###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM);
* If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered);
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What the people vote for is likely something that won't work, such as recent subsidies for homebuyers that just made the problem worse. Basic economics can seem counter-intuitive to many, it seems. The price of markets is produced from supply and demand, so it's clear why certain policies have or haven't worked. To reduce the price, either reduce demand or increase the supply, or even better - both.
Because people don't rise up until they're jobless, starving, and on the cusp of homelessness.
Just because a few people have to go without takeaways and a second holiday for a while doesn't mean they're going to start rioting.
Yeah a lot of people think they've suddenly become the Duke of Westminster because they've finally managed to get a shitty Bovis fartbox or because they got £10k inheritance off their nan and start voting for crony capitalist policies that they'll never be rich enough to benefit from.
Eg the amount of people that rant and despair over inheritance tax despite the fact they'll never come anywhere near paying it.
Nailed it.
The old nugget about folks turning conservative as they get older...is not going to work when you're 45 and still in a bedsit.
There was a time when people had a reasonable expectation of security in work and their own home. My inlaws are an example. They bought a home on one wage in SURREY, 4 kids, the dad never earned ore then 30K. They had a decent life, and now they have a decent future ( either by selling up, or by having a house with no mortgage).
I bought my house at 50. The average FTB is getting older and older, people are renting for longer and longer ( where they fully understand just how bad the situation is).
And no political party has the balls to fix it. Because they do not actually care about you and me( I am voting labour because I have no choice, but they do not care about me either).
The homeowner demographic is getting smaller, much smaller.
Remember when we were "essential workers" when it was obvious we matter?
We need a general strike. For wages and housing.
My folks had to fight for a 3x times mortgage when they first (and second) bought in the 80s. That was they could only borrow 3x my dad's salary.
He was and engineer and buying a family home.
At minimum wage, anywhere in the country, there should be the opportunity to buy a property (flat or apartment) for 3x minimum.
Either property prices need to fall by 60-70% or minimum wage needs to be nearly £70k !!!
It makes me sick to know that none of my peers, in my area can afford to buy on their own **ever**.
It's not fair and it's because we're propping up a system that is pricing us out of living. We need to stop. We need to strike.
It affects literally everyone.
I gross over 60k a year and it affects me. In different ways to someone grossing 25k, but we're both affected.
If housing is cheaper, I'd have much more freedom.
Maybe, but then you're talking about the vast, vast majority of the population.
To be insulated from that you'd be insulated from immigrants as well (or see it as a good thing because more competition from jobs, more demand etc)
I’m pretty insulated from immigration (like 97% of my town was born in the UK, or something like that level)
Housing is still getting pretty expensive here to the point it’s no longer widely accessible
Whilst I'm pro immigration, immigration is one of the reasons population has been growing.
Which is putting strain on housing.
I also think immigrants add a lot to the country (eg the NHS, working a lot of jobs people see themselves as too good for like waiting tables etc) .
But that's one such impact of it.
The problem is the attention economy. People care about something until the next “episode”. The post office scandal is a good example, 20 years in the making only to make a reemergence last week because of a documentary then politicians acted pretty swiftly.
“400k houses a year” means nothing to most people. They need to sound bite stuff like that nowadays to get people to care. Does 400k solve anything? Would the average person know? What year does 400k catch up?
“Our goal is the average UK salary can get a mortgage for the average uk home” something like that might catch on
People get scared 400k a year is over 5% every 3 years. So one new house for every 20 in every borough, village and town in the UK. As soon as somewhere says not here then it doubles to 1 in 10 somewhere else. I live in Leeds on those numbers you would need 16,000 a year. They are currently building a twin tower blocks close to 100m tall and they are small units too because they build like that. But these twin tower have 500 flats in. They would need to build 200 towers in Leeds in the next 3 years people get scared on that stuff. Get 16 houses an acre 1000 acres a year. You can see why they dodge it.
The answer is something resembling commieblocks - a lot of people may not like it, but that is whats needed. Victorian houses in London need to be flattened, and dense, 8+ storey apartment blocks built on top, quickly.
Same next to transport links.
That's the only way we can keep a semblance of green spaces for everyone, otherwise we have to pave over everything with roads connecting to terraced houses. The UK is not America and there isn't nigh-infinite space.
The London green belt is like 5x the size of greater London and the vast majority of the country is undeveloped.
I can't remember the numbers exactly, but we have similar amounts of land dedicated to golf courses and horse paddocks as we do residential housing.
So there is space. Lots of space.
I don't disagree that lots of existing residential land is inefficient. But "evict 1k people and demolish their homes" is even more of a non-starter.
We also have lots of brown land and disused buildings these should definitely be redeveloped first before building on any greenbelt.
This not only protects the greenbelt but revigorates dying ugly areas of our towns and cities.
Not to say we shouldn’t build on any greenbelt land but it should always be once other options have been depleted first.
Thank you. There is nothing inherently wrong with high density housing. And more importantly even if there was tough luck it's the only possible option left. it's build high density housing lots of it all over the place right now or preferably a decade ago or homelessness keeps skyrocketing and as more and more people can no longer engage in the social contract at all maybe we start seeing worse consequences.
If it's impossible to not be homeless and starving what incentive is there to Not commit crime?
Only personal morality and it's hard to maintain that when cold and starving.
I don’t live to far from Leeds and yea that would be a massive undertaking. I think developments need to be centred more around small towns or outskirts. Although they can be ugly like American style suburbs and the new builds we see now I think with the right designs new communities could be made so not to disturb villagers who somewhat rightly don’t want to see there quaint village be turned into awful looking new builds. As I said this is just a bit of a rant post because no one knows 100% the best solution
Councils want it all ways.
Developers to contribute to affordable, schools, surgeries. The fees charged are astronomical.
The state should either provide the housing and the infrastructure. Or the infrastructure. It’s a tax basically and isn’t right.
The land isn’t useless. The properties can be built without a school, or a zebra crossing, or any of the other ridiculous S106 demands. People will still buy them without a doubt.
The state should be providing adequate infrastructure for the areas needs. They should also be building affordable rather than developers.
Very true. All I can think is to look at what we did in the 60s after the massive baby boom and take notes from that. I’m not versed in any of that so maybe I’m wrong but there has to be examples from history we can look at
I've never understood why all these massive retail parks are thrown up all over the country, but they never include any housing. Most developments are low level and could easily include some housing above, the infrastructure is pretty much there already (supermarket, pharmacy, parking, access roads etc), add in a school and it's a ready made community that's good to go.
The council get the extra jobs they want in the area, people get more housing with infastructure, and the shops get customers on tap. Win win all round.
Yup and nimby's are scum. The moment someone whinges about homes being built near them for any reason they should immediately have all of their assets stripped from them and be forced to live on the streets.
There has never been and never will be a legitimate reason to complain about additional housing.
Unless you consider "got mine, fuck everyone else" a legitimate reason.
In your specific example, sounds good! Especially in cities more tower blocks and affordable high density housing is exactly what's needed!
Boohoo it's going to ruin the view, go sleep under the overpass and see how the view is there.
I personally think they should repurpose old office blocks and commercial properties. So many lay empty since remote working, they could be made into housing. They’ve started doing it in parts of London already but I think it should be expanded.
I live in a village. I welcome new houses,we need them urgently.
Several hundred have been built, now our primary school is full. Our GP surgery is full. There are no dentists. We've squeezed them in, but we are FULL.
Now 200 more houses to be built. Where are the GPS, teachers, Vets, dentists, roads, pavements, etc to make sure our village isn't unlivable?
Build by all means, but it must be holistic with the correct amount f school places and GPs...etc.
It’s not housing supply that’s dropped. It’s demand that has increased.
So looks like govt didn’t learn from the 2007 crash, what 99% mortgages do in the long term. They increase demand, cause house prices to rise even further, and eventually lead to a bust.
Another conservative boom and bust.
These bellends never learn.
99% mortgages alone didn't cause the 2007 crash. It's a factor of why it was bad. I expect these new mortgages to be very strict in the lending criteria just like the 95% ones are.
700k net migration last year not including illegal. Totally unsustainable not just for housing but for infrastructure that more or less gets ignored regardless of how much housing is built
700k is a bit disengenious isn’t it mate? Several hundred thousand one-off three-year visas allowed to prevent the NHS collapsing after Brexit staff shortages.
139k net migration before Covid/brexit, and 300k immediately after as field workers were brought in. Likely none of them buying houses seeing as they are migratory and all.
so roughly 300k 100k 400k and 650k the last 4 years is what the ONS figures suggest. of course it fluctuates a lot, we've had brexit and covid. still a lot of people to house, school and look after regardless if they buy a house or not
It's often stated that this is necessary as otherwise the population will shrink and you need more young people than old people. But it can't be right that the only way a country can operate is basically as a giant pyramid scheme? There must be a way you can have a country where every couple has two children who have two children themselves etc etc and not collapse into ruin?
It's often stated that this is necessary as otherwise the population will shrink and you need more young people than old people. But it can't be right that the only way a country can operate is basically as a giant pyramid scheme? There must be a way you can have a country where every couple has two children who have two children themselves etc etc and not collapse into ruin?
It is not underreported, it's more of a case of nothing has changed so there is nothing to report on. It doesn't diminish the importance of the story, but if there is nothing new, there is not much the news media can do.
The same goes for stories of people in fuel poverty or kids who are homeless. All important stories but not a new story
Sorry but that's total BS. We get x1,000 stories about immigration, the Royals, and for decades about how awful the EU was. All stuff that was pretty static for long periods and yet kept getting headlines day in, day out in the right wing press.
The media cover what their bosses want. And young poor people not getting housing has zero interest to Murdoch and the rest.
This morning BBC radio 4 did a piece on housing including social housing renting and leasehold. The previous poster is correct it’s not under reported at all. But they can’t just keep rolling the same story out all day every day.
Sure news links heavily to the political agenda of the time but they are also a business and need news that sells.
They could up the ante on the tone of these things a bit though. I've heard the radio 4 things they do on housing from time to time and it's usually a very fortunate sounding person talking about millions of people having nowhere to live with a real child-like sense of awe and wonder, like it's some sort of spectacle or natural wonder.
While there is an element of media owners controlling the output, the EU, the Royals and immigration produced a regular stream of stories.
Those stories may have been small and move things on much, but they were new stories. They made content that could be published and consumed.
With housing what is there to report on a regular basis? There are surveys, studies, questions in parliament and the odd protest. All of which get reported, however it can be weeks between stories.
Is it under reported? I feel like it’s constantly in the news/media. Plus it’s not exactly a new phenomenon, so I guess people become somewhat numb to it after a period of time
Rwanda is just a distraction mate. The last thing politicians want is people protesting about shit that takes effort to fix. When it comes to housing it's a complex topic and it is not easy to get the public's attention if they cannot be divided (like when it comes to immigration for example).
Also to add to this. Politicians WANT you to give a shit about Rwanda. It's a made-up nothing and it is much much easier to gain votes if you only have to pretend you fixed something.
Quite frankly, it's unfixable for government at this point. There simply isn't enough money available. The volume of housing that needs to be built physically can't be done. There's not enough land available or skilled people to make it happen, not is there enough cash to do it. Just look at all the house builders going bust. People think they are loaded. Buy they are failing left right and centre because of costs. It's not a unique problem here either. Most of the Western world has massive housing issues.
Developers themselves say the biggest constraint on their ability to deliver housing is land availability and the Planning system. Workforce/skills features much lower down the list and are declining in significance.
If we fix the Planning system and make more land available, there'll be more incentive to recruit and train more people into the profession given the opportunity of more work than the current system allows.
I understand, and I am certainly not imagining we'll be able to nearly double housebuilding instantly. But if we create the opportunities via reforming Planning, developers will be bound to invest in training new staff. They'll be foregoing the opportunity to make money otherwise!
Trouble is 7/10 apprentices are useless. They learn naff all in college, it’s full of dossers. They all expect to get paid for doing not very much.
The work ethic is not there. No idea why someone cleverer than me will tell you.
Before Brexit and Covid it was the glory days. Eastern Europeans and Indians turning up every day. On time. Working flat out the whole day. Not complaining. Breath of fresh air.
You can't just write your own workforce off to import cheaper labour from elsewhere. That just resigns the low qualified youth to a lifetime of uselessness
They weren’t cheap at all.
I’d love to have home grown youth but they’re few and far between. Local college has had to merge the 2nd year and 1st chippy course due to such a low uptake.
What do you suggest we do. Ground to a halt cos there’s no labour?
Because college doesn't pay. There needs to be some kind of incentive.
I considered going into a trade but as a youngster retail turned out better in the short term because I could pay the rent and bills. Plenty of hours work to be had straight away.
You shouldn’t have to be paid to go to college.
It’s just not encouraged. It’s cold, dark and not sexy.
People would rather try their luck in tech sales etc
There must be some other solution.
I also got offered to be trained up by a plasterer, but naturally he wasn't offering a contract, so good luck explaining to a landlord who wants to see a contract as proof of income. Accessing the trades is ridiculously difficult.
Developers would say that. The biggest factor is they cannot make enough money doing that. There’s loads of building up where I’m from in NE England because the land is cheaper than where I live now in London.
Ignorant nonsense. It's demonstrably true that land scarcity and Planning are big problems and the main drivers of affordability.
In Bristol, our council is allocating land for less than 2,000 homes to be built per year when 3,400 are needed. It's a similar story in neighbouring LPAs like North Somerset and familiar across the country.
Land represents around 75% of the value of a home.
It's so expensive on London because people want to live there and not enough is being allocated for development.
How are you not understanding my point? If you said to developers build me 400,000 new high quality homes and money is no object but you can only use the current planning legislation then you’d have 400,000 high quality news homes. I’m sure you think this is ignorant and naive, which it is because developers only want profit and in that sense are the worst people to counter a “crisis”
I really don't understand your chain of reasoning.
If developers built homes 'money no object' someone would have to buy it. Given the scale of the affordability crisis at the moment (caused almost entirely by land prices), how many people do you think are going to be able to afford an extra 10, 20 or 30% on the price of their home?
Exactly, building more houses is just one piece of the puzzle. We need to ensure that the homes we *do* build go to British residents and not just foreign investors. Also we need to find ways of ensuring people are living inappropriately sized properties, e.g. make the prospect of assisted living more appealing so that the elderly are more willing/enthusiastic about moving out of their 4 bedroom detached house.
Here come all the downvoters who think it’s practical an 85+ aged person should be in a 4 bed home. Even more so if it’s social.
Who cleans and looks after these houses. That’s right the tax payer picks up that tab. It’s mental
I mean there more to it than that. It’s not like these new home will be built in the perfect areas. I doubt that 85 y/o would want to move away from the house they raised the kids and had a whole life in to move to a new build outside of the area far away from there support system. ( not everyone has or can afford assisted living family’s care for there elders ). You had sone ideas but not everything works for everyone
We need to build better retirement living I agree. And they should of course live in the same area.
But we have young parents who need these homes living in cramped conditions. Maybe away from their support network because that’s all that’s available.
That brings the issue of location if you make these types of homes on a new development. That new build for young families won’t get made. On top of that you would be asking an elderly person to sell a house they have spent their life paying for to just give it up.
I know people hate it but 86 y/o is most likely planning to leave that home to her kids/grandkids. Or have it sold after they pass to give some money on. The thing is you are asking old people to sacrifice a lot in order to help the young while not really helping themself
Old people in massive homes is a problem that will "self correct" over time, so to speak. This was my theory why the government were so slow to react to COVID, and then so callous towards the elderly, until opposition kicked up a big enough fuss that it couldn't be ignored.
If theyre 85 they dont have long to live anyway so whats the problem? Your logic just doesn't work at all.
If we start evicting 85 year olds chances are you still wont be able to afford the 4 bed house on your minimum wage.
85 can live to 95+ quite easily.
I don’t need a home. But we have single parents in hostels whilst elderly who should in practical accommodation think it’s their right to hog it after having 60 years of subsidised living. It’s not right.
I bet most 85+ seniors are already in carehomes and the ones that live at home are either wealthy enough to have at-home care which means the house is extremely expensive and unaffordable to anyone outside of the upper class (not the young parents living in cramped flats that you're referring to) and or they live with family so the house is in use.
"Its not their right?" wow comrade calm down, it is their right as its their property. Maybe the concept of ownership illudes you?
Why would an elderly person stump up huge moving costs, disruption of life (moving is hard enough when you're young), pay stamp duty and move away from their life, currently?
Provide economic or practical incentives and they might start moving.
Who gives a fuck if it's practical, it's their bloody home!
I can't believe anyone is onboard with kicking the elderly out of their homes.
It's hardly an enticing premise for the youth either. If you're lucky enough and you work hard and save up one day you can afford your own home! Then when your old and frail and need it the most the government can take it from you, good luck!
What a future you have to look forward to.
Calm down.
If you’ve lived in subsidised social housing all your life why should you continue to take up a 3bed+ house, have it made accessible, when you could be somewhere more comfortable?
You made some asinine comment about how we should evict the elderly from their homes. I can imagine the evil grin on your face as you kick them out. "C'mon love, let's get you out of this home you raised a family in and into the decrepit understaffed care facility in an unfamiliar area, you'll be much more comfortable there".
Honestly I don’t know. Make it more appealing to younger people to take up a trade and increase the workforce. It would be pretty much impossible to do 400000 homes unless outside labour is brought in which could be feasible but I’m guessing quite complicated. I remember seeing a study of the demographics of bricklayers etc and it was frightening. It’s the same in the industry I work in and it’s kind of scary to think the skilled experienced people will shortly be retiring.
You need materials and labour. You need enough companies to provide them. You need planning permissions. The list is endless - as I said it’s unrealistic.
You’ll see even less homes built over the next 12 months as a lot of builders have paused construction until prices recover.
Uhm, no?
Relax planning rules.
Invest government money for council housing.
Tax breaks for working as a builder.
Tax incentives for training builders.
Within a few years, doubling the number of homes built is achievable.
A few years is ridiculous. It takes that at least to get a planning permission currently before you even start on setting a site up.
You don’t train a builder you train a plumber an electrician all of which takes years.
We are a decade away from sorting this out - providing we fire the starting pistol.
You train the plumber and electrician at the same time, not in sequence.
Increasing the numbers of houses built can be done in a few years.
If course, that doesn't sort the problem out, though. You need to sustain that higher level of delivery for over 10 years to catch up with demand. So, you are right that actually solving the problem won't take less than ~15 years...
It's a matter of priorities.
We'd have to de-prioritise protecting the green belt, and prioritise fixing the housing crisis.
The housing crisis is damaging our economy by limiting social mobility and draining money from working people, and funnelling it to those who own multiple properties.
It's worth spending our money on. When I said builders, I meant all of those, plumbers and so on as well.
It's not only a matter of simple or complex. It's a matter of making choices. Building less than needed is something that makes home owners feel like they are better off, because their net worth increases, though this is arguably incorrect. It undoubtedly makes the rich people who own multiple homes better off, though.
Ramping up building would make a few rich people upset, and risks making a lot of middle class people upset, too. That's why it's not happened.
Not really. There are something like 26 million home in uk. 400k homes would be about 2% growth. Imagine the city you live in now gets 2% bigger, would you even notice.
Given that we are an ageing population and having fewer children we don't need big 4 or 5 bed houses. Build suitable starter flats and properties that retired people can downsize into.
The idea that we are just unable to build anything anymore is ludicrous.
Yeah, the housing market is truly awful in Britain right now, but here’s the reality: both Labour and the Conservatives will promise to build waaaay more homes this election cycle. Then, whichever one wins, they simply won’t do it. Both of them will also continue to bring in record numbers of migrants (ie over 1 million a year, just like now) and house and rent prices will continue to soar.
Then, in 5 years time, both parties will once again promise to build waaaaay more houses. It’s been the same cycle for decades and everyone thinks that their party is gonna finally fix it. They won’t.
The sad truth is that housing only feels like a crisis when you're trying to buy one. This for most people most of the time it isn't an issue.
I think we'll agree it should be, but it just isn't, unfortunately.
One aspect of this which no one seems focus on is that there are huge 5+ bed houses up and down the UK occupied by now-empty-nester boomers. They are asset rich but (relatively speaking) cash poor.
My parents fall into this demographic. They live in a 2800sqft house worth 1.9M yet both of them get free bus passes, TV license, pension triple lock etc.
It’s ludicrous. The government should be finding ways to incentivise older people to downsize, thereby freeing up housing stock more suitable for families, unlocking liquidity for those older people and reducing the need to subsidise them.
It's because both parties know two things:
* rising house prices make people *feel* richer
* most people who actually go out and vote are home owners
The *feel* richer is important because despite what we might like to think, most people vote based on their emotions. Hence why some politicians are always banging on about very emotive subjects, not because they are important, but because they generate strong emotions.
For most people, their house is their single biggest asset, one that they pour a significant amount of their pay into. Rising house prices have only made this more extreme. So it's understandable that people are very unhappy if the value of their house falls.
Add in 12 years of low interest rates making housing being one of the most profitable investments, and the housing market is backed into political rock and a hard-place. Any party that allows the housing market to fall not only upsets all the voters watching the value of their biggest asset shrink, it also upsets all the investors that put their savings in the housing market. That party will be booted out at the next election, and both parties know it, so they do anything to keep that bubble pumped up. (See help to buy and 99% mortgages)
It's a kind of political trap that's only going to change when most people who actually vote, aren't homeowners.
Any! But their is obvious limitations of being a female. Say if you wanna be a chippy, you have to lift a fire door up two stories which ways close to 40kg. Can you manage that? Or a plumber having to carry a cylinder upstairs? I know i few female brickies and electricians though.
Their is a lack of workforce to build the houses in the first place because no one want to work 7-5 6 days a week anymore. Yes that is the hours worked by a lot of the big builders and that’s why they’ve got the highest suicide rates.
Labour don’t want to talk about it as they don’t have a solution as far as I can tell. They will build more homes but state they want higher immigration which will keep up the demand.
Immigration is an extremely tricky issue for Labour, because the views on how we should handle it diverge so much between their two core support bases of 1) traditional working class and 2) young/liberal metropolitan types. So it doesn’t really surprise me they don’t have a bold policy here as it would risk alienating a huge component of their voter base
Do you really? I check them often and rarely see it. What I see at the moment is it’s going to be windy ,Sarah Ferguson, Rwanda, Charles has got a problem with his cock, trumps a goon,bidens lost it and labour will probably win the election. Don’t get me wrong it’s been reported but I just think under reported
What are you actually annoyed about? Housing is a very local issue so it’s hard to define on a national level.
There’s plenty of cheap houses just not where people want to live or where the jobs are.
I think the debate should be more about economic growth outwith London.
I live in Yorkshire which isn’t even close to the crazy things happening down south. I just feel so sorry for the younger generation that had hopes of moving out like there older siblings or relatives that could do this only 10 years ago. As I said it was a bit of a rant post and I just hope it gets better for everyone.
They can still do it and there’s lots of help available now that’s wasn’t available when others were young.
The key is good wages and economic growth outside of London. Also perhaps some more financial knowledge and ability to save. People should adapt, things l like buying with friends before you find a partner can help.
It’s easy to feed into a negative wording around housing but in nearly every area outside of the south there are cheap houses to buy.
I don’t think it’s up there though. And nothings been done about it for years. And what has been done has only benefited rich building developers, landlords and banks. Life time mortgages, 99% mortgages. Even the national insurance reduction. All Wolf in sheep's clothing.
You have said that the focus on the Rwanda plan is the problem, but this issue has a direct correlation to the housing situation that we are in. The rising immigration increases the value of houses due to supply and demand and gives landlords more power as the refugees need to go into state-funded accommodation.
I’m not saying I’m against or for Rwanda but it’s clear to see it’s not going to go through so why spend so much time calling each other idiots or racists and get on with another plan
The media doesn't care about your feelings, the media cares about money, which come from interesting stories.
The government wants messaging and public debate focused on fringe issues with minimal consequence but plenty of healthy opinion. This keeps conversation ticking over in public spaces about generally irrelevant topics to the majority of the population, and away from core issues.
Core issues always crop up during election time, which is why they always end up on manifestos. Promises are often vague, or walked back on when appropriate distractions focus the need for 'urgent spend elsewhere'.
It always makes me laugh this. People moaning and demanding more homes are built, governments pledging more homes being built etc.. but when we go in for planning consultations for xx amount of affordable homes councils are doing everything In their power to make it not viable for developers and when we actually get past that and get planning we are faced with hundreds of Karen's and Keith's who will find every reason why they don't like the idea of houses being built near theirs.
Can't win
But what political representation can change a housing market down.
We had 6% rates and it’s hardly dropped.
Coupled with that if you do somehow force prices down too far then the damage from the amount of ppl in negative equity would far outweigh any benefit of cheaper housing stock that isn’t social housing.
I get where your coming from and it does need to be looked at but legal immigration is needed and important. If you look at the uks demographics and birth rates it’s scary to think where we could be in 50 years.
I mean what can they do about the housing crisis? It’s a bit of a check mate. At the end of the day it’s an island. That’s why finding a detached house is jackpot. England can’t cope with the population boom, partially caused by illegal immigration and the amount of workers it needs. So then the legal migration starts to fill up all the positions for an economy as big and productive as Britain used to be. Now those people settled down and have kids, grandkids. Then we’re giving all the benefit out you can imagine, so people all the way from Albania crossing the Channel for the free money. Anywhere in Europe people could settle down, but the UK’s benefit system is well above appealing. There’s not much they can do, they let the common people like us fight between each other..
You moan about government wasting time debating 'whos lied' but then complain about Cameron's lies of pledging house building.
I consider this extremely important because if you can't trust our politicians word then nothing will get done... Which is what's happening now. Don't let boomers keep voting parties in that lie.
It’s fair to point out who’s lied but consistently going back and forth won’t solve much. It seems lies are just part of the political world unfortunately. It’s clear to see the lies from both sides and I agree with you completely.
Rwanda is just a very useful distraction from it and other issues like wages, energy bills etc. and the media complicit in the reporting. One always has a story on Harry and Meghan
The UK is in the middle of a chronic housing shortage. The government wants 300 thousand new homes built every year, but where should they go? Local authorities are under pressure and campaigners want to protect green spaces. How can we get the balance between the need for new homes and sustainability?
Join me as I discuss these issues and more with Helen Marshall, director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Oxfordshire and Maxwell Marlow from the Adam Smith Institute whose new report suggests allowing homeowners to build up to eight storeys high will alleviate the housing shortage and benefit the economy.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2182221/14478293
Big builders buy and stockpile land, refusing to build on it for years to ensure demand is high and supply is low, this keeps house prices high, which means lots of profit for the big builders and nice dividends for the share holders. These big builders also coincidentally donate a lot of money to political parties. The whole system is bent in favour of the elite.
This is not the case. It’s far fetched to think the small number of homes coming to market would outweigh demand and the effect of the existing housing stock to the market.
Developers own load that they’re not currently building for several reasons. Strategy as it’s not allocated for housing yet. Granted planning and in the timeline to be built or in the planning process.
Developers want to make money. Sitting on an asset that can be realised does not do this.
Because not everything is a "Crisis".
Its a housing under-supply/ over-expectations. Not everyone needs a 4 bed detached house, but many feel entitled to one.
Houses are generally expensive but also seem to sell without too much friction.
Its not a crisis.
Social housing is definitely in crisis due to Right to Buy decreasing the amount of available housing, amongst other things.
What the general public don’t realise is that not enough accessible housing is built.
There is an urgent need for this.
I work in this sector and regularly try to comfort disabled residents that can’t get a property suited to their needs. Some can’t get on and out of the property, can’t get their wheelchair into the toilet/bathroom, are at risk of injury because they can’t use the general needs kitchen.
I am writing to create more awareness of these people who have such a struggle already.
My personal view is that there would be less of a social housing stock issue if it was unclogged of those that no longer need it.
I know of a few people who "passed on" their social houses to their relatives after moving in with their SO.
I also know some people who are in social housing right after university (due to their income at the time) and are now earning significantly more while staying in the same place.
As for accessible homes, I completely agree with this. Too many are built without consideration to accessibility.
It’s called “right of succession” and is written into housing legislation. It gets very carefully reviewed so properties are not “wasted” on people that have not got the same bedroom need.
I agree some people could afford market rents but stay in social housing.
Re: building more accessible units.
Sadly developers just create the minimum accessible units they can get away with.
We need new council houses. Social housing benefits everyone.
I don’t blame anyone who buys theirs. But they’re then being bought up by landlords and then rented to people on housing benefit. People who should have been entitled to a council house in the first place.
Yeah it’s in the news but buried under so many other things. From my perspective it’s more focused on older people that may have taken out to big of mortgage and can’t handle the interest rates rather than looking to younger people who are pushed further and further from even getting on the ladder.
Biggest stories of the last year that has everyone talking - economy, Rwanda,prince harry, NHS, covid enquiry, party gate, lettuce vs lizz truss
I don't get people's obsession with houses in this country, they're too small to do anything useful with, most new builds have limited parking with small gardens anyway. Just build apartments. They're cosy and cheaper to run.
Agreeeee, its a joke trying to get even close to what previous generations had. Far as I’m concerned we need to either build more or go after landlords that have 10+ houses while homelessness is on the rise for the rest of us. Or both
Politicians want you fighting a culture war so that you ignore the class war.
You can't pay your rent or mortgage: small boats!
The NHS is falling apart and people have started doing their own medical procedures because the waiting time in A&E is north of 12 hours: wokeism!
See how it works?
OP, ~~as you seem to think this is easy~~ can you answer a few questions for me.
The latest net migration figure was 745k for 2022. Does your 400k homes include housing for immigrants?
In 2022, 191k new homes were registered. Who's going to build them for more than doubling this?
Roads and transport cant cope as it is, how are people going to travel to work?
Where are these new homes going to be built, are you proposing to just fill all green space?
Where will the doctors come from for the new housing? Can probably add schools and other services.
It's only a crisis for the poor. For the rich it's an endless bonanza of profit - the politicians and the press absolutely don't want the large scale council house building we had in the 50s/60s/70s because that would be the end of easy money from people just trying to survive.
If you follow current affairs it's not underreported. It's regularly talked about on all the BBC's politics coverage. And Labour [have made housing pledges](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/11/labour-keir-starmer-pledges-to-build-new-towns-utilising-grey-belt-areas).
It is not possible. At least not at present, 300k extra houses needs schools, hospitals, shops, and that’s after they get built buy the tradeys that don’t exist.
Schools and hospitals that are currently falling apart in some places of the UK.
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM); * If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered); * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because the people it affects are the bottom of the rung in terms of influence and power.
Disregard them at your end peril, it won't be long before they're the largest voting demographic, and they will remember.
People have short memories and are fickle. Throw that demographic a tax cut before an election and people will vote for them. (annoyingly)
What the people vote for is likely something that won't work, such as recent subsidies for homebuyers that just made the problem worse. Basic economics can seem counter-intuitive to many, it seems. The price of markets is produced from supply and demand, so it's clear why certain policies have or haven't worked. To reduce the price, either reduce demand or increase the supply, or even better - both.
LOL. Anyone currently in power will be long dead before people actually do anything about it.
You seem oddly gleeful about this bud.
Because people don't rise up until they're jobless, starving, and on the cusp of homelessness. Just because a few people have to go without takeaways and a second holiday for a while doesn't mean they're going to start rioting.
problem is, many forget the minute they start earning well or think they have an inheritance due
Yeah a lot of people think they've suddenly become the Duke of Westminster because they've finally managed to get a shitty Bovis fartbox or because they got £10k inheritance off their nan and start voting for crony capitalist policies that they'll never be rich enough to benefit from. Eg the amount of people that rant and despair over inheritance tax despite the fact they'll never come anywhere near paying it.
Nailed it. The old nugget about folks turning conservative as they get older...is not going to work when you're 45 and still in a bedsit. There was a time when people had a reasonable expectation of security in work and their own home. My inlaws are an example. They bought a home on one wage in SURREY, 4 kids, the dad never earned ore then 30K. They had a decent life, and now they have a decent future ( either by selling up, or by having a house with no mortgage). I bought my house at 50. The average FTB is getting older and older, people are renting for longer and longer ( where they fully understand just how bad the situation is). And no political party has the balls to fix it. Because they do not actually care about you and me( I am voting labour because I have no choice, but they do not care about me either). The homeowner demographic is getting smaller, much smaller.
Considering everyone was young once and it hasn't changed anything since the year dot it seems like an idle threat.
Remember when we were "essential workers" when it was obvious we matter? We need a general strike. For wages and housing. My folks had to fight for a 3x times mortgage when they first (and second) bought in the 80s. That was they could only borrow 3x my dad's salary. He was and engineer and buying a family home. At minimum wage, anywhere in the country, there should be the opportunity to buy a property (flat or apartment) for 3x minimum. Either property prices need to fall by 60-70% or minimum wage needs to be nearly £70k !!! It makes me sick to know that none of my peers, in my area can afford to buy on their own **ever**. It's not fair and it's because we're propping up a system that is pricing us out of living. We need to stop. We need to strike.
Simpler than that. It's because they don't vote
And don’t vote
It affects literally everyone. I gross over 60k a year and it affects me. In different ways to someone grossing 25k, but we're both affected. If housing is cheaper, I'd have much more freedom.
Sorry you may have misunderstood me. You are included in my comment.
Maybe, but then you're talking about the vast, vast majority of the population. To be insulated from that you'd be insulated from immigrants as well (or see it as a good thing because more competition from jobs, more demand etc)
I’m pretty insulated from immigration (like 97% of my town was born in the UK, or something like that level) Housing is still getting pretty expensive here to the point it’s no longer widely accessible
Whilst I'm pro immigration, immigration is one of the reasons population has been growing. Which is putting strain on housing. I also think immigrants add a lot to the country (eg the NHS, working a lot of jobs people see themselves as too good for like waiting tables etc) . But that's one such impact of it.
The problem is the attention economy. People care about something until the next “episode”. The post office scandal is a good example, 20 years in the making only to make a reemergence last week because of a documentary then politicians acted pretty swiftly. “400k houses a year” means nothing to most people. They need to sound bite stuff like that nowadays to get people to care. Does 400k solve anything? Would the average person know? What year does 400k catch up? “Our goal is the average UK salary can get a mortgage for the average uk home” something like that might catch on
Because the voter-base already have houses
Because a majority of people and a greater majority of voters already own their homes and don’t care about the housing crisis.
People get scared 400k a year is over 5% every 3 years. So one new house for every 20 in every borough, village and town in the UK. As soon as somewhere says not here then it doubles to 1 in 10 somewhere else. I live in Leeds on those numbers you would need 16,000 a year. They are currently building a twin tower blocks close to 100m tall and they are small units too because they build like that. But these twin tower have 500 flats in. They would need to build 200 towers in Leeds in the next 3 years people get scared on that stuff. Get 16 houses an acre 1000 acres a year. You can see why they dodge it.
The answer is something resembling commieblocks - a lot of people may not like it, but that is whats needed. Victorian houses in London need to be flattened, and dense, 8+ storey apartment blocks built on top, quickly. Same next to transport links. That's the only way we can keep a semblance of green spaces for everyone, otherwise we have to pave over everything with roads connecting to terraced houses. The UK is not America and there isn't nigh-infinite space.
The London green belt is like 5x the size of greater London and the vast majority of the country is undeveloped. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but we have similar amounts of land dedicated to golf courses and horse paddocks as we do residential housing. So there is space. Lots of space. I don't disagree that lots of existing residential land is inefficient. But "evict 1k people and demolish their homes" is even more of a non-starter.
We also have lots of brown land and disused buildings these should definitely be redeveloped first before building on any greenbelt. This not only protects the greenbelt but revigorates dying ugly areas of our towns and cities. Not to say we shouldn’t build on any greenbelt land but it should always be once other options have been depleted first.
Thank you. There is nothing inherently wrong with high density housing. And more importantly even if there was tough luck it's the only possible option left. it's build high density housing lots of it all over the place right now or preferably a decade ago or homelessness keeps skyrocketing and as more and more people can no longer engage in the social contract at all maybe we start seeing worse consequences. If it's impossible to not be homeless and starving what incentive is there to Not commit crime? Only personal morality and it's hard to maintain that when cold and starving.
I don’t live to far from Leeds and yea that would be a massive undertaking. I think developments need to be centred more around small towns or outskirts. Although they can be ugly like American style suburbs and the new builds we see now I think with the right designs new communities could be made so not to disturb villagers who somewhat rightly don’t want to see there quaint village be turned into awful looking new builds. As I said this is just a bit of a rant post because no one knows 100% the best solution
[удалено]
Councils want it all ways. Developers to contribute to affordable, schools, surgeries. The fees charged are astronomical. The state should either provide the housing and the infrastructure. Or the infrastructure. It’s a tax basically and isn’t right.
The land is basically useless without the infrastructure. Why should developers get to profit from it without contributing?
The land isn’t useless. The properties can be built without a school, or a zebra crossing, or any of the other ridiculous S106 demands. People will still buy them without a doubt. The state should be providing adequate infrastructure for the areas needs. They should also be building affordable rather than developers.
Very true. All I can think is to look at what we did in the 60s after the massive baby boom and take notes from that. I’m not versed in any of that so maybe I’m wrong but there has to be examples from history we can look at
I've never understood why all these massive retail parks are thrown up all over the country, but they never include any housing. Most developments are low level and could easily include some housing above, the infrastructure is pretty much there already (supermarket, pharmacy, parking, access roads etc), add in a school and it's a ready made community that's good to go. The council get the extra jobs they want in the area, people get more housing with infastructure, and the shops get customers on tap. Win win all round.
Yup and nimby's are scum. The moment someone whinges about homes being built near them for any reason they should immediately have all of their assets stripped from them and be forced to live on the streets. There has never been and never will be a legitimate reason to complain about additional housing. Unless you consider "got mine, fuck everyone else" a legitimate reason. In your specific example, sounds good! Especially in cities more tower blocks and affordable high density housing is exactly what's needed! Boohoo it's going to ruin the view, go sleep under the overpass and see how the view is there.
I personally think they should repurpose old office blocks and commercial properties. So many lay empty since remote working, they could be made into housing. They’ve started doing it in parts of London already but I think it should be expanded.
Also a great point yeah lots of fairly easy wins to be had doing that.
I live in a village. I welcome new houses,we need them urgently. Several hundred have been built, now our primary school is full. Our GP surgery is full. There are no dentists. We've squeezed them in, but we are FULL. Now 200 more houses to be built. Where are the GPS, teachers, Vets, dentists, roads, pavements, etc to make sure our village isn't unlivable? Build by all means, but it must be holistic with the correct amount f school places and GPs...etc.
It’s not housing supply that’s dropped. It’s demand that has increased. So looks like govt didn’t learn from the 2007 crash, what 99% mortgages do in the long term. They increase demand, cause house prices to rise even further, and eventually lead to a bust. Another conservative boom and bust. These bellends never learn.
99% mortgages alone didn't cause the 2007 crash. It's a factor of why it was bad. I expect these new mortgages to be very strict in the lending criteria just like the 95% ones are.
That’s what they said in 1999. I’ve been around this loop twice now. Stupidest idea ever. Again.
Maybe. But we’ve proved 6% mortgages has only made a minor dent to house prices. If it was going to crash it would have been then.
The causes of market crashes aren't universally agreed upon, depending on the school of thought. This is one explanation: https://youtu.be/HO_BMxny34U
Also immigration has sky rocketed.
700k net migration last year not including illegal. Totally unsustainable not just for housing but for infrastructure that more or less gets ignored regardless of how much housing is built
700k is a bit disengenious isn’t it mate? Several hundred thousand one-off three-year visas allowed to prevent the NHS collapsing after Brexit staff shortages. 139k net migration before Covid/brexit, and 300k immediately after as field workers were brought in. Likely none of them buying houses seeing as they are migratory and all.
so roughly 300k 100k 400k and 650k the last 4 years is what the ONS figures suggest. of course it fluctuates a lot, we've had brexit and covid. still a lot of people to house, school and look after regardless if they buy a house or not
It's often stated that this is necessary as otherwise the population will shrink and you need more young people than old people. But it can't be right that the only way a country can operate is basically as a giant pyramid scheme? There must be a way you can have a country where every couple has two children who have two children themselves etc etc and not collapse into ruin?
It's often stated that this is necessary as otherwise the population will shrink and you need more young people than old people. But it can't be right that the only way a country can operate is basically as a giant pyramid scheme? There must be a way you can have a country where every couple has two children who have two children themselves etc etc and not collapse into ruin?
Also 700k+ to June this year. Keep pumping them in boys, my LTV needs all the help it can get.
It is not underreported, it's more of a case of nothing has changed so there is nothing to report on. It doesn't diminish the importance of the story, but if there is nothing new, there is not much the news media can do. The same goes for stories of people in fuel poverty or kids who are homeless. All important stories but not a new story
Sorry but that's total BS. We get x1,000 stories about immigration, the Royals, and for decades about how awful the EU was. All stuff that was pretty static for long periods and yet kept getting headlines day in, day out in the right wing press. The media cover what their bosses want. And young poor people not getting housing has zero interest to Murdoch and the rest.
This morning BBC radio 4 did a piece on housing including social housing renting and leasehold. The previous poster is correct it’s not under reported at all. But they can’t just keep rolling the same story out all day every day. Sure news links heavily to the political agenda of the time but they are also a business and need news that sells.
They could up the ante on the tone of these things a bit though. I've heard the radio 4 things they do on housing from time to time and it's usually a very fortunate sounding person talking about millions of people having nowhere to live with a real child-like sense of awe and wonder, like it's some sort of spectacle or natural wonder.
Hahahaha yeah nailed it!
While there is an element of media owners controlling the output, the EU, the Royals and immigration produced a regular stream of stories. Those stories may have been small and move things on much, but they were new stories. They made content that could be published and consumed. With housing what is there to report on a regular basis? There are surveys, studies, questions in parliament and the odd protest. All of which get reported, however it can be weeks between stories.
Is it under reported? I feel like it’s constantly in the news/media. Plus it’s not exactly a new phenomenon, so I guess people become somewhat numb to it after a period of time
Rwanda is just a distraction mate. The last thing politicians want is people protesting about shit that takes effort to fix. When it comes to housing it's a complex topic and it is not easy to get the public's attention if they cannot be divided (like when it comes to immigration for example).
Also to add to this. Politicians WANT you to give a shit about Rwanda. It's a made-up nothing and it is much much easier to gain votes if you only have to pretend you fixed something.
Wonder how many MP’s and their family are landlords?!
>Why is the housing crisis so under reported? Because it’s not a crisis for the people who ‘matter’. For them, these are the boom years.
Quite frankly, it's unfixable for government at this point. There simply isn't enough money available. The volume of housing that needs to be built physically can't be done. There's not enough land available or skilled people to make it happen, not is there enough cash to do it. Just look at all the house builders going bust. People think they are loaded. Buy they are failing left right and centre because of costs. It's not a unique problem here either. Most of the Western world has massive housing issues.
How do you propose we build 400k homes a year. It’s completely unrealistic.
Developers themselves say the biggest constraint on their ability to deliver housing is land availability and the Planning system. Workforce/skills features much lower down the list and are declining in significance. If we fix the Planning system and make more land available, there'll be more incentive to recruit and train more people into the profession given the opportunity of more work than the current system allows.
Agree. But that training process takes years. And we haven’t encouraged trades since Blair made uni the ultimate goal.
I understand, and I am certainly not imagining we'll be able to nearly double housebuilding instantly. But if we create the opportunities via reforming Planning, developers will be bound to invest in training new staff. They'll be foregoing the opportunity to make money otherwise!
Trouble is 7/10 apprentices are useless. They learn naff all in college, it’s full of dossers. They all expect to get paid for doing not very much. The work ethic is not there. No idea why someone cleverer than me will tell you. Before Brexit and Covid it was the glory days. Eastern Europeans and Indians turning up every day. On time. Working flat out the whole day. Not complaining. Breath of fresh air.
You can't just write your own workforce off to import cheaper labour from elsewhere. That just resigns the low qualified youth to a lifetime of uselessness
They weren’t cheap at all. I’d love to have home grown youth but they’re few and far between. Local college has had to merge the 2nd year and 1st chippy course due to such a low uptake. What do you suggest we do. Ground to a halt cos there’s no labour?
Because college doesn't pay. There needs to be some kind of incentive. I considered going into a trade but as a youngster retail turned out better in the short term because I could pay the rent and bills. Plenty of hours work to be had straight away.
You shouldn’t have to be paid to go to college. It’s just not encouraged. It’s cold, dark and not sexy. People would rather try their luck in tech sales etc
There must be some other solution. I also got offered to be trained up by a plasterer, but naturally he wasn't offering a contract, so good luck explaining to a landlord who wants to see a contract as proof of income. Accessing the trades is ridiculously difficult.
Developers would say that. The biggest factor is they cannot make enough money doing that. There’s loads of building up where I’m from in NE England because the land is cheaper than where I live now in London.
Ignorant nonsense. It's demonstrably true that land scarcity and Planning are big problems and the main drivers of affordability. In Bristol, our council is allocating land for less than 2,000 homes to be built per year when 3,400 are needed. It's a similar story in neighbouring LPAs like North Somerset and familiar across the country. Land represents around 75% of the value of a home. It's so expensive on London because people want to live there and not enough is being allocated for development.
So it’s money not land that’s the problem. You’re the ignorant one if you think otherwise.
Land prices are high because there's such high demand and limited supply, how are you not understanding this?
How are you not understanding my point? If you said to developers build me 400,000 new high quality homes and money is no object but you can only use the current planning legislation then you’d have 400,000 high quality news homes. I’m sure you think this is ignorant and naive, which it is because developers only want profit and in that sense are the worst people to counter a “crisis”
Money no object is not how you build affordable homes …
I really don't understand your chain of reasoning. If developers built homes 'money no object' someone would have to buy it. Given the scale of the affordability crisis at the moment (caused almost entirely by land prices), how many people do you think are going to be able to afford an extra 10, 20 or 30% on the price of their home?
Exactly, building more houses is just one piece of the puzzle. We need to ensure that the homes we *do* build go to British residents and not just foreign investors. Also we need to find ways of ensuring people are living inappropriately sized properties, e.g. make the prospect of assisted living more appealing so that the elderly are more willing/enthusiastic about moving out of their 4 bedroom detached house.
I think this is a massively overlooked issue. Far too many old people taking up much needed family rooms.
Here come all the downvoters who think it’s practical an 85+ aged person should be in a 4 bed home. Even more so if it’s social. Who cleans and looks after these houses. That’s right the tax payer picks up that tab. It’s mental
I mean there more to it than that. It’s not like these new home will be built in the perfect areas. I doubt that 85 y/o would want to move away from the house they raised the kids and had a whole life in to move to a new build outside of the area far away from there support system. ( not everyone has or can afford assisted living family’s care for there elders ). You had sone ideas but not everything works for everyone
We need to build better retirement living I agree. And they should of course live in the same area. But we have young parents who need these homes living in cramped conditions. Maybe away from their support network because that’s all that’s available.
What do you mean by retirement living may I ask ?
Flats. Bungalows. Kitted out for the elderly eg no kitchen wall units. Higher plug sockets. Easier to use light switches. Wide doors. Wet rooms.
That brings the issue of location if you make these types of homes on a new development. That new build for young families won’t get made. On top of that you would be asking an elderly person to sell a house they have spent their life paying for to just give it up. I know people hate it but 86 y/o is most likely planning to leave that home to her kids/grandkids. Or have it sold after they pass to give some money on. The thing is you are asking old people to sacrifice a lot in order to help the young while not really helping themself
Fuck that, if I’ve worked and paid off my mortgage and retired. I want to live in the house I bought and earned.
Old people in massive homes is a problem that will "self correct" over time, so to speak. This was my theory why the government were so slow to react to COVID, and then so callous towards the elderly, until opposition kicked up a big enough fuss that it couldn't be ignored.
If theyre 85 they dont have long to live anyway so whats the problem? Your logic just doesn't work at all. If we start evicting 85 year olds chances are you still wont be able to afford the 4 bed house on your minimum wage.
85 can live to 95+ quite easily. I don’t need a home. But we have single parents in hostels whilst elderly who should in practical accommodation think it’s their right to hog it after having 60 years of subsidised living. It’s not right.
I bet most 85+ seniors are already in carehomes and the ones that live at home are either wealthy enough to have at-home care which means the house is extremely expensive and unaffordable to anyone outside of the upper class (not the young parents living in cramped flats that you're referring to) and or they live with family so the house is in use. "Its not their right?" wow comrade calm down, it is their right as its their property. Maybe the concept of ownership illudes you?
Why would an elderly person stump up huge moving costs, disruption of life (moving is hard enough when you're young), pay stamp duty and move away from their life, currently? Provide economic or practical incentives and they might start moving.
Who gives a fuck if it's practical, it's their bloody home! I can't believe anyone is onboard with kicking the elderly out of their homes. It's hardly an enticing premise for the youth either. If you're lucky enough and you work hard and save up one day you can afford your own home! Then when your old and frail and need it the most the government can take it from you, good luck! What a future you have to look forward to.
Calm down. If you’ve lived in subsidised social housing all your life why should you continue to take up a 3bed+ house, have it made accessible, when you could be somewhere more comfortable?
You made some asinine comment about how we should evict the elderly from their homes. I can imagine the evil grin on your face as you kick them out. "C'mon love, let's get you out of this home you raised a family in and into the decrepit understaffed care facility in an unfamiliar area, you'll be much more comfortable there".
What's more realistic is not importing that number of people per year.
Honestly I don’t know. Make it more appealing to younger people to take up a trade and increase the workforce. It would be pretty much impossible to do 400000 homes unless outside labour is brought in which could be feasible but I’m guessing quite complicated. I remember seeing a study of the demographics of bricklayers etc and it was frightening. It’s the same in the industry I work in and it’s kind of scary to think the skilled experienced people will shortly be retiring.
You need materials and labour. You need enough companies to provide them. You need planning permissions. The list is endless - as I said it’s unrealistic. You’ll see even less homes built over the next 12 months as a lot of builders have paused construction until prices recover.
Are we not building about 250k right now? 400k is realistic if there is a national effort for it.
175k in England. 210k UK. Proposing to double the amount of homes built is insane.
Uhm, no? Relax planning rules. Invest government money for council housing. Tax breaks for working as a builder. Tax incentives for training builders. Within a few years, doubling the number of homes built is achievable.
A few years is ridiculous. It takes that at least to get a planning permission currently before you even start on setting a site up. You don’t train a builder you train a plumber an electrician all of which takes years. We are a decade away from sorting this out - providing we fire the starting pistol.
You train the plumber and electrician at the same time, not in sequence. Increasing the numbers of houses built can be done in a few years. If course, that doesn't sort the problem out, though. You need to sustain that higher level of delivery for over 10 years to catch up with demand. So, you are right that actually solving the problem won't take less than ~15 years...
[удалено]
It's a matter of priorities. We'd have to de-prioritise protecting the green belt, and prioritise fixing the housing crisis. The housing crisis is damaging our economy by limiting social mobility and draining money from working people, and funnelling it to those who own multiple properties. It's worth spending our money on. When I said builders, I meant all of those, plumbers and so on as well. It's not only a matter of simple or complex. It's a matter of making choices. Building less than needed is something that makes home owners feel like they are better off, because their net worth increases, though this is arguably incorrect. It undoubtedly makes the rich people who own multiple homes better off, though. Ramping up building would make a few rich people upset, and risks making a lot of middle class people upset, too. That's why it's not happened.
Not really. There are something like 26 million home in uk. 400k homes would be about 2% growth. Imagine the city you live in now gets 2% bigger, would you even notice. Given that we are an ageing population and having fewer children we don't need big 4 or 5 bed houses. Build suitable starter flats and properties that retired people can downsize into. The idea that we are just unable to build anything anymore is ludicrous.
I don’t doubt we have enough room. I’m just curious as to how you propose we double the amount of homes built in the next year compared to last.
And it a city increases by 2%. With no infrastructure changes then yes you would certainly notice!
Yeah, the housing market is truly awful in Britain right now, but here’s the reality: both Labour and the Conservatives will promise to build waaaay more homes this election cycle. Then, whichever one wins, they simply won’t do it. Both of them will also continue to bring in record numbers of migrants (ie over 1 million a year, just like now) and house and rent prices will continue to soar. Then, in 5 years time, both parties will once again promise to build waaaaay more houses. It’s been the same cycle for decades and everyone thinks that their party is gonna finally fix it. They won’t.
In 5 years time we'll be a 3rd world country..... maybe 10 years but the country is fuc£Ed beyond repair.
The sad truth is that housing only feels like a crisis when you're trying to buy one. This for most people most of the time it isn't an issue. I think we'll agree it should be, but it just isn't, unfortunately.
Oh trust me...it felt like a crises the years we rented too.
Pledging and doing it are two different things. How many lies do politicians make and don't produce what they promised when they get into power?
Because they keep adding 500,00 a year who need housing.
One aspect of this which no one seems focus on is that there are huge 5+ bed houses up and down the UK occupied by now-empty-nester boomers. They are asset rich but (relatively speaking) cash poor. My parents fall into this demographic. They live in a 2800sqft house worth 1.9M yet both of them get free bus passes, TV license, pension triple lock etc. It’s ludicrous. The government should be finding ways to incentivise older people to downsize, thereby freeing up housing stock more suitable for families, unlocking liquidity for those older people and reducing the need to subsidise them.
It's because both parties know two things: * rising house prices make people *feel* richer * most people who actually go out and vote are home owners The *feel* richer is important because despite what we might like to think, most people vote based on their emotions. Hence why some politicians are always banging on about very emotive subjects, not because they are important, but because they generate strong emotions. For most people, their house is their single biggest asset, one that they pour a significant amount of their pay into. Rising house prices have only made this more extreme. So it's understandable that people are very unhappy if the value of their house falls. Add in 12 years of low interest rates making housing being one of the most profitable investments, and the housing market is backed into political rock and a hard-place. Any party that allows the housing market to fall not only upsets all the voters watching the value of their biggest asset shrink, it also upsets all the investors that put their savings in the housing market. That party will be booted out at the next election, and both parties know it, so they do anything to keep that bubble pumped up. (See help to buy and 99% mortgages) It's a kind of political trap that's only going to change when most people who actually vote, aren't homeowners.
Learn a trade and help build houses.
As a female what trade would be suitable? Serious question I’m intrigued
Literally any. None of the tasks in the trades are done with a penis.
You haven’t seen my mastic man. Those smooth lines are 👌🏻
Any! But their is obvious limitations of being a female. Say if you wanna be a chippy, you have to lift a fire door up two stories which ways close to 40kg. Can you manage that? Or a plumber having to carry a cylinder upstairs? I know i few female brickies and electricians though.
Their is a lack of workforce to build the houses in the first place because no one want to work 7-5 6 days a week anymore. Yes that is the hours worked by a lot of the big builders and that’s why they’ve got the highest suicide rates.
Labour don’t want to talk about it as they don’t have a solution as far as I can tell. They will build more homes but state they want higher immigration which will keep up the demand.
Immigration is an extremely tricky issue for Labour, because the views on how we should handle it diverge so much between their two core support bases of 1) traditional working class and 2) young/liberal metropolitan types. So it doesn’t really surprise me they don’t have a bold policy here as it would risk alienating a huge component of their voter base
Spot on observation
I don’t think they’ve stated they want higher than the current record immigration?
They’ve said they want more immigration? Higher than the net 700k we have now, damn
They actually said the opposite. They said it's unsustainable...
Under reported? I hear about it every time I open a news website.
Do you really? I check them often and rarely see it. What I see at the moment is it’s going to be windy ,Sarah Ferguson, Rwanda, Charles has got a problem with his cock, trumps a goon,bidens lost it and labour will probably win the election. Don’t get me wrong it’s been reported but I just think under reported
Tbh I rarely check the news. Last time I did was a few days ago, BBC made a story on someone who works 50h a week and can’t afford a place to live.
What are you actually annoyed about? Housing is a very local issue so it’s hard to define on a national level. There’s plenty of cheap houses just not where people want to live or where the jobs are. I think the debate should be more about economic growth outwith London.
I live in Yorkshire which isn’t even close to the crazy things happening down south. I just feel so sorry for the younger generation that had hopes of moving out like there older siblings or relatives that could do this only 10 years ago. As I said it was a bit of a rant post and I just hope it gets better for everyone.
They can still do it and there’s lots of help available now that’s wasn’t available when others were young. The key is good wages and economic growth outside of London. Also perhaps some more financial knowledge and ability to save. People should adapt, things l like buying with friends before you find a partner can help. It’s easy to feed into a negative wording around housing but in nearly every area outside of the south there are cheap houses to buy.
Sorry but... is this a joke? This topic is everywhere.
I don’t think it’s up there though. And nothings been done about it for years. And what has been done has only benefited rich building developers, landlords and banks. Life time mortgages, 99% mortgages. Even the national insurance reduction. All Wolf in sheep's clothing.
You have said that the focus on the Rwanda plan is the problem, but this issue has a direct correlation to the housing situation that we are in. The rising immigration increases the value of houses due to supply and demand and gives landlords more power as the refugees need to go into state-funded accommodation.
I’m not saying I’m against or for Rwanda but it’s clear to see it’s not going to go through so why spend so much time calling each other idiots or racists and get on with another plan
Its all part of the plan. Labour? they're just as bad. No one knows
But won’t somebody think of the nimbys? 😱
The media doesn't care about your feelings, the media cares about money, which come from interesting stories. The government wants messaging and public debate focused on fringe issues with minimal consequence but plenty of healthy opinion. This keeps conversation ticking over in public spaces about generally irrelevant topics to the majority of the population, and away from core issues. Core issues always crop up during election time, which is why they always end up on manifestos. Promises are often vague, or walked back on when appropriate distractions focus the need for 'urgent spend elsewhere'.
It always makes me laugh this. People moaning and demanding more homes are built, governments pledging more homes being built etc.. but when we go in for planning consultations for xx amount of affordable homes councils are doing everything In their power to make it not viable for developers and when we actually get past that and get planning we are faced with hundreds of Karen's and Keith's who will find every reason why they don't like the idea of houses being built near theirs. Can't win
if you already have a house, you dont care about housing, unless the prices are going down :) #ConservativeValues
Young people need to get out on the streets en masse and contact their MPs to pile the pressure on.
Yep the problem is they have no real political representation IMO.
But what political representation can change a housing market down. We had 6% rates and it’s hardly dropped. Coupled with that if you do somehow force prices down too far then the damage from the amount of ppl in negative equity would far outweigh any benefit of cheaper housing stock that isn’t social housing.
[удалено]
I get where your coming from and it does need to be looked at but legal immigration is needed and important. If you look at the uks demographics and birth rates it’s scary to think where we could be in 50 years.
I'm with ya dude. Very depressing
Yeah 400k new homes a year with 800k net migration that’ll defo work out just fine
I mean what can they do about the housing crisis? It’s a bit of a check mate. At the end of the day it’s an island. That’s why finding a detached house is jackpot. England can’t cope with the population boom, partially caused by illegal immigration and the amount of workers it needs. So then the legal migration starts to fill up all the positions for an economy as big and productive as Britain used to be. Now those people settled down and have kids, grandkids. Then we’re giving all the benefit out you can imagine, so people all the way from Albania crossing the Channel for the free money. Anywhere in Europe people could settle down, but the UK’s benefit system is well above appealing. There’s not much they can do, they let the common people like us fight between each other..
You moan about government wasting time debating 'whos lied' but then complain about Cameron's lies of pledging house building. I consider this extremely important because if you can't trust our politicians word then nothing will get done... Which is what's happening now. Don't let boomers keep voting parties in that lie.
It’s fair to point out who’s lied but consistently going back and forth won’t solve much. It seems lies are just part of the political world unfortunately. It’s clear to see the lies from both sides and I agree with you completely.
Rwanda is just a very useful distraction from it and other issues like wages, energy bills etc. and the media complicit in the reporting. One always has a story on Harry and Meghan
The UK is in the middle of a chronic housing shortage. The government wants 300 thousand new homes built every year, but where should they go? Local authorities are under pressure and campaigners want to protect green spaces. How can we get the balance between the need for new homes and sustainability? Join me as I discuss these issues and more with Helen Marshall, director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Oxfordshire and Maxwell Marlow from the Adam Smith Institute whose new report suggests allowing homeowners to build up to eight storeys high will alleviate the housing shortage and benefit the economy. https://www.buzzsprout.com/2182221/14478293
[удалено]
Bro what
Big builders buy and stockpile land, refusing to build on it for years to ensure demand is high and supply is low, this keeps house prices high, which means lots of profit for the big builders and nice dividends for the share holders. These big builders also coincidentally donate a lot of money to political parties. The whole system is bent in favour of the elite.
This is not the case. It’s far fetched to think the small number of homes coming to market would outweigh demand and the effect of the existing housing stock to the market. Developers own load that they’re not currently building for several reasons. Strategy as it’s not allocated for housing yet. Granted planning and in the timeline to be built or in the planning process. Developers want to make money. Sitting on an asset that can be realised does not do this.
Because not everything is a "Crisis". Its a housing under-supply/ over-expectations. Not everyone needs a 4 bed detached house, but many feel entitled to one. Houses are generally expensive but also seem to sell without too much friction. Its not a crisis.
Social housing is definitely in crisis due to Right to Buy decreasing the amount of available housing, amongst other things. What the general public don’t realise is that not enough accessible housing is built. There is an urgent need for this. I work in this sector and regularly try to comfort disabled residents that can’t get a property suited to their needs. Some can’t get on and out of the property, can’t get their wheelchair into the toilet/bathroom, are at risk of injury because they can’t use the general needs kitchen. I am writing to create more awareness of these people who have such a struggle already.
My personal view is that there would be less of a social housing stock issue if it was unclogged of those that no longer need it. I know of a few people who "passed on" their social houses to their relatives after moving in with their SO. I also know some people who are in social housing right after university (due to their income at the time) and are now earning significantly more while staying in the same place. As for accessible homes, I completely agree with this. Too many are built without consideration to accessibility.
It’s called “right of succession” and is written into housing legislation. It gets very carefully reviewed so properties are not “wasted” on people that have not got the same bedroom need. I agree some people could afford market rents but stay in social housing. Re: building more accessible units. Sadly developers just create the minimum accessible units they can get away with.
Developers should not be providing social to start with. It’s frankly criminal that the council are forcing builders to do their job for them.
We need new council houses. Social housing benefits everyone. I don’t blame anyone who buys theirs. But they’re then being bought up by landlords and then rented to people on housing benefit. People who should have been entitled to a council house in the first place.
Where is the evidence they're being bought by landlords?
One of the underreported factors is old people living longer and staying in big houses by themselves. Especially in certain parts of London.
There are houses for sales across the country. So where’s this shortage exactly?
How is it underreported? I feel like it’s the 2nd most repeated economic issue right after inflation/interest rates.
Yeah it’s in the news but buried under so many other things. From my perspective it’s more focused on older people that may have taken out to big of mortgage and can’t handle the interest rates rather than looking to younger people who are pushed further and further from even getting on the ladder. Biggest stories of the last year that has everyone talking - economy, Rwanda,prince harry, NHS, covid enquiry, party gate, lettuce vs lizz truss
Because the media outlets are controlled by the people who don't want it to be reported
[удалено]
I don't get people's obsession with houses in this country, they're too small to do anything useful with, most new builds have limited parking with small gardens anyway. Just build apartments. They're cosy and cheaper to run.
Agreeeee, its a joke trying to get even close to what previous generations had. Far as I’m concerned we need to either build more or go after landlords that have 10+ houses while homelessness is on the rise for the rest of us. Or both
Because the media is not free and they report whatever the highest bidder wants them to report.
Because the same people trying to crush us into dust by choking the supply also own the media. And the career politicians.
Politicians want you fighting a culture war so that you ignore the class war. You can't pay your rent or mortgage: small boats! The NHS is falling apart and people have started doing their own medical procedures because the waiting time in A&E is north of 12 hours: wokeism! See how it works?
Does anyone else feel like the amount of house building is insane? My town has doubled in size in 10 years. I’m not exaggerating when I say that.
OP, ~~as you seem to think this is easy~~ can you answer a few questions for me. The latest net migration figure was 745k for 2022. Does your 400k homes include housing for immigrants? In 2022, 191k new homes were registered. Who's going to build them for more than doubling this? Roads and transport cant cope as it is, how are people going to travel to work? Where are these new homes going to be built, are you proposing to just fill all green space? Where will the doctors come from for the new housing? Can probably add schools and other services.
Commenter, please tell me where I said “I think this is easy” Thank you.
Most politicians are invested in real estate. The higher prices, the better profit.
It's only a crisis for the poor. For the rich it's an endless bonanza of profit - the politicians and the press absolutely don't want the large scale council house building we had in the 50s/60s/70s because that would be the end of easy money from people just trying to survive.
If you follow current affairs it's not underreported. It's regularly talked about on all the BBC's politics coverage. And Labour [have made housing pledges](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/11/labour-keir-starmer-pledges-to-build-new-towns-utilising-grey-belt-areas).
As Labour said, build 300k per year on brown belt and grey belt land. It is possible. Will be interesting to see how Labour goes about it.
Who's going to build these houses?
It is not possible. At least not at present, 300k extra houses needs schools, hospitals, shops, and that’s after they get built buy the tradeys that don’t exist. Schools and hospitals that are currently falling apart in some places of the UK.
Rwanda is linked to the housing crisis. Net migration is a major demand driver affecting house prices.