I think the only area I disagree slightly is on social housing - where the exorbitant funds we're currently paying on housing benefit could make this a better investment than it might otherwise appear. Though I'd prefer a greater focus on councils directly building new social housing, rather than (as I suspect will happen) most of the funds just being used to buy up vacant properties.
Yes-- my main worry is the gov't backtracking on the intellectual point (they'd been sounding so sensible and supply-side...). Counterfactual gets funky, not least given despite the headlines the new sums allocated aren't huge. But fair point one must roll that in too.
"The government’s thinking on the housing crisis seems to have moved backward"
This infuriates me. Removing barriers to growing housing supply side is an almost no fiscal cost growth lever she can pull but doesn’t.
They have talked a good game on housing and fiddled around the edges – setting higher targets for councils. These are all slow burn and long-term.
Houses aren’t affordable, we have gone from house price/income 4:1 to 10:1 and eye-watering rents. We need radical action to get the supply side going quickly. I’d gut the Planning Act and start all over again.
No more vetoes to current home-owners on new builds/ conversions unless there is an absolutely compelling reason such as the skyscraper next door will block all my sunlight access. No more councils wasting time and money on applications to paint their front door a certain colour (mine does in some areas).
Default to yes and set a clock. Don’t let the NIMBYs delay for years. My local NW London suburb pensioners association fights any building over 2 floors with the argument “we can see the floors and hence they are detrimental”.
Hire Jeremy Clarkson as chief marketing officer for their plans, he knows all about council meddling.
Labour has a stonking majority. Cost of living crisis related to housing is hammering their core younger vote. The NIMBYs and older pensioners vote Tory and Lib Dem anyways. What does Labour have to lose? Be bold.
It surprises me how the left tends to bend over backwards to accommodate their non-voters, who then take the win and vote right anyways. When the right wins, it’s all about screwing the left and boasting about it. Biden sent billions in subsidizes to red states and got no credit. The Republicans voted against that but then took credit for money into their states and districts.
Why is Labour persisting with triple-lock? The winter fuel payment U-turn was just shoveling more money to the richest segments of the population.
Great piece!
I think the only area I disagree slightly is on social housing - where the exorbitant funds we're currently paying on housing benefit could make this a better investment than it might otherwise appear. Though I'd prefer a greater focus on councils directly building new social housing, rather than (as I suspect will happen) most of the funds just being used to buy up vacant properties.
Yes-- my main worry is the gov't backtracking on the intellectual point (they'd been sounding so sensible and supply-side...). Counterfactual gets funky, not least given despite the headlines the new sums allocated aren't huge. But fair point one must roll that in too.
Social housing isn’t the answer. We are not a totalitarian country like Singapore which can railroad the nation into 75% social housing.
I do not trust councils to build the right types of houses or estimate demand properly, or build them at low cost in a timely manner.
And who’s to say the NIMBYs objections won’t be there for these houses? I can see “will attract the wrong kind of people” arguments from a mile.
Loosen supply side regulations and the market will sort itself out.
"The government’s thinking on the housing crisis seems to have moved backward"
This infuriates me. Removing barriers to growing housing supply side is an almost no fiscal cost growth lever she can pull but doesn’t.
They have talked a good game on housing and fiddled around the edges – setting higher targets for councils. These are all slow burn and long-term.
Houses aren’t affordable, we have gone from house price/income 4:1 to 10:1 and eye-watering rents. We need radical action to get the supply side going quickly. I’d gut the Planning Act and start all over again.
No more vetoes to current home-owners on new builds/ conversions unless there is an absolutely compelling reason such as the skyscraper next door will block all my sunlight access. No more councils wasting time and money on applications to paint their front door a certain colour (mine does in some areas).
Default to yes and set a clock. Don’t let the NIMBYs delay for years. My local NW London suburb pensioners association fights any building over 2 floors with the argument “we can see the floors and hence they are detrimental”.
Hire Jeremy Clarkson as chief marketing officer for their plans, he knows all about council meddling.
Labour has a stonking majority. Cost of living crisis related to housing is hammering their core younger vote. The NIMBYs and older pensioners vote Tory and Lib Dem anyways. What does Labour have to lose? Be bold.
It surprises me how the left tends to bend over backwards to accommodate their non-voters, who then take the win and vote right anyways. When the right wins, it’s all about screwing the left and boasting about it. Biden sent billions in subsidizes to red states and got no credit. The Republicans voted against that but then took credit for money into their states and districts.
Why is Labour persisting with triple-lock? The winter fuel payment U-turn was just shoveling more money to the richest segments of the population.