2024, hoodwink and bamboozle the public

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Bucks Palace sold to developers ?

Get a big chunk of social housing on there - Vote winner, mate.

Parliament too. Thames water could save some money and not bother with sewers, what with being on the river..

[Prufrock]

My already militant anti-landlordism has taken a turn this week. Last summer post Liz Truss shit show I had to move house because the landlord wanted to put the rent up by 25%. Had to move out of central London and still pay more than I was. Shit, but that's modern Britain.

When making an offer for this place (now a thing you have to do to even rent) we mentioned we were looking to move somewhere long term. C*nt took the money, and now 8 months later has exercised the break clause and so we're f*cked and have to move house again. £25k down the swanee for nothing, and still some feck* can tell you your home isn't yours anymore.

Come the revolution I don't have any unrealistic visions about being a poet or an artisan.

I will take great job satisfaction in putting a bullet in the head of 40 landlords an hour. Day in, day out.

Maybe a ham sandwich for lunch.

I genuinely believe it should be law that you cannot own a house you don't plan on living in

Yep. Certainly think buy to let should be banned. Only landlords should be the state and heavily regulated approved, professional bodies. It's the fecking wild west.

Every time regulation comes up there's some feck* on the news who describes their job as landlord. Absolute parasites. "Oh I need to cover my mortgage" feck off you do. At the end of it you'll have a fully paid up asset. I on the other hand very much do need a roof over my head.

I'd like to own a house before I die. As it happens I probably will be able to buy now next summer. But the only reason for that is because my dad died last year. Totally cool system.

Sorry for your loss Pru - Didn't know. Unfortunately, that eventuality is the only thing that will keep Millenials in the Black. Our kids won't have that same luxury. We'll leave them with debt, not cash

It's all right mate, we weren't close. Though I do have him to thank for the whole wanderers thing, so that's nice!

[Prufrock]

Agree with needing some sort of legislation. The answer ain't lobbing bricks everywhere, they're just more fodder for investment purchases, given no fcuker can build a house for less than about £300k.

TBF, I bought my gaff on the basis I'd inherited a bit - that was 24 years back, so it's not an entirely new concept...

It's always been a factor but it's not been a necessary condition before. Average house price was steadily around 4 times earnings from the 70s to the millennium. It's now over 8.

It's partly throwing bricks everywhere, there aren't enough being built. But it also isn't sustainable that they cost that much to build! What is that, regulation, cost of materials?

[Worthy4England]

Agree with needing some sort of legislation. The answer ain't lobbing bricks everywhere, they're just more fodder for investment purchases, given no fcuker can build a house for less than about £300k.

TBF, I bought my gaff on the basis I'd inherited a bit - that was 24 years back, so it's not an entirely new concept...

It's always been a factor but it's not been a necessary condition before. Average house price was steadily around 4 times earnings from the 70s to the millennium. It's now over 8.

It's partly throwing bricks everywhere, there aren't enough being built. But it also isn't sustainable that they cost that much to build! What is that, regulation, cost of materials?

I don't have a major problem building more. The response of both main parties is pi$$ poor, though. They're playing the "big numbers game," when the problems are pretty exclusively around affordable housing and demographics. The actual build is (rough guide) 1/3. 2/3s is land, profit, infrastructure etc. So the cunning greenbelt plan for GM is building, pretty exclusuvely £300k homes for a population that on average earn about £30k (for arguments sake). So there probably needs to be 2 if you, yet the growing demographic is one person.

Realistically you're then in "pretty smallish flat" territory at best. The "flood the market" approach is a fallacy, because there's lots of institutional money to purchase the assets then rent or part-own. Needs some serious intervention policies, because once again, the free market won't cut it. You can't have both maintained profits and a home ownership, low wage economy.

Our primary "growth" model, seems to be largely immigration based (throw more prople at it), which further exacerbates the problem in the numbers game.

As developments progress, pretty much every time, the developers plead poverty and recalculate their viability. First things cut - affordable housing and infra, coz we couldn't say tough shit, no profit for you on this one, because we still need the monopoly building houses.

It's so fcuked.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

First thing is to properly define affordable. It seems to be based on an arbitrary percentage below market rate. Given market rate is the problem you'd have to constantly shift the percentage blow up, and in a couple of decades at current rate probably 90% below! You can argue specifics, but surely affordable has to be based around average wage in an area and exclude the higher wages.

Its a bit like when the the torys hijacked the living wage to rebrand the minimum wage. it isn't based on anything helpful like what it actually costs to live.

[Worthy4England]

First thing is to properly define affordable. It seems to be based on an arbitrary percentage below market rate. Given market rate is the problem you'd have to constantly shift the percentage blow up, and in a couple of decades at current rate probably 90% below! You can argue specifics, but surely affordable has to be based around average wage in an area and exclude the higher wages.

Its a bit like when the the torys hijacked the living wage to rebrand the minimum wage. it isn't based on anything helpful like what it actually costs to live.

All part of the con, driven by developers. Affordable as you say has no reference to average wages, but vs the market, which already ain't affordable.

At planning time, the LPA's demand a percentage of "affordable housing," but the developers often get out of a chunk of that volume when updating viability assessments - so they don't get built and if they do, then it's market driven. This is where the problem is. Of 1100 proposed properties reasonably near me, 0 Social Rent, 14 Affordable Rent (remembering that it's not really affordable), 261 intermediate (which means they're the same fcuking price as normal market, but the buyer only buys a share of the asset.) The rest are open market.

They will probably squeal about the 14 affordable.

I asked Andy Burnham when he was promoting GM's building plan. How many genuinely affordable houses of 4/5 times average salary his plan for 214,000 (at the time) houses would guarantee to deliver - his response was "I can't guarantee any." That's not really Burnham's fault as such, because national Government policy (NPPF) means he doesn't have any legal basis to enforce developers to build what was promised.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

All part of the con, driven by developers. Affordable as you say has no reference to average wages, but vs the market, which already ain't affordable.

At planning time, the LPA's demand a percentage of "affordable housing," but the developers often get out of a chunk of that volume when updating viability assessments - so they don't get built and if they do, then it's market driven. This is where the problem is. Of 1100 proposed properties reasonably near me, 0 Social Rent, 14 Affordable Rent (remembering that it's not really affordable), 261 intermediate (which means they're the same fcuking price as normal market, but the buyer only buys a share of the asset.) The rest are open market.

They will probably squeal about the 14 affordable.

I asked Andy Burnham when he was promoting GM's building plan. How many genuinely affordable houses of 4/5 times average salary his plan for 214,000 (at the time) houses would guarantee to deliver - his response was "I can't guarantee any." That's not really Burnham's fault as such, because national Government policy (NPPF) means he doesn't have any legal basis to enforce developers to build what was promised.

My view is if we had a properly regulated, affordable and proper long term rental market then many folk might not fee the need to climb on the property owning hamster wheel. We need the next government to build and retain housing stock, initially to get the poor folk living in B&Bs etc into something proper, and then to provide long term stable housing, with any profits put back into maintenance and building more. Once the housing market is functioning properly they could then sell off excess with some sort of covenant that it can't be used for letting for say 20 years. You could build in some robust exceptions, but make sure the usual loopholes aren't there. Until we take the 'solution' out of the hands of the housebuilders we're fecked.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Other thing is to setup some sort of government backed scheme to encourage self build. Make it easier for individuals to find plots and finance the build. Again, with robust rules around actually living in the property and not for multi house owners etc.

[TANGODANCER]

Is there a " We don't have a clue how to fix it, but we'll have a go" party? Let's start with compound interest limits on loans; that should defer a few of the "get money for nothing" fusileers. Then we could make wealth tax so high that the investors will be breaking their necks to part with money. That should have a dire effect on foreign owners of football clubs etc. Then get the sixteen year old brain-boxes to work on a full scale investigation into benefit cheats and illegal immigration for starters. Oka, that'll do for now...

[Worthy4England]

Agree AT. It needs "something" As Thatcher might have said to the unions, the landbanks/developers need more stick and less fcuking carrot.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Agree AT. It needs "something" As Thatcher might have said to the unions, the landbanks/developers need more stick and less fcuking carrot.

Ban the feckers from donating to political parties might be a first step

[Worthy4England]

Is there a " We don't have a clue how to fix it, but we'll have a go" party? Let's start with compound interest limits on loans; that should defer a few of the "get money for nothing" fusileers. Then we could make wealth tax so high that the investors will be breaking their necks to part with money. That should have a dire effect on foreign owners of football clubs etc. Then get the sixteen year old brain-boxes to work on a full scale investigation into benefit cheats and illegal immigration for starters. Oka, that'll do for now...

Lets break this down a bit.

If I set the 16 year old an exam question, "You have no apples in a basket, can you afford to give 45,000,000,000 apples away?" I think they'd know the answer. Unfortunately it was beyond the fcuking remit of Liz Truss and Kamikwaze. The 16 year olds, will be paying for it long after those two jokers have left the building.

Illegal immigration - In 2016 we voted to take control of our borders, since then, the boats started and after then we've had the highest legal immigration ever. The government created the problem and offer no legally workable solutions, but legal migration is far outstripping boats, but as long as they have people focussed on the illegal bit, they might just get away with it. I think 16 year olds could spot, that 627,000 legal migrants is much higher than the 52,000 illegals, but the problem is the illegals? You couldn't make it up.

The 16 year old can probably also spot that if benefit cheats cost us £5bn, it needs clamping down on (although a chunk of that is money we handed out in error, rather than someone specifically cheating). They might also observe that it would be worth chasing up what the tax position was on the estimated £850,000,000,000 in offshore funds as estimated by HMRC. That looks like a wad to go at, yet the problem is only the benefit cheats.

That's before we get onto anything complex.

[Worthy4England]

Agree AT. It needs "something" As Thatcher might have said to the unions, the landbanks/developers need more stick and less fcuking carrot.

Ban the feckers from donating to political parties might be a first step

Agree - But maybe ban all lobby orgs etc. along with it. Clamp down on any "jollies" to the same extent as business has to work within these days - if it's over 15 quid (pick your low number), you can't accept it.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Agree AT. It needs "something" As Thatcher might have said to the unions, the landbanks/developers need more stick and less fcuking carrot.

Ban the feckers from donating to political parties might be a first step

Agree - But maybe ban all lobby orgs etc. along with it. Clamp down on any "jollies" to the same extent as business has to work within these days - if it's over 15 quid (pick your low number), you can't accept it.

May as well send a Typhoon over Tufton St whilst we're tidying up

[Worthy4England]

Agree AT. It needs "something" As Thatcher might have said to the unions, the landbanks/developers need more stick and less fcuking carrot.

Ban the feckers from donating to political parties might be a first step

Agree - But maybe ban all lobby orgs etc. along with it. Clamp down on any "jollies" to the same extent as business has to work within these days - if it's over 15 quid (pick your low number), you can't accept it.

May as well send a Typhoon over Tufton St whilst we're tidying up

Only after the limited nuclear armaments as a sort of "just to be sure"

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Agree AT. It needs "something" As Thatcher might have said to the unions, the landbanks/developers need more stick and less fcuking carrot.

Ban the feckers from donating to political parties might be a first step

Agree - But maybe ban all lobby orgs etc. along with it. Clamp down on any "jollies" to the same extent as business has to work within these days - if it's over 15 quid (pick your low number), you can't accept it.

May as well send a Typhoon over Tufton St whilst we're tidying up

Only after the limited nuclear armaments as a sort of "just to be sure"

Ok. That is sorted, what next?

[Hoboh]

My already militant anti-landlordism has taken a turn this week. Last summer post Liz Truss shit show I had to move house because the landlord wanted to put the rent up by 25%. Had to move out of central London and still pay more than I was. Shit, but that's modern Britain.

When making an offer for this place (now a thing you have to do to even rent) we mentioned we were looking to move somewhere long term. C*nt took the money, and now 8 months later has exercised the break clause and so we're f*cked and have to move house again. £25k down the swanee for nothing, and still some feck* can tell you your home isn't yours anymore.

Come the revolution I don't have any unrealistic visions about being a poet or an artisan.

I will take great job satisfaction in putting a bullet in the head of 40 landlords an hour. Day in, day out.

Maybe a ham sandwich for lunch.

I genuinely believe it should be law that you cannot own a house you don't plan on living in

I totally agree with that Boris.

And what a fantastic show on the election trail we have had so far:
Votes for 16yo, you can/cannot stand for election.
All kids to sign up for the army, well all mostly males, look at me falling off a paddle board, sliding down a water slide and now the promise of free Premier league on national TV channels!
Wake me up on the 5th.

[Worthy4England]

I totally agree with that Boris.

And what a fantastic show on the election trail we have had so far:
Votes for 16yo, you can/cannot stand for election.
All kids to sign up for the army, well all mostly males, look at me falling off a paddle board, sliding down a water slide and now the promise of free Premier league on national TV channels!
Wake me up on the 5th.

Yeah, it needs a rejoin the EU referendum from one of them. That should spice it up a bit.

[Hoboh]

I totally agree with that Boris.

And what a fantastic show on the election trail we have had so far:
Votes for 16yo, you can/cannot stand for election.
All kids to sign up for the army, well all mostly males, look at me falling off a paddle board, sliding down a water slide and now the promise of free Premier league on national TV channels!
Wake me up on the 5th.

Yeah, it needs a rejoin the EU referendum from one of them. That should spice it up a bit.

Did we ever really leave?
Yet another failure from the Con-servatives.

[Worthy4England]

I totally agree with that Boris.

And what a fantastic show on the election trail we have had so far:
Votes for 16yo, you can/cannot stand for election.
All kids to sign up for the army, well all mostly males, look at me falling off a paddle board, sliding down a water slide and now the promise of free Premier league on national TV channels!
Wake me up on the 5th.

Yeah, it needs a rejoin the EU referendum from one of them. That should spice it up a bit.

Did we ever really leave?
Yet another failure from the Con-servatives.

In what ways are we still in? We could just stop trading with them altogether. That'd make great sense.

What were you expecting to happen, given all the Brexit folks knew what they were voting for?

I was remain, not because I love the EU, just to save us this clusterfuck.

Sunlit fcuking uplands my arse.