This article is offensive to the Maginot Line which actually did its job very well (I plan on writing a history piece that covers the French Army’s utter cock-up in the near future though)...
On a serious note, I too was glad to hear this scheme was ending but alas, the government doesn’t get the message. Without meaningful changes, home ownership looks like it will be beyond many Millennials and Zoomers who will have little to conserve. Bodes well for the future I guess.
I knew someone would pull me up for the Maginot Line, the bait was too powerful - and I look forward to that piece, let me know when it's out. It was, of course, all about radios and drugs.
I has also hoped for a well-deserved end to an unloved ineffective policy, but here we are. We must stimulate demand.
Firstly the Maginot line was broadly successful. In fact an argument could be made it was too successful and that overconfidence lead to a deranged advance into Holland...
Regardless. The truth of the matter is without help to buy house prices will sink and no tory government will stand if house prices collapse.
The real solution to the housing crisis is to build more 1950s style brutalist flats for high density living. This however is a long term solution.
The short term solution is to allow pension funds to build to sell housing and allow them to convert office blocks (of which there are already far too many) they already own to residential housing without extensive planning permission. Provided they meet building and sale requirements.
Pension funds are about to be wrecked by a collapse in office space rental prices and regulation restricts then from doing much else than fireselling to PE firms who'll just build large numbers of high net worth flats and cash in with massive profits. Thus allowing a conversion to sell provided the right kind of housing is created would return pension fund holders reasonable profits (and not massive losses) and create cheap living space.
Unfortunately you're right, we're in hock to house prices. But there's a way we can get around this; Cameron, for instance, could have portrayed housing benefit spending as paper over the cracks of a market with insufficient affordable homes. That could have allowed the government to present planning reform (or any other measures to increase housebuilding) as a way to protect pension benefits by reducing government spending on housing benefit and as a way to protect the assets of ‘The Bank of Mum and Dad.’ Your children will require less help from you - and less help from Government - if it is making housing more available.
Fundamentally I think you're right though - we've got to build more, with a particular focus on high density in urban areas first.
TBH I didn't know pension funds weren't able to do that, but yes. I also think we need to reform planning to allow much smaller builders to compete.
I agree with you on the Tories' true motivation—boosting Boomer wealth—however, your proposed long-term solution is no such thing.
Bringing immigration down to the hundreds is the solution that is the most prudent, cheap and moral. The number of foreigners who would like to move here is effectively infinite. Given that the State will do little to stop them, impoverishment of the propertyless and the onerous cost of living are our most effective barriers.
More commie blocks = cost of living falls = more immigrants will arrive and stay = cost of living increases back to equilibrium. The Nimbys are performing a national service (whether they realise it or not).
The Maginot line was only successful if you define its objective as 'not getting penetrated along any part of its length by a German attack.' If you define its objective as 'enable France to resist a German invasion' it was exactly what received wisdom thinks it was: a catastrophic failure, if only because of the opportunity cost it represented (nah they'll never invade us a THIRD time through the Ardennes, no need to focus our defensive efforts there!) and the immense complacency it engendered among French high command ("OODA Loop? Never heard of her, whose mistress is she?")
And why must these high density flats that will solve housing undersupply be 1950s-style brutalist blocks, the world's least popular aesthetic? If we're asking for the impossible - the Tory party permitting housebuilding in excess of population growth - let's at least let a thousand Poundburies bloom.
I'm a big fan of brutalism so I am going to plead the 5th. I think the idea is that we do need high-density in the UK however, which has only ever been tried with Brutalist buildings. The issue is not the right houses in the right places, but every kind of house everywhere.
Also yes, immigration needs to fall. Immediately, and drastically.
Assume you follow Ed West? He's just come out with something very good on housing today.
(I wouldn't say brutalism can never look good, but in general the style tends to emphasise both meanings of the word, rather than just describing the type of concrete, because architects are horrible people, see EW above).
This article is offensive to the Maginot Line which actually did its job very well (I plan on writing a history piece that covers the French Army’s utter cock-up in the near future though)...
On a serious note, I too was glad to hear this scheme was ending but alas, the government doesn’t get the message. Without meaningful changes, home ownership looks like it will be beyond many Millennials and Zoomers who will have little to conserve. Bodes well for the future I guess.
I knew someone would pull me up for the Maginot Line, the bait was too powerful - and I look forward to that piece, let me know when it's out. It was, of course, all about radios and drugs.
I has also hoped for a well-deserved end to an unloved ineffective policy, but here we are. We must stimulate demand.
Firstly the Maginot line was broadly successful. In fact an argument could be made it was too successful and that overconfidence lead to a deranged advance into Holland...
Regardless. The truth of the matter is without help to buy house prices will sink and no tory government will stand if house prices collapse.
The real solution to the housing crisis is to build more 1950s style brutalist flats for high density living. This however is a long term solution.
The short term solution is to allow pension funds to build to sell housing and allow them to convert office blocks (of which there are already far too many) they already own to residential housing without extensive planning permission. Provided they meet building and sale requirements.
Pension funds are about to be wrecked by a collapse in office space rental prices and regulation restricts then from doing much else than fireselling to PE firms who'll just build large numbers of high net worth flats and cash in with massive profits. Thus allowing a conversion to sell provided the right kind of housing is created would return pension fund holders reasonable profits (and not massive losses) and create cheap living space.
Unfortunately you're right, we're in hock to house prices. But there's a way we can get around this; Cameron, for instance, could have portrayed housing benefit spending as paper over the cracks of a market with insufficient affordable homes. That could have allowed the government to present planning reform (or any other measures to increase housebuilding) as a way to protect pension benefits by reducing government spending on housing benefit and as a way to protect the assets of ‘The Bank of Mum and Dad.’ Your children will require less help from you - and less help from Government - if it is making housing more available.
Fundamentally I think you're right though - we've got to build more, with a particular focus on high density in urban areas first.
TBH I didn't know pension funds weren't able to do that, but yes. I also think we need to reform planning to allow much smaller builders to compete.
Well technically there are ways to do so but residential property gets taxed at 55% of the amount invested so in reality not really practical.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pension-trustees-investments-and-tax#extra-rules-for-investment-regulated-pension-schemes
55%. Incredible.
I agree with you on the Tories' true motivation—boosting Boomer wealth—however, your proposed long-term solution is no such thing.
Bringing immigration down to the hundreds is the solution that is the most prudent, cheap and moral. The number of foreigners who would like to move here is effectively infinite. Given that the State will do little to stop them, impoverishment of the propertyless and the onerous cost of living are our most effective barriers.
More commie blocks = cost of living falls = more immigrants will arrive and stay = cost of living increases back to equilibrium. The Nimbys are performing a national service (whether they realise it or not).
The Maginot line was only successful if you define its objective as 'not getting penetrated along any part of its length by a German attack.' If you define its objective as 'enable France to resist a German invasion' it was exactly what received wisdom thinks it was: a catastrophic failure, if only because of the opportunity cost it represented (nah they'll never invade us a THIRD time through the Ardennes, no need to focus our defensive efforts there!) and the immense complacency it engendered among French high command ("OODA Loop? Never heard of her, whose mistress is she?")
And why must these high density flats that will solve housing undersupply be 1950s-style brutalist blocks, the world's least popular aesthetic? If we're asking for the impossible - the Tory party permitting housebuilding in excess of population growth - let's at least let a thousand Poundburies bloom.
I'm a big fan of brutalism so I am going to plead the 5th. I think the idea is that we do need high-density in the UK however, which has only ever been tried with Brutalist buildings. The issue is not the right houses in the right places, but every kind of house everywhere.
Also yes, immigration needs to fall. Immediately, and drastically.
Assume you follow Ed West? He's just come out with something very good on housing today.
(I wouldn't say brutalism can never look good, but in general the style tends to emphasise both meanings of the word, rather than just describing the type of concrete, because architects are horrible people, see EW above).
I came for the fisking of terrible, ruinous housing policy. I stayed for the very good WWII jokes. Thoroughly enjoyed.
Thanks Tom, I'm just sorry I have to make them about actual Government policy...