Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
No. It's not trying to address inflated property prices.pblakeney said:
Thanks. So it is properties being sold cheap to 1st time buyers who couldn’t afford it otherwise? Fine but doesn’t address the issue of property stock being overpriced. Probably makes it worse. Prices will keep rising as long as properties are selling at inflated prices even if those prices exceed wages.rjsterry said:
It is affordable to people who can't afford to buy or rent on the open market. It is not available to those who can afford to buy or rent on the open market.pblakeney said:
What is the point in “affordable” housing if it’s not affordable?rjsterry said:
No it's not. See the definition posted. It's a technical term with a technical definition. What you or I think is affordable in the general sense is neither here nor there.super_davo said:
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Average mean salary in the UK is £31,500, so if you say £30,000, then you can borrow up to £270k as a couple (assuming both earn that much) or £135k as single applicant. Nobody would lend that without fairly hefty deposits mind. And note that's the UK average, so there would likely be regional variation with London/SE being higher and elsewhere needing to be a fair bit lower.
It's just on the last page but one more time.Affordable housing
Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or is for essential local workers); and which complies with one or more of the following definitions:
(a) Affordable housing for rent: meets all of the following conditions: (a) the rent is set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable); (b) the landlord is a registered provider, except where it is included as part of a Build to Rent scheme (in which case the landlord need not be a registered provider); and (c) it includes provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. For Build to Rent schemes affordable housing for rent is expected to be the normal form of affordable housing provision (and, in this context, is known as Affordable Private Rent).
(b) Starter homes: is as specified in sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and any secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a starter home should reflect the meaning set out in statute and any such secondary legislation at the time of plan-preparation or decision-making. Where secondary legislation has the effect of limiting a household’s eligibility to purchase a starter home to those with a particular maximum level of household income, those restrictions should be used.
(c) Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.
(d) Other affordable routes to home ownership: is housing provided for sale that provides a route to ownership for those who could not achieve home ownership through the market. It includes shared ownership, relevant equity loans, other low cost homes for sale (at a price equivalent to at least 20% below local market value) and rent to buy (which includes a period of intermediate rent). Where public grant funding is provided, there should be provisions for the homes to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for any receipts to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision, or refunded to government or the relevant authority specified in the funding agreement.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I find it trivially amusing that people are getting hung up on a word being used that doesn't necessarily apply in all cases, but overall gets across what it's supposed to.
If you're getting so exercised by the term, come up with a better one that not only accurately describes the idea it refers to, but also makes it appeal to those it is supposed to attract.0 -
Sorry. If using the definition of "affordable" does not make properties actually affordable then it needs to be redefined, or the use ceased as it is useless in a practical sense.rjsterry said:
No. It's not trying to address inflated property prices.
It's just on the last page but one more time.
...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
Sorry. If using the definition of "affordable" does not make properties actually affordable then it needs to be redefined, or the use ceased as it is useless in a practical sense.rjsterry said:
No. It's not trying to address inflated property prices.
It's just on the last page but one more time.
...
See my challenge above about coming up with a one-word improvement that covers all bases.
I suspect virtually every utterance you make is littered with linguistic non-literalisms and fudges, as that's how language works. As long as people know what you're referring to, that's all that matters.0 -
I wouldn’t equate words on here with being “exercised”. 😜briantrumpet said:I find it trivially amusing that people are getting hung up on a word being used that doesn't necessarily apply in all cases, but overall gets across what it's supposed to.
If you're getting so exercised by the term, come up with a better one that not only accurately describes the idea it refers to, but also makes it appeal to those it is supposed to attract.
Try “passes the time”0 -
I think you are expecting a lot if you think the definition of a certain type of housing provision will change the whole property market.pblakeney said:
Sorry. If using the definition of "affordable" does not make properties actually affordable then it needs to be redefined, or the use ceased as it is useless in a practical sense.rjsterry said:
No. It's not trying to address inflated property prices.
It's just on the last page but one more time.
...
Affordable housing *is* affordable - through the mechanisms listed in the definition - to those elligible for it. It is used and understood without issue in the planning and property development world, and I dare say, in the world at large, notwithstanding a few Cakestoppers.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What do I expect to happen? Nothing.
A few more houses with zero effect on the market.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Affordable housing is not an attempt to affect the market. It's a means to provide decent housing for people unable to access the market.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
As Rick says.rjsterry said:Affordable housing is not an attempt to affect the market. It's a means to provide decent housing for people unable to access the market.
The cynic me says it is more about votes than anything practical.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What is? Affordable housing has been a working definition for years. It's got nothing to do with elections.pblakeney said:
As Rick says.rjsterry said:Affordable housing is not an attempt to affect the market. It's a means to provide decent housing for people unable to access the market.
The cynic me says it is more about votes than anything practical.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
All houses are affordable apparently (from the person regularly complaining that his friends can’t afford to buy a house).pblakeney said:
Sorry. If using the definition of "affordable" does not make properties actually affordable then it needs to be redefined, or the use ceased as it is useless in a practical sense.rjsterry said:
No. It's not trying to address inflated property prices.
It's just on the last page but one more time.
...0 -
To make you and PB happy, let's call it subsidised housing. Whether it's a HA renting at well below market rate or developer selling a certain number of units at a reduced price or under a part ownership scheme, they are all subsidised by someone other than the tenant or (part) owner.rick_chasey said:*some* people
Quite rightly, this is not available to anyone who can afford to buy or rent on the open market, even if that is not necessarily the home they would wish for - that's you and me, Rick. There is a massive shortage of affordable/subsidised housing as well as a more general shortage in the open market. Building a lot more of the former will remove some of the pressure on the latter, not to mention reducing the burden of housing benefit. Once Councils and HAs aren't forced by necessity to offer housing to only the most needy, then there may even be some available for young professionals, but they're some way back in the queue.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't think this is a long term solution to the problem.rjsterry said:
If you do then fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
My view is that housing is overpriced because people are happy to pay over the value, and quite often over what they can afford. I have no easy solution as it is quite literally turkeys voting for Christmas.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well it's a theory, but I think it's more likely to be down to basic supply and demand.pblakeney said:
I don't think this is a long term solution to the problem.rjsterry said:
If you do then fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
My view is that housing is overpriced because people are happy to pay over the value, and quite often over what they can afford. I have no easy solution as it is quite literally turkeys voting for Christmas.
Subsidised housing of one sort or another has been around for well over a century, but latterly we have been converting that to open market housing to plug the gap caused by restrictions on supply.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It worked well enough when we had council houses. The open market will be dictated by supply and demand plus economics, builders won’t build new housing if they aren’t making a decent profit. A decent planning policy and stable government with fixed policies on housing may help though.pblakeney said:
I don't think this is a long term solution to the problem.rjsterry said:
If you do then fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
My view is that housing is overpriced because people are happy to pay over the value, and quite often over what they can afford. I have no easy solution as it is quite literally turkeys voting for Christmas.0 -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8TK9rlXgAAgSXi?format=jpg&name=large
Think this is spot on
Politicians are quietly turning this expectation into a quid pro quo: if voters want more from the state, the state will want more from voters. People have to pay
more for public services, for one thing. Taxes have risen, and will keep rising as long as people's demands increase. The Conservatives have managed this stealthily, by letting inflation push people into higher tax brackets. This alone will bring in about £4obn ($49bn; 2% of GDP) annually by the end of the decade-enough
to build a leg of Hs2 each year. But it also means the state will intrude more into the lives of voters, in a bid to keep a lid on the cost of the services they demand. Compared with lockdowns, even
sweeping measures seem small bore. Banning cigarettes seems less invasive than when the government briefly made it illegal to meet friends in your garden, all in the name of keeping the NHs running. That principle is now the norm. In the new nanny state, everyone is a public
servant.0 -
-
Oh go on. A bit of leftie bashing would restore some balance in this place.rick_chasey said:Delete
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
FixedStevo_666 said:
Oh go on. A bit of leftie bashing would restore this thread to the first pagerick_chasey said:Delete
0 -
Actually, apart from Corbyn & McDonnell, I'm not sure what ones are left... they've all gone terribly corporate, if the schmooze-fests at the Labour conference reported in Private Eye are anything to go by. I'm sure that @Stevo_666 and his shadow @shortfall will be happy to know that all the big names have realised that Labour have moved into the vaguely sensible space that the Tories have vacated.0
-
According to the OP this is thread for leftie bashing, but people in Cake Stop do tend to go off topicsecretsqirrel said:
FixedStevo_666 said:
Oh go on. A bit of leftie bashing would restore this thread to the first pagerick_chasey said:Delete
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's a difference between actually doing that and trying to make out that you have. I have my squadron of pigs on standby ready for the pro growth and pro business policies of New Old Labourbriantrumpet said:Actually, apart from Corbyn & McDonnell, I'm not sure what ones are left... they've all gone terribly corporate, if the schmooze-fests at the Labour conference reported in Private Eye are anything to go by. I'm sure that @Stevo_666 and his shadow @shortfall will be happy to know that all the big names have realised that Labour have moved into the vaguely sensible space that the Tories have vacated.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Conflict is shaking out the nutters in Labour.
Local councillors resigning over **foreign policy stances** which are also entirely ineffectual.
Starmer must be delighted.0 -
A lot of opportunity for the Lib Dems to be anti war again.rick_chasey said:
Conflict is shaking out the nutters in Labour.
Local councillors resigning over **foreign policy stances** which are also entirely ineffectual.
Starmer must be delighted.0 -
I suspect that these will be in the minority of Labour nutters and a lot of them will not resign.rick_chasey said:
Conflict is shaking out the nutters in Labour.
Local councillors resigning over **foreign policy stances** which are also entirely ineffectual.
Starmer must be delighted."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Getting rid of the nutters *before* you get in parliament would be an improvement on this current lot. Else you run the risk, as Cameron did, for letting them get in charge.0
-
What's so nutty about it?0
-
local councillors resigning over something the UK has no say over half way around the world seems pretty nutty to me.TheBigBean said:What's so nutty about it?
0 -
The UK doesn't get to change anything, but it does get to have a stated position. Someone resigning because they don't believe in their leader's position seems reasonable to me.rick_chasey said:
local councillors resigning over something the UK has no say over half way around the world seems pretty nutty to me.TheBigBean said:What's so nutty about it?
0
