B458 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,732
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)The figures for council housing seem, if this isn't a little sacreligious to say, more than a little far fetched considering current building levels amount to barely 3,000 per annum (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-2012-compared ). To increase council house building from 3,000 across the entire country to 90,000 per annum you're going to need to reverse decades of trends. I just don't see that this bill has enough oompf to do that. Sorry.
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,844
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)You'll need an 'Appropriation of Abandoned Political Parties Bill' soon, the way you keep hopping about.(Original post by JPKC)
Aye! -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,116
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)No. The Right to Buy scheme is a great scheme that gets council tenants on that first rung of the housing ladder. It should not be repealed. Could I ask why you're repealing the act when the main argument that it reduces the amount of social housing available is effectively negated by part 4? Also, how are you funding this lavish state expenditure? Where is the pot of money for this? You've got the removal of stamp duty and other taxes on the sales; the funds needs for the acquisition of the housing and the building of new housing, but no real income to fund all this. Do the Socialists and Labour intend to just borrow more money or are they proposing cuts anywhere to fund this?
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,732
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)I always made the argument that it should be suspended so that at least we can catch up and start providing for people who cannot be housed currently. The backlog of people waiting for social housing is, you have to admit, quite remarkable and it has grown substantially since the introduction of the right to buy scheme in the 1980s.(Original post by toronto353)
No. The Right to Buy scheme is a great scheme that gets council tenants on that first rung of the housing ladder. It should not be repealed. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,116
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)It wouldn't need to be suspended really with part 4 because part 4 encourages the building of new houses and that doesn't have to be too lengthy a process. The two don't seem to go together.(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I always made the argument that it should be suspended so that at least we can catch up and start providing for people who cannot be housed currently. The backlog of people waiting for social housing is, you have to admit, quite remarkable and it has grown substantially since the introduction of the right to buy scheme in the 1980s. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,732
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)I know, but I was talking over the bill - it's still a bit messy for my liking as I've said in the post above about the increase of 87,000 new homes being built per annum that this bill demands - to the larger issues. I cannot stand the right to buy, I think it's been a terrible decision that has had a detrimental impact on social housing in this country. However, I'm pragmatic enough to recognise that we cannot simply just get rid of it without having an impact on people who quite like it, so I've come around to the idea of merely suspending it to allow for a catch up in terms of social housing. When we reach a point where we have enough stock again, by all means reinstitute the right to buy. I'm sure I wrote a bill to that effect years ago.(Original post by toronto353)
It wouldn't need to be suspended really with part 4 because part 4 encourages the building of new houses and that doesn't have to be too lengthy a process. The two don't seem to go together. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,116
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)The problem with building more social housing is where do you put it? People don't exactly want new housing estates on their doorstep. I think that the suspension of the right to buy scheme is something that should be looked at, but the problems are the one stated, but also how long do you wait? What if, due to cuts etc, the level don't really catch up for many, many years? You're blocking people from the housing ladder and surely that isn't fair either just as the low levels of social housing aren't particularly great? I also don't get how stopping them from buying the house actually helps anyway. If they rent the house, they're taking it off the social housing market. If they buy it, then they are. Surely that means that it doesn't particularly matter either way what happens? We need more housing yes, but stopping the right to buy scheme surely won't have a great effect given what I've stated?(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
I know, but I was talking over the bill - it's still a bit messy for my liking as I've said in the post above about the increase of 87,000 new homes being built per annum that this bill demands - to the larger issues. I cannot stand the right to buy, I think it's been a terrible decision that has had a detrimental impact on social housing in this country. However, I'm pragmatic enough to recognise that we cannot simply just get rid of it without having an impact on people who quite like it, so I've come around to the idea of merely suspending it to allow for a catch up in terms of social housing. When we reach a point where we have enough stock again, by all means reinstitute the right to buy. I'm sure I wrote a bill to that effect years ago. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,732
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Well the housing ladder is all a bit of an aspirational non-story. My great-grandmother never owned a house in her entire life. Never affected her. My grandmother didn't own a house until she was in her 40s. My dad will own one house in his life. Same with me, really. No such thing as a ladder for me and hundreds of thousands of families like mine. If not millions. Focusing on the housing ladder just serves to justify inaction. I'm sorry if I don't really want to see us carrying on like that.(Original post by toronto353)
The problem with building more social housing is where do you put it? People don't exactly want new housing estates on their doorstep. I think that the suspension of the right to buy scheme is something that should be looked at, but the problems are the one stated, but also how long do you wait? What if, due to cuts etc, the level don't really catch up for many, many years? You're blocking people from the housing ladder and surely that isn't fair either just as the low levels of social housing aren't particularly great? I also don't get how stopping them from buying the house actually helps anyway. If they rent the house, they're taking it off the social housing market. If they buy it, then they are. Surely that means that it doesn't particularly matter either way what happens? We need more housing yes, but stopping the right to buy scheme surely won't have a great effect given what I've stated? -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,116
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)For many there isn't and I apologise for using a commonly accepted metaphor for housing, but the fact remains that renting or buying it makes no difference with regards to social housing and the right to buy scheme. In my opinion, there is no need to stop it, but more of a need to buy more housing. It is the increase in population which is taking social housing off the market and not so much the right to buy scheme. For many the right to buy scheme is more about owning your own home and having that security. Suspending the scheme won't suddenly solve those problems though.(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Well the housing ladder is all a bit of an aspirational non-story. My great-grandmother never owned a house in her entire life. Never affected her. My grandmother didn't own a house until she was in her 40s. My dad will own one house in his life. Same with me, really. No such thing as a ladder for me and hundreds of thousands of families like mine. If not millions. Focusing on the housing ladder just serves to justify inaction. I'm sorry if I don't really want to see us carrying on like that. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 641
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)I can do the costing for the new council houses scheme. We will assume that a new council house takes £70,000 to build on average; this is a reasonable figure when we look at some previous projects. For example, Falkirk council say that their average council house is worth £60,000; we can assume the national average will be higher. Of course, there are exceptions such as the Perth council houses (significantly more expensive), but these are just that: exceptions. With economies of scale to add as well, the £70,000 should be reliable.(Original post by toronto353)
QFA
That would mean that for the first years the cost would be £6.3 billion a year, to a grand total of £72.1 billion by 2027. Of course, that is a large cost. However, consider the benefits:
1) Social benefits by making up housing shortages; it is estimated that we will need almost a million new council houses by the end of that period to keep up with demand
2) We can get money through rents from the houses; we currently make £1.5 billion a year from council houses. Even though the rents are essentially subsidized, we still make money out of them. The Daily Mail puts the average council house rent at just over £70 a week, or some £3500 a year. I don’t really trust the Daily Mail, so I would go for a much lower estimate: lets say £2000 a year. In that case, the extra one million council houses would bring in £2 billion a year
3) According to one report building a million council houses will save us £21.5 billion a year through reducing indirect costs of homelessness and by reducing housing benefit. In theory, if we start in 2027 that means that after just 4 years, we will have regained the entire cost of building the houses. Now of course, housing benefit is different in TSR and the figures will be different. Lets assume then that the TSR figure is £15 billion a year (roughly 30% reduction from the RL one); in that case the Bill would still pay for itself within 5 years just on that
4) Wider benefits to the economy from increasing spending during a period of weakness
So lets do a quick estimate of 2050, using the £15 billion figure for part 3 and the £2 billion one for part 2. We will have spent a total of £72.1 billion on houses. The extra rent will have bought us in over £50 billion during that period. The reduced costs in part 3, starting in 2027, will have saved us £345 billion a year. Quite a nice profit overallLast edited by stanlas; 31-05-2012 at 00:20. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,086
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)No no no no no no. If people are paying for the cost of holding the land through the land tax, then I see no reason that we should be grabbing it off them just because they aren't currently using it.
-
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- Wiki Support Team
- Secretary General of the Model UN
- Location: Leicester
- Posts: 5,183
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)I agree with this in principle, especially the commitment to build more social housing for our depleted national stock.
My one concern lies with defining 'abandoned' and the length of time a property has to be unused before it is compulsorily purchased. If a developer is working on a building for a long period of time, but the building is perceived to be abandoned (for example), it is vital local authorities consider all evidence before deciding the property has been long-abandoned. This is mainly to give property owners a generous window in which to use/renovate their property before it is deemed abandoned. -
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,116
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Thank you for your costings. Since you've shown that you can do them, then you can do them for the training Bill, but I digress. The problem economically is that we're going to have to take out a rather large loan to cover all this aren't we? How is that feasible? We need to decrease spending not massively increase it. However, could you point out for me exactly where we might build 1 million homes? I'd be rather interested to find this out especially given that many people don't want estates build right next to where they live. Could you also explain to me how many houses you expect to repossess? You see I find this bit particularly political and not at all for the benefit of the state. Let me explain, if your scheme in section 1 were successful, then surely you wouldn't need to actually build so many houses? However, you clearly do. What this suggests to me is that actually there is no need for part 1 and that the authors of this Bill are playing politics against people who can afford more than one house, do you agree with this summary? If not, then could you please explain why you're enacting part 1 when clearly part 4 should cover the shortfall in social housing?(Original post by stanlas)
I can do the costing for the new council houses scheme. We will assume that a new council house takes £70,000 to build on average; this is a reasonable figure when we look at some previous projects. For example, Falkirk council say that their average council house is worth £60,000; we can assume the national average will be higher. Of course, there are exceptions such as the Perth council houses (significantly more expensive), but these are just that: exceptions. With economies of scale to add as well, the £70,000 should be reliable.
That would mean that for the first years the cost would be £6.3 billion a year, to a grand total of £72.1 billion by 2027. Of course, that is a large cost. However, consider the benefits:
1) Social benefits by making up housing shortages; it is estimated that we will need almost a million new council houses by the end of that period to keep up with demand
2) We can get money through rents from the houses; we currently make £1.5 billion a year from council houses. Even though the rents are essentially subsidized, we still make money out of them. The Daily Mail puts the average council house rent at just over £70 a week, or some £3500 a year. I don’t really trust the Daily Mail, so I would go for a much lower estimate: lets say £2000 a year. In that case, the extra one million council houses would bring in £2 billion a year
3) According to one report building a million council houses will save us £21.5 billion a year through reducing indirect costs of homelessness and by reducing housing benefit. In theory, if we start in 2027 that means that after just 4 years, we will have regained the entire cost of building the houses. Now of course, housing benefit is different in TSR and the figures will be different. Lets assume then that the TSR figure is £15 billion a year (roughly 30% reduction from the RL one); in that case the Bill would still pay for itself within 5 years just on that
4) Wider benefits to the economy from increasing spending during a period of weakness
So lets do a quick estimate of 2050, using the £15 billion figure for part 3 and the £2 billion one for part 2. We will have spent a total of £72.1 billion on houses. The extra rent will have bought us in over £50 billion during that period. The reduced costs in part 3, starting in 2027, will have saved us £345 billion a year. Quite a nice profit overall -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 641
Re: B444 - Appropriation of Abandoned Housing Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Don't panic, the second reading has been costed at just over a billion pounds.(Original post by toronto353)
Thank you for your costings. Since you've shown that you can do them, then you can do them for the training Bill, but I digress.
UK bonds yields in RL are currently very low, at under 2%; we can assume that TSR ones will be at the same level (or perhaps even lower). We have room for manouvere.(Original post by toronto353)
The problem economically is that we're going to have to take out a rather large loan to cover all this aren't we? How is that feasible?
Obviously, thats a matter of perspective. Not sure if the socialists agree with you on that. Or Labour, for that matter.(Original post by toronto353)
We need to decrease spending not massively increase it.
Certainly, there may be protests in specific areas. However, the 1 million houses are going to be built over some 15 years and in a country with over 200,000 km squared of land; I'm sure there is space somewhere. Our population density may be high, but its certainly not the highest in the world (or even in Europe).(Original post by toronto353)
However, could you point out for me exactly where we might build 1 million homes? I'd be rather interested to find this out especially given that many people don't want estates build right next to where they live.
The rest of your questions were about other sections, and I'm afraid that I can't answer those fully as I am only really familiar with section 4. I'm sure one of the socialists will come and answer them soon.(Original post by toronto353)
QFA
