« Francis Maude pledges to change the culture of civil service recruitment | Main | Welsh Tories express concern at Welsh jobs for Scottish workers »

Comments

JOBS MAN !!
JOBS !!

What's so difficult to comprehend here?
There are 2 million unemployed, 3.8 ,million non-British workers IN employment, men and women out of work because their jobs have been given away, and they are out of their houses because they don't have JOBS !!

Can he not 'get it' or is he just a thick socialist in the wrong job?

It is of great shame to the government that entire rows of streets remain unoccupied, when a basic renovation could make these homes fit for occupation. Has there been no coordinated policy in this area? If I were homeless I'd take any accommodation going and worry about making it hospitable once I got a roof over my head.

Those with children in particular should be expected to take a home when offered, even if its not in an area of first choice. The lettings system is a mess and allows housing applicants to vacillate. Instead there should be a reasonable offer of accommodation, which the applicant should be expected to take. The whole lettings system needs to be speeded up.

I think this is a good idea. Of course its been going on for years under the anti-social guise of squatting.

"Can he not 'get it' or is he just a thick socialist in the wrong job?"

Maybe he is simple being pragmatic and showing some signs of sanity. D.C. isn't what you would expect from a Tory leader.
Of course it may be a case of making the right noises, to attract disaffected (and there are loads) Labour supporters.

Can he not 'get it' or is he just a thick socialist in the wrong job?

Youre not the only one beginning to wonder.

To be fair so called conservative regimes the world over are giving in to failed big government solutions in these difficult times.

I tend to agree with rugfish. Get jobs for the unemployed and they will tend to sort out houses for themselves.

Why doesn't Dave just nationalise them. Oh! and land too while he's at it.

The Tories flag is deepest pink
Much pinker than you'd ever think

Cameron has two homes so I guess he could spare one.

Oh dear, there are some idiotic posts on this thread, notably david1 and his little song. I don't think he'll be winning a Brit Award any time soon.

Seriously, this is an idea which deserves to be given full consideration and not just knee-jerk reactions. I agree it does appear un-Conservative but no one is suggesting that land or homes should be nationalised. It is simply a way of utilising properties which stand empty and providing homes for those in need. I see nothing wrong in that.

Presumably these houses belong to somebody: what is he going to do, confiscate them and take them into his party`s ownership or give them to the new occupants? And there`s all the expenses; heating,lighting, insurance, council tax. The rest of us will probably be saddled with those.

Another headline grabbing idea which hasn`t been thought through properly.

Hey, I wait with baited breath incidentally for the next "Tory" policy ( no ideas here mind ), to launch the new "Right to Sell" policy.

I mean it's only fair after all as we invented the RTB !

Thus, I expect David Cameron to launch the new Right to Sell your house to the government policy as sharp as possible so the Labour Party ( that's the socialists in case you hadn't noticed ), don't nick it !!!

Then again, he could create 2 million jobs now which would decrease the likelihood of turning private estates into council estates, or the costly exercise of buying houses to home the UNEMPLOYED !!!

Unless that is, you're a pathetic socialist with a plum in yer gob and don't actually have much of a clue about what a job means to people.

"Get jobs for the unemployed and they will tend to sort out houses for themselves."

With an average mortgage at five to seven times average earnings, even full employment is only part of the answer. There is a shortage in housing of all types. The building of new homes both for social housing and for those fortunate enough to be in a position to buy, should be a national priority. Building new homes would generate jobs and of course the knock on effect would be higher sales for many different business types. Trouble is were do these new homes go, not in my back yard!

Rugfish at 11.08:

"There are 2 million unemployed, 3.8 ,million non-British workers IN employment.."

I thought it was 2.4 million non-British workers but whatever the figure is huge. How many British workers are employed abroad in partial compensation?

What is important is to do what was suggested recently and that is an audit to establish the true position. We know that Labour changed the basis on which unemployment is measured and so direct comparisons with the 3M uneployed that they inherited in 1997 are probably not valid.

If you add together all the categories of British workers currently out of work - but able to do so - what do we come up with?

If he wanted to make a direct impact on homelessness, then he could suggest the government 'temporarily acquires' on a rental basis ( under lawful acquisition ), all the flaming tower block penthouses which daft developers have been building for daft people with daft mortgages they can't afford, who all thought there was no end in sight to the daft prices they expected people to shell out for their daft penthouses which are not considerably any different to the daft tower blocks built in the 60's, except for the fact they've been "sold" to daft people who would stupidly spend any amount of money on them because they lived an illusion built on credit.

Two thirds or more of those 'daft tower blocks' are standing empty and if Gerald Celente is right, then pretty soon the unemployed will be breaking into them and squatting in there with their families.

Bring back the Fair Rents Act too so the taxpayer decides what is a fair rent to pay one of these 'daft' developers.

I must admit, the song was actually used by the BUF, substitute Tories for Labour. I think the pink was not about politics.

It is simply a way of utilising properties which stand empty and providing homes for those in need

Its an admission that the, 'market' has failed, and only state intervention can save people. If you are happy with it, you should consider if your a, Conservative' at all.

There are 2 million unemployed, 3.8 ,million non-British workers IN employment, men and women out of work because their jobs have been given away, and they are out of their houses because they don't have JOBS !!
Most of those overseas workers in jobs have jobs because employers prefer their can do attitude and that they have the skills and the aptitude to do many jobs that many British workers are not suited to.

Throwing them out of work won't generate jobs, on the contrary it will make it harder for employers to get the workers they need and intensify economic difficulties, resulting in a smaller economy and probably higher unemployment.

To help British workers compete in what is a global economy, the answer is not protectionism, but rather deregulation of the British labour market, cutting costs on employers through cutting regulation and cutting business taxes.

As for David Cameron's statement - naturally empty homes going on the market for rent would tend to reduce homelessness, rather stating the obvious. It is up to the property owners whether or not they do this, I think easing regulations regarding overcrowding would help, apart from anything else it's encouraging optimal use of resources and so has environmental merits.

If you add together all the categories of British workers currently out of work - but able to do so - what do we come up with?

Posted by: David Belchamber | February 13, 2009 at 11:46

About 8 million.

Unless radical action is taken we're heading into either a mass social revolt or a reasonable policy of job sharing. At this moment papering cracks and keeping the media and public happy in ignorance is having less of an impact I feel as that plan isn't working either.

The housing list is not a reliable indicator of housing need.

Social housing has cheaper rents than the public sector equivalent - so people will put themselves on the list in the hope of getting into the system. Meanwhile they are still living in privately owned rented accomodation.

Allocation of social housing is based on "need". This means that the housing is allocated disproportionately to those who can demonstrate homelessness or overcrowding.

So people can be on the housing list for a very long time if they can't demonstrate need.

"There is a shortage in housing of all types"

No what we have is over population. We were , when bulding 170k homes a year building sufficient hoimes for our population. We weren't building sufficient homes for the demands mass immigration was putting on us.

We get control of our borders we solve the housing crisis and deliver British jobs for British workers. Unfortunately the British political establishment are't there to represent the interests of British people.

"Throwing them out of work won't generate jobs"

I agree, that's why I never suggested it.

But I would suggest the government treats seriously, the problem IT is causing to British jobs with its shambolic policies to give away jobs to overseas companies who hire their own workforce and its global advertising to countries other than our own for 'workers' to come to 'wonderful' Britain.

It has to be understood that many people do not earn enough or have the cast iron job security needed to own a home. When such people try to buy a home they literally face a lifetime of debt and anxiety as they struggle to make ends meet, resorting to credit, and yet more debt, to fill the shortfall in disposable income due to crushing mortgage payments.

The living standards of low earners will be vastly improved if they can rent-for-life, giving them a vastly greater proportion of disposable income, even providing the incentive to save.

The collapse of the housing market teaches us that home-ownership is beyond the reach of many. To own a home is a fine thing, a badge of prestige, however if it plunges a family into debt then the trade-off and the impact on everyday life is just too costly to be justified.

Ok ...so I work hard all my life to BUY my house. I have never claimed social security!

Mr Cameron wishes to hand private houses to lazy families who want something for nothing.

Why does anyone bother working?...socialism here we come!

"Throwing them out of work won't generate jobs, on the contrary it will make it harder for employers to get the workers they need"

You mean get the workers they need for the price they are prepared to pay?

"To help British workers compete in what is a global economy,"

Like Bangladehis being paid 1$ a day?

Currently there are 850,000 empty homes in England alone.

A key reason for this situation is the fact that some buildings require considerable repair work before they can be lived in. The high rate of VAT makes them too expensive for many owners to maintain or refurbish and encourages neglect leading to demolition and new build. For example, Hyde Housing Association recently paid £120,000 in VAT on a project involving 21 homes. With the reduced rate of five per cent VAT, they would have saved enough to refurbish another three homes. Moreover, the financial disincentive to repair and maintenance work caused by the high rates of VAT is often the root cause that allows homes to fall into disrepair in the first place. The resulting vacancy and dereliction blights whole neighbourhoods, depresses property values and attracts crime, putting unnecessary demands on the police and fire services. Conversely, the regenerative effect on the street and the wider neighbourhood of reusing empty property can be striking.

The Empty Homes Agency believes that the 17.5 per cent (15 per cent until January 2010) VAT rate favours new build over re-use, and therefore greater use of finite resources like greenfield land. They argue that it actively encourages neglect and decay. Bringing empty buildings back into beneficial use is an essential part of sustainable development and improving people's quality of life.

Idiots like rugfish demand the "government" create 2m jobs, and then accuse David Cameroon of being a socialist.

Has to be said that much of the neo-thatcherite 'right'/UKIP wing are just plain thick.

Posted by: Floreat Aula | February 13, 2009 at 12:10

Thick is maybe preferable to being adamant you're right when the world is falling to pieces. Thick people at least have an excuse.

However you're obviously prone to misinterpret what people say so I'll clarify it for you.

The National Audit Office say we have close to 2 million unemployed British born people here and 3.8 million employed non-British born people here. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are told to feel good about having a whopping great bill to pay despite no job to look forward to, the government thinks it's a good idea to give British jobs to Japan, America, France, Italy and Poland, whilst filling up the country with 'skilled' toilet cleaners in Whitehall who have no legal right to be here, and you call 'me' thick ?

Very humorous I must say.

http://tinyurl.com/cnvwnj

As we (didn't) know, most of the empty houses are concentrated in areas of least demand. Have we considered the moral case for shunting people around the UK further weakening bonds of friends, family and local identity?

Do we say to youngsters in my Wiltshire village that they should get on their bikes and re-settle in Doncaster? There is a huge difference between a house and a home and a fundamental component is where we have a sense of belonging.

Or as Kirsty and Phil would say: Location x 3.

We have to build, locally, where it is needed and wanted. It's a broken society thing me old loved up Red Tory mateys.

I totally agree with David Cameron on this. Surely it is ridiculous to concrete over more and more of the green belt and the countryside with new houses when you have a million properties empty.
Glad to see him putting forward a policy for a change that would make a real difference to a lot of people.
All this dogmatic nonsense about it being unconservative is just putting dogma before people in real need.

"About 8 million (i.e. unemployed in total).

Unless radical action is taken we're heading into either a mass social revolt or a reasonable policy of job sharing".

Thanks, Rugfish, though I thought the total would be about 6M.

The point though, is whether it is 6M or 8M, the problem is huge and much larger than Gordon Brown would admit it to be.

My contention is that, until we have teased out what the true situation is, we cannot plan for an effective response, because we are always aiming too low.

The bigger the problem actually is, the more radical the solition is going to have to be.

No what we have is over population....blaa-blaa-blaa borders

So if we kick out all European workers, what will happen to those British workers in Europe - think they'll be allowed to stay on? At best we'd be where we are now. At worst we'd lose the labour we need because some people aren't willing to get their hands dirty in this country.

The population is increasing because there has been a demand for work. As that dries up so too will the new arrivals from Europe. We have people coming in because our birth rates are too low to keep up. If we cut off immigration when the baby-boomers have all retired we'll have an even worse pensions deficit. So unless you guys are willing to have your pensions collapse we need immigration.

++++

Ok ...so I work hard all my life to BUY my house. I have never claimed social security!

Elaina, I can't afford to buy a house because your generation spent all its time crying "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" so not enough houses are built. Be glad you're not in my position where I work but have no idea when housing will become affordable.

Mr Cameron wishes to hand private houses to lazy families who want something for nothing.

No, he plans to make houses available to those who should be getting them through benefit.

Why does anyone bother working?...socialism here we come!

Indeed, let's bring poorhouses back and make those scroungers work for a living! Oliver Twist never had it so good!!

Am I completly mis-reading the announcement then?
I read it as talking about utilising existing 'social housing stock' that currently is out of use.
Much of this stock is out of use due to the nanny state regulations imposed by Labour governing different 'issues' such as the 'enviromental sustainability' of such properties.
How is it socialist to say forget those nannying regulations bring the stock back into use and also allow people the right to buy or equity share rather be trapped in the 'social rent' model?

But as I said I very well could have completly mis-read it.

The bigger the problem actually is, the more radical the solition is going to have to be.

Posted by: David Belchamber | February 13, 2009 at 12:30

I agree.
But the situation of PT work on hours which leave them 'employed' but nonetheless unable to meet subsistence costs, should really be included in the figures I think if measuring social 'needs' as I would class the eradication of poverty a real social need. ( Also, students and training courses with no jobs at the end of it. But the reason I gave figures for non-British born 'employed' was to show the imbalance. Those figures were given by the ONS a day or two ago, but you only have to ask why we're having a speed train built in Japan, or why Labour has cut nurse training but advertised and hired foreign nurses, doctors, teachers, etc etc.....AND, why British construction workers are 'excluded' from recruitment plans when hiring foreign firms to work on British sites.

I think this is all Labour madness and it need radical change not some mealy mouthed spin which leads to something other than change ( to bring jobs ). Not to 'create', but to 'provide access' to jobs which are already there.

Mass unemployment can only be addressed by a fundamental re-balancing of the economy away from services and towards productive hard industries. That said, its still going to take a generation to mop up the huge numbers on welfare, but it must begin with the election of a Conservative government.

The right polices to promote job-creation and training, including initiatives to start work-skill apprenticeships in schools, get our young people working with a lathe, involved in carpentry, etc.

Returning to housing, a Conservative government should pledge that no habitable home will go unoccupied and that no family will be homeless. Its time to coordinate all aspects of policy, from education to housing, pull it all together, make it work, instead of the bungling mismatch of policies that we have today.

Having now seen the details, I believe this looks an excellent scheme. There is nothing "un-Conservative" about it and on the contrary I believe it could well be a vote winner.

"we need because some people aren't willing to get their hands dirty in this country."

For the money on offer! You up the wage rates, you will get the staff, guaranteed. Of course our mealy mouthed politicians will shed copious amounts of crocodile tears at the gulf that's widening between rich yet pursue mass immigration polices that makes the matter worse.


" If we cut off immigration when the baby-boomers have all retired we'll have an even worse pensions deficit "

Well what you are proposing, to add people to pay the pensions of others, is a ponzi scheme, a pyramid selling scam which just pushes the problem off on future generations. These future generations will have sufficient problems to overcome, food shortages, energy shortage, and global warming thrown in for good measure, with out us bequeathing them the problems of over population as well.

Tony,
I can't help asking, are you aware that the conservatives, for all their failings, abandoned state central planning as a methodology in the 1970s? Mainly because they were surrounded (as we are now) by the evidence it didn't work.

I'm all in favour of using tax and incentive to encourage people not to leave houses empty. I can't see how you would implement a pledge that all habitable homes would be occupied though, as if someone wants five homes, is happy to pay council tax etc on all of them and wants them empty, its up to them. The government cannot redistribute property. It can argue that hoarding of property needs to be penalised and use tools to incentivise in that direction.

Iain,
"For the money on offer! You up the wage rates, you will get the staff, guaranteed. Of course our mealy mouthed politicians will shed copious amounts of crocodile tears at the gulf that's widening between rich yet pursue mass immigration polices that makes the matter worse."

Of course, if you up the money beyond minimum wage for say potatoe picking, it rather drives prices up everywhere, so wages have to go up again...

Yes you could therefore employ British people to do jobs they don't like at wages that are unnessecarily high. But wouldn't that just make British products more expensive on the world market, increasing imports and creating more unemployment (remember, the jobs that would go are now occupied by British workers apparently). Doesn't seem like a good plan to me. Seems like a plan to run down our manufacturing and agriculture further...

Reduce the VAT on building renovation to the lowest possible (preferably zero). Simple and it would engender local grassroots regeneration.

Allan McKinley, with all due respects, the world of private finance and private housing is on its knees, so what choice do we have?

In an ideal world I would prefer to see things privately owned and financed. However in a society where many do not have access to money, there has to be a system of social recourse.

This is important from a point of national security, as the last thing we need in this country is a core of displaced and alienated people.

State planning has to exist as long as most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in the hands of the few. Social housing, health and education are a priority for now, and the foreseeable future.

Conservative policy of thirty years ago did not understand that a service cannot be run as a business, it has to remain a service.

"Of course, if you up the money beyond minimum wage for say potatoe picking, it rather drives prices up everywhere, so wages have to go up again..."

Necessity is the mother of invention.

If the wage demands are too high then the industry would be forced to mechanise its operations, or develop into higher value , higher tech areas. If it can't and is wholly dependent on cheap labour, well may be these are jobs we should do with out. Low wage jobs don't come cheap, they cost the tax payer. PS Importing cheap labour for the mills didn't save them, they still went bust, unfortunately only after dumping a whole mess of social problems from their cheap labour policy on us!

"Much of this stock is out of use due to the nanny state regulations imposed by Labour governing different 'issues' such as the 'environmental sustainability' of such properties."

It was all very well removing this stock, but they didn't build anything to replace it. Many of the estates are awful. Even though built less that 40 yrs ago they are slums. I have seen the inside of some of the council houses that are still in occupation and there are a lot of issues even with these. Of course we should no let housing sit idea, but if we do use some of the derelict estates then we will have to be clear about how we are going to move the residents on. I would not like to see the conservative government become a slum landlord. D.C's pragmatic and sensible sounding plan could have implications for the credibility of the next administration.


Good points Ross. Of course its not council estates that are bad but local government that fails to maintain the properties and bad tennants who trash certain estates.

Central government has to be prepared to jump on local councils that don't clean up areas and local councils themselves have to jump on bad tennants who ruin estates for everyone else.

The only problem I see with this is how can bad tennants with young children be punished? Surely not with eviction? What other sanctions could be applied?

@Allan Mckinley
"if you up the money beyond minimum wage for say POTATOE picking, it rather drives prices up everywhere, so wages have to go up again...

Did you attend the Dan Quayle school of spelling... tut tut!

For the money on offer! You up the wage rates, you will get the staff, guaranteed.

That's not very Conservative of you - you seem to effectively be advocating a sizeable increase in the minimum wage, yet we hear from business and most Tory supporters that this isn't possible because it would make the UK uncompetitive.

Well what you are proposing, to add people to pay the pensions of others, is a ponzi scheme, a pyramid selling scam which just pushes the problem off on future generations.

Not if you reform future pensions at the same time. But you can't arbitrarily change everything at once. Of course if you want the baby boomers to go without, I couldn't care less because I'm not one of them. You can make the argument in front of them, though.

"That's not very Conservative of you "

That's very Conservative of me, I'm suggesting the market decides.

"Of course if you want the baby boomers to go without,"

No, just as our parents and grandparents fought the Nazi's and made sacrifices for future generations, perhaps this is the sacrifice that babyboomers will be called on to make, to work longer so we don't bankrupt future gnerations with our pension demands. Its probably going to happen anyway for other than politicians, Directors, and public sector workers, the rest of us have had our pensions trashed, so are going to have to work longer anyway.

Tony Macara,

Re your previous comments on 'hard industry' creating jobs, don't forget that in the 1970s we had a higher level of manufacturing industry and higher unemployment than in the late 90s and early noughties when we were more service based. The focus should be on creating high-tech, high quality manufacturing jobs and getting the service economy moving again (and apprenticeships can be of use in the service sector). It is not realistic to focus simply on core manufacturing as a solution to the unemployment problem as most of it is going to China where they do it at much lower cost!

Simon, we didn't have millions on benefits in the 1950s and 1960s either when we were a productive nation and supplied much of our domestic market with home produced goods.

On the matter of China and competitiveness, I have argued many times on these forums for a wage-equalization-tariff so that the sweatshop economies of the East don't use low-wages and currency differentials to undercut and undermine British manufacturers.

We need such a tariff to create an even playing field.

At the moment British business is starting from behind scratch when competing with the economies in the East, all because our politicians are slaves to the ideology of free-trade. Unless politicians end the favouritism shown to foreign business then British business doesn't stand a chance.

Tony,

I agree with you that we need to tackle the dependancy culture and get people into work (although the welfare state was created by Lloyd George at the beginning of the 20th century and Attlee after the war). I disagree with you on tariffs though, they won't work and will only damage us in the long-run as china inevitably retaliates. We will never be able to compete with them in relation to cheap manufactures anyway, they will always find ways to undercut us. The future for British manufacturing lies in biotech, aerospace, IT, niche cars and attracting some investment from Nissan etc (as has been done with some success). Trying to turn the clock back will not help create sustainable jobs for the long-term!

Simon, we certainly need to develop the industries that you suggest, as well as hard industries, agriculture, IT and so on. The most important thing is that we re-balance the economy because a service sector of 76% is top heavy, too many eggs in one basket.

On the matter of China, they won't be looking to us in future for financial services and our chance of exporting manufactured goods to China is limited, so they can retaliate all they like, we don't need the Chinese and we shouldn't be basing the future of our economy on how we think China will respond.

Its truly pathetic to see senior political figures of all parties looking to China to save us, we don't need China, we will save ourselves if British business is given the chance to compete against the sweatshop economies.

On the matter of welfare, we need to scrap gimmicks like the New Deal, have straight job-matching with the expectation that work must be taken if available. Even with all this we will still be at least a million jobs short.

Long-term unemployment has to be tackled by building fully waged works-programmes into the benefits system, so that after a given time, JSA ends and a cast iron guarantee of work is offered.

We can't let people drift into a lifetime of poverty. Even if the work programmes only last 12 months, its a start, and provides an opportunity to learn and earn

One point I would like to mention is that there is already a law empowering local authorities to requisition houses that have been unoccupied for over six months. Clearly it is not used much in practice, but the power is there.

I haven't had time to read all the posts in detail, but Richard's post at 12.01 struck home. The general VAT reduction of 2.5% was a nonsense, whereas a massive reduction in VAT on property renovations would have had a double benefit in bringing unused dwellings up to habitable standards and providing needed jobs in the hard-pressed construction industry.

Tony,

China IS an important market for the UK and may soon be the world's number 1 or at least number 2 economy. In 2007 it became the largest Asian market for UK goods ranging from energy, to advanced engineering, to sustainable technology, not to mention retailers such as Tesco and of course financial services (although that will inevitably be of less relevance now as you suggest). The fact is almost all developed/developing economies, not just those in the West, are now service based and China is the main global manufacturer as it can produce large quantities of goods at low cost. It is an irreversible economic fact. Economics works by allowing countries to focus on what they are good at and we should follow suit. Yes, we may need some rebalancing towards manufacturing and your welfare policies have some good ideas behind them, but we must accept the reality of the modern world!

Simon, don't buy into the propaganda of the free-traders. The idea that nations specialize makes them top-heavy and this is particularly dangerous for Britain because the service sector is a low-wage, part-time economy with poor wages and living-standards that have to be topped up by tax-credits, rent-rebates and loans, in other words lots of government debt, lots of personal debt.

We need a strong manufacturing base to pay for better wages out of productivity and we should be aggressive in knocking out competitor nations, in cornering markets, especially our domestic market.

The trouble is the free-traders only see capital, they don't see nations and the social consequences of allowing the domestic market to be overrun by competitors.

Our idea should be to help British business smash the Chinese monopoly on trade, our government should be supplying British producers with the tools to fight China and other competitor nations.

Trade can be mutually beneficial, but only if there is an even playing field, allowing foreign elements the upper hand is an act of treason against British business.

Free-traders have to understand that their utopia has been exposed as a falsehood. Now the political climate is changing. People want jobs and protected markets.

Free-traders also have to understand that this recession could become very nasty indeed and people will be angry and looking for someone to blame. There are many who will gladly stand up, point a finger, and say "J'Accuse" in the direction of the court economists and career-politicians who have sold Britain out, those who have given Chinese workers everything and the British worker nothing.

"I haven't had time to read all the posts in detail, but Richard's post at 12.01 struck home. The general VAT reduction of 2.5% was a nonsense, whereas a massive reduction in VAT on property renovations would have had a double benefit in bringing unused dwellings up to habitable standards and providing needed jobs in the hard-pressed construction industry."

Because you live in a world oblivious to EU legislation and directives.
No member country can place VAT at less than 15% which is the reason for the "stupid" 2.5% reduction mentioned above.
This government can do very little in the way of governance, I guess you don't realise how far down the integration road that your country has travelled.

I would not think that anyone owns a house just to let it remain empty.It usually so stands for a good reason. It is possibly a part of a redevelopment scheme for an area, is possibly due for refurbishment, or awaiting occupation by its new owner etc etc.
It is all very fine having short term initiatives, but each of itself is no solution to the housing defficiency.

More and more people come to live in the UK and all need accommodation. Families that used to need but one home, split and require two houses. Couples marry and cohabitate and have children at a younger age. Families may be evicted for non payment of rent or Mortgage arrears, any of dozens of reasons.

Unfortunately it is Government interference that contributed to the problem. Selling off all those Council Houses was a disaster. Then there was leasehold enfranchisment that allowed Leaseholding Tenants to purchase the Freehold of the property they occupied for a very modest amount of cash.A Property owner can not trust Government.Please recall the Moratorium that came in at the outbreak of the second world war and persisted until 1957 and then some.It gave tenants not only Security of Tenure but too a Rent Freeze, which made no allowance for the rising costs 'Landlords' had to meet for maintenance of houses. One heard all that nonsense about tenants who had for ever been paying rent, but never got to own the house they tenanted. Such rent being usually insufficient to service the interest on a mortgace let alone start to repay the loan itself.

Short of having a Cull of the population, we do need to build more houses. This will only come about by an easing of the Planning Laws, and less defference to Nimbyism. In the Village where I live Residents have been wasting time and Council Tax Payers money fighting a Planning permission granted at Appeal several years earlier.

If Government rightly sees the need for more housing, it had better finance the matter itself next time, rather than deprive individuals and too Councils of what is rightfully theirs. A while back there was talk of enfranchising the freeholds owned by Housing Associations.

"Short of having a Cull of the population, we do need to build more houses. This will only come about by an easing of the Planning Laws, and less deference to Nimbyism."

I agree, its the only logical way forward. Of course as you rightly point out there will be plenty of opposition, not least because a decent house building program will inevitably lower the real price of housing.
I see no alternative, because for most of my life a mortgage would work out at 3.5 times the average annual salary, now we have to find 5 and in many cases 7 times our annual wage. To put it bluntly Housing has become far too expensive and this has been a major factor in our current economic difficulties.
When my parents bought their first home in 1961 they paid £3,000 the same house today would cost £170,000, a bubble price maybe, but still an impossibly large amount for far to many, if not most, people. A classic example of supply and demand, with an increase on the supply side essential as the demand will not, even can not fall. The other alternative as you rightly point out is to reduce the demand not an option that a civilised nation can consider. Unless we want to condem the underclass to living in Irish style "benders", and force many of our working people into American style "trailer Parks" we will have to bite the bullet. Of course the side effect of such a policy would be the creation of Hundreds of thousands of good quality jobs. It seems on paper at least to be a no brainer, so why is it not party policy?

Tony,

Service sector jobs are not necessarily automatically low paid. I fail to see why an office supervisor or shop or hotel manager or even a successful hairdresser or builder should be worse paid than someone working on the factory floor. It also remains the fact that China still has a far lower GDP per capita than we have, so even with the level of manufactures they produce they have not yet reached our standard of living, nor are they forecast too, even if standards do improve there. Manufacturing industry is also not immune from the recession, as shown by the many Chinese workers returning to their villages as global orders slump. Yes, I agree we need a manufacturing base, but trying to 'take back our jobs' from the Chinese and launch a trade war will only lead to long-term damage, both to our own economy and to that of the Chinese.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker