As a leaseholder I think that a reform of the practices of the Freehold companies is long overdue. My lease has been extended once and will need extending soon. My wife was ripped off by the Freeholder 6 years ago and people face huge fees to extend to peppercorn up to 25% of the market value of the property. The Tories will never do anything to protect the 10, 000,000 leaseholders currently living with this burden. After all it is easy money for the few thousand companies involved. Parasites all of them.
There’s nearly 50,000 acres of green belt near me which will never be built on: Sandringham, Holkham and Houghton Estates; whilst the Council is scrabbling to build on small bits of car parks, scrub land and so on. Over 50% of the UK is in the hands of aristocracy, and landowners such as National Trust and the army. 30% of the land is still in the hands of descendants of William the Conquerors barons. We have a totally archaic system of land ownership.
I'd dearly love to see something, sodding anything really, being done on the issues of housing, but it's frankly pie in the sky if anyone thinks anything dramatic is going to be done by anyone about it. There's wayyy to much money being made by those with a vested interest in keeping things as is. The days of mass house building to suit everyone's needs are long gone and the company's that do make what we do build, have zero interest in anything that wont bring them outrageous profits. Just getting a mortgage to get one they have managed to build, is nigh on impossible for anyone without some serious money behind them, add to that, there having to jump through MANY hoops to get so much as an mortgage application form. The equally greedy rental market knows this and exploits the fact to the maximum, its becoming more and more like the mortgage market every day, requiring guarantors, on top of a hefty deposit for flats that aren't even remotely worthy of them. The whole housing industry IS making silly money and has been allowed to do so for decades. No new government expecting to change any of the status quo, is going to get very far at all forcing that industry do what it might want it too, without that industry telling it to do one.
they can't do anything. They'd have to reduce house prices by 30% to help 1st time buyers struggling to get on the property ladder. No chance the government can knock prices down by that much.
I feel like this problem stems from the Right To Buy Scheme. It was a good idea on the face of it as it allowed people to buy their homes. However the local authorities reduced the pool of affordable rental homes. Now these houses are in private hands. Instead those who wanted to buy a home should have moved out of their council homes. This would fueled home building in the UK while freeing up capacity in the pool of affordable council homes for those who need it most
At least it made sense to you. You're consent has been manufactured. Sad but True 😭 I read it and thought there goes another idiot spreading lies like they're truths. Claims aren't evidence, they're just claims, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence with no exceptions. That's what you're lacking. Next you'll be telling me there's an afterlife 🤣🤣🤣
I read it again, you're ignorance is bliss to you, unfortunately, it has torn your country apart. Do worry it's not just you, there's millions of you crazies. Hunker down, batten the hatches, the UK is crumbling into the Irish sea and you're in the middle of the nightmare you helped to create.😱
@@tonyb9735 Thatcher banned the councils from using the money from home sales for building social housing, the entire point was to get rid of it so that it would force people into the private rental market or become home owners and at the time it was more likely a home owner would vote tory
Surely it would make more sense, to follow for example -the Paris housing model and raise the city heights to 5-6 story's. We have an obsession in Britain and Ireland with low rise individual housing, which works well in small towns and villages. Cities can be so much less of a sprawl if just raised up a little and therefore no further need to spread
Couldn't agree more. France is far more agrarian than the UK but city dwellers are used to more high density housing. We have an obsession with 'executive' detached homes here.
Have you considered that people don't want to be packed in like sardines and actually want to own their own home rather than lease it? There's plenty of space in this country, the NIMBYs just need to get over themselves
@@jontalbot1 unironically we should allow 50,60-story tall residential buildings like they do have in Hong Kong in our major cities. There is no way around the housing crisis, it is all about supply and demand in the end, we gotta build more housing to make it affordable
@@1queijocas They do it in Manchester and house their young people. It looks like no other city in Britain. I have no idea why they cannot do it in London
They should build small, modest houses/flats that are affordable because of their size. People need that first stepping stone, the problem is the first stepping stone onto the property ladder is a huge leap over a ravine. Once that first step is accomplished then the next step onto a bigger property some time in the future is achievable.
How much countryside, food production land and habitat will be lost in the process? How much will all this housing add to our carbon emissions and make it harder to achieve net Zero? Will local roads be able to cope, reservoirs, land fill? If Covid19 and Ukraine taught us anything it is the need for security and we only produce 46% of our own food. How much less will that be after Kier and labour have allowed developers to concrete over our fields? This is irreversible, environmental damage.
Housing is a human right. It is a human right to sleep in a place where you know it is safe and warm. A human right should not be exploited for profits.
This is a ridiculous argument A big builder needs to have a land bank of a few years minimum and that's what they have What do you expect. A builder that employs 50,000 staff they finish their current project and cross thier fingers the next project will be approved just on time. And if they can't find purchase agree legals gain planning just in time then fire 50,000 people and go bankrupt? Of course builders need a land bank they need certainty out to a few yesrs to be able to function
@@kaya051285 I'm not suggesting land banking should be ended, however some aspects are problematic in that planning permissions are gained with no intention of building anything, it's just a mechanism to increase land value and therefore company value. Over a 10-year period, from 2009, 2.5 million homes were given planning permission, but only 1.5 million homes were actually built. A shortfall of 1 million homes. Brought up to date the figure may be closer to 1.5 million homes unbuilt.
The thing about building on the green belt is that you cannot ever - ever! - undo it. Using a scorched earth policy to solve a short term problem that can be solved in other ways is not good decision-making in my opinion. I would prefer to see new housing being focused in less densely populated areas of the UK, where housing is cheaper anyway, and companies being given tax breaks to relocate to those areas to make sure there is work for people to do. We could kill two birds with one stone, actually levelling up the north and making housing affordable.
@left_blank there is alot of that but sentiments will change as many will have their kids in their 30s still living at home struggling to get on the ladder and some sick of living with them. The bank of mum and dad won't last forever.
Housing is a big issue. The housing market has went berserk. It is becoming like being able to afford a good school for your children or .. going to get expensive medical care before the NHS. Some have it and they can pass it on to their children (if they have few children and/or major asstes). Others are getting furher and futher pushed out of the housing market. As housing is a necessity and very long term this can not be left "problematic" to long, It is something that change slowly and we are at a bad starting point...
Enjoying! I only come to comment on their neverending bullshit. Fascist's and their playbook trying to fool it's own citizens. Disgusting I'd call it, each to their own I suppose. You'll reap what you sow. Seek equality in freedom not equality in oppression. You should try it, it's okay to have compassion.
Rent controls Assured tenancy with right to renew at a rent controlled rent - abolish the assured short hold tenancy Public housing built by local authorities - creating a sustainable housing pool Reform leaseholds converting into shared freeholds Asset tax on second homes / holiday homes Increased CGT on second homes Restrict Air BB and overnight let’s Foreign ownership controls - only new builds List is endless ..
All of those have big problems but there is a way to achieve the same thing without the contract law problems etc Landlords currently pay a +3% stamp duty surcharge. You could change that to +30% which would basically mean no new rental properties will be purchased and landlords die or sell up approximately 300,000 properties per year. So if you implemented the +30% stamp duty tax you would very rapidly see landlord rental numbers shrink We would go from 5 million rental properties to 2 million in just 10 years and to near zero within 20 years The problem though is.... how does a person move around the country for work? How does someone born in say Middlesbrough move to Islington to start a new job there? Are you expecting a 22 year old to leave their parents house and buy a property straight away? Or are we all relegated to living with our parents until we can afford to buy?
I do Airbnb I'm not rich why should I be denied a bit of extra money. If you want more fairness why not stop billionaires coming over and buying houses in the UK.
Equally, Labour could lose an election by talking about this stuff. I can't help but think Labour are becoming over confident. I'm a millennial but millennials won't win the next election. There's loads of 50s plus people that will decide the election.
The Bulgarian brickies and Polish plumbers have all gone home and approximately a third of all construction companies are struggling to recruit staff. So who, exactly, is going to build these new houses?
@@dalskiBo the developers will always make the lions share of the profits. Stopping immigration will increase wages in the short term but drive up inflation and slow down the economy to the point where the increase in wages are purely theoretical and you don't get any better off
Step 1. Tax land Step 2. Deregulate height and density around rail infrastructure. Step 3. Tax second homes. Step 4. Increase number of social housing.
Thats alot of messing about with the system, Far easier to stop allowing 500k people a year to settle in England, and up the build rate for English occupation only say at least 3rd generation settled status. The current situation in my area, Nigerians given brand new housing association houses, and they have only been in the country less than a year
The reason people are angry is that the mass immigration started by Blair and continued with the cons, has made demand for all kinds of housing excessive. If you allow 10million to settle in England on only build a million houses what do you expect. Less than 30 years ago I bought a very nice house for £30k with a mortgage of £28k. 3x my income. It had been on the market for 6 months and only a couple of viewings. This is what england was like before Blair decided to rub the right's nose in diversity.
How does anyones fundamental poltical rights as a citizen mean diddly squat when they cant even secure a roof over their head? Legally, part of the solution is economic emancipation and enshrineing a new era or economically emancipatory rights into law.
90% of people can secure a home if you look at the older generations 90% own 10% rent This trend has been broadly true for 30 years it doesn't change much
@@kaya051285 Housing now is disproportionately is more expensive compared to median household income than it was when the elderly got onto the housing ladder
Governments in Britain since Thatcher have only ever succeeded in making housing more expensive. Ultra low rates, deregulated lending, HelpToBuy - backed by Labour at the time - have all driven prices higher. This Labour party is either as clueless as all those governments or as disingenuous. Solutions are easier than people pretend. Keep interest rates highish, make lending harder, build council homes, and give tenants far stronger rights. This will take renting away from corporations and BTLers and housing out of commodity land and into what it should be: a place to call home. I expect nothing of the sort from this Labour party. just more of the failing same
I dont see how local councils buying land will help, our local council sold greenbelt land to a developer that they already owned and the house prices they've built are higher than the local area market?
I would invite you not to vote for labour. Vote for Green or Dems. Split the vote. Labour do not deserve to win. A coalition will keep them in check. I'm not a tory supporter, but I strongly disapprove of the behaviour of the current Labour party.
So a big nothing from the Labour party and three divs debating hot air. Local authorities already own acres and acres of land, they do not need to buy it cheap. If the do want cheap land then they buy farms and then grant planning on it. Farmland is cheap already. Thatcher sold off council houses 40 years ago! The problem was not the selling but that they were not replaced. There has been no money for this for 40 years, there is still no money.
@@battybibliophile-Clare We had to borrow £139 billion in the 12 months to march. So borrowing may have dropped by £13 billion if the tax receipts are up. That is just not quite such a deep hole not £13 billion spare cash to piss away. Labour does not get elected because the public are frightened of their spending. Here you are wanting to spend spend spend.
@@grolfe3210 the Tories moved 700 billion to the rich in the covid era. The extra 13 billion is from vat and other on utilities and on the inflated price of goods , food and everything else, that they caused to be the highest in Europe. .take the 70 billion billion that Sunak and Boris pissed away on funding their mates to make PPE and tracking systems that didn't work before you accuse me of wanting to pass money away. When gas spending on assets, housing, been passing away money? I suppose you think Sunak is a financial wizard.
They should ban people renting out houses. Renting houses should be done by the government. This would stop people from trying to make a profit from housing. Houses should be a place to live not an investment
I doubt that the UK really needs that many new homes. So many building lie empty, and more are second homes, holiday lets and the like. Our housing market needs recentring on home owner-occupiers and council should be able to hold housing stock. None of this would make any last change or difference until we have a fair voting system and really democracy.
Homes do not lie empty. It is a myth told to convince you that we don't need to build housing. We actually have one of, if not the lowest rate of unoccupied homes in all of Europe.
The link between pensions and house prices bears some thinking about. When pensions were reformed - so that pensions became smaller, later, and less reliable - people started worrying about house prices more, making it politically difficult to reform the housing market: The restricted housing market is necessary so that house prices remain high; house prices need to remain high to provide people with some security in old age; pensions are decimated yet still unaffordable. It all come down to the ageing population. Perhaps once the current bubble of population passes the whole problem will simply evaporate with them. Death is a wonderful solution to so many problems!
How about freeing up the available housing instead of spaffing council houses all over the countryside? There are 700k vacant houses. 250K of those have been vacant in the long term. God knows how many homes have been swallowed up for real estate in the renting market. The problem is a broken market not a lack of availability. But they wont fix the damn problem will they? Because they are complicit in it.If they wanted to fix it it would be as simple as disincentivising people owning multiple properties through direct taxes and rent controls. Watch how the housing market gets flooded with houses as those all those assets become liabilities.
It’s all a joke, unless the councils are buying it at agricultural rates, then renting it out at cost of construction and maintenance. It won’t put a dent in housing poverty.
The answer is to reverse Thatchers policy of giving councils their own budgetsand to fund councils from central government.This would bring back social housing,which was killed by Thatcher.Private housing is out of the reach for a lot of people,so social housing is the answer.
If people trust Starmer to fix housing in this country they will be very disappointed. It's fashionable right now to talk about fixing housing (among other things) but actually doing something is way too hard. Politicians and most voters deep down know this and so the talk of "housing reforms" and "grand visions" will remain academic. I don't know whether it will be a gradual unravelling of his measures or a straightforward reneging straight after the election, but I do know he will not follow through on any pledge in housing or anything else. Starmer is just continuity Tory government until the real Tories get back in at the following election (assuming Starmer even wins the coming one of course).
Isn't every decent place in the world expensive to live in? The days of "affordable" housing are gone because we live in a globalised market economy. Building on the green belt is a temporary solution.
How is it a temporary solution? It'll lower housing prices making them more affordable again? So younger people could afford houses in a similar percentage to how they used to.
you call it green belt, but most of it is fields of grass in neat little squares? we lost 95% of our green belt over the centuries. we have a real green belt area and moors which should be protected and the rest should be made back into forests but some is green and thats it.
@thestrongestman1008 It'll lower house prices forever will it? If you make a place like Kensington, it'll cost the same as Kensington. We already have £1 houses up in the North, but no one wants to live there. As soon as these homes become desirable places to live, they won't be cheap anymore.
@@robertbones326 That's the whole point, that's why building more houses is a good idea in terms of bringing down the house prices. You Cons just don't wanna see it happen.
This is not a very informed discussion. The planning system is not the issue. To build social housing requires finance and no right to buy. Problem is as soon as the Tories get back in they would unpick it all and everyone knows that. Building more owner occupier housing assumes companies want to do that. Why would they when the result is lower prices? And all this is before we consider the matter of supply, especially skilled labour. It is not possible to increase new builds, except slowly. Leasehold is illegal in virtually every country in the world, incidentally. We are an anomaly.
Not everyone can afford a house so landlords will have to exist The only question is do you want 30% of the population renting from the state or 30% renting from a private landlord or a mix of both. At the moment we have a mix of bith roughly half half
@@kaya051285 I prefer the Chinese route where the government owns all the land and you lease it off them. Making everyone a custodian makes more sense because after all you will die one day and someone will use that land after you. And that might not be your kids.
Might be a good idea for councils to adopt damaged and vandalised properties, make them once again habitable and rent them out at realistic rents. As things stand, there are too many houses standing vacant, windows broken, roofs leaking, copper piping ripped out, rats nesting in decaying trash when they could be earning revenue and giving those in need a secure home to live in. All these houses are yielding NO income, surely even a small income is better than none ?. We pay enough national taxation and local council tax, we should have some say on how that money is spent. Labour, like any other party, are full of promises that are forgotten as soon as they are elected to govern We should be telling the government what we expect from it, not the government telling us what they are going to do, and if they don't like it, they can always seek alternative employment. I'm pretty sure they would all make good road sweepers.
How serious does Labour need to be before they are better than the Tories. Why green land? What is wrong with making developers build on brown land? Also we need to make our food security better, so don't build more on farmland. My council invested in a retail park, they lost £10 million in one year! They have investments all over the south east too. We are in Devon. Of course our council tax went up to pay for their mistakes.
Yeah people have been saying thst for 50 years and the result is the UK has 29 million homes while France has 37 million. Our missing 8 million homes are laegrly to do with people like you who always find an excuse not to build
Don't carry on to small landlords many of whom do a good job. Who's the biggest landowner in the UK the royal family everybody was waving the flag rah rah the King. Not me
I think its a great idea apart from buying it cheap! Imagine having farmland in the family and council buy it at half price!! Anyway houses need built but they should do cumpulsary purchase orders on 2nd homes used as holiday homes there are towns sitting empty in the winter time! And local families cant get on the market as prices are through the roof pun intended!
@left_blank thats not what I said!! They buy the house from the absent owner who isnt there in the winter and the house goes on the market the original house owner gets the proceeds of the sale, they are simply forced to sell a holiday home thats sitting empty half the year if not longer than that!
@left_blank villages are dying bercause for more than half a year they lie empty! The local shops cant stay open because theres not enough footfall half the year!
The house building industry won't ramp up overnight but its possible to grow an industry 10-20% a year while in one single year Thats not a big difference it means over 10 years your industry is 3 toems the size and output
Work houses would go part way to solving the social crisis in this country. You provide a space for aliens to be productive during processing in one wing of the building. Find out what their skills are if they have any, meanwhile they could be doing a solid 8 hours of productive work - a discussion would have to be had around pay (min wage mb not necessary as they are provided for bed and board on site) You can even have a government owned "services" branch and ship people out to clean office blocks or even the streets (ala roosevelts new deal) These people are here anyway, having made the crossing, and the government of this day and age are completely clueless. The barges for example, took months to secure and refit and can hold 500 people... its hardly big picture thinking. The prison system is on its knees aswell, the level of corruption and the infestation of drug networks have made them universitys of crime. These people too could be assessed and fast tracked out of a general prison and into a workhouse, with slightly more freedoms, a daily workiing routine and importantly imo areas for these people to mix. It would be easier to rehabilitate british born offenders if they were taken out of the degenerative enviroment of a uk prison and into a place where people explain to you why they risked there own death to get to this country. Not to mention if your re skilling people and trying to teach them especially in a class enviroment it would work better if you have offenders side by side with asylum seekers. They can learn mutually to overcome their shortcomings in english writing, verbal reasoning- and then whatever basic subject's they want to learn next. Ideally these places would massively lower recidivism rates whilst churning out bricklayers & whatever else. In a less stressfull enviroment we may find some of these people have skills we credit. I am aware of how Dickensian the idea seems, but the alternative is to continue to bury our heads in the sand.
Why do the leftists not question or look into the numbers of labour? I’m sure labour has spent the same money on 20 different things and it never gets questioned
France has 37 million homes the UK has 29 million homes for basiclaly the same population The UK has underbuilt for 40 years and the result is we have far less hosuing space than the French or Germans A war could destroy 8 million homes in france, and they would still be better housed than we are
He (Stalin-Stammer) is not getting my blooming vote. I love Tony Blair and supported the war in Iraq (hence, I am not a Corbanista). I thought NS was better than Labour Party. Anyway, I want Andrew Marr back on your channel.!
Seems like a simple solution rather than buidling on green belt could be to take back all of the empty high street properties and turn them into social housing, the bottom of which aka ground floor could become a social enterprise cafe/bookshop etc. Doesn't seem like a hard thing to do. Twin this with massive rent controls and greening up the urban space too would also work.
..... It 100% cannot. It helps "the pesants" the Tories didn't want that, the labour right don't want that. Just another pledge from Kier he's going to have "economic concerns about" conviniently at the moment of implimentation. I mean don't get me wrong they'll get in, after all they're falling in line just like the Tories do now. No talking about progress or making things better just vague "we're not the Tories" while every policy they had moves to become (you guessed it) austerity Tory policy like privatizing the NHS and ensuring that the failing current private services like rail stay that way until they are run into the ground.
Good jokes everything is very good fortunately we have good inflation day by day every thing is cheap council tax only more than £90 a month for one bedroom xxxxxxx 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 NHS ha
Trying to control property values is unfair and unworkable, taking away demand would be better. The way to do that is build hundreds of thousands of council homes that are rented out for a low affordable rent, no more than £250 a month. No right to buy until the property is at least 10 years old, the tenant has occupied it for a minimum of 5 yrs and no discount under 20yrs old (repayable on a sliding scale for the first 10 yrs), with the requirement that it is replaced by a new (not already owned by the council, so not refurbished exsisting stock) property at the date of sale. This would take the value out of buy to rent, reducing demand for buy to rent properties and therefore property value, also new build values. Stop "land banking" by making council tax due in full on all properties 5yrs after planning is granted, built or not. Something needs to be done about second homes that are not occupied most of the time too.
Your sums don't add up, to build a house even on free land the rent it for 10 years would only bring in £30k gross (but only 5kmax left after interest and maintenance) The cost to build at current RICS costs is 160 to 180 £square/foot (800sqft house) £136k plus land outside London, far easier to stop allowing 500k people to settle in England every year.
@james mc it's not to make money, it's not self financing it's about fixing lack of housing, exponentially increasing property values the increasingly unaffordable cost to millions even on average incomes (the majority earn much less) and it's effects on our economy in terms of consumer spending and benefits. The market will never fix it, it needs taxpayers' money just like the NHS and the right will never do it because it's socialist. And the majority of the 500k coming here are invited and welcomed because we need them and we benefit from them financially. Just 73k were asylum seekers and if the government processed their claims instead of using them as a political pawn they would also contribute far more to our economy than they would ever cost. You also ignored the fact that well built properties will stand for 100+ years, so that's £300K in rent not factoring in maintenance and inflation. At no point did I say they should be given away.
Even if they build more houses, knowing labour as we do, they will just let in more people, which will make no difference, it will come to a point where we will start to have building houses in artificial islands in the ocean.
ok but the UK has a labour shortage, you need people to staff the NHS and foreign students are the best investment one can get from immigration, those are future skilled workers not people on the dole
The tories are letting in net 600,000 a year. They’re failing at immigration just as much as labour ever did the only difference in labour brought in Europeans with cultural similarities and values - the tories are not..
Why do people keep suggesting we restrict immigration to raise standards of living? For one thing, it would mean living in a less free country. But secondly, we have an ageing population and require on immigrants to work and pay taxes. We NEED to have a competitive market economy and that isnt possible if we're closing the door to workers while the rest of us are retiring due to old age. The VERY reason the house you want is valuable is BECAUSE we live in a competitive market economy. In other words, lots of people want the same house you want and that's a GOOD thing. If no one wants to live here, that's a BAD thing. You will never get a "free lunch" by restricting immigration. This idea is ridiculous and I don't know it continues to be repeated.
As a leaseholder I think that a reform of the practices of the Freehold companies is long overdue. My lease has been extended once and will need extending soon. My wife was ripped off by the Freeholder 6 years ago and people face huge fees to extend to peppercorn up to 25% of the market value of the property. The Tories will never do anything to protect the 10, 000,000 leaseholders currently living with this burden. After all it is easy money for the few thousand companies involved. Parasites all of them.
There’s nearly 50,000 acres of green belt near me which will never be built on: Sandringham, Holkham and Houghton Estates; whilst the Council is scrabbling to build on small bits of car parks, scrub land and so on. Over 50% of the UK is in the hands of aristocracy, and landowners such as National Trust and the army. 30% of the land is still in the hands of descendants of William the Conquerors barons. We have a totally archaic system of land ownership.
I'd dearly love to see something, sodding anything really, being done on the issues of housing, but it's frankly pie in the sky if anyone thinks anything dramatic is going to be done by anyone about it.
There's wayyy to much money being made by those with a vested interest in keeping things as is.
The days of mass house building to suit everyone's needs are long gone and the company's that do make what we do build, have zero interest in anything that wont bring them outrageous profits.
Just getting a mortgage to get one they have managed to build, is nigh on impossible for anyone without some serious money behind them, add to that, there having to jump through MANY hoops to get so much as an mortgage application form. The equally greedy rental market knows this and exploits the fact to the maximum, its becoming more and more like the mortgage market every day, requiring guarantors, on top of a hefty deposit for flats that aren't even remotely worthy of them.
The whole housing industry IS making silly money and has been allowed to do so for decades. No new government expecting to change any of the status quo, is going to get very far at all forcing that industry do what it might want it too, without that industry telling it to do one.
they can't do anything. They'd have to reduce house prices by 30% to help 1st time buyers struggling to get on the property ladder. No chance the government can knock prices down by that much.
I feel like this problem stems from the Right To Buy Scheme. It was a good idea on the face of it as it allowed people to buy their homes. However the local authorities reduced the pool of affordable rental homes. Now these houses are in private hands.
Instead those who wanted to buy a home should have moved out of their council homes. This would fueled home building in the UK while freeing up capacity in the pool of affordable council homes for those who need it most
That, or the money the councils raised by selling the council homes should have been ring-fenced and used to build new council housing.
At least it made sense to you. You're consent has been manufactured.
Sad but True 😭
I read it and thought there goes another idiot spreading lies like they're truths.
Claims aren't evidence, they're just claims, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence with no exceptions. That's what you're lacking.
Next you'll be telling me there's an afterlife 🤣🤣🤣
I read it again, you're ignorance is bliss to you, unfortunately, it has torn your country apart.
Do worry it's not just you, there's millions of you crazies.
Hunker down, batten the hatches, the UK is crumbling into the Irish sea and you're in the middle of the nightmare you helped to create.😱
This is true of all forms of privatisation, right to buy, privatisation of the railway, electricity, water etc...
@@tonyb9735 Thatcher banned the councils from using the money from home sales for building social housing, the entire point was to get rid of it so that it would force people into the private rental market or become home owners and at the time it was more likely a home owner would vote tory
Surely it would make more sense, to follow for example -the Paris housing model and raise the city heights to 5-6 story's. We have an obsession in Britain and Ireland with low rise individual housing, which works well in small towns and villages. Cities can be so much less of a sprawl if just raised up a little and therefore no further need to spread
Couldn't agree more. France is far more agrarian than the UK but city dwellers are used to more high density housing. We have an obsession with 'executive' detached homes here.
Have you considered that people don't want to be packed in like sardines and actually want to own their own home rather than lease it? There's plenty of space in this country, the NIMBYs just need to get over themselves
It’s not just France, it’s almost every country in the world. There are only three options, build out, down or up. Why five stores? Why not 100?
@@jontalbot1 unironically we should allow 50,60-story tall residential buildings like they do have in Hong Kong in our major cities. There is no way around the housing crisis, it is all about supply and demand in the end, we gotta build more housing to make it affordable
@@1queijocas They do it in Manchester and house their young people. It looks like no other city in Britain. I have no idea why they cannot do it in London
They should build small, modest houses/flats that are affordable because of their size. People need that first stepping stone, the problem is the first stepping stone onto the property ladder is a huge leap over a ravine. Once that first step is accomplished then the next step onto a bigger property some time in the future is achievable.
Stop foreign ownership.
do you reckon british landlords are less greedy than german ones
@@bernhardgroeneveld7318 No, but there are less british people than there are non-british people.
How much countryside, food production land and habitat will be lost in the process? How much will all this housing add to our carbon emissions and make it harder to achieve net Zero? Will local roads be able to cope, reservoirs, land fill? If Covid19 and Ukraine taught us anything it is the need for security and we only produce 46% of our own food. How much less will that be after Kier and labour have allowed developers to concrete over our fields? This is irreversible, environmental damage.
Housing is a human right. It is a human right to sleep in a place where you know it is safe and warm. A human right should not be exploited for profits.
What about land banking, where developers sit on land for later profit? How many golf courses are in the London area?
thats the target for the compulsory purchase initiative the Labour party are talking about
This is a ridiculous argument
A big builder needs to have a land bank of a few years minimum and that's what they have
What do you expect. A builder that employs 50,000 staff they finish their current project and cross thier fingers the next project will be approved just on time. And if they can't find purchase agree legals gain planning just in time then fire 50,000 people and go bankrupt?
Of course builders need a land bank they need certainty out to a few yesrs to be able to function
@@kaya051285 I'm not suggesting land banking should be ended, however some aspects are problematic in that planning permissions are gained with no intention of building anything, it's just a mechanism to increase land value and therefore company value.
Over a 10-year period, from 2009, 2.5 million homes were given planning permission, but only 1.5 million homes were actually built. A shortfall of 1 million homes. Brought up to date the figure may be closer to 1.5 million homes unbuilt.
If I see a person with something I want I will just take it
The thing about building on the green belt is that you cannot ever - ever! - undo it.
Using a scorched earth policy to solve a short term problem that can be solved in other ways is not good decision-making in my opinion.
I would prefer to see new housing being focused in less densely populated areas of the UK, where housing is cheaper anyway, and companies being given tax breaks to relocate to those areas to make sure there is work for people to do. We could kill two birds with one stone, actually levelling up the north and making housing affordable.
@left_blank the south West also has its issues.
@left_blank there is alot of that but sentiments will change as many will have their kids in their 30s still living at home struggling to get on the ladder and some sick of living with them. The bank of mum and dad won't last forever.
Housing is a big issue. The housing market has went berserk. It is becoming like being able to afford a good school for your children or .. going to get expensive medical care before the NHS.
Some have it and they can pass it on to their children (if they have few children and/or major asstes). Others are getting furher and futher pushed out of the housing market.
As housing is a necessity and very long term this can not be left "problematic" to long, It is something that change slowly and we are at a bad starting point...
I'm enjoying this channel. Good job!
Enjoying! I only come to comment on their neverending bullshit.
Fascist's and their playbook trying to fool it's own citizens.
Disgusting I'd call it, each to their own I suppose. You'll reap what you sow.
Seek equality in freedom not equality in oppression.
You should try it, it's okay to have compassion.
Rent controls
Assured tenancy with right to renew at a rent controlled rent - abolish the assured short hold tenancy
Public housing built by local authorities - creating a sustainable housing pool
Reform leaseholds converting into shared freeholds
Asset tax on second homes / holiday homes
Increased CGT on second homes
Restrict Air BB and overnight let’s
Foreign ownership controls - only new builds
List is endless ..
All of those have big problems but there is a way to achieve the same thing without the contract law problems etc
Landlords currently pay a +3% stamp duty surcharge. You could change that to +30% which would basically mean no new rental properties will be purchased and landlords die or sell up approximately 300,000 properties per year. So if you implemented the +30% stamp duty tax you would very rapidly see landlord rental numbers shrink
We would go from 5 million rental properties to 2 million in just 10 years and to near zero within 20 years
The problem though is.... how does a person move around the country for work? How does someone born in say Middlesbrough move to Islington to start a new job there? Are you expecting a 22 year old to leave their parents house and buy a property straight away? Or are we all relegated to living with our parents until we can afford to buy?
I do Airbnb I'm not rich why should I be denied a bit of extra money.
If you want more fairness why not stop billionaires coming over and buying houses in the UK.
@@davewright9313 yes that’s true
Equally, Labour could lose an election by talking about this stuff. I can't help but think Labour are becoming over confident. I'm a millennial but millennials won't win the next election. There's loads of 50s plus people that will decide the election.
Most people won't even vote. The next election will probably have a 10% voter turnout at this rate. Can we even call it a democracy anymore?
The Bulgarian brickies and Polish plumbers have all gone home and approximately a third of all construction companies are struggling to recruit staff. So who, exactly, is going to build these new houses?
Bring back freedom of movement
They can pay the working man the money he deserves instead of the developers capturing the value of their work done & not passing it along the chain.
@@dalskiBo the developers will always make the lions share of the profits. Stopping immigration will increase wages in the short term but drive up inflation and slow down the economy to the point where the increase in wages are purely theoretical and you don't get any better off
@@mattewj1268 sorry won't happen people would never vote for lower wages
And do you really believe Keir can solve the housing crisis? Really? Housing has changed forever. Accept that and move on.
Step 1. Tax land
Step 2. Deregulate height and density around rail infrastructure.
Step 3. Tax second homes.
Step 4. Increase number of social housing.
Thats alot of messing about with the system, Far easier to stop allowing 500k people a year to settle in England, and up the build rate for English occupation only say at least 3rd generation settled status. The current situation in my area, Nigerians given brand new housing association houses, and they have only been in the country less than a year
@@jamesmc1272 the country cannot work without these immigrants
The reason people are angry is that the mass immigration started by Blair and continued with the cons, has made demand for all kinds of housing excessive. If you allow 10million to settle in England on only build a million houses what do you expect. Less than 30 years ago I bought a very nice house for £30k with a mortgage of £28k. 3x my income. It had been on the market for 6 months and only a couple of viewings. This is what england was like before Blair decided to rub the right's nose in diversity.
Nothing to do with this.
@@Giovanniditessitore everything to do with this....
naw. its all way too late. i already went part time and im retiring early in the next 24 months. too late now to be offering housing. its over.
How does anyones fundamental poltical rights as a citizen mean diddly squat when they cant even secure a roof over their head? Legally, part of the solution is economic emancipation and enshrineing a new era or economically emancipatory rights into law.
90% of people can secure a home if you look at the older generations 90% own 10% rent
This trend has been broadly true for 30 years it doesn't change much
@@kaya051285 Housing now is disproportionately is more expensive compared to median household income than it was when the elderly got onto the housing ladder
@@addazarmy6826 Is homeownership today 2023 higher or lower than it was fifty years ago in 1973? It is actually higher now
@@kaya051285 why are you referencing 1973 when home ownership rates are at a 30 year low, not a 40 year low? The rate is still declining btw.
Governments in Britain since Thatcher have only ever succeeded in making housing more expensive. Ultra low rates, deregulated lending, HelpToBuy - backed by Labour at the time - have all driven prices higher. This Labour party is either as clueless as all those governments or as disingenuous.
Solutions are easier than people pretend. Keep interest rates highish, make lending harder, build council homes, and give tenants far stronger rights. This will take renting away from corporations and BTLers and housing out of commodity land and into what it should be: a place to call home.
I expect nothing of the sort from this Labour party. just more of the failing same
I dont see how local councils buying land will help, our local council sold greenbelt land to a developer that they already owned and the house prices they've built are higher than the local area market?
I would invite you not to vote for labour. Vote for Green or Dems. Split the vote. Labour do not deserve to win. A coalition will keep them in check. I'm not a tory supporter, but I strongly disapprove of the behaviour of the current Labour party.
They've been building homes in Hampshire ever since the 1970s and counting. At this rate there will be no farms and homes throughout the county.
A net 606,000 people arrived in the UK last year. That's the population of a large city
I wonder how many people died
@@addazarmy6826 650,000 died hundreds of thousands went abroad especially to the EU
@@addazarmy6826 how many were born?
Yawn
Yes and Labour the Tories and almost all of Parliament don't care because all they see is revenue from tax! Promises Promises!
So a big nothing from the Labour party and three divs debating hot air.
Local authorities already own acres and acres of land, they do not need to buy it cheap. If the do want cheap land then they buy farms and then grant planning on it. Farmland is cheap already.
Thatcher sold off council houses 40 years ago! The problem was not the selling but that they were not replaced. There has been no money for this for 40 years, there is still no money.
The government made an extra 13 billion in tax I the first quarter of 2023, so there is money, but Tories still want austerity, for others that us.
@@battybibliophile-Clare We had to borrow £139 billion in the 12 months to march. So borrowing may have dropped by £13 billion if the tax receipts are up. That is just not quite such a deep hole not £13 billion spare cash to piss away.
Labour does not get elected because the public are frightened of their spending. Here you are wanting to spend spend spend.
@@grolfe3210 the Tories moved 700 billion to the rich in the covid era. The extra 13 billion is from vat and other on utilities and on the inflated price of goods , food and everything else, that they caused to be the highest in Europe. .take the 70 billion billion that Sunak and Boris pissed away on funding their mates to make PPE and tracking systems that didn't work before you accuse me of wanting to pass money away. When gas spending on assets, housing, been passing away money? I suppose you think Sunak is a financial wizard.
They should ban people renting out houses. Renting houses should be done by the government. This would stop people from trying to make a profit from housing. Houses should be a place to live not an investment
Why doesn’t government/councils build rentable homes on the thousands of their own empty buildings and unused land?
I doubt that the UK really needs that many new homes. So many building lie empty, and more are second homes, holiday lets and the like. Our housing market needs recentring on home owner-occupiers and council should be able to hold housing stock. None of this would make any last change or difference until we have a fair voting system and really democracy.
I think we just need to stop channelling all of our money to the already wealthy.
Homes do not lie empty. It is a myth told to convince you that we don't need to build housing. We actually have one of, if not the lowest rate of unoccupied homes in all of Europe.
And yet you were waving King Charles the biggest land owner 😂
@@davewright9313 sorry what? I don't recall mentioning the monarchy in anyway..
@@ObsidianMeridian your talking about landlords why not talk about the biggest?
The link between pensions and house prices bears some thinking about. When pensions were reformed - so that pensions became smaller, later, and less reliable - people started worrying about house prices more, making it politically difficult to reform the housing market:
The restricted housing market is necessary so that house prices remain high; house prices need to remain high to provide people with some security in old age; pensions are decimated yet still unaffordable. It all come down to the ageing population.
Perhaps once the current bubble of population passes the whole problem will simply evaporate with them. Death is a wonderful solution to so many problems!
How about freeing up the available housing instead of spaffing council houses all over the countryside? There are 700k vacant houses. 250K of those have been vacant in the long term. God knows how many homes have been swallowed up for real estate in the renting market.
The problem is a broken market not a lack of availability.
But they wont fix the damn problem will they? Because they are complicit in it.If they wanted to fix it it would be as simple as disincentivising people owning multiple properties through direct taxes and rent controls.
Watch how the housing market gets flooded with houses as those all those assets become liabilities.
It’s all a joke, unless the councils are buying it at agricultural rates, then renting it out at cost of construction and maintenance. It won’t put a dent in housing poverty.
The answer is to reverse Thatchers policy of giving councils their own budgetsand to fund councils from central government.This would bring back social housing,which was killed by Thatcher.Private housing is out of the reach for a lot of people,so social housing is the answer.
The elephant in the room is to much immigration
Why what are they going to do? If its build more homes that's a stupid idea
If people trust Starmer to fix housing in this country they will be very disappointed. It's fashionable right now to talk about fixing housing (among other things) but actually doing something is way too hard. Politicians and most voters deep down know this and so the talk of "housing reforms" and "grand visions" will remain academic.
I don't know whether it will be a gradual unravelling of his measures or a straightforward reneging straight after the election, but I do know he will not follow through on any pledge in housing or anything else. Starmer is just continuity Tory government until the real Tories get back in at the following election (assuming Starmer even wins the coming one of course).
Is there any prospect of significant change in your view?
Isn't every decent place in the world expensive to live in? The days of "affordable" housing are gone because we live in a globalised market economy. Building on the green belt is a temporary solution.
How is it a temporary solution? It'll lower housing prices making them more affordable again? So younger people could afford houses in a similar percentage to how they used to.
you call it green belt, but most of it is fields of grass in neat little squares? we lost 95% of our green belt over the centuries. we have a real green belt area and moors which should be protected and the rest should be made back into forests but some is green and thats it.
@thestrongestman1008
It'll lower house prices forever will it? If you make a place like Kensington, it'll cost the same as Kensington. We already have £1 houses up in the North, but no one wants to live there. As soon as these homes become desirable places to live, they won't be cheap anymore.
@@robertbones326 That's the whole point, that's why building more houses is a good idea in terms of bringing down the house prices. You Cons just don't wanna see it happen.
@thestrongestman1008
It's not about building houses, we're talking about building them in areas that were intended for other purposes.
This is not a very informed discussion. The planning system is not the issue. To build social housing requires finance and no right to buy. Problem is as soon as the Tories get back in they would unpick it all and everyone knows that. Building more owner occupier housing assumes companies want to do that. Why would they when the result is lower prices? And all this is before we consider the matter of supply, especially skilled labour. It is not possible to increase new builds, except slowly. Leasehold is illegal in virtually every country in the world, incidentally. We are an anomaly.
Don't worry, it's a Sir Keir pledge. He doesn't mean it.
@@julianshepherd2038 Hmm…maybe. But it is touted as his big idea and he doesn’t have too many others. Now I think about it, none at all l can think of
Problem is buy to let landlords pushing up prices and removing houses from market
That's not a problem that's called progression
Not until there is wholesale land reform and distribution and the abolishment of landlords.
Not everyone can afford a house so landlords will have to exist
The only question is do you want 30% of the population renting from the state or 30% renting from a private landlord or a mix of both. At the moment we have a mix of bith roughly half half
@@kaya051285 I prefer the Chinese route where the government owns all the land and you lease it off them. Making everyone a custodian makes more sense because after all you will die one day and someone will use that land after you. And that might not be your kids.
@@taipizzalord4463 So we start off with band the landlords and we end up with a communist dictatorship....... at least you don't hide it
You mean the royal family??
@@kaya051285 private landlords don't. The ruling parties since Thatcher are ideologically opposed to social housing, in turn a public landlord.
What impact is immigration having on housing? Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!
You could promise kicks to the groin for the next 5 years and you'd still beat this tory government
No no no more houses
Might be a good idea for councils to adopt damaged and vandalised properties, make them once again habitable and rent them out at realistic rents. As things stand, there are too many houses standing vacant, windows broken, roofs leaking, copper piping ripped out, rats nesting in decaying trash when they could be earning revenue and giving those in need a secure home to live in. All these houses are yielding NO income, surely even a small income is better than none ?. We pay enough national taxation and local council tax, we should have some say on how that money is spent. Labour, like any other party, are full of promises that are forgotten as soon as they are elected to govern We should be telling the government what we expect from it, not the government telling us what they are going to do, and if they don't like it, they can always seek alternative employment. I'm pretty sure they would all make good road sweepers.
How serious does Labour need to be before they are better than the Tories. Why green land? What is wrong with making developers build on brown land? Also we need to make our food security better, so don't build more on farmland. My council invested in a retail park, they lost £10 million in one year! They have investments all over the south east too. We are in Devon. Of course our council tax went up to pay for their mistakes.
Hope so, Conservatives need to go.
What about the last one they made in liar Blair’s time
Talking about Starmer as if he won’t reneg. Why won’t he just change his mind again?
Before you break into greenbelt. How about regenerate, repurpose and refurbish existing buildings and areas sitting empty in towns just now.
Yeah people have been saying thst for 50 years and the result is the UK has 29 million homes while France has 37 million. Our missing 8 million homes are laegrly to do with people like you who always find an excuse not to build
Don't carry on to small landlords many of whom do a good job.
Who's the biggest landowner in the UK the royal family everybody was waving the flag rah rah the King.
Not me
But starmer and Abbott will lose it for them
They were the one's who created the problem in the first place, how many Gimmie-grants did they allow in?
I think its a great idea apart from buying it cheap! Imagine having farmland in the family and council buy it at half price!! Anyway houses need built but they should do cumpulsary purchase orders on 2nd homes used as holiday homes there are towns sitting empty in the winter time! And local families cant get on the market as prices are through the roof pun intended!
@left_blank thats not what I said!! They buy the house from the absent owner who isnt there in the winter and the house goes on the market the original house owner gets the proceeds of the sale, they are simply forced to sell a holiday home thats sitting empty half the year if not longer than that!
@left_blank villages are dying bercause for more than half a year they lie empty! The local shops cant stay open because theres not enough footfall half the year!
For either side. Who is going to build these houses?
The house building industry won't ramp up overnight but its possible to grow an industry 10-20% a year while in one single year Thats not a big difference it means over 10 years your industry is 3 toems the size and output
@@kaya051285 Desperate shortage of builders.
Not enough new ones entering the game.
When have the Tories ever addressed any issues? 60 % are second property owners, so good luck with altering to a fair property market.
Work houses would go part way to solving the social crisis in this country. You provide a space for aliens to be productive during processing in one wing of the building. Find out what their skills are if they have any, meanwhile they could be doing a solid 8 hours of productive work - a discussion would have to be had around pay (min wage mb not necessary as they are provided for bed and board on site)
You can even have a government owned "services" branch and ship people out to clean office blocks or even the streets (ala roosevelts new deal)
These people are here anyway, having made the crossing, and the government of this day and age are completely clueless. The barges for example, took months to secure and refit and can hold 500 people... its hardly big picture thinking.
The prison system is on its knees aswell, the level of corruption and the infestation of drug networks have made them universitys of crime. These people too could be assessed and fast tracked out of a general prison and into a workhouse, with slightly more freedoms, a daily workiing routine and importantly imo areas for these people to mix. It would be easier to rehabilitate british born offenders if they were taken out of the degenerative enviroment of a uk prison and into a place where people explain to you why they risked there own death to get to this country.
Not to mention if your re skilling people and trying to teach them especially in a class enviroment it would work better if you have offenders side by side with asylum seekers. They can learn mutually to overcome their shortcomings in english writing, verbal reasoning- and then whatever basic subject's they want to learn next.
Ideally these places would massively lower recidivism rates whilst churning out bricklayers & whatever else. In a less stressfull enviroment we may find some of these people have skills we credit.
I am aware of how Dickensian the idea seems, but the alternative is to continue to bury our heads in the sand.
Why do the leftists not question or look into the numbers of labour? I’m sure labour has spent the same money on 20 different things and it never gets questioned
France has 37 million homes the UK has 29 million homes for basiclaly the same population
The UK has underbuilt for 40 years and the result is we have far less hosuing space than the French or Germans
A war could destroy 8 million homes in france, and they would still be better housed than we are
Don't panic, Starmer will renege on this pledge just like all his other pledges.
Spot on for predicting that Stalin-Stammer will renage on his promise. I probably imagine the kid on the penal want to bd his SPAD.!!!
The housing plan is a figment of starmers imagination
He (Stalin-Stammer) is not getting my blooming vote. I love Tony Blair and supported the war in Iraq (hence, I am not a Corbanista). I thought NS was better than Labour Party. Anyway, I want Andrew Marr back on your channel.!
Seems like a simple solution rather than buidling on green belt could be to take back all of the empty high street properties and turn them into social housing, the bottom of which aka ground floor could become a social enterprise cafe/bookshop etc. Doesn't seem like a hard thing to do. Twin this with massive rent controls and greening up the urban space too would also work.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Seriously?
You can't trust a single thing Starmer says. Get that into your head.
You're so dumb, Starmer is the only chance we have.
Freddie a tory
Sooner starve than vote labour, labour just a middle class hobby
We can't build enough houses for how many immigrants we allow in each year.
Labour's plan will change or help nothing. Nothing at all.
..... It 100% cannot. It helps "the pesants" the Tories didn't want that, the labour right don't want that. Just another pledge from Kier he's going to have "economic concerns about" conviniently at the moment of implimentation. I mean don't get me wrong they'll get in, after all they're falling in line just like the Tories do now. No talking about progress or making things better just vague "we're not the Tories" while every policy they had moves to become (you guessed it) austerity Tory policy like privatizing the NHS and ensuring that the failing current private services like rail stay that way until they are run into the ground.
Agreed. Windfall taxes on oil giants will only make us all poorer.
If you trust Starmer to deliver on a pledge you're an absolute mug. His track record on his pledges speaks for itself.
The a mount of immigrants coming over here,you wouldn't be able to built them fast enough
These are plans from Blair’s time usual crap
Good jokes everything is very good fortunately we have good inflation day by day every thing is cheap council tax only more than £90 a month for one bedroom xxxxxxx 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 NHS ha
All waffle Brair and brown were going to build thousands of houses, build sod all
More of the same old lies
He is liar look at all theirs from the start
Trying to control property values is unfair and unworkable, taking away demand would be better. The way to do that is build hundreds of thousands of council homes that are rented out for a low affordable rent, no more than £250 a month. No right to buy until the property is at least 10 years old, the tenant has occupied it for a minimum of 5 yrs and no discount under 20yrs old (repayable on a sliding scale for the first 10 yrs), with the requirement that it is replaced by a new (not already owned by the council, so not refurbished exsisting stock) property at the date of sale. This would take the value out of buy to rent, reducing demand for buy to rent properties and therefore property value, also new build values. Stop "land banking" by making council tax due in full on all properties 5yrs after planning is granted, built or not. Something needs to be done about second homes that are not occupied most of the time too.
Your sums don't add up, to build a house even on free land the rent it for 10 years would only bring in £30k gross (but only 5kmax left after interest and maintenance) The cost to build at current RICS costs is 160 to 180 £square/foot (800sqft house) £136k plus land outside London, far easier to stop allowing 500k people to settle in England every year.
@james mc it's not to make money, it's not self financing it's about fixing lack of housing, exponentially increasing property values the increasingly unaffordable cost to millions even on average incomes (the majority earn much less) and it's effects on our economy in terms of consumer spending and benefits. The market will never fix it, it needs taxpayers' money just like the NHS and the right will never do it because it's socialist. And the majority of the 500k coming here are invited and welcomed because we need them and we benefit from them financially. Just 73k were asylum seekers and if the government processed their claims instead of using them as a political pawn they would also contribute far more to our economy than they would ever cost. You also ignored the fact that well built properties will stand for 100+ years, so that's £300K in rent not factoring in maintenance and inflation. At no point did I say they should be given away.
Unless they abolish right to buy there is no point
Even if they build more houses, knowing labour as we do, they will just let in more people, which will make no difference, it will come to a point where we will start to have building houses in artificial islands in the ocean.
ok but the UK has a labour shortage, you need people to staff the NHS and foreign students are the best investment one can get from immigration, those are future skilled workers not people on the dole
The tories are letting in net 600,000 a year. They’re failing at immigration just as much as labour ever did the only difference in labour brought in Europeans with cultural similarities and values - the tories are not..
A growing population is a positive. 99,9% of the UK population are not migrtiing in in front of cameras from small boats...
Yes, let the Daily Mail spoon feed you exactly what to “think”
Why do people keep suggesting we restrict immigration to raise standards of living? For one thing, it would mean living in a less free country. But secondly, we have an ageing population and require on immigrants to work and pay taxes. We NEED to have a competitive market economy and that isnt possible if we're closing the door to workers while the rest of us are retiring due to old age.
The VERY reason the house you want is valuable is BECAUSE we live in a competitive market economy. In other words, lots of people want the same house you want and that's a GOOD thing. If no one wants to live here, that's a BAD thing. You will never get a "free lunch" by restricting immigration. This idea is ridiculous and I don't know it continues to be repeated.