Budget 2013

[Tangled up in Blue]

Have a potential Labour government identified land for this immediate building programme?

Read this.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-vow-to-build-50000-council-213978

 

[Holy Joe]

Read this.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-vow-to-build-50000-council-213978

The article doesn't say if any land (let alone planning permission) has been identified for the additional housing. It is also almost 3 years old and part of a previous leaders manifesto - is it still part of the current oppositions manifesto?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The article doesn't say if any land (let alone planning permission) has been identified for the additional housing. It is also almost 3 years old and part of a previous leaders manifesto - is it still part of the current oppositions manifesto?

Sorry but (contrary to what a lot on here seem to think) I'm not an apologist for the Labour Party.

I did however hear Angela Eagle (IIRC) say recently-on the Daily Politics- that the 50,000 new social housing starts was still party policy.So I imagine it is.

In any case,there is no Labour Party election manifest just yet-you'll have to wait for 2015 for that.

Meanwhile,I thought this was interesting.

http://www.labour.org.uk/caroline_flint_speech

Notice that the aspirational figures for housing that Caroline Flint mentions:"240,000 new homes a year - 3 million more homes by 2020" is more than double the amount of housing stock currently being built by the present Government.

 

[superblue24]

But when Labour were in power wasn't it all explained away as part of the world wide recession? Surely no fault of theirs?

OK, if you're going to play that game then why are we blaming the current government for the problems we have now? You can't shift the blame to the world wide recession for the past administration and not the current one if it's still happening. Either the government (past and present) are to blame, or the world wide issues....Which is it to be?

 

[Neil_F]

Sorry but (contrary to what a lot on here seem to think) I'm not an apologist for the Labour Party.

That made me laugh.

Notice that the aspirational figures for housing that Caroline Flint mentions:"240,000 new homes a year - 3 million more homes by 2020" is more than double the amount of housing stock being built by the present Government.

And it is nearly double the amount the last Labour government were manging to build in the last 3 years of their administration.

It is easy to make up a number of houses that would be built: "I will build 500,000 homes a year. This government are terrible and the rich millionaires are kicking the poor when they are down. Don't worry though, I am on your side because I will build 600,000 houses a year and I will give one to you. Did I mention the government are all billionaires???"

See, it's easy.

Your problem, Barna, is that you over-estimate government's capacity to do things. You think they just need to say they will build 300,000 houses, borrow some money to finance it and it will be done. I'm afraid the world doesn't work like that.

You may have seen another story this morning about a meeting the planning minister, Nick Boles, had with property developers. It seems that further relaxation of the planning system is likely to happen in order to build housing stock. This has prompted half of the press to go nuts and the national outrage industry to crank in to gear.

The problem is everyone agrees we need more houses but no one wants them built near them and they'll use the planning system and the courts to stop it. That presents something of a challenge when it comes to building houses.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Your problem, Barna, is that you over-estimate government's capacity to do things. You think they just need to say they will build 300,000 houses, borrow some money to finance it and it will be done. I'm afraid the world doesn't work like that.



You may have seen another story this morning about a meeting the planning minister, Nick Boles, had with property developers. It seems that further relaxation of the planning system is likely to happen in order to build housing stock. This has prompted half of the press to go nuts and the national outrage industry to crank in to gear.

The problem is everyone agrees we need more houses but no one wants them built near them and they'll use the planning system and the courts to stop it. That presents something of a challenge when it comes to building houses.

Actually, Neil, I'm well aware that only Nye Bevan and Harold Macmillan have managed to get over 300,000 houses built in any single year in post WW2 Britain.

 

[steveo]

Have a potential Labour government identified land for this immediate building programme?

Or where the money will come from? Could always ask the tax payer to chip in. Then maybe they could be let out at reduced rates to eastern Europeans.

 

[superblue24]

Or where the money will come from? Could always ask the tax payer to chip in. Then maybe they could be let out at reduced rates to eastern Europeans.

That's definitely something Labour would do!

 

[londonblue]

The point is it makes little financial sense to use the scheme to acquire a second property that can't be let. Even if there are cases I doubt the government care because it will still contribute to one of the two primary targets: stimulating the housing market.

Depends what you want to do with a second home. Aren't there a fair few villages/small towns where a high proportion of the houses have been bought as holiday homes by the very rich? This scheme will make life easier for them to continue buying second homes because they will get help on the mortgage, making them financially more viable, meaning they are less likely to need to rent them out when they're not using them, assuming they want to rent them out at all.

How is this going to help first time buyers? It has the potential to push prices up as demand rises, making it harder for first time buyers.

But I doubt Camerscum cares about that because it will help his mates out.

 

[Neil_F]

Depends what you want to do with a second home. Aren't there a fair few villages/small towns where a high proportion of the houses have been bought as holiday homes by the very rich? This scheme will make life easier for them to continue buying second homes because they will get help on the mortgage, making them financially more viable, meaning they are less likely to need to rent them out when they're not using them, assuming they want to rent them out at all.

How is this going to help first time buyers? It has the potential to push prices up as demand rises, making it harder for first time buyers.

But I doubt Camerscum cares about that because it will help his mates out.

Good point on holiday homes. I hadn't thought of that.

I think friends of the Prime Minister would rather purchase a property with more than a 5% deposit in order to get a better rate of interest. £600k doesn't get you very far in West London either.

It will help first time buyers because the amount they will have to find as a deposit is reduced. I think the wider economic risks are far greater than this benefit and the government is chasing the short term GDP measures by trying to build anything, anywhere and encouraging people to buy it.

 

[superblue24]

I'm guessing that you haven't ever studied much (or indeed any) psychology.If you had, you'd know that people who verbally abuse others are often guilty of the very same things they accuse others of.Think about it.:smiles: .

Again though. How exactly is calling you ignorant classed as abuse?

ig·no·rant
/'ign?r?nt/
Adjective
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

I am ignorant of Water Polo and if someone said I was ignorant of the sport, I wouldn't think I'd just been verbally abused

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Again though. How exactly is calling you ignorant classed as abuse?

ig·no·rant
/'ign?r?nt/
Adjective
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

I am ignorant of Water Polo and if someone said I was ignorant of the sport, I wouldn't think I'd just been verbally abused

Yes, but you're not ignorant (except of Water Polo).

 

[superblue24]

Yes, but you're not ignorant (except of Water Polo).

So perhaps I should have worded my initial post as "I think you are being particularly ignorant of this issue"

I apologize, I have edited my initial post.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

But when Labour were in power wasn't it all explained away as part of the world wide recession? Surely no fault of theirs?

OK, if you're going to play that game then why are we blaming the current government for the problems we have now? You can't shift the blame to the world wide recession for the past administration and not the current one if it's still happening. Either the government (past and present) are to blame, or the world wide issues....Which is it to be?

I think you missed the rather droll irony in Stevo's post.Actually, he's one of yours (but usually denies it).

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Again though. How exactly is calling you ignorant classed as abuse?

ig·no·rant
/'ign?r?nt/
Adjective
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

I am ignorant of Water Polo and if someone said I was ignorant of the sport, I wouldn't think I'd just been verbally abused

FYI,

I'm neither uneducated (nor, I would hope, unsophisticated).

While I certainly can't (and wouldn't) claim to have any specialist knowledge of the housing market, I'd like to think I'm reasonably well informed on the background to the budget debate.

As I've said before, my father was a successful local builder and I have first hand knowledge and experience of selling and buying property.

 

[superblue24]

FYI,

I'm neither uneducated (nor, I would hope, unsophisticated).

While I certainly can't (and wouldn't) claim to have any specialist knowledge of the housing market, I'd like to think I'm reasonably well informed on the background to the budget debate.

As I've said before, my father was a successful local builder and I have first hand knowledge and experience of selling and buying property.

When I said you were being ignorant, I was trying to point out the fact that you were focusing solely on the negative aspects of the scheme to be pick holes, just like your hero and Ed Milliband, whilst ignoring completely the fact that the scheme will be a massive help to families wanting to move to larger accommodation without being financially ruined.

Your ignorance of this fact was what provoked me into calling you ignorant. I have edited the original post now so that you wont feel so insulted.

 

[superblue24]

I think you missed the rather droll irony in Stevo's post.Actually, he's one of yours (but usually denies it).

He did pull me up on this via PM. Too much beer last night leaving me a little exposed in the grey matter department today me thinks.

 

[steveo]

I think you missed the rather droll irony in Stevo's post.Actually, he's one of yours (but usually denies it).

Droll Barna? I consider that a major compliment - thanks very much.

 

[callan]

When I said you were being ignorant, I was trying to point out the fact that you were focusing solely on the negative aspects of the scheme to be pick holes, just like your hero and Ed Milliband, whilst ignoring completely the fact that the scheme will be a massive help to families wanting to move to larger accommodation without being financially ruined.

Your ignorance of this fact was what provoked me into calling you ignorant. I have edited the original post now so that you wont feel so insulted.

What I'm wondering is that if we don't have enough housing stock now, surely this budget will actually push house prices up ?...by virtue of the fact that they initially become affordable to more people, creating more demand.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What I'm wondering is that if we don't have enough housing stock now, surely this budget will actually push house prices up ?...by virtue of the fact that they initially become affordable to more people, creating more demand.

According to this article about Nimby Tory councillors it's not likely to be a problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/22/housebuilding-cameron-osbourne-confrontation-tories