Can Labour Fix the Housing Crisis?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Sign up to Brilliant for a free 30 day trial and you'll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription: brilliant.org/...
In this video, we’ll take a look at the UK’s housing crisis, Labour’s plan to deliver millions more homes, and whether it can actually work.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahE...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
Housing prices likely won’t drop significantly until supply increases. The U.S. is short millions of housing units and isn’t building fast enough. Demand remains high, and even a small dip in prices attracts many buyers. I’m looking to buy affordable houses in August and maybe invest in stocks. When’s the best time to invest in stocks? Some say it’s profitable, but others warn it’s risky. Any advice?
Consider buying stocks when the economy is not doing well, like during a recession. It could be a chance to buy them at a lower price and sell later when prices go up. Just keep in mind, this isn't financial advice, but sometimes it's better than keeping a lot of cash.
Having an investment advisor is the best way to go about the stock market right now. I used to depend on CZcams videos but it wasn't working. I’ve been in touch with an advisor for a while now, and just last year, I made over 80% capital growth minus dividends.
Could you recommend your advisor? I'd appreciate some help.
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’ Rebecca Nassar Dunne ” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look her up.
I copied her whole name and pasted it into my browser; her website appeared immediately, and her qualifications are excellent; thank you for sharing.
I’m in Ohio and the housing market here over the last 7-8 years is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Homes that were bought for $130K in 2015 are now being sold for $590k. I’m talking about tiny, disgusting, poorly built 950 square foot shit boxes in quite mediocre neighborhoods. Then you’ve got Better, average sized homes in nicer neighborhoods that were $300K+ 10 years ago selling for $750k+ now. Wild times.
Considering the present situation, diversifying by shifting investments from real estate to financial markets or gold is recommended, despite potential future home price drops. Given prevailing mortgage rates and economic uncertainty, this move is prudent, particularly due to stricter mortgage regulations. Seeking advice from a knowledgeable independent financial advisor is advisable for those seeking guidance.
I agree, that's the more reason I prefer my day to day investment decisions being guided by an advisor, seeing that their entire skillset is built around going long and short at the same time both employing risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying off risk as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, coupled with the exclusive information/analysis they have, it's near impossible to not out-perform, been using my advisor for over 2years+ and I've netted over 2.8million.
I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same but it seems you’ve got it all worked out with the firm you work with so i surely wouldn’t mind a recommendation.
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Annette Christine Conte for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up
Thank you for this Pointer. It was easy to find your handler, She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her.
Friends of mine who work in town planning say that when planning permission is granted, developers often just sit on those plans for years, waiting for prices to go up. There needs to be a requirement to start building with a set period (I would say 6 months or a year) or lose the permission - "Use it or lose it".
Facts. Developers bank permissions and land to simply drive up value.
Well said. It's ridiculous to get planning permission as a developer and then just be allowed to not develop for years.
The quick answer is no
I’d add some process to legally delay but have the requirements pretty tight
Or you could just not use permission as the the choke valve in the system. Developers bank permission because they know that insufficient housing will be built to reduce costs -- if they knew the government would keep granting permission until prices start dropping whatever it takes then they would lose money by waiting.
Either abolish planning permission or penalize councils severely if the number of actual units built doesn't hit a high desired number. You only try to hold onto assets because you think they will stay rare.
Thing is, what most urban areas need isn't single-family homes, it's low-rise medium density housing. Not the brutalist horrors of the 60s/70s, but good quality apartments, and these need to be encouraged. Equally, unless practices like land banking are ended, the issue won't be solved.
I'd say most urban areas don't have what the US might call "single family" homes, they tend to be terraces, many built in the early to mid 20th century to replace victorian terraces flattened by the blitz, or slum clearances before then. A lot of these would need to be demolished to make way for european style apartment blocks (some already are being). And there is a cultural aversion to apartment blocks in the UK, partly for a desire for private green space and a more individualistic culture in general, partly those brutalist horrors you mentioned that were knocked up for cheap after WWII.
@@Croz89 Terraced homes can still be single family if they're big enough and have a private garden. The American aversion to terraced housing is irrelevant.
@@deek0146 Trust me, these aren't big homes. In terms of floor space they're only about 65 m^2 on average (posher terraces will be bigger, more like 100). They do tend to have a private garden, Brits really like having one, but it can be very small, just big enough for a patio, a tiny postage stamp of lawn and a few pot plants sometimes.
Very few in the UK are buying apartments to live in themselves because of leasehold. It can also be a nightmare dealing with property management firms and escalating service charges. Most people would much rather have a freehold house (even a terraced house is vastly preferable) and take care of maintenance themselves.
Please UK, if you like so much Spain, copy their architecture to make flats, they have plenty of room, light, breeze and good materials.
There needs to be serious changes, the cost of houses is just insane. I've just bought my first house for £180k. Its only a small terraced house and when I checked the land registry it sold for £65k in 2011.
Good for you mate, what area is it? Sadly that price isn't realistic for most of the country
@@thatgushiekid1662 Yeah I've been very fortunate. I'm up north in Scotland. I know for many other places in the country it's insane. I've chosen a lesser paying job instead of working in the likes of Edinburgh as that's just completely unaffordable.
@@thatgushiekid1662I’ve got my first for a similar price and it’s only because I live in one of the poorest parts of England. If that’s what a cheap place cost I dread to think what average or expensive areas cost people especially first time buyers.
a one bedroom flat I am looking at in my area is 160k :(
@@RedBeanShroomTry 400k for one bed in mine….😂😂😂
I generally don't like labour or a range of policies, but going to war with nimbys to increase housing and reduce house prices has my full and loud support.
Try institutional landlords who own hundreds of family homes for rent for their own passive income
All the Shortages & Price are caused by Government
And with never ending mass immigration, there will be a perpetual housing crisis.
What then when the green belt is concreted over...where next for all the illegals?
@@toyotaprius79two groups can be detestable at the same time.
Nice to have a party in power that actually tackling the source of the issue, the lack of supply, rather then scapegoating.
I live in dorset and the NIMBY problem here is insane. Literally everything from houses to sustainable energy gets protested against.
doesnt dorset have homless and temp acommodation problem? you would think they would welcome more housing for their children
Yep it’s a real struggle. I think the main pushback with housing is because there was no promise of increased infrastructure, just a lump sum given to the council for them to deal with it, and no one trusts the council. I’m all for more houses being built but we also need more schools and gps being built at the same time - because with our current resources, we don’t have the capacity. Schools are oversubscribed and you can’t see a GP.
Wild about the sustainable energy tho, I missed that part haha
..of course it does...
your house is the biggest investment 99% of people.. (especially working people) ever make..
who wouldn't want to protect that...?
They aren't the problem. The landscape and culture is rapidly changing. There are so many commuter towns that completely lack herritage and community.
@@ontheslide2339 thats the problem with the Uk economy. Houses should not be the biggest investment somone makes. It is easily confiscated, not mobile and mostly bought with a liability - mortgage debt causing a net drag for the UK economy. My house isnt my biggest investment. I will have a portfolio that I will pass on to my family, including my house. Housing wealth is all that phoney equity wealth that can be easily evaporated. But lets just watch the yong skilled workers of the UK move to other countries, while the UK takes in unskilled migrants and public services crumble.
We need a mix of housing. Apartments, town houses mixed density stuff, not just endless suburbs.
This. If the 1.5 million houses were built on brownfield sites in rundown buildings, great.
What we don't want is them levelling farmland and woodlands to build more houses. That just destroys the tiny remnants of environment we have left.
@@JoshMathewsofficial this is actually the most important point, people don't just need houses, they need jobs, public transportation, Police, fire departments, shops, groceries, hospitals, doctors, dentists, parks, I could go on.
The truth is that 1.2 million houses would rival Birmingham our second largest city in size.
This, on an island where space is quite limited it makes no sense to build up suburbs.
Nah, British don't like apartaments. The whole country will become a giant city, houses and roads. British will go to Europe on holiday to enjoy nature.
@@marxk4rl I agree but we have got 1.5m imports gross or 700k net and they have to go somewhere.
I think we should just stack up some shipping containers and there you go, they won't like it and then they can piss off unless they genuine asylum seekers.
If you say you've linked something in the description, it's worth making sure you actually do
same here, went looking for it...couldnt find it. what gives?
I second this
Didn’t forget to link their Brilliant referral link
As a student, I'm actively seeing the impacts of the crisis, looking forward to change :)
Where were you in 2017 and 2019?
you are a sheep drone
@@toyotaprius79 Probably not an independent student
@@Yawnymcsnoreare you okay?
All the Shortages & Price are caused by Government
How come it’s all being done on making planning permission easier, when there are loads of places with planning permission where the houses just aren’t getting built?
to help their buddies, the big builders to make more profits through land banks.
This happens because the companies don't believe the government will actually create enough planning permission to lower prices. The moment that they expect prices to go down over time not up they will hurry up and build.
Exactly, this is the way
Paranoia aside. They can't fix it all in one go. It's a step by step process. Give them a few years and then judge. You gave those blundering Tories, how many tries? And those Tories just made it worse.
First you remove any excuse for not building. Then the next step.
Also they set targets, so to meet those councils could include a requirement to actually build.
@@bzuidgeest what happens if those targets are not being met? it is telling.
We haven't built enough houses sonce 1975 when we stopped local authority large scale building.
It is not an accident
We have an excess of almost 2 million dwellings compared to households. We have had roughly this amount of excess since 2001. Though ignoring that fact, a lack of local authority building council homes since the 1970s is certainly very much an issue I agree with you there and it wasn't an accident, but labour failed to fix this "accident" in the past, so I fail to see why they would fix it now.
All this will result in is more land with planning permission, the idea that housing developers are actually going to increase supply to a point where house prices come down is quite frankly deluded. House builders need to be legally bound to deliver the housing within a reasonable time frame after gaining permission or lose the permission. There are already such constraints, but developer can continually renew the permission. There is already planning permission for years worth of house building and developers have increased their average profits by a staggering 1000% in the last few years by restricting building. And finally in order to do this do we actually have the workforce?
One problem at a time. They have been in government for all of what??? You have the Tories decades, you can't expect everything to be fixed that the Tories broke in a few months
@@bzuidgeest Wasn't exactly any better for the Labour decade before that though was it? They started all of this. And No I don't support Tories, they're **** for continuing it.
@@FuzzyRiy If you look at the graphs for house building rates in the UK, you'll notice a sudden drop in the 80s.
You can thank Margaret Thatcher for destroying the budget for government house building and halving the number of houses being built every year since the 80s.
The labour government of the 90s/2000s didn't reverse this, for some reason.
And then after the 2008 financial crash, the conservatives scrapped house building targets all together and decimated our public services 🙃
@@FuzzyRiy No, this problem definitely was nowhere near as dire two decades ago when Labour was last in power. It was on the horizon then, but no one predicted it being anything like this bad.
Land banking only makes sense if developers expect the shortage of planning permission to get worse in the future.
If councils continue to grant planning permission to competing developers, it will instead make sense to build and sell quickly, both because the price is higher before the competition arrives, and because it will give an immediate return on investment.
Countries like singapore and switzerland have fixed additional fees for people buying their second property, third, and so on (scaling up) to deter landlord markets. Surprising no one has proposed the same here.
That seems like a really good idea!
Singapore is also around 80% public housing
Singapore's public housing is not affordable at all... 300 sq ft for 300k SGD in the public sector
@@philoslother4602How much worse would it be with people being able to buy multiple houses themselves?
I think a ban on owning second homes was proposed in the 1970s.
Fingers crossed for changes. More importantly though, fingers crossed for Labour to not be in kahoots with housing holding companies. That would basically be a guarantee of demand subsidies which in turn would raise prices.
Why on earth to you think the current "business friendly" labour people undermined and overthrown Jeremy Corbyn? Wealth tax is a key issue if you plainly see the vast hoarding of properties. Check out Gary's Economics
All the Shortages & Price are caused by Government
well the last labour government didnt doa good job of it. But lets see
There will be none, it will get worst and it is just the tip you see ATM
No one cares, eg the councils, planning team, govern and especially majority landlords who are incompetent and are uneducated in anything except parasitic behaviour
House building is all well and good, and definitely needed, but I think the UK needs a drastic change in attitude towards home ownership in general. Why are landlords allowed to charge their tenants upwards of 50% of their take home income, fail to reinvest it into that property, and instead buy up more properties to do the same thing to? Housing is seen as a money making endeavour and not a human necessity thanks to Thatcher and her policies. I really think we need to limit personal and corporate landlordism to get prices down to allow people to own their own homes and decrease the rental portion of their incomes.
Political suicide, won't happen
If you want private landlords to even exist, it has to be at least somewhat profitable. Why would they bother otherwise? It's a lot of work being a landlord...
Unless the state can provide housing for everyone, which is clearly can't, private landlords are necessary in the UK to provide homes for those to rent that can't afford to buy a home of their own yet.
If you just keep on punishing landlords there will be less and less of them, making rents go up further
Would you prefer instead for there to be zero rentals and it impossible to find a place to rent?
@@revorocks123 There's a huge difference between "at least somewhat profitable" and the sort of rents that are being charged today. Especially because for a lot of landlords it's _not_ a lot of work, and they just let things molder.
@@revorocks123 "If you want private landlords to even exist" Guess what
It's beyond me that many people complain about lack of housing while:
-Being a NIMBY
-Thinking a net migration of 700,000 per year is sustainable for the housing market
-Being fussy about what sort of building they must live in (i.e. must have a garden, must not be a flat, must have an upstairs toilet).
If you own your own home it's ideal. More people means more demand for housing, whilst you play the foux-environmentalist NIMBY card whenever there is an attempt to increase supply. High and rising demand + constrained supply = higher house price.
I know people on middle class salaries (~40k) who make more off their house appreciating than their jobs.
Me, an Indonesian, will be fine with for a 20 years mortgage for a 60 m² with single story and no garden (since it's for garage).
People's mind should changed when they face the worse. I cannot fathom how the other side couldn't.
@@218kq
No, people shouldn't change their mind. They should just stop importing more people. We shouldn't have everything so much worse than our parents because the UK wants cheap labour to bring down the wage.
@@218kqan immigrant telling the native population to be happy to live in a slum so that he can own a property in their country is emblematic of not only how we got into this crisis, but the futility of labour's plans to solve it.
Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me
There's wonder working power in following Kingdom principles on giving and tithing. Hallelujah!
But then, how do you get all that in that period of time? What is it you do please, mind sharing?
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Big thanks to Ms. Susan Jane Christy❤️✨💯May God bless Christy Fiore services,she have changed thousands of lives globally
How can I start this digital market, any guidelines and how can I reach out to her?
The problem is that developers need to be incentivised to build on the land they have permissions for *in a timely fashion* rather the sitting on that land and allowing it to appreciate in value. NIMBYism is also a massive problem. It's why my home town never got a tram system despite nearly 30 years of planning and promises. As someone who is looking to buy a house and start a family in the next few years, I'm not exactly hopeful, though I'd like to be proven wrong.
Hopefully they go hard and set an example. The lack of action across the west on this issue has been criminal.
Prepare yourself for disappointment
England's full.
@@user-yi6ui6pn4inot really
@@toyotaprius79yep
They'll go hard and it won't reduce the housing crisis at all due to the increase in population via immigration.
It will set an example that you can't build your way out of this problem.
Depending where you get your statistics, the UK has at least 250,000 houses literally empty as investment property. Some estimates put that closer to 700,000. There's your problem... Thats more empty houses than homeless people...
250k+ Ghost Houses in the UK, massive overseas property holdings as investments not homes, building firms have huge amounts of land but won't built too fast as to risk reducing prices.
Every country in the world needs a ban on foreign ownership of land. Whether it's housing, agriculture, mining, or any other land use, letting land be owned by people who don't live there just leads to disaster.
Even where the land is owned by a corporation, there needs to be a requirement that the shareholders in that corporation are residents of the country in which that corporation owns land. No paper trail of shell companies and holding companies - landholding corporations need to be held by actual people who actually live in the country in question.
The issue is, to go along with all these new properties, we need schools, GP's, dentists, hospitals and all sorts to support these new communities as well as transport and road infrastructure. Are landlords able to buy and snap them up and rent them out anyway? Are they actually going to go to those who need them, which lets face it at this point, is a majority of the UK!
Good point, the rich that have taken all cash during covid might just buy them and rent it out as soon as inflation comes down.
so true. its not just about building houses.
Who exactly are these houses for? Maybe just don't impirt 1.2 million people a year and we won't need any of this.
@@stickman6217then you'll be wondering why our economy is like Japan with zero growth
@@JZTechEngineering we already have zero growth, GDP per capita growth is negative and I don't know about you but my wage isn't going any further than it used to thanks to the 1.2 million that we imported last year to "boost the economy" despite only issuing 250k work visas, who knows what the other 900k are doing...
As a 17 year old, the fate of my generation lies on Starmers shoulders, lets hope he doesn’t fuck it up
*I had problem comprehending trading in general. I tried watching other CZcams trading channels, but they made the concepts more complicated. I was almost giving up until when i discovered content and explain everything in detail. The videos are easy to follow*
I've been making a lot of looses trying to make profit trading. I thought trading on a demo account is just like trading the real market. Can anyone help me out or at least advise me on what to do?
Trading on a demo account can definitely feel similar to the real market, but there are some differences. It's important to remember that trading involves risks and it's normal to face looses sometimes. One piece of advice is to start small and gradually increase your investments as you gain more experience and confidence. It might also be helpful to seek guidance from experienced traders or do some research on different trading strategies
I will advise you should stop trading on your own if you keep losing.
No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance
From my personal financial advisor
Don’t expect house prices to go down, best we can hope for is they slow down
Inflation adjusted they already have gone down, but rents and mortgages haven't due to interest rates and landlords wanting to make more money
We can try to make prices go down.
It'll hurt those who own them as an asset, but giving home-owners the asset returns they want all the time is unsustainable; ask financiers about it, and they will tell you that you care about the ratio of the price you can sell it for over the price you bought it for. That is to say, what home-owners might want is s growth in price proportional to their buying price, which leads to an exponential growth, which thus is unsustainable.
Home-owners must hurt long-term... in terms of the returns they could gain from seeing their home as an asset. Luckily, homes are also products, so we can tell them they can't complain.
Policy moves away from rewarding the ownership of assets, and towards rewarding the earnings of labour, can help make things better for those who still have to buy a home.... and it is healthy for the economy by tackling economic inequality.
@@nielskorpel8860 100% agree with you. The main problem is that the vast majority of people believe that a house is a good investment, and therefore will prioritise it over savings or the stock market. And people also tend to buy the most expensive house they can "afford" even if they are just scraping by to keep up with payments and have no money to spend on maintenanc. For them the only hope is that they eventually sell their house for a profit, as they were promised by everyone else. So of course these people will refuse to sell for anything except what they believe their house is worth in their minds, even if it's actually falling to pieces and massively overpriced.
Tell us some more about how you don't understand how Economics work.
@@nielskorpel8860 homes aren't a useful asset though. The home you live in stops you having to pay money to a landlord, but they don't generate a return.
They don't increase your usable wealth. They don't produce anything. If every house price dropped, the paper value of people's wealth would reduce, but for most people (not those selling), nothing would really change much, because a house is a house.
People "cash out" when they downsize. Even moving up the ladder you don't really benefit as % growth hurts you more trying to buy something bigger.
Broadly speaking, high house prices benefit almost no one except landlords who have investment houses, and older people who have already got massive gains even if prices drop.
As someone who moved from another European country to the UK I just don't understand why aren't there any buildings, its mostly just tiny houses all together using a bunch of space near the city centres, just build up if you don't want to use green space. With that being said leaseholds would need to be gone too.
"they should turn it into a country full of hideous high-rises and slums, like the country I fled to come to the UK in the first place"
If "another European country"s ideas are so great, why did you come here?
@@PlanetTrendy A city. You're describing a city. If Britain doesn't want to build outwards onto the greenbelt (understandably), then Britain will have to build upwards.
@@PlanetTrendy I moved here to progress my studies and ended up getting a job after that, I would love to be in my home country but the industry I work and specialize at doesn't exist there :) High rises doesn't mean slums, if you can't live in a community that sounds like a you problem honestly.
@@ContasYT I am right wing but the right wing extremism is quickly spiralling out of control. Disappointing that he is actually hating on you coming from Europe. They fail to realise the issue is mass immigration and lack of assimilation that comes along with it.
@@ContasYT please explain to me how living in a high rise where there are multiple language barriers between the tenants is a "community".
No mention of rampant, mass immigration, which has massively driven up demand. Social housing has always been an issue, but that issue is exponentially expanded when that housing stock is given to people not born here.
Same old story everyone wants affordable housing but they don't want new houses in their town...
We could have both of those things if we stopped importing 700,000 people a year.
@PlanetTrendy isnt the immigrant thing been a massive red hearing. Like the brexit scamming everyone with claims of fixing immigration.
Like 90% of the UK Land is owned by the 1% that dont pay taxes
Correct. I don't want supply to increase. I want demand to decrease. Stop importing g 700,000 net immigrants a year and we won't need more houses. Close the borders and the housing crisis goes away.
For development in green and grey sites there should be some sort of sustainable travel quota like there has to be a bus stop and decent bike paths to the local town
They do sometimes with bike paths, problem is hardly anyone uses them because the development on the edge of the green belt is too far away from the city centre. Cycle paths are sometimes used as a cheap substitute for better public transport options.
Japan doesn't have a housing crisis. It's because housing is not treated as a commodity but as a utility and therefore has a depreciating price like a car, this is really good because it ends the housing scam.
We need COUNCIL HOUSES!!!
We need every type of house we can get built.
Video: "This may work, but not immediately"
Sponsor Section: "Be sure to keep an eye on this because it's sure to progress quickly".
Freeing up land is all well and dandy, but apart from the ‘affordable’ properties (which will still be out of reach for many locals wanting to get onto the property ladder), what’s stopping the private developers from slapping on whatever price they want on them? Since buying in 2018, my house now has increased in value by over a third which is absolutely shocking.
A lot of the new houses near me are sitting empty, expensive houses in a shit area. Who is gonna pay 400k to live somewhere rough with zero local services, it's literally better for them to just wait until they eventually sell over dropping the price
The point is that if enough housing is actually built, prices will naturally come down because there won't be the shortage that's the cause of all those high prices in the first place. Policies designed to stop 'greedy developers' from profiting too much usually just make housing more expensive by depressing overall supply
The video talked about mandating a certain percentage of affordable dwellings in new developments. That'll do it.
@@666lumberjack, of course, but many politicians and prominent figureheads are just crying crocodile tears to the general public because they’ve got skin in the game as owners/landlords themselves; property owners don’t want house prices to come down and neither do the shareholders of private developers. If prices come down, they don’t make as much profit from selling or renting.
@@666lumberjack The demand is always going to outweigh supply. Only have to look at London, it went from 6 million people to 9 million in less than 40 years... Population is shooting up but the tax revenue to support it isn't
Not a fan of Labour on a plethora of issues. If they manage to defeat the NIMBYs on housing and infrastructure and get the country building, they’ll likely have my support for a decade.
In Stratford, east London, there are three empty tower blocks which have been in that state for quite a few years now. Meanwhile, more questionable quality new towering infernals are constantly going up all over the country.
There needs to be a cap on how many homes one individual owns too. The fact there are huge numbers of wealthy people sitting on huge numbers of housing stock is the issue. Because they buy up the low cost housing that first time buyers would want and drive up demand
they'd likely just use family members as a way to get around that and own more properties
@@lewislaws6770they'd need a pretty big family to buy up the hundreds or thousands of homes some currently own.
We have one of the lowest levels of second home ownership in Western Europe
@@cpkingadam5 we have one of the lowest rates of home ownership in Europe. This plus your data tells me that we have a problem with a small number of landlords owning large numbers of homes.
@@alexjeffrey3981 Then we need to build, build, build. We must make like the French and have a prosperous middle class that owns an apartment in the city and a country house elsewhere.
There was that foil arms and hog skit where they were in line to buy new houses. The guy in front said he liked all of them. When they open, he buys all of them and puts up a rental sign.
Even if Labour build the 1.5 million, how many more would they have to build to keep up with population increases? Population growth like this isn’t sustainable unless if we wish to ruin British countryside and put further strain on infrastructure.
We will most definitely have to ruin bits of the countryside to get anything done here.
That's the harsh truth. People want to keep the green belt at all costs without realising that this is what the Tories did and people aren't still happy.
We have an excess of almost 2 million dwellings compared to households, we could go quite a few years with no building nationally and not have a problem even with an increased population growth than we actually have. We have had roughly this amount of excess since 2001. Sure, we will eventually run out so the 1.5 mill will help in the long run. But the amount of housing and the population growth are not what is unsustainable.
You don't need increased building in urban areas, as remote working is the new norm. Their proposals make an incredible amount of sense.
Remote working is not the ‘new norm’. It’s increased more since 2020, granted, but it’s certainly not something most companies want as it stifles productivity
@@hughesy606 according to the ONS, people with a degree level job or higher are 67% working hybrid or fully remote. In my industry it's certainly the new norm. But I understand how in others it physically can't be the new norm.
I hope these reforms work, as I think we do need plenty more houses to match current demand (which has increased dramatically in recent years). Having said that, a discussion of housing supply without a parallel discussion of housing demand driven by positive net migration seems daft. The two issues are intertwined, and need to be managed in concert.
Vote Reform. They are the ONLY ones willing to actually do anything about the problem.
You forgot to mention the impact that immigration has had on house prices. The reason that we need to build more houses is because the population is increasing. The reason the population is increasing is mainly because of immigration.
TLDR loves to ignore the elephant in the room.
That won't actually solve the problem because without immigration there would bee a labour shortage which would then increase prices for British goods which would squeeze homeowners and renters
@@JZTechEngineering Would it though? Even if there was a labour shortange, by what mechanism would that affect house prices?
@@Azmarith you have to pay people more to do that labour and paying people more increases the amount of money chasing a good and that good will go up in price
@@JZTechEngineering Yes, if there's a large labour pool, then employers can get away with paying their employees less. However, as the population increases so does the demand of goods and services because there are more people needing them.
I had a new project come across my desk today 135 new homes guess how many are 2 bed starter homes. 12, Yes 12, out of 135. The remainder are large semi detached and detached 3,4, and 5 bed properties. Until quotas for evening out the housing stock in new build developments theres still going to be a major shortage at the bottom end. The only people who can afford these larger houses are those already with houses and the ones theyre selling are far out of the price range of first time buyers and instead are bought as investment properties by private landlords so wealth doesnt progress down the chain and the ladder is just pulled further up.
370,000 houses a year wouldn't even cover the legal and illegal immigrants coming into this country every year. Don't get your hope up folks.
Okay so that's how they are going to tackle the supply any chance they want to deal with the demand as well?
Sshhhh you can t say that or they'll call you 'far right'
What are the best strategies to protect my portfolio? I've heard that a downturn will devastate the financial market, so I'm concerned about my $200k stock portfolio.
There are strategies that could be put in place for solid gains regardless of economy situation, but such execution is usually carried out by an investment specialist
I've been in touch with a financial analyst ever since I started investing. Knowing today's culture The challenge is knowing when to purchase or sell when investing in trending stocks, which is pretty simple. On my portfolio, which has grown over $900k in a little over a year, my adviser chooses entry and exit orders
Mind if I ask you to recommend this particular coach you using their service? Seems you've figured it all out.
ANGELA LYNN SCHILLING' is her name. She is regarded as a genius in her area and works for Empower Financial Services. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thank you for this tip. It was easy to find your coach. Did my due diligence on her before scheduling a phone call with her. She seems proficient considering her resume.
Unless I'm missing something, you haven't linked the document? Mentioned that you did at 3:43
Seeing austerity unsurprisingly result in an increase in rough sleeping with people often in shop doorways and it barely get a mention during the election was insane.
UK doesn't actually have *that* high rates of rough sleeping, it's general homelessness that is do disastrously worse than anywhere else
Sofa surfing, temporary accomodation, cramped living
Worst in the developed world
@@samd7718 It has visibly worsened over the last decade and a half, I know it's not the same everywhere but people in doorways is something I pass fairly often where I live.
What austerity?
We have the highest spending in years.
@@SaintGerbilUK What came before that?
@@samd7718 the level of rough sleepers has more than doubled since 2010, sure it was only ~4000 in 2023 in comparison to the ~227000 households that were homeless in 2021 it does look small. That doesn't make it any less of an issue.
you haven't linked the policy in the description?
Build a lot more houses and put restrictions on second home ownership, possibly something like doubling council tax on each subsequent house owned.
As someone who's family benefitted from the Right to Buy scheme, it's a shame as it did provide social mobility, but I understand why council housing can't be kept being taken out of circulation without any way but building new homes to replenish them.
Shouldn’t there also be fewer and fewer people who need council housing?
@@peterfireflylund not necessarily, there will always be poor people, the only exception would be somewhere with a dwindling population and massive national wealth (saudi arabia for example)
@@peterfireflylundnot when we import 700,000 a year, no.
300k homes per year! Yet one million immigrants. The crisis will not be solved.
Where did you got that mumber? Also did you count the people who left UK and the people who died? That should be in your equation as well.
@@jenniferjuliana10 for the last 3 years it has been 500k, now with a (more) leftist government you will see a million, mark my words. And yes that is accounting for all factors.
They should also be limiting the amount of residential homes companies that aren't housing associations cab buy. Individuals too. And forcing any rental property to be rented out within 3 months or sold to the local council within 6 months.
We broadly have housing. We need rental controls, we need social housing, and we need people and companies to stop hoarding housing stock.
700,000+ legal arrivals
Pushing towards 100,000 'irregular'.
Not a chance anything gets better without dressing that.
The population is only growing at 3% per year. The problem is landlords scalping people and investors sitting on land.
@@alexjeffrey39811 part of the issue, not all.
Low skilled dependants arriving
Hi skilled natives leaving
There is your "3%"
Stop blaming immigrants
@@alexjeffrey3981 In the past 11 years we have had more number of immigrants come into the country than in the past 900 years. Let that sink in.
@@jasonhaven7170 Stop ignoring the problem. A house needs to be built every 2 minutes to keep up with the uncontrolled numbers, it needs to be put back in control and streamlined. of course prices are going to be out of the fucking roof. but you all turn a blind eye to it because you have fallen for the fear of being called racist. It's a joke at this point.
It isnt a lack of housing , its to many people . Also people are in the incorrect rented houseing. Why is a single older person still in a three bed council house? Once your needs change the housing should change.
You could also stop importing a million people per year.
its equivalates with the amount of people dying to be fair
Nah mate, we won't be having that.
You want affordable housing?
Just post something silly online and you can be looking at years of free housing in jail!
Economist here who published an investigative analysis of this a few days ago. None of what is in this video matters as labour have identified that "wider investors" are to fund the 'new town programme' outlined by Sir Michael Lyons. Private investors utilise their marginal efficency of capital, which can't be fully utilised due to the current high nominal rate set by the BoE. Couple that with key economic variables existing at levels that won't allow for Labour to run fiscal expansion any time soon means incresd taxation and the rescindment of previous transfer payment schemes will be used to fund this extremely ambitious but needed project.
Home builders profit maximise and couldn't care less about social housing as they are considered partial public goods. If wider investors can't invest and government can't utilise fiscal expansion, who pays the home builders to build these homes??
Putting a stop to the right to buy scheme like Scotland and Wales did some years back is also a must to allow stock levels time to replenish.
Watch the 'new towns programme' become Labour governments equivalent of HS2.
Dear god, the government is going to build more houses to fix the housing shortage. how could anyone be able to come up with such a brilliant and smart idea.
Clearly the Tories couldn't manage it in 14 years, so we should probably take what we can get...
This makes on sense. UK net migration is 685 thousand annully. Whats building 300 thousand houses annually going to do.
They should repeal the town and country planning act but I doubt it'll happen.
Short answer: No, that de-incentivizes their voter base from being angry and stupid enough to actually vote *for* labour and not just against the Conservatives.
The problem is that are too many people but there are enough houses and many houses are just too expensive for most people to be able to afford.
There's too many owners who own too many multiple properties (from scores to thousands) for passive income
All the Shortages & Price are caused by Government
There are more than enough houses, they just owned by fewer people. They should ban owning several homes imo, especially if you don't like in the UK.
This isnt true, the UK has one of the lowest vacancy housing rates in all of europe, and the only way to reduce the price is to build more
What are you implying, that we reduce the population? 😳😳🤔
It wouldn't solve the housing crisis, but should we not try to fill empty homes before building on more green belt land? No one needs a holiday home on Cornwall, and there is a bit of a need to regulate landlords more too. You can also go to more deprived areas and see boarded up houses that have been condemned or just left empty by the owner. I walked passed a house on my way to school and it was empty the full 7 years that I did. In fact, only recently have I seen that it's been siezed by the council (a notice appeared on the door), and that was some years after I left school. It had been left empty for so long by that point they practically had to rebuild the place, and still are today. But seriously, how long does a property have to be sitting empty and crumbling before someone steps in?
We don’t need more houses we need less people.
Elephant in room is immigration
Incentivise students to follow a career in construction. Reduce the cost of materials. Ban buy to let mortgages.
When I was a kid I dreamed of owning a nice house. As an adult, I dream of owning a nice live-in vehicle.
At least you have a dream , mine faded as the decades rolled on and every rent day or section 13 form proposing a new rent
I know many feel that immigration isn't a problem, but if the UK has a net migration figure of, say, 500,000 individuals every year, where do they all go to live? And how large is the current backlog of migrants looking for accommodation? Surely, this cannot help the situation?
We have an excess of almost 2 million dwellings compared to households, we could go quite a few years with no building nationally and not have a problem even with an increased immigration than we actually have. We have had roughly this amount of excess since 2001. Sure, we will eventually run out so the 1.5 mill will help in the long run. But the amount of housing and the immigration are not what is the issue with this situation.
@@uBlurEdits Lies.
Which is why its crucial to start building more and more.
@@TheJtorres182 not saying we halt all building (like I said if we did it would eventually become an issue) just that this promise of 1.5 million homes won't solve the current issues
Over the last 4-5 years, we've averaged around 650,000 deaths in the UK per year, in 2023 alone, 532,000 people emigrated from the UK, Our population figure actually dropped 0.1% in 2022. Immigration isn't the biggest issue, not by a mile, aging population and being a crap place to live are bigger issues, brain drain is clearly an issue, the UK needs to convince people it is a good place to live to stop people leaving, then immigration will become a bigger issue.
At the moment, we're essentially swapping a well educated work force, with a less educated work force. Years of NIMBYism and a government that actively disliked young people has pretty much destroyed all hope young people have. Why bother sticking around if you're just treated like the dirt underneath a shoe.
The highest priority unfortunately is to slow down the pace of population growth - i.e cut immigration. We need schools, hospitals, power plants, water, etc to support the new housing and chasing supply to satisfy frankly unsustainable demand will never bring a resolution to the crisis.
Lowering immigration levels isn't enough. Growing deportation levels is what conversation should be had.
Housing shortage in the UK has been driven primarily by lingering underconstruction and nimbysm. On top of that, immigration has worsened this intractable issue.
Try focusing on the disproportionate wealth inequality, the growth in landlords with scores to thousands of rented houses on their portfolio who are not fairly taxed before you start blaming the poor.
Try GarysEconomics for size.
I never understood why anyone would ever care about that patch of barren green grass not being filled with houses. UK is a massive suburb anyways...
Because conservation of nature is important?
@@RextheRebel Well then, how important to you to conserve a field of nothing given its unused over building a neighborhood. Tories also tried to 'preserve' nature, look at HS2 and what happened from it. Budget bloated from 50 to 150 billion and consequently cancelled. Now modern infrastructure is unaffordable, but hey, we've conserved few bushes here and there.
One thing to note is all the farmland that sits in the greenbelt. Agriculture isnt environmentally friendly, it just looks green. Obviously we need more agricultural land as well to reduce reliance on other countries so there is that to factor in too.
There should be no building on farmland or greenbelt at all.
@@stickman6217 where should the building be then? Even if all brownfield land was available for housing it would not fix the issue
Agriculture is more environmentally friendly than concreting over it and building houses.
@@jackbrownio3
Housing can be solved easily in two ways;
1-Stop mass migration of unskilled labour.
2-Stop landlords from owning more than 3 buildings.
Forcing people to sell their stock will lower demand and increase supply.
Stopping migration will reduce demand enormously and increase wages.
@@jackbrownio3 nowhere, we have more than enough homes to house the native population British, it was about 45 million in 1990 and it's barely gone up since, it's not the British we're building the houses for....
Nope. Short answer. Simply setting targets, doesn't build houses. Furthermore it doesn't make them affordable. The government's definition of affordable is a joke as well. 20% below market price. Houses have risen by nearly 10% per year over the last decade. Developers simply bank the land and sell it in a few years as well.
At least they’ll try, the Tories did nothing but pander to rich NIMBYS.
Tbh, it was Labour back in the 1950s and 1960s that gave legal power to the NIMBYS in the first place.
Thatcher reduced some of their power but not 100%
Hoping to see that Labour would eliminate their (the NIMBYS) power
You're forgetting the "professional" landlords with scores to thousands of rental homes on their portfolio?
Get over yourself with the NIMBY redditor buzzwords
All the Shortages & Price are caused by Government
@@toyotaprius79 Nimby's are still worse because not only do they oppose housing but also other projects while at least the landlords still put the houses for rent.
@@user-ge5ce2rr6pso in 70 years the Tories never had an ability to do anything to fix the issue?
Or never really tried...
Let's blame Labour from generations ago for everything!
Chief Chav Rayner is left with the housing brief, her workers charter was taken from her and given to Jonathan Reynolds and this matters because we do not have enough tradespeople nor the infrastructure to support the target to build 1.5 million new homes in five years. She keeps rabbiting on about affordable housing which is a noble idea however no one has yet come up with a figure of what is ' affordable ' . Yorkshire and the Humber and Teeside offer cheaper homes than the London or Midlands areas.
When this plan fails miserably Starmer has his ready made scapegoat- Rayner. She and Starmer are poles apart politically and as was said recently she is being set up.
not a shortage of housing, just an oversupply of people.
Yeah. England is the most densely populated country in Europe, and we are strained of everything, but let in like 700k more each year 🤦♂️
Definitely need to address the skills shortage in building homes - no amounts of fast off-site manufacturing can compensate for the workers available vs workers needed gap that exists right now
Who knew almost a million people arriving per year from abroad would make housing less available? Make them leave, and the housing shortage goes away.
That's not how it works
Gary's Economics
@user-up5ss5tz5x it's the Nazi's solution
@@user-up5ss5tz5x thats how it works
If we didnt have 1 million+ net legal migration and several hundred thousand illegal migration per year we wouldnt be in such a housing crisis
The problem is if and when these houses are built, will they be for migrants or British people that have been on a housing waiting list for years.
They certainly won't be for migrants, maybe refugees, unless they pay for them. Migrants are expected in the uk, as they should, to have accomodation costs in mind when coming over - they have little to no access to UK benefits, and, according to my friend who migrated here as a child, have to go through far more red tape just to get things like driver's licenses and other certifications.
@@NedInYaHead what about the boat people they will need accommodation,no sign of them being deported.
@@davidsivills3599 Labour has said they're scrapping the Rwanda scheme, and making deportation cheaper is a step to making the process easier.
No one is encouraging illegal immigration, but migration is one of those things that will happen regardless of whether it's legal or not, so the best way of dealing with it is to figure out how to mitigate the impact and set hard boundaries where they matter.
@@NedInYaHead Rubbish, we will never have hard borders.
@@davidsivills3599 I never said hard borders, I meant hard but reasonable legal boundaries. Think about it like this: you have graffiti artists tagging all over local businesses and public property, so widespread it would be impractical to deal with all incidences individually. many would keep doing it even in the face of high prison sentences. Do you:
A) spend thousands to buff over the pieces, leaving a blank canvas that'll be covered anew in the next week, or
B) legislate specific publicly owned walls where it is legal, accommodating the reasonable members who will listen to authority, while cracking down on the few left disobeying these laws.
But all that's beside the point. Illegal immigrants are criminals, and Kier Starmer has the cabinet members and qualifications to deal with criminals effectively. I'm sure he can come up with a better solution than I just mentioned, it just might not be the simplified, populist answers you're used to hearing from other parties.
You know what might help? Giving British homes to people who are actually from Britain.
It’s nice seeing actual plans happening. Not distracted every other week by a scandal and inquiry into the party as has been the last decade.
The answers are to drastically reduce discretionary power of local authorities to block housing, create a national lending bank whose sole remit is to back construction loans. State housing and private housing is needed. Local land use restrictions are literally killing people in the Anglo world.
Answer: No
It's not the housing shortage. Bulgaria is full of real estate, more towering blocks of flats are constantly being built all over. The only city that has positive population growth is the capital. Yet the prices have gone up more than 20-30%. It's hoarding properties that is the problem. If a law was passed that allowed only one apartment ownership per person, we'd have a housing crisis consisting of too much real estate, too little buyers.
3:43 no you haven't?
"Can't you build them somewhere WLESE" C'mon TLDR 🤦♂ 😂
Wonder why Labour only wants to address the supply side, and not the artificial demand 🤔
In what way is the housing demand artificial.
@@dkoda840 Our fertility rate is below replacement levels, so why is the demand increasing? Our population naturally should be decreasing.
@@Brothyyes but immigration means that the population is still increasing and demand is therefore naturally increasing
@@darthtenebrous9423 I would call that artificial rather than natural as it's something that's purposely decided by government policy
I have to say that the USA is also having a housing crisis. The monthly rent for an apartment is crazy and "The American Dream" of owning a house is out of reach. I do think that even when new housing is built, the prices will still be out of reach for most people. Renovating or building houses and apartments is an expensive endeavor, and "affordable housing " is no longer available. I wish everyone good luck in their search for housing. 🍀🍀
The real problem is there are too many people. There are too many people because of unsustainable levels of immigration. Unless immigration is fixed, and even reversed, there will always be a housing shortage.
The reason why that "solution" wasn't mentioned is that our government are not trying to switch a housing crisis for a shortage of labour crisis. Our current birthrate cannot sustain our population and it is aging.
Im an accountant and property developer and looked into this. I do think there should be a massive supply for people to get on the ladder but I its not as simple as just building houses. To incentivise developers, better infrastructures need to be built first, i.e. you cannot build new flats in the middle of nowhere.
Specifically in London's case, Labour need to expand London's borders to within the M25 ONLY, then start building more on greenbelt lands (as we have millions of acres of these, but still keep massive chunks of it- for environmental reasons). Then the most important thing is building more TFL train stations and train lines like the Elizabeth line. In order to be encourage a more zero emissions city we need to encourage more electric train journeys thus, we need to introduce another 5 Elizabeth line type infrastructures. Then introduce mass property construction across the city- around 800,000 houses/flats to be built in London alone per year.
This will create affordable housing, 15 minute cities, zero emissions and a grow the economy to create more jobs and invetsment.
Its nice to address the offer of house but they should address the demand too. The high migration will impact the housing prices due to the increased demand.
More worker in the market will also put a downward pressure on salary too with the same offer and demand mecanism.
Theres a housing shortage everywhere. The lack of housing isnt the primary issue. Its that housing has turned into an investment vehicle and its sent the price of housing through the roof.
Building more housing doesnt magically fix it. It might lower rents a bit as the stock there increases more. But house prices will continue to bubble.
Countries globally, and especially western countries. Need to seperate housing from investment.
1. Tax breaks for buying first home
2. Tax increases for any home over 1
3. Ban foreign home ownership for buy to rent. You buy a house, you live in it. Its not am investment or place to hide your cash.
4. Ban corporate home ownership, (companies/large landlords cant buy up houses to rent them back to would be owners who've been priced out)
5. Restrict airbnb, and the like. (Its statistically a miniscule part of the problem though, and impacts renters more then house prices)
6. Remove tax breaks for landlords (looking at you Australia)
/
They’ll never ever be able to do it! 25 years in construction tells me this, too many people coming in
This is the problem they will never address😂 300k houses annually but there’s 750k coming in💀
Gary's Economics
@@ulysseskruger6095 Gary's Economics
@@ulysseskruger6095lots of bunk beds 🛌 in every room 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@@ulysseskruger6095 how many brits die every year? Is it still a surplus or not, im not brittish so I have no idea
The problem is that housing prices aren't truly determined by supply. They are determined by the value of a location - increasing supply primarily serves to induce additional demand. In particular, prices are set based on the expectation of future rent. There is a point where you hit diminishing returns and prices fall, but London will essentially absorb the rest of the country before you really start to hit it.
Good news, but I do have a query that I hope someone can answer: will this 350,000 homes a year target actually relieve the crisis if the government is allowing double that number of people to legally enter the country? I’m not a believer that the level of migration we have has caused all our issues, but I do believe it massively exacerbates existing ones, and of all of them surely the housing situation would be the most affected by such large numbers of people moving to the UK.
As much as some want to bitch about immigration numbers, without it there would be a population decline, which would be equally bad if not worse with the existing policies. You may fix the housing crisis short term, but you'd mess the job market, pension system , and the economy as a whole, just for starters.
@RyanTheHero3 They cannot even reach the current housing building targets, so rising the targets themselves does nothing, except maybe stretch the resources even thinner. People are happy there are "plans" in place, but a plan that is completely disconnected from reality is actually a fantasy.
@@bogdanconstantin5911incorrect.
Feed the correct ideology/economic climate you get babies.
Importing mass amounts of unskilled DEPENDENT people can not and will never be good for the economy. Especially when there are a certain group who are fundamentally opposed to British values/culture. This simply cannot be denied now the cat's out the bag.
You have been lied to when they say "immigration is good"
It is not.
30-40k per year = OK
750k net per year = an absolute disaster which you can already see by the way, nobody and I mean NOBODY is sat there saying "yeh the uk is doing great since mass immigration"
Stop parroting nonsense
Aren’t a lot of the, students who have temporary accommodation at university’s plus existing family who move in with relatives
@@StrikeBolteafc Student immigration jumped 200% for non-EU (100k to 300k), esp. after cutting student loan financing for EU citizens. Numbers are going down as rich East Asians are increasingly using US and other western countries due to more attractive visa programs.
Non-EU work visas (mostly African & South Asian) also jumped from 50k to 200k a year because there's a need to replace europeans preferring to move back to their countries after Brexit.
Immigration is easier to measure because you just count people moving in and getting visas but I could just get a one way flight out and still count as a resident for a while.
We need smart modern apartment buildings well-connected to public transport; not sprawling nowhere-land housing estates that necessitate car ownership.
More houses also means more for landlords to buy up, increasing house prices.
Its tragic that people with such a basic misunderstanding of logic have the right to vote
Increased supply does not lead to increased cost. But I do agree that there needs to be a limit on how many houses can be owned by landlords.
Average cost to buy a house in the U.K. is £285,000 the average salary of the general worker is £18,000 making housing 15.8 times the average salary
Why does nobody talk about the demand of housing? Reduce the amount of people coming in, and watch house prices drop.
GarysEconomics will tell you
@@toyotaprius79 I watch Gary. I’m really interested in hearing his reasoning genuinely. Do you have the name of the video where he talks about it?
That's not how it works
Because that would be identifying the problem in order to fix it. Labour aren't interested
@@DalazG it isn't the problem
I'm jealous that the UK is even talking about this. In the US it has been completely left to the states, Congress is ignoring the issue.
Look, it's not that immigration is the only reason behind the housing crisis, but ignoring it as a factor entirely is a clear sign of a lack of objectivity.
You worded this perfectly 👏
You sound like a Russian bot