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

[Flosshilde]

If one has notions of trickledown, and suchlike, then some economists argue that by encouraging the risk takers, and generally the better off, there will be better standards for all. If Mrs T believed that, then maybe she thought that if houses passed into private ownership, and if the economy as a whole did better, then in fact the demand for social housing would drop. That's a charitable view.

I don't know about 'charitable' - there are other things I could call it.

Mrs T wanted to create what she called a 'property owning democracy'. She hoped that by doing so, and by increasing share ownership through the privatisation of utilities, she would create a vast number of new Conservative voters, which would ensure that the Conservative party, which she saw as the 'natural party of government', would be in office perpetually.

[Dave2002]

Hasn't worked for me. There's no way I'm going to vote Conservative, though there's not much other choice round here.

[ahinton]

I think you are looking at the wrong solution to the wrong problem. You have to ask why local authorities are cash-strapped - mainly because of deliberate central government control of how much money they can raise, through local taxation and borrowing, by capping council tax and controlling business rates,and reducing grants, for example. The proportion of local government funds they raised directly used to be about 25% - I don't know what it is now, but quite possibly less. Selling off assets to the private sector, which then have to be replaced or leased back, is not the answer.

I certainly take your point but suggesting that I'm "looking at the wrong solution to the wrong problem" seems rather unfair when those local authorities don't have and cannot simply seize control over the extent to which central government does or does not sponsor any of their activities at any given time; ultimately, they have to find the funds for their projects from somewhere and, if they can't...

[ahinton]

I don't know about 'charitable' - there are other things I could call it.

Mrs T wanted to create what she called a 'property owning democracy'. She hoped that by doing so, and by increasing share ownership through the privatisation of utilities, she would create a vast number of new Conservative voters, which would ensure that the Conservative party, which she saw as the 'natural party of government', would be in office perpetually.

Then it's more or less worked, wouldn't you say? to the extent that 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.

[ardcarp]

Given how much money would be involved (which would itself be subject to contrasting views as to how much of the rental market should be social housing), I don't believe that taxpayers en masse would be able to afford it.

Apple could.

[jean]

Then it's more or less worked, wouldn't you say? to the extent that 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.

Most voters, maybe. But not most people entitled to vote.

The general move to the right and away from the post-war consensus has effectively disenfranchised a lot of people.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

.

[Dave2002]

Given how much money would be involved (which would itself be subject to contrasting views as to how much of the rental market should be social housing), I don't believe that taxpayers en masse would be able to afford it.

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.

[ahinton]

Most voters, maybe. But not most people entitled to vote.

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

The general move to the right and away from the post-war consensus has effectively disenfranchised a lot of people.

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

[jean]

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

Of course there's a difference! Look at the link I posted.

And that only gave the percentage of registered voters who actually voted. Many of those entitled to vote don't even register.

[french frank]

Many of those entitled to vote don't even register.

Many councils (eg Bristol) do their best to publicise the registration formalities, and it is an offence not to register. That suggests that non-registration is, at least partially, a deliberate decision. Was it ever the custom for council employees to call on households - or was that just for the census?

I wonder what the effect of online registration has been? Some people may feel that there are 'disadvantages' to providing this information to councils/authority (of any kind).

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/electoral-register/

[jean]

Whatever the law, surprisingly large numbers of people aren't registered. As a political party we have access to the figures.

Not registering was a way of avoiding the Poll Tax, and maybe the habit has stuck.

One of the effects of individual regitration - introduced last year in an attempt to combat electoral fraud - has been to prevent universities from registering their students, as they had been doing for a while. Something of a disaster for us as students are too dozy to get around to registering themselves, but are quite likely to vote Green.

[teamsaint]

I

Whatever the law, surprisingly large numbers of people aren't registered. As a political party we have access to the figures.

Not registering was a way of avoiding the Poll Tax, and maybe the habit has stuck.

One of the effects of individual regitration - introduced last year in an attempt to combat electoral fraud - has been to prevent universities from registering their students, as they had been doing for a while. Something of a disaster for us as students are too dozy to get around to registering themselves, but are quite likely to vote Green.

Quite a recommendation for the party there........

[jean]

Quite a recommendation for the party there........

I appreciate your irony, but to be fair to the students (which I wasn't), remembering to register at the place where they're studying rather than at home is often something they don't give much thought to until it's too late.

[ahinton]

I appreciate your irony, but to be fair to the students (which I wasn't), remembering to register at the place where they're studying rather than at home is often something they don't give much thought to until it's too late.

But what difference does or could much more widespread registration - or, for that matter, far higher turnouts at elections, local and national - make to the question of how vast increases in social housing availability - which would by definition presume vast numbers of new stock being acquired/built - can be funded? Frankly, even had not one single local authority apartment or house ever been sold following the green light for tenants to purchse their social housing, the amount of social housing stock would still be nowhere near what it would need to be in order to meet the majority of demand for rented homes with social housing and leave only a small remainder in the private rental market.

[french frank]

I appreciate your irony, but to be fair to the students (which I wasn't), remembering to register at the place where they're studying rather than at home is often something they don't give much thought to until it's too late.

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!

Another possible reason for non-registration is if the head of the household is claiming the single person discount on their council tax. And another reason for not giving one person the responsibility for registering others.