| Love labour's housing promises, but 08:11 - Nov 21 with 2369 views | giant_stow |
Why not nationalise the house builders to make this all happen more quickly? |  |
| |  |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:11 - Nov 21 with 2017 views | hampstead_blue |
After all they do know how to run almost everything else!
Free house sir? |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 with 2002 views | giant_stow |
| 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 2019 9:23]
| |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:24 - Nov 21 with 1995 views | 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 |  | | |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 with 1993 views | StokieBlue |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 by giant_stow |
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 2019 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 |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:25 - Nov 21 with 1993 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 by giant_stow |
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 2019 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. |  | | |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:27 - Nov 21 with 1984 views | StokieBlue |
| 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 | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:27 - Nov 21 with 1981 views | giant_stow |
| 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. | |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:28 - Nov 21 with 1977 views | StokieBlue |
| 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 | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:28 - Nov 21 with 1975 views | giant_stow |
| 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. | |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:39 - Nov 21 with 1958 views | 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. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:44 - Nov 21 with 1946 views | hampstead_blue |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:22 - Nov 21 by giant_stow |
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 2019 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. | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:54 - Nov 21 with 1917 views | 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? |  |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:56 - Nov 21 with 1911 views | hampstead_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! | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:57 - Nov 21 with 1910 views | giant_stow |
| 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! | |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:58 - Nov 21 with 1908 views | giant_stow |
| 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. | |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:58 - Nov 21 with 1904 views | giant_stow |
| 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 | |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:00 - Nov 21 with 1898 views | 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. |  |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:13 - Nov 21 with 1849 views | StokieBlue |
| 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 | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:14 - Nov 21 with 1848 views | chicoazul |
There is no housing shortage. Like so many things in this country we have it completely bass akward. |  |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:18 - Nov 21 with 1841 views | No9 |
| 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 | | | |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:22 - Nov 21 with 1830 views | Ryorry |
| 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 2019 10:36]
| |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:28 - Nov 21 with 1818 views | hampstead_blue |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 09:57 - Nov 21 by giant_stow |
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. | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:37 - Nov 21 with 1800 views | Pinewoodblue |
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. |  |
| |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:50 - Nov 21 with 1781 views | CoachRob |
| 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? |  | | |
| Love labour's housing promises, but on 10:52 - Nov 21 with 1774 views | StokieBlue |
| 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 | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
