| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! 17:48 - Oct 10 with 5612 views | Lord_Lucan |
He's a bloody quick builder. It took Mothers builders 4 months just to build her Granny Flat
 |  |
| |  |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:22 - Oct 11 with 1538 views | Dubtractor |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:10 - Oct 11 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You think the answer to the housing crisis is for people to live in a stranger's back bedroom?! |
Suspect the point is more that people don't need to live in houses too big for them.
But that argument is a bit simplistic unless we propose ripping up capitalism with regard to our housing stock, as the families that would in theory use those larger houses simply couldn't afford them. |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:23 - Oct 11 with 1536 views | Dubtractor |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:15 - Oct 11 by Herbivore |
Does it still count as a spare bedroom if you're using it as a home office? Asking for a friend. |
I have the same question, also for a friend. | |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:30 - Oct 11 with 1505 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:22 - Oct 11 by Dubtractor |
Suspect the point is more that people don't need to live in houses too big for them.
But that argument is a bit simplistic unless we propose ripping up capitalism with regard to our housing stock, as the families that would in theory use those larger houses simply couldn't afford them. |
I think people ought to be able to live in whatever house they choose/can afford.
A lot of these homes with un-slept-in bedrooms are older couples whose kids have moved out, should they be forced out of their family home into something smaller?
And how would you decide what "too big for them" is? As in where's the cut off point?
Seems a dodgy plan to me. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:35 - Oct 11 with 1479 views | WeWereZombies |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 07:52 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
A truly deranged policy, when there are many thousands of homes with at least 2 unused bedrooms. |
You are blindsiding questions about tenure, shared facilities and status perception just a wee bit there. |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:50 - Oct 11 with 1450 views | chicoazul |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:35 - Oct 11 by WeWereZombies |
You are blindsiding questions about tenure, shared facilities and status perception just a wee bit there. |
It’s not that hard is it?
Government after government think the solution to the problems faced by, in particular young people and the less well off, is to build ever more houses. Meanwhile there are tons and tons of houses lived in by people who don’t need all that space. And I have no answer to how it would be done but rather than building and building and building, a far better idea would be a fair and equitable system of incentivising people to leave homes that are too big and free them up for families who need them.
The point about home offices is in hindsight quite a good one. I suppose that means that room is not unused? |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:53 - Oct 11 with 1437 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:50 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
It’s not that hard is it?
Government after government think the solution to the problems faced by, in particular young people and the less well off, is to build ever more houses. Meanwhile there are tons and tons of houses lived in by people who don’t need all that space. And I have no answer to how it would be done but rather than building and building and building, a far better idea would be a fair and equitable system of incentivising people to leave homes that are too big and free them up for families who need them.
The point about home offices is in hindsight quite a good one. I suppose that means that room is not unused? |
So people just have to say "Yeah, we use that room for X" to get round your plan?
You haven't really thought this through have you? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:54 - Oct 11 with 1434 views | baxterbasics |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 22:18 - Oct 10 by BlueBadger |
Funny how things change Politicians now take have elocution lessons to make themselves sound MORE 'human', she had hers to sound less. |
Not fair. Mrs Ts voice coaching was a response to rather sexist mocking she had received from the opposite benches in parliament when she spoke. They made fun of how shrill she sounded - hence the deeper, more authoritative tone which she then developed. |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:12 - Oct 11 with 1404 views | Herbivore |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:50 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
It’s not that hard is it?
Government after government think the solution to the problems faced by, in particular young people and the less well off, is to build ever more houses. Meanwhile there are tons and tons of houses lived in by people who don’t need all that space. And I have no answer to how it would be done but rather than building and building and building, a far better idea would be a fair and equitable system of incentivising people to leave homes that are too big and free them up for families who need them.
The point about home offices is in hindsight quite a good one. I suppose that means that room is not unused? |
But the people who can't get on the housing ladder aren't in the market for large, expensive homes? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:13 - Oct 11 with 1401 views | chicoazul |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 08:53 - Oct 11 by The_Flashing_Smile |
So people just have to say "Yeah, we use that room for X" to get round your plan?
You haven't really thought this through have you? |
We all know you rely on us to do most of your thinking for you Jerseys but on this occasion you might need to work it out for yourself, failing that watch the adults do it for you but it may take a while. | |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:17 - Oct 11 with 1384 views | DJR |
This succession of tweets from a housing expert yesterday was illuminating.
The idea of new towns is exciting and planning rules which could see them acquire land cheaply would be a big move. But there will need to be money coming in to make it work.
So many big ‘new town’ type proposals only live in political speeches, and die on contact with the real world. In the Coalition era, there was some sort of new garden town or village announcement every couple of years, and none built.
Part of the problem is that if you let the market lead a project like this it will take forever. Often literally. The private housing will be phased and dripped through. Look at how long Ebbsfleet is taking despite HS1 opening 16 years ago.
What you need to do is stick in a big mix of housing tenure – including loads of social rent – which aren’t reliant on the private market or developers’ calculations on absorption rates. But that costs money. You’re also going to have to spend a lot on infrastructure. [Post edited 11 Oct 2023 9:20]
|  | | |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:25 - Oct 11 with 1357 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:13 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
We all know you rely on us to do most of your thinking for you Jerseys but on this occasion you might need to work it out for yourself, failing that watch the adults do it for you but it may take a while. |
LOL, classic TWTD abuse to avoid the point.
"In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness..." ARF! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:30 - Oct 11 with 1343 views | itfcjoe |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:17 - Oct 11 by DJR |
This succession of tweets from a housing expert yesterday was illuminating.
The idea of new towns is exciting and planning rules which could see them acquire land cheaply would be a big move. But there will need to be money coming in to make it work.
So many big ‘new town’ type proposals only live in political speeches, and die on contact with the real world. In the Coalition era, there was some sort of new garden town or village announcement every couple of years, and none built.
Part of the problem is that if you let the market lead a project like this it will take forever. Often literally. The private housing will be phased and dripped through. Look at how long Ebbsfleet is taking despite HS1 opening 16 years ago.
What you need to do is stick in a big mix of housing tenure – including loads of social rent – which aren’t reliant on the private market or developers’ calculations on absorption rates. But that costs money. You’re also going to have to spend a lot on infrastructure. [Post edited 11 Oct 2023 9:20]
|
I listened to something with Liam Halligan - who is a GB News Business Editor, Telegraph columnist, Brexiteer etc.....he's done a lot of work/writing about this and even someone from that viewpoint basically says the big property developers are a cartel, who buy land to stop nimble smaller developers building houses, they own all the planning permissions and do this to just control the market totally.
Interesting for that view to be so explicitly stated by someone on the right |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:52 - Oct 11 with 1309 views | DJR |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:30 - Oct 11 by itfcjoe |
I listened to something with Liam Halligan - who is a GB News Business Editor, Telegraph columnist, Brexiteer etc.....he's done a lot of work/writing about this and even someone from that viewpoint basically says the big property developers are a cartel, who buy land to stop nimble smaller developers building houses, they own all the planning permissions and do this to just control the market totally.
Interesting for that view to be so explicitly stated by someone on the right |
And interesting to note that others on the free market right welcomed Starmer's proposals. This from yesterday's Guardian.
Starmer wins praise from free market Tories for his plan to tackle obstacles that hold back building
Right-wingers on the free market wing of Tory politics like what Keir Starmer said about releasing “grey belt” land for housebuilding.
This is from Kate Andrews, the Spectator economics editor and omnipresent right-wing pundit.
"I've thought for a long time that the party that grasps the nettle on housing will see huge electoral success. Lots of promises made, but Starmer's speech today is a game-changer. Mention of green-belt makes me think a party is finally serious about this. And it's Labour."
This is from Simon Clarke, the Tory former levelling up secretary.
"The “green belt” isn’t all beautiful verdant land. This all-too-effective title has allowed politicians and NIMBYs to hide behind it for too long to block much-needed new homes. My party needs to respond to this challenge."
And this is from Robert Colvile, head of the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank and one of the authors of the 2019 Tory manifesto.
"It is a disgrace that the Tories have let Labour steal their clothing as the party of housebuilding. That section of Starmer's speech was excellent, but given the scale of the housing crisis, this should be absolutely cross-party."
But given the general support from those who are probably Truss supporters, maybe this explains this from the Telegraph's Christopher Hope.
"Dozens of rounds of applause for Sir Keir Starmer from the Labour faithful. In many respects this is a speech a Tory leader could give, apart from the non-dom tax and adding VAT to private schools bills. Starmer is defining himself against the chaos of the Tories." | | | |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:57 - Oct 11 with 1282 views | NthQldITFC |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 23:45 - Oct 10 by redrickstuhaart |
We do need more housing, the system is utterly broken.
We do need to rethink the obsession with growth and immigration to deal with ageing population though. Not because immigration is a problem, but because its a ponzi scheme, in a pretty densely populated country. Time to look beyond growth and increasing population to fund our society and to concentrate on things that matter. |
Yup. We have to be able to face those fundamental questions about how we can aim to be a sustainable country on that basis, without population expansion running at about 10% per decade. |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 10:03 - Oct 11 with 1266 views | giant_stow |
Great to see a solid policy which would make a difference. If they coul just nationalise the big house builders too, then we'd really be onto something. |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 10:07 - Oct 11 with 1244 views | Pinewoodblue |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:30 - Oct 11 by itfcjoe |
I listened to something with Liam Halligan - who is a GB News Business Editor, Telegraph columnist, Brexiteer etc.....he's done a lot of work/writing about this and even someone from that viewpoint basically says the big property developers are a cartel, who buy land to stop nimble smaller developers building houses, they own all the planning permissions and do this to just control the market totally.
Interesting for that view to be so explicitly stated by someone on the right |
They also release new homes at a pace that allows them to maintain their profit margins.
Presumably Starmer intends to put a stop to this but it is difficult to see how it can be done. |  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 10:15 - Oct 11 with 1236 views | Darth_Koont |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 10:03 - Oct 11 by giant_stow |
Great to see a solid policy which would make a difference. If they coul just nationalise the big house builders too, then we'd really be onto something. |
Sorry – thought I was replying to you in the other thread. [Post edited 11 Oct 2023 10:16]
|  |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 10:36 - Oct 11 with 1202 views | chicoazul |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 09:12 - Oct 11 by Herbivore |
But the people who can't get on the housing ladder aren't in the market for large, expensive homes? |
Not sure i said they are? | |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 12:04 - Oct 11 with 1144 views | Herbivore |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 10:36 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
Not sure i said they are? |
But then how does your solution become a solution when it doesn't address the problem? | |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 12:28 - Oct 11 with 1103 views | chicoazul |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 12:04 - Oct 11 by Herbivore |
But then how does your solution become a solution when it doesn't address the problem? |
What solution? I literally said i don’t have an answer. | |
| |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 12:49 - Oct 11 with 1093 views | Herbivore |
| You have to give it to Starmer, fair play! on 12:28 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
What solution? I literally said i don’t have an answer. |
So was the stuff about spare rooms just some apropros of nothing stream of consciousness stuff? Because it seemed to be you were suggesting we don't need more houses because people have spare rooms but you've not really explained how the two are related? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
