Regulations, government interference: Do rents in the UK have to be controlled?

[Flosshilde]

On what grounds do you believe that there is such a difference?


I don't doubt that, but who caused - or allowed - that to happen? Not just Mrs T., surely?...

The drop in registering to vote was increased significantly after the introduction of the Poll tax - one of Mrs T's prime policies. The recent change - from registration by the 'head of the household' to individual registration - is thought by many to lead to a drop in registration, especially among younger people.

Edit: hadn't read Jean's contributions before I wrote this; she made the points far more eloquently.

[jean]

Also a parental responsibility - they can vote (and get a postal/proxy vote) in their home constituency - so they don't even have to remember to vote on polling day!

My initially rather facetiously-expressed point was that sometimes they don't get politically involvet until they actually arrive at University, and then they naturally want to vote there rather than at home, exspecially if they've been involved in active campaigning. And by then it's too late to register.

And another reason for not giving one person the responsibility for registering others.

That's the real, and only, reason the govennment changed the rules - they have the Asian paterfamilias in their sights.

.

[ahinton]

The drop in registering to vote was increased significantly after the introduction of the Poll tax - one of Mrs T's prime policies.

I accept that this was indeed the case, but my response
I don't doubt that, but who caused - or allowed - that to happen? Not just Mrs T., surely?...
had been to jean's observation that
The general move to the right and away from the post-war consensus has effectively disenfranchised a lot of people.
Mrs. T.'s other prime aspiration in this was, as she once said, to pull not just the Conservative Party to the right but to pull all parties to the right; arrogant as this sounded - and irrespective of whether or to what extent her expression of wish in this actually contributed to such an end, there can be little doubt that this is indeed what has happened since and, as a direct consequence, the differences between the main parties have narrowed which, along with decreasing trust of politicians in general, might be argued to be one reason for increasing voter discontent and disinterest.

The point that I was neveretheless seeking to make is that increasing registration and increasing crosses on ballot papers (why these today? - might more young people be encourage to vote if they could do so online?) are unlikely to make much material difference to (a) which party/ies get elected, (b) the extent to which they're willing and able to carry out their manifesto proposals when in office and (c) the subject under discussion here, namely the need for and availability of social housing stock. The fact remains that any expectation that most of the demand for rented accommodation could ever be met by social housing can be no more than a pipe-dream on affordability grounds alone (not to mention the number of years that it would take to create so vast a social housing stock in the first place).

[ahinton]

I was going to call you on this, but then I started putting some numbers (guesses) together.

Suppose there are 1 million people to be housed. The actual number may be greater, but that's a start. To build a house is relatively cheap, though land has prices which may be ludicrous. Suppose a house can be built for £100k, and on average 2 people live in it. Then the cost would be £50 billion.

That is, however too simplistic, as roads and infrastructure would be required as well, and this is likely to cost at least as much as each house, and possibly double that, which takes the cost up to £150 billion. Assuming there are 30 million taxpayers in the UK (that's quite close), then the cost to each taxpayer - if spread out evenly - would be £5000.

This would however probably have to be spread out over a number of years as the rate at which houses can be built in the UK is limited. Most probably it would be realistic to assume 125,000 houses per year - should be feasible - though this is a low figure. The best year for housing starts was 1968, with 425,000. Thus in the worst case it would take about 4 years to build 500,000 houses to house 1 million people (on average). With an accelerated programme it could be done in under 2. A 4 year programme would require per taxpayer support of £1250 per annum.

There clearly is a problem, and the increase in housing needs each year may be too great to be easily sustainable. Some form of social engineering may be essential.

These are all interesting points. One of the most important factors (besides the actual construction costs) in any consideration of this is that to which you draw attention by writing
To build a house is relatively cheap, though land has prices which may be ludicrous.
This is where a comparison with, say, France is illustrative of that problem. Look at almost any housing other than in the 4 or 5 largest French cities and the proportion of property values representing the land on which they're built is usually tiny compared to those of the buildings themselves; that is quite different in UK and, I suspect, not only because it's much smaller than France despite its population figure being similar. What might be useful to consider here is the respective asking prices for building plots in the two countries; naturally, they vary considerably from area to area in each, but the difference across the board is massive. You also mention infrastructure costs and I cannot help but suspect that many of these might likewise be considerably higher in UK than in France.

In any event, land and infrastructure costs, administrative costs, legal, planning and architectural costs as well as actual build costs (labour and materials) have to be taken into consideration when attempting to assess the toal cost of building, say, one million homes, moreover, those other factors (especially infrastructure) will impact materially upon the amount of time that such a project would require from start to finish.

On top of all of that, all these costs almost always rise - sometimes substantially - from initial estimates to final invoices.

[french frank]

And by then it's too late to register.

I don't think that's quite right. If they are involved politically, they will be mobilised to register and vote by their peers. New arrivals may be 'dozy' - that doesn't apply to 'political' activists - such as the NUS, and the party political clubs, who organise the action. Elections don't come until May - the end of the academic year, so there is usually time to be added to the register.

[jean]

But many students who subsequently get involved aren't already politically active when they arrive in October. That's my point.

[ahinton]

But many students who subsequently get involved aren't already politically active when they arrive in October. That's my point.

And I don't doubt that it's right - but I still question what direct impact you might perceive more widespread registration and higher turnouts at elections to have on the social housing question that is at the heart of this discussion.

[jean]

That was a direct answer to your

...most voters today have either to vote for the Conservative Party or for the New Old Labour Conservative Party or for the Liberal Democratic Conservative Party or for the UK Independent Conservative Party or take their non-chances by voting for the Scottish National or Green Not-quite-so-Conservative Party or one of the real also-ran minority non-Conservative parties, just as Margaret Thatcher hoped would be the case.

Or had you forgotten?

[ahinton]

That was a direct answer to your


Or had you forgotten?

No, I had not and I am not disgreeing with you on this in any case but, as I've written previously (and this is the point that I was endeavouring to make)
I still question what direct impact you might perceive more widespread registration and higher turnouts at elections to have on the social housing question that is at the heart of this discussion
If you don't want to answer that, you don't have to, of course, but I think it to be a reasonable question given that registration and voting has been introduced into the discussion of the topic (though not be me, I hasten to add).

[jean]

Well, put as simply as I can:

You seem to believe that the general rightward drift of politics in this country represents wht 'voters' are happy with - and that, you surmise, does not include greatly increased spending on public housing for rent.

My view is that if those currently disenchanted with politics did not simply withdraw from the process altogether, we might find that you were wrong.

[ahinton]

Well, put as simply as I can:

You seem to believe that the general rightward drift of politics in this country represents wht 'voters' are happy with - and that, you surmise, does not include greatly increased spending on public housing for rent.

My view is that if those currently disenchanted with politics did not simply withdraw from the process altogether, we might find that you were wrong.

No, jean - wrong end of stick, I fear - but at least you have clarified the issue and made it easier for me to reply with the point that I was making and distinguish it fron one that I was not making.

I think that we agree on that general rightward drift having occurred and we may well also agree about the greater closeness of the main parties today and in recent years.

Whether either or both are representative or indicative of voter contentment is another matter and, either way, it has to be said that no one appears to have forced voters to drift to the right and stay there or to aim for less distinction between the main parties - and, in any case, there remains the question of those who don't vote or register to do so, my answer to which is that I have no evidence that the majority of the unregistered and non-voters would make a material difference to the wishes of the voting populace as a whole if they were to register and vote.

I did not and do not "surmise" as you suggest - namely that the rightward drifted voters' wishes do "not include greatly increased spending on public housing for rent"; even if that is the case, my point was not that but the fact that funds sufficient to ensure that the vast majority of rental demand could be met by social housing because so much land would have to be put up for sale and purchased and then planning, infrastructural, administrative, legal, architectural and other costs incurred even before those many hundreds of thousands of houses and apatments could be built at vastly more cost. It's not, as you appeared earlier to suggest, a mere matter of political will but one of affordability.

[jean]

No, jean - wrong end of stick, I fear...

That rather depends on whether it's your stick or mine.

I did not and do not "surmise" as you suggest - namely that the rightward drifted voters' wishes do "not include greatly increased spending on public housing for rent";

No, sorry - that was Dave2002:

...the fairly obvious problem that since we are a democracy (ha) any proposals to raise revenue to make such activity feasible would almost immediately cause problems with the electorate as a whole, who would effectively vote against it at the earliest opportunity.

I didn't get the impression that you disagreed, though.

It's not, as you appeared earlier to suggest, a mere matter of political will but one of affordability.

No, you're wrong. It is entirely a matter of political will.

As for affordability - you appear to forget that rents will be charged, even if not at so-called 'market' rates.

[french frank]

But many students who subsequently get involved aren't already politically active when they arrive in October. That's my point.

And my point was that they don't have to be politically active 'when they arrive in October'. We're almost at the end of January: they've announced the date of the election, but the deadline for registration hasn't even been set yet.

[ahinton]

That rather depends on whether it's your stick or mine.

Not from where I'm sitting! - but never mind, that's not the main issue here.

No, sorry - that was Dave2002:

Not to worry; I've made the same mistake meself before now!

I didn't get the impression that you disagreed, though.

And, as I wrote in response to you, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not convinced that this is where the problem lies.

No, you're wrong. It is entirely a matter of political will.

As for affordability - you appear to forget that rents will be charged, even if not at so-called 'market' rates.

Now what gives you the impression that I "forget" anything of the kind? Rents will, of course, be charged but these will only help to fund the maintenance, insurance, adminstration &c. of existing social housing; they cannot be allocated to massive new social housebuilding projects that, if on the kind of scale that might result in most rented accommodation ultimately being provided through social housing, would inevitably require many tens if not hundreds of billions of pounds to complete - and, even if it were possible, the rents charged on these new properties would once again only help to cover the costs of their maintenance, insurance, administration &c.

In addition to this, however, as many tenants of both private and social rental properties are on low incomes and have few assets, they're entitled to housing benefit provided by the very local authorities that rent their social housing to them; this represents another cost to those providers whereas no such burden is placed upon private landlords who rent property to those on housing benefit. The profit that a local authority can make on its rentals (and it would have to make one if it were to generate funds that it could allocate to the building/renovation of additional social housing) is therefore compromised not only by the costs of maintaining, insuring and adminstering its existing social housing stock but also by the responsibility of providing housing benefit to those tenants who qualify for it, many of whom also qualify for council tax reductions which further reduce the net income that a local authority can generate from renting out its social housing stock.

So it is indeed a matter of affordability; all the political will in the world won't pay the bills and, in this instance, the bills for providing hundreds of thousands more units of social housing (including, as previously mentioned, land purchase, planning, infrastructural, administrative, legal, architectural and other costs in addition to actual construction costs) would certainly run to an 11 or 12 figure sum which, as I've said (and I do not see how this much could be wrong) is quite simply unaffordable. By whom and what means would you imagine it being funded? Not only that, how would those wishing to acquire land to build many hundreds of thousands of such properties even be able to guarantee getting hold of sufficient of it to enable them to do so?

[Dave2002]

No, you're wrong. It is entirely a matter of political will.

No!

This is getting confusing, and confused. However, having revised my estimates as to whether collectively in the UK we can somehow afford to build a large number of houses in a relatively short time - see the preceding posts with more detailed calculations, I still believe that a significant majority of the UK electorate will not vote for greater expenditure in this area, whether provided by public bodies, or by some kind of commission of private bodies. The problem appears to be bigger than I had anticipated, and is not getting any better.

If political will might require on average each taxpayer to pay even as little as £1000 pa solely to support housing builds, then I am fairly sure it won't happen. Politicians (have to?) promise the earth, and usually deliver very little. That's how they stay in power - even if the power swings to the current opposition. "Power" will ping-pong between parties who are all playing essentially the same game. They can't actually deliver, but have to pretend that they might "just this once, and unlike any previous occasion" do so.