Housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

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.

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.
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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

We don’t live that densely here in Scotland. Not even England is as densely populated as some Euro cities.

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 AgentDaleCooper

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.

---

If it was market rates then they would be a lot cheaper. The market is massively distorted by the govt restricting supply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

We don’t live that densely here in Scotland. Not even England is as densely populated as some Euro cities.

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

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

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.

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.


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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 😀😀😀

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........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

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.


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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.







substantially

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Keir said something you like 😀😀😀

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.

---

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.

Serious question, have you got this weeks lottery numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Keir said something you like ������

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.

---

Labour need to avoid doing anything daft with their manifesto and they'll be fine.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

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

---

Great news. And already has the tram running through it.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

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

---

The 15 or 20 minutes neighbourhood is a real conspiracy theory rabbit hole on social media.

On the face of it it's an idea to promote local amenities that meet the needs of the local populace and allow the basic needs of society to be withing walking distance of said population. The conspiracy goes it's a plan to trap us all in local ghettoes with permission needed to leave your own sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

The 15 or 20 minutes neighbourhood is a real conspiracy theory rabbit hole on social media.

On the face of it it's an idea to promote local amenities that meet the needs of the local populace and allow the basic needs of society to be withing walking distance of said population. The conspiracy goes it's a plan to trap us all in local ghettoes with permission needed to leave your own sector.

---

Conspiracy theories get weirder all the time. It’s hard to imagine anyone would believe stuff like that but there are obviously people out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Conspiracy theories get weirder all the time. It’s hard to imagine anyone would believe stuff like that but there are obviously people out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

"Go on youtube, do your own research."

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...box=1685386957

Promising. The value from the granting of planning permission should be given to the public who grant the planning permission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...box=1685386957

Promising. The value from the granting of planning permission should be given to the public who grant the planning permission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Sorry ozy, are you suggesting that community councils should be the decision makers on planning applications? Dear god, no!! NIMBYism means nothing would get built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Sorry ozy, are you suggesting that community councils should be the decision makers on planning applications? Dear god, no!! NIMBYism means nothing would get built.

---

No, the article is about allowing councils to compulsory purchase land for development.
So I’m Edinburgh that could allow the council to buy the land owned by Murray at Ratho for the price of farmland. It can then give it the appropriate planning permission and build the houses. The council would bank the profit from their actions, we all get new houses and Murray gets no windfall from planning permission that we gift. I think this will result in more planning applications being granted rather than less if the council coffers were being swelled by doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

No, the article is about allowing councils to compulsory purchase land for development.
So I’m Edinburgh that could allow the council to buy the land owned by Murray at Ratho for the price of farmland. It can then give it the appropriate planning permission and build the houses. The council would bank the profit from their actions, we all get new houses and Murray gets no windfall from planning permission that we gift. I think this will result in more planning applications being granted rather than less if the council coffers were being swelled by doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

So why can the council get planning permission and Murray can’t? It’s a massive conflict of interest seems as the council are the ones who grant it.

Refuse the developer, buy it from the the developer, gain planning? That would be scandalous.

A right to buy over certain plots or farmland would be fine.

For example, a landowner who could gain planning for 100-200 houses in a desirable area, but chooses not too. That would be a reasonable use of such powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

So why can the council get planning permission and Murray can’t? It’s a massive conflict of interest seems as the council are the ones who grant it.

Refuse the developer, buy it from the the developer, gain planning? That would be scandalous.

A right to buy over certain plots or farmland would be fine.

For example, a landowner who could gain planning for 100-200 houses in a desirable area, but chooses not too. That would be a reasonable use of such powers.

---

Why should Murray benefit from planning permission that the public grants? It’s the public who have to put up with the loss of green space, therefore it’s the public who should benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Why should Murray benefit from planning permission that the public grants? It’s the public who have to put up with the loss of green space, therefore it’s the public who should benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That's what confused me before. The public don't grant planning permission, the council planning officers are the ones who determine planning applications. More contentious applications usually being determined by the elected members of the planning committee.