It is time to start destroying myths here. The basic data here comes from the house of commons library - it exposes the myth that Labour always borrows more and can, therefore, be less trusted with the economy. The figures are taken from 1946 onwards: Years in office, Labour 28years. Total net borrowing (based on 2014 prices) 749.2 Billion pounds. Average for each year in office: 26.8 Billion Pounds. Years in office, Conservative 42 years Total net borrowing (based on 2014 prices) 1405.4 Billion pounds Average for each year in office: 33.5 Billion pounds. Labour has always repaid debt much more often in percentage, and real, terms: one in every 4 years in office compared to one in ten for the Tories. It is clear that Labour has borrowed less and has always repaid more than the Tories have - so it is time to start attacking the prevailing myth that the Tories are better with the economy. Labour needs to start defending its economic record more.
Well summarised ... And the Labour government still managed basic social health and community services.
It might take another 50 years to get rid of Labour's deserved 'borrow and spend' reputation. By then the Labour Party will be extinct going by the present rate of decline.
Until, of course, they latched on to John Major's baby - PFI, and saddled the NHS with enormous debt. And schools too, at least in Scotland, where the LabTories are strangely blaming the SNP for their own failed initiatives.
It doesn't mean it is not a vanity project and a waste of time and money. Especially now as we are leaving Europe, the rail line is not really going anywhere. There is far too much evidence to support the claim that this is going to be a total disaster. Nah mate, this is just a cosy up to the Chinese and their inferior cheap (state subsidised) steel industry. It's pathetic.
In my area we are facing the closure of RAF Halton. Whilst I disagree with the MoD's position, this is a perfect brownfield site for development. Many of the buildings are listed, though, and it remains to be seen how much the developers are allowed to get away with. Rather this than developing the green fields surrounding and between Aylesbury and Tring. There's already been massive development north of Aylesbury, complete with the new Aylesbury Vale Parkway station, and the gaps between the villages and towns are merging into an urban sprawl.
As far as I know everybody wishes for housing to be built on brownfield sites first. That is the easy bit. The same people that want UK open borders also do not want houses built near them. This comment is not aimed at you young sir.
Rather than looking for places to build shouldn't we, firstly, be looking at the morality of buying second homes for investment purposes ? There is a case for greater regulation of second homes and of homes left empty. In my opinion local councils should be empowered to designate whether certain properties can be held for secondary use, such as weekend/holiday or whether they must be occupied by a full time resident for at least 6 months of the year. Some towns in Cornwall have voted to stop the building of second homes, because they force prices up and also fuel the housing crisis.
The problem has been that councils without a district plan with specifically agreed future marked allocation of housing have no way of stopping developers using their preference for greenbelt housing over the more costly brownfield option. I think all councils still have to have a small percentage of future housing on brownfield land. As I previously stated the government could easily adopt the obvious solution by forcing councils to provide large amounts of serviced plots for small /self builders. This would dramatically reduce the current domination of the few large house build companies.
The Conservative government have in the last few years seriously hit the financial attraction of buy to let. I can understand the possible need for extra control in specific holiday locations but further interventionist control could damage the rental market by pushing up prices and reducing supply.
No.... you are missing the need... which is for low-cost housing for the poor either to rent or to purchase.... Looks like you have a 'personal interest' (?) in small/self builders which may be admirable but the need is for AFFORDABLE housing
You are struggling to understand the economics. If the government / councils use their unique positions to release substantial parcels of land as serviced plots at affordable prices it would allow low cost dwellings to be built. This could be on a part buy part loan basis even. Personally this plan would / could actually dramatically damage the value of my plot. The only reason it is currently valued so highly is the scarcity value. There seems to be total agreement across all political parties that self building should be encouraged. In the UK it is presently highly tax efficient, much more so than other countries. If the facility for self building was greatly increased I'm sure it would negatively attract the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The percentage of self build in the UK is 10%, European average 50%.
I think we are focussing on different issues. Your first para i support. On the other hand I also support self-build for own use....
No, it is the same issue. Providing affordable homes. Most people want to buy instead of rent if possible. Many years ago we lived on a 'lotissement' near Toulouse. We rented a house from a French guy, friend of a friend. Most of the other houses were similar self builds by owner occupiers in various states of completion. They were all liveable but the occupants were completing jobs such as the 'crepi', outside plasterwork, when they could afford it. There was tremendous pride in these houses, only made possible by sensible land prices. I know France obviously has much more land available but the UK's large builders seem to find large parcels of land. I generally do not support government intervention in UK life but some positive discrimination over building land would be most helpful.
As for 'personal interest' do you still have a house in France that you only use a few weeks of the year? I'm sure there are many homeless families in France that would appreciate your second home all of the year round.
I was hoping you could inform me that rather your second home sat empty 11 months of the year like a rich man's plaything it was used as a refuge for battered wives or a similar good cause. My initial reaction is your secondhouse being mostly empty would not impress the executives at SHELTER. Then I realised with their high salaries their second homes would be in the more salubrious districts of Tuscany.
