"The government will build no homes itself: it confines itself to measures such as build to rent or Help to Buy,
where new homes are a hoped-for consequence of its guarantees and
measures. But it will take no direct action. A useful stimulus, but I am
told George Osborne only endorsed Help to Buy, with its Keynesian
overtones, when he was assured it would help create rising house prices
and a feelgood factor for Tory voters. Disappointing.
Almost every
dial on housing policy is on the wrong setting. A government that
wanted to break into a saner world would move on a number of fronts. It
would devise mechanisms to wean the financial system off its addiction
to residential property lending, probably setting overall limits to the
growth of categories of credit, such as mortgages, and controlling
mortgage loan-to-property price ratios. It would revalue properties to
today's values and then introduce a graduated system of taxation".
Will does however suggest that it isn't really, as some suggest, bonanza time for Landlords ...
"But because house prices are so high, the buy-to-let company Paragon – speaking for most private
landlords – complained, in evidence to the select committee on
communities and local government, that the yield it gets is a mere 6%.
Although these figures may be higher than the yields gained from
investing in stocks and shares – so Paragon should complain less – they
are hardly at profiteering levels. To end up in a situation with both
close-to impossibly high rents for tenants and moderate returns to
landlords takes some doing".
... before returning to
"The taxation of property is stuck at 1991 values because no politician
will entertain the political fallout of organising the council tax on
proper, up-to-date valuations, let alone entertain introducing a
rational system of property tax".
Get involved with AI says Starmer
2 hours ago
23 comments:
Things have come to a sorry pass when I start agreeing with WIll Hutton.
Or perhaps he has started agreeing with me?
I am reminded why I decided to stop voting and take my name off the voter's roll.
You might say "you've disenfranchised yourself", but as no political party will do anything about this, I am disenfranchised already, I just won't play along with the game anymore.
RT, or you could get your self back on and stand as YPP candidate?
But the issue isn't "council housing". It's "housing". We have been underbuilding for decades, largely because the homies have put up so much resistance.
It doesn't need to build, it just needs to stop getting in the way of building and that means liberating the planning system.
It would also help if we stopped so many damn susidies to expensive areas like London and the South East (e.g. housing benefits, large gov projects, subsidised teachers and policemen).
Then again, both parties are now run by London-types, so without a change in the electoral system, that's unlikely to change.
Mark, I have previously looked at the YPP manifesto but I don't like the name "Young People's Party". It is a bit restricting and gives off the wrong message.
@TS
How are you going to liberate the planning system from dreaded state controls,( the perennial cry of right-wingers like Worstall ),and simultaneously deal with local objectors (also middle-class right-wingers)who stop any planning liberalisation in their backyards? The latter cling to the green belts with more fervour than the Statist Socialist, a figure so despised nowadays that I am drawn to don this mantle and be in the van of the next turn of the wheel of fashion.
What is needed is of course a swingeing Land Value Tax of any of the 57 different varieties though I favour one of the originals : the JS Mill version that does n't attempt to tax the present value but scalps it should it dare to inflate OR second choice the Mark Wadsworth cross subsidising combination of LVT and Citizens Income. Things are so bad now that the Return of JSM seems like a necessary emergency measure; the MW system, finely crafted as it is may just be too subtle for these very crude times.
@RT
You and me both mate but it's Mark's train set.
TS, agreed. But from Will's point of view, if the government has money to spend and a lot of people are being priced out, it makes more sense to build council housing than to give it to banks and landowners. And with those narrow assumptions, he is correct.
RT, DBC, look, I've done this one to death with dozens of people.
The name "Young people's party" is somewhat trite, I admit. but all party names are nigh meaningless (compare and contrast - Scottish National Party with British National Party).
If you assume that somebody has little interest in politics, and that is most people, at least he would be able to guess 3/4 of YPP's policy aims just by seeing the name on a ballot paper.
And if that person knows about tax and economics, he would probably be able to guess 9/10 of the YPP manifesto, i.e. how we are going to achieve those 3/4 of policy aims which are blindingly obvious.
So far, nobody has ever come up with a name which achieves this simple goal of conveying as much information as possible in three words to the uninformed voter.
@RT See what I mean?
DBC, I would be delighted if somebody could come up with a name (not more than six words) which immediately conveys most of our manifesto to the uninformed voter, and which sounds nice when it's abbreviated.
I'm not being stubborn, I'm being realistic.
So all suggestions on a postcard and mail them to the usual address.
DBC,
Right now, I don't have a plan. But we have a situation at breaking point between conflicting desires.
You can't keep taxing the people in the regions to pay £10+bn as a housing benefit subsidy to London (along with every other subsidy to London) and then not expect their kids to want to move to London because that's where the work is.
The greenbelt homies like London to be popular enough that it raises their house prices, but not so popular that more housing gets built to dilute that value. And that just isn't going to happen.
Actually, YPP may benefit from actually being a bit shit. I remember when the Wii came out that people thought it was a ridiculous name for a console, but if nothing else, it was memorable.
People get way too hung up on names and logos. It might matter for clothing and soft drinks, but in most areas, no-one cares.
TS, "a bit shit" is going a bit far, "tongue in cheek" might be more appropriate.
Mark,
I apologise. A bit clunky.
The important part is good principles and policies, and you've got those.
TS, no offence taken.
Unfortunately there is no catch-all word of phrase to describe "people - primarily between the ages of 18 and 40 or so - who are unwilling to vote for on of the existing establishment parties and who derive the bulk of their income from working - or are involuntarily unemployed - and who are adversely affected by high taxes on income and high rents and house prices and who are otherwise pretty liberal when it comes to free markets, drugs, gay marriage etc"
So "young people" will just have to do.
How about the 'Proper Property Party'?
L, I know what you mean but that'll attract entirely the wrong sort of voter.
MW Quite - they'll vote you (us?) in by accident....looks like a plan to me...
Postcard from the Edge (of Midlands):
Young People's Party sounds too much like Lord Sutch's National Teenage Party to someone of my age, although this was totally successful in securing votes for eighteen year olds.
My suggestions (as invited!): CHANGE = Cheap Housing ANd Good Employment; or Gainful or Guaranteed Employment.
CHE = Cheap Housing Everywhere or Cheap Housing Enriches
CRAMLE= Cheap Rents And Mortgages Liberate Everybody or Economy.
RICH =Real Incomes Cheap Housing
HELPP= Housing Expenses Leave People Poor.
Some of these could n't take Party on the end but the description on the ballot paper is the only chance for a non-machine party to gets its message/slogan across. Also dropping the word Party
has a pleasant early 60's vibe when groups dispensed with the word The.
Also query "tongue in cheek" title: people don't understand what's in front of them, let alone irony!
Over breakfast:
HHPCU High House Prices Cause Unemployment (après Andrew Oswald from way back and now again with Danny Blanchflower);
LAND Live Anywhere No Downside,
CHANGE could also mean Cheap Housing At No Great Expense.
It would devise mechanisms to wean the financial system off its addiction to residential property lending
There's sense in that. The mechanism for the alternative is the thing.
Last thought:
ABTLDP About To Lose Deposit Party
DBC, "CHANGE" was the best so far, keep going.
JH, it's not an addiction at all, that would imply something that they think is somehow harmful to their interests, it's like saying "Mao Tse Tung was addicted to killing people".
Post a Comment