The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

£39Bn announced for social and affordable housing. This is why it was critical to divorce capital from day to day spending in the fiscal rules.

The number isn't really that important - I mean nice that it's a chunk. It's what they do with it, given that they don't (generally) own any land and don't own any bugger to build them.

Yeah that’s the funding side sorted and beyond expectation - but they need to get the policy side right too. Their issue is that they may well not be in government and all these capital investments are ripped up before they bear fruit.

The devil will indeed be in the detail - if it's back end loaded then it might not actually be much above what had already been "promised," which was about £11bn over 5. Then there's the 10 year rent increases on the other side of the equation, and actually they seem to be saying this will allow HA's to buy currently built, unaffordable stock which could have some interesting localised market pricing implications....So I think I'll hold my powder for a bit.

[BWFC_Insane]

£39Bn announced for social and affordable housing. This is why it was critical to divorce capital from day to day spending in the fiscal rules.

The number isn't really that important - I mean nice that it's a chunk. It's what they do with it, given that they don't (generally) own any land and don't own any bugger to build them.

Yeah that’s the funding side sorted and beyond expectation - but they need to get the policy side right too. Their issue is that they may well not be in government and all these capital investments are ripped up before they bear fruit.

The devil will indeed be in the detail - if it's back end loaded then it might not actually be much above what had already been "promised," which was about £11bn over 5. Then there's the 10 year rent increases on the other side of the equation, and actually they seem to be saying this will allow HA's to buy currently built, unaffordable stock which could have some interesting localised market pricing implications....So I think I'll hold my powder for a bit.

I know you disagree but we desperately need to bring house prices down. The more we can do to achieve this the better. We simply can’t continue a bubble where house prices rise way above inflation.

In 1990 the average house price in today’s money was about £120,000 - with an average salary again inflation adjusted of £30,000.

Compare that to today’s average house price of 280K and average salary of £37K.

We can argue about wages but they’ve risen above inflation. Only slightly above but still.

However house prices are literally insane.

[Worthy4England]

Sorta yes and maybe no. What I (think) I have said lots, is that it would IMO be nigh on impossible to deliver anything like enough to have a consistent market impact across the UK, to do what you and Labour are suggesting it might by flooding the market...

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorta yes and maybe no. What I (think) I have said lots, is that it would IMO be nigh on impossible to deliver anything like enough to have a consistent market impact across the UK, to do what you and Labour are suggesting it might by flooding the market...

Maybe but we need to build more. That’s not in question. We as you say need to also do other things to try and bring prices down across the board.

[Worthy4England]

Sorta yes and maybe no. What I (think) I have said lots, is that it would IMO be nigh on impossible to deliver anything like enough to have a consistent market impact across the UK, to do what you and Labour are suggesting it might by flooding the market...

Maybe but we need to build more. That’s not in question. We as you say need to also do other things to try and bring prices down across the board.

How about we start with building the 1m+ that already have planning permissions but aren't built? Difficult to argue the planning system is slowing those down.

That's 2/3rds of the dumb headline target.

Which bit of yesterday's announcement do you think will bring the prices down?

[Hoboh]

The only way you would get 'affordable housing' is if taxpayers provided the money to support it but, that money is being splashed aound everywhere else and there is none to spare,

[Worthy4England]

The only way you would get 'affordable housing' is if taxpayers provided the money to support it but, that money is being splashed aound everywhere else and there is none to spare,

Pretty much true. They have 5 definitions of "affordable" all of which are linked to market prices not wages...

The reality is, they can't build "affordable houses" linked to 3/4 times wages, they'd get closer maybe if we weren't relying on profit making companies to build them. Trying to crash house prices isn't going to alter that. It's not difficult to understand, even Shelter say the same.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm still of the opinion that building properly affordable homes for long term rent is the way to go. If you have a perfectly good home that you can live in for as long as you like (assuming you pay rent and don't trash it), then many wouldn't feel the need to buy. That would leave 'the market' to eat itself, whilst the rest of us get the BBQ out and chill with a cold beer.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm still of the opinion that building properly affordable homes for long term rent is the way to go. If you have a perfectly good home that you can live in for as long as you like (assuming you pay rent and don't trash it), then many wouldn't feel the need to buy. That would leave 'the market' to eat itself, whilst the rest of us get the BBQ out and chill with a cold beer.

Yep - agreed. And we can just tax the hell out of private landlords in the meantime.

[Worthy4England]

I'm still of the opinion that building properly affordable homes for long term rent is the way to go. If you have a perfectly good home that you can live in for as long as you like (assuming you pay rent and don't trash it), then many wouldn't feel the need to buy. That would leave 'the market' to eat itself, whilst the rest of us get the BBQ out and chill with a cold beer.

I agree, pretty much. I noted that Reeves as the "other side of the cash drop," tied affordable rents to CPI+1% to try and make social rents more like market rents - that's gonna bite.

[BWFC_Insane]

The only way you would get 'affordable housing' is if taxpayers provided the money to support it but, that money is being splashed aound everywhere else and there is none to spare,

Pretty much true. They have 5 definitions of "affordable" all of which are linked to market prices not wages...

The reality is, they can't build "affordable houses" linked to 3/4 times wages, they'd get closer maybe if we weren't relying on profit making companies to build them. Trying to crash house prices isn't going to alter that. It's not difficult to understand, even Shelter say the same.

But isn’t large amounts of the money just announced going to LA’s and social builders? I get that maybe the scale isn’t there now but certainly I heard someone on the radio saying a big chunk is going there - and that it’s a good thing - maybe not enough but a first step.

I do think also we will get more affordable homes allowing builders to access more low barrier sites which does seem to be the plan. I agree they won’t be as good in relation to wages as 1990 and that we need social housing but that appears to be the plan.

[Worthy4England]

The only way you would get 'affordable housing' is if taxpayers provided the money to support it but, that money is being splashed aound everywhere else and there is none to spare,

Pretty much true. They have 5 definitions of "affordable" all of which are linked to market prices not wages...

The reality is, they can't build "affordable houses" linked to 3/4 times wages, they'd get closer maybe if we weren't relying on profit making companies to build them. Trying to crash house prices isn't going to alter that. It's not difficult to understand, even Shelter say the same.

But isn’t large amounts of the money just announced going to LA’s and social builders? I get that maybe the scale isn’t there now but certainly I heard someone on the radio saying a big chunk is going there - and that it’s a good thing - maybe not enough but a first step.

I do think also we will get more affordable homes allowing builders to access more low barrier sites which does seem to be the plan. I agree they won’t be as good in relation to wages as 1990 and that we need social housing but that appears to be the plan.

Well yes - but "so what?" How is it going to solve the problem? This is the point I keep coming back to

Ignore the how many we need debate and whether some strange economics is going to operate to some sort of text book supply and demand.

The price per square M in Wigan is approaching £3k (that was what they used 4 years ago, it'll have certainly increased now) for a smallish flat - say 50m2. £150k that's over 4 times local earnings, nearer 5 for a can't swing a cat, flat.

80m2 is probably a pretty bijou semi - that's going to be pushing £250k

I genuinely don't understand which bit you're missing (not trying to have a dig)? £250k is 8x the average wage in Wigan.

What bit of Reeves extra cash do you think is going to bring down build costs, land costs and profit? They don't build "social houses" any blinking cheaper.

[Worthy4England]

It's equally possible I'm missing something you're not - so tell me if I am.

Irrespective of volumes and markets, it's going to cost someone £250k in Wigan to by a new semi-d.