JC speaks

[The Rivet]

because economist across political allegience agree its bad, as you break two rules of markets, price information and incentive. investment in new rental property and more significantly maintenance and upgrading of property disappears if there is no likelyhood of a return, and you dont know where what investment you have left should be made. as the Shelter quote notes, if you are faced with a cap on return, you may just sell up, reducing the rental stock.

housing will be addressed by two policies. building more, and remove regulatory hurdles to building. not in construction standards, but in daft rules like 10% being "affordable". and that includes allowing councils to build, if they have the funding, the land and the demand, they should be allowed to particpate in the market like any private developer.

For perhaps once I will agree with JC. You buy land with development permission build within nine months, without permission 18mths. If not the government will compulsory purchase and build 100% council stock.

 

[heathgate]

what an odd thing to make an issue of, without checking. reckon someone tucked her up there.

That behaviour is driven by the mighty Momentum.... ie shout loud and long, and call anyone who may have an alternative opinion, bigots and racists, even if the topic has nothing to do with race.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

For perhaps once I will agree with JC. You buy land with development permission build within nine months, without permission 18mths. If not the government will compulsory purchase and build 100% council stock.

thats fine if planning doesnt take 2-3 years, and theres the labour to maintain multiple developments concurrently. the average time from permission to built is something like 2 years, the idea developers land bank is largely a myth as permissions expire (there are those that are not really developers but speculators of course). the "use it or lose" is only credible for existing buildings not being redeveloped and long term (5 year plus), and apply to councils and other public sector orgs who have vast stock of unused land and buildings.

 

[clapham_gull]

I don't really care anymore about leaving the EU to be honest. I was a reluctant remain after all.

As posted above, Corbyn is as responsible as the right wing of the Tory Party for leaving. I don't blame him for that - he is from that section of the Labour party anyway that always hated the EU.

What fantastic timing Cameron Brexit to the left and Brexit to the right.

But if you are a "remainer" and a fan of Corbynista you are a hypocrite..

 

[Bry Nylon]

It's all very well for JC to make speeches written for his core audience. They would have chanted his name even if he spent 1 hr reading the phone book.

The reality is, it is people like me that he has to convince if he wants to be PM. I reckon people like me are - or should be - his 'target audience.'

He seems like a very genuine, honest, person. But when I saw Conference singing 'The Red Flag' with clenched fists aloft , I felt nothing but revulsion.

Not for me. Ever.

 

[The Rivet]

thats fine if planning doesnt take 2-3 years, and theres the labour to maintain multiple developments concurrently. the average time from permission to built is something like 2 years, the idea developers land bank is largely a myth as permissions expire (there are those that are not really developers but speculators of course). the "use it or lose" is only credible for existing buildings not being redeveloped and long term (5 year plus), and apply to councils and other public sector orgs who have vast stock of unused land and buildings.

The planning and practices are ultimately pathetic I do agree. However I personally would set the rule first and sort out the problems after. We need social housing.

 

[dingodan]

because economist across political allegience agree its bad, as you break two rules of markets, price information and incentive. investment in new rental property and more significantly maintenance and upgrading of property disappears if there is no likelyhood of a return, and you dont know where what investment you have left should be made. as the Shelter quote notes, if you are faced with a cap on return, you may just sell up, reducing the rental stock.

housing will be addressed by two policies. building more, and remove regulatory hurdles to building. not in construction standards, but in daft rules like 10% being "affordable". and that includes allowing councils to build, if they have the funding, the land and the demand, they should be allowed to particpate in the market like any private developer.

This is absolutely correct, and very well put.

 

[dingodan]

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It's all very well for JC to make speeches written for his core audience. They would have chanted his name even if he spent 1 hr reading the phone book.

The reality is, it is people like me that he has to convince if he wants to be PM. I reckon people like me are - or should be - his 'target audience.'

He seems like a very genuine, honest, person. But when I saw Conference singing 'The Red Flag' with clenched fists aloft , I felt nothing but revulsion.

Not for me. Ever.

I saw that too. It's why I will never vote for the Labour party again, ever, it's embarrassing. In fact I will not be voting for anyone, there is absolutely no point anymore. Tories, Labour, Tories, Labour, nobody has the vision for anything different. Your better off not listening to any of them and save your energy, you never get what they promise. Make your own changes, because nobody is going to help you anymore.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Seems like Mrs May will today make a speech fiercely defending the merits of the free market for delivering housing, health, education, transport, etc etc

Gross inequality of opportunity with desperate and hopeless existence for millions of people at the bottom, while those at the top cream off more and more, is simply the best system available.

It seems we do have a choice.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

The planning and practices are ultimately pathetic I do agree. However I personally would set the rule first and sort out the problems after. We need social housing.

trouble is putting the rule of rent control first wont put a single flat or house on the market, it wont create any social housing.

 

[Tokyohands]

I was expecting to see some wise words from the great Johnny Crumplin when I saw the title tbh.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I like Keir Starmer, and have met him a couple of times. If he was the Labour leader, I think they would have a better chance of election, rather than this cult figure of Corbyn.

It worries me when I see youngsters chanting his name, almost like a sports star. He isn't a hero, nor has he actually achieved anything, other than a following, who believe every word he says, without questioning it.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Seems like Mrs May will today make a speech fiercely defending the merits of the free market for delivering housing, health, education, transport, etc etc

Gross inequality of opportunity with desperate and hopeless existence for millions of people at the bottom, while those at the top cream off more and more, is simply the best system available.

It seems we do have a choice.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

if Labour had controlled our borders properly we would fewer people in our country today, meaning more opportunities for people, there would be fewer people driven in to poverty and less strain on our public services. Its all about the numbers, one thing labour can never admit too.