The Housing Shortage

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

Just saw this article - really very thought provoking and slays a few myths.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

In a way tells you much about what's gone wrong with the UK.

Edited March 19 by Yellow Fever

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,333]

StOp BuYiNg CoFfEe.... As one of my great aunts decided to tell me while sitting pretty in the 5 bedroom house that her husband inherited 👍👍👍

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

£85bn in private rent. That's a ridiculous amount. Rents are at an extraordinary level. Drive these landlords out and a big chunk of that money would be spent elsewhere producing VAT, Income Tax and VAT. 

Edited March 19 by dylanisabaddog

[cambridgeshire canary 6,756]

I'm sure if we keep importing hundreds of thousands into the country a year who all want houses the demand and prices will go down..

[Herman 9,802]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just saw this article - really very thought provoking and slays a few myths.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

In a way tells you much about what's gone wrong with the UK.

Thanking you for that. An interesting read.👍

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

21 minutes ago, Herman said:

Thanking you for that. An interesting read.👍

Yes - I thought it good and challenges with hard evidence what what we all assumed was the issue. Opens ones eyes and mind which is all we can ask and never a bad thing. 

Sure we need more houses but it appears that is really only part of the issue.

I would add that I think we also have many more elderly living longer in the family home (hence it doesn't turnover so quickly), divorced couples and singletons than say 30 years ago too. Even if nothing else had changed we'd need more homes. The ratio of homes per person may be the same but we live differently.

Edited March 19 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,802]

52 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - I thought it good and challenges with hard evidence what what we all assumed was the issue. Opens ones eyes and mind which is all we can ask and never a bad thing. 

Sure we need more houses but it appears that is really only part of the issue.

I would add that I think we also have many more elderly living longer in the family home (hence it doesn't turnover so quickly), divorced couples and singletons than say 30 years ago too. Even if nothing else had changed we'd need more homes. The ratio of homes per person may be the same but we live differently.

I was firmly in the "build some more bloody houses" camp but the author comes up with a compelling reply. 👍

[sonyc 5,539]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - I thought it good and challenges with hard evidence what what we all assumed was the issue. Opens ones eyes and mind which is all we can ask and never a bad thing. 

Sure we need more houses but it appears that is really only part of the issue.

I would add that I think we also have many more elderly living longer in the family home (hence it doesn't turnover so quickly), divorced couples and singletons than say 30 years ago too. Even if nothing else had changed we'd need more homes. The ratio of homes per person may be the same but we live differently.

A very important article and gets to quite a thorny issue actually. What he doesn't talk about is the link to pensions but the comments section certainly tackles that subject! It feeds into something you've often raised in these threads YF about baby boomers.

[Barbe bleu 831]

Interesting read but some pretty massive holes in the argument.

He says that our ratio of homes to people is about average for Europe and therefore we have enough houses.   But that tells us nothing about how many houses we will need in  the next 5, 10, 50 years as the population changes.  It also tells us nothing about where we need housing -  The fact that there are empty homes in Stoke on Trent doesn't help someone get the house of their dreams in Norwich, London, or Birmingham. And what if we don't want to live in multi generation homes, is that just tough?

Also, if 'landlordism' really was the cause of the housing crisis why has the issue grown and not subsided in recent years as the tax cuts that they used to enjoy have been removed?

Its an interesting point of view and its true that affordability is a big issue but there is a reason that this is a consensus issue

[Worthy Nigelton 1,058]

On 19/03/2024 at 15:44, cambridgeshire canary said:

I'm sure if we keep importing hundreds of thousands into the country a year who all want houses the demand and prices will go down..

Go to Garyseconomics (Gary Stevenson) on YouTube and he will explain why this makes litttle to no difference. Asset prices will continue to rise and restricting immigration will do nothing to stop it - it may slow it, but the decline is structural and barring an enormous change politically, inevitable.

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

On 19/03/2024 at 17:18, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - I thought it good and challenges with hard evidence what what we all assumed was the issue. Opens ones eyes and mind which is all we can ask and never a bad thing. 

Sure we need more houses but it appears that is really only part of the issue.

I would add that I think we also have many more elderly living longer in the family home (hence it doesn't turnover so quickly), divorced couples and singletons than say 30 years ago too. Even if nothing else had changed we'd need more homes. The ratio of homes per person may be the same but we live differently.

In 1971 there were 1m single person households. By 2021 there were 7m. The article you have linked to is fascinating and informative but to compare our situation with Poland doesn't work. We may have the same number of dwellings per head but they have a lot less single people, probably in part because it's still a very Catholic country. 

[Herman 9,802]

29 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Go to Garyseconomics (Gary Stevenson) on YouTube and he will explain why this makes litttle to no difference. Asset prices will continue to rise and restricting immigration will do nothing to stop it - it may slow it, but the decline is structural and barring an enormous change politically, inevitable.

A slight tangent but Gary did a great, long, interview with James O'Brien. Well worth a listen but not an easy digest. 

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

27 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

In 1971 there were 1m single person households. By 2021 there were 7m. The article you have linked to is fascinating and informative but to compare our situation with Poland doesn't work. We may have the same number of dwellings per head but they have a lot less single people, probably in part because it's still a very Catholic country. 

Thank heavens the UK has moved on then, right?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

On 19/03/2024 at 16:44, cambridgeshire canary said:

I'm sure if we keep importing hundreds of thousands into the country a year who all want houses the demand and prices will go down..

Nah. Most are going into assisted housing of some sort, and the domestic population who can't get assisted housing as a result can't afford to pay for private stock either, so it won't be driving prices up; there's just more homeless people.

Edited March 21 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Thank heavens the UK has moved on then, right?

Yes it is a good thing, but the simple fact is that we have 7m properties occupied by a single adult. That is a major cause of our problem and it started with changes to the divorce laws. That's fine but obviously it has consequences. 

In my street of 2, 3 and 4 bed houses there are 40 properties. To the best of my knowledge 15 of those are occupied by one adult and most just one person. That feels like rather a lot to me. 

I know 2 of those single parents very well and they tell me that if they live with a man they lose their tax credits so they continue to maintain separate residences with the men in their lives. My answer to that would be to allow them to keep the tax credit if one property was sold as long as it wasn't sold as a buy to let. 

There is another statistic that is troubling. If you are a single male aged 55+ there is a one in ten chance of forming a lasting relationship with a woman. I have no idea why that is but it doesn't help the housing situation. 

I have to plead guilty here. I'm 64 and single and I'm staying that way. And I live in a 3 bed house. Sorry! 

[Barbe bleu 831]

Logan's run culling of single men over 55 it is then.  (NB This is not actually serious)

Edited March 21 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Logan's run culling of single men over 55 it is then.  (NB This is not actually serious)

Don't go picking on me! Just because I'm happy😊

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes it is a good thing, but the simple fact is that we have 7m properties occupied by a single adult. That is a major cause of our problem and it started with changes to the divorce laws. That's fine but obviously it has consequences. 

In my street of 2, 3 and 4 bed houses there are 40 properties. To the best of my knowledge 15 of those are occupied by one adult and most just one person. That feels like rather a lot to me. 

I know 2 of those single parents very well and they tell me that if they live with a man they lose their tax credits so they continue to maintain separate residences with the men in their lives. My answer to that would be to allow them to keep the tax credit if one property was sold as long as it wasn't sold as a buy to let. 

There is another statistic that is troubling. If you are a single male aged 55+ there is a one in ten chance of forming a lasting relationship with a woman. I have no idea why that is but it doesn't help the housing situation. 

I have to plead guilty here. I'm 64 and single and I'm staying that way. And I live in a 3 bed house. Sorry! 

The thing that's troubling about the bit in bold, for me at least, is the latent amatonormativity of it. I really do think we've become so comfortable with this odd notion that romance is the be-all and end-all that we've largely forgotten as a society the value of good friendships.

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The thing that's troubling about the bit in bold, for me at least, is the latent amatonormativity of it. I really do think we've become so comfortable with this odd notion that romance is the be-all and end-all that we've largely forgotten as a society the value of good friendships.

That comment interests me because I'm 64 and my best friend for the last 10 years has been a 49 year old woman. We rely on each other for guidance on all the nasty things life has to throw at us. When I tell male acquaintances that we're just friends they're very accepting of the situation. When we tell women the same thing they roll their eyes and simply don't believe it. I think it's funny, she finds it annoying. 

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

Interesting read in the Guardian, worth noting that landlordism exploded after Gordon Brown raided everyone's personal pensions, leading people to look for "safer" investments, of which property is a finite and therefore appreciating asset. But 1 in 21 people now being a landlord is absolutely ridiculous.

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

12 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That comment interests me because I'm 64 and my best friend for the last 10 years has been a 49 year old woman. We rely on each other for guidance on all the nasty things life has to throw at us. When I tell male acquaintances that we're just friends they're very accepting of the situation. When we tell women the same thing they roll their eyes and simply don't believe it. I think it's funny, she finds it annoying. 

 

I don't have stats to hand / am not really aware of research to this effect, but I do suspect women tend to cop a bit more of the flak in any atypical set-up, and this probably extends to platonic friendships too, but I don't mind admitting that's merely a hypothesis at my end.

[Barbe bleu 831]

55 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Don't go picking on me! Just because I'm happy😊

Completely agree.  The main reason we have lots of single person households is because that's how a lot of people want to live.   

What we need in housing policy is to determine what we need in terms of size, tenure and location.   Just saying we built x number of houses across the country is an almost irrelevant statement of the type well probably be hearing quite a lot in the coming months.

Edited March 21 by Barbe bleu

[Barbe bleu 831]

26 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Interesting read in the Guardian, worth noting that landlordism exploded after Gordon Brown raided everyone's personal pensions, leading people to look for "safer" investments, of which property is a finite and therefore appreciating asset. But 1 in 21 people now being a landlord is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll look that up, cheers. 

I'd be interested how much of this rent seeking and development investment svtivity is foreign capital.  Property speaks a universal language and the UK is generally a safe bet for money.  It will be interesting if the correlation between that is equally as strong as the fall out from pension changes.

From what I hear UK national 'landlordism' isn't what it used to be a few years ago and people are not getting into the market as much as they were.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

On 21/03/2024 at 10:34, dylanisabaddog said:

In 1971 there were 1m single person households. By 2021 there were 7m. The article you have linked to is fascinating and informative but to compare our situation with Poland doesn't work. We may have the same number of dwellings per head but they have a lot less single people, probably in part because it's still a very Catholic country. 

I’m staying with my uncle in Kent for a family get together. He lives in a comfortable prefab house near the river Medway. Because it’s on wheels somewhere under the brick surround, he owns the house outright, but pays 200 quid a month ground rent for the plot it’s on.

you can’t blame land owners for looking to capitalise on their land this way, but I find it laughable that private landlords are effectively doing what government should be doing everywhere with land value tax, but for private gain instead of public benefit.

The housing situation clearly is dire. This is a massively important topic. For most people, this is more important than Gaza, more important than Ukraine, more important  than so many other things. Why do so few politicians or parties have anything to say on it?

Edited March 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,565]

On 21/03/2024 at 15:52, Barbe bleu said:

Completely agree.  The main reason we have lots of single person households is because that's how a lot of people want to live.   

What we need in housing policy is to determine what we need in terms of size, tenure and location.   Just saying we built x number of houses across the country is an almost irrelevant statement of the type well probably be hearing quite a lot in the coming months.

That’s fine. If people want to live that wastefully then they should pay for the privilege.

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I’m staying with my uncle in Kent for a family get together. He lives in a comfortable prefab house near the river Medway. Because it’s on wheels somewhere under the brick surround, he owns the house outright, but pays 200 quid a month ground rent for the plot it’s on.

you can’t blame land owners for looking to capitalise on their land this way, but I find it laughable that private landlords are effectively doing what government should be doing everywhere with land value tax, but for private gain instead of public benefit.

The housing situation clearly is dire. This is a massively important topic. For most people, this is more important than Gaza, more important than Ukraine, more important  than so many other things. Why do so few politicians or parties have anything to say on it?

You're right and it damages our economy which is why I'm surprised the Government has done nothing about it. 

Labour Party policy is 70% owner occupied and 30% council/housing association. 

If I currently owned a let property I'd sell it now. They're coming for you. 

That is nothing knew. From the mid 70's to the mid 90's it was one of the few things that Labour and Tory agreed about. 

[Barbe bleu 831]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You're right and it damages our economy which is why I'm surprised the Government has done nothing about it. 

Labour Party policy is 70% owner occupied and 30% council/housing association. 

If I currently owned a let property I'd sell it now. They're coming for you. 

That is nothing knew. From the mid 70's to the mid 90's it was one of the few things that Labour and Tory agreed about. 

I've not heard of this policy commitment, do you have a link?  

The ratio of market to affordable housing is currently determined locally and I'd imagine that if you averaged out the requirements across the country they would arrive at over 30% affordable so I'm not sure what this would acheive, or whether 30% is actually right for all areas. Looks good on paper but ultimately hollow is my assessment of the headline.

One thing I did like with Labour is the (admittedly very very niche)  promise to set up a group that could provide advice to local authorities about 'viability'.  I've my doubts that this could really be done but it's certainly something to be considered seriously if we want to get housing right.

I like that Labour are looking to get some difference to the Conservatives on housing and planning (and that they are rowing back a bit on the 'build on the greenbelt' stuff they were coming up with before.  As you rightly say though it's tough yo find a point of difference when the parties have been so aligned so so long. 

[Fen Canary 851]

31 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I've not heard of this policy commitment, do you have a link?  

The ratio of market to affordable housing is currently determined locally and I'd imagine that if you averaged out the requirements across the country they would arrive at over 30% affordable so I'm not sure what this would acheive, or whether 30% is actually right for all areas. Looks good on paper but ultimately hollow is my assessment of the headline.

One thing I did like with Labour is the (admittedly very very niche)  promise to set up a group that could provide advice to local authorities about 'viability'.  I've my doubts that this could really be done but it's certainly something to be considered seriously if we want to get housing right.

I like that Labour are looking to get some difference to the Conservatives on housing and planning (and that they are rowing back a bit on the 'build on the greenbelt' stuff they were coming up with before.  As you rightly say though it's tough yo find a point of difference when the parties have been so aligned so so long. 

It’s really not difficult to solve. Simply build council houses at a rate of knots so young families currently priced out of homeownership can rent off the council rather than being forced into renting privately. Take away the demand for private rentals and you’ll see large numbers of them coming back onto the market as they’re no longer profitable, which in turn should reduce house prices.

Rents could also be set in the council houses at 25% of household income, which would leave these families with cash to either save a deposit or spend in the wider economy creating jobs and economic growth 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

32 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s really not difficult to solve. Simply build council houses at a rate of knots so young families currently priced out of homeownership can rent off the council rather than being forced into renting privately. Take away the demand for private rentals and you’ll see large numbers of them coming back onto the market as they’re no longer profitable, which in turn should reduce house prices.

Rents could also be set in the council houses at 25% of household income, which would leave these families with cash to either save a deposit or spend in the wider economy creating jobs and economic growth 

In principle this is a good idea 

I have a couple of questions, open to anyone who wants to answer. I'm no longer as close to the action in the uk as I used to be 😊

Does the uk have the available resources, including contractors and labour, to deliver this?

Is there an issue with availability of suitable land?

[Fen Canary 851]

22 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

In principle this is a good idea 

I have a couple of questions, open to anyone who wants to answer. I'm no longer as close to the action in the uk as I used to be 😊

Does the uk have the available resources, including contractors and labour, to deliver this?

Is there an issue with availability of suitable land?

In the 60’s we could knock up 400k a year with no power tools and 13 million fewer people, there’s no reason we couldn’t knock up 300k annually today. If the work was guaranteed going forward it wouldn’t take long for the workforce to get up to speed.

As for land I think only 10% is actually built on so I’m sure it could be found if the political will was there