The Conservatives introduced legislation aimed to curtail people buying 2nd homes in 2015. Since 1 April 2016, if you buy a 2nd home or more, you pay an extra 3% of stamp duty on the price of the property. So for example, if you paid £250,000 on a 2nd house, you would have £15,250 of stamp duty to pay on the property, compared to just £2,500 if it were your first house. Of course, it could be argued that such a scheme doesn't go far enough, and that property magnates with a multi-house portfolio could easily live with such an increase, and I'm sure there are ways of getting around the increase using shell companies and the like. Perhaps an additional 1% for each additional house on top of the second one could be an idea?

 

The problem with that policy though is it does not really stop the problem, like you say it is the multi-portfolio investors that the issues lie with. Anyway like all these things, if you pay someone enough you can get round the problem.

 

Yes we need more housing, but it's not just as simple as building more housing. We also have to deal with more traffic on the roads in certain areas and the roads are not fit for purpose and traffic blow, never mind adding more housing in certain areas. Plus a lot of the resistance to housing is social -every time there is a new housing development propositioned in my city, the locals always kick of. More needs to be done to encourage building on existing brownfield sites. But then usually someone has to pay for the link roads etc. that come with the new estate (usually us).

It's not just road links. More needs to be done in terms of public transport links too. The Greater Manchester combined authority having the foresight to run a tram line through the Quays as the first Metrolink expansion has been a huge part of making this area a success. Salford Quays is the perfect example of a brownfield site done right

The extra stamp duty is OK as far as it goes but, as you say, it is easy to avoid it. The property is transferred into the ownership of a company. That company doesn't actually produce anything and its only asset is the property. The company is then sold to somebody else who thereby acquires the property without having to pay stamp duty.

It's not just road links. More needs to be done in terms of public transport links too. The Greater Manchester combined authority having the foresight to run a tram line through the Quays as the first Metrolink expansion has been a huge part of making this area a success. Salford Quays is the perfect example of a brownfield site done right

 

Yes of course it is a great example, but it has been helped by some major investment in terms of the businesses and Media City. But public transport is another thing, I mean I know they are doing a lot of work in London in terms of Crossrail and extending the Northern Line, but with these projects the costs often spiral out of control. It's a huge problem for the government, especially when in some major cities (Leeds, Birmingham) the public transport really puts a hinder on the sustained growth of the cities.

 

Also I totally agree as well about foreign investment - I think if you curb that you can go a long way to beginning to solve some problems.

It's been a bit of a hand in hand thing. The tram has encouraged investment and development and at the same time, that investment and development is what brought the tram into the Quays in the first place. I think to solve a lot of our problems it's the kind of partnership we do need to see more of. Now we're like 20years on from the tram line opening, Peel are going to double MediacityUK and they paid for a small branch of the tram line to come into Mediacity itself because it's that important to be close to the line.

 

Every property ad around here pretty much starts with what Metrolink stop it's closest to.

 

I agree cost control is a huge issue, just look at Edinburgh and Birmingham trams and the Sheffield-Rotheram Tram-train and basically every attempt to electrify a rail line. I still think it's a worthwhile investment if it's well planned and well targeted. Edinburgh Trams passed the break even point in the second year and are sufficiently ahead of ridership targets the council are deciding early 2018 if they should extend the line to the full length planned for phase 1. The borders railway is thrashing it's ridership targets to the point that Scotrail had to increase carriage numbers and frequency of service - and there is some solid evidence 1 year on that the alleged benefits to tourism and local business have exceeded some optimistic estimates. If it's well planned then you tend to see the wider benefits, even if the cost is higher than anticipated.

 

Plus, for every cost overrun we seem to be seeing an increasing number of projects come in on budget eg Queensferry Crossing.

Even when you strip out the impact of immigration the growth rate in housing isn’t sufficient enough to sustain the natural population growth of the UK. Even if you limit it to part of the population deemed human by the Daily Mail.

 

Despite your cries that the opposite is true. If it looks like a racist and quacks like a racist.....

 

Stereotyping people who raise valid points (and an increasing population *does* put pressure on housing and other services) as racist was one of the driving force towards the Brexit vote. People who would not be considered racist by a strict dictionary definition, have gotten pee'd off over the years at having their objections swept under the carpet, and therefore saw the EU referendum as their only chance of having their opinion heard.

 

The idea that you could solve the housing crisis by significantly reducing immigration is a total misnomer. For starters a large proportion of our construction workforce are immigrants, so you would seriously struggle to literally put the bricks on the ground quickly enough if you were to tighten the borders. Obviously as others have mentioned, there are several other far clearer reasons why housing has become unaffordable which Paul as always wilfully ignores in favour of demonstrating his lack of understanding of safe spaces again.

 

On the contrary, I know perfectly well what the literal definition of 'safe space' is - therefore my use of it in other contexts is clearly a parody. It is based on the observation that those who follow the doctrine of PC are unable to accept people who don't, in any other way than in derogatory terms.

 

Immigration has absolutely nothing to do with the housing crisis.

 

Affordability is the big issue and I think you'll find that unimpeded lending at record low interest rates from the banks has had a far greater impact on that than supply constraints.

 

Affordability is linked to supply, and supply is linked to demand, so unless you honestly assess the reasons behind said demand, a practical solution cannot be achieved.

Government policy is not going to be changed significantly based on hammond's drivel (we shall see this week), but part of the problem is the government shovel shitloads of money towards the major building companies, supposedly to encourage them to build more, but it has the reverse effect because it is in effect a subsidy towards their profits so they have no incentive to build more to make bigger profits, they do quite nicely already and get more for least effort.

 

Section 106 contributions are supposed to pay for infrastructure, but Housing planning applications which have been granted subject to these end up the Councils being blackmailed by the developers: once granted permission they turn round and say that it's not affordable anymore to pay up, or contribute affordable housing as required by law, so they get away with it as the alternative is no building at all. People like Boris Johnson saved their pals millions by eliminating these charges entirely on lucrative multi-million schemes in London at the stroke of a pen.

 

Until the government puts our money where it's mouth is and stops pandering to the developers, nothing will change.

 

 

Stereotyping people who raise valid points (and an increasing population *does* put pressure on housing and other services) as racist was one of the driving force towards the Brexit vote. People who would not be considered racist by a strict dictionary definition, have gotten pee'd off over the years at having their objections swept under the carpet, and therefore saw the EU referendum as their only chance of having their opinion heard.

On the contrary, I know perfectly well what the literal definition of 'safe space' is - therefore my use of it in other contexts is clearly a parody. It is based on the observation that those who follow the doctrine of PC are unable to accept people who don't, in any other way than in derogatory terms.

Affordability is linked to supply, and supply is linked to demand, so unless you honestly assess the reasons behind said demand, a practical solution cannot be achieved.

 

It also eases pressure on services like the NHS and care services, which depend entirely on immigrants. The housing issue is an issue that can be solved as easily as it's been solved in previous decades and generations, and is not an argument against immigration, it's an argument against useless politicians. In a few years when you inevitably start to need to use the NHS yourself you may well change your mind if there is no-one there to save your life or care for you.

 

Or you can support a government that actually builds more houses directly, and has policies to encourage building in the private sector, and jobs in the building industry in order to have enough younger people looking after older people in need. It's really quite simple, unless you have private insurance yourself or are wealthy enough to not care about that sort of issue.....

 

So your rather simplistic assessment that everything is the fault of immigrants DOES come over as "Daily Mail" headline clickbait racisism because

 

a) it isn't all the fault of immigrants (as explained in detail by various people)

b) the housing problem can be resolved without a single person having to leave the country, as it always has been throughout history.

 

Perhaps you need to do a bit more reading around history and politics? People who read only The Daily Mail end up being brainwashed and repeating their drivel as if it's fact.

So your rather simplistic assessment that everything is the fault of immigrants

 

STOP POSTING LIES LIKE THIS - I NEVER CLAIM *EVERYTHING* IS THE FAULT OF IMMIGRANTS, only that they are a factor in the equation that the left prefers to ignore.

 

 

DOES come over as "Daily Mail" headline clickbait racisism because

 

a) it isn't all the fault of immigrants (as explained in detail by various people)

b) the housing problem can be resolved without a single person having to leave the country, as it always has been throughout history.

 

iro a) see above

 

b) Yes it could - but the obvious solution leads to tragedies like Grenfall Towers.

Grenfell Tower was the result of idiot politicians failing to see the difference between "best value for money" and "cheapest".

STOP POSTING LIES LIKE THIS - I NEVER CLAIM *EVERYTHING* IS THE FAULT OF IMMIGRANTS, only that they are a factor in the equation that the left prefers to ignore.

Such a snowflake.

STOP POSTING LIES LIKE THIS - I NEVER CLAIM *EVERYTHING* IS THE FAULT OF IMMIGRANTS, only that they are a factor in the equation that the left prefers to ignore.

iro a) see above

 

b) Yes it could - but the obvious solution leads to tragedies like Grenfall Towers.

 

1. STOP POSTING ONLY ONE CAUSE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS and take a more rounded view and you'll find people don't make assumptions. You could just accept that comments people have made are valid, and say so. But you never do. You just get more and more defensive about sticking to your guns instead of being reasonable (as I was in my response when I accepted that immigration will have made SOME contribution towards the current problem, but it wasn't in itself the cause nor the solution to it)

 

2. Grenfell Towers has absolutely nothing to do with anything, that was a rich Council making cost-cutting decisions that were unnecessary together with poor H&S rules and regulating. There are tower blocks the world over (and these sort of events rarely happen in privately-run wealthy blocks where fires are contained rather than spread via cheap shitty cladding), and they are not even necessary as solutions anyway - houses can still be built as well as flats.

1. STOP POSTING ONLY ONE CAUSE OF HOUSING PROBLEMS and take a more rounded view and you'll find people don't make assumptions. You could just accept that comments people have made are valid, and say so.

 

Fine - I'm happy to acknowledge that, though I don't see why I should be expected to affirm everything, just to mollify those here who think i'm a raving right-winger.

Edited November 20, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Think? It’s a fairly factual conclusion based on over 20,000 data points by this point

Think? It’s a fairly factual conclusion based on over 20,000 data points by this point

 

I think this line works here : 'I've told you a million times not to exaggerate'. :P

 

Seriously though, over the years my approach to politics has changed from idealistic to pragmatic - that's why I reject policies of the hard left & hard right.

I think this line works here : 'I've told you a million times not to exaggerate'. :P

 

Seriously though, over the years my approach to politics has changed from idealistic to pragmatic - that's why I reject policies of the hard left & hard right.

 

err no. Your opinions as expressed on buzzjack are far from pragmatic. They are still idealistic. Based on what you have said of your opinions back in the day, all that's happened is they have moved from lefty-idealism to righty-idealism.

 

Now, I"M pragmatic (some would say cynical) because the instant someone in power says something I can't help assessing future problems better in 5 minutes than they do with hundreds of thousand of pounds of consultants providing propaganda for their sunshine idealism, because forward planning is just a catchphrase for idealists to ignore. It's just "I want this and all will be fine in the end trust me I don't want to hear negativity" and that's when disaster happens.

err no. Your opinions as expressed on buzzjack are far from pragmatic. They are still idealistic. Based on what you have said of your opinions back in the day, all that's happened is they have moved from lefty-idealism to righty-idealism.

 

Now, I"M pragmatic (some would say cynical) because the instant someone in power says something I can't help assessing future problems better in 5 minutes than they do with hundreds of thousand of pounds of consultants providing propaganda for their sunshine idealism, because forward planning is just a catchphrase for idealists to ignore. It's just "I want this and all will be fine in the end trust me I don't want to hear negativity" and that's when disaster happens.

 

OK, maybe my position on Brexit has a touch of idealism in it, but surely no more than the Remainer one. You put your trust in a body constantly trying to reconcile the interests of nearly 30 countries, many of whom have a long history of enmity to each other.

 

The pragmatism I referred to is mainly iro British internal politics. I believe that politics is more effective when it appeals to the centre ground, but as I see it, Corbyn's Labour is further to the Left, than May's Tories are to the right.

OK, maybe my position on Brexit has a touch of idealism in it, but surely no more than the Remainer one. You put your trust in a body constantly trying to reconcile the interests of nearly 30 countries, many of whom have a long history of enmity to each other.

 

The pragmatism I referred to is mainly iro British internal politics. I believe that politics is more effective when it appeals to the centre ground, but as I see it, Corbyn's Labour is further to the Left, than May's Tories are to the right.

The fact that most of that hostility towards each other is largely a thing of the past is one of the big edits of the EU. After all, it's one of the reasons it was set up in the first place.

The fact that most of that hostility towards each other is largely a thing of the past

 

It's no longer overt, but how can we really know if it's gone?

I think this line works here : 'I've told you a million times not to exaggerate'. :P

 

Seriously though, over the years my approach to politics has changed from idealistic to pragmatic - that's why I reject policies of the hard left & hard right.

 

Tories are hard right, as are UKIP, and Brexit is not in the LEAST bit pramatic and is based on Enid Blyton's fantasy Britain and the idea Empire remains