we all agree on the need for more houses but just not here !!

Why would incentive become force? We're incentivised to do all sorts of things already. It's not a new concept.
Bedroom tax was unpopular with people who might have had to pay it. Hence the problem. Those who have want to keep. Those who don't have don't get a look in.
If we don't want more building, we need better distribution. There's no alternative.

Many countries have those rules. There's absolutely no reason why we can't do the same, apart from lack of political will.

I think the fastest way to solve the immediate problem would be to ban foreign house purchases. If you arent a UK passport holder and habitually resident in the UK you are not allowed to buy a house. Or a property of any description. I’m sure of the countries have those policies.

But when does incentive become force?
Remember how unpopular the proposed bedroom tax was.
Sorry about being defensive.

Cut stamp duty for downsizing, council tax discounts, make pensioners in social housing pay bedroom tax. Off the top of my head.
You don't need to get so defensive btw. I said incentivise not force.

Those saying “but where I live is a special case because we just don’t have the infrastructure” make me laugh. Where do they think does have the infrastructure. Where are these underpopulated areas with plentiful GPs, empty roads, a great public transport system and schools with empty classrooms?

It’s just a politer way of being a nimby.

Why can't we change it? There's no reason why we can't incentivise downsizing or homesharing is there?
I live in a house I love, that is, technically, too big for me. As does my 94 year old mother.
I would love to what 'incentives ' you have in mind that aren't sinister.

Totally agree

Do we really need to build more housing? Or do we need to stop people turning perfectly good accommodation into Airbnb, and to do something about the hundreds of thousands of houses standing empty?

Even before brownfield building, there are nearly 700,000 homes in England that are standing empty, over 250,000 long-term. It's bonkers to build over useful land when we have an entire major city of homes standing empty.

I don't think any green belt should be built on while there are whole areas of brown field.

Both from environmental and food security perspectives.

Why can't we change it? There's no reason why we can't incentivise downsizing or homesharing is there?

How is that affordable for a single income?
For a dual income, yes—nevertheless, salaries have been stagnant for 20 years. We're not in the 60s, 70s, or 80s of growth; that period is gone and is NOT coming back.
The North also has poor transport networks, so bad they're estimated to stifle economic prosperity to the tune of £300 billion over the next generation.

I'm aware that there is a problem with a aging cohort living in houses that are (theoretically) to big. Like me.
But that's a variable that we can't change.

Well, Labour had better get a grip on immigration quickly if they're doing this. The optics are crap.
Fwiw I would only allow people to own one house (and I'm speaking as someone who lets out a house). If all the buy to letters had to sell up, property prices would go down.
Lastly, I LOATH the way that the government frame opposition to this as NIMBYISM. There are very good reasons for people to oppose development.
But then, I wouldn't expect anything less from Angela Rayner

I don’t mind people building houses where I live. Unless someone lives in an original house from the “settlement” they really can’t complain. As long as infrastructure is in line with the houses I’m fine with it. We just need sole extra GPs where I live really.

Rise in life expectancy is a major driver in rise in housing needs in UK.
Shall we start calling for people to die younger, that could do a lot to address the housing crisis. And the social care crisis. Or could demand that old people must live with relatives and everyone live in smaller homes.

It's about as rationale a plan as insisting that stopping immigration would stop housing shortages.

There are hundreds of thousands of empty properties in the country. The government has powers to seize them. That would be preferable to infinite greenbelt building in a climate crisis.

Social housing isn't part of the normal market though. You are entitled to stay in it for life, priority goes to need etc.
If the UK had enough social housing for everyone that needed a home when they moved out that's state control. Fine I guess but it's not what we are used to in the UK.

It very much was the norm before the right to buy. In the 60s/70s every young family who wanted a home could apply to the council and within a reasonable time be allocated a house. The RTB wiped out the social housing stock and it wasn't replaced. There were private landlords before that but not a huge part of the market. There were also rent controls. The growth in private landlords is a direct result of RTB.

FWIW as an old person living in a village I would love to see house building here. Much of the problem is because everyone wants to cram into a small part of the UK. I'm no fan of Angela Raynor but I think what she is doing to push through building is brilliant.

We don't need more houses, we need fewer people.

If we build new houses, people will just move into them. We can't keep building more houses infinitely. So there has to be a time to say "no more". It might as well be now.

It's very unfair on our young people

Construction is a popular course.

I'm sure it's because the businesses can get away with paying overseas workers lower wages and there are dubious practices

But large numbers seem to leave further education with no jobs to go to within any of the more academic subjects, social sciences and subjects like art /music etc.

Perhaps removing some of these courses where large numbers end up working in supermarkets etc, would free up funding for more hands on based learning like the building trade.

Just 37% of students go to Uni, that leaves 10s of 1000s each year who do not.

We ve huge shortages of Teachers Engineers Healthcare staff, all of whom need a Uni degree.

Its very difficult to train up a young person into a trade, doing a 2 or 3 year college course without an employer sponsoring you and providing work experience, means you'll leave college without a job and with no real life experience, you'll struggle to get one.

Blame the industry, these highly profitable building companies haven't invested in training.... now bleat "we haven't skilled labour..."

It's such a shame

Also why ruin the beautiful countryside