a lot cheaper. The market is massively distorted by the govt restricting supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we do mostly. The larger central belt accounts for more than 80% of the population, the smaller central belt 50% of the population. Contained in a small part of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
25 of the 32 council areas in Scotland have a population density higher than the European average. Glasgow's is 100 times bigger, even Clackmannanshire is nearly ten times as high.
As for England, population density is very high. There's the odd outlier like the Netherlands but otherwise the UK as a whole is right up there, with only false comparisons like Monaco or the Vatican ahead.
But in terms of your last paragraph, that highlights the point I was trying to make. If we 'need' housing then how do we increase supply? Do we build up, with concrete tower blocks? Will people want to live there? Do we build out, into green field and flood plains? Scotland's density is lowered by the fact we have an area the size of Belgium with a population density in single figures. Is there any real demand to build thousands of houses around Tain and Helmsdale? How do you pay for the infrastructure to make new settlements viable?
I actually think density wise, the tenements in Scotland get it just about right. I think there is a sweet spot of about 4-6 storey high building that work well for city living.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Good thread on our housing problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My father in law sent me a link to his old house on Right Move earlier today. Nice rural English location, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a small garden. Nice enough but nothing that special. Offers over £395K and it will got for a lot more than thay. He sold it in 1999 for £99K. In line with inflation the price should have been about £185K.
A house value increasing by that much whilst wages have risen at nowhere close to the same level is at least part of the reason we have a fully blown housing crisis.
https://twitter.com/bbcbreakfast/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Promising? Who knows with Starmer. Backing the ‘builders not the blockers’ has to be up there with the worst political slogans ever though. Makes me doubt his sincerity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keir said something you like 😀😀😀Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
On a more serious note, the alliterative start to his answer needs a bit of work, for sure.
What is interesting for those who are interested in discourse analysis, the use of language, which nouns, adjectives and verbs are chosen is we saw two there that will be deployed more frequently as the election starts to come closer.
First up is reference to fixing a broken system. This will be used across a bunch of topics, not just housing. When Labour presents its manifesto and talks to it, expect to hear the phrase in relation to lots of areas, from asylum to GP provision to housing to the justice system.
Second up is ‘security’. Used there in relation to housing but will also be deployed when talking about energy, foreign policy, environment, affordable child care etc etc
Those two themes, and others, will be used to hammer home the message about 13 years of the Tories. Have they made us feel more secure, have they made the system better?
Of course the other part of the equation is what is Labour for, as opposed to just not being the Tories. As the manifesto takes shape that’s where that question will be road tested.
Maybe should be in the Tory thread :dunno:
Tory peer’s family used no-fault eviction against mould complaint tenant
https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...share_btn_link
The family of a billionaire Tory landlord used a no-fault eviction to throw out a tenant after he refused a £1,680 annual rent increase having reported mould, damp and cold, the Guardian can reveal........
That can’t happen in Scotland because we don’t have no fault evictions. The law needs to be changed to make it illegal to rent out property with mould problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...box=1684347522
Wow, fair play to Starmer. It’s not an easy thing for a politician to say but it absolutely needs said. Let’s see if they have actual plans to deliver on the rhetoric.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He is of course correct but he will not do anything to bring it about, at least not substantially. There was a few phone ins on LBC today on housing and one caller pretty much summed it up for me. We don't need to build houses we need to build communities. That should be governed by some form of long term commission and not be party political. The timeframe he suggested was 100 years which is way too long but the rest I agreed with completely. I would say a 25 year period should be enough to completely change the way housing works in the UK. It could run perfectly alongside trying to make our housing stock more prepared for changing weather and much, much more energy efficient and also built with energy production incorporated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
substantially
Jock Ashworth on Peston tonight in regards to how he would fix sewage and the water companies......Ahhh look everything is broken in this country now, everything needs fixing, blah blah blah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Serious question, have you got this weeks lottery numbers?
Labour need to avoid doing anything daft with their manifesto and they'll be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
You just need to read the Conservatives 5 key priorities. Not one of them is aspirational or likely to get Joe public talking positively or enthusiastically about them.
Halving inflation? Who cares. It may be a sensible thing to strive for but it's in no way a vote winner. It's never been a subject to motivate people to get out and vote and isn't one that gets discussed round the dinner table.
Reducing national debt? Ditto.
I've noticed Labour talk more and more about preparing to govern. It's a good strategy and they should stick with it. They need to be the party offering hope and positivity to the country, something the Conservatives have failed to do for a while.
Just realised I put this in the wrong thread!
https://twitter.com/channel4news/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
plans for 7,000 new homes between ingliston park and ride and the Gogar roundabout gets a step closer New Edinburgh town with 7,000 homes set for outskirts of the city (msn.com)
a 20-minute neighbourhood, i've never heard that saying before