Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
[tweet]1506902879239651333[/tweet]
looked more awkward than when Matt Hancock got caught kissing behind the bike sheds.
[tweet]1506902879239651333[/tweet]
Do you not think that this is a strange comment coming from someone who has multiple buy-to-let properties, which sure helps to exacerbate the shortage of houses?
It's the Guardian so it's hardly going to be glowing praise but this bit stood out:
The increase in the NICs threshold was welcomed by experts such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Paul Johnson as a sensible simplification, as well as a tax cut, bringing national insurance in line with income tax.
Yet, as the OBR pointed out, these much-vaunted tax cuts only reverse one-sixth of the tax increases the Johnson government has announced.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...eight-of-hand-hardship-ahead-spring-statement
Issues put out are cost of the land and building costs
Re-use brown field sites that are seen investments and left empty
Re-use 'empty homes' which are left to rot and would be upgradeable for a lot less money (note they might not be fully energy efficient but its a start.
Make more kit 'houses' which will be a lot cheaper to build on site.
Finally , i would consider myself a supporter of the 'environment' but a loss of some extra 'green' land ( we are really talking small amounts) would help but might not be necessary if brown sites are used.
I realise I'm open to criticism BUT how on earth does having rental homes exacerbate a shortage of houses?
There is a very clear (and always will be) and healthy demand for rental accommodation, I don't apologise for providing this
I realise I'm open to criticism BUT how on earth does having rental homes exacerbate a shortage of houses?
There is a very clear (and always will be) and healthy demand for rental accommodation, I don't apologise for providing this
I realise I'm open to criticism BUT how on earth does having rental homes exacerbate a shortage of houses?
There is a very clear (and always will be) and healthy demand for rental accommodation, I don't apologise for providing this
25% of Tory funding is from landlords, so they are politically influenced to maintain a housing shortage and keep rents high for their donors. Not to mention all the NIMBYs in the Tory heartlands....
Student housing which is empty for a third of the year. Holiday rentals, Air B&B etc. all housing removed from the market for people needing permanent homes.
The demand for rental primarily exists because they can't afford to buy. Barely anyone renting over the age of 25 wants to be renting. They can't afford to buy because of the lack of supply to meet the demand. This is caused in part because of the stock being taken up by the already well off, buying up property, hiking the rents and giving people no choice but to rent.
You shouldn't apologise for providing for this demand. But a sensible government, not funded by landlords, shouldn't apologise for blowing this way of making money out of the water with punitive taxation.
Same goes for airbnb
sounds like the old 'no matter how bad things are under the Tories - it would be worse under Labour' mantra
Inflation through the roof, fuel prices through the roof, borrowing through the roof, cost of living through the roof even though the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. From the same people who gave you 10 years of unnecesary austerity
But yeah, they're doiing a great job otherwise
Quite probably but they've never had a penny from me!
All true but who among us haven't been a student in rented accommodation or taken a holiday let at some time or other?
Don't know if I missed another thread but what were people's experiences of the fuel duty cut? I have watched the garage on my way to work to up 2p per day followed by 1p. Wednesday it was £1.66.9 for unleaded. Thursday after the duty cut? £1.67.9
Only one garage in my area went down the whole 5p. Needless to say, they got my business. Whilst I can't argue with the sentiment of the duty reduction, this always seemed likely.
Issues put out are cost of the land and building costs
Re-use brown field sites that are seen investments and left empty
Re-use 'empty homes' which are left to rot and would be upgradeable for a lot less money (note they might not be fully energy efficient but its a start.
Make more kit 'houses' which will be a lot cheaper to build on site.
Finally , i would consider myself a supporter of the 'environment' but a loss of some extra 'green' land ( we are really talking small amounts) would help but might not be necessary if brown sites are used.
Where I live, we had a questionnaire about potential sites for housing within the village that we could vote on. There we 20 odd sites. When the results were released, the top 3 sites were brownfield sites. When the list was published next for us to whittle it down, those brownfield sites had conveniently disappeared leaving only greenfield sites. Heard on the grapevine that developers all said they couldn't make enough on the brownfield sites due to clear up costs and other restrictions.
There should be lots of opportunities to redevelop in town centres due to shop and office closures, but developers seem to prefer greenfield sites and planners seem to give in to them too easily.