geared Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 We've shifted quite far away from high density housing, which obviously makes it much harder to build homes in large numbers. Look at other countries, or large cities. High density housing is quite common, sky scrapers are the norm in decent sized cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Politics. Older people are more likely to own their own homes but are nearing retirement so are potentially looking to either downsize or sell up and move to a nursing or wardened home Higher house prices for them mean that they have more to retire on when they sell up These older people are more likely to vote than younger people Building more houses reduces house prices by raising supply higher than demand (or at least closer to demand) Older people don't want house price to fall so they are against this idea Governments tend not to bring in changes that large numbers of their electorate are against as it may hurt votes. There's clearly more to it than that, but that's basically the main reason. Keeping older voter happy with house prices. Along with all MPs of all flavours that are property developers and owners of course. Gotta look after your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogets Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Why should young people have housing subsidised? I don't ask the government to buy me a Ferrari At the end of the day, I have a house with a wonderful view across the valleys and fields, which I enjoy. The last thing I want are a few thousand new houses blotting the landscape and spoiling my view ---------- Post added 17-05-2017 at 12:15 ---------- The current system is built around debt If you have less houses than there are people to buy then demand goes up, and so do prices If they built loads of new houses (say 1 million) then this would reduce supply/demand and the house prices would fall, which in modern topsy turvy Britain means a slump No government are going to encourage a slump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Why should young people have housing subsidised? I don't ask the government to buy me a Ferrari At the end of the day, I have a house with a wonderful view across the valleys and fields, which I enjoy. The last thing I want are a few thousand new houses blotting the landscape and spoiling my view ---------- Post added 17-05-2017 at 12:15 ---------- The current system is built around debt If you have less houses than there are people to buy then demand goes up, and so do prices If they built loads of new houses (say 1 million) then this would reduce supply/demand and the house prices would fall, which in modern topsy turvy Britain means a slump No government are going to encourage a slump And the troll is back. After a few posts where your mask slipped and you actually posted something believable and honest it's all come crashing back down again. Please go elsewhere so the rest of us can have a grown up discussion (also called an argument!) without you derailing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogets Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 And the troll is back. After a few posts where your mask slipped and you actually posted something believable and honest it's all come crashing back down again. Please go elsewhere so the rest of us can have a grown up discussion (also called an argument!) without you derailing it. So you don't think that the bottom line is that people agree there needs to be a mass house building programme? As long as its not on their back yard How many people would be willing to sacrifice their lovely view across the countryside just so their fellow (younger) brits can have somewhere to live? Not many at a guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 So you don't think that the bottom line is that people agree there needs to be a mass house building programme? As long as its not on their back yard How many people would be willing to sacrifice their lovely view across the countryside just so their fellow (younger) brits can have somewhere to live? Not many at a guess I have no issue with what you've put. Just you seem to post things in a way to wind others up and hence why I react to you posts like that. If you really aren't trying to be a troll then accept my apologies. Would I choose to have loads more house near me? No of course not, but I would totally accept it without complaint as the need for more homes is important. Then again my house doesn't have a fab view to begin with! Equally there is so much land available for building on that there is really no need to screw over others to build more. It's just a convenient excuse for the government to not bother building. 'oh, we can't build more houses there, it's green belt land', while simultaneously approving fracking which will cause significant damage to the environment if only by the building of the rigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 There's plenty of brownfield land available. Using it should avoid the need to use greenbelt land. But developers prefer the latter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 There's plenty of brownfield land available. Using it should avoid the need to use greenbelt land. But developers prefer the latter! So we have enough businesses that have closed down, that have created spare land to build houses on, for our growing population. Dont we have a growing economy too, how can businesses close down making enough land, whilst our economy is growing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I always think it's because they don't really want to! There are numerous issues which play a part in the lack of housebuilding: Government policy & support, availability of the land in the right location, whether the housing development will stack up financially for the developer, Local Authorities attitude to house building.. But surely it would be a vote winner! Yes no doubt some people will complain that new social housing will affect the area & prices. However those would've been concerns in the 1950s & 1960s, when political parties competed with each other in how many houses they would build. Is there a fear on the incumbent party that if they took the decision to raise taxes to built more homes, then the next party would go for the populist vote, and sell off those homes at a knock down price?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerousedd Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 isn't the economy being propped up by high house prices? why would either party want to undermine that with a large house building spree? even as a long time labour voter I have my doubts they would build massive amounts of housing if elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now