Ed pledges to cap rent rises, extend standard tenancies & scrap fees

They could divert the billions they current pay private landlords in housing benefit into a massive house building programme. Something like 40% of the housing benefit bill now goes straight into the pockets of rich landlords. This also places a floor on rents since landlords know this is the minimum they can receive. It's ridiculous that tax payers are paying for the pension/mortgage of landlords. This is market intervention, not natural market where supply and demand. If housing benefit for private rentals were removed rents would fall rapidly. But most landlords vote Tory so this is a no no. They would rather have tenants living in insecure, shitty accommodation that they are paying high rents for than building 100,000s of homes that would make life better for so many people, reduce welfare costs, reduce medical costs (bad housing makes people ill) etc.

Landlords already get lots of tax breaks, have access to specialist low cost mortgages that first time buyers don't, they can ofset costs against tax, claim back mortgage interest etc, how can young first time buyers compete? They don't have to be on any national register and HMRC estimates that many hundreds of thousands of landlords are not even paying tax on the rent they receive. The "market" is totally distorted in favour of older, rich, landlords.

HoopyViper …. Further to your following point;
“You'll have to humour me a bit here Isitmebut, but I do often wonder how it is we could afford the Olympics and the Jubilee (not to mention high speed rail) but do naff all to create properly affordable housing. Or am I being too simplistic?”

In answer to your question to the affordability of building social/council/affordable homes, there is a ‘then’ and ‘now’ government financial situation as the Coalition inherited in 2010 a UK that was ANNUALLY spending £157 billion a year MORE than what we earn – as well as LESS council/social homes available in 2010, than in 1997.

And although the Coalition has reduced that to just over £100 billion annually - we NOW have an (accumulated) National Debt of £1,270,000,000,000 (£1.27 trillion) and it is costing £52 billion a year out of our national spending budget, JUST to cover the interest on that debt, that gets ever larger until any government gets the spending under control

Hence my point, we need (for now) to rely too much on Private Sector landlords and Private Sector new homes, until this government (and/or the next) can build more than they currently are.
www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-borrowing-powers-for-councils-to-build-10000-affordable-homes

The fact is that back ‘then’ from 1997 to 2007, we had the money, but had different priorities.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

www.taxpayersalliance.com/economics/2009/09/new-book-reveals-the-total-cost-of-gordon-browns-mishandling-of-the-economy-as-3-trillion-or-3000000.html

Even though the government was warned around the time we opened our doors to the EU, we already needed twice as many homes built per year (whether our population was to grow due to EU economic migration, or not).

The (2004) Barker review – pre EU immigration Barker recommended that we had to DOUBLE home building back then.

www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing
Kate Barker, a member of the monetary policy committee, was asked a year ago by Gordon Brown and the deputy prime minister John Prescott to carry out a review of the housing market in the UK.

Shelter (2009); The housing crisis in numbers – and the need for spare bedrooms, never mind homes.
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis.

P.S. An infrastructure project like HS2 that can help bridge the North-South divide, encourage more businesses/jobs North and generally make it easier for more workers to commute further for work ADDS to the economy for decades to come. Building up an expensive Quangocracy just helps ‘the few’ well paid government employees, creates more anti growth red tape and just ADDS to our annual budget deficit.

I could add that we have always trained and worked as hard as our circumstances would allow.

When everyone 10-15 years ago shouted at us "buy, buy, buy!" at stupid rates (and some are now too as we race towards similarly stupid prices) we could see the way ahead down that route was doomed. And it was. The bad practices that would have made us able to take out a mortgage were called to an abrupt halt. It would have been irresponsible for us to have taken on a mortgage, but many others jumped at it.

There for the grace of God go I. Maybe I'd be an accidental landlord now, who knows.

I agree JaneParker, I don't think any party has a sensible or realistic plan that will do nearly enough.

You'll have to humour me a bit here Isitmebut, but I do often wonder how it is we could afford the Olympics and the Jubilee (not to mention high speed rail) but do naff all to create properly affordable housing.

Or am I being too simplistic?

It feels to me that private renters are copping the flack for others in dire situations, ie negative equity brought about by disgraceful banking practices.

1. Under th eplans if the landlord needs to move into the property the 3 years goes out the window (i.e. there is no 3 year guarantee - just smoke and mirrors)
2. The rent can increase in accordance with increases in local market rents - that is what landlords all currently do anyway
3. The costs on the tenant by the agent will just be swallowed into the rent which will be higher so no saving to the tenant.

Therefore the plans are totally pointless.

The blokes an idiot.

Labour left a critical Energy shortage, so is looking to discourage Energy company investment with State control.

Labour left a critical 'earnings'/unemployment situation via a great recession and is looking to discourage business investment/jobs with State controls.

Here Labour is looking to solve a critical housing shortage by discouraging those they encouraged to become landlords e.g. killing Private Pensions, with rent controls.

Wouldn't it be 'nice' if Labour GOT IN FRONT of one of their policy problems, BEFORE trying to screw those propping the problem up??????

When Labour tells us how they will build 200,000 new homes a year (never mind put break ground), when during mass immigration they could only build an annual average of 115.000 - then they should be careful not to threaten those who might find the prospects of on-going State controls e.g. locking them into 3-year contracts with rising interest rates/mortgage funding costs, NOT WORTH THE 'RISK'.

Sure there are buyers, but it is those that cannot afford to buy, that still need a place to live, which makes the problem of the COST of renting, secondary. IMO.

^ That's a perfect summary right there.

We are exceptionally lucky to have just been offered a Housing Association flat, having been evicted through ll selling up for the 3rd time in 4.5 years (7yr old and 3yr old DC).

The disruption to our lives has been immense; on top of DPs business struggling from first crash, my own health problems, caring responsibilities and DS1 struggling on an IEP at school.

This move is now costing the tax payer less in housing benefit as we will be down to receiving less than £10 per week, as opposed to the several hundreds a month we were given to keep a private rented roof over our heads. I think it's actually shocking that we have been propped up in this situation for so long. The LLs of course will be profiting very nicely from the £40K we and the state have given them over the last few years.

I don't care that we lose our lovely home and garden for a first floor flat (although am waiting for the stigma to kick in, I hope the DCs friends will be kind when they visit). At this point in time, stability from which we can plan our way forwards to save, and potentially buy is far more valuable.

The housing benefit bill is something like £25 billion and 40% of this is going straight into the pockets of private landlords via housing benefit. This is ridiculous. They could use that money for a mass social house building program. Instead we have the situation where full time workers earning a pittance are having to pay extortionate rents from their highly taxed PAYE jobs to fund the pensions/property portfolios of the older generations whose houses do all the work for them and they can even use tax breaks to reduce their tax burden. "Generation rent" are being royally screwed by the selfish generation who have benefited from cheap housing, great pensions at an early age, free education and continue to benefit from things like winter fuel allowance. It's completely topsy turvy. The younger generation is being forced into penury so the rentiers can live it up without having to work.

I suspect a Conservative government in a second term could handle effectively everything that needs to be done to encourage/finance/build both private and public housing in increased numbers

I would have to agree to differ.

Well not to cry too hard over spilt milk over the doorstep, we missed our big chance when we had the money to do something about it - and we are unlikely to see anything too creative and 'cheap' so soon after the worst recession in over 80-years and that huge population growth before hand - resulting in a double whammy of low private investment and rising prices, although outside London still just below 2007/8 highs.

• Private Sector building needs to be encouraged rather than threatened, not just the large builders, the small ones now around 50% less than in 2007/8.

• Building regs and red tape cut and putting applications through quicker.

• More land offered out NOT on flood plains.

Politically on the first two Labour only know how to do the opposite, but a 'brave' Miliband with SOME substance could get away with offering up more land e.g. green belt, due to their mainly inner city voter base.

I suspect a Conservative government in a second term could handle effectively everything that needs to be done to encourage/finance/build both private and public housing in increased numbers - but would not bring home prices down quick enough to make housing 'affordable' without building on 'green' land, which I believe would be a policy too far for a Conservative P.M.

Rent, energy or any other 'controls' in a tight market is not the way forward, it kills the market.

Which brings us back to the suitability and cost of affordable new housing. As well as realistic, achievable and sustainable plans for the way forward.

None of which we are seeing.

We need the least amount of building in sensitive landscapes and better use of our existing buildings. There are many new build properties on Rightmove in my area which are mahoosive 3-5 bed luxury homes going for top dollar. There may be demand from people moving up the top end of the ladder, doesn't mean its a sensible or priority objective to meet it. I'm not even certain the demand is there.

What shit will we be in with more flooding? I think the most thought provoking bit of footage I saw was of man-made flood-defenses being washed away like loo roll. Let's not forget that statement from the Wildlife Trust was issued before this winter's most recent and extreme flooding (I presume given the document it refers to is July last summer). Are we really certain this government is the right track and well advised? (Thinking of the flack the Environment Agency got in Somerset).

Raising the amount councils can borrow for new social housing is certainly a good start, now we need creative development.

While I understand the need to look after our wildlife, the fact of the matter is that we only build on around an average of 10% of the land, in the South East (excluding London) its closer to 12% - whereas countries like Germany that build on 15% of their land do not have our shortage problem.

Governments not builders are to blame, from the recession hit 1990's where 'real' home price dropped substantially, to the 2000's where pre biggest years of immigration this report suggested £1.2 to £1.4 billion could have solved our social housing problem - when spending 100 times that was blown on a fat, inefficient, Quangocracy.

The (2004) Barker review: key points

www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing
"Kate Barker, a member of the monetary policy committee, was asked a year ago by Gordon Brown and the deputy prime minister John Prescott to carry out a review of the housing market in the UK."

"She was specifically required to look at what was behind the lack of supply of housing in the UK and the inability of the housing market to respond to this. Also within her remit was the role of the house-building industry, the level of competition within it, its capacity, technology and level of finance."

"The final review has now been published, just in time for Gordon Brown's budget."

The main findings

• In 2001, around 175,000 houses were built in the UK. This was the lowest number since the second world war. Over the past 10 years, the number of new houses built has fallen and is now 12.5% lower than in the previous decade.

• In the last 30 years, UK house prices have gone up at double the average rate of increase in the EU. In real terms, prices have increased by 2.4% a year in real terms - compared to the EU average of 1.1%.

• A weak supply in housing means a less stable economy. This has an impact on the flexibility of the labour market, which in turn puts a strain on economic growth.

• Low availability of properties pushes prices up, making housing increasingly unaffordable. In 2002 only 37% of new households in England could afford to buy a house, compared with 46% in the late 1980s.

• These pressures mean a greater divide between "haves and have-nots", driving a gulf between people who can afford housing and those who cannot. According to the review, in 2003 there were 93,000 households in temporary accommodation compared to 46,000 in 1995.

that should have linked:

www.sussexwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/archive/page00019.htm

Isitmebut, I don't own one.

Can we really blame, or tax them for the time it takes to get planning and other permission (past numerous local special interest groups) as prices go up?

I'd wager much of the delay is due to justified objection to outlandishly profit based proposals.

From my local area: :

As the country remains in the grip of devastating floods and water supply problems, Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) is urging a re-think of the government’s housing proposals contained within a Green Paper, published on Monday 23 July.

The draft Housing Green Paper indicates the government will continue to build houses on flood plains as long as proper flood defences are in place. SWT argues that environmental limits should be respected when proposing the location of future housing. Our current crisis stems from years of building on flood plains, our over-reliance on man-made flood defences, and the removal of wetlands which can act as natural sponges, soaking up water and slowing it down in times of flooding.

“The last thing that river valleys such as the Arun, the Ouse and the Adur need is more built development” says Dr Tony Whitbread, Chief Executive of SWT. “This summer’s catastrophic floods, and the flooding of Lewes in 2000, show only too brutally what we can expect in a changing climate. New developments have to allow space for water - building impermeable new landscapes is not an option for the future.”

SWT believes the Government must now react by creating policies, through its housing green paper, which encourage developers and local planning authorities to build truly sustainable housing. It should avoid floodplains and protect and enhance wildlife habitats, such as wetlands, on a landscape scale. A three-pronged approach is needed; encompassing building homes in the right places and in the right way; restoring and creating healthy ecosystems and managing our river headwaters better to slow down run-off into rivers and streams. By working with nature, rather than against it, we will help society and species adapt to a changing climate, including increased rainfall.

Input from locals who know the area and understand it is vital. I know who I'd prefer to listen to and I'd be very concerned at short-cuts to exclude this kind of knowledge.

OldMrsSaucepan ….excuse me, I didn’t realise that you “owned one” whether in the development advertised or elsewhere – but I’ll certainly agree that they are very nice and if I could afford a holiday home at all, never mind that very high standard, I’d buy one.

Back to your last point re the probability that there are huge land banks sitting there that could alleviate the homes shortage, as alleged by Mr Miliband in blaming builders for his homes shortage, energy companies for his energy shortage and every other company for not hiring and dramatically increasing everyone’s salaries ABOVE INFLATION during the worst recession in nearly 100-years – clearly not understanding what ‘a recession’ to the Private Sector, means.

‘Company bashing’ is almost as therapeutic as ‘bank bashing’, but we have to be careful as companies only just having the confidence to start investing substantially will STOP if they feel their businesses will be subject to the overly large hand of a socialist government as in the 1970’s e.g. Corporation Tax at 50%, killing future investment and/or R&D.

Can we really blame, or tax them for the time it takes to get planning and other permission (past numerous local special interest groups) as prices go up?

"UK housebuilders counter Ed Miliband's land-hoarding claim"

Plots are developed as soon as they have planning permission and 557% profit rise 'comes from very low base'
www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/16/uk-housebuilders-ed-miliband-land-hoarding

“Britain's housebuilders have launched a scathing counter attack againstEd Miliband's claim that they are hoarding land for profit.”

“The industry said plots are built on as soon as planning permission is secured, and argued that the 557% increase in profits among the nation's four biggest housebuilders this year comes from a very low base following the financial crisis.”

“Pete Redfern, chief executive of Taylor Wimpey, said: "The industry is only just returning to the point where it is meeting its cost of capital following the most prolonged downturn in housing history.”

"The comparison used for profitability is against a point where many in the industry were loss making, so a percentage improvement is rather meaningless."

“Britain's chronic housing shortage is expected to push up prices by as much as 8% next year according to the property website Rightmove, unless a flood of new properties are built.
The biggest four developers by turnover – Barratt, Berkeley, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey – have a collective land holding of almost 300,000 plots.”

“Miliband is accusing housebuilders of holding on to land to push up values, and claims some "stick-in-the-mud councils" are blocking development.
Redfern strongly rejected the Labour leader's accusation that housebuilders are hoarding land.”

"We continue to start all sites as soon as possible once an implementable planning permission is received. Taylor Wimpey specifically and the industry as a whole have only a tiny percentage of sites that have a planning permission, where construction has not been started."

“A spokesman for the Home Builders' Federation (HBF), the industry's trade body, said: "Developers don't land bank, all the evidence is there. As soon as developers get a planning permission they want to start on site. Developers are not land hoarders."

Yes the homes in the link are glorified caravans and only able to be occupied 11 months of the year. Blooming nice caravans though – and would make more than adequate permanent homes in a crisis – I’d have one!

My point is that it is perfectly viable to be creative with the types of buildings we use to help the housing crisis, which clearly can be low cost. It’s the cost of the land that is the issue.

I’m not convinced that the way we’re going about building houses provides us with the best outcome in terms of affordable homes. As far as I can see, we primarily build social or affordable housing as part of massive private developments of the kind we’re already used to (and seeing flying up everywhere, certainly in the south/south east) with vast profits from the larger private sales as the driving force and priority, is this really the best way? The social elements are clearly insufficient in numbers or “affordable” either by most pockets, and broad-scale habitat destruction is a cost none of us can afford (and this isn’t about fluffy animals, lentils or tree huggers – our very survival depends on being part of an efficient eco-system).

I am sure we have the ability to identify and make suitable land available for development without destroying wildlife habitats on which we depend. What I am not sure about is how far we are strung up by the short and curlies by large developers who have bought up all the available land and are sitting on it until they get the green light to reap in as much profit as possible.

OldMrsSuacepan ..The plans above are from a coalition that came to power with a £157 billion a year government overspend that has to reduce that annual deficit, re build the Private Sector to create sustainable economic growth/jobs and build more residential homes (including social/council) than the previous government when during their watch, our citizen count went up by 2.5 million.

Miliband’s plans are typical, because Labour cannot build anything i.e. homes, nuclear power station or private sector jobs, they just like to use Big Government to State tinker, where in 13-years, I believe with nearly 4,300 new laws, that was more legislation than for all the previous administrations for the rest of the century COMBINED. Whether we call them new rules, regulations or red tape, it stifles rather than promotes private investment in the area we both NEED it now and struggle to find public money to replace it.

Regarding the ‘homes’ you show us, in my opinion they are just up-market private sector holiday homes, with 11-month a year occupancy like the one my departed mother used to spend in her multi bed roomed (static) caravan.

Councils need to get their act together and/or a brave political party has to finally decide to build wholsesale on the green belt – but something has to be done to further reduce the home building log-jam

“Councils hustled over housing, says National Trust chief”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27007451

“But the government said it valued and protected the countryside and councils had had a decade to come up with plans.”

“In 2004, the Labour government introduced local plans, requiring councils to set housing targets and identify a rolling five-year supply of developable land.”

“And, in April 2012, planning law in England was further changed to speed up decisions, with a "presumption in favour of sustainable development" unless negative considerations "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh positives.”

I agree Isitmebut. Can't help but think both these and Ed's plans are token gestures with votes in mind. And I think the definition of affordable needs an overhaul.

Just posted this link on the next generation thread www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-31589666.html

I find it staggering that proposals like these holiday homes for wealthy people have taken precedence over being made available for struggling families priced out of their area.

Government help to build more homes is necessary and I see that this was announced recently, but clearly a lot more needs to be done.

www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-borrowing-powers-for-councils-to-build-10000-affordable-homes

"Communities Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury announce new borrowing powers."

“New borrowing powers will enable councils to build up to 10,000 affordable homes, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander announced today (7 April 2014).

"From today councils can bid for a share of £300 million of extra borrowing, which will be made available through an increase in their housing revenue account borrowing cap, and invested in new affordable housing over 2 years from 2015."

"Ministers also confirmed that the rules about council land sales would change, so more surplus and redundant land and property can be released to build homes for local communities."

"Councils applying for extra borrowing powers will need to demonstrate maximum value for money, by including funds from disposal of surplus assets, particularly high-value vacant stock, and by bringing forward their own land for new affordable housing.
Councils building more"

"The government has untied councils’ hands by reforming the system for council house finance. Councils can now keep their rents and receipts from house or land sales, in return for taking more responsibility for housing in their area."

"Since 2010 170,000 affordable homes have been delivered across the country, while councils have built more council housing in the last 3 years than in the previous 15 years combined."

"Today’s move will allow councils to build on this progress and ensure local people have the affordable homes they need.”

Iseenyou …. For heavens sake, growing the Public Sector by over 1 million and transferring civil service jobs out of London and the South to Wales and other places WAS the last government’s regional jobs plan – coming unstuck at the first major recession when with a £157 bil the government then has to decide (as 100% tax payer funded) did we really need them all.

When the Statistics office went to Wales and not enough employees relocated, they had t a hell of a job replacing them and national stats went wobbly for months and the BoE etc had to formulate policy around it. When those DVD’s of peoples personal data went missing, somehow getting lost between offices, when they looked into the office, the poor buggers hardly had an ‘ology between them and the place was in chaos.

So the lessons there were two-fold, there were not always the numbers and qualifications of workers needed in some towns AND often public sector salaries 'crowded out' the lower ones private sector employers could afford.

Back to the rent cap, if the availability of private rented properties falls it is a huge problem, NOT to the vendors who buy those properties to owner occupy, it is for those NEEDING to rent but DON’T HAVE AN OPTION TO BUY, like many in Shelter’s waiting list etc statistics I gave earlier - why can't you see that not everyone can buy and that a FALL in the numbers of rental properties within a private sector means exactly that, fewer options to the poorer people in society?

And regarding no lack of housing supply... to smooth this out would involve moving masses of people to Grimsby and Hull from London. Can't see that happening - because we're not actually in Venezuala.

Iseenyou most housing associations now develop with no or minimal grant - money is raised commercially from banks and repaid back through rents or sale of a proportion.