Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Love labour's housing promises, but 08:11 - Nov 21 with 660 viewsgiant_ullaa

Why not nationalise the house builders to make this all happen more quickly?

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

0

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:11 - Nov 21 with 460 viewshampstead_blue

After all they do know how to run almost everything else!

Free house sir?

Poll: Tea bag or loose leaves?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 with 445 viewsgiant_ullaa

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:11 - Nov 21 by hampstead_blue

After all they do know how to run almost everything else!

Free house sir?


I just think that out of all the stuff they want to nationalise, doing the large housebuildrrs might actually be worthwhile. Strip the profit out of that and more people can have one of the most basic needs met more cheaply. Or would you rather see kids living in b and bs?
[Post edited 21 Nov 9:23]

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

0

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:24 - Nov 21 with 438 viewsEdwardStone

I think that a dramatic reformation of the planning laws might give you a better outcome in a more timely manner

The planning laws are a throwback to the 1940s, a time of National Service, conscription to fight in the war, food rationing, clothing rationing etc

At that time the Govt had huge control over your life; what you may eat, what you may wear and even send you off to battle

Gradually these controls have fallen away and we can now chose what we might like to eat, wear or maybe volunteer to join up. However, we cannot seem to tear the grasp of the planning officials from the stranglehold that they exert over such a basic need as housing

Allow small and medium size building companies to get to work and you will have a huge number of innovative, forward thinking houses being built

Leave it to the big companies and you will have more of the same
3
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 with 436 viewsStokieBlue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 by giant_ullaa

I just think that out of all the stuff they want to nationalise, doing the large housebuildrrs might actually be worthwhile. Strip the profit out of that and more people can have one of the most basic needs met more cheaply. Or would you rather see kids living in b and bs?
[Post edited 21 Nov 9:23]


Certainly a nationalised house builder could work although unless they did all of them at once it would once again be unfair competition and likely put the others out of business.

However it would once again be nationalisation of a private entity which was never publicly owned. Eventually seizing of private property will curtail investment. Why invest if your asset can be taken from you at a price determined by the government and purchased in bonds which might become illiquid if enough are issued?

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 with 436 viewsClapham_Junction

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 by giant_ullaa

I just think that out of all the stuff they want to nationalise, doing the large housebuildrrs might actually be worthwhile. Strip the profit out of that and more people can have one of the most basic needs met more cheaply. Or would you rather see kids living in b and bs?
[Post edited 21 Nov 9:23]


I think the primary reason why they don't need to nationalise the housebuilders is that unlike utility firms, there is no infrastructure involved. There is nothing to stop the government setting up its own housebuilding company (something I think Stokie has suggested previously) and using it to build homes.
0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:27 - Nov 21 with 427 viewsStokieBlue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:24 - Nov 21 by EdwardStone

I think that a dramatic reformation of the planning laws might give you a better outcome in a more timely manner

The planning laws are a throwback to the 1940s, a time of National Service, conscription to fight in the war, food rationing, clothing rationing etc

At that time the Govt had huge control over your life; what you may eat, what you may wear and even send you off to battle

Gradually these controls have fallen away and we can now chose what we might like to eat, wear or maybe volunteer to join up. However, we cannot seem to tear the grasp of the planning officials from the stranglehold that they exert over such a basic need as housing

Allow small and medium size building companies to get to work and you will have a huge number of innovative, forward thinking houses being built

Leave it to the big companies and you will have more of the same


Lots of sense in this post.

Much more prefabrication needs to be done to improve both the speed of construction and the efficiency of the houses built.

We aren't talking 1960's prefabs here but modern and quality housing.

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:27 - Nov 21 with 424 viewsgiant_ullaa

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 by Clapham_Junction

I think the primary reason why they don't need to nationalise the housebuilders is that unlike utility firms, there is no infrastructure involved. There is nothing to stop the government setting up its own housebuilding company (something I think Stokie has suggested previously) and using it to build homes.


Fair dos mr, although setting up a large entity like that from scratch may take a while? Just thinking that nationalising a few might jump start things and open up those land banks.

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:28 - Nov 21 with 420 viewsStokieBlue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 by Clapham_Junction

I think the primary reason why they don't need to nationalise the housebuilders is that unlike utility firms, there is no infrastructure involved. There is nothing to stop the government setting up its own housebuilding company (something I think Stokie has suggested previously) and using it to build homes.


I guess the thrust of his point is that to creator a nationalised housebuilder from scratch would take years, maybe a decade.

These would be off-the-shelf so to speak.

I don't think it's required though - just better incentives, easier planning laws and perhaps a move to a different style of houses.

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

0
Login to get fewer ads

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:28 - Nov 21 with 418 viewsgiant_ullaa

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 by StokieBlue

Certainly a nationalised house builder could work although unless they did all of them at once it would once again be unfair competition and likely put the others out of business.

However it would once again be nationalisation of a private entity which was never publicly owned. Eventually seizing of private property will curtail investment. Why invest if your asset can be taken from you at a price determined by the government and purchased in bonds which might become illiquid if enough are issued?

SB


Get what you're saying, fair dos.

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

0

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:39 - Nov 21 with 401 viewslowhouseblue

which bit of the process would a state owned company be better at? digging holes and pouring concrete - or identifying sites, putting together plans and arranging funding? if it's the later then local authorities already have powers to act as developers - they should undoubtedly be given more flexibility particularly over funding. if it's the former I see no reason at all why a state company would be better at running a building site than a commercial contractor.

And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:44 - Nov 21 with 389 viewshampstead_blue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 by giant_ullaa

I just think that out of all the stuff they want to nationalise, doing the large housebuildrrs might actually be worthwhile. Strip the profit out of that and more people can have one of the most basic needs met more cheaply. Or would you rather see kids living in b and bs?
[Post edited 21 Nov 9:23]


We are building 6 units ourselves and one thing we've learned is that basic building regs is poor quality.

If the building regs were tighter and insisted on better levels of insulation and u values, the cost of running homes would fall by 50-60%.

I'm against big government. They do not know best. ALl what will happen is the Unions will control everything. Anything JM's nationlises will be a closed shop union led drain on society.

Allow tax breaks for social enterprise to flourish and local entrepreneurs will do a lot better.

Poll: Tea bag or loose leaves?

0

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:54 - Nov 21 with 360 viewsRyorry

Is the manifesto out in full yet? If so, is McDonnell's idea about allowing sitting tenants to buy their rental property off the owner at a below market price in it?

Poll: Are you relieved Paul Lambert didn't get the Scotland job?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:56 - Nov 21 with 354 viewshampstead_blue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:54 - Nov 21 by Ryorry

Is the manifesto out in full yet? If so, is McDonnell's idea about allowing sitting tenants to buy their rental property off the owner at a below market price in it?


Tell me that's fake news!

Poll: Tea bag or loose leaves?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:57 - Nov 21 with 353 viewsgiant_ullaa

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:39 - Nov 21 by lowhouseblue

which bit of the process would a state owned company be better at? digging holes and pouring concrete - or identifying sites, putting together plans and arranging funding? if it's the later then local authorities already have powers to act as developers - they should undoubtedly be given more flexibility particularly over funding. if it's the former I see no reason at all why a state company would be better at running a building site than a commercial contractor.


I wouldn't have thought a state owned company would be better at anything - more that it could do it cheaper by not having to serve profit to shareholders or pay huge excutive salaries. If their goal was changed from making profit to building the maximum number of houses possible, that mgiht open up the land bansk too. Maybe that's simpleton thinking - i accept this is possible!

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:58 - Nov 21 with 351 viewsgiant_ullaa

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:44 - Nov 21 by hampstead_blue

We are building 6 units ourselves and one thing we've learned is that basic building regs is poor quality.

If the building regs were tighter and insisted on better levels of insulation and u values, the cost of running homes would fall by 50-60%.

I'm against big government. They do not know best. ALl what will happen is the Unions will control everything. Anything JM's nationlises will be a closed shop union led drain on society.

Allow tax breaks for social enterprise to flourish and local entrepreneurs will do a lot better.


Sounds reasonable. I've certainly read loads of stuff about shoddy building standards with a lot of new homes.

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:58 - Nov 21 with 347 viewsgiant_ullaa

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:54 - Nov 21 by Ryorry

Is the manifesto out in full yet? If so, is McDonnell's idea about allowing sitting tenants to buy their rental property off the owner at a below market price in it?


Coming today I think

Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry.
Poll: What cheaky move will the Russian navy pull in the channel?

1

Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:00 - Nov 21 with 341 viewsElephantintheRoom

You can be as silly as you like - but you can't get away from the reality that Council housing - with rents being paid to the provider rather than private takers is a very good idea - as it was in 1945.

Only the Conservatives would sell them off with no plans to replace them. The complete absence of council housing in most areas is the real housing need in this country - not yet more executive boxes shoehorned into small spaces on green field sites.

Blog: Politics and Ipswich Town

2
Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:13 - Nov 21 with 292 viewsStokieBlue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:00 - Nov 21 by ElephantintheRoom

You can be as silly as you like - but you can't get away from the reality that Council housing - with rents being paid to the provider rather than private takers is a very good idea - as it was in 1945.

Only the Conservatives would sell them off with no plans to replace them. The complete absence of council housing in most areas is the real housing need in this country - not yet more executive boxes shoehorned into small spaces on green field sites.


In recent history Labour have had an appalling record at building council houses:

The Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses (local authority tenure) over the course of 13 years.

They were focused on getting as much stamp duty income as possible. I know it's not fair to compare that Labour government with a JC one but to say it's just the Tories who didn't build them is false.

I think we all want an election without fake news right?

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

0

Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:14 - Nov 21 with 291 viewschicoazul

There is no housing shortage. Like so many things in this country we have it completely bass akward.

Words are a medium that reduces reality to abstraction for transmission to our reason, and in their power to corrode reality inevitably lurks the danger that the words will be corroded too. It might be more appropriate, in fact, to liken their action to excessive stomach fluids that digest and gradually eat away the stomach itself.
Poll: How much are Phil Gav and the elusive Mark looking forward to next Friday?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:18 - Nov 21 with 284 viewsNo9

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:11 - Nov 21 by hampstead_blue

After all they do know how to run almost everything else!

Free house sir?


Watch the tories try to chuck the planning laws (& building regs) out to allow people to legally live in chicken huts as the UK becomes even more like a banana republic
-1
Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:22 - Nov 21 with 273 viewsRyorry

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:56 - Nov 21 by hampstead_blue

Tell me that's fake news!


Sadly not. He came out with it about 10 days ago, there was a thread on it which you'll find if you search my post history.

Edit: You'd have struggled to find it, as it starts with my post of 12.26pm on Oct.31st - which is on p.12 of a 19-pager! titled "Let's get it out there on the record then" started by Spruce.
[Post edited 21 Nov 10:36]

Poll: Are you relieved Paul Lambert didn't get the Scotland job?

1
Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:28 - Nov 21 with 261 viewshampstead_blue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:57 - Nov 21 by giant_ullaa

I wouldn't have thought a state owned company would be better at anything - more that it could do it cheaper by not having to serve profit to shareholders or pay huge excutive salaries. If their goal was changed from making profit to building the maximum number of houses possible, that mgiht open up the land bansk too. Maybe that's simpleton thinking - i accept this is possible!


it would be a unionised closed shop.
Full of corruption, bad practice, nepotism, and darn expensive.

Look back into the 70's at how Labour (the unions) ran businesses.
Let business do business. That's what it does.

I think you're wanting to get shareholder alignment of interest more socially focused?
Have a look at the Social Enterprise model. That may be of interest.

Poll: Tea bag or loose leaves?

0

Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:37 - Nov 21 with 243 viewsPinewoodblue

There are two major flaws in the current house building programme. First while help to buy is helping people become homeowners it is also a cash cow for the larger house builders.

Secondly there are far too many areas where one builder seems to have a monopoly. For example the development off London Road which will eventually contain 1,200 new homes built at a pace which will maximise the builders profit.

Poll: How many changes to starting eleven for game against Millwall?

0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:50 - Nov 21 with 224 viewsCoachRob

Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 by StokieBlue

Certainly a nationalised house builder could work although unless they did all of them at once it would once again be unfair competition and likely put the others out of business.

However it would once again be nationalisation of a private entity which was never publicly owned. Eventually seizing of private property will curtail investment. Why invest if your asset can be taken from you at a price determined by the government and purchased in bonds which might become illiquid if enough are issued?

SB


Just on the fake news point; are you saying the government can run out of its own currency?
0
Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:52 - Nov 21 with 217 viewsStokieBlue

Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:50 - Nov 21 by CoachRob

Just on the fake news point; are you saying the government can run out of its own currency?


No, I've clearly not said that.

However you are being disingenuous if you don't define "currency" in more detailed terms.

SB

“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."

0

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2019