Labour would fix the housing crisis?

The Conservatives see housing as a commodity: to be traded, profited from, part of an investment portfolio, a pension pot, not as the bedrock of stable lives and life chances.
Everyone recognises that some people will never own their own home and some people will want to rent for part of their life or at different times in their life. The question is whether the State alone can provide housing for them.

Their record speaks for itself: Record numbers living in insecure private rents, a huge net loss of social housing. A “lost” social house is still occupied by someone when it is privately owned. This misleading statement is repeated time and again by the left. If the occupiers did not buy or rent the former Council House those occupiers would still need somewhere to live.

And their woeful record of switching our homes to green, means we are very vulnerable to the current energy crisis. It is not the Government’s responsibility to do this on its own. And what does she mean by “our” homes? PRS landlords would be more able to upgrade their properties if they hadn’t been hit with increased taxes, increased regulatory costs and increased bad debts from tenants given de facto security of tenure.

…
We’ve got a plan: a Building Works Agency to assess, fix and fund and then certify all tall buildings. Then pursue those responsible for costs. If it were that simple it would have been done. It isn’t and Lucy Powell knows it.

And we would put in law that leaseholders won’t pay. And if the freeholder has gone out of business then either the taxpayer pays or the repairs won’t be done.

A new settlement must include a massive increase in council and social homes, fit for all ages.

That means we can’t continue with the huge net loss in council houses resulting from Right to Buy and its huge discount. See my comments above about this fallacious argument.

I see no contradiction in us also promoting home-ownership – not for more landlords or second homes, but for ordinary working people – nurses, electricians, delivery drivers and care workers – currently priced out.

Their aspirations for home-ownership will be met by Labour. So how will you make houses more affordable?

Central to this is bold action on restoring the link between wages and housing costs. Meaning what exactly? Crashing the housing market perhaps? Pushing millions of people especially recent first time buyers into negative equity? Vastly inflating everyone’s wages and keeping our fingers crossed that house prices won’t go up?

And tackling the thorny issues of quality, affordability and security in private rentals. Where is the evidence that private housing is worse quality than social housing?

Ending rough sleeping. Happy to see that but if it were simply a case of providing houses it would have been fixed. Don’t blame the PRS. And No-Fault Evictions. Happy to explain to Ms Powell the foolishness and unfairness of this proposal. I am old enough to remember the days of tenants stuck in the same Council House and of Council House waiting lists. People could not move for work. The 1988 Housing Act changed that and helped boost the economy.

A key part of this vision is building more truly affordable homes. And presumably selling them for less than they cost to build or renting them out at low rents, subsidised by the taxpayer.

For too long, speculators and developers have held most of the cards – ducking minimal commitments, extracting huge value from the public for land, and doing too little for first time buyers and local people. She needs to talk to some developers about the problems they face in getting their projects built.

That’s why Labour will give local authorities new powers to buy and develop land for housing, and revitalise town centres, by reforming arcane compensation rules.

This could generate up to 100,000 new homes a year, much of which social and affordable.

The current definition of affordable is anything but, linked to over-heated market rates. We will set a new definition linked to local wages. Rent controls anyone? A failed policy that will fail again.

We will close loopholes that let developers wriggle out of commitments. What loopholes? This is just a slur.

Labour, the Party of home-owners and tenants, the Tories, the Party of speculators and developers. All property is built by a “developer”.

Where everyone has the right to a safe, secure, stable, warm, truly affordable home. Even those who are dishonest and too indolent to study at school and to work at a job. All must be rewarded with a home. Vote for me!

They've already had two major initiatives aimed at ending rough sleeping, both of which failed. The factors that affect a person's decision to sleep rough are beyond the control of any Government, but they're counting on people having short memories or being too young to remember.

Labour showing their Communist - Socialist values and their 'Redistribution of wealth policies.
Mind, the Tories are ' at it ' also with their Levelling-up. !
To the extent this relates mainly - exclusively ? to Housing, we only have to look at the re-naming of MHCLG, where the only intention can be to promote Tenants at the expense of landlords.

Thanks Ian. Great breakdown.
The problem is who needs facts when you have ideology and a narrative to create to win votes.

A lot of "pie in the sky" in these Labour proposals but I agree with blocking foreign investors buying up properties off plan and with bulk discounts (but allow UK expats working abroad to buy a property). Only UK passport holders and UK based companies should be allowed to buy residential property in the UK, and convert commercial property to residential. This should also stop/reduce property rental income and capital gain profits being transferred abroad.

Reply to the comment left by Peter G at 28/09/2021 - 16:56@Peter G
"Only UK passport holders and UK based companies should be allowed to buy residential property in the UK, and convert commercial property to residential."
When you think it through I am afraid this does not work and opens a can of worms. Why should non-UK passport holders not buy here? How will you stop them using a UK registered company? Perhaps you will stop the shares of UK registered companies that own resi from being sold to those nasty foreigners. Oops, that creates a problem for business owners who want to sell.
Normally we welcome inward investment. Why be protectionist? We want more housebuilding, not less.
What if other countries retaliate and stop Brits buying in France, Spain, Italy, Greece etc?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 28/09/2021 - 10:29
A “lost” social house is still occupied by someone when it is privately owned.

Yes, but a lot have become private rentals at the highest rent achievable.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Barnes at 30/09/2021 - 16:32
My point is that the total number of houses is the same whether the house is in the PRS, social sector or owner-occupied.
Labour should focus on encouraging more house building instead of planning to tax landlords even more heavily.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 30/09/2021 - 16:56
But if more houses were built, there would be no housing problem for them to solve.
Also with no housing problem there would be no bogey man for them to blame to whip up votes!

Why would they want to solve the housing crisis?

If there wasn't as much Legal and Illegal Immigration, there'd be far less houses required and more to go around for British citizens.
Charity begins at home and looking out for ones own countrymen ( women ) first is Not racist. !