2024 Election thread

Immigration isn't the main driver of housing shortage. Decades of progressively tighter planning regime and the inability of local authorities to adequately replace sold housing. I've already posted the downsides of restricting immigration. I can only assume that this is why the government have issued so many visas as restricting immigration would act against efforts to reduce inflation.

Immigration has only shot up in the last couple of years. Housebuilding has been below the required level since the 1980s.

I think that chart speaks for itself.

🙂 it's one of many that show the same thing. We've not built enough for the last thirty-odd years. We *still* haven't got back to pre-2008 levels.

Not sure what the problem with estate agents and lawyers making profits is. Or anyone else for that matter.

Local authorities do still build some new housing: just nowhere near enough.

The major issue (aside from funding) is the lack of expertise. There are numerous examples of local councillors acting as property developers with fairly disastrous results.

How do you tell the required level from that graph? (Genuine question - I feel the need to say that to avoid sounding like I am automatically disagreeing)

I'm talking about now though, so clearly immigration is having an impact.

If the problem is long term absences, why is the solution penalising parents taking children on holidays which are by their nature, short term absences.

Why do conservative policies not even try to solve the problem they are attempting to solve.

Also, term time holidays have been "cracked down on" for as long as I remember, why not pick another topic.

the problem is taking public money away from housing and into the pockets of estate agents, lawyers et al.

it directly reduced the social housing stock available to the less wealthy and directly redistributed the proceeds to the wealthier

similar to the effect of utility privatisations, if you look at profits extracted vs. under-investment since privatisation, the numbers can be comparable, everyone pays more for degraded services, greatest impact on the least wealthy, greatest benefit for the owners

uk sold off public assets like dumb kids buying hit after hit of crack, thinking the high would go on forever, but eventually the public assets were gone, and the new owners are whoring the kids out to maximise return

I'm not sure Council houses were sold to anyone other than the sitting tennants and the discount was based on how long they had been tennants. I also suspect there were some clauses as to how soon they could be resold without penalty.

Not sure that it was a transfer to the wealthy (as Sungod suggests), by the very nature of who council tenants were. It was a transfer of wealth from the state to the less well off though, and will benefit their future generations as those properties are inherited.

Also no estate agent involvement at the time, just solicitors and mortgage advisers.

Of course it did substantially reduce the stock of housing for rent (whilst also reducing demand for it in the short to medium term). The lack of and difficulties in adding to the remaining stock of public rented housing is clearly an issue now though.

This is what Sungod said:

it directly reduced the social housing stock available to the less wealthy and directly redistributed the proceeds to the wealthier

Of course it was a huge transfer of wealth, but was that such a bad thing to boost the situation of those tenants? It meant they didn't have to keep paying rent through retirement for example. Also thouse who benefitted will have felt wealthier and probably spent more as a result benefitting the economy.

My memory of the sale of council houses mirrors DB's version.

Sitting in an ex-council house may make them paper-rich but it doesn't mean they have disposable income and they need somewhere to live. It is their descendants who will benefit. Or care homes which is another debate.

Going somewhere of historical or cultural interest? Fair point.

A week in Marbella, not so much.