Keir Starmer promises new towns and 1.5m homes

[Nick]

I have acknowledged no such thing, especially as you implicitly insult me my lumping me in with them.

There are a minority of scumbags around it is true and they often end up in social housing as a nuisance to their neighbours. But to assume they are typical of us betrays the utmost prejudice combined with ignorance on your part. Placing too many of the scumbag minority together will cause potential problems for sure and it is better that they be spread around and isolated from each other.

But please don't be so obnoxious, prejudiced, and ignorant as to assume they are the norm. Most of my immediate neighbours are decent enough people, some retired, some working. We have over the years had one or two layabouts in our block never to be seen dead in anything remotely resembling a job. But the DWP tends to get on their cases eventually and they often move on after a time. I have lived in my flat for 26 years now and in all that time we only ever had one small fry drug dealer living in the block and he was soon busted and arrested for growing cannabis on the property, never to be seen here again.

And the housing situation in Europe is completely different. For one thing, renting is much more the norm in many places, tenants have security of tenure, and rents are often controlled and set at far more reasonable levels.

I do think the housing component of welfare payments here, which often dwarfs the rest of a claimants benefits due to excessively high rent levels, is too much of a potential temptation to struggling claimants, who might be tempted to pocket it then move on. Which of course will make landlords very reluctant to let to welfare claimants. I see no sensible reason why the housing component of welfare payments should not be paid direct to the landlord. That it is not is something you can blame on the Tory government - well to be fair I think it was the Tory/Lib Dem coalition who decided that the housing component of universal credit would go direct to the claimant and not the landlord. So blame them for that.

You have basically outlined what I said. I wasn't alluding to all people in flats being scumbags, I was saying there is a large enough element in society that bringing them into close proximity isn't a good idea. The Tories have now stopped the social experiment and rent is again paid directly to the landlord again. 

[srb7677]

A few things came from that, the significant one being your acknowledgement that these people tend to be a bunch of scumbags and shouldn't be housed together to create no go areas, we have a consensus on that at least. In other counties the social housing tends to be 5 high and about 30 wide, with very few scumbags. Difference is people in the rest of Europe pay for their own housing, regardless of employment status, as my cousin found out to his annoyance, when benefit claimant's in the U.K. get given their housing benefit directly they spend it on a big TV.

I have acknowledged no such thing, especially as you implicitly insult me my lumping me in with them.

There are a minority of scumbags around it is true and they often end up in social housing as a nuisance to their neighbours. But to assume they are typical of us betrays the utmost prejudice combined with ignorance on your part. Placing too many of the scumbag minority together will cause potential problems for sure and it is better that they be spread around and isolated from each other. 

But please don't be so obnoxious, prejudiced, and ignorant as to assume they are the norm. Most of my immediate neighbours are decent enough people, some retired, some working. We have over the years had one or two layabouts in our block never to be seen dead in anything remotely resembling a job. But the DWP tends to get on their cases eventually and they often move on after a time. I have lived in my flat for 26 years now and in all that time we only ever had one small fry drug dealer living in the block and he was soon busted and arrested for growing cannabis on the property, never to be seen here again.

And the housing situation in Europe is completely different. For one thing, renting is much more the norm in many places, tenants have security of tenure, and rents are often controlled and set at far more reasonable levels.

I do think the housing component of welfare payments here, which often dwarfs the rest of a claimants benefits due to excessively high rent levels, is too much of a potential temptation to struggling claimants, who might be tempted to pocket it then move on. Which of course will make landlords very reluctant to let to welfare claimants. I see no sensible reason why the housing component of welfare payments should not be paid direct to the landlord. That it is not is something you can blame on the Tory government - well to be fair I think it was the Tory/Lib Dem coalition who decided that the housing component of universal credit would go direct to the claimant and not the landlord. So blame them for that.

[Nick]

I am all for removing people who are here illegally with no right to be here. The problem of course is that many of the ones who have come here are awaiting a decision as to whether they are entitled to be here or not. More needs to be invested in processing such people so that the failed ones can be removed much more quickly. The ones we don't know about are generally working in the black economy, and this needs to be more seriously tackled as well.

However, you claimed that there are 10 to 15 million too many people here. There are surely nowhere near that many people here illegally, so our numbers cannot be reduced by such an extent without forcing out millions with a right to be here. And if that ended up being productive workers it would be hugely damaging to our economy. No, whilst doing all we can to deport those here illegally, we need to build sufficient housing to adequately supply the needs of everyone else, the lack of which is the major cause of the housing crisis.

Even you have now acknowledged the need to build more housing, merely saying the focus should be more on building flats. I do tend to agree with that point to some extent. Whilst there will always be a need for actual houses - and those who can afford to buy would generally prefer to buy a house of some kind in most cases - for single people like me or small families, one or two bedroom flats are perfectly sufficient. But hardly any construction of this type of accommodation has taken place in the social sector for decades. Most of what there is of this type now was built in the 60s and 70s.

I myself live in a block of flats containing one bedroom and two bedroom units. As a single person who lives alone my one bedroom flat is perfectly adequate for my needs. Any single person or childless couple could live well enough in a one bedroom flat. And small families with one child or two children of the same gender could be housed perfectly adequately in a two bedroom flat. I tend to believe that more accommodation of this type needs to be built in the social housing sector. The failure to build such units for single people, childless couples, and small families, forces them into the private rental sector where demand outstrips supply resulting in huge rental costs and a serious homelessness problem. The most cost effective means of reducing these problems is to build more blocks of flats.

We should try and avoid high rise buildings, and avoid creating vast sink estates which just results in more societal problems in the medium term. But my block has a basement floor, a ground floor, a 1st floor and a 2nd floor, and contains just 16 flats. There are about 7 such blocks in my street, whilst all around is low cost housing, some of it owner occupied, some of it social housing, some of it private lets. I think this sort of mix is about right.

A few things came from that, the significant one being your acknowledgement that these people tend to be a bunch of scumbags and shouldn't be housed together to create no go areas, we have a consensus on that at least. In other counties the social housing tends to be 5 high and about 30 wide, with very few scumbags. Difference is people in the rest of Europe pay for their own housing, regardless of employment status, as my cousin found out to his annoyance, when benefit claimant's in the U.K. get given their housing benefit directly they spend it on a big TV. 

[srb7677]

Let's start by getting rid of all those that are here illegally, then organising the social housing we have. A mate of mine was in a 3 bedroom house and they told him he couldn't move into a single bed flat. Having travelled extensively throughout the world where house residency is at levels like we have in the U.K. Most people in the world live in apartment blocks, how about we build some of them.

I am all for removing people who are here illegally with no right to be here. The problem of course is that many of the ones who have come here are awaiting a decision as to whether they are entitled to be here or not. More needs to be invested in processing such people so that the failed ones can be removed much more quickly. The ones we don't know about are generally working in the black economy, and this needs to be more seriously tackled as well.

However, you claimed that there are 10 to 15 million too many people here. There are surely nowhere near that many people here illegally, so our numbers cannot be reduced by such an extent without forcing out millions with a right to be here. And if that ended up being productive workers it would be hugely damaging to our economy. No, whilst doing all we can to deport those here illegally, we need to build sufficient housing to adequately supply the needs of everyone else, the lack of which is the major cause of the housing crisis.

Even you have now acknowledged the need to build more housing, merely saying the focus should be more on building flats. I do tend to agree with that point to some extent. Whilst there will always be a need for actual houses - and those who can afford to buy would generally prefer to buy a house of some kind in most cases - for single people like me or small families, one or two bedroom flats are perfectly sufficient. But hardly any construction of this type of accommodation has taken place in the social sector for decades. Most of what there is of this type now was built in the 60s and 70s.

I myself live in a block of flats containing one bedroom and two bedroom units. As a single person who lives alone my one bedroom flat is perfectly adequate for my needs. Any single person or childless couple could live well enough in a one bedroom flat. And small families with one child or two children of the same gender could be housed perfectly adequately in a two bedroom flat. I tend to believe that more accommodation of this type needs to be built in the social housing sector. The failure to build such units for single people, childless couples, and small families, forces them into the private rental sector where demand outstrips supply resulting in huge rental costs and a serious homelessness problem. The most cost effective means of reducing these problems is to build more blocks of flats.

We should try and avoid high rise buildings, and avoid creating vast sink estates which just results in more societal problems in the medium term. But my block has a basement floor, a ground floor, a 1st floor and a 2nd floor, and contains just 16 flats. There are about 7 such blocks in my street, whilst all around is low cost housing, some of it owner occupied, some of it social housing, some of it private lets. I think this sort of mix is about right.

[Nick]

There is an obvious housing crisis that almost everyone acknowledges the existence of. It has many components. Housing to buy too expensive, privates rents far too high, little security of tenure for private tenants, an obvious insufficiency of social housing. An insufficiency of housing for all those living here is the largest cause of these range of problems.

If we have too many people living here according to you, then how do we solve that? By mass expulsions? And who do we expel? Productive workers being forced out will damage us economically. Should we be expelling non workers? The largest group of which are pensioners? Most people in this country have a right to be here. That we have not built enough housing for them is the greatest contributor to the crisis.

You can bury your head in the sand and come over all James Callaghan - Crisis? What crisis? - as much as you like but pretending the crisis does not exist does not alter the facts on the ground.

Let's start by getting rid of all those that are here illegally, then organising the social housing we have. A mate of mine was in a 3 bedroom house and they told him he couldn't move into a single bed flat. Having travelled extensively throughout the world where house residency is at levels like we have in the U.K. Most people in the world live in apartment blocks, how about we build some of them. 

[Streetwalker]

Well no, but it might put a few bob in your pocket SW, so let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'll survive 

[srb7677]

To the Steve's of this world, there is always a crisis and the Tories caused it.

Actually, the housing crisis has been a slow burner developing over decades, the beginnings of which can be traced back to the 80s. The Thatcher government and every government since, including the Labour ones and the coalition one in which the Lib Dems participated, have been sitting on their hands and allowing the crisis to slowly become chronic, even if not actually taking steps to precipitate or actively worsen it.

[srb7677]

How many times Steve, THERE IS NO HOUSING CRISIS, the country is beyond its working capacity. We are 10 to 15 million oversubscribed.

There is an obvious housing crisis that almost everyone acknowledges the existence of. It has many components. Housing to buy too expensive, privates rents far too high, little security of tenure for private tenants, an obvious insufficiency of social housing. An insufficiency of housing for all those living here is the largest cause of these range of problems.

If we have too many people living here according to you, then how do we solve that? By mass expulsions? And who do we expel? Productive workers being forced out will damage us economically. Should we be expelling non workers? The largest group of which are pensioners? Most people in this country have a right to be here. That we have not built enough housing for them is the greatest contributor to the crisis.

You can bury your head in the sand and come over all James Callaghan - Crisis? What crisis? - as much as you like but pretending the crisis does not exist does not alter the facts on the ground.

[Borchester]

How many times Steve, THERE IS NO HOUSING CRISIS, the country is beyond its working capacity. We are 10 to 15 million oversubscribed.

To the Steve's of this world, there is always a crisis and the Tories caused it.

[Borchester]

Another good reason to stop  building , we haven't got the skilled workforce to do it .

Well no, but it might put a few bob in your pocket SW, so let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Nick]

The plan is to build 1.5 million new homes in 5 years, not 10, which I make to be 300,000 a year. It remains to be seen if this pledge is going to be delivered, because the Tories have dismally failed to deliver on theirs.

But more housing construction, including social housing, is an essential component in solving the housing crisis, and new towns and less power to obstruct by Nimbys are both essential to making this possible. If this is accompanied by a fairer deal for private tenants and a focus on genuinely low cost housing to buy for first time buyers, then - if such pledges are honoured - Labour could be a positively transformative government when it comes to housing.

Problem of course is that I dont trust Starmer and those around him to follow through on any promises they make unless it suits them.

How many times Steve, THERE IS NO HOUSING CRISIS, the country is beyond its working capacity. We are 10 to 15 million oversubscribed. 

[srb7677]

Actually, if Starmer is thinking in terms of an exciting new decade, that works out at 150,000 homes a year which is about 40% less than the quarter of a million properties that have already been given the go ahead for 2023.

Still, we shall see


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67052729

The plan is to build 1.5 million new homes in 5 years, not 10, which I make to be 300,000 a year. It remains to be seen if this pledge is going to be delivered, because the Tories have dismally failed to deliver on theirs. 

But more housing construction, including social housing, is an essential component in solving the housing crisis, and new towns and less power to obstruct by Nimbys are both essential to making this possible. If this is accompanied by a fairer deal for private tenants and a focus on genuinely low cost housing to buy for first time buyers, then - if such pledges are honoured - Labour could be a positively transformative government when it comes to housing.

Problem of course is that I dont trust Starmer and those around him to follow through on any promises they make unless it suits them.

[Streetwalker]

Judging by the standard of new-builds that I've seen, I'm content to believe there's plenty of water seeping in — unfortunately, it's seeping in to the wrong places...

Another good reason to stop  building , we haven't got the skilled workforce to do it . 

[patman post]

It's not just the houses, these 1.5 million homes will need extra supermarkets, schools, hospitals, all stopping the rain from getting into the natural watercourse. It is dumped into rivers and causes floods rather than slowly seeping into them.

Judging by the standard of new-builds that I've seen, I'm content to believe there's plenty of water seeping in — unfortunately, it's seeping in to the wrong places...

[Nick]

Even though it will probably be the end of my own income stream I really do think we should stop building homes until the infrastructure across the country has been improved and updated to cope for the ones we have .
Dumping sewage into our rivers , water stressed areas , energy supply ,school places, transport  and the NHS all need improving  before we should even think of building more homes

Our population needs reducing long term , building 1.5 m homes hardly keeps up with population increase which we will have to address at some point so it may as well be now .

It's not just the houses, these 1.5 million homes will need extra supermarkets, schools, hospitals, all stopping the rain from getting into the natural watercourse. It is dumped into rivers and causes floods rather than slowly seeping into them.