My problem with this logic is it lends itself to the idea that society is the same as it has been for decades, and so the tried and tested solutions will work it all out - I don't subscribe to that at all; this is an ongoing decline and direction of travel will only continue to go one way without significant intervention.

The ongoing increases in inequality and ongoing decline in living standards for ordinary people is not going to change if we keep hopping 'sensibly' from one group of centrists to another, and as societies problems worsen and more people can see that neither the Tories nor Labour will fix it, they will look for alternatives on both the left and the right.

I dislike Farage and Reform, but the left would be stupid to think he or they will go away, or that people aren't going to continue to be drawn to that type of offering as their lot gets worse year on year.

Who is going to build these houses?

It certainly won't be the big boys. They build slow to keep prices up.
Most of it would have to be funded by government. Add to that nationalising railways and creating Great British Energy, and you have an astronomical bill.
Britain is broke. Where is the money coming from?

Meanwhile, we keep allowing thousands of migrants to arrive. We can't even build fast enough for the people here already. How can it ever be possible to provide housing for an ever increasing number?

Add to that the easily predictable surge in illegals coming our way, and the government's reluctance to set up an offshore detention centre from which to send them back, and we have a nightmare on the horizon.
The Tories spend millions setting up facilities for migrants in Rwanda only for Starmer to cancel it.
How long before they propose the same scheme under a different name?

I despair.

Pretty much.

I think Labour have talked about changing the planning laws and they expect the private sector to build.

Personally I regard that as wishful thinking and passing the buck.

They want to square a circle in my opinion and you're spot on about the pointlessness of increasing the population higher than what you can build.

The sad thing is all the normies who believe the lies....currently some of my own extended family.

I'm so fed up with lying politicians, wherever they are on the political spectrum.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2024 8.04pm)

The private sector does all the building at the moment, and they will only build where there is profit in it for them - so since all this housing that's needed seems to predominately be either social or affordable who's footing the bill?

As an example, I live in a largish village, and we have 12 outstanding planning applications to build - all are for 3/4 bedroom 'luxury' homes with a few smaller starter homes thrown in for meeting requirements for new developments BUT..... going by the last three developments actually built, suddenly halfway through the building, the contractor claims to have financial problems and threatens to stop unless they are allowed to reduce the amount of 'social' housing. In one case 'affordable houses' went from 19 to 3 over a one year period, and in another from 9 to 2, leaving the developer to make a nice profit from the £250,000+ ones that actually got built.

This is repeated all over Somerset and I'm sure it happens everywhere else - so how does this help the people who really need housing? The homeless, the first time buyers, local people who want to stay local, and that';s before you start on the people on the LA housing list.....

Edited by becky (17 Jul 2024 8.32pm)

What I heard was going to be the primary target was to stop “land banking”, the buying up of developable land and sitting on it, waiting for its value to increase.

What was suggested that any developer, or agent thereof, who failed to develop land they could develop within a set period without a reasonable excuse, would have that land compulsorily purchased at the same price, or less if the market fell.

Releasing land should reduce the price of it. Freeing up, speeding up and simplifying planning will then help. Limiting the opportunities to object will also be done, be unpopular and controversial but with such a huge majority will still get done.

The big builders will get the work, but under contract to local authorities after competitive tendering.

So I do think something different could be on the way.

So exactly why would any big builder want to build for a local authority (after a competitive tender, which means lower price per unit) when they can buy land, develop it much more easily with all these simplified planning regs and less objection AND keep all the profit from sales for themselves?

Let's be honest, we are taking business here, not social work....