What about banning buy to let? That would solve few issues and reduce the prices a lot. Also, sell estate only to those that need it, not those that will use it for 'weekend'. Rich may not be happy about it, but should we care, if the poorer can't afford living in the first place and hold back from having families?
Why?? There are currently 15 people chasing one rental property. Not everyone wants to own property. They should encourage young people to become landlords
All well and good, so long as they intend to invest and build more GP's (and actually get doctors seeing patients), hospitals, schools and roads. In my area, which is heavily Labour controlled, they amount of new estates, houses and apartments have skyrocketed and as a result there aren't enough school places, GP's and the hospital waiting times are insane. The roads are also in a tragic state with potholes!
Yes, the UK needs more European-style apartment blocks. It is not the type of buildings that cause social issues, it's the fact that in the UK there is a huge proportion of unemployed and demoralised people housed there.
Excellent graph at 0:48. Really demonstrates the issue and neglect of our government. We do have a population decline issue which will get worse as the large boomer generation dies out, and we can only reverse that with decent quality affordable housing. Living with mum and dad is not conducive to making babies or starting families. The Tories have been incredibly short sighted.
"Living with mum and dad is not conducive to making babaies" This seems absolutely false on basis of data. All the countries with good birth rates have culture of multi-generation households.
Living with mum & dad isn't conducive to starting families, and neither is housing expenses being so great that they make single-income households or paying for childcare economically unviable - or at least at an unacceptable cost to quality of life/upbringing. I know in my case, the price of rent & childcare has meant we've had to make that calculation of choosing between a second child, or having a shot at actually owning a home, and we're quite well off compared to a lot of the households in the country.
In Ireland any planning application for 5 houses or more requires 20% to be handed over to the council for affordable and social housing. The council pay a fixed price per sq.ft for the build cost.
It's a start, but a report by Shelter (January 2019) said that the UK would need 300,000 new houses built every year _for_ _20_ _years_ to fix the UK's housing crisis, and that figure assumes that all 300,000 will be purchased by prospective owner-occupiers. Successive governments have been deliberately restricting supply over the years to enrich themselves and their cronies and pander to the property-owning segment of the electorate, using nominal house price increases as a surrogate for economic prosperity. But that approach is now coming back to haunt them because not enough properties also impacts on affordability in the rental sector, which in turn has pushed up homelessness and the cost to local authorities of putting people in emergency accommodation. Only yesterday we had on the BBC a news item about a council that is now spending 25% of its budget on housing people. We need radical change. Labour's pledge only seems radical in comparison to the Tories' lack of a vision beyond perpetually pumping up house prices and handing out the contents of the public purse to ferry companies that don't have any ferries.
What happens when baby boomers die and all there's all these £500k detached houses that nobody can afford to buy? This will happen in the next 20 years.
@@leehighland5435yet UK population growth is only up 0.3% year on year. It's almost like the UK population is falling because we can't have kids in houses anymore and all those old people are gonna see what effect an ageing population has on their pensions, the workforce and their so called "house" nest eggs
@@SlothWindGod The British people better get ready to accept that they will be living under an islamic state within 25-30 years, or maybe sooner, given the rate of spread of islam and the decline of Christianity in the country. I think there are a lot of people on the left who would prefer to live under Islamic administration then a Christian one, if they were forced to choose. You often see the left support/defend the Islamic community and struggles and attack the history of Christianity. Most of the people on the left are also young, so I suspect many will convert to islam has the growth of islam spreads.
@@SlothWindGodwell, if I would be forced to live with my parents in the beginning of my marriage I’m not sure I would rush to have my two kids in such circumstances. So yes, a lack of space does mean lower population growth.
You get with Vertical Spaces in Cities. But Community Living Spaces in Towns meant for reduced investments in necessary infrastructure. It's the Shared Living Spaces in Village for affordable costs and Boost of Public Finances.
I love how even if labour completely deliver on 1.5m houses in 5 years (which i highly doubt), it still won't make much of a difference to house prices or rents, this is how dire the housing situation is here!
For such a large and complex subject this is a very good video. I thought you might get sucked into discussing this as a purely quantitative issue ( number of new houses, economic effects) and not also qualitative (what kind of housing, where etc). The issue is the number of small households which have to be accommodated, as you rightly say in London and the South East- which also happens to have the most constraints in the form of Green Belt, AONB, National Parks etc. We really do have to build up but with adequate green/play space, allotments and room for wildlife too. Personally l would like to see schemes where tenants are also responsible for managing green space as happens on some industrial estates and places like New Ash Green
About ten years ago, Lord Adonis urged councils to demolish and rebuild council estates in the aim to not just increase the amount of social housing but obviously to improve the housing stock as some of it is very unfit for purpose in the 21st century. So they're not necessarily talking about building on the greenbelt.
Tejvan has done a lot of interesting articles/videos on housing in UK. Be good if he would do one on comparative housing set ups in representative EU countries.
How come interest rates are never part of this conversation? We've had historically low rates for decades now. Everyone lives to a monthly price rather than the overall value of a house, with borrowing costs being so low you have much more buying power, your £500 a month mortgage payment gets you alot more at 2% over 6%. We have driven house prices up by allowing more capital into the market with low borrowing rates, this is not wholey down to housing stock but in principal it's inflation.
@AA-hg5fk not with any sort of detail, it's a brief mention of yeah, interst rates went up. Then continued to talk about supply and demand of property rather than a supply and demand of money which is by far a much bigger driver in this.
1.5 million houses over 5 years, Labour. 300000 houses every year, torys. Sounds the same to me. Pledges are easy to make and very difficult to keep. Local planning departments and local resident objections always put a stop to things. And as for building 3 new towns.... Where! Olde Sir Kier maybe a Yimby but he will soon find out that everyone else isn't...
We had net imigration of 600,000 last year. So if you assume 2 per house hold, then you need 300,000 new homes a year just to house the migrants. So 1.5 million over 5 years is 300,000 a year. Population decline ? 58 million in 2001 67 million by 2021. When was the last year the uk population actually declined?
@@Finderskeepers. It was 67.33 million at the end of 2021. 9 million more than in 2001. You need to remember 2020-2022 were COVID years AND the official number will always going to be less than the REAL number, because the boats that just land on the beaches and disappear in to the black economy never get counted. PS just found mid year 2023 67.7 million, according to ONS. So still very much going up , I am afraid.
@@patdbean Covid hasnt gone away. I answered the question you asked now your coming back with excuses. Now your quoting an estimate from 2021 that has also been proven wrong.
@@Finderskeepers. Yes, I know covid has not gone away , but it is not killing anything like the numbers it was in 2020/21 my figures 2001 58 million. 2021 67.3 million and mid 2023 67.7 million , are ALL ONS figures. And they are ALL underestimates because they do not count undocumented immigrants. Anyway what really matters is the population density , spain is 97 per s/km France is 101 per s/km the UK is 280 per s/km. You need to know that before you can truly understand house prices.
We didnt have net migration of 600,000. We had inward migration of 600,000,and outward migration - britons leaving - of 505,000. Net migration is therefore only 100,000, and not all of those were permanent residents. Foreign Students that our higher education sector depends on, were a large part of that number. And our NHS is still short of 100,000 nurses.
Nice, say goodbye to the only nice part of England (green belt). London doesn't need to be so massive. High density is fine as long as it's tastefully done, ugly block towers aren't good for anyone.
@denzel270 19 minutes ago (edited) 32 new towns. For a party who think's it's image is green, this is the most environmentally destructive proposal they have made. How much food production land will be lost? How much more food will we have to import? How many new reservoirs will be needed? How many new sewage works will be needed? How many new land fills? Increased light pollution. How will it add to our carbon emissions and make it harder to meet net zero? How many more windfarms and solar farms will be needed to meet their eye wateringly expensive 'green' energy plans? What water attenuation issues will this cause? How much habitat will be lost? This will play straight into the hands of major developers already with a monopoly on building. People who oppose this are not NIMBY's. They are in fact environmentalists.
I had over 50 applicants in 1 week for my flat I just rented out. Only 7 were British. Most were from Africa and were not of a ‘young’ working demographic. We simply can’t keep up with a demand like that.
So may be your price or the area appeals to non-British retired people. What makes you think that if they are not British they have not worked for this country for years? You earn a “most ignorant comment” badge. Wear it with pride while we, non-British people, keep working.
@@crochetomania They were not of retirement age. I asked them how long they had been in the country so I can do my CIB and credit checks so that's how I know.
I just haven't seen any logical explanation as to why we don't just build UPwards. People keep saying 'too expensive', and that's really frustrating. Others say 'grenfell tower' and 'social issues'. But like, I live in China and of the very few things I can appreciate here, their ability to build is one. So here's my advice in context of that experience: Nobody cares about maintaining the beauty of, say, Birmingham. So just knock down all the shitty, depressing terraced houses, pay off the owners to move into 5 huge apartment buildings in their place - which will be nicer and posher than their current homes - bada-bing bada-boom. I estimate a little over 1,000 people live in my single building, which takes up like 3 houses worth of land space. You can't say its too expensive when you have a 30-floor, 8-room-per-floor building giving you 240x rents/mortgages in the space where 3 once were. I just don't see why this isn't just happening. Birmingham, considered huge, is about 1 million people. Shanghai is 26 million! You can cram WAY more people in Bham, which would then making a thriving economy outside of London for a change. I dunno, am I being naive?
Demand is the issue. Over 600,000 legally arrived here in the last year. Add overstayers, those without documents......no government has ever built enough to keep up with half of current demand. There is no hope of ever rectifying this situation under current conditions. Same as the NHS.
How about not letting foreigners to buy houses to NOT live in them like all those luxury flats and houses in London that stay empty for years? Yet there are plenty of foreigners in UK that live here, pay taxes, open businesses and need a space of their own too. The foreigners are not your enemy. The rich are.
@@garyb455 Land and construction costs aren't all that high relative to house prices. Hence the astronomical profits made by companies such as Persimmon over the years. In any case, the solution is simple: impose compulsory purchase orders at cost price for land not built on within a certain time frame. As for the planning regulations excuse that the Government tends to hide behind, they have a majority in Parliament, so they effectively make the law. If they want to simplify planning regulations, they'd have done it by now.
Getting sick of paying high interest rates due to a failed Brexit. Sort the banks out please! No point building lots of houses if people can't afford them.
This has been misread. The 5 million homes are fully equiped pre fab homes and constructing them starts soon in Scotland. What isn't said is these homes are not for UK residents. They are purely for aslyum seekers who have been processed. And as the government has reduced the processing time from weeks to just a couple of hours filling in a form and thats it! This has a two fold effect. 1. Ultra quick processing gets the numbers down rapidly. 2. Gets the illegals out of the hotels and into all expenses paid accomodation. This allows the government to say how good they are because, look, the numbers of illegals has dramatically dropped, and we've reduced the number of hotel rooms needed. The homeless? I hear you say Well that's a lifestyle choice and not our problem. No objections have come from labour either
The problem is the way land costs change between a field & a field with planning & uncontrolled immigration legal & illegal…1 in 65 people in this country came in the last 12 months…just building more houses in light of that solves NOTHING
You forget that you'll probably need a 20% deposit to get that rate. That's a deposit of around £56,000 and about £4,000-£5,000 to just get the keys, nevermind furnish it. £60,000? You might as well ask for the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro. It would be cheaper to get.
Destroying green areas is total nonsense. I massively doubt a Starmer Labour is 'for the people' structurally doing nothing for "housing being for living in". Property is simply an investment vehicle it would be interesting to see if the recent changes widen gini coefficient. Personally I'd like a video on that. The pitch like the 1.5 mil houses will for sure be an empty promise. Being Labour they might throw in social housing as part of the quota (in the pitch) if it's useful for gaining power, but it would still be an empty promise. This kind of video is great to me it touches on the deliberate obfuscation created by the language used. There is a kind of hopeful imagery and rallying but it weirdly it's never about the underlying premise or if the poltical factions and rules of the poltiical game will structurally allow things to become reality.
Property is not an investment vehicle, that thinking created te problem in the first place creating buy to let’s and air b&bs! Your home is the roof over your head, not your investment for your pension. Difficult to understand for boomers.
i have no intention of wasting the next 20 years like the last. i just took part time work and im coasting to early retirement. you can buy these houses ?@@bushmonster1702
Excuse my ignorance but can someone please explain to me why is the government supposed to build homes? I'm from the US and over in my home state of New Jersey I think the government just zones the land and then people or corporations build on it. So when they say they're gonna build 300k homes does that mean they'll zone the land for it?
Historically the state has built and owned up to 1/3 of UK housing stock, called council housing as its the local council that does it. The council also zones land and there is a shortage of zoned land particularly in the south. In the US its called housing projects with plenty built in New Jersey. Unlike the UK, the US doesnt have a shortage of land which is why typically between 1/4 and 1/3 of the build cost in the UK is the land compared to less than 10% in the US depending on location.
@@Finderskeepers.Ah I see. Thanks for the info. We also have section 8 housing in the US where I think the government subsidizes housing for people but they don't really build it themselves. This though this is mind boggling! I had no idea a third of the UK lives in subsidized housing. The welfare state is really quite generous over here.
@@varungupta2045Its not subsidised. Local rents, excluding service charges, etc markets are tracked, and by law the differential between private rents and sicial rents decline year by year. Hence, the two and a half increase in destitution, and the growing homelessness problem. TBH, the Europeans do it better.
more Housing estates being built for more Migrants,We be loosing all farm land one of these days,I live on a new Housing estate,This place used to be farm land back in the days,Turned to waste land,I remember coming here about 25 years ago,Still had the park here,All I remember seeing was waste land in front of me,Now I living here for 5 years,Enough housing estates been built,About time to kick the Migrants out and start saving farm land and woodland places
The problem with that is Right to Buy. When the Tories get back in they would just allow it to be sold off. Better to provide the means for Housing Associations to build, who have charitable status so the government cannot impose RTB
@@kth6736 Hmmm, shame there isn't a way how the government could decrease the basic expanses of each person and increase spending for the long term. Like... Providing cheaper housing. So the money saved could be spent on things that gives them indirect tax receipts. Coz money circulating is good for the economy.
Social housing in the UK it’s not a blessing. It’s a curse, it’s strips, working people in their most productive years from building wealth, because a house, for most families is their wealth, it’s something they can pass on to the next generation, and there’s something you cannot do with social housing you don’t own it. So poor families stay poor, better to provide low interest 30 year fixed rate loans, with low down payments, and let people find their own homes.
Well, the job market requires workforce and it seems that many can't be covered by UK population. It isn't about some people being lazy(there are some), but about whether they have physically able to. Or they are heathy enough to perform that job. You will need a workforce to cover that and if not possible to get it from within the country, you have to get it elsewhere. So immigration it is, right? Now think about what will happen, if there isn't enough properties to manage that jobs. Yep, that has been the problem for the last 15+ years... Oh, you may say - we don't want that workforce. Fair enough, are you happy to see the capital leave UK and many other jobs being affected? Think carefully on this one.
@@nothereandthereanywhere Kurdish barbers, Romanian car washes, Pakistani phone case shops and Vietnamese nail bars are all just people trafficking and money laundering operations, not real businesses. Likewise - all the 'gig economy' rubbish are more fake jobs held up by the other great people trafficking visa scam - fifth rate universities. 18 Bangladeshis to a 2 bed flat, all 'studying' while working for multiple food delivery apps. Finally, the sheer number of Brits doing nonsense office jobs is a problem too. We need people to do trades, teaching and care work. Instead, we have places like our local water company - a monopoly - that somehow has a marketing staff approaching 30, almost all women. Literally adding nothing, a pure dead weight paid by water bills. Many such cases in my experience.
Ah yes build more overpriced small homes on soulless estates with poor quality materials and workmanship ,gardens so bland and small a hedgehog would feel claustrophobic. Scream I’m green while paving over the country until it’s one badly managed block of grey .
The speculative push for housing has been an immense failure for society at large, benefitting only those with wealth beyond their needs. It doesn't matter if your house value has gone to the moon on paper if the only one you own is the one you live in, because you'll always need somewhere to live & if everywhere is expensive then you're just breaking even. Nobody celebrates when the price of food or energy goes up - that there has been an active effort to make such an essential need as 'housing' an increasingly out of reach prospect for whole younger generations as the rent they pay IS the retirement plans of property owners is truly a living embodiment of the past borrowing from the future. How many children will never have been born because of extortionate rent-seeking from the parasites of the economy driving up the cost of everything.
I would have to disagree with this being a market failure. If you look into how difficult it is to get permission to build a home, you would see this is a government created issue. Labour will get voted in, pledge to build that many houses but they won't touch the bureaucracy around bat audits and all that stuff, and the problem will just keep growing to the dismay of everyone.
Never, labour's plan can never increases supply. The major problems of the shortage are: 1. over regulated planning systems 2. poor transportation system, so house price hotspot can't offset their demand to nearby regions. 3. low industrial produce
The answer is no it will not solve the housing crisis. If you have a HMO with 4 single people in that is sold to a single family unit then you will end up with 4 single people looking for somewhere to live. The simple true is that labour's plans are no different to what the Tories were saying at the last 3 elections. What is needed is large scale council house building with a mix of 2,3,4 bedrooms, but even then I think it will take 15 years to solve the housing crisis.
@@nothereandthereanywhere nope, I have said that they need to build council houses at scale. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't hear labour talking about that as an option.
What about banning buy to let? That would solve few issues and reduce the prices a lot. Also, sell estate only to those that need it, not those that will use it for 'weekend'. Rich may not be happy about it, but should we care, if the poorer can't afford living in the first place and hold back from having families?
Agree 100%
New builds have to be exclusively for non-buy to let's. A ban on using the property for BTL for at least 20 years from the first sale would be great.
Why?? There are currently 15 people chasing one rental property. Not everyone wants to own property. They should encourage young people to become landlords
All well and good, so long as they intend to invest and build more GP's (and actually get doctors seeing patients), hospitals, schools and roads. In my area, which is heavily Labour controlled, they amount of new estates, houses and apartments have skyrocketed and as a result there aren't enough school places, GP's and the hospital waiting times are insane. The roads are also in a tragic state with potholes!
Yes, the UK needs more European-style apartment blocks. It is not the type of buildings that cause social issues, it's the fact that in the UK there is a huge proportion of unemployed and demoralised people housed there.
Excellent graph at 0:48. Really demonstrates the issue and neglect of our government.
We do have a population decline issue which will get worse as the large boomer generation dies out, and we can only reverse that with decent quality affordable housing. Living with mum and dad is not conducive to making babies or starting families. The Tories have been incredibly short sighted.
and also abolishing capitalism while also respecting some people don't want kids.
"Living with mum and dad is not conducive to making babaies"
This seems absolutely false on basis of data. All the countries with good birth rates have culture of multi-generation households.
they were running a bank white collar ponzi scheme. they had no intention of running a balanced government.
Living with mum & dad isn't conducive to starting families, and neither is housing expenses being so great that they make single-income households or paying for childcare economically unviable - or at least at an unacceptable cost to quality of life/upbringing.
I know in my case, the price of rent & childcare has meant we've had to make that calculation of choosing between a second child, or having a shot at actually owning a home, and we're quite well off compared to a lot of the households in the country.
In Ireland any planning application for 5 houses or more requires 20% to be handed over to the council for affordable and social housing. The council pay a fixed price per sq.ft for the build cost.
It's a start, but a report by Shelter (January 2019) said that the UK would need 300,000 new houses built every year _for_ _20_ _years_ to fix the UK's housing crisis, and that figure assumes that all 300,000 will be purchased by prospective owner-occupiers. Successive governments have been deliberately restricting supply over the years to enrich themselves and their cronies and pander to the property-owning segment of the electorate, using nominal house price increases as a surrogate for economic prosperity. But that approach is now coming back to haunt them because not enough properties also impacts on affordability in the rental sector, which in turn has pushed up homelessness and the cost to local authorities of putting people in emergency accommodation. Only yesterday we had on the BBC a news item about a council that is now spending 25% of its budget on housing people. We need radical change. Labour's pledge only seems radical in comparison to the Tories' lack of a vision beyond perpetually pumping up house prices and handing out the contents of the public purse to ferry companies that don't have any ferries.
There are 300,000 immigrants coming in every year, maybe more, so we would need to double that figure of 300,000.
What happens when baby boomers die and all there's all these £500k detached houses that nobody can afford to buy? This will happen in the next 20 years.
@@leehighland5435yet UK population growth is only up 0.3% year on year. It's almost like the UK population is falling because we can't have kids in houses anymore and all those old people are gonna see what effect an ageing population has on their pensions, the workforce and their so called "house" nest eggs
@@SlothWindGod
The British people better get ready to accept that they will be living under an islamic state within 25-30 years, or maybe sooner, given the rate of spread of islam and the decline of Christianity in the country.
I think there are a lot of people on the left who would prefer to live under Islamic administration then a Christian one, if they were forced to choose. You often see the left support/defend the Islamic community and struggles and attack the history of Christianity. Most of the people on the left are also young, so I suspect many will convert to islam has the growth of islam spreads.
@@SlothWindGodwell, if I would be forced to live with my parents in the beginning of my marriage I’m not sure I would rush to have my two kids in such circumstances. So yes, a lack of space does mean lower population growth.
Interesting! How would banning overseas buyers from buying or owning Uk property increase housing affordability? What would be the economics cost?
Would be a massive cost to rich bankers.
Another amazingly insightful and well balanced video!
Thank you!
You get with Vertical Spaces in Cities. But Community Living Spaces in Towns meant for reduced investments in necessary infrastructure. It's the Shared Living Spaces in Village for affordable costs and Boost of Public Finances.
I love how even if labour completely deliver on 1.5m houses in 5 years (which i highly doubt), it still won't make much of a difference to house prices or rents, this is how dire the housing situation is here!
We need HIGH DENSITY HOUSING (up to 6 floors not high rise) not more sprawl. RailTransit StopClimateArmageddon
For such a large and complex subject this is a very good video. I thought you might get sucked into discussing this as a purely quantitative issue ( number of new houses, economic effects) and not also qualitative (what kind of housing, where etc). The issue is the number of small households which have to be accommodated, as you rightly say in London and the South East- which also happens to have the most constraints in the form of Green Belt, AONB, National Parks etc. We really do have to build up but with adequate green/play space, allotments and room for wildlife too. Personally l would like to see schemes where tenants are also responsible for managing green space as happens on some industrial estates and places like New Ash Green
money supply / interest rates are important factors that drive pricing.
About ten years ago, Lord Adonis urged councils to demolish and rebuild council estates in the aim to not just increase the amount of social housing but obviously to improve the housing stock as some of it is very unfit for purpose in the 21st century. So they're not necessarily talking about building on the greenbelt.
Houses not needed for English.
English population isn’t growing at all…
I welcome New Homes, but I hope that Labour don't start chipping away at our beautiful rural countryside.
Tejvan has done a lot of interesting articles/videos on housing in UK. Be good if he would do one on comparative housing set ups in representative EU countries.
How come interest rates are never part of this conversation? We've had historically low rates for decades now. Everyone lives to a monthly price rather than the overall value of a house, with borrowing costs being so low you have much more buying power, your £500 a month mortgage payment gets you alot more at 2% over 6%. We have driven house prices up by allowing more capital into the market with low borrowing rates, this is not wholey down to housing stock but in principal it's inflation.
He literally talks about interest rates in this video!
@AA-hg5fk not with any sort of detail, it's a brief mention of yeah, interst rates went up. Then continued to talk about supply and demand of property rather than a supply and demand of money which is by far a much bigger driver in this.
1.5 million houses over 5 years, Labour. 300000 houses every year, torys. Sounds the same to me. Pledges are easy to make and very difficult to keep. Local planning departments and local resident objections always put a stop to things. And as for building 3 new towns.... Where! Olde Sir Kier maybe a Yimby but he will soon find out that everyone else isn't...
We had net imigration of 600,000 last year. So if you assume 2 per house hold, then you need 300,000 new homes a year just to house the migrants. So 1.5 million over 5 years is 300,000 a year.
Population decline ? 58 million in 2001 67 million by 2021.
When was the last year the uk population actually declined?
The overall population which includes immigrants and explains some of the need for immigrants reduced by 0.8% in both 2022 and 2021
@@Finderskeepers. It was 67.33 million at the end of 2021. 9 million more than in 2001. You need to remember 2020-2022 were COVID years AND the official number will always going to be less than the REAL number, because the boats that just land on the beaches and disappear in to the black economy never get counted.
PS just found mid year 2023 67.7 million, according to ONS. So still very much going up , I am afraid.
@@patdbean Covid hasnt gone away. I answered the question you asked now your coming back with excuses. Now your quoting an estimate from 2021 that has also been proven wrong.
@@Finderskeepers. Yes, I know covid has not gone away , but it is not killing anything like the numbers it was in 2020/21
my figures 2001 58 million. 2021 67.3 million and mid 2023 67.7 million , are ALL ONS figures. And they are ALL underestimates because they do not count undocumented immigrants.
Anyway what really matters is the population density , spain is 97 per s/km France is 101 per s/km the UK is 280 per s/km. You need to know that before you can truly understand house prices.
We didnt have net migration of 600,000. We had inward migration of 600,000,and outward migration - britons leaving - of 505,000. Net migration is therefore only 100,000, and not all of those were permanent residents. Foreign Students that our higher education sector depends on, were a large part of that number. And our NHS is still short of 100,000 nurses.
Nice, say goodbye to the only nice part of England (green belt). London doesn't need to be so massive. High density is fine as long as it's tastefully done, ugly block towers aren't good for anyone.
@denzel270
19 minutes ago (edited)
32 new towns. For a party who think's it's image is green, this is the most environmentally destructive proposal they have made. How much food production land will be lost? How much more food will we have to import? How many new reservoirs will be needed? How many new sewage works will be needed? How many new land fills? Increased light pollution. How will it add to our carbon emissions and make it harder to meet net zero? How many more windfarms and solar farms will be needed to meet their eye wateringly expensive 'green' energy plans? What water attenuation issues will this cause? How much habitat will be lost? This will play straight into the hands of major developers already with a monopoly on building. People who oppose this are not NIMBY's. They are in fact environmentalists.
I had over 50 applicants in 1 week for my flat I just rented out. Only 7 were British. Most were from Africa and were not of a ‘young’ working demographic. We simply can’t keep up with a demand like that.
So may be your price or the area appeals to non-British retired people. What makes you think that if they are not British they have not worked for this country for years? You earn a “most ignorant comment” badge. Wear it with pride while we, non-British people, keep working.
@@crochetomania They were not of retirement age. I asked them how long they had been in the country so I can do my CIB and credit checks so that's how I know.
I just haven't seen any logical explanation as to why we don't just build UPwards. People keep saying 'too expensive', and that's really frustrating. Others say 'grenfell tower' and 'social issues'.
But like, I live in China and of the very few things I can appreciate here, their ability to build is one. So here's my advice in context of that experience: Nobody cares about maintaining the beauty of, say, Birmingham. So just knock down all the shitty, depressing terraced houses, pay off the owners to move into 5 huge apartment buildings in their place - which will be nicer and posher than their current homes - bada-bing bada-boom.
I estimate a little over 1,000 people live in my single building, which takes up like 3 houses worth of land space. You can't say its too expensive when you have a 30-floor, 8-room-per-floor building giving you 240x rents/mortgages in the space where 3 once were.
I just don't see why this isn't just happening. Birmingham, considered huge, is about 1 million people. Shanghai is 26 million! You can cram WAY more people in Bham, which would then making a thriving economy outside of London for a change.
I dunno, am I being naive?
Demand is the issue.
Over 600,000 legally arrived here in the last year.
Add overstayers, those without documents......no government has ever built enough to keep up with half of current demand.
There is no hope of ever rectifying this situation under current conditions.
Same as the NHS.
If you allow foreigners to buy as many properties as they want and live in them, how do you ever expect to solve the housing crisis?
How about not letting foreigners to buy houses to NOT live in them like all those luxury flats and houses in London that stay empty for years? Yet there are plenty of foreigners in UK that live here, pay taxes, open businesses and need a space of their own too. The foreigners are not your enemy. The rich are.
Prices will never fall, land is too expensive and there is no profit in cheap houses
Prices are falling.
@@AM_o2000 I am talking about new builds, people that own the land are not selling it cheap and construction costs never go down
@@garyb455 Land and construction costs aren't all that high relative to house prices. Hence the astronomical profits made by companies such as Persimmon over the years. In any case, the solution is simple: impose compulsory purchase orders at cost price for land not built on within a certain time frame. As for the planning regulations excuse that the Government tends to hide behind, they have a majority in Parliament, so they effectively make the law. If they want to simplify planning regulations, they'd have done it by now.
Getting sick of paying high interest rates due to a failed Brexit. Sort the banks out please! No point building lots of houses if people can't afford them.
Population crisis not a housing crisis. Building endless unaffordable houses is not a solution
This has been misread. The 5 million homes are fully equiped pre fab homes and constructing them starts soon in Scotland. What isn't said is these homes are not for UK residents. They are purely for aslyum seekers who have been processed.
And as the government has reduced the processing time from weeks to just a couple of hours filling in a form and thats it!
This has a two fold effect.
1. Ultra quick processing gets the numbers down rapidly.
2. Gets the illegals out of the hotels and into all expenses paid accomodation.
This allows the government to say how good they are because, look, the numbers of illegals has dramatically dropped, and we've reduced the number of hotel rooms needed.
The homeless? I hear you say
Well that's a lifestyle choice and not our problem.
No objections have come from labour either
Housebuilding is capital intensive. A company can't just double its output, even if planning permissions are in place.
We have been here before and Labour will be no different and if the banks are not lending why build .
true@@jonsnow6741
The problem is the way land costs change between a field & a field with planning & uncontrolled immigration legal & illegal…1 in 65 people in this country came in the last 12 months…just building more houses in light of that solves NOTHING
Greaf info , but rates are not that high , u can get 4.7 %, fixed 5 years
You forget that you'll probably need a 20% deposit to get that rate. That's a deposit of around £56,000 and about £4,000-£5,000 to just get the keys, nevermind furnish it. £60,000? You might as well ask for the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro. It would be cheaper to get.
Destroying green areas is total nonsense.
I massively doubt a Starmer Labour is 'for the people' structurally doing nothing for "housing being for living in". Property is simply an investment vehicle it would be interesting to see if the recent changes widen gini coefficient. Personally I'd like a video on that.
The pitch like the 1.5 mil houses will for sure be an empty promise. Being Labour they might throw in social housing as part of the quota (in the pitch) if it's useful for gaining power, but it would still be an empty promise.
This kind of video is great to me it touches on the deliberate obfuscation created by the language used. There is a kind of hopeful imagery and rallying but it weirdly it's never about the underlying premise or if the poltical factions and rules of the poltiical game will structurally allow things to become reality.
Property is not an investment vehicle, that thinking created te problem in the first place creating buy to let’s and air b&bs! Your home is the roof over your head, not your investment for your pension. Difficult to understand for boomers.
Lets hope the next Incumbents at No.10 watch your very informative video.
There is a skill shortage now in the building trade without an extra 1.5m new builds.
heard it all before and there is no more time left. the uk is over.
time is plentiful.
i have no intention of wasting the next 20 years like the last. i just took part time work and im coasting to early retirement. you can buy these houses ?@@bushmonster1702
Correct.
The UK is utterly finished, The white is being replaced by 1slam
im not in or out. i just dont care.@@bushmonster1702
yep. move abroad while you can.
Excuse my ignorance but can someone please explain to me why is the government supposed to build homes? I'm from the US and over in my home state of New Jersey I think the government just zones the land and then people or corporations build on it. So when they say they're gonna build 300k homes does that mean they'll zone the land for it?
Historically the state has built and owned up to 1/3 of UK housing stock, called council housing as its the local council that does it. The council also zones land and there is a shortage of zoned land particularly in the south. In the US its called housing projects with plenty built in New Jersey. Unlike the UK, the US doesnt have a shortage of land which is why typically between 1/4 and 1/3 of the build cost in the UK is the land compared to less than 10% in the US depending on location.
@@Finderskeepers.Ah I see. Thanks for the info. We also have section 8 housing in the US where I think the government subsidizes housing for people but they don't really build it themselves. This though this is mind boggling! I had no idea a third of the UK lives in subsidized housing. The welfare state is really quite generous over here.
@@varungupta2045Its not subsidised. Local rents, excluding service charges, etc markets are tracked, and by law the differential between private rents and sicial rents decline year by year. Hence, the two and a half increase in destitution, and the growing homelessness problem. TBH, the Europeans do it better.
What is instore us the building of WEF inspired 15 minute city suitable facilities. Its happening!
You need to build Zero homes if you force the speculators out of the market.
Let them eat cake!
more Housing estates being built for more Migrants,We be loosing all farm land one of these days,I live on a new Housing estate,This place used to be farm land back in the days,Turned to waste land,I remember coming here about 25 years ago,Still had the park here,All I remember seeing was waste land in front of me,Now I living here for 5 years,Enough housing estates been built,About time to kick the Migrants out and start saving farm land and woodland places
They should focus on increasing the council housing stock to the extent it was back in the Thatcher era!
Govt doesn't have the money for that.
@@kth6736 Of course they do! But they prefer to spend it on something else.
@@nothereandthereanywhere britain is broke and $3.5 trillion in debt.
The problem with that is Right to Buy. When the Tories get back in they would just allow it to be sold off. Better to provide the means for Housing Associations to build, who have charitable status so the government cannot impose RTB
@@kth6736 Hmmm, shame there isn't a way how the government could decrease the basic expanses of each person and increase spending for the long term. Like... Providing cheaper housing. So the money saved could be spent on things that gives them indirect tax receipts. Coz money circulating is good for the economy.
Lets build on flood plains, i mean green belt again…. ffs
That was Tory donors scalping the public.
STARMER DEAMING AGAIN ****
That should cover the immigration
They will be slums in 20 years. Build in haste, repent in leisure.
Social housing in the UK it’s not a blessing. It’s a curse, it’s strips, working people in their most productive years from building wealth, because a house, for most families is their wealth, it’s something they can pass on to the next generation, and there’s something you cannot do with social housing you don’t own it. So poor families stay poor, better to provide low interest 30 year fixed rate loans, with low down payments, and let people find their own homes.
1.5 million new homes
3.5 million new immigrants
YAY!
Well, the job market requires workforce and it seems that many can't be covered by UK population. It isn't about some people being lazy(there are some), but about whether they have physically able to. Or they are heathy enough to perform that job. You will need a workforce to cover that and if not possible to get it from within the country, you have to get it elsewhere. So immigration it is, right? Now think about what will happen, if there isn't enough properties to manage that jobs.
Yep, that has been the problem for the last 15+ years...
Oh, you may say - we don't want that workforce. Fair enough, are you happy to see the capital leave UK and many other jobs being affected? Think carefully on this one.
@@nothereandthereanywhere Kurdish barbers, Romanian car washes, Pakistani phone case shops and Vietnamese nail bars are all just people trafficking and money laundering operations, not real businesses.
Likewise - all the 'gig economy' rubbish are more fake jobs held up by the other great people trafficking visa scam - fifth rate universities. 18 Bangladeshis to a 2 bed flat, all 'studying' while working for multiple food delivery apps.
Finally, the sheer number of Brits doing nonsense office jobs is a problem too. We need people to do trades, teaching and care work. Instead, we have places like our local water company - a monopoly - that somehow has a marketing staff approaching 30, almost all women. Literally adding nothing, a pure dead weight paid by water bills. Many such cases in my experience.
Build like there is no tomorrow
No
Your a poet and you don't know it. "The Conservatives promised to build 300,000 new homes a year, but the reality is nowhere near."
No.
Be like gettos You can build houses But you can't build land
Ah yes build more overpriced small homes on soulless estates with poor quality materials and workmanship ,gardens so bland and small a hedgehog would feel claustrophobic. Scream I’m green while paving over the country until it’s one badly managed block of grey .
The speculative push for housing has been an immense failure for society at large, benefitting only those with wealth beyond their needs. It doesn't matter if your house value has gone to the moon on paper if the only one you own is the one you live in, because you'll always need somewhere to live & if everywhere is expensive then you're just breaking even.
Nobody celebrates when the price of food or energy goes up - that there has been an active effort to make such an essential need as 'housing' an increasingly out of reach prospect for whole younger generations as the rent they pay IS the retirement plans of property owners is truly a living embodiment of the past borrowing from the future.
How many children will never have been born because of extortionate rent-seeking from the parasites of the economy driving up the cost of everything.
I would have to disagree with this being a market failure. If you look into how difficult it is to get permission to build a home, you would see this is a government created issue.
Labour will get voted in, pledge to build that many houses but they won't touch the bureaucracy around bat audits and all that stuff, and the problem will just keep growing to the dismay of everyone.
Never, labour's plan can never increases supply. The major problems of the shortage are:
1. over regulated planning systems
2. poor transportation system, so house price hotspot can't offset their demand to nearby regions.
3. low industrial produce
Kids don't want to work hard to leave mummy and daddys , there parents worked hard and took risks
The answer is no it will not solve the housing crisis. If you have a HMO with 4 single people in that is sold to a single family unit then you will end up with 4 single people looking for somewhere to live. The simple true is that labour's plans are no different to what the Tories were saying at the last 3 elections. What is needed is large scale council house building with a mix of 2,3,4 bedrooms, but even then I think it will take 15 years to solve the housing crisis.
Hmmm, you have said it will not solve it, but at the end you give the same solution to the one you have opposed...?
@@nothereandthereanywhere nope, I have said that they need to build council houses at scale. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't hear labour talking about that as an option.
Zero, the only was to save the environment, we need less housing NOT more.