Labour wants to build huge amounts of new houses

[RudsyFarmer]

I’ve just been listening to it being discussed in the radio. The conservatives are not building enough to support the growing population.

i completely understand the need for millions of new homes but man I feel so sad for the loss of green space. Is it just me being ridiculous? Make me feel better about it as in my local area there is just continuous new housing every here. I can’t imagine that quadrupling year on. 900 houses in the next village alone. 5,000 homes have created a new town a few miles away. I want my kids to be able to live in a house but also want them to see the odd field.

I think a real issue is the fragmented nature of housebuilding in that every "trade" involved wants to make a high profit, and when house prices are high, it means lots of people in the building chain are making a lot of money. Even subbies are charging silly amounts of money for a day's work because they're in high demand. Then with the actual "firms", such as groundworks etc., it's not just the workers themselves, there are also the owners who are just taking profits because they can.

If there was a squeeze on sale prices, then everyone in the building/supply chain would have to reduce their profit/wages expectations back down to more realistic levels, as they'd have to do it, or would get no work.

Unfortunately, unless council start to employ their own builders etc., nothing would change if councils wanted to build more council houses, as they'd need to engage building firms to actually build them, and those firms would again want the same level of wages/profits. The only way to reduce costs would be for councils to employ their own tradesmen to build them, thus stripping out the "profit" elements from every step of the chain. That's never going to happen.

We need more housing but developers should not be allowed to
constantly get away with the cheaper option eg build on clean flat fields . There are so many existing buildings that need renovation and reuse , brownfield sites , closed down boarded up shops etc etc .
Also a smaller group but planning laws are not conducive to the growth of home ownership and need total modernisation for current conditions. Self builders , the number of people with small parcels of land who would like to build a home on it including me . It's all so antiquated.
We have a new garden town being built where the number of social houses has reduced and reduced . Even the starter homes won't get change from £400k , how can people on normal wages afford this .
People are also paralysed by feudal leasehold laws but developers like them because once sold it's still an income stream . No matter Labours ideas I don't think the housing market will work for anyone . There's just too much money at stake .

Opinion isn't data. Migration Observatory is good on this and on the trends over time.

Long-term settlement patterns were quite different between visa-free EU immigration and ROW immigration.

^ this

You can see it in the NHS. But we're still planning hospitals, health and social care based on the needs of the previous generation. People that would have been in hospital 50 years ago are now mostly cared for in the community. People that are in hospital now by and large wouldn't have been in hospital 50 years ago, because they would have died.

The tax cut budgets of the 1980s didn't foresee the exponential growth in care costs that was coming for the taxpaying generation of that decade now that they are enjoying the extended retirement of increased longevity - with all the issues that old age brings.

A lot of our local high street is now bars, cafes and activities so we wouldn't want to lose space for housing. I also wouldn't want to live there!

Most of the new builds that are out of town are built with car drivers in mind, you can walk to the bus stop but that's largely reserved for the kids waiting for the school bus.

The problem with mixed affordable housing and market rate development is unless a restriction is put on who can buy the affordable housing, then others don't want the houses around it so the developer struggle to sell them.

We came from a mixed development to an older private build detached estate. It's lovely that all the houses are the same, we don't have area of high density housing or rough streets unlike our old house which was actually in a more desirable area (we moved more rural).

People wanted rid of council only estates due to the stigmatise of them being rough so the government can't win.

I would be more worried about the legislation coming in about all rentals being a minimum of a EPC C than developments not including affordable housing.

We are currently fighting a development near us, they could buy another brown field site but it won't have the views they want to market from this particular plot.

I live in Surrey. I'm always seeing posts on Facebook outraged about new builds etc and I think it's very sad. the people outraged are living in their lovely houses, with lots of space and don't seem to realise that more is needed. The only thing that concerns me when I see these plans is that they seldom seem to address the issue of the need for additional services and infrastructure alongside the housing, which IS a problem.

I also think we need to be a lot more creative with how we do more housing. Someone mentioned upthread about how in this country everyone wants a house. I have family in various European countries and many live in flats. But a flat in those countries vs any flat I've ever seen in England are like chalk and cheese. My brother's "flat" has a footprint larger than my house. It's a relatively small block with three stories and, I think, a total of 6 flats. He also has a huge balcony with plenty of space for loungers, outdoor tables and a BBQ. I would quite happily live in my brother's flat and definitely see advantages in terms of space, less maintenance etc. But I've never come across anything even vaguely similar here.

How many people from the EU have applied for settled status?

Let me tell you. 6 million. The settlement d status allows them live, and work in the UK long term and for their family to join them.

Is that an opinion or would that be a fact?

Immigration. Our population has gone up more than 10 million since 1980 (and possibly much more than this).

That's a huge increase, and we haven't built anywhere near the number of homes to catch up with this.

Apparently it's bigoted to point this out. But it's always the poorest people in our society, in the most deprived areas, who suffer the most from such rapid social change – maybe we could think about those people, for once.

Also, I see people claim that we 'need' immigration to keep our health system etc going. But those countries that these health workers come from – don't they need those skills too? We don't seem to have any qualms about depriving poorer countries of their nurses and doctors.

@Doagooddeed

Completely agree with you re council housing. The selling off of council houses is another scandal of our times with no thought to the future. Private landlords (in the main) will not have an interest in renting to people they see as 'high risk' when there are queues of better prospects waiting. There will always people who struggle and surely there should be proper council housing provision for these people.

Applying for settled status now (to allow them to stay in the country for the time being at least) has zero bearing on whether they plan to stay in the country in their retirement. It's a simple case of keeping their options open and making a short-term choice.

That’s your opinion.

The facts say otherwise.

The facts back @JassyRadlett

Also my experience backs @JassyRadlett - I'm in London.

The facts are that 6 million people from
EU have obtained settlement in the UK.

it’s your interpretation that this is short term.

The issue locally is the lack of services. We live rurally, but my village has become very desirable since covid staycations. There will be 5000 new homes within the next 2-3 years. It’s appalling. There is one small primary which is already over subscribed since they finished one housing estate last year. You can’t get an NHS dentist within an hours drive. The Drs is over run. Our sewage system is at capacity, and floods over when it rains, flooding some peoples gardens with raw sewage. The roads are breaking down with massive potholes due to all the heavy construction traffic.

but another 5000 houses without addressing any of this. It’s criminal.

Millions of new houses means nothing if people can't afford to rent or buy them....

You can't compare post-Brexit Settled Status applications with pre-Brexit FOM migration patterns. The situation is completely different.

Pre-Brexit EU migration was very fluid. People came and went freely, that's what FOM meant. Some stayed longer, some went home sooner. Some settled for the rest of their lives, some for just a few months. And it went both ways - although the rather backward attitude the UK has always had to 'foreign' and foreign languages meant that it wasn't an even flow in both directions.

Brexit required any EU citizen exercising FOM rules at the time the right was withdrawn to either apply for Settled Status or GB citizenship. Settled Status did not and does not imply the intent to stay indefinitely. It was a requirement to stay at all. This despite the duplicitous lying by Vote Leave that inssted they would not have to apply to stay in the UK post-Brexit.

The bureaucracy around Settled Status has made it harder for EU citizens in the UK not to stay for longer. If they leave for too long they lose that status and can't return. The Home Office frequently invents reasons to deny or remove from EU citizens with a legal right to live in the UK that legal right. If the UK could be trusted to honour Settled Status rights there might be a significantly greater degree of fluidity in EU-UK migration even post-Brexit.

Landlord would take on these tenants if the system was changed to make them responsible for their actions. Rent paid direct to the landlord with a premium and some form of panel that the landlord can present the case to at say 48hrs notice with an immediate eviction notice issued would be a good place to start.

Looking at the council estates near us it's a mixture of those genuine families who have fallen on hard time and the tenants that no one wants to deal with. The end of building 100% council estates and selling off properties on them also means genuine families who fall on hard times can access housing in nicer areas with the council paying the rent and landlords would rent to them if the council paid it directly.

Building over green belt land creating more and more housing isn't the best use of resources. We also need to look at the density of the housing, we live in an old mining area. The terrace street make great starter homes or private rentals. The new build estates have similar sized house on bigger plots which isn't the best use of space. Yet they are used for the same purpose of maybe 2/3yrs as a owner to get on the ladder then sell or rent it out when buying the 3 bed room semi for a few years then move on again.

We also rarely build 1 bed room flats outside of cities yet we have thousands of unused industrial units that could be repurposed for them. You could also build some secure patrolled estates for the real problem tenants, council pays a premium to the landlord to run them.

I really hope that the msm start to ask more detailed questions on the promises made by both parties in the run up to the election.

How are Labour going to build these homes? The developers have lots of land but aren't building due to costs and availability of skilled labour. What are they going to do - make them build!? Where are the skilled workforce coming from? Immigration? - and then more people to house?

Some Labour promises have already been shown to not be properly funded. This shit show Tory government is bad but Labour are just saying what people want to hear. Why does no-one dig down for even a little bit more info?!

No sweetie.

When you're an immigrant, it's about options. Settled status meant EU immigrants could keep their options open. It meant their status before and after Brexit remained the same.

You really cant extrapolate 'they took settled status' to 'which means they will overturn the EU migration patterns overnight'.

It does mean, however, you'll get far fewer of the 'come for a few years and then head back' folks. Because if you're going to jump through visa hoops and costs and pay the NHS surcharge, you're going to want to make sure it's worth your while.

Just like me getting indefinite leave to remain means I'm here forever. I kind of hope I'm not, tbh. But I'm one of those non-EU migrants who, as a group, are less good value for the UK and more likely to stay beyond working age.

You guys really screwed the pooch on this one.

Yep, they don't seem to have learned from the Corbyn years where unrealistic promises were made which simply could never happen. They do seem to think the voting public are stupid, but the voters could see straight through their unrealistic/uncosted "goodies" and didn't vote for them, hence continual Tory wins at GEs. The more we hear from Starmer, the more it's just the same, different person.

This shit show Tory government is bad but Labour are just saying what people want to hear.

The current shit show government are all about telling people what they want to hear, but they're also not delivering on any of it.

Dial down the familiarity, please. Addressing me as "sweetie" is very inappropriate.

Settled Status means living and working. Now, nearly 6 million people expressed the wish to live and work here. It's what settled means.

It’s not just the government’s responsibility to address. People also need to change their mindset regarding house ownership.

Most of Europe lives in flats/ apartments and house ownership is not seen as something a 20-something should strive towards. People also rent for decades and see that as absolutely normal (although for that you need an affordable and functioning rental market).

Here we want every child to own a house, making it a measure of success in life.
It’s not sustainable to build so many houses and really not necessary as evidenced by other countries.

But Labour won't be able to deliver. I don't think the general voter understands the current situation at all. Labour are going to have to raise money from somewhere - where are they getting it from? Perhaps voters should ask this of both parties.

I would like to see the actual CEOs of thee companies interviewed on policies such as construction. I would like them to be asking all parties direct questions. Not hand picked members of the public asking about the NGS and bring told 'we'll recruit 3.5 million doctors and nurses' with no follow up questions such as when, where, how, why WITH DETAILS and the ability to respond and probe.

I find it frightening how people seem to think that once Labour get in everything will get a lot better. It really won't, especially not with their current setup. Starmer is weak, there's no money and their favourite target - the middles classes - have had enough, having nothing more to give.

The public decry a lack of long term planning with regards to climate change and infrastructure, but are fine with throwing poorly built housing up on our green belt land? What will that do? People move into them. Net migration stays high, population goes up, more houses need to be built.

What do we do, just build over all the green land in the U.K.? Then no doubt the public will be decrying the lack of green spaces, and how bad for mental health it is living in an over crowded dump.

This country simply isn’t big enough to accommodate 90million+ people and still offer a good quality of life.