Labour’s Plan to Solve the Rental Crisis Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
- TLDR News: / @tldrnews
TLDR News EU: / @tldrnewseu
TLDR News Global: / @tldrnewsglobal
TLDR Business: / @tldrbusiness
TLDR Daily: / @tldrdaily
With Labour so far ahead in the polls, it's likely that they'll need to deal with the housing crisis, one of the most important issues facing the UK electorate. So how might they try to tackle it? And will it differ significantly from the Conservatives?
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
The issue is that either the renter or the owner must in some way pay insurance and property taxes if they want a "permanent roof" with utilities like electricity, gas and water. Because of this, many people-at least in California, where I currently reside-are living in tents. No taxes, rent, mortgages, or insurance. The number of people who tell me they live in their car that I meet amazes me. Its crazy out here!
It’s getting wild by the day. The prices of homes are quite ridiculous and Mortgage prices has been skyrocketing on a roll(currently over 7%). Sometimes i wonder if to just invest my spare cash into the stock market and wait for a housing crash or just go ahead to buy a home anyways.
I get such worries too. I'm 50 and retiring early. Already worried of the future and where its headed, especially in terms of financies and how to get by. I'm also considering making my first investment in the stock market, but how can I do so given that the market has been in a mess for the majority of the year?
It's often true that people underestimate the importance of financial advisors until they feel the negative effects of emotional decision-making. I remember a few summers ago, after a tough divorce, when I needed a boost for my struggling business. I researched and found a licensed advisor who diligently helped grow my reserves despite inflation. Consequently, my reserves increased from $275k to around $750k.
That does make a lot of sense, unlike us, you seem to have the Market figured out. Who is this consultant?
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’ Melissa Terri Swayne” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
I'm not holding my breath. The people in power have promised this 17 times already and every time they fail to keep their promises. The housing situation was already starting to become existentially bleak and unrealistic in the 2010s, let alone now, where a studio apartment costs more than a 3 bedroom did not very long ago.
They've also promised to reduce immigration each time which is why we need so many houses.
@@SaintGerbilUK I bet if they cut military spending then we would be able to solve all of this country's problems.
@@SaintGerbilUK We need houses because house building has been stagnant for years, absolutely nothing to do with immigration
@@Andyw1972--- we have a sub replacement birthrate. do use your head and admit that immigration is absolutely the driving factor for this supply/demand inequality.
Margaret Thatcher sold a lot of council houses to their tenants and never replaced them.
Prices are too high. With rates not subsidised in ’24 and mortgage still high , currently seeking alternatives to maximize savings without an RV move or taking a loan. I’m seriously contemplating the latter.
Affording our mortgage is tough as well. I have suggested cashing in, renting or relocating, and investing the rest in the stock market.
If you can afford to relocate, you should manage the mortgage.
if you are looking to invest in the stock market, I suggest you Consider a fiduciary with mortgage-backed securities knowledge for guidance. Prices today may look like dips tomorrow.
Thats true, working with a financial advisor has been a game-changer for me. They provided invaluable insights and tailored strategies that aligned perfectly with my risk tolerance and financial objectives. With their support, I've seen significant growth in my investments and gained confidence in my financial future.
this is all new to me, where do I find a fiduciary, can you recommend any?
At first i was like "short answer, they won't"
Than i heard "labour is going to attack the supply side" and i remain cautiously optimistic.
However - this notion of "home ownership" comes from the idea that a home is an investment - its not, its a commodity, this thinking is what got us here. If you vote for homes as an investment, the incentive is to restrict supply via the ballot.
And voters on both sides need to get that through their thick skulls - especially the younger generation that still hasn't bought into this scam.
People want to own their home. And not rent it off forever off a council or landlord.
Spot on.
@@sdrawkcabUK with the rental market as bad as it is - im not surprised.
That's like saying "people want to drive a car" when all you have is roads
If your rent is stable, and your house is well maintained - there is no difference for most people, and if the supply is bigger, and most people actually do want to own a home, the market will reflect that - point is the solution is the same, regardless of what "the public" wants.
@@vod96 but there is… the money you pay each month goes towards owning it, and not into the hands of a landlord/council. You then have a secure place to live in retirement or to pass on to your kids.
It may all be a scam to keep people in debt most of their lives, but it’s a better option then paying the same of money just to have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
I wanted my own home so I won't get kicked out by some dodgy landlord for no reason, I have enough stress on without being given 4 weeks or less to find a new place to live.
I also like doing my own work on my house, you can't really do that with a rental.
And of course doing up a house it is fair to make some money on it when you do sell
"will ineffective politicians fix something?"
No
Hit the nail on the head 👍
A politician saying their gonna build more houses... well. I haven't heard that before... you know, for the last 20 years. What a bunch of W⚓s.
Building houses isnt the problem. It is the land, they need to build more of that.
Alternatively they could halt all immigration. If they fail to do either then the housing crisis will get worse.
@@leicestersq1 whatever the reasons my main point is they're a bunch of liars and nothing ever changes. Id be very surprised if things turned out different this time round.
@@leicestersq1or alternatively they could scale up the existing homes instead of building ugly new builds everywhere.
@@leicestersq1immigration plays a small part in the huge problem. The problem is the green belt, as many older, NIMBY Tory residents that live on the outskirts of London kick up a fuss to prevent development. Typical Tory blaming immigration on everything 😂
@@leicestersq1Just need to abolish restrictive zoning laws, especially height restrictions.
Build taller and of mixed use.
I'm from Dublin and we're getting the same spiel.
Remember, if the new houses aren't affordable on an average salary, it won't fix sh*t.
Isn't the average salary in Ireland something like €80,000 a year? (Because the non-dom tech workers are pushing the average salary up?) I'm sure you'll get housing that is affordable on that average salary
@cordfortina9073 average/median, whichever. Most people are 45 -50k or less for those on minimum wage. New properties are generally around 400k and you can only get 4 times your salary for your mortgage if you're a first time buyer, so even couples on an average/ typical salary can't buy the new homes and people moving out of older houses to move into the new homes are asking for insane prices for their old property, so the cycle continues.
They need to disincentivise investing in property by taxing the sh*te out of rental income, and those poor unfortunate landlords can just invest their money in something else. There are plenty of other options that don't result in record levels of homelessness
@@cordfortina9073 Average is €38,600/yr across the country. That's a far cry from 80k/yr.
All houses are affordable to someone, as long as supply increases more than demand then all houses get cheaper.
@@baratoplata7050 Really? Demonstrate that. Housing in an inelastic commodity. It does not conform to simple supply-demands mechanisms.
The UK is a country being looted in real time by elderly bureaucrats and the wealthy, and its incredibly sad to watch as someone whose family immigrated from there years ago. I hope Labour can do something substantial, but Starmer seems cut from the same cloth as Blair and he's a large part of the reason Britain basically has two identical neoliberal parties that work for the two groups mentioned above.
where did you leave to?
@@os3990exactly, where'd you move to? Can we come too 😂?
where'd you move to i want out of this place asap
I'm leaving this shit hole as soon as I can
Pretty much every rich country on the planet is in a similar situation.
Forcing renters to make their properties higher quality, banning no fault evictions, and limiting rents = less properties, which either pushes up rents or if there are rental caps (as in the case of Austria and parts of Germany) it means that there are far fewer rental properties, and they are mostly owned by corporations and only rented to middle class locals. In Berlin, I had to pay three times the average rent because I was a foreigner (British) and because I was self-employed. Cheap apartments in Berlin are rented by middle-class Germans with employment contracts. Students, freelancers, the poor, foreigners and people with poor credit rating are unable to find apartments to rent legitimately so end up in very expensive short term accommodation, in cramped conditions with illegal landlords, or in very expensive sublets. I was paying rental prices higher than I was in London as a result.
When rents are high, it's a supply side crisis. Making life harder for landlords and making it harder for individuals to purchase a buy to let property just increases the supply side crisis. The Tories idea of boosting demand is even more stupid, as helping people to get into debt or giving government subsidies to first time buyers as Cameron did just creates further inflation in property prices, meaning landlords need to charge higher rents to pay off the mortgages. The only people who win are those who have already bought a property.
There is ONE solution to high rents and only one solution: build more rental properties. Labour don't have the balls do to the deregulation required to do that and their policies show they are making the same mistakes that social democrat and socialist societies like Venezeula made. Labour councils have strictest planning laws then other councils. If anything, they should take the powers away from the local councils, so that councilors aren't blocking building because they're scared of losing their jobs in the face of local NIMBY protests.
High rents are not the fault of landlords, they are the fault of local councils and the post-war Labour and Tory governments with their obsessions about planning, building and environmental regulations, as well as their inflationary economic practices that are leaving everyone poor. The private sector wants to build homes, people want to buy homes and invest in buy to let properties to fund their retirement, and most renters are happy just to have a roof over their head that doesn't eat into 70% of their income. Nothing in this video suggests that the rental supply will increase, quite the opposite. You cannot overcome the laws of supply and demand any more than you can overcome the laws of nature, and their policies are exactly the same policies that have failed in the UK, in Europe and throughout the Western world for the past century. Bring back homebuilding!
We need an economically literate party in government, and we have had that for generations. When it comes to the cost of living, Starmer and Sunak are just a continuation of the same regulation obsessed, Keynesian social democrats that have been running the country since the 1920s. Keep voting team red or team blue or team orange or team green and say goodbye to your hope of having children or a retirement.
Aka make it impossible for landlords, so you can't rent or the few that do cost even more.
Very well said.
Supply vs demand basic economics is something so many fail to understand.
They always attack the symptoms of the problem (high rents), not the causes (lack of supply/competition).
Making it harder for landlords is only going to reduce supply further pushing rents up. Not rocket science.
@@revorocks123 And they always attack the people providing the goods and services (private landlords, businesses, etc) and never the people in charge of the system (social democratic or elitist conservative governments). Apparently these days it's greed to make any profit at all, or have any income not provided to you by the government.
Labour are less nimby than the other parties which is why we need a labour government.
@@bristoled93 standing up for the people at the expense of other people.
Sounds like Labour, it's how we got here in the first place.
Why not restrict landlords using company/companies to buy and own more than 10 properties? There are lots of this kind of landlords owing 20+ or even 50+ properties in their company investment portfolio.
Not going to solve anything!!
There are plenty of homes on the market to buy
But renters can’t afford them
They can’t afford to fix them up either
But of course blame the landlord
Hey, that's way too straightforward and way too much common sense.
How will that help with a shortage of housing?
@@hugodrax71 cause that’s the dumbest thing ever!! Won’t work
And there is no limit on the amount of companies someone creates.. and then sells
So if company A. is limited to 10.
They will make company B. And buy 10 more
Then sell all 20 to company C which is owned by the same person
That's one of the problems we're having in the States. Mega corporations buying up hundreds of homes in their portfolios.
Scrap right to buy, the biggest mistake ever., then buy to let, too many people bought too many properties and had no idea how to be proper landlords. Finally, the cost of a house is insane. 30 years ago I bought a 2 bedroom flat in London for £61k, the same flat is now £340k. Insane.
That’s just over 5% growth in price a year, which is nothing crazy
@@Account-wi9wd the job I had at the time paid 21k the same job now pays 30k. So from 3 times pay to over 10 times. That’s the insane part. Ordinary people in ordinary jobs don’t stand a chance
if the right to by is scrapped it will increase social housing being rented out to migrants who are parachuted into properties over and above our people on the housing waiting list do not tell it is not happening it is a joke
How about either:
Only permanent British residents can become registered landlords. Or,
Only incorporated companies registered as paying tax on that property in the UK can own property in the UK.
If housing must be "capitalist" then guarantee that it all happens within the UK tax authority. This stops the money laundering, stops the empty home investment portfolios, stops the tax evasion, and stops the exploitation.
But I didn't see those in Labour's review... So...
I'm not going into detail but, Reciprocal tax agreements. UK investors also own property globally. E.g all those with holiday homes abroad renting them out on Airbnb.
being a bigot wont help
that might be a problem for central london penthouses but i promise no russian billionaire is trying up houses in burnley, for example. this is too small scale to meaningfully address this issue
Sounds very similar to a number of lther policies the UK has been focusing on recently. A good distraction and would do absolutely jack shit to remedy the actual issue.
By latest data, 0.7% of UK properties are owned by non-local entities. About half of those are luxury properties in London. All of those sold at once wouldn't even cover a half of the housing the UK needs to add each year.
And that's without considering the most likely outcome - owners organizing a corporate structure to comply with the law. If you can buy property in the UK without living there (so full on cash), you can afford decent legal services.
Agreed, I believe countries like New Zealand already have measures similar to this. Labour is set on "tackling non-doms" and this could be an interesting way to do it
So, absolutely nothing on the demand side then. It's impossible to build enough houses while importing an entire Leeds every year.
subsidizing demand is a Band-Aid. We need to build build build. Affordability is an emergent property, build enough market rate housing and the landlords will have no choice but to lower prices. It wont hurt to sprinkle in some non-market housing buy the name of the game is increasing the vacancy rate. Make landlords compete
@@grimaffiliations3671He didn't say to continue subsiding demand through unsustainable means such as housing benefits; he said there's no point building houses while at the same time importing the population of Leeds every year. The fact you just tried to obfuscate his point shows just how deranged you and the labour party are when it comes to housing policy, and just how screwed the country is irrespective of who's running the country at the end of this year.
@@grimaffiliations3671 We definitely need to build more, but we cannot possibly keep up with current migration rates. There's a fundamental limit to how many people we can house and we've already surpassed a sustainable growth rate. Even if you build enough houses, there's the public services - the new residents need doctors, buses, roads, schools etc. Even electricity supply is constrained in areas like West London which is why there's a backlog of houses they want to build but cannot connect to the grid for a few years. We've surpassed all these to the breaking point; we can only relieve the pressure by cutting back on demand.
@@paulpenfold2352 The point is that the supply side is the key issue, even if no one was coming in. Our population is simply too large and we've been underbuilding since the 60's
@@ricequackers Yeah we need to control immigration, but even if no one was coming in, we've been underbuilding for decades
My Gran (who I hated) spent nearly all of her money to fix her house since the landlord refuses to meet basic standards and pay for maintenance. So when the refurbishment is finally completed and she is happy with it she is kicked out and moved to a similarly poor kept house down the road.
Hating your Gran is so random in this comment 😂
Not her house
By doing up the house, she essentially handed her landlord a big bag of money that he can only access if he sells the house she's living in. Did anyone even try to stop her from doing that, or did everyone else hate her too?
Hope she removed all the renovations when she moved.
in my last flat there was a stipulation in the rental contract that said the windows were the renters responsibility to maintain. Which meant that the windows were all busted and half broken because no renter was ever going to spend money fixing them when that would just go towards making the flat nicer and therefore increase the rent
How are rent controls working out for Germany?
Hint: it isn't
Will Blairities beat Blairities? Nobody knows.
If they are truly Blairite then the world will indeed become a better place after they win.
@@occamraiserAs if Blair didn’t drag the UK into Iraq on false pretenses.
@@occamraiser a yes infinite neo liberalism, perfect, it's worked so well in Rochdale for all the young girls there.
At least Blairites can win an election before hell freezes over.
@@AndrewFischer-sz5cb "Atleast i can drink pee"
Native Britains births rates are below replacement and housing should be going down in price. This problem is manufactured and it is by design people are not buying houses.
Birth rates are plummeting, but the population keeps going up.
Almost like the problem isn't housing or renting.
Birth rate decline being made up for higher immigration rates, and even if you halted immigration, you'd have to wait several decades to see population go down enough for housing to become cheaper.
@@dallysinghson5569that's true but it's better than a price shock which would mean all the banks stopped making mortgages.
100%
@@dallysinghson5569 Not true, the market responds very quickly to such changes. Natural net change oscillates around zero, while houses are being built continuously. That's unless you have widespread speculation, which should be the second thing politicians do: regulate the market to suppress speculation.
Stop selling off the social housing with lower rents.
Many of these houses eventually end up owned by private landlords with higher rents.
More social housing would be built by councils if people couldn't buy the council properties with a large discount, leaving the councils to pay the full amount of money borrowed to build the property.
Increase the housing supply and the private rent will go down. Most people will never be lucky enough to access social housing, may as well fix the problem for everyone.
With what money would the local councils build property, isn't 1 in 4 close to bankruptcy?
You're overlooking the most important aspect of the right to buy scheme. What happened to the proceeds from those sold properties? Decades worth of money should be been ploughed back in to building new housing from day one but governments have prevented this.
@@NmpK24
You are correct much of the money from the sales of council houses in the Right to Buy Scheme goes to the Westminster treasury.
Only a portion of the money from the sales of council houses goes back to the council.
@@martindornan1667Exactly. Stupidest policy ever.
Councils forced to sell and thus lose a source of income.
The sale price is much less than the value.
The proceeds (until very recently) mostly all wentto Central Gov.
What little they did get back, goes towards a new social build, which cost 3-5 times more than the one sold.
Even if the build again, they're forced to sell down the line?!
Social and well-maintained housing disappears and LL's take advantage.
Add in AirBnB as well etc
So basically they have nothing by empty words
That's every Labour policy.
* Says something vaguely popular.
* Gets asked how
* Moves on to next somewhat popular point
Only Tories have empty words. Always promises, and solutions that should have already been done within the last decade.
@@TheSuperPsychoKiller this video literally just exposed that Labour is just empty words so far.
@@pollutingpenguin2146
How can a party have anything other than empty words if they're not in power?
Like, what do you expect them to do? Usurp the Tories and just start moving ahead with their policies illegally?
@@pollutingpenguin2146 Just Labour, eh?
no mention of council building homes either
1 in 4 are close to bankruptcy with what money would they be building homes?
@@SaintGerbilUKthey already have a stock of houses the income frommthe existing housing stock should be used to build more housing.
@@andrewberwick06 repairing and managing a house around 50 years old is not financially feasible, unless the rent is adjusted for the renovations beforehand. Old houses are not the money mine they are made out to be. Also housing building is fairly expensive in today’s economy and specially if the money is loaned. In my corner of the world. A house nearing 50 costs about 10 money per square meters. A new apartment costs over 20 money when you include financing costs with a 20-30 year loan. Consider that by the 30 year mark you are in need of major renovations, again requiring loans.
5:58
"This would hit Landlords particularly hard"
Oh no! Anyway
I'll play something on the world's smallest violin for them
@@Sol_Invictus_Landlords need an incentive to do something otherwise you won't have any rental properties. See if the bigger picture.
@@jim-es8qk scalpers need an incentive otherwise you won't have concert tickets. See the bigger picture
@@jim-es8qk If death of house renting business is what will get us to live better lives, so be it.
@@jim-es8qk Instead we'll have people who actually own their own properties. I fail to see the problem. Just goes to show that landlords don't provide any value or service.
Nobody willing to ask why housing demand is so high despite low birth rates among Britons, or who this benefits.
Babies arent buying houses. There are lots of young adults living with their parents, saving for a house because they havent been able to afford one. Thats why demand is higg
Housing problems , yet we let in 750k more people a year
Other countries like Germany may have rent controls (Berlin specifically) but the trade-off is that Berlin has one of the lowest percentages of apartments available for renters. Landlords realise they can make more money selling or holding as opposed to renting below market rates. We're currently debating property inflation a lot in Australia, but rent freezes are seen as a fringe opinion that isn't widely supported by the major parties, mostly because of how badly they appear to have faired in Berlin. I'm not sure if adding a third-generation stipulation changes this in any way, I'm not informed enough to say, but I worry that homes will slowly be removed from the 'renter's pool' should they think that rent contracts might diminish in return over time as market inflation increases, especially in London.
Rent controls can work, but they need to be paired with active council housing expansion. Just capping private rents alone tends to limit capacity rather than fix the problem
Rent controls don't work, never worked anytime or anywhere. Most recent failure is Scotland.
@@markwelch3564 you're literally saying that rent control only works when you built more housing. Which means rent control doesn't work. Expanding housing does.
@Notsogoodguitarguy it's complementary - doing both will be effective quicker than just expanding housing capacity
I like that. Get a council house then right to buy it cheap then rent the bugger out or sell at profit.
I'm not sure the only solution is to build more housing. How much land do we really want to pave over? I'd say we need to move more of the economy away from London. Improve transport in other regions. Reduce immigration back to a sustainable level. And disincentivize second homes and land-banking through taxes.
Because there is more people and so we require more houses. The population is growing.
There’s one huge flaw in what you suggest. It’s far too sensible. We are dealing with largely useless politicians you know.
Also immigration ain’t gonna be going down to the 200,000 net most people think is reasonable as it’s the easiest way for governments to grow the economy.
There’s no solution to the housing g crisis and the young will either have to leave the country or live unconventional lives.
@@JasonAtlas why is the population growing? It's clearly not helping anything, the economy is a mess and NHS wait times are the longest ever despite the highest immigration on record.
@@Norf.F.C.Zoomer Well, we do want to avoid an aging population. I think it makes sense to import young people with useful skills.
But it's just absurd to issue more visas than there are available homes. If you are going to have high immigration rates, you at least have to build the homes _first,_ not several years later!
@@andybrice2711 ah yes of course immigrants don't age, forgot about that and also screw the countries they come from right? Don't have to worry about the aging population in Italy if we just take their workers right? We imported 1.4 million people in 2022 less than 250k of those were on work visas, trust me it's not solving anything.
I honestly have no idea how the country operated in 1990 before mass immigration. Presume we just ran on magic.
One glaring admission on your part. The huge numbers associated with immigration.
Over 750,000 people entering and around 250 - 300 homes built.
The downward pressure has been acknowledged by government, would be nice to see address this too.That is if you want to be taken as unbiased.
All the best
That’s not a glaring omission. It’s not allowed in polite society to ever point out that the huge numbers of people being allowed to come here means the housing market can never be properly fixed.
biased in favour or against who? Presently, there is no substantial distinction between labour and the conservatives on general immigration policy? Regardless, approximately 20% (rounded up) of international students stay after completion of studys (over a 5 year period). Students represent a massive percentage of that 750,000 number. Most of whom are going to cities/regions of the uk with large amounts of student housing.
@@davianthule2035its around 700k NET, 1.4m people come here per year and 700k leave per year
@@RabidDog20 700k net* which includes anyone staying for roughly a year at least. which is why temporary students are included and are massively inflating your immigration statistics (when in reality, only 20% actually end up staying and 80% leave)
Alongside refugees like ukranians and folks from Hong Kong. Both of whom are temporary groups behind a large spike.
In otherwords you can expect a decrease in net immigration next year, and if your government was not misleadingly listing temporary students in the same stats as permenant/long term immigrations, you'd have a much clearer picture. (However the conservative government's most effective scam has been to promise to cut immigration oh mah gawd immigration so so high, then does nothing in government, yet anti immigration voters keep voting for them, LFMAO, literally the cycle of the last 14 years). Labour will probably "cut" immigration by actually fixing the stupid fucking way immigration stats are organised.
The only solution is to build more houses, I.e. interfere with the market on the supply side. Do not worry about this lowering prices and house values for existing owners. The prices shouldn't have risen this much to begin with. Do not even attempt to flatline the prices in order to "at least keep current value". I'm an owner occupier, and my property value has been flat for the last 7 years, and that's fine. It's even gone down a bit a few times and that's also fine - I didn't buy something where payments would become unaffordable or would make me wish I had rented instead.
They don't have to interfere with the market. Actually it's the opposite. They need to erase the regulations and planning and approvals that are required to construct new houses. That's what's holding the supply back. Markets naturally tend towards matching demand with supply when not interfered with. The interference is what is causing it to not be able to do that
Even if all new builds were publicly owned, it will outcompete with existing and future planned housing designed for the highly profitable private market.
or they could kick out the millions of people who don't belong here and occupy homes that are meant for those who do belong here.
You want to build over green spaces whilst probably pretending you're pro green. It's so laughable, you're so contemptable
Who are we building the houses for? The indigenous British population hasn't increased in the last 20 years....
@@romitkumar6272 I can tell you it's not overregulation, same thing happened here in the Netherlands 10 years after the neoliberal-conservative government said the housing market was done and closed the government department of housing to just let the market figure out the rest. Now we have the worst housing crises of Europe, far worse then Britain. The thing is the market doesn't work with houses, you can't just take a house with you, they have to be build on land and there is only so much land.
In Denmark, we have a residence obligation, which means that you, as the owner of a year-round home, have a duty to ensure that the home is occupied at least 180 days a year. If you own a year-round home, you are therefore obliged to live in it yourself or to ensure that the home is rented out for year-round living.
No they won't fix anything, they're too scared of rocking the boat and dumpstering house prices because it tends to be their richer supporters who give the most donations.
Lol, talks about the housing shortage but doesn't mention mass uncontrolled immigration.
As a Canadian... the problem isnt only the housing. Its also the immigration. Here in canada, 2023... 147k houses built, 2023... 2.5 million immigrants! The math on those numbers doesnt exactly add up to housing affordability
Con way will only increase house prices and put more of a risk of a housing crash
Totally agree. But the shit lite party are inherenting 12 years of shit fuckery that for the most part can't be fixed in one term.
This is the Tory way - keep the foot on the accelerator, deny the existence of the cliff edge...
people my age want because want a housing crash because we want to suffer through that then we can actually buy a house
Solving housing is so simple. Make multi home ownership illegal.
Unfortunately the rich control government so it'll never happen unless there's a revolution
Silly idea
How will anyone rent then 🤣
@@killer2434 through government
@@evora9081 literally everything the government does is a shitshow, total mess from top to bottom.
Why do people still think they can do anything at all?
I live in Portugal and we had a rent control until 2011 (that still exists for tenancies before 1989). The result was innabited houses literally falling in pieces, because landlords couldn't afford the necessary repairs because the rent was so low.
To evict here is quite hard. I'm affraid that banning no-fault evictions will have the same effect.
As a result, it is hard to find homes to be rented and rents prices had ever been high. Many landlords rent illegaly, withouth declaring it's income to the state, because of the high bureocracy and high taxes, also
The only good part of this report is builiding more housing. The rest of it will have bad results
I’ve been thinking this for a while now, but this country has one more government to convince me to stay. I’m sick of living in a country where I feel no hope for the future. Working people are given a particularly rotten deal in this country, I’ll take my skills and taxes elsewhere. That is unless Keir Starmer can convince me to stay. To be honest I don’t have much hope for that happening.
Well that’s fine, assuming you have skills. I’m sure you’ll find adequate employment in the EU or Australia or Canada. But I think you’re making the mistake of assuming because Labour has thus far been vague, that they don’t actually have a manifesto ready for when the election is called. Especially considering the toxic nature of the Tory media and political class at present.
@@kingstannisbaratheon7974
I agree media is horrendous. I’ll give Keir a chance but I want to see real change. Rent is number one issue for me.
Agree. I will leave UK for good if things don't improve very soon
Keir Starmer , make things better ? You’ll be lucky . In any case legislation would take at least a decade to filter through and I suggest you pack your bags before you are too old .
no, my council has been labour for 40 years and they have not built houses and still blame maggy
It's a cult.
That’s as it is Maggies fault! They are not allowed to reinvest the money from sold council houses to build new ones.
@@joe.c9308 If you build a house at 100% cost and sell it for 80% of the value you cannot afford to build another house.
@@SaintGerbilUK Some of the guys here could do with reading your statement because they don't understand the nuance of what you've said when they think that building houses is like planting trees to councils.
@@rubix4195 they also don't think beyond houses.
People need places to work, supermarkets, recreation, police, fire, hospitals, transport, etc
Which is why I say it's like building a new Nottingham or Sheffield every year net or a new Leeds, Bradford or Glasgow every year gross.
Because these cities are among our largest cities and have taken hundreds of years to build, yet they want to do it in a year and every year, and don't see any problems with it.
We cant have 600k net every year and fix a housing crisis.
Building more homes is irrelevant if the population increases at a faster rate than housing supply. Labour will increase population growth.
Thanks for the video, Appreciated
Please can TLDR consider the recent work of Nick Bano in ‘Against Landlords’ in their future analysis of UK housing issues, in particular the central argument that supply is not simply about building houses, but rather also about releasing houses from landlordism and into ownership by the majority.
Starmer never goes "into much detail" on any if his policies.
We need to sort out the rules around freeholds and leaseholds if we are going to allow more building to be created.
A recent government report shows that mass immigration accounts for a whopping 89% of the gap in housing supply versus demand.
Can I get a source on that? Not arguing against it I'm just curious to read it
well said! too many indians coming in now
@@calahoon22 I caught it on a recent episode of the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters. They showed the excerpt from the official report by the UK Home Office
@mdstreet94 Careful; this channel's comments section considers Lotus Eaters a far right source, and therefore considers everything they say as Fascist propaganda.
@@jgomo3877 That's great - I'm in the right place to inform normies of the existential threat to the English way of life.
Build 100k houses and then import a million migrants. Sounds like a great plan!
Who said that?
@@claymush7476 Last year over a million migrants came to the UK. The year before was almost the same. They say one thing and then do another
@@damienheads7151 yeah and who's been in charge the last 14 years? your comment made it seem like it's labour's fault.
@@claymush7476 Both Labour and Tories do it mate, they’re basically the same
Housing, environment, transport, immigration.. how many of our issues would we begin to actually fix when we finally admit that an ever increasing population is a catastrophe?
The problem is that without those immigrants, we lose a lot of jobs. There's a reason something like 300,000 immigrants are coming over every year to do care work for £11.44 an hour: no one 'native' wants to engage in that scam
The population of the UK only grew 25% in the last 60 years. Overpopulation is certainly not the problem in the UK.
@@huckleberryfinn6578 The UK is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, with a limited amount of space. The fact that we cant build houses fast enough to support the current population is an indicator we are overpopulated.
@@Stobo087The issue lies in the rate of housebuilding, which has been declining substantially over the past decade, rather than population growth. It’s also not as if the housing supply that currently exists is high quality and affordable for the population, and we just can’t build enough of it- the issue is that to rent and mortgage a house/flat is hugely expensive, and often the quality of the accommodation is low
@@huckleberryfinn6578 only 25%? thats a lot for a tiny island, more people = higher demand for houses regardless of where they came from. along with the stagnant economy and wages, its turning into an unlivable country very quickly.
Nobody wants to rent, and nobody likes how horrible the market is. We all want to own our own houses and be able to live in peace, but the amount of deposit you need to put down and then ontop all the proofs you need and then the interest rates, it's all just too much for most young people.
It is the supply side that needs fixing. All the renting reforms are going to do is drive out good landlords, and make it a more commercial operation - it’s those big commercial landlords who are the worst ones in my experience.
I know a guy who owns 250 two bedroom houses which he rents out every month for up to £1000 per month, in the past all of those houses would have been first time buyer houses, but greedy landlords like him have bought them all and pushed up the prices and put them out of reach for young couples who are trying to get a start in life for a reasonable price.
£1,000 for a 2 bedroom house is really reasonable, it's normally double, if not more in more expensive areas.
@@SaintGerbilUK- I think you miss the point. This guy should not have been able to purchase 250 homes, likely all on buy to let scheme. It’s taking the mickey out of would be buyers who can’t get their own house because they’ve been swallowed up by greedy landlords. Those same renters likely pay more in rent and own nothing, than paying for a mortgage with their own home which is wrong. You cannot stop a landlord swallowing up properties, but you can tax them so high it’s unviable to do so. Tax due should rise with every property after your first one on a sliding scale.
@@Anakinuk007 you claim he's a "greedy landlord" yet he's offering below market rates. How is that greedy?
If he can afford it, what's the problem?
The country needs space for renters and buyers alike.
@@SaintGerbilUK - You still don’t get it. An individual should not have that many houses. He would have got them on all the buy to let scheme, he can’t afford it he’s getting other people to pay his likely 249 other mortgages must have paid off his own house by now lol.. I agree we need housing for rent of course. The distribution needs to be fairer. If anything the government should own the bulk of those houses and be renting them out at sensible prices.
@user-rq5sd1sq8o yes it is most rent is higher than that, your trying to use your feelings as a argument, when they're not.
It's also not a human right.
When we let 700,000 legal people in the country each year good luck building enough houses. If you are limiting rent then you need to control the costs. Or landlords will disappear. Make no mistake people are not buying those properties huge property companies are making it worse.
Your NHS is going to have fun without 700000 doctors and nurses.
300 000 young men from abroad needs housing first
Build more houses
Ban any foreign investment including landlords
Massively reduce migration
Only these will help, anything less won't fix anything
This is an imported problem. The UK has declining birth rates.
Building more homes won’t fix anything if people can’t afford to buy them or pay for future mortgage payments. What’s to stop investors from buying many of the properties like they do now?
I think rule that houses can only be sold to people from that city/area, in some developments, need to be implemented. So many Londoners coming up north and buying out people from the north (usually have more money for a house since they were saving to buy in London but then gave up when they couldn’t afford it or didn’t like the place anymore). It’s a joke.
When selling, make sure you're selling to people you want to live in your house. You might not get the best price, but you can rest happy you did your bit. Jews do this a lot, where they sell at amiable rates to Jews but higher rates to Goy. Call it an out-group cost/In group bias. in your case, only sell to other northerners.
People would rather sit in their cars an hour each way to work and own a home in a distant suburb of a Northern city than spend 50% of their wage on rent and die trying to buy a house in London where you still commute an hour each way on the Tube. You can't blame those people but they make the market even more chaotic and increase values so much by being the top bidder (we can blame companies for snatching up half a street, neglecting it, hiking rents and making student housing or just normal renting but that's different)
My suggestion to that would be an increasingly higher tax the more homes you own that are not inhabited (as in, not having a tenant who uses that home as their home address, meaning they need to be rented out). This would also curb those who buy multiple properties to rent them out via AirBnB and the like and could fight homeowners simply keeping the home empty until they can raise the rent again and then rent it out as those gains should then be eaten up by the higher taxes they'd have to pay for keeping them without a permanent tenant.
you think they will sit empty? you're so dumb a home that sits empty is worth nothing they will fill it with the highest paying tenant they can get. you don't need to stop investors from buying them, people don't need them as an investment they only need somewhere to live affordably
1) increase in supply lowers demand
2) residential property is not a particularly good investment for firms as compared to commercial
This sounds like it will make building apartments less profitable creating less demand from buildinders to create new homes. So the this will create a slow down on the supply side.
The only way to actually fix this is to sort out the commodification of housing. You need to tax it HEAVILY (LVT for example) and make it less appealing as an investment option. This includes small and large companies looking to scoop up properties as part of an investment portfolio. Housing is for living not investment
Let's make all the renters homeless.
That's the solution!?!
@@SaintGerbilUK Imagine the mess, 30% of the rented homes being vanished from the market all at once, its crazy to even think about it.
@@victor95pc yep and that's not even talking about the secondary effects like how most banks would stop issuing mortgages or require a much higher deposit like 60%
I don't anything along those lines happening anytime soon.
Most mps own houses they let they are not likely to vote against their own interest...
It is completely absurd to ignore the "Demand" elephant in the room. We add more people year on year than we can afford to put up. Nearly half of all social housing in London is occupied by non ethnic Brits. Why on earth are we being taxed to pay for folk who have no right to be here, when we can't afford houses ourselves? Mental.
Supply side most new builds are mid to high range houses, built for developers profits, that cost more than the people who actually need housing can afford.
Reduce demand by closing the borders and start building sustainable hosing stock. It'll take a long time to balance out but thats the mess weve been left with
Correct but be careful on pointing out “uncomfortable facts to the wokerati ”….. it may get you denounced 😵💫
It's funny how that's never an option isn't it.
These policies are good minus the rent control, rent control murders housing production
As someone who rented up until shortly before Covid hit, I could not save up for a deposit because the rent took up more than half of my (full time) wage. Bearing in mind, this was the lowest rent place I could find in the area and was a house-share that by government standards would be classed as 'overcrowded'. As I understand, things have become a lot worse since then. Thankfully, I finally managed to get on the housing ladder due to being gifted part of an inheritance. Unfortunately, most people are not that lucky and I was very late (being in my 40's) getting on the housing ladder myself as it is. If I had not had that lucky break, I might well have been homeless by now. As things stood at the time, I could only just afford the place I live in right now and it still has a lot of problems that need fixing. I dare say that if the same thing happened today (with the same amount) I would be needing a mortgage rather than buying outright which I would not be able to obtain.
Take risk and start a business or something
@@Ahmed-gg4ozI started window cleaning 3 years ago and it’s changed my life 🙏
House builders do not want to increase the number of houses built per year as it keeps house prices up. Also labour shortages in the future workforce, as they all want to be internet stars, will have a bigger problem for constructions. If land is purchased for house building planning should have to be applied for within 12 months and construction start within a further 12 months rather than builders building up huge land banks and trickling in new homes to keep up demand.
Literally impossible. It takes 3-5 years to get planning on most land and you have to own the land to apply for planning or have permission of the land owner. As land with approved planning permission is substantially more value. The only way to get planning on land is to own it. Then getting a good team of contractors together takes another year or you have to wait until the previous job is finished.
There's not enough tradesmen and the planning system is understaffed, underpaid and totally overwhelmed. Not to mention broken beyond repair. We need a brand new ground up planning system.
Builders make money by building. They should be enabled, encouraged and driven to build more, ultimately earning them more profit overall.
@@r016976 So none of the excuses you give can be fixed then? That is the attitude that has got this country into the state it's in.
@@hylje Yes but if you build at a slow enough rate then you increase the value of the houses you build, supply and demand. More houses there are the less they are worth.
@@grumpygit-sv1cg by building less you can increase margin per unit, but the audience that buys them will shrink. Build twice as much and your margin will still be more than half because many more people can now buy.
5:53 "Others would argue that rent controls would hit landlords particularly hard."
This is the _desired effect._ We need to reduce the number of landlords. Renting is the only option left because more properties than ever are owned by fewer people, and the costs of renting are _obscene._
These "lords of the land" are extortionists. I mean that very literally, as they leech off of the hard work and money of people who need shelter but can't afford it due to the pathetic wage increases we've seen since 2010. Even the quality of homes has dropped thanks to landlords refitting former houses into "HMOs", meaning that the places people live are even more cramped, uncomfortable, and inhumane.
What we need isn't mere housing reform. We need a landlord abolition. Shelter should be a right, not a diminishing privilege. Every person born should be granted a place to stay, forever. That can't happen while landlords own so much and withhold empty properties to maximise profits. And that's just the start. Housing prices are next.
Then they might need to sell their Rolls Royces and Ferraris, sell their "Holiday homes", and invest in the people that put them there. Many are modern day Rachman's.
In this imaginary utopia of yours, who pays for all of these house that people would be entitled to as a birth right?
This is a bad take. Govt should just build their own supply and compete directly.
You’re letting emotions get your head. Landlord need more regulation based on the current state of the rental market, not abolition.
@@philyewin4880 You do realise that having people in insecure housing situations, ranging from paying the majority of their paycheck for rent to being homeless, is a huge fucking drain on the economy. An economy is simply money moving around. When the majority of people are spending that money on their bills, the rest of the economy suffers. When people are homeless they generally cannot work, that is labour value completely left on the table.
Who pays for those costs? The answer is we do. We pay for those costs. We suffer the economy shitting itself. The landlords are the ones running off with the money.
It would be far better for the economy to house everyone.
To think I came here 7 years ago for some good Brexit drama and Orrdddaaa, seven years later, I still rely on your reporting. Thanks for all your hard work.
Rent control will make cheap rents go up just before it becomes law. I know the rent I charge is low but I haven't raised it because I can do so at anytime. If it were to be fixed for a future period I'd bite the bullet and tell my tenants I'm putting it up now to a more commercial level before the legislation comes in. How about the government freezes my £3.4k council tax bill? That bill never fails to grow
saying that some form of rent control would make it impossible for landlords suggests that the only way to preserve the private rented sector is to allow private rents to become unaffordable. That doesnt seem like much of a solution to me
You bring in people from abroad and your local people can't purchase a home, which means they cannot have children, so you have to bring in more people.
yes. thats the idea. cos there is a global dislike of the anglo.
@@anthonylulham3473ironic that perfidious Albion suffers from the perfidious nature of its politicians
@@anthonylulham3473racist.
@@anthonylulham3473 not just anglo all europe is having the same problem
It’s not responsible to have children in such a situation so only the irresponsible have them.
Transparency is good.
Details are devil.
The problem is that we have moved housing from what it should be (a place to be safe, keep your stuff, and where you feel most comfortable using the restroom), into investments. People now buy houses with the expectation that they can profit from it. And this is often being done in bulk by people with large amounts of money and influence. So there are now politically powerful people who have no interest in seeing housing prices fall. It is in their interest if most people are unable to afford to buy a house since it would make their existing properties worth less.
Until we stop treating houses as primarily an investment we will never see housing as affordable for the majority of people. Once again the problems of society are being caused by a small group of the wealthy who are hurting society in order to make themselves richer.
It's need to be harder for companies to guy properties.
That is the crux of the argument.
Maybe don't allow in over a million people a year and developers might be able to catch up to demand.
Mr. Ditkovich would be proud.
The renter's reform bill fundamentally was compromised from the tory's initial plans so saying they are genuinely seeking meaningful rental reform is absurd at this point.
People blame 'planning restrictions' but that's not the full story.
Local councils have to have a 5 year housing supply. Councillors (not planners) frequently stop development at the behest of NIMBYs.
Unless steps are taken to stop housing being an investment, then no matter how many homes are built, little will change.
15 million immigrants is the problem.
It's ironic that the same people who criticize NIMBYism are also the same people who tried to block the bristol airport expansion.
@@marumaru6084 Who will you get to build these affordable homes quickly without relying on a significant amount of immigrant labour?
@@Lennon6412We dont need the homes without the 15 million immigrants! We have enough houses! You cannot increase demand to fix a problem caused by to much demand!
@@marumaru6084 kicking 15 million people out of a country is not a workable solution
I don’t know how difficult it would be to achieve, but it seems to me that the best thing to do is build enough council houses for all the renters who need them and put private landlords out of business. The needs of private landlords and renters clash too strongly to ever be resolved. If you give landlords what they want, renters suffer; but if you give renters the level of protection they need, landlords will sell their properties to owner occupiers or turn them into holiday lets.
Who are you building the houses for? The indigenous British population hasn't increased in 20 years.
@@Norf.F.C.ZoomerI would build them for the people who need them. I don’t know if you’re right about the indigenous population not increasing in 20 years. But surely you don’t deny that we have a housing crisis in this country.
@@karenlp5867 Norf is saying that get rid of the people and the problem goes away. We have had 200K people per year net since 2003, increasing to 250K people per year since 2014, 700K per year 2022... We have built 175K houses per year since 2003.
UK birth rate is 1.65 Per person since 1975, so we should be decreasing in population. Put simply, Norf is saying don't build houses for the new to the nation. If All the foreign born disappeared 14% of housing would be freed up or about 3.5 million houses. that's not counting their dependants like UK born children to Foreign born parents. 3.5million houses is equivalent to 20 years at building rates.
Both sides have arguments. Mass deportation isn't likely. Mass house building isn't likely. answer is probably a bit of both, stop immigration and keep building houses at current rates. give it 20 years to work out.
The other option is a war. that will kill off lots of the population freeing the housing stock, on the proviso that we dont blow up the houses.
Historically that is almost the exact opposite of what has happened. Since the end of ww1 we have had 7 public sector home building booms (maybe 6 depending on whether a couple count as 2 separate or one longer one) all but one (immediate post WW2 due to Luftwaffe destroying a lot of homes) was as a result of the private sector landlords walking away from funding new builds due to bad regulations and high taxation. So not so much to crowd private landlords out of the market but because they had already reduced activity below what was needed
@@justinstephenson9360Thanks for the info. That’s really interesting. 😊
The mindset of housing as an investment is a sickness in this country. We really should have been chasing higher wages and low housing costs to ensure we maximise our individual autonomy but we chose the alternative and now the countries butt cheeks are puckered up waving in the air, ready for anyone with a fat enough wallet to come in and take advantage of its residents.
It's all well and good saying we should pay more wages and have cheaper houses, but the question is how?
The fact that UK government is talking about doing anything is amazing. In New Zealand both parties have basically done nothing for years 😢
Sir Kid Starver's Labour couldn't even fix itself a sandwich.
The more you bash landlords the more you'll have a shortage of rental accommodation which means prices will be even higher.
that why they should just flood the market with new housing
@@grimaffiliations3671 Built where with whose money using what services?
Build houses means more roads, more doctors, more concrete, more carbon, more petrol stations, more pipes, more water refining systems, more reservoirs. its hardly an environmental solution. less people all working longer is a better solution to shrinking workforce.
Retirement was designed when we had 12 workers per old person. we now have 4 workers per old person. old people used to spend 5-10 years retired. they now spend 20-30 years retired.
@@grimaffiliations3671 Not possible, there aren't enough skilled builders to even keep up with the current demand.
I think most young people agree, the solution is not to waste our money renting its to leave the country and go somewhere better. If the gov isn't careful they are going to end up in the same situatuon as Italy
Uk got what it deserves, same as Australia.
Thanks
Can’t tackle the housing crisis without tackling rampant mass immigration. 500,000 a year, unless you plan on building a Birmingham every year we wont build our way out of this.
Please no, have you been to Birmingham recently?
They will make it worse with their "immigrants welcome" signs.
UK's obsession with houses is one of the major issues, but how else could it be when leasehold is a scam.
There should be increased housing tax for owning more than 2-3 houses
More than 2 should be taxed at 99%. And companies should not be allowed to own housing
>Increases tax on landlords
>Rental prices go down?
@@FaBB10_FS24that would reduce the number of houses to rent as loads of existing landlords would sell up and rents would rise
@@battmarnso you want to abolish all rented property.
Ok I hope you have a deposit on a mortgage ready, or your willing to be homeless?
Everything reaches an equilibrium, if there is some sort of equality. Not monopoly.@@SaintGerbilUK everybody knows this is the best solution. But no government is going to put it forward because it affects High and middle class really hard. The last one votes labour
Preventing landlords putting up prices in the short term will just encourage them to price in any risk at the start of any tenancy. It sounds like a good idea but not sure it will have the desired effect. The only solution is MORE HOUSES!
A government owned social housing project that is legally bound to build houses would force the other housebuilders to build whilst they still have profitable sites to work on. It would add urgency to an industry that is currently incentivised to build slowly for a greater profit.
There are now so many ‘green’ conditions attached to house building that it’s impossible to make them affordable.
Cut stamp duty. It’s a disgrace of a tax. There should be outrage at it
Remember: Britain has built almost no new housing since the 1950s and both main parties were involved in that process (embracing immigration and pop growth without expanding housing supply). And more worryingly both are in the hands of landlords, including MPs themselves that benefit from housing rent prices.
This is untrue please look at the data, the average housebuilding in the interwar years was 160,000, which is less than the 210,000 built last year, the percentage growth has slowed, but raw numbers peaked in the mid century with some years seeing 400,000+ the real cause of the dip is the decline of public housing, which was plugging the gap, and of course the planning system which was designed with a large public component in mind. We need both a revival of council housing and private building if we want to meet the massive current demand.
@@beepoboopo546 exactly right. IDK where Pritapp got the idea that no homes were built. theyre just wrong.
@@anthonylulham3473 it's just a silly exaggeration based on a a slowing of percentages when we were going off an absolutely historic era of house building, no idea why the 50s were singled out when the 60s and early 70s were arguably the height though
Without tackling immigration this plan to build millions of homes is completely moot.
Yup. Supply and demand are both problems here. Gotta fix each one, not just the one that makes developers rich
Given that Rwanda has a population density twice that of the UK,u have lost the right 2 make that argument, the UK is hardly full if we can send people 2 Rwanda
In fact follow up, u knoW how Rwanda is planning 2 solve it's housing issues via these migrants? By building more homes! So mayb if just did the same.....
@@paddyjoe1884the Rwanda thing is pantomime, Rwandans have the ability to seek asylum in the UK anyway, its red meat for tory voters, a complete lie. You would have to repeal the modern slavery bill and human rights act in order to have an effective deportation system.
This will end badly.
The only answer to this is more council houses/flats simple as that
Posturing and nibbling around the edges. Homes are not affordable because wealth has moved upwards. Homes are in short supply because wealth has moved upwards, social housing is no longer replaced and we are not building enough houses - especially houses of the right type. Private rentals have increased because wealth has moved upwards. The affordable homes quota has not been met because builders control politicians. There is no access to state funded low interest, long-term mortgages and banks are allowed to profiteer. There is no attempt to make use of brown field sites and renovate older buildings because of the extraction of easy profit by builders. Planning regulations are outdated, not being tough enough to force the installation of solar panels on all new builds, mitigate urban sprawl, provide enough schools and health services in new areas. Governments are too weak to tackle this and are still faffing around for easy votes.
Or put simply we've imported too many people.
@@Norf.F.C.Zoomer You miss the reality. We've taken advantage of the labours of said "imported" people for the extraction of profit while letting our infrastructure rot, when we needed to expand it. Who is to blame for that?
@@davidmcculloch8490 no we haven't, we imported 1.4 million people last year barely 250k of those were work visas it's a myth mass immigration is essential for the workforce. How do you think we managed pre 1990? Yes I blame basically every single government in the last 50 years for all of it.
@@Norf.F.C.Zoomer We "managed" before we sold off our infrastructure and businesses. We then managed through something called freedom of movement. We now need more working immigrants because of an aging population. These facts in our economic model are unfortunate to racists. Our successive governments have failed to plan.
@@davidmcculloch8490 we had the higest immigration on record last year, where is my economic growth?
The main issue is we see housing as an investment instead of a right.
Which sadly started many years ago when we were told to make alternative arrangements to fund our retirement as state pensions wouldn't necessary be available anymore.
With who's labour do I get my free "right"?
Thats called slavery my dude.
Housing cannot be a right, unless we all live in a giant forest and we all build our own homes.
Rent price caps have been tried dozens of times, in different countries, in various different ways. It doesn't work. It always makes the situation worse.
Give me services to live on the road, overnight car parks, public power, water hook ups.
Remove laws limiting my ability to live in a van and live while on the go.
There is no "housing crisis".
It's an _immigration_ crisis which _every Gov refuses to address_ .
More people, suddenly arriving, require more accommodation and services.
literally nobody on the left is willing to admit this.
We’ll we are in a housing crisis since the government started building less social housing back in the 80’s means that now with less competition housing companies are charging more for a home, not everything is because of immigration
@@lolloat it has got far worse recently because of immigration. It is not racist or nasty to blame immigration you are not blaming the individual immigrants who have done nothing wrong but you are blaming the short sighted Tory gov who wanted to help their landlord mates and business owners wanting cheap labour.
@@iainfletcher3066I mean yeah just expressing my hatred towards the Tory’s (or more specifically margret thatcher) for speeding up the fall of the uk
As a planning officer myself, it is always frustrating to hear how we are the ones holding things up. The housing crisis is due to mass uncontrolled migration. Its simple supply vs demand. So long as we keep having this extreme unsustainable migration policy the housing market will continue to be broken regardless of how many state interventions are made.
Based. you need some love, you guys do decent work most of the time!
1 million people arrived last year. we cant house that
Yes, simple and straight logic.
But people keep saying let them in and if they are asked “are you housing them?” Its not their responsibility!
@@anthonylulham3473 How many left?
@@anthonylulham3473 But 508,000 people left the UK in 2023, so net immigration is about half of that. It's still a big number but a big difference too.
Baffling how short sighted they ALL are. 1% mortgages will just skyrocket prices.
Will they fix housing? No
Ultimately too few new houses are being built, too little is being done to get empty homes occupied again and there are too few controls to stop individuals and companies snapping up properties for rental purposes.
No. There’s no incentive for builders to build cheap housing. Also why would a landlord invest into a property with such heavy handed restrictions?
Yup, not a single tax exemption, the material costs are super high at the moment, so the only profitable constructions are high-standard ones, which does not solve the housing problem, this happens in Portugal too, I believe the gov knows about that but they profit a lot from it to do anything useful, so they prefer focusing in the Landlord vs renters mindset...
Building more homes won’t solve the problem when you bring in a million people into the country every year and have very loose credit conditions. The only way to solve this is to normalise credit conditions, so that landlords are forced to sell off their real estate assets. Basically, you have to pop the bubble.
According to the ONS, “this means that net migration over the decade added about 2.2 million to the UK population, approximately 232,000 less than indicated by our previously published estimates for this period.” , I don’t know where your a million migration figure come from or you simply ignore the idea of total net migration.
That's already happening in the bubble areas. Net yields are lower than cost of credit, so no new landlords can set up in places like London. Many areas down south will see severe shortages of new properties being brought to the rental market due to high interest rates. Since taxes are set on the gross, not net takings, they have to pay taxes even if they're losing money. This will also drive out current landlords who, as they move onto new mortage deals, find they are actually losing money on that property and still getting taxed on their bad investment. This will put some tenants out of a home and drive up demand, all while no one can afford to become a landlord. How will this affect people?
@@marcus.Hno landlords, no rentals.
All renters become homeless.
@@SaintGerbilUK I agree 👍🏼 still, there will still be some landlords because some people bought decades ago and some are outright owners. They can still afford to stay in the market. BUT any landlord who bought even close to today's prices will have to sell up due to high cost of borrowing combined with a tax structure which leaves them with a bill even if they are losing money on the property
@@SaintGerbilUK all it means is there will be nothing new brought to the rental market and a significant number of landlords will be forced to sell. This will send hundreds of thousands of people chasing after a tiny stock of available rental properties. There will be more people chasing after each available home, so prices will rise significantly. Interestingly this will lower housing standards too since landlords will want people to move out so they can raise prices. People won't want to leave their current place because the market is so much higher outside, so an unrepaired sink or a bad leaky window won't get complained about and won't get fixed