HMRC's time machine setting sights on all graduates!

[The_Equalizer]

And household size.

Are we encouraging or preventing a good fight over this?

[northernladyuk]

Are we encouraging or preventing a good fight over this?

Sometimes the wibble heads need a few highly coloured sweets thrown into the cell to keep them going.

[Lance]

Are we encouraging or preventing a good fight over this?

I don't think there's a fight really.

Tiggat sort of has a point but it's a fledgling nugget of thought, that will eventually turn into an understanding of the complexities and challenges of the UK housing market.
It's just not very well articulated as too many Momentum videos have softened the grey matter into thinking that all problems will be easy to solve once Comrades Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge.

EDIT: I blame Brexit. Just because.

[The_Equalizer]

I don't think there's a fight really.

Tiggat sort of has a point but it's a fledgling nugget of thought, that will eventually turn into an understanding of the complexities and challenges of the UK housing market.
It's just not very well articulated as too many Momentum videos have softened the grey matter into thinking that all problems will be easy to solve once Comrades Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge.

But getting the government to build more houses is such a simple solution.

[Lance]

But getting the government to build more houses is such a simple solution.

yes. If the govt can successfully ignore Nimby voters.
They can though can't they, when they're not in power, or in danger of getting into power (note Corbyn is a lot shorter on ideas now he thinks he's only a few percentage points away from power).

[tiggat]

OK. We're down to one argument now.
Can you identify the legislation that is preventing local authorities from building new housing? (this is like pulling teeth, trying to tell you how to make your own argument stand up. what do they teach in schools these days?)

And your statement is not brilliant. Yes the did once build 40%. They once built around 80%. And now they build a percent or two.
So I repeat, Can you identify the legislation (or legislations) that is (or are) preventing local authorities from building new housing?

The debt cap on councils, limits on investment, the ban on local authorities using their revenues from council house sales to fund new housing ? Is that enough?

Tell me why you think local authorities stopped building houses, was it because of greenbelt laws?

[Lance]

The debt cap on councils, limits on investment, the ban on local authorities using their revenues from council house sales to fund new housing ? Is that enough?

Tell me why you think local authorities stopped building houses, was it because of greenbelt laws?

So you're still not telling me the legislation.

And those points are still flawed. The debt cap was introduced 2012 - after the problem. And it caps debt, not prevents them from building.
Council houses aren't supposed to be an investment. The investment limit was to prevent councils doing bad things with money. I cannot find the law (it's your argument you find the legislation).
Revenues - that's a fair point that it limited building by councils. They have other sources of money, and very little from right to buy any more so that's a duff argument.

None of these stop councils from building, and none of these prevent more houses from being built. There's enough demand, and money, for more houses but no planning permission. I can find you acres and acres of land ready for houses, that the owners would love to get permission for. And councils would have the same issue as private developers. as they still have to go through their own planning procedures.

[northernladyuk]

yes. If the govt can successfully ignore Nimby voters.
They can though can't they, when they're not in power, or in danger of getting into power (note Corbyn is a lot shorter on ideas now he thinks he's only a few percentage points away from power).

There was a report in Ireland decades ago that got ignored - can't remember the name. It started from the premise that the granting of planning permission is a public act that conveys massive value on privately held land. The proposal was in brief IIRC:

- State decides on general area it want 1,000 (for example) homes
- Hold a reverse auction on land without planning permission in that area and buy the land
- Then grant planning permission
- Contract for building of houses (or sell the land onto builders)
- Sell the houses on the open market (or use a portion for social housing if desired)
- Use the significant profits (how much on 1,000 houses - £100,000,000 to £200,000,000?) on the land to invest in local services (or in the UK cut local council tax hugely), which would all deal much more effectively with nimbyism that the money ending up in the pocket of the original landowner.

[Lance]

There was a report in Ireland decades ago that got ignored - can't remember the name. It started from the premise that the granting of planning permission is a public act that conveys massive value on privately held land. The proposal was in brief IIRC:

- State decides on general area it want 1,000 (for example) homes
- Hold a reverse auction on land without planning permission in that area and buy the land
- Then grant planning permission
- Contract for building of houses (or sell the land onto builders)
- Sell the houses on the open market (or use a portion for social housing if desired)
- Use the significant profits (how much on 1,000 houses - £100,000,000 to £200,000,000?) on the land to invest in local services (or in the UK cut local council tax hugely), which would all deal much more effectively with nimbyism that the money ending up in the pocket of the original landowner.

The only thing more powerful (and more Tory) in the UK than the Nimbys are the landowners.
You're right that would work, but would be suicide for a Tory leader (although they've got that as a habit right now). It's probably (one of) the argument Tiggat is looking for though.

[northernladyuk]

The only thing more powerful (and more Tory) in the UK than the Nimbys are the landowners.
You're right that would work, but would be suicide for a Tory leader (although they've got that as a habit right now). It's probably (one of) the argument Tiggat is looking for though.

It's a bleedin' obvious policy for Labour. Obviously the Tories won't upset the landowners.