Donate SIGN UP

Should Our Economy Be Based On London & Se Alone?

Avatar Image
youngmafbog | 12:44 Tue 20th May 2014 | News
21 Answers
http://news.sky.com/story/1265185/house-prices-up-as-pm-mulls-help-to-buy-future

all the warnings and figures bandied about are skewed by London. The ONS said annual house price rises in England were being driven by a 17% year-on-year increase in London, a 6.6% hike in the East and a 6.1% rise in the South East. Clearly the 8% average does not represent the majority of the country so is it time to look at diverting assistance to where it is needed and away from where the problem exists?

Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 21rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/diverting assistance .... away from where the problem exists/

what do you actually mean?
in what way?
Question Author
OK, well taking the help to buy. In London it is likely to be fuelling house prices with potentially disastrous results. However elsewhere there is no problem and it may well help those areas to continue it. So funnel the (quite large) funds used to purchase expensive properties in London and the SE to say the North or SW.
This is a difficult problem ymb, and no mistake. According to everybody that I have heard interviewed, one of the roots of the problem is that we are just not building enough new houses, and that is everywhere, not just London.

It seems a no-brainer to me...if people need affordable housing, then lets build them ! It would help with our unemployment rate at the same time.

I know that this is probably not going to very popular here on AB, but I think we should go back to building council houses. Radical perhaps but it helped after the War ! When all those council houses were sold off in the 80's and 90's, local councils were prevented from using the money raised to build replacements. I never understood that then and I still don't understand it now.
No, and it isn't, unfortunately the press reporting of it seems to be!

I agree mikey, they should start building council houses again and allocatiing them to those in work too. The great council house sell off was a brilliant idea but I never quite understood why they where not allowed to build new ones with the proceeds. It seems to me that by crearting the next generation of council tennants we would also be creating the next generation of home owners when they buy them. keep the circle going.
Question Author
I agree with the building of council houses Mickey. However I woudl prefer to see them built as 'normal' houses without that 'council' look. Agree with TTT, they need to be given to working people as a preference and a full and proper rent charged. If sold they could be at a small discount but not massively so and the money all ploughed back in.

TTT, YMB, and me .....all agreeing with each other !

Flipping heck...I may have have a little nap, just to recover !

Out of interest, does anybody know why the Tory government of the time stopped local councils from using money raised to build new houses ?

I have yet to see anyone here on AB agree with the policy, so it would be nice to know why.
//does anybody know why the Tory government of the time stopped local councils from using money raised to build new houses ? //

I think the reason was two-fold.

1. The cost of maintaining social housing is prohibitive; therefore when council houses were sold off, the stock wasn't replaced.

2. It was an exercise in attempting to make people take responsibility for themselves rather than relying upon society to prop them up.
Was the cost of maintaining social house more expensive than paying huge sums to greedy private landlords and B+B's to house our citizens, in grossly over-priced accommodation ?

Wouldn't the council workers made redundant have cost society more in welfare payments, when the councils made them redundant ?

Didn't the fact that the government of the time think that people would be so grateful for being allowed to buy their council houses, that they would continue to vote Tory, until 1997 have some say in the policy ?

But my question was....why were Councils prevented from building new houses to replace the ones that were sold off, not why were houses sold off in the first place ?
//But my question was....why were Councils prevented from building new houses to replace the ones that were sold off//

I answered your question. Because the cost of maintaining social housing is prohibitive.
Sorry to spoil the party chaps:

"...one of the roots of the problem is that we are just not building enough new houses,"

No. The root problem is that there are too many people in the UK. And the biggest driver of that is immigration and its set to worsen, especially in London and the South East. In 2010 more than one in three London residents was born outside the UK. It's almost certainly greater than that now. Immigration will add nearly 7 million to our population in the next 20 years, mainly in England. Nearly 40% of household formation between now and 2030 will be as a result of new immigration - that is 2.5 million extra households. That's 166,00 homes a year or 500 new homes A DAY needed each and every day for the next 15 years just to cater for immigration. This does not, of course include new homes needed to cater for general population growth (of which many immigrant groups contribute disproportionately). As a comparison, in 2013 there were about 120,000 newbuild starts.

Of course not all of these will be "affordable". So-called affordable homes have to be afforded by somebody and it is not usually the occupants. What is the point of providing huge sums in subsidies to make homes affordable so that people can come from other nations to settle here?

The root cause of the housing problem is that there are far too many people in the UK. This is particularly so of England and even more so of the South East. England is now the most crowded country in Europe apart from Malta and the fourth most crowded major country in the world. Anybody who believes there are too few houses and the answer is to build more and more of them needs their bumps felt.
There's no shortage of houses. The estate agents windows are full of them. the problem is that no-one can afford to buy them, except the people who already own at least one house. I reckon these are the people that keep buying up the affordable ones as fast as the govt can build them, so they can add to their property portfolio.
More prohibitive than all things I mentioned in my post naomi ? I don't think so. Its someone tells you it is, then there is a lot of crafty accounting going on. The housing budgets of most Councils are huge, especially in London and the South East, and its all being wasted on greedy landlords, instead of being ploughed back into the local economy. As other right-wingers have agreed on here today....build more council houses !
Mikey, you do get your knickers in a knot. You asked a question - I gave you the answer.
O dear Youngie - if we open your chest will we see a pinko wet heart bleeding under all that Tory bluster....

now what was the question ?

if the sun rises in the east and favours londoner should we legislate that it rises first in the North for the benefit of all those humourless manx ?

yeah why not - give it a try . This is called bucking the market and never works, but what the hell - next election we will get a load of new politicians who are ever ready to give old theories a new try...
Yeah Ni.... or Nai Ni....
]]
Ihave come to the conclusion that social housing costs us a bomb

and my Iwo Jima I regret, was hearing that a family of 10 somali refugees had refused a 5 bed council house in my part of the city because.....
it was too rough. [ I mean you know it wasnt moss-side or anything ]

and you know, I had a thought and thought I am not prepared to pay my taxes for this sort of thing.....
They are expensive because there are not enough of them, ludwig. It's called supply and demand. And there are not enough of them because there are too many people here.
Actually - there's another problem which people don't really recognise.

50 years ago, you had multi-generational housing. It was pretty much unheard of for young single people to set up home on their own. Young couples used to live with mum and dad until they got married. Then they would save and buy or rent (private or local authority) their own place.

Then in the 70s and 80s young single people started buying their own places. This is a phenomenon that continued until fairly recently...because now, young people (especially in London and the South East) have been virtually priced out.

Also, I challenge the assumption that there isn't enough housing stock. There are great swathes of deserted housing all over the North West (especially outside Liverpool) which local authorities cannot renovate and use. It's an unspoken national scandal. It's not a lack of housing...it's a lack of housing in the right place, coupled with inadequate local infrastructure (eg. shops, transport etc).

George Clarke presented a documentary on this last year. Absolutely disgraceful. A huge housing stock simply rotting away.

We're talking thousands of homes!
If any of you missed it:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/4od

We don't have 'too many people' - we have too many empty houses!
// inadequate local infrastructure (eg. shops, transport etc). //
even when houses are in the right place, inadequate infrastructure is still a problem. whatever it is that's been built, be it housing, retail, leisure, the developers always seem to assume universal car ownership.
they are not building a lot of social housing in the capital, because developers want to see a return on their investments, going on avarious planning meeting at the council i have attended, they have to include a number of units in their portfolio called affordable homes, however they won't necessarily be affordable to someone on 7 quid a hour, or even on a middle income wage in the capital. Whereas overseas buyers are snapping up properties before they are even built, on the premise they are a good investment, some may not even be lived in, left empty then the entire building sold lock stock and barrel, as an investment,
as to Social housing being sold on after the tenants have lived in them for a set period, how does that help the next batch of people who need a home but can't afford to buy, a million quid won't buy you much here, isn';t that something. You can buy cheaper but it may well be in an area that is so far on the fringes you will have to commute a long way in, buying or renting in the capital is a crap shoot, with few winners.

1 to 20 of 21rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Should Our Economy Be Based On London & Se Alone?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.