But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Council/social or *any* house?
Total as far as I know
Indeed. Here's the graph;
Striking thing is that private enterprise housebuilding is so stable; 100 000 to 200 000 or so, even before permissable land shortages were as acute as they are now. Certainly nowhere near enough by themselves.
I wonder if the action of the invisible hand has got itself caught in an awkward corner where that is the optimal number of new homes for the market to deliver- go too much above that and they don't sell (or sell for less total profit). See the way that housebuilding has fallen off in response to the slowing market.
And that the only way to shake the market out of that particular bit of failure is to have someone large saying "just build the bloody things, I'll find someone to live in them." Which needn't be councils, but it is the role they played up to the 1980s.
I'd say that graph conclusively absolves Thatcher of any real blame. She inherited declining new home completions and turned things around.
Though she made matters worse with reforms to the the planning system, especially the BS idea of houses having externalities which ties up the planning system and enables an oligopoly of developers to control the market.
Unfortunately her red tape cutting that freed up many parts of the economy did not apply to construction. We need a PM as brave as Thatcher was with the NUM to tackle the NIMBY scum and abolish the planning red tape altogether.
We need someone to tell Councils and neighbours that its none of your bloody business what someone else does with their land and then stand back and see developments happen as a result.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Your arguiment is a fallacy, because it doesn't allow for houses being taken out of the housing stock and demolished because no longer up to standard. That is a crucial issue.
Really? Is this the new excuse? We’ve been demolishing too many houses?
Population has been growing faster than the rate of house building for decades now.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
Politics is the only reason.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
Local Plans Councils now produce are effectively close to building land zoned for housing.
Japan also has much tighter and more restricted immigration laws reducing demand for housing too
Land zoned for housing developments != zonal system.
In a zonal system then any land zoned for housing can be built upon without seeking permission first, within code. Including extensions, tearing down what is already there and rebuilding it, new builds etc, etc, etc - all without seeking permission, just stick to code and build within the zone.
Zoning a strip of land to a future development that will go to a developer with permission then not allowing anything else, that is not the same thing whatsoever.
In land allocated for development in Local Plans the presumption is in favour of development, so yes it is very close to that actually.
Extensions to houses make no difference whatsoever to our need for new homes and of course Japan does have planning regulations too.
'Applying for planning permission is necessary for building or renovating a property in Japan. Here are the general procedures:
Submit an application to the local government authority responsible for the area where the property is located Provide detailed plans and specifications of the proposed building or renovation work Wait for approval before commencing any work Listed building status, conservation areas, and preservation orders in Japan are known as “cultural properties” and are subject to strict regulations. Altering or renovating cultural properties must be done with great care to maintain their historical significance.' https://www.expatfocus.com/japan/guide/japan-property-building-and-renovation
No. 🤦♂️
Its not remotely like that.
You haven't listened at all.
I live in a new build house in a new development, lets say I wanted to knock down my house and rebuild it. Or maybe buy my neighbours property, knock down both houses and rebuild as a block of flats. Or rebuild as multiple dwellings or ....
In Japan you can do that on all land already zoned for housing. Want to pull down a home and rebuild it? Want to extend it, redevelop it? Just do it. Neighbours don't get a say.
Yes there's a planning system, but its zonal and code, not like the UK whatsoever, nor does it involve consultations with neighbours or politicians - if its within the appropriate zone and to code, it can be built.
Apparently the Tory membership is very upset over Anderson’s suspension . I think this sums up why they should never be allowed anywhere near picking the Tory leader .
Actually, it shows how well Anderson is playing the role. He is there to keep the core Conservative vote from slipping any further toward Reform. In truth, he says what CCHQ think the silenced majority are thinking and again, CCHQ probably think there's a lot of support for Anderson but which dare not speak its name.
Which is why I am even more convinced after this, the Reform vote goes to the Conservatives in the coming election campaign.
In just the same way Ali is shoe in Rochdale and probably beats Starmer’s stooge in Rochdale General Election contest, reform gets about 2% at the General Election and ALL THE REST GOES TO THE TORIES to stop Radical Islam from taking over the country.
Whatever Reform is getting in opinion polls, you have to get used to adding the whole lot to the Con score and then putting it into seat calculators for a more accurate idea where we are right now.
I'm not so sure.
If you hand the Tories 11% from Reform that sounds fair enough, until you consider a hefty percentage of them will be racist bigots and our Prime Minister is of a different colour to the one they prefer.
Add to that some churn from previously loyal Conservatives who don't want to be associated with people who share that unpleasant pungent odour with Braverman and Jenrick.
Apparently the Tory membership is very upset over Anderson’s suspension . I think this sums up why they should never be allowed anywhere near picking the Tory leader .
Actually, it shows how well Anderson is playing the role. He is there to keep the core Conservative vote from slipping any further toward Reform. In truth, he says what CCHQ think the silenced majority are thinking and again, CCHQ probably think there's a lot of support for Anderson but which dare not speak its name.
Which is why I am even more convinced after this, the Reform vote goes to the Conservatives in the coming election campaign.
In just the same way Ali is shoe in Rochdale and probably beats Starmer’s stooge in Rochdale General Election contest, reform gets about 2% at the General Election and ALL THE REST GOES TO THE TORIES to stop Radical Islam from taking over the country.
Whatever Reform is getting in opinion polls, you have to get used to adding the whole lot to the Con score and then putting it into seat calculators for a more accurate idea where we are right now.
I'm not so sure.
If you hand the Tories 11% from Reform that sounds fair enough, until you consider a hefty percentage of them will be racist bigots and our Prime Minister is of a different colour to the one they prefer.
Add to that some churn from previously loyal Conservatives who don't want to be associated with people who share that unpleasant pungent odour with Braverman and Jenrick.
You see a lot of bigotry from the internationalist left directed at Sunak. They see him as a Hindutva stooge.
Apparently the Tory membership is very upset over Anderson’s suspension . I think this sums up why they should never be allowed anywhere near picking the Tory leader .
Actually, it shows how well Anderson is playing the role. He is there to keep the core Conservative vote from slipping any further toward Reform. In truth, he says what CCHQ think the silenced majority are thinking and again, CCHQ probably think there's a lot of support for Anderson but which dare not speak its name.
Which is why I am even more convinced after this, the Reform vote goes to the Conservatives in the coming election campaign.
In just the same way Ali is shoe in Rochdale and probably beats Starmer’s stooge in Rochdale General Election contest, reform gets about 2% at the General Election and ALL THE REST GOES TO THE TORIES to stop Radical Islam from taking over the country.
Whatever Reform is getting in opinion polls, you have to get used to adding the whole lot to the Con score and then putting it into seat calculators for a more accurate idea where we are right now.
I'm not so sure.
If you hand the Tories 11% from Reform that sounds fair enough, until you consider a hefty percentage of them will be racist bigots and our Prime Minister is of a different colour to the one they prefer.
Add to that some churn from previously loyal Conservatives who don't want to be associated with people who share that unpleasant pungent odour with Braverman and Jenrick.
Not all of those bigots will vote Tory anyway, those of us overinterested in politics can overanalyse what other people think.
Many of those people will simply not vote, or vote Labour, or Lib Dem* or anything else.
* In 2015 there was a large number of direct Lib Dem - UKIP swing. People interested in politics imagine both as polar opposites, but to many not interested in politics they were both simply "pox on both your houses" protest votes.
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
The affordability of housing is driven long term by supply and demand. It doesn’t really matter whether houses are social or private, there just need to be lots more of them.
Interesting on Sky this morning that it was said that labours desire to build 300,000 homes per year has not been achieved at any time in the last 40 years despite the various government's in office
Not by any British government.
In Japan 366k houses were built in 2023.
Of course Britain has a rampantly growing population while Japan's population growth is stable, so you'd expect ceteris paribus for our construction to exceed theirs, making their success and our failure all the more palpable.
Change to a Japanese style housing system whereby people can build what they want in land zoned for housing without having to beg permission first, then construction would shoot up.
I would just comment that my daughter and son in law and two neighbours have built substantial extensions to their homes as it is cheaper than moving and my son and daughter in law are seeking to do the same
In all cases they undertook considerable work themselve but the red tape and countless building inspector inspections, together with the comprehensive climate change requirements, have been tedious, very delaying and above all expensive
I know Starmer is promising to reduce red tape but I very much doubt it will have any substantial benefit as he will not be addressing the issues I mention which are bound to remain in place
In Japan so long as their actions stick to building code there would be no planning, no inspectors, no inspections, nothing.
Just call up the builders, agree a plan of action (that meets code) and just do it.
Don't discuss with neighbours, don't discuss with the Council, don't discuss with anyone else as its none of their business what you do with your land as long as it meets code.
That is the system we desperately need.
That's Japan - that will not happen here for many reasons
Politics is the only reason.
In Japan the politicians changed the planning system and in doing so they fixed their system and it works.
All we need is a politician with a majority in Parliament to say to hell with the NIMBYs and to rewrite the planning rules to a zonal code based system and remove the right of anyone, including Councils, to object or have a say in what people do with their own land so long as its zoned and to code.
Local Plans Councils now produce are effectively close to building land zoned for housing.
Japan also has much tighter and more restricted immigration laws reducing demand for housing too
Land zoned for housing developments != zonal system.
In a zonal system then any land zoned for housing can be built upon without seeking permission first, within code. Including extensions, tearing down what is already there and rebuilding it, new builds etc, etc, etc - all without seeking permission, just stick to code and build within the zone.
Zoning a strip of land to a future development that will go to a developer with permission then not allowing anything else, that is not the same thing whatsoever.
In land allocated for development in Local Plans the presumption is in favour of development, so yes it is very close to that actually.
Extensions to houses make no difference whatsoever to our need for new homes and of course Japan does have planning regulations too.
'Applying for planning permission is necessary for building or renovating a property in Japan. Here are the general procedures:
Submit an application to the local government authority responsible for the area where the property is located Provide detailed plans and specifications of the proposed building or renovation work Wait for approval before commencing any work Listed building status, conservation areas, and preservation orders in Japan are known as “cultural properties” and are subject to strict regulations. Altering or renovating cultural properties must be done with great care to maintain their historical significance.' https://www.expatfocus.com/japan/guide/japan-property-building-and-renovation
No. 🤦♂️
Its not remotely like that.
You haven't listened at all.
I live in a new build house in a new development, lets say I wanted to knock down my house and rebuild it. Or maybe buy my neighbours property, knock down both houses and rebuild as a block of flats. Or rebuild as multiple dwellings or ....
In Japan you can do that on all land already zoned for housing. Want to pull down a home and rebuild it? Want to extend it, redevelop it? Just do it. Neighbours don't get a say.
Yes there's a planning system, but its zonal and code, not like the UK whatsoever, nor does it involve consultations with neighbours or politicians - if its within the appropriate zone and to code, it can be built.
As I showed you and you deliberately ignored you still have to submit a planning permission application to build or renovate a property in Japan and submit it to the local government authority.
Listed buildings and conservation areas are also strictly protected from rebuilding.
Zonal areas for development are little different from Local Plan areas for development and of course knocking down a property and rebuilding it or extending it makes sod all difference to the need for new housing anyway. Only actually building new housing where there was none before does
But the problem with the right to buy was never ordinary people’s dreams of owning their own home - it was that council housing stock was sold off and then not replaced.
It’s helped fuel the housing crisis.
Bollocks has it helped fuel the housing crisis.
Every house owned by a family living in it instead of a council is one fewer house available for the council and one fewer family needing a house. Net impact: zero.
The housing problem is not remotely that council houses were sold off. Its that the population has risen by 14 million since the 1980s but construction has not remotely kept up with that.
The only solution to the housing crisis is to build, build, build millions more houses. Not a few more, but millions more.
Although it does move (in the main) from a rent controlled to a higher priced environment
A bit like health, we never dig into demand properly.
Since 1996, the UK population has increased by 16%, but the number of people living alone has increased by 25%. That's a lot of spare bedrooms.
Scotland's population has only increased by 8%, yet Edinburgh is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK.
"Levelling up" would've done much to solve the housing crisis by spreading demand around more evenly, opening more of the country up to profitable home building. Demand-side interventions, such as taxing land or bedrooms (with obvious exceptions) and zero-rates on stamp duty if downsizing, could also have a big impact.
A bit like health, we never dig into demand properly.
Since 1996, the UK population has increased by 16%, but the number of people living alone has increased by 25%. That's a lot of spare bedrooms.
Scotland's population has only increased by 8%, yet Edinburgh is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK.
"Levelling up" would've done much to solve the housing crisis by spreading demand around more evenly, opening more of the country up to profitable home building. Demand-side interventions, such as taxing land or bedrooms (with obvious exceptions) and zero-rates on stamp duty if downsizing, could also have a big impact.
8% is a big population increase. Prices are set at the margins, so that kind of increase is perfectly capable of driving up prices.
A bit like health, we never dig into demand properly.
Since 1996, the UK population has increased by 16%, but the number of people living alone has increased by 25%. That's a lot of spare bedrooms.
Scotland's population has only increased by 8%, yet Edinburgh is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK.
"Levelling up" would've done much to solve the housing crisis by spreading demand around more evenly, opening more of the country up to profitable home building. Demand-side interventions, such as taxing land or bedrooms (with obvious exceptions) and zero-rates on stamp duty if downsizing, could also have a big impact.
8% is a big population increase. Prices are set at the margins, so that kind of increase is perfectly capable of driving up prices.
Yes - I suppose my point is that there are geographic asymmetries going on which broad measures won't address.
It's even more stark within Scotland with a rapid west-east shift. Over the next 10 years, Midlothian will increase by around 14% while Inverclyde drops by 6%. Scotland overall only 2%.
No housing policy can keep up with that, let alone schools, public transport...
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
A bit like health, we never dig into demand properly.
Since 1996, the UK population has increased by 16%, but the number of people living alone has increased by 25%. That's a lot of spare bedrooms.
Scotland's population has only increased by 8%, yet Edinburgh is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK.
"Levelling up" would've done much to solve the housing crisis by spreading demand around more evenly, opening more of the country up to profitable home building. Demand-side interventions, such as taxing land or bedrooms (with obvious exceptions) and zero-rates on stamp duty if downsizing, could also have a big impact.
At the margins, perhaps.
At the end of the day there has been a long period of significant demand (low interest rates, immigration, and a greater tendency to live alone) placed on top of world-beating supply constraint (total planning dysfunction, housebuilder monopoly, the end of council housing development).
One day, perhaps, we will look back and wonder what the fuck we did to ourselves.
All the English-speaking countries have problems with housing development, by the way, and so one root cause seems to be the operation of common law with respect to planning.
It is especially acute in Britain because this underlying challenge meets one of the most densely populated countries on Earth.
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
The thing that probably costs political parties votes more than any other thing, is voters watching politicians in the same party go at each other like bare knuckle ferrets.
How does this unedifying spectacle of a party at war with each other return to discipline and not get uglier still on this long journey to an Autumn election?
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
Worth asking why so many people put money into property though. I don't know about you obviously but I do know lots of people who decided to invest in property instead of pensions when successive Governments did so much to undermine the returns and even the viability of private pensions. People will act in ways that best guarantee them a good return to cover their retirement years and when they see private and company pensions becoming less and less attractive over the years they will naturally look elsewhere. It is basic human nature.
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
Worth asking why so many people put money into property though. I don't know about you obviously but I do know lots of people who decided to invest in proprty instead of pensions when successive Governments did so much to undermine the returns and even the viability of private pensions. People will act in ways that best guarantee them a good return to cover their retirement years and when they see private and company pensions becoming less and less attractive over the years they will naturally look elsewhere. It is basic human nature.
That was my point, though. People invested rationally. Like me. It was a one-way bet, almost.
The problem is that the underlying system is broken.
Nobody cared through much of the noughties, but I’d argue that the whole time rising house prices were sapping away at underlying British productivity. The music stopped in 2008, but like Wiley E Coyote we simply ran on the spot for a few years.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
Worth asking why so many people put money into property though. I don't know about you obviously but I do know lots of people who decided to invest in proprty instead of pensions when successive Governments did so much to undermine the returns and even the viability of private pensions. People will act in ways that best guarantee them a good return to cover their retirement years and when they see private and company pensions becoming less and less attractive over the years they will naturally look elsewhere. It is basic human nature.
That was my point, though. People invested rationally. Like me. It was a one-way bet, almost.
The problem is that the underlying system is broken.
Nobody cared through much of the noughties, but I’d argue that the whole time rising house prices were sapping away at underlying British productivity. The music stopped in 2008, but like Wiley E Coyote we simply ran on the spot for a few years.
Very true sadly. The worry is that we are now at the point where running in thin air will no longer work and we are about to face that inevitable pull of gravity.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
I've never owned property, and never expect to do so.
Aren't we all ignoring something: cities grow fast because of the economies of scale and increased human interactions that come with high concentrations of people living in one spot.
So it's a virtuous/vicious cycle - economic growth, new jobs, demand for housing, population growth, economic growth...
Aren't we all ignoring something: cities grow fast because of the economies of scale and increased human interactions that come with high concentrations of people living in one spot.
So it's a virtuous/vicious cycle - economic growth, new jobs, demand for housing, population growth, economic growth...
Aren't we all ignoring something: cities grow fast because of the economies of scale and increased human interactions that come with high concentrations of people living in one spot.
So it's a virtuous/vicious cycle - economic growth, new jobs, demand for housing, population growth, economic growth...
Which bit of that are we ignoring?
That providing more housing is not going to stop housing crises in our cities.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
I haven't altered my hours because of tax bands, though some of my colleagues have. The issue being the penal rates on pensions Annual Allowance.
I think the various cliff edges and peak rates do need sorting out, even if to make them revenue neutral by altering of the bands for the 45% rate.
Aren't we all ignoring something: cities grow fast because of the economies of scale and increased human interactions that come with high concentrations of people living in one spot.
So it's a virtuous/vicious cycle - economic growth, new jobs, demand for housing, population growth, economic growth...
Which bit of that are we ignoring?
That providing more housing is not going to stop housing crises in our cities.
As seen here on here, Tokyo suggests this is not correct. As do Houston and various Southern US cities. And successful British cities - which is really just London and Edinburgh - are outliers in terms of housing affordability in the European context too.
So, no. It’s possible to have successful urban growth without an extreme housing crisis, and in fact the latter seems to have impeded the former in the UK.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
I haven't altered my hours because of tax bands, though some of my colleagues have. The issue being the penal rates on pensions Annual Allowance.
I think the various cliff edges and peak rates do need sorting out, even if to make them revenue neutral by altering of the bands for the 45% rate.
It makes sense from an incentives perspective AND a sense of fair play, to fix this anomaly. That Britain hasn’t done so suggests that Whitehall stopped caring about either some time ago.
Aren't we all ignoring something: cities grow fast because of the economies of scale and increased human interactions that come with high concentrations of people living in one spot.
So it's a virtuous/vicious cycle - economic growth, new jobs, demand for housing, population growth, economic growth...
The problem just won't go away.
That's the reason house prices are so extraordinary in Australian cities. They certainly have no shortage of land. We have had visitors from Brisbane recently and both rental and ownership costs there are absurd.
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
Worth asking why so many people put money into property though. I don't know about you obviously but I do know lots of people who decided to invest in proprty instead of pensions when successive Governments did so much to undermine the returns and even the viability of private pensions. People will act in ways that best guarantee them a good return to cover their retirement years and when they see private and company pensions becoming less and less attractive over the years they will naturally look elsewhere. It is basic human nature.
That was my point, though. People invested rationally. Like me. It was a one-way bet, almost.
The problem is that the underlying system is broken.
Nobody cared through much of the noughties, but I’d argue that the whole time rising house prices were sapping away at underlying British productivity. The music stopped in 2008, but like Wiley E Coyote we simply ran on the spot for a few years.
Absolutely right. The British obsession with investing in "the housing ladder" is both entirely rational at an individual level and the root of our economic stagnation. Residential bricks and mortar simply isn't an investment that increases anyone's productivity.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again I am not sure that it is all to be laid at the feet of planning - although undoubtedly some of it is. There appears to be an antipathy in the British (English?) psyche towards living in multi-storey buildings. 3 stories fine, 4 or more not fine. There is also the issue of so much property still being leasehold rather than freehold, particularly in cities like London. I am ill placed to comment on these things as I detest cities (as a place to live) no matter what the style/arrrangment of housing. So it would be for others to explain why there is this apparent antipathy.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
I don't think people from the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand can really lecture the UK, in particular England, on questions of population density.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again I am not sure that it is all to be laid at the feet of planning - although undoubtedly some of it is. There appears to be an antipathy in the British (English?) psyche towards living in multi-storey buildings. 3 stories fine, 4 or more not fine. There is also the issue of so much property still being leasehold rather than freehold, particularly in cities like London. I am ill placed to comment on these things as I detest cities (as a place to live) no matter what the style/arrrangment of housing. So it would be for others to explain why there is this apparent antipathy.
I kind of bridle at this idea that Britain uniquely can’t manage to build higher because of some innate preference. You don’t mean to imply that, but many do.
Large swathes of London Zone 2 - Zone 2! - are no higher than two stories. It’s insane.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again I am not sure that it is all to be laid at the feet of planning - although undoubtedly some of it is. There appears to be an antipathy in the British (English?) psyche towards living in multi-storey buildings. 3 stories fine, 4 or more not fine. There is also the issue of so much property still being leasehold rather than freehold, particularly in cities like London. I am ill placed to comment on these things as I detest cities (as a place to live) no matter what the style/arrrangment of housing. So it would be for others to explain why there is this apparent antipathy.
A lot comes from the poor construction and soundproofing of much of British apartment living.
Good mansion block flats in London sell well, but few want flats in places like Leicester. Even good ones go cheap.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again I am not sure that it is all to be laid at the feet of planning - although undoubtedly some of it is. There appears to be an antipathy in the British (English?) psyche towards living in multi-storey buildings. 3 stories fine, 4 or more not fine. There is also the issue of so much property still being leasehold rather than freehold, particularly in cities like London. I am ill placed to comment on these things as I detest cities (as a place to live) no matter what the style/arrrangment of housing. So it would be for others to explain why there is this apparent antipathy.
A lot comes from the poor construction and soundproofing of much of British apartment living.
Good mansion block flats in London sell well, but few want flats in places like Leicester. Even good ones go cheap.
This is now an endemic problem with almost all British building. I note there are now specialist companies which come in just to do snagging surveys to point out all the things the builders didn't do right in the initial build and need to rectify. The state of much of our new housing stock is a scandal
The biggest problem with housing in UK is Land Banking. Where developers buy land, obtain planning permission and then dont do anything with it - which restructs supplyvand drives up prices. One solution is to apply notional council tax to all land that has planning permission but remains undeveloped after say 5 years. If not then planning permission is withdrawn and land value then falls to unpermitted value. Use it or lose it.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again I am not sure that it is all to be laid at the feet of planning - although undoubtedly some of it is. There appears to be an antipathy in the British (English?) psyche towards living in multi-storey buildings. 3 stories fine, 4 or more not fine. There is also the issue of so much property still being leasehold rather than freehold, particularly in cities like London. I am ill placed to comment on these things as I detest cities (as a place to live) no matter what the style/arrrangment of housing. So it would be for others to explain why there is this apparent antipathy.
A lot comes from the poor construction and soundproofing of much of British apartment living.
Good mansion block flats in London sell well, but few want flats in places like Leicester. Even good ones go cheap.
This is now an endemic problem with almost all British building. I note there are now specialist companies which come in just to do snagging surveys to point out all the things the builders didn't do right in the initial build and need to rectify. The state of much of our new housing stock is a scandal
Yes, we seem to have arrived at low building quality as well as pettifogging building regulations that add to the cost but do not ensure any reasonable standard.
The biggest problem with housing in UK is Land Banking. Where developers buy land, obtain planning permission and then dont do anything with it - which restructs supplyvand drives up prices. One solution is to apply notional council tax to all land that has planning permission but remains undeveloped after say 5 years. If not then planning permission is withdrawn and land value then falls to unpermitted value. Use it or lose it.
Developers land-bank because the planning and development process is so protracted and unpredictable. It becomes a form of insurance.
Britain literally incentivises an oligopoly of developers to land-bank, and to develop poor quality, aesthetically depressing rabbit hutches.
Finally, it’s absurd to claim that there is no “room”. London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Building up seems eminently sensible but as you say is not something that is done often enough in British towns and cities.
And so we come back to the underlying planning dysfunction.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
Again I am not sure that it is all to be laid at the feet of planning - although undoubtedly some of it is. There appears to be an antipathy in the British (English?) psyche towards living in multi-storey buildings. 3 stories fine, 4 or more not fine. There is also the issue of so much property still being leasehold rather than freehold, particularly in cities like London. I am ill placed to comment on these things as I detest cities (as a place to live) no matter what the style/arrrangment of housing. So it would be for others to explain why there is this apparent antipathy.
A lot comes from the poor construction and soundproofing of much of British apartment living.
Good mansion block flats in London sell well, but few want flats in places like Leicester. Even good ones go cheap.
What does your idea of 'cheap' translate into in terms of multiples of the local average salary?
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
The biggest problem with housing in UK is Land Banking. Where developers buy land, obtain planning permission and then dont do anything with it - which restructs supplyvand drives up prices. One solution is to apply notional council tax to all land that has planning permission but remains undeveloped after say 5 years. If not then planning permission is withdrawn and land value then falls to unpermitted value. Use it or lose it.
Developers land-bank because the planning and development process is so protracted and unpredictable. It becomes a form of insurance.
Britain literally incentivises an oligopoly of developers to land-bank, and to develop poor quality, aesthetically depressing rabbit hutches.
This. Neither government nor much political discussion in this country understands the importance of incentives in policy making.
Both Labour and the Tories appear to believe that they can legislate for stuff to happen, and it will just happen.
Trying to fix the problem by withdrawing planning permission from land banks is likely to make things worse Measures to increase the supply of cheap building land - and encourage competition for the oligopoly - would be far more... constructive.
"The fall-out from Lee Anderson’s suspension continues tonight. With speculation still ongoing as to whether the Ashfield MP might defect to Reform, friends of the red wall Rottweiler are concerned that his suspension will, in the words of one, only ‘embolden the wets’. Such fears have only been strengthened tonight by a bizarre row breaking out in one of the Tory backbench WhatsApp groups.
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
Yes. It's a defensible opinion, but it's an opinion. To say 'it's factually correct' is rubbish.
Anderson's garbage wasn't a defensible opinion.
I can’t be bothered finding it, but I saw recently that something like 70% of internal security threats were from Islamic extremism. The rest was mostly far right stuff.
The biggest problem with housing in UK is Land Banking. Where developers buy land, obtain planning permission and then dont do anything with it - which restructs supplyvand drives up prices. One solution is to apply notional council tax to all land that has planning permission but remains undeveloped after say 5 years. If not then planning permission is withdrawn and land value then falls to unpermitted value. Use it or lose it.
Developers land-bank because the planning and development process is so protracted and unpredictable. It becomes a form of insurance.
Britain literally incentivises an oligopoly of developers to land-bank, and to develop poor quality, aesthetically depressing rabbit hutches.
I wrote this last night, and this morning I see that after a year’s investigation the Competition and Markets Authority has said precisely the same thing.
Please someone make me dictator of the UK and I will fix this, and a host of other issues besides.
Comments
Unfortunately her red tape cutting that freed up many parts of the economy did not apply to construction. We need a PM as brave as Thatcher was with the NUM to tackle the NIMBY scum and abolish the planning red tape altogether.
We need someone to tell Councils and neighbours that its none of your bloody business what someone else does with their land and then stand back and see developments happen as a result.
Population has been growing faster than the rate of house building for decades now.
MPs have complained that the suspension of the high-profile Tory MP is the 'final nail in the coffin' and will harm support."
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mps-believe-lee-anderson-suspension-was-a-mistake-leaked-whatsapps-reveal-13081164
Its not remotely like that.
You haven't listened at all.
I live in a new build house in a new development, lets say I wanted to knock down my house and rebuild it. Or maybe buy my neighbours property, knock down both houses and rebuild as a block of flats. Or rebuild as multiple dwellings or ....
In Japan you can do that on all land already zoned for housing. Want to pull down a home and rebuild it? Want to extend it, redevelop it? Just do it. Neighbours don't get a say.
Yes there's a planning system, but its zonal and code, not like the UK whatsoever, nor does it involve consultations with neighbours or politicians - if its within the appropriate zone and to code, it can be built.
If you hand the Tories 11% from Reform that sounds fair enough, until you consider a hefty percentage of them will be racist bigots and our Prime Minister is of a different colour to the one they prefer.
Add to that some churn from previously loyal Conservatives who don't want to be associated with people who share that unpleasant pungent odour with Braverman and Jenrick.
Many of those people will simply not vote, or vote Labour, or Lib Dem* or anything else.
* In 2015 there was a large number of direct Lib Dem - UKIP swing. People interested in politics imagine both as polar opposites, but to many not interested in politics they were both simply "pox on both your houses" protest votes.
As I showed you and you deliberately ignored you still have to submit a planning permission application to build or renovate a property in Japan and submit it to the local government authority.
Listed buildings and conservation areas are also strictly protected from rebuilding.
Zonal areas for development are little different from Local Plan areas for development and of course knocking down a property and rebuilding it or extending it makes sod all difference to the need for new housing anyway. Only actually building new housing where there was none before does
Since 1996, the UK population has increased by 16%, but the number of people living alone has increased by 25%. That's a lot of spare bedrooms.
Scotland's population has only increased by 8%, yet Edinburgh is one of the most expensive places to live in the UK.
"Levelling up" would've done much to solve the housing crisis by spreading demand around more evenly, opening more of the country up to profitable home building. Demand-side interventions, such as taxing land or bedrooms (with obvious exceptions) and zero-rates on stamp duty if downsizing, could also have a big impact.
It's even more stark within Scotland with a rapid west-east shift. Over the next 10 years, Midlothian will increase by around 14% while Inverclyde drops by 6%. Scotland overall only 2%.
No housing policy can keep up with that, let alone schools, public transport...
It began when Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group, wrote in the aftermath of Anderson’s suspension that ‘the facts speak for themselves. Islamist extremism poses the greatest threat to national security and wellbeing’. It prompted Tobias Ellwood to weigh in and demand that ‘John – with respect – please delete that comment.’ A barrage of enraged Tory MPs fired back in anger at Ellwood, with one demanding to know ‘What is a greater threat to national security than Islamic extremism?’"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tory-mps-turn-on-tobias-ellwood/
At the end of the day there has been a long period of significant demand (low interest rates, immigration, and a greater tendency to live alone) placed on top of world-beating supply constraint (total planning dysfunction, housebuilder monopoly, the end of council housing development).
One day, perhaps, we will look back and wonder what the fuck we did to ourselves.
It is especially acute in Britain because this underlying challenge meets one of the most densely populated countries on Earth.
Again, lots of reasons, but one must surely look first and foremost and the gross distortions delivered by the housing situation.
I myself, very rationally, put most of my savings into property when living in London. That didn’t improve British productivity one iota. All that to live in conditions - if measured in floorspace - worse than those provided for the previous generation.
How does this unedifying spectacle of a party at war with each other return to discipline and not get uglier still on this long journey to an Autumn election?
Your post has guaranteed a May 2nd election.
London - which is where people want to be because of proximity to jobs - is incorrigibly low-rise compared to New York, Tokyo, Paris, or Madrid.
Even the typical New York brownstone is 4/5 floors and 4000-6000 sq ft, whereas the Notting Hill equivalents are more like 3000 sq ft.
Like me. It was a one-way bet, almost.
The problem is that the underlying system is broken.
Nobody cared through much of the noughties, but I’d argue that the whole time rising house prices were sapping away at underlying British productivity. The music stopped in 2008, but like Wiley E Coyote we simply ran on the spot for a few years.
New Zealand has done some good work recently basically up-zoning much of the country. My Dad’s crappy 1950s bungalow could now become, without too much hassle, a 4 story apartment block.
Very much a lot of London is literally two-story Victorian or later. I don’t want to turn London into Hong Kong but why not simply allow up to five stories, so long as a local design code is met.
The design code could/should even be reasonably prescriptive so that a Victorian neighbourhood stays Victorian-looking.
There have been cases recently of Islington refusing even to allow mansards which can’t be seen from the street on some Victorian terracing. Absolutely batshit.
So it's a virtuous/vicious cycle - economic growth, new jobs, demand for housing, population growth, economic growth...
The problem just won't go away.
I think the various cliff edges and peak rates do need sorting out, even if to make them revenue neutral by altering of the bands for the 45% rate.
And successful British cities - which is really just London and Edinburgh - are outliers in terms of housing affordability in the European context too.
So, no. It’s possible to have successful urban growth without an extreme housing crisis, and in fact the latter seems to have impeded the former in the UK.
2015: 60.796m
2023: 58.997m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy#Vital_statistics
Large swathes of London Zone 2 - Zone 2! - are no higher than two stories. It’s insane.
Good mansion block flats in London sell well, but few want flats in places like Leicester. Even good ones go cheap.
Britain literally incentivises an oligopoly of developers to land-bank, and to develop poor quality, aesthetically depressing rabbit hutches.
USA: 2.65 billion
Canada: 2.88 billion
Australia: 2.45 billion
New Zealand: 73 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Within that though it’s fascinating (to me) that Manhattan is so much higher rise than London, while the exurbs are less dense.
It's a defensible opinion, but it's an opinion. To say 'it's factually correct' is rubbish.
Anderson's garbage wasn't a defensible opinion.
Neither government nor much political discussion in this country understands the importance of incentives in policy making.
Both Labour and the Tories appear to believe that they can legislate for stuff to happen, and it will just happen.
Trying to fix the problem by withdrawing planning permission from land banks is likely to make things worse
Measures to increase the supply of cheap building land - and encourage competition for the oligopoly - would be far more... constructive.
https://www.romney.senate.gov/romney-if-your-position-is-being-cheered-by-vladimir-putin-its-time-to-reconsider-your-position/
Please someone make me dictator of the UK and I will fix this, and a host of other issues besides.