Pretty depressing reading.

[Edit] I had the archive link as a comment but this has gained enough traction that it’s not obvious. Here it is again so you don’t have to give FT any clicks https://archive.is/ypkln

  • Silinde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Until we:

    • Ban buy-to-let mortgages.
    • Ban landlords from owning multiple houses.
    • Invest into social housing and ban so-called “affordable housing” lettings.

    We’ll continue to be stuck in this downward spiral.

    The problem is, everyone in power is a landlord or otherwise benefits from the current system, so nothing changes and we continue circling the drain as a society.

    • kux@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      agree with this and would add that the privatisation of social housing needs to be ended by abolishing the right to buy before real investment into it can begin

    • frazorth@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      We need to build more because this is about a Shelter piece on people having to live as families in a single hotel room rotating locations.

      We aren’t even at the point of private landlords being the problem and preventing people from buying, as there simply aren’t enough houses for people

  • frazorth@feddit.ukOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    Unsurprising that it all shot out of control after 2010, and just more evidence that we need to build more.

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is something I’d wish the next government would do. Seriously how hard is it to build? Bust through the bullshit planning restrictions and build houses that people want to live in.

      • Espiritdescali@futurology.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        6 months ago

        The house building companies already have vast amounts of land they own with planning permission in place. They restrict the amount of housing they build to artificially keep the prices high, if they build too many, the prices they could sell their houses for would drop, reducing profit. These are private companies and the government has little control over them. This is why every government for the last few generations has promised more houses and delivered nothing.

        • frazorth@feddit.ukOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It is unfortunate that the building companies make more money by not building, than by building.

          We need a progressive land/council tax. Hording land should cost you.

          My favourite suggestion should be that tax levels are based upon a heat map of urban density, but also linked to area owned. It was a suggestion that came out of the US because they have problems with land hording in urban areas, spaces that are just a car park to act as a holding for land.

          It would mean that ownership of inner city, undeveloped land and also owning large estates is penalised.

          • Espiritdescali@futurology.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m in favour of a Land Value Tax, this means hoarding land becomes expensive. It also means grouse moores and golf courses become expensive (good things in my mind)

        • huf [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          These are private companies and the government has little control over them.

          lol, they have an army, just send it in and nationalize the shit out of them. the government has as much control as it wants to have.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It’s by design.

        The rich want low housing and high population because it makes their assets go up. Traditionally like silent generation, greatest generation and before affordable homes for the working class and the following generations was seen as an ideal that people were willing to die for. This ideal was largely realised with the boomers.

        But the boomers then decided it is better if they have houses and no one else does because their wealth can go up and they can then make money like the land owners than their grandparents were kept in poverty by. Now they can do it to their children!

        I honestly don’t think it will be solved until the boomers die. Even then I wouldn’t count on it. Too much effort to keep population increasing no matter the cost.

        If I was PM I would end up get voted out by doing something drastic like trying to put through a land value tax and building a new city 1mill+ city maybe between Hull and Leeds. Put a big fucking 200mph train line between Liverpool and Hull. Tell everyone to get fucked and steal some quotes from Churchill and JFK about going through hard time for the better of the country.

      • sgtlion [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        They simply don’t want to. Construction company owners are some of the richest and ones who do the most lobbying to MPs.

        • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The next government. They are incentives to help younger generations and renters as these make up a large majority of their voters that helped them into power.

          • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes, but they are all landlords, and ultimately they don’t give two shits about the voters who helped them into power. They are beholden to capital.

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            They’re all landlords too lol. Even corbynite labour MPs were fucking landleeches. The UK has a very rigid class system between the Landlords and the non-landlords. The economy here is basically just housing because nothing else is worth investing into, and all other sectors, especially construction, industrial manufacturing and tech/R&D are dead.

  • Zip2@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I live in the 272nd most deprived area (out of 317).

    New 4 bedrooms houses on horrible estates cost £850,000 because Londoners have moved here and commute from the nearest station.

    Build the houses, make them actually affordable and only sell them to people who live or work in the local area.

  • Mike@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    (without reading article) The answer presumably boils down to “the Tories”.

    • frazorth@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Unfortunately the solutions are opposed by both sides, as lefties are arguing points about house building not reducing costs which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

      https://archive.is/LtQFc

      If we build a million McMansions, they won’t sell for £500k+ due to oversupply.

      “Affordable housing” is just basically building more at this point, the reason you can sell ex-council houses for over £300k is because, as the article you didn’t read says, 1 in 200 are homeless due to insufficient housing.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        .5% of UK is homeless?

        US official number is .25% but it doesn’t account for people living in cars and other form “invisiable” homelessness, which eatimated to be much larger number than visiable

        • frazorth@feddit.ukOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Then you should read the article.

          This is the official statistics for people living in temporary accommodation whilst waiting for a house. These are families living in single room accommodation like a hotel room.

          • sunzu@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Sounds like the contents then don’t support the headline.

            I don’t click corpo propaganda btw, let their owners pay for it themselves lol

              • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Which they would know, if they had read the article, right?

                Edit: I shouldn’t comment just to express salt at someone, so actually also, thanks OP for the no-paywall link.

                • frazorth@feddit.ukOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Yes, I’m not sure how the preferred way to present content on here is yet so I gave the original URL as the link and then commented the archive link. I sometimes see people complaining that they don’t see the body, so it sounds like we have to work around some crappy clients too.

                  If there is a preferred way of presenting this then I will update the submission.

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Why not. Walk around San Fransisco. There are multiple streets alternating from full of homeless people to upscale housing and hotels. Never seen that in the UK.

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You just described London. Most of the city is a depressing dump, literal ghetto compared to any big city in the US