I'm not one to defend Gordon Brown, but the reduction in housing completions
began long before he was Chancellor.

Oh, elementary. The various sections of the housing market are interrelated
and hugely influence each other.

If there is a shortage of public housing, prospective tenants will have to try
their luck in the private sector. A small percentage will buy a house, thus
creating more competition for houses which in turn allows prices to rise. Most
people will enter the private rental market which now booms with two
consequences. Some people who planned to sell their home and move to
somewhere smaller or cheaper decide not to sell their home because they can
make more money renting it out. Running parallel is the buy-to-let sector
where people buy houses and transfer them from the for-sale sector to the
rental sector. Both contribute to a reduction in the number of houses to
purchase, and prices rise.

Building an adequate supply of public housing reverses that cycle and makes it
easier for prospective buyers to find a house at a price they can afford.

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

;150031 Wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:
-
tim.....;150017 Wrote: -
"Robin9" wrote in message
...-

e27002 aurora;149992 Wrote:-

Here we differ. The years of tepid socialism were culminating in
piles of garbage in the street, a growing rat population, and the
dead
were unburied. Can you imagine how this added to the emotional load
of the families and friends of the recently decease?

Margaret Hilda Baroness Thatcher was raised up to restore our United
Kingdom. She achieved so much before the cowards in the tory party
had their palace coup.

This included trades union legislation and the defeat of Scargill and
co. Decent people were making a living again and the UK's national
esteem was being restored.-

The refuse not being collected and the dead lying unburied were not
normal, consistent features of life in the 1970s.

Thatcher did not restore the U. K. and because of her, huge numbers
of
decent people were unable to make a proper living.

I was lucky. I was already a home-owner before 1979. In the 1970s,
before Thatcher, normal people on normal incomes could aspire to
owning
their own home. Thatcher destroyed that dream. She created a housing
shortage and then, at the behest of her financial backers who could
not
compete, she killed off building societies who dominated the mortgage

market. I feel sorry for today's young people, most of whom have given

up dreaming of their own home.-

What utter nonsense

whatever Thatcher do, or did not do wrong, creating a housing
shortage
was not one of them,

That came much later (mostly on the watch of Mt T Blair)-

You're obviously qualified to talk about utter nonsense.

Thatcher made it illegal for local authorities to spend the money they
received for council houses in building new homes. If you really
believe
that has nothing to do with today's housing shortage, you are
fantasising.

During Thatcher's period in office, house prices rose so sharply that
in
the London area, it became the major subject of conversation. Prices
rise
when there is a shortage.-

The problem has got much worse since Thatcher's time. Arguably the
ridiculous speculator-driven housing market is a product of Gordon Brown

taxing pension funds so people can't otherwise save for their old age.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I think everyone - even diehard Labour supporters - will agree that the

situation has become even more serious since Thatcher. (For what it's
worth,
I dislike Labour even more than I dislike Tories, and I think Tony Blair
was an
even worse Prime Minister than Thatcher) However a balanced perspective
on
the entire housing problem must be based on facts, not on tribal
loyalty.

During the 1950s home ownership increased enormously and the
construction
industry achieved completion figures that put today's industry to shame.
In
some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't manage
even 300,000.

and it continued to do so until 1991, after Thatcher had been deposed


tim

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

;150066 Wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry)
wrote:
-
In message , at 19:50:44 on Mon,
7 Sep 2015, Robin9 remarked:
-
In some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't
manage even 300,000.-

That's because Gordon Brown caused a serious recession and people
couldn't easily pay for new houses. Whole "new towns" have been put
on hold as a result.-

The high figures in the 1960s are deceptive. A lot of houses were
demolished as "slums" at the same time so the net figures weren't so
impressive.

. . . and that is why I've always suspected there was corruption. The fact
that perfectly good houses were sometimes demolished to make room for
pretty much the same number of new dwellings indicates that people on high
were not primarily concerned to provide homes to the homeless, but instead
had an interest in creating building projects.

Not just suspicions, my boy! My local Housing Committee Chairman, Sid Sporle
of Battersea and then Wandsworth was convicted of accepting bribes. from T
Dan Smith. Smith was acquitted.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:06:21AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:50:44 on Mon, 7
Sep 2015, Robin9 remarked:
In some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't
manage even 300,000.
That's because Gordon Brown caused a serious recession and people
couldn't easily pay for new houses. Whole "new towns" have been put on
hold as a result.

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down. ALL of the new developments
near my place - and there are a lot of them - are on the site of some
now demolished building.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

You can't judge a book by its cover, unless you're a religious nutcase

In message , at 14:28:06
on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, David Cantrell remarked:
In some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't
manage even 300,000.
That's because Gordon Brown caused a serious recession and people
couldn't easily pay for new houses. Whole "new towns" have been put on
hold as a result.

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down. ALL of the new developments
near my place - and there are a lot of them - are on the site of some
now demolished building.

Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

There are a few brown-site developments in the City Centre, but they are
usually at the high end of the market (eg £500k for two beds).
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:28:06 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:06:21AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:50:44 on Mon, 7
Sep 2015, Robin9 remarked:
In some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't
manage even 300,000.
That's because Gordon Brown caused a serious recession and people
couldn't easily pay for new houses. Whole "new towns" have been put on
hold as a result.

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in

Without the green belt London would be a vile sprawl like LA and Tokyo by
now. Blame New Labour and its immigration policy for the lack of housing.
You can't dump 8 million new people into a country over 15 years and not
expect there to be housing (and many other) issues. Well, unless you're a
member of the Labour party where common sense is trumped by political dogma
and ideology.

--
Spud

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
14:28:06 on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, David Cantrell
remarked:
In some years they built more than 400,000 houses. Today we can't
manage even 300,000.
That's because Gordon Brown caused a serious recession and people
couldn't easily pay for new houses. Whole "new towns" have been put on
hold as a result.

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down. ALL of the new developments
near my place - and there are a lot of them - are on the site of some
now demolished building.

Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

There are a few brown-site developments in the City Centre, but they
are usually at the high end of the market (eg £500k for two beds).

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is more
reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on newer
developments).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 10:59:58
on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, remarked:

There are a few brown-site developments in the City Centre, but they
are usually at the high end of the market (eg £500k for two beds).

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is more
reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on newer
developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging half a
million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more expensive for
freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in the 700-800k
bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:59:58 on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, remarked:

There are a few brown-site developments in the City Centre, but they
are usually at the high end of the market (eg £500k for two beds).

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is
more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on newer
developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Both developments have affordable housing elements which wouldn't be visible
by the means you are looking at.

--
Colin Rosenstiel