Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
You are talking utter nonsense. The government is not 'subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords'. In fact, it is being criticised for subsidising people to buy their own homes through Help-to-Buy.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
It's not me that I'm worried about. As I said I am lucky enough to have parents who let me live rent free for three years in their home which enabled me to save enough money for an larger than average deposit. Plus I have a well paid job, much higher than the average, so getting a mortgage was not too difficult. The problem with HtB is that it is the worst of both worlds. It relies on rising house prices to coax builders into starting projects and it really has onlybhelped around 20,000 people at the last count.
Worrying about my friends and family all of whom are struggling to get on the property ladder because of insanely high prices in London is a legitimate concern. London's industries are driven by millions of people who earn between £35k and £45k pricing them out of the market to protect private landlords seems like an insane policy. The government have not been helped by all of the foreign money pouring into the London property market, but they have been very slow to react and their policies may have exacerbated the issue.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
As opposed to being forced to develop unprofitable developments? Or is the theory that there are a bunch of developments they could be making that would make them money, but after making more money on even more profitable ones they can't be arsed?
It is a well known and accepted tactic that developers sit on land which on which they have applied for and obtained planning permission whilst continuing to try and get more land released for development by citing the need for more building.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
What's their objective in sitting on land that they could profitably develop?
Their objective is to put pressure on the local authorities to get more land released for building. This is particularly the case where they hold large tracts of brownfield land and would rather do new development on greenfield sites.
Having worked with developers for many years from the perspective of archaeological assessments in advance of house building it has always amazed me how blatant and open this practice is.
I'm talking about the thousands of people who keep entire industries going on £30-£40k a year and are being priced out of the main driver for the UK economy. That the PB Tories think this is just c'est la vie tells me that you just don't get it.
Especially as these are potential 100% natural cast iron tory voters.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
Barmy idea. House building is risky enough as it is without the risk of even more up-front expense, bureaucracy and uncertainty. Several of the big housebuilding forms were close to going bust in the last downturn, and most of them had to raise extra capital. They are doing well now, but there's no certainty that will last. [I shall probably be getting out of housebuilders before IndyRef and especially the Labour conference]
The idea that housebuilding firms would deliberately tie capital up in land when they could turn it over is just crazy.
Nope it is common practice.
Edit: Bear in mind that often the housebuilders are not tying up that much money. Once they have negotiated the planning permission on the land they will pay the landowner a small, ongoing retainer, on the basis that they will make final payment to the landowner once they are ready to start development but with a caveat that the land may not be sold to anyone else in the meantime. So their exposure is generally small. The farmer can continue to use the land whilst getting paid a small regular amount for not selling it to anyone else.
London prices are too high, but people here are exaggerating. A couple of teachers should be able to buy somewhere in zone 2 or 3 by the time they're 30.
I'm sure they could, but others here feel they deserve more.
A larger house, in a nicer area with a shorter commute.
@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.
Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.
They are doing well now, but there's no certainty that will last. [I shall probably be getting out of housebuilders before IndyRef and especially the Labour conference]
Yet again your only concern is for the poor lambs of big business.
Given house prices are in the stratosphere in London, houses should be being built by the estate load.
Anything that's one stage up from a tent should be being turned into a des res for some aspiring young professional. London should essentially be a car park for skips.
Except it isn't. Driving through the outer boroughs, a lot of it still looks shabby and run down.
Surely the government could do something in terms of slashing red tape or cutting taxes on building materials to help these young people.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
If the government isn't there to make society even slightly more equitable then what's the point? The idea would be to tender out contracts with 5% guaranteed RoI to the house builder and the government takes on the risk.
@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.
Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.
Will it really be worth it given that you will forever more be the man that voted for the BNP-Lite?
Maybe they reflect your views more than you care to admit.
Typically for this forum, lots of "Labour doing worse than expected"* stuff. Very little mention that the Tories are also doing worse than expected*
*By Rallings.
I haven't seen the Rallings figures, but I thought the consensus was that Labour should gain 500, the Tories lose 200-300 and the LDs around 350.
That means, Labour is doing poorly, the Tories about in line (slightly at the better end of expectations, but not enough to shout about) and the LDs are doing pretty well on a relative basis.
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.
Strange result in Kirklees - not a single one of the 23 wards changed hands. The Greens did not take Kirkburton, the Tories did not take Lindley, and Labour did not take Denby Dale and Golcar ( all of which happened in 2012). In Colne Valley constituency Labour won 1, Conservatives 1, Independents 1 and Lib Dems 3.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
If the government isn't there to make society even slightly more equitable then what's the point? The idea would be to tender out contracts with 5% guaranteed RoI to the house builder and the government takes on the risk.
If the government wants to make society more equitable, then it should start with people at the bottom of the income spectrum. Not those half way up who just need a little subsidy to buy a flat in London.
Edit: Bear in mind that often the housebuilders are not tying up that much money. Once they have negotiated the planning permission on the land they will pay the landowner a small, ongoing retainer, on the basis that they will make final payment to the landowner once they are ready to start development but with a caveat that the land may not be sold to anyone else in the meantime. So their exposure is generally small. The farmer can continue to use the land whilst getting paid a small regular amount for not selling it to anyone else.
Even to the extent that that is true, how is making planning law even more difficult for them going to help? If they are not going to be able to rely on keeping the planning permission long enough to fit in with the other constraints they are working to (in an industry which necessarily has very long timescales and very cyclical demand), they'll simply not bother to try for planning permission in the first place. How on earth is that going to improve supply?
There is one way, and one way only, to improve supply, which is to make it easier, cheaper, and less risky. And a 100% guaranteed way of making things worse is to make it more risky.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
Seems to me the simple fact is that Thatcher was massively successful in part because she increased private home ownership. Consequently, it is a threat to Conservative political success that private home ownership is now in decline.
Maybe Max's ideas aren't the answer, but if the Conservatives don't think of something to help first time buyers then they will suffer for it at the ballot box.
If Help to Buy is enough to increase home ownership rates then that is job done for George Osborne and company, but if it isn't then they need to think of something else.
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
As opposed to being forced to develop unprofitable developments? Or is the theory that there are a bunch of developments they could be making that would make them money, but after making more money on even more profitable ones they can't be arsed?
It is a well known and accepted tactic that developers sit on land which on which they have applied for and obtained planning permission whilst continuing to try and get more land released for development by citing the need for more building.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
I wonder how many houses you "six months or else" guys have built? This idea is incoherent on a level with the Green Party on economics.
What is your trigger point? Outline or detailed? Or something else?
What happens where much of the alleged "banked" land is actually later phases of decades-long developments, with agreed timescales?
On a planning permission for *one* house a year of negotiation is not unusual while the Councils wiffles about on i's and t's. That is *after* it is granted.
For larger developments two years is more usual.
Force the Planning App to start and all you do is delay the build for several years and keep some people homeless for the sake of you feeling smug at spanking developers. Thought the objective was to encouraging building?
Get your planning permission in October and it will be nearly 6 months before you can start anyway.
Your contractors may have a lead time longer than that. If the Council require specialist supplies the lead time on *that* can be 6 months.
Build a few thousand houses, have a think, wrestle the Planning Bureaucracy Octopus, and you may have a chance of coming up with something practical.
Farage " Can we top the poll across the UK? Thats the marker that Im looking towards"
Dimbleby "... and do you think you will?"
Farage "I do! Yes, I do, I do"
Would any other leader give a straight answer? Or do they play expectations management in case, horror of horrors, they dont win?
UKIP the party of positive thinking and going for it!!
That Nigel Farage is an amazing man. The casual nonchalant way in which he inhales, followed by an inexpressibly confident exhalation. And he does that every single time.
Can you think of another party leader who would be able to pull this off? No wonder the British public are falling in love with him.
I like Farage, but that did need to be said, bravo.
The inhale-exhale to express a range of emotional states is a classic of British culture. You can see it in pubs around the country. The reason the rest of them don't do it is because they're metropolitan international types.
"With result still coming in from the locals, Ladbrokes have reacted to UKIP’s good performance by cutting them from 4/5 to 1/2 to win a seat at the next General Election. I suspect that, once we go through the results in detail, there are going to be lots of areas of concentrated UKIP support and constituencies where they are going to become a lot shorter to win.
... The betting on the winners of the Euro election has been a bit strange. UKIP were about 1.3 on the exchanges when the polls closed, and are still about the same price on Betfair this morning. Which seems odd given that they have out-performed expectations in the local votes declared so far. Ladbrokes are 1/6 and you can back Labour at 7/2."
One bit of good news for Lib Dems is Cheltenham where they have won 12 out of 17 seats in Martin Horwood MPs constituency and 13 out of 19 overall. Net gain of one. Should make him feel a bit more secure for 2015
Of course the real upside of the 'Cheap flats for Londoners' campaign is how massively popular it would be in the rest of the country. Up hear in Edinburgh where houses are ten a penny you often hear people bemoaning the plight of poor old Londoners. I'm sure this is true of Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff and so on.
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.
I think travel cards are generally a bit more than £100 per month. Zone 1-5 on the tube is more than £200, and I don't think that even includes use of the bus.
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.
I'm talking about the thousands of people who keep entire industries going on £30-£40k a year and are being priced out of the main driver for the UK economy. That the PB Tories think this is just c'est la vie tells me that you just don't get it.
Especially as these are potential 100% natural cast iron tory voters.
I completely accept massive changes are needed to the London property market. Immigration needs to be curtailed to about a fifth of its current levels (which is only possible by leaving the EU). Empty homes need to be taxed very heavily. More building is also needed - we need to just build a lot higher.
So, to summarise Labour's results, they have done extremely well in the economically-booming London and have also performed quite strongly in leafy affluent places like Cambridge. Yet, they've done very badly in very deprived places like Lincolnshire, Plymouth and Great Yarmouth. So much for the New Labour robots' mantra that Labour's problem was that they weren't appealing to "Middle England" who are fretting about the budget deficit.
More needs to be done, but the LibDems have been a bit of a problem on this. At the moment we seem to get the worst of both worlds: huge bureaucracy which makes even harmless small developments incredibly difficult, without adequate protection against some really damaging developments.
@Bond_James_Bond - "To the benefit of Farage's fascist party, unfortunately."
A disgraceful remark. You and your type are a liability to the Conservative Party.
UKIP are your opponents, not your enemy.
No, UKIP are everybody's enemy. They are not some cheery little insurgency - they are vicious, intolerant, minority-hating loonies. The "independence" tag is just a lie. They are a sboʍ-out party who given the opportunity would start repatriating and expropriating. They are just the BNP in blazers.
Can we assume that since you voted for AIFE you are also a closet racist?
No. I voted for them to enrage kippers; seems to be working. Nobody can explain to me what MEPs do, or what difference having MEPs of this rather than that party actually makes. So it is an opportunity for frivolity. AIFE appears to be the frivolous work a fairly typically frivolous kipper who is enraged at losing his place at the trough, so he starts a spoiler party. I'm helping him to spoil things, particularly for kippers.
Will it really be worth it given that you will forever more be the man that voted for the BNP-Lite?
Maybe they reflect your views more than you care to admit.
The headline is as usual slanted against UKIP and Suzanne Evans denies the statements attributed to her, but the point is well made that UKIP needs more concentration on London.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
If the government isn't there to make society even slightly more equitable then what's the point? The idea would be to tender out contracts with 5% guaranteed RoI to the house builder and the government takes on the risk.
If the government wants to make society more equitable, then it should start with people at the bottom of the income spectrum. Not those half way up who just need a little subsidy to buy a flat in London.
Agreed. Not conviced by a return to "Cost Plus" government spending either. Not a great driver of efficiency.
I wonder how many houses you "six months or else" guys have built? This idea is incoherent on a level with the Green Party on economics.
What is your trigger point? Outline or detailed? Or something else?
What happens where much of the alleged "banked" land is actually later phases of decades-long developments, with agreed timescales?
On a planning permission for *one* house a year of negotiation is not unusual while the Councils wiffles about on i's and t's. That is *after* it is granted.
For larger developments two years is more usual.
Force the Planning App to start and all you do is delay the build for several years and keep some people homeless for the sake of you feeling smug at spanking developers. Thought the objective was to encouraging building?
Get your planning permission in October and it will be nearly 6 months before you can start anyway.
Your contractors may have a lead time longer than that. If the Council require specialist supplies the lead time on *that* can be 6 months.
Build a few thousand houses, have a think, wrestle the Planning Bureaucracy Octopus, and you may have a chance of coming up with something practical.
An interesting post. Would we be correct to assume this is your area of professional expertise?
Developers must be able to cherry pick only the most profitable developments.
As opposed to being forced to develop unprofitable developments? Or is the theory that there are a bunch of developments they could be making that would make them money, but after making more money on even more profitable ones they can't be arsed?
It is a well known and accepted tactic that developers sit on land which on which they have applied for and obtained planning permission whilst continuing to try and get more land released for development by citing the need for more building.
I do agree with the proposals that any builder sitting on land for more than 6 months should lose the planning permission and have to start reapplication with all the risks and costs that entails.
What's their objective in sitting on land that they could profitably develop?
Their objective is to put pressure on the local authorities to get more land released for building. This is particularly the case where they hold large tracts of brownfield land and would rather do new development on greenfield sites.
Having worked with developers for many years from the perspective of archaeological assessments in advance of house building it has always amazed me how blatant and open this practice is.
If that's really happening it sounds like a sign of a market failure somewhere else.
How does this pressure work? Does the local authority has a fixed quota they have to meet? (I assume it's something like that if a single developer can put pressure on a local authority by withholding a single development?)
Also if the local authorities could reasonably allow building on the greenfield site but aren't (which must be true or the brownfield blackmail wouldn't work), since there's obviously a serious housing shortage around London, it seems like there should be a mechanism to incentivize them to allow this development in any case...
Sheffield final results Lab 17 LD 6 UKIP 3 Green 2
Lab gained 3 from LD ( 1 via a defection ) Green gained 1 from LD and 1 from Lab UKIP gained 2 from LD and 1 from Lab LD regained 1 seat lost via defection so technically no change
Edit: Bear in mind that often the housebuilders are not tying up that much money. Once they have negotiated the planning permission on the land they will pay the landowner a small, ongoing retainer, on the basis that they will make final payment to the landowner once they are ready to start development but with a caveat that the land may not be sold to anyone else in the meantime. So their exposure is generally small. The farmer can continue to use the land whilst getting paid a small regular amount for not selling it to anyone else.
Even to the extent that that is true, how is making planning law even more difficult for them going to help? If they are not going to be able to rely on keeping the planning permission long enough to fit in with the other constraints they are working to (in an industry which necessarily has very long timescales and very cyclical demand), they'll simply not bother to try for planning permission in the first place. How on earth is that going to improve supply?
There is one way, and one way only, to improve supply, which is to make it easier, cheaper, and less risky. And a 100% guaranteed way of making things worse is to make it more risky.
It would force them to make use of the land they already have. There are a whole host of ways the government could improve housing supply and get more houses built whilst ensuring they were built where they best serve the community rather than the developer.
For a start they could get rid of VAT on elements of redeveloping brown field sites. It is ridiculous that it costs more to build houses on a brownfield site than a greenfield site because the government is taking a 20% whack of money. We could also make sure that Brownfield sites are prioritised ahead of greenfield sites for planning permission and that local zoning does not mean we have industrial sites left empty for years or even decades when they could be redeveloped for housing.
There are lots of things that could be done to improve things for builders, councils and communities but it seems to be simpler just to let developers cover yet more of our fields with housing.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
If the government isn't there to make society even slightly more equitable then what's the point? The idea would be to tender out contracts with 5% guaranteed RoI to the house builder and the government takes on the risk.
Max, the Government doesn't have any money - it all comes from the taxpayer. If you think that borrowing even more from future taxpayers is good idea, may I remind you that our current interest bill in the debts run up by the government is now reaching £1bn a week, and will b going higher. So where is this money going to come from? The developer gets 5% pa but the buyer gets it at cost? You may need to thing about this a little more.
Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
You are talking utter nonsense. The government is not 'subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords'. In fact, it is being criticised for subsidising people to buy their own homes through Help-to-Buy.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
Actually private landlords are subsidised through tax breaks
Please explain to me why the working poor should be subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords? Is it right that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy rather than the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life? That's the message they are sending to a whole generation of people stuck renting from your generation.
You are talking utter nonsense. The government is not 'subsidising the lifestyles of private landlords'. In fact, it is being criticised for subsidising people to buy their own homes through Help-to-Buy.
It seems to me that your only criticism is that they are not subsidising you, someone extremely well-paid, from what you have told us before.
It's not me that I'm worried about. As I said I am lucky enough to have parents who let me live rent free for three years in their home which enabled me to save enough money for an larger than average deposit. Plus I have a well paid job, much higher than the average, so getting a mortgage was not too difficult. The problem with HtB is that it is the worst of both worlds. It relies on rising house prices to coax builders into starting projects and it really has onlybhelped around 20,000 people at the last count.
Worrying about my friends and family all of whom are struggling to get on the property ladder because of insanely high prices in London is a legitimate concern. London's industries are driven by millions of people who earn between £35k and £45k pricing them out of the market to protect private landlords seems like an insane policy. The government have not been helped by all of the foreign money pouring into the London property market, but they have been very slow to react and their policies may have exacerbated the issue.
The Tories have helpfully sent me a list of Labour figures criticising the leadership today.
Most of them have featured in the blog already, but here are a few I've missed.
[quotes from Mann/Stringer/Healey]
If Labour want to sent me quotes from Conservative MPs criticising David Cameron, or CCHQ, I would be more than happy to post those too. But they haven't. In fact, I've had one email from them all day. Frankly, their press operation has been rather useless.
I like Max's argument, somebody should invest lots and, seriously, lots of money in building housing in London which they should then sell at cost, that is to say make no return on their investment.
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
If the government isn't there to make society even slightly more equitable then what's the point? The idea would be to tender out contracts with 5% guaranteed RoI to the house builder and the government takes on the risk.
Max, the Government doesn't have any money - it all comes from the taxpayer. If you think that borrowing even more from future taxpayers is good idea, may I remind you that our current interest bill in the debts run up by the government is now reaching £1bn a week, and will b going higher. So where is this money going to come from? The developer gets 5% pa but the buyer gets it at cost? You may need to thing about this a little more.
There is a difference in Gains and Losses betwwen Guardian site and BBC site. Guardian has to date Con losses -130 whilst BBC has -130 and for Lib dems Guardian has -174 v -253 on BBC.Strange?
There is a difference in Gains and Losses betwwen Guardian site and BBC site. Guardian has to date Con losses -130 whilst BBC has -130 and for Lib dems Guardian has -174 v -253 on BBC.Strange?
Miss Vance, if that's accurate it's rather shoddy.
Mr. Max, might this not be an either/or option? The proposals you've made around subsidy might well be hugely welcomed by renters in London, but they'd be loathed by everyone who isn't a Londoner.
More homes and a reduction in stamp duty would seem to be better options, but the numbers, of course, have to add up.
The government would have to take on the tender risk if it were to fail. Flats could be sold on a cost basis, and if we finally realise that building upwards is the only way to go then the per unit coat won't exceed the prices people can afford. Put ownership and reselling limitations on them for a lengthy period, write into the contract that they cannot be rented or leased in any way. The subsidy from the government would be to take on the risk and paying a 5% RoI to housebuilders.
Builders wouldn't do it for a 5% RoI.
Far better to approach it as follows:
- government purchases / assembles the site (this works very well in the City where the Corporation does this effectively)
- government grants the planning permission
- contracts out the building work to a developer (on a fixed price contract basis)
- sells the property to new buyers at a discounted price.
- if the buyer sells the flat within 5 years of purchase, 100% of the profit reverts to the government fund
- if the buyer sells the flat in years 5-10, 50% of the profit reverts to the government fund
- if the buyer sells the flat after 10 years, a residual of 25% of the profit (capped at the original discount + 3.5% p.a.) reverts to the government
Comments
Worrying about my friends and family all of whom are struggling to get on the property ladder because of insanely high prices in London is a legitimate concern. London's industries are driven by millions of people who earn between £35k and £45k pricing them out of the market to protect private landlords seems like an insane policy. The government have not been helped by all of the foreign money pouring into the London property market, but they have been very slow to react and their policies may have exacerbated the issue.
Having worked with developers for many years from the perspective of archaeological assessments in advance of house building it has always amazed me how blatant and open this practice is.
That the PB Tories think this is just c'est la vie tells me that you just don't get it.
Especially as these are potential 100% natural cast iron tory voters.
Locals - Lab hold #Oxford #LE2014
I wonder who he thinks that somebody should be?
Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
In 2013 they were:
Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23%, LD 14%
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013
Edit: Bear in mind that often the housebuilders are not tying up that much money. Once they have negotiated the planning permission on the land they will pay the landowner a small, ongoing retainer, on the basis that they will make final payment to the landowner once they are ready to start development but with a caveat that the land may not be sold to anyone else in the meantime. So their exposure is generally small. The farmer can continue to use the land whilst getting paid a small regular amount for not selling it to anyone else.
CON 29.00% 6 61 252
LAB 31.00% 72 0 330
LIB 13.00% 0 18 39
UKIP 17.00% 0 0 0
NAT 2.26% 0 0 9
MIN 0.89% 1 0 20
OTH 6.85% 0 0 0
A larger house, in a nicer area with a shorter commute.
Yet again your only concern is for the poor lambs of big business.
Given house prices are in the stratosphere in London, houses should be being built by the estate load.
Anything that's one stage up from a tent should be being turned into a des res for some aspiring young professional. London should essentially be a car park for skips.
Except it isn't. Driving through the outer boroughs, a lot of it still looks shabby and run down.
Surely the government could do something in terms of slashing red tape or cutting taxes on building materials to help these young people.
Locals - Lib Dem hold #Cheltenham #LE2014
Locals - Lab hold #NewcastleUponTyne #LE2014
Maybe they reflect your views more than you care to admit.
That means, Labour is doing poorly, the Tories about in line (slightly at the better end of expectations, but not enough to shout about) and the LDs are doing pretty well on a relative basis.
What were the numbers you had for the Tories?
There is one way, and one way only, to improve supply, which is to make it easier, cheaper, and less risky. And a 100% guaranteed way of making things worse is to make it more risky.
Maybe Max's ideas aren't the answer, but if the Conservatives don't think of something to help first time buyers then they will suffer for it at the ballot box.
If Help to Buy is enough to increase home ownership rates then that is job done for George Osborne and company, but if it isn't then they need to think of something else.
What is your trigger point? Outline or detailed? Or something else?
What happens where much of the alleged "banked" land is actually later phases of decades-long developments, with agreed timescales?
On a planning permission for *one* house a year of negotiation is not unusual while the Councils wiffles about on i's and t's. That is *after* it is granted.
For larger developments two years is more usual.
Force the Planning App to start and all you do is delay the build for several years and keep some people homeless for the sake of you feeling smug at spanking developers. Thought the objective was to encouraging building?
Get your planning permission in October and it will be nearly 6 months before you can start anyway.
Your contractors may have a lead time longer than that. If the Council require specialist supplies the lead time on *that* can be 6 months.
Build a few thousand houses, have a think, wrestle the Planning Bureaucracy Octopus, and you may have a chance of coming up with something practical.
UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%.
Think he needs a bit more sleep tweeting last years figures
Should say:
"Force the Planning App to start".
Someone somewhere presumably thinks they know something. Why they'd lay UKIP at Betfair and not back Lab at ladbrokes is beyond me, though.
Locals - Con hold #Elmbridge #LE2014
Labour gain 1 from Con and Con gain 1 from LD
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.
And you know what? That's exactly what the government has done, much to the horror of the usual suspects:
http://www.johnspellar.labour.co.uk/planned-planning-law-changes-concerning
More needs to be done, but the LibDems have been a bit of a problem on this. At the moment we seem to get the worst of both worlds: huge bureaucracy which makes even harmless small developments incredibly difficult, without adequate protection against some really damaging developments.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/23/ukip-councillor-blames-poor-london-polls-cultured-elite?CMP=twt_gu
The headline is as usual slanted against UKIP and Suzanne Evans denies the statements attributed to her, but the point is well made that UKIP needs more concentration on London.
Locals - Con hold #Hillingdon #LE2014
Locals - Con lose #WestLancashire to NOC #LE2014
How does this pressure work? Does the local authority has a fixed quota they have to meet? (I assume it's something like that if a single developer can put pressure on a local authority by withholding a single development?)
Also if the local authorities could reasonably allow building on the greenfield site but aren't (which must be true or the brownfield blackmail wouldn't work), since there's obviously a serious housing shortage around London, it seems like there should be a mechanism to incentivize them to allow this development in any case...
Commons Projection from Michael Thrasher team: Con 261 Lab 322 LD 37 Oth 30 (inc 1 UKIP). with 126/161 Councils declared @skyelections
Adam Boulton @adamboultonSKY 5m
Commons Projection from Michael Thrasher team: Con 261 Lab 322 LD 37 Oth 30 (inc 1 UKIP). with 126/161 Councils declared @skyelections
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Retweeted by Adam Boulton
Ed Balls @edbaIlsmp 3m
@adamboultonSKY shut up. No one cares what you think.
If I was Labour I'd take 322 seats !
Excellent context from @AndrewSparrow http://bit.ly/1ttyoRN pic.twitter.com/SqNQEfb7Rc
Embedded image permalink
Lab gained 3 from LD ( 1 via a defection )
Green gained 1 from LD and 1 from Lab
UKIP gained 2 from LD and 1 from Lab
LD regained 1 seat lost via defection so technically no change
For a start they could get rid of VAT on elements of redeveloping brown field sites. It is ridiculous that it costs more to build houses on a brownfield site than a greenfield site because the government is taking a 20% whack of money. We could also make sure that Brownfield sites are prioritised ahead of greenfield sites for planning permission and that local zoning does not mean we have industrial sites left empty for years or even decades when they could be redeveloped for housing.
There are lots of things that could be done to improve things for builders, councils and communities but it seems to be simpler just to let developers cover yet more of our fields with housing.
Locals - Lab hold #Oldham #LE2014
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2513229/Buy-let-landlords-profits-boosted-5bn-year-tax-breaks.html
Lab gain 2 from LD , Ind gain 1 from Lab
Locals - Lab hold #Lambeth #LE2014
Perhaps those future tax players would be glad to have a roof over their heads?
Lab gain 1 from LD , Green gain 1 from Lab
Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil had the lowest turnout rates in Wales at just 27%. In Cardiff, 32% voted.
The highest turnout was on Anglesey (38%), ahead of Ceredigion, Powys and the Vale of Glamorgan on 37%.
Western Mail
Labour gained 1 from Con and 1 from LD ( latter via defection )
Con gained 2 from LD
LD regained 1from Con after a defection
Labour gain 1 from Con , Con gain 1 from LD
Guardian has to date Con losses -130 whilst BBC has -130 and for Lib dems Guardian has -174 v -253 on BBC.Strange?
Far better to approach it as follows:
- government purchases / assembles the site (this works very well in the City where the Corporation does this effectively)
- government grants the planning permission
- contracts out the building work to a developer (on a fixed price contract basis)
- sells the property to new buyers at a discounted price.
- if the buyer sells the flat within 5 years of purchase, 100% of the profit reverts to the government fund
- if the buyer sells the flat in years 5-10, 50% of the profit reverts to the government fund
- if the buyer sells the flat after 10 years, a residual of 25% of the profit (capped at the original discount + 3.5% p.a.) reverts to the government