Do you want to discuss boring politics? (16 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Exactly

make more land available and what it profitable to build changes. We need more houses full stop. Four bed detached houses are still houses and bring down costs overall.

 

---

[NorthernWisdom]

make more land available and what it profitable to build changes. We need more houses full stop. Four bed detached houses are still houses and bring down costs overall.

That's a nonsense. Take centralised control and build what's needed instead of chase profits at the expense of everything else.

 

[PVA]

The big house builders make obscene profit on each house, there's no way they're drip feeding new builds to keep prices high.

 

[skybluetony176]

They’ll build what sells at the highest margin.

And at a pace that ensures that the market price keeps rising.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Hunt has paid for tax cuts with unrealistic spending cuts which create huge problems for next chancellor, IFS says

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has released its full assessment of the autumn statement. In his summary, Paul Johnson, the IFS director, says Jeremy Hunt’s tax cuts are “paid for by planned real cuts in public service spending” which are not credible. He says this means Hunt has left a huge problem for whoever is chancellor after the next election. He explains:

The net result is that Mr Hunt is, by the narrowest of tiny margins, still on course to meet his (poorly designed) fiscal rule that debt as a fraction of national income should be falling in the last year of the forecast period. In reality debt is set to be just about flat at around 93 per cent of national income over the whole period. And that is on the basis of a series of questionable, if not plain implausible, assumptions. It assumes that many aspects of day to day public service spending will be cut. It assumes a substantial real cut in public investment spending. It assumes that rates of fuel duties will rise year on year with inflation – which they have not done in more than a decade and they surely will not do next April. It assumes that the constant roll over of “temporary” business rates cuts will stop. It assumes, of course, that the economy doesn’t suffer any negative shocks.

Like his predecessors Mr Hunt has taken a modest improvement in the public finance forecasts and spent most of it. He has spent up front and told us he will meet his targets largely by unspecified fiscal restraint at some point in the future. What he will do in March if the OBR downgrades its forecasts we do not know. Any such downgrading would leave him with a big headache. More importantly he or his successor is going to have the mother and father of a headache when it comes to making the tough decisions implied by this statement in a year or two’s time.

And here is Johnson’s conclusion.

The fiscal forecasts have not in any real sense got better. Debt is not declining over time. Taxes are still heading to record levels. Spending is also due to stay high by historic standards, not least because of high debt interest payments. But those payments plus pressures on health and pension spending mean current plans are for some pretty serious cuts across other areas of public spending. How did Mr Hunt afford tax cuts when real economic forecasts got no better? He banked additional revenue from higher inflation, and pencilled in harsher cuts to public spending.

I’m not sure I’d want to be the chancellor inheriting this fiscal situation in a year’s time.


Labour are fooked if they get in to power.



Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

That last sentence is the point. They are poisoning the chalice so much that the next government will succumb within one term. Or at least they hope so

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

This just isn’t true.

Lack of house building is pretty much entirely down to planning law and lack of workers. There no evidence of land banking on any scale.

So a company that benefits from higher selling prices if they limit supply isn't going to limit supply at all?

While these things are an issue, the housebuilders use them as a convenient get out clause to keep everything going solely. I'm not saying they're not building at all, but they're not building as fast as they could even with those constraints.

Same as every development gets the number of affordable homes slashed because the development isn't viable otherwise. Then same housebuilders post ever larger profits.

 

[wingy]

On ever smaller plots and room sizes to match unless you're talking a five bedroom, energy efficient mind the smaller you go.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The big house builders make obscene profit on each house, there's no way they're drip feeding new builds to keep prices high.

They make big profits because they don't build enough to meet the demand. Increase supply - price goes down.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Rather than admit it he tries to lie his way out of it bit by bit.

James Cleverly admits calling Labour MP 'unparliamentary' word

James Cleverly says he used a swearword to refer to a Labour MP, not to describe Stockton North.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[wingy]

They're not building enough because it's more comfortable than overtrading IMO,self preservation.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

The traditional way people got on the housing ladder was start small and upgrade when they can afford.

So if there's a problem with people getting on the ladder, give them what they can afford.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Rather than admit it he tries to lie his way out of it bit by bit.

James Cleverly admits calling Labour MP 'unparliamentary' word

James Cleverly says he used a swearword to refer to a Labour MP, not to describe Stockton North.

www.bbc.co.uk

He'd be better admitting it, anybody who's been there world just nod and agree

 

[wingy]

The traditional way people got on the housing ladder was start small and upgrade when they can afford.

So if there's a problem with people getting on the ladder, give them what they can afford.

Or traditionally,move up and empty the space below .

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Or traditionally,move up and empty the space below .

That's fair. Have to start the process first though

 

[wingy]

Oh bugger that has been eaten up by spectulators who think it's a good Idea to stick hmos amid families.

 

[shmmeee]

So a company that benefits from higher selling prices if they limit supply isn't going to limit supply at all?

While these things are an issue, the housebuilders use them as a convenient get out clause to keep everything going solely. I'm not saying they're not building at all, but they're not building as fast as they could even with those constraints.

Same as every development gets the number of affordable homes slashed because the development isn't viable otherwise. Then same housebuilders post ever larger profits.

Private house builders have built at pretty consistent rates since the TCA came in, the big drop has been council build. But it’s the planning law that’s limited private building.

There’s no surplus of land with planning permission. There’s a lot of speculative buying that caused by planning law, especially the green belt.

 

[shmmeee]

All of it is lack of supply. Have decent housing stock and shit landlords have competition and so do shit house builders.

 

[shmmeee]

That's a nonsense. Take centralised control and build what's needed instead of chase profits at the expense of everything else.

You can do both. Allow councils to borrow to build, but you’ll still need to find places to build.

 

[PVA]

Rather than admit it he tries to lie his way out of it bit by bit.

James Cleverly admits calling Labour MP 'unparliamentary' word

James Cleverly says he used a swearword to refer to a Labour MP, not to describe Stockton North.

www.bbc.co.uk

So it's fine for him to apparently call an MP shit, but it's against the rules to call him a liar. It's nuts.

 

[Grendel]

So it's fine for him to apparently call an MP shit, but it's against the rules to call him a liar. It's nuts.

Who cares?

 

[wingy]

Who cares?

Well it could be a brown moment if the press chose?

 

[David O'Day]

Suella Braverman hits out after record migration figures

Ex-home secretary says government must "act now", after last year's net migration was estimated at 745,000.

www.bbc.co.uk

She should have a word with person who was Home Secretary for the last year

 

[Grendel]

Well it could be a brown moment if the press chose?

Its so trivial - even the MP in question was sniggering on national TV - admitted he hadn’t a clue if it was said - but was having a lovely time anyway

I’ve been to Stockton - it’s a shit hole

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Mrs Wisdom went on a school trip to Stockton and the locals welcomed them by pelting them with eggs repeatedly.

Still, guess all those struggling to get on the housing ladder could move there as it's nice and cheap!

 

[shmmeee]

Its so trivial - even the MP in question was sniggering on national TV - admitted he hadn’t a clue if it was said - but was having a lovely time anyway

I’ve been to Stockton - it’s a shit hole

And that woman was a bigot

 

[shmmeee]

So it's fine for him to apparently call an MP shit, but it's against the rules to call him a liar. It's nuts.

Who calls a person a shithole?

 

[PVA]

Who cares?

'no one cares about parties'

 

[PVA]

Who calls a person a shithole?

Yeah exactly he's clearly lying but you aren't allowed to call someone a liar in parliament, but it's perfectly acceptable to call someone shit (while lying)

 

[David O'Day]

Cleverley is trying to dodge the blame as Stockton's other MP a tory isn't too happy it seems

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Private house builders have built at pretty consistent rates since the TCA came in, the big drop has been council build. But it’s the planning law that’s limited private building.

There’s no surplus of land with planning permission. There’s a lot of speculative buying that caused by planning law, especially the green belt.

Of course they're building at a consistent rate. A rate that is consistent with them having houses to put on the market and sell but not so many that it'd bring the prices down. They will supply less than the demand - it's in their interests to do so. Wasn't it the owner of Persimmon who basically admitted doing this, saying why would they build faster when it's not conducive to their business model of maximising profit?

I'm not saying they're hoarding land and doing absolutely nothing. I'm saying they're building on them at a pace that could be higher if they chose. They choose not to.

 

[shmmeee]

Of course they're building at a consistent rate. A rate that is consistent with them having houses to put on the market and sell but not so many that it'd bring the prices down. They will supply less than the demand - it's in their interests to do so. Wasn't it the owner of Persimmon who basically admitted doing this, saying why would they build faster when it's not conducive to their business model of maximising profit?

I'm not saying they're hoarding land and doing absolutely nothing. I'm saying they're building on them at a pace that could be higher if they chose. They choose not to.

Why did they suddenly decide to start this hoarding at the exact same time as we changed planning law? That’s one hell of a coincidence!

And no as far as I’m aware you’ve made that up about Persimmon.

 

[shmmeee]

This fucking shit. Fox murdering twat be right about literally anything just once challenge.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Why did they suddenly decide to start this hoarding at the exact same time as we changed planning law? That’s one hell of a coincidence!

And no as far as I’m aware you’ve made that up about Persimmon.

But they haven't. They've always produced far less than required (and are able to). The changes in planning law just gave them another excuse to control the supply even more, should it suit them. Which it does.

If they're producing less houses, how come their profits are going up? I guess it's just an unfortunate consequence that producing less houses due to planning law pushes the price and profit margin up for them isn't it? But they're sitting there cursing that they can't build loads more houses which they'd end making less profit from?

 

[shmmeee]

But they haven't. They've always produced far less than required (and are able to). The changes in planning law just gave them another excuse to control the supply even more, should it suit them. Which it does.

If they're producing less houses, how come their profits are going up? I guess it's just an unfortunate consequence that producing less houses due to planning law pushes the price and profit margin up for them isn't it? But they're sitting there cursing that they can't build loads more houses which they'd end making less profit from?

Profits are up because house prices keep rising because supply is constrained.

The Persimmon story was about materials and labour shortages and planning backlogs. If they could make money today why wouldn’t they?

For your theory to be credible (and I’m telling you having worked in property development it’s not), there would have to either be a massive conspiracy that involves every builder large and small, or the level of house building would correlate with market conditions. It doesn’t. Check the data. House builders have been building roughly the same amount since the 50s.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Profits are up because house prices keep rising because supply is constrained.

The Persimmon story was about materials and labour shortages and planning backlogs. If they could make money today why wouldn’t they?

For your theory to be credible (and I’m telling you having worked in property development it’s not), there would have to either be a massive conspiracy that involves every builder large and small, or the level of house building would correlate with market conditions. It doesn’t. Check the data. House builders have been building roughly the same amount since the 50s.

How are you calculating "roughly the same amount"?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk