We seem to be stuck in the same groove in the record.

R4 and Gurniad both covering the need to build “affordable” housing (no mention of social housing).
I am not an economist so can anyone assist my understanding in what this will do other than:
[list]Create a mini building boom
Increase the number of mortgage holders
Increase the indebtedness of the individual
Herald another crisis when the building has stopped
Drop house values forcing some (possibly many) into negative equity[/list]

Wouldn’t we be better investing in supporting manufacturing, r&d, science, technology, entrepreneurship – but doing so properly, not in the half-hearted and ineffective manner at the moment?

Sick of hearing well paid politicians spouting forth, from all parties, yet non of them seemingly possessing a single idea between.

(note to self – stop listening to Evan Davis on a Saturday morning.)

count the households in the UK, count the number of dwellings, they don’t match.

Create a mini building boom

jobs. means tax income not unemployed and benefit expediture.

Increase the number of mortgage holders

maybe, build more some for rent some for sale.

Increase the indebtedness of the individual

and, your point? either mortgage or rent, housing costs aren’t really that optional

Herald another crisis when the building has stopped

not if you match supply and demand

Drop house values forcing some (possibly many) into negative equity

as they say, the value of your investment may go down. Crap happens, if your buying a home why does it matter if the value drops a bit in the short term. At the end of the mortgage you have a building you own no rent to pay.

There are lots of issues, first and foremost why so many jobs in the south east, the UK needs to get jobs out of greater london and by doing so reduce the housing demand there. People are right to say there are lots of empty houses in the UK, problem is so many are in areas where there are few jobs.

Problem is the government doesn’t actually want to solve the problem, not in their interests, but they have to appear to care.

well it would help the thousands of people unable to afford a house

negative equity so what? at least you still have a place to live

Affordable housing includes ‘social’ housing (social rented), as well as other things like key-worker and shared ownership housing.

What I think we really need is a return to proper council housing – owned and built by councils. It would stop housing benefits going into the pockets of private landlords, and could be used to regulate the rental market, bringing prices down to more affordable levels. Among the many problems we have is that because housing is so expensive many people can’t afford to spend much on anything else.

Might be different other parts of the country but what people often mean when they talk about a lack of affordable housing is a lack of desireable affordable housing.

As for the negative equity issue, needs to happen, until house prices return to a more realistic multiple of incomes everyone will continue to be overstretched.

Build our way out of the current situation maybe be part of the answer but it’s far from the whole solution. Ever increasing dependence on more and more subsidised housing also cant be good. We need a fundamental rebalancing of the costs of living, higher, preferably living minimum wage, reduced living costs (realign house prices and cut VAT and fuel duty) to get more people independant of and contributing to the state rather than living off it and being net recipients.

Hundreds of derelict houses not ten miles from my front door – sturdy, well built Victorian Terraces.

No need to build new, just renovate the old.

And then properly address the issue of an increasing population.
I suggest culling all those who:
Don’t like Miranda.
Buy ‘The Mail’.
Use the terms ‘Can I Get?’ or ‘Swap Out’.
Have had unecessary plasic surgery.

@MrMo – Don’t doubt we are short of houses but is that the best solution for economic growth?

Short term income until building works are complete then back to benefit, is that a solution or just papering over cracks? No guarantee that those employed will currently be on benefit so would this just be filling in a spending hole?

Rental is ok if the people have the money to pay, otherwise doesn’t it just add to housing benefit bill.

Mortgage is debt, rent is a cost of living, if you fail to pay the rent you may be evicted, if you don’t pay the mortgage they repossess and if the house sale does not cover the bill you still owe the money – deep poo!

Matching supply and demand could either create a boom and slump as the initial demand is met or, if we spread it over a number of years then will it be sufficient to kick start the entire economy?

Agreed – if you stay in the house no probs but see point above, if you become out of work and are in negative equity – deeo poo!

Re geography of housing – agreed, but the current flow is North to South (in the main IHN is one exception!) it’s why I thought proper investment in manufacturing etc would be better as there is also a source of labour/industrial land/need for jobs in the areas with the housing.

Problem is the government doesn’t actually want to solve the problem, not in their interests, but they have to appear to care.

Yep, but this was also Balls only gambit in the Gurniad. Don’t think it’s party political, they all seem bereft of ideas.

@Kimbers – if they cannot currently afford a house is engineering a way of getting them into significant debt a good idea? Would more council built and owned housing be a better answer (but managed a little more sensibly than many are/were)

@pleaderwilliams – the only word used on the radio and in the online Gurniad was Affordable – I agree proper council housing, for rent and properly managed does sound like a logical solution.

But is house building it, is that all we have?

Feeling disillusioned now so off to play last match of the season and take it out on the opposition.