to think that the government just needs to build masses of new council housing to solve the housing crisis

[fakenamefornow]

In the past those who could afford to buy a house did and those who couldn't afford to buy a house got council housing, either way people had a secure home to live their life and raise a family. Now it is much more difficult for young people to access either of these options, instead they live in private rented, paying a fortune and with no security.

PWC said recently that in 10 years time 40% of households will be in private rented. What is going to happen when these people retire? In the past home owners will have paid off their mortgages and live off their pensions, no ongoing housing costs for the state to pick up. Council tenants would still have rent to pay in retirement so would receive HB to do so, this money would be going back into the pocket of the council, so effectively, no ongoing cost for the state to pick up. Private renters are imo unlikely to have pensions big enough to pay rent on a house so will receive HB, this will go to private LL at massive cost to the state.

I heard that the Gov plans to make public institutions sell of land for housebuilding to private companies. Why don't they just build the housing themselves and use it for social housing thereby dodging the bullet coming our way and helping out our young people now. Social housing used to be for everyone, now it seems it's just for those up shit creek.

I know, I know very little about economics, I don't pretend I do so please don't be rude about my lack of knowledge, just explain why building lots of social housing isn't the best plan. The only reason I can see for the Gov not building social housing is ideology, but I think pursuing that ideology is just to expensive in the long run.

You can't simply keep building more and more and more houses. Not without very quickly destroying the countryside, wild life, and starting to encroach on farmlands. That's putting the cost argument totally to one side.

Frankly the government should be doing more to start to decrease overall population size (increased controls on migration, incentives for smaller family sizes, etc), rather than just constantly expanding to fill it.

This isn't a "immigration is the cause of all problems" rant, it's more that we need to decrease numbers, and much stricter controls on migration is a more palatable solution than long term solutions like one child policies.

You're advocating government intervention in family size?!

How would you see that working?! I can see that tax credit cuts could potentially affect a few people - although personally don't actually agree with that thinking logically or morally.

I wasn't slating all estates there were lovely ones in other towns. Just where I grew up in the 80s in Glasgow was awful. Damp cold houses, full of ex cons, usual few creepy kid fiddlers, and alcoholic people. High unemployment due to the shipyard closures and factory closures. It was grim.

Frankly the government should be doing more to start to decrease overall population size
say like China, with the one child policy?
cuz that went real good for them didnt it

the problem is more that we have too many elderly people who are not economically productive

I dont see what the govt can do to cut those numbers down...maybe enforced euthanasia at the first sign of short term memory loss?

Maybe enforced euthanasia at 67?That would solve the housing crisis, cost of pensions, care costs and NHS costs!

67 seems a bit young though, most people could still be working at that age, and there will be plenty of jobs in care homes!

oh wait if we euthanise the elderly that will mean there even fewer jobs to go round

gosh it's so tricky isnt it!

Maybe all the rich old people rattling around in massive houses could be forced to sell them cheap to the govt who could turn them into apartments for hard working families?

All joking about "rattling around in empty houses" apart: It's their home, it's where they belong. There is a distant relation-by-marriage of mine, mid-eighties, lives in the house in which she and her late DH brought up their daughters, the younger of whom is 52.

If she ever has to go into residential care it will be the death of her in short order. The longer she can stay where she is the longer and happier her life will be. And damn it, she and her husband paid for it, so don't tell me she is being selfish. She is not.

The Country needs more houses so the Government needs to look at ways to incentivise it using private finance, there is no other way of increasing the housing stock. It isn't possible for the Government to do itself as it can't finance its spending without borrowing as it is.

Government needs to look at ways to incentivise it using private finance, there is no other way of increasing the housing stock. It isn't possible for the Government to do itself as it can't finance its spending without borrowing as it is.

Where do you think private companies will get the money to build from? They will most likely borrow it. This means they must think building houses is a good investment that will more than pay for itself so what's so bad about the gov borrowing the money for investment like this?

The Country needs more houses so the Government needs to look at ways to incentivise it using private finance

Sorry but you have it so wrong, there is nothing wrong with finance, developers are sitting on land as well as having applications being processed for new developments.

They also blackmail local authorities into massively decreasing the numbers of social housing houses down to single %.

They callously start and stop building there is an estate near us couple yrs ago all construction was stopped during downturn until prices picking up again.

People need to wake up about the private sector.

Maybe if we got rid of all of the bureaucracy, affordable housing percentages, planning gain, etc. and just let developers get on with building houses we wouldn't have the shortage that we do.

The more interference there is the more the market is skewed and the more the price of new properties for regular people is pushed up.

There is massive waste and inefficiency by the Labour types in the housing associations. A study discussed on BBC Newsnight last night pointed to the huge amounts that some housing associations are spending on management, which some on annual salaries of £300k+. The average cost of a housing association building a house is £150k compared with £90k for private developers. And before the usual suspects (morons) start trying to justify the difference - this reflects identical houses and excludes cost of land.

Frankly, those who whine about not being able to afford a house need to cop themselves on - work harder, get better educated, stop spending so much money on frivolities, and stop voting Labour.

Frankly, those who whine about not being able to afford a house need to cop themselves on - work harder, get better educated, stop spending so much money on frivolities, and stop voting Labour

yeah, they're just morons anyway arent they Retrobot

We could look at building kibbutzes. There is somehow an assumption that people without need someone to walk up to them and give them stuff. But, it ain't necessarily so. Lots of people just don't have access to the resources to grow and make stuff for themselves.

retrorobot forgot to add, join an investment bank or declare profits for Tesco. I think Tesco financial managers and investment bankers do have houses.

There are some things for which the capitalised model just doesn't work. It's fun watching the tortuous logic of those trying to make it work though. It inevitably ends up with some social groups being described as moronic or lazy or irresponsible.

There is massive waste and inefficiency by the Labour types in the housing associations. A study discussed on BBC Newsnight last night pointed to the huge amounts that some housing associations are spending on management, which some on annual salaries of £300k+.

Whats labour ideals got to do with it? privatisation of services and unfettered executive excess is a core tory tenet.

You got it the wrong way around less intereference has lead to a crazy market where rents can be increased arbitrarily and very little comeback for poor housing conditions.

Retrobot you need to check your entitlement not others, i had no inherited wealth but was only through some lucky work breaks I was able to get a deposit, a lot of people don't have that opportunity, I could say some BS trope about working hard but its a lie.

Would love to hear what jobs people are supposed to be able to do in a climate of zero hours/contract/restricted single employment.

Andrewofgg All joking about "rattling around in empty houses" apart: It's their home, it's where they belong. There is a distant relation-by-marriage of mine, mid-eighties, lives in the house in which she and her late DH brought up their daughters, the younger of whom is 52.
... damn it, she and her husband paid for it, so don't tell me she is being selfish. She is not.

She sort of is, actually. I would be hesitant to use the word because it's a sort of wider societal selfishness due to norms of the generation, rather than a personal thing exactly, but still. "I paid for it, it's mine, never mind the effect on others from people under-occupying..." That's why that generation voted Thatcher in.

Why didn't she and her DH downsize once their children had left home, presumably some years ago? The answer of course is that that's not the social norm, peope expect to stay in the same house after a certain point. Why? When it is causing problems? And what about renters, especially elderly ones who rely on Housing Benefit? If it's so inhumane to move, shouldn't we be protecting them urgently?

I have an elderly relative in the same position and I'm not advocating we chuck them out... but that we encourage downsizing earlier on to avoid this sort of situation in future. My relative is all the more likely to end up in residential care - or needing home care - because she is in an oversized house she increasingly struggles to manage.

Building mixed housing, so downsizing means moving around the corner rather than miles away, would help.

element The attitude that when you've paid for a house it's yours for as long as you choose goes back long before Margaret Hilda. It was why my parents struggled to buy their first house in 1951 when that nice Mr Attlee was the Prime Minister. In fact it has existed in the mind of homeowners since there were homeowners, even when they were a tiny minority of the wealthiest people. And the homeowners were and are right.

It's no use blaming Thatcher for everything you don't like!

Why didn't my relations move? Because their friends and associations were in the area of their home. Because what had been their daughters' bedrooms became a guest room and a study. That's not under-occupying- it's using space differently.

I agree it's awful but I think the main reason the government (any government) won't build more council housing en-mass is cost (isn't it always). There's the cost of land (sure to sky-rocket when the land owner finds out it's Government who wants to buy) the cost of the build (ditto - £1,000 for a loo roll holder as with the MOD and its £1,000 screws), plus the ongoing and ever increasing maintenance costs (which would be huge as the build quality will be so poor compared to twentieth century council houses).

as to what happens when people retire, the government will have to step in and pay any shortfall on rent.

I think it's a shame that some people wont be able to buy their home but as always, it comes down to money and I'd sooner see homeless/hungry/abused/sick people taken care of using this money if it comes down to a choice of what to fund.

when renters make up a large enough proportion of the electorate, when those with good middle class jobs cant afford the middle class lifestyle that they've been brought up to expect, then the govt will have to legislate so as to appease them

Renters won't vote renter as long as they aspire not to rent.

And what sort of appeasement had you in mind?

Corbyn was on the radio this morning talking about the benefits bill and housing problem, his suggestion was a massive capital investment program to build more council houses....

As a business owner I understand that capital investment must bring in more net income than it costs to maintain, otherwise it just becomes a financial drain..

This country cannot continue to pay for the massive social/familial changes that have occurred over the past 30 yrs...

Well, after a couple of generations of Tory rule, when single mothers are selling themselves on the streets of London and day labourers queue up for any work they can get. Following massive conscription to fight Daesh, in which half a million or more have died, in a struggle that's lasted seemingly for ever, when Britain as a whole feels that it needs a New Deal, and a Land Fit for Heroes, Corbyn might be right. But, unfortunately, by then, he'll have been dead for about twenty years. Countries do vote for huge social spending, Beveridge and all that. But, they don't just wake up one morning and do it. We haven't hurt enough, yet, for the new Beveridge to be popular. But, Osborne and IDS are doing all they can to fix that.

Element - I vehemently disagree that a person living in a home - which they have bought - is any more selfish than a person who chooses to have a big family when they can't afford accomodation large enough to accomodate them. Why should someone who lives in a home that they have bought, lived in, and have years of memories in, have to move out to accomodate the life choices of someone else?

Suzanne - Not sure if you bothered to do anything more than skim my comment. The whole point was that morally speaking, social policies on family sizes won't work - hence saying numbers needed to be cut through immigration.

But yes, overall I think pretty much every country could be doing more/anything to encourage a lower birth rate. How you even seen the projected population numbers? Global population growth is a huge area of concern.

You can encourage smaller families by making all contraception free of charge (as we do), stopping child benefit/tax credits, etc after a certain number of children, or through giving big tax breaks/benefits/financial incentives to families that only have one child/two children/insert number here.

There are positive re-enforcement options as well. You'd have to be extremely stupid to consider that there was only ONE way of doing anything.

overall I think pretty much every country could be doing more/anything to encourage a lower birth rate
no need population growth is slowing

many countries are concerned that the birth rate is too low
we are predicted to peak at 10 billion in 2080 or so then drop off, give it till 2200, place will be near enough deserted!