Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles" They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 " The naivety of this government hurts my head | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 " barret has sat on multimillons in land that already has planning permission for decades now, so no that's a nonsense from them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 barret has sat on multimillons in land that already has planning permission for decades now, so no that's a nonsense from them." Are you sure about that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 barret has sat on multimillons in land that already has planning permission for decades now, so no that's a nonsense from them. Are you sure about that?" absolutely positive ..... the rise of landbanking during the thatcher years and beyond is extremely well documented | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 barret has sat on multimillons in land that already has planning permission for decades now, so no that's a nonsense from them." “Labour announces New Towns Code with 40% affordable housing targets” May 23, 2024 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the top eight builders of homes are sat on in excess of 1 million plots with aproved planning. at their historic rate of completion over the last 15 years, that's enough to keep them going until 2040 without the need to make any new aquisitions." Don’t dispute the numbers. It was 400,000 in 2010. Buy to let lending has halved in last 12 months First time buyer mortgages were until recently 6%+ They are only going build what they can sell | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on Rayner said nobody can say NO." “The BBC reported that Sir Keir acknowledged his approach would not provide a “quick fix”. “The simple fact is that we do not currently have enough workers in the construction industry – in 2023, there was a net loss of 10,000 construction workers. Our research shows that under Labour’s homebuilding plans alone, the equivalent of an additional 152,000 workers will need to be found,” Woodcroft (FMB) added. A report by CITB in May revealed that 251,000 extra construction workers are required by 2028 to meet demand, with 31 percent of construction employers finding suitably skilled staff remains their key challenge.” Does Rayner understand this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the top eight builders of homes are sat on in excess of 1 million plots with aproved planning. at their historic rate of completion over the last 15 years, that's enough to keep them going until 2040 without the need to make any new aquisitions." That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"until legislation is passed that financially penalises land banking then nothing will change. there also needs to be changes in the structuring of main contractors where they are owned as subsidiaries by foreign multinationals or we'll have more carillion fiascos or more recently ISG debacles They are land banking because the government want 25-50% of each site built at cost and handed over for affordable housing. “ Barrett pulls four planning applications over 50% affordable housing viability concerns” 30 August 2024 barret has sat on multimillons in land that already has planning permission for decades now, so no that's a nonsense from them. Are you sure about that? absolutely positive ..... the rise of landbanking during the thatcher years and beyond is extremely well documented " That already has planning permission 'for decades'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. " it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now." To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money, or we would simply be repeating the mistakes of the past. The model that springs to mind is Sweden's, and I would expect hell to freeze over before that was excepted here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money" that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. " You can't expect legislation to succeed that takes legally held land from businesses and then give that land to small businesses to build houses. It has failure written all over it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. You can't expect legislation to succeed that takes legally held land from businesses and then give that land to small businesses to build houses. It has failure written all over it." 31,000 social housing homes were built in 2023, after right to buy and demolitions, a net loss of 9,000 (shelter) Rayner is away with the birds. There is no workforce and no money to build 300,000 social housing homes in five years. At £200k unit cost they will need to find £60000000000 to fund this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. You can't expect legislation to succeed that takes legally held land from businesses and then give that land to small businesses to build houses. It has failure written all over it. 31,000 social housing homes were built in 2023, after right to buy and demolitions, a net loss of 9,000 (shelter) Rayner is away with the birds. There is no workforce and no money to build 300,000 social housing homes in five years. At £200k unit cost they will need to find £60000000000 to fund this. " Seen some speculation that the chancellor may change what debt calculation they use in order to free up the possibility of more borrowing and perhaps less tax rises but not sure it will stretch to cover these houses as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. You can't expect legislation to succeed that takes legally held land from businesses and then give that land to small businesses to build houses. It has failure written all over it. 31,000 social housing homes were built in 2023, after right to buy and demolitions, a net loss of 9,000 (shelter) Rayner is away with the birds. There is no workforce and no money to build 300,000 social housing homes in five years. At £200k unit cost they will need to find £60000000000 to fund this. Seen some speculation that the chancellor may change what debt calculation they use in order to free up the possibility of more borrowing and perhaps less tax rises but not sure it will stretch to cover these houses as well" Smacks of desperation, only Thursday the guardian said they were modelling the impact of Cgt rises just a fortnight before the budget, to raise funds for the £22bn black hole. 300,000 homes is equivalent size to a city three times that of Plymouth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. You can't expect legislation to succeed that takes legally held land from businesses and then give that land to small businesses to build houses. It has failure written all over it. 31,000 social housing homes were built in 2023, after right to buy and demolitions, a net loss of 9,000 (shelter) Rayner is away with the birds. There is no workforce and no money to build 300,000 social housing homes in five years. At £200k unit cost they will need to find £60000000000 to fund this. Seen some speculation that the chancellor may change what debt calculation they use in order to free up the possibility of more borrowing and perhaps less tax rises but not sure it will stretch to cover these houses as well" I’ve read that she’s moving to a capital expenditure model. The capex/opex distinction does matter, but ultimately, debt is still debt for taxpayers. In business, it’s easier to separate expenditures into capex and maintain a healthy looking balance sheet. However, for taxpayers, the overall debt burden remains the same, regardless of how it’s categorised. Also a Labour government, selling off infrastructure wouldn’t be an option, so borrowing against it makes it a little smoke and mirrors | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To achieve that we would need to completely change the way this country raises money that's wrong ... it merely takes strong government and good legislation. You can't expect legislation to succeed that takes legally held land from businesses and then give that land to small businesses to build houses. It has failure written all over it. 31,000 social housing homes were built in 2023, after right to buy and demolitions, a net loss of 9,000 (shelter) Rayner is away with the birds. There is no workforce and no money to build 300,000 social housing homes in five years. At £200k unit cost they will need to find £60000000000 to fund this. Seen some speculation that the chancellor may change what debt calculation they use in order to free up the possibility of more borrowing and perhaps less tax rises but not sure it will stretch to cover these houses as well I’ve read that she’s moving to a capital expenditure model. The capex/opex distinction does matter, but ultimately, debt is still debt for taxpayers. In business, it’s easier to separate expenditures into capex and maintain a healthy looking balance sheet. However, for taxpayers, the overall debt burden remains the same, regardless of how it’s categorised. Also a Labour government, selling off infrastructure wouldn’t be an option, so borrowing against it makes it a little smoke and mirrors " Reshuffling deck chairs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now." I love the aspiration but is it viable that small local building businesses can reduce their margins on developments allowing for affordable housing in the same way as the larger companies? Interested if anyone has real world experience of infrastructure projects to answer this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the top eight builders of homes are sat on in excess of 1 million plots with aproved planning. at their historic rate of completion over the last 15 years, that's enough to keep them going until 2040 without the need to make any new aquisitions." The issue has never been the ability to build quickly, it's the ability to sell quickly that slows down development. The reality is that property prices are too high compared to average wage and property prices in desirable areas (London) are being artificially spiked by trophy developments aimed at overseas investors. Basically, it's well and good demanding 1.5m new homes but who's buying them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now." Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. " there are sites where this happens already, particularly in wales and especially for firstimers using nominated local builders .... it should be the norm everywhere  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the top eight builders of homes are sat on in excess of 1 million plots with aproved planning. at their historic rate of completion over the last 15 years, that's enough to keep them going until 2040 without the need to make any new aquisitions. The issue has never been the ability to build quickly, it's the ability to sell quickly that slows down development. The reality is that property prices are too high compared to average wage and property prices in desirable areas (London) are being artificially spiked by trophy developments aimed at overseas investors. Basically, it's well and good demanding 1.5m new homes but who's buying them?" exactly ... land banking forces prices up .... that's why the big 10 do it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most of the land that is so called banked does not yet have planning permission. Instead it is under option which is not the same thing. " that's incorrect, most does | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. " Developments are usually phased so not all the infrastructure is built prior to house construction. The performance (sales wise) of the current phase drives the speed of the remaining phases construction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. Developments are usually phased so not all the infrastructure is built prior to house construction. The performance (sales wise) of the current phase drives the speed of the remaining phases construction." what the big 10 'usually' do needs to change then doesn't it, rather than holding evryone hostage to their whims. lots needs to happen to get things moving. self building should be promoted more don't you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. Developments are usually phased so not all the infrastructure is built prior to house construction. The performance (sales wise) of the current phase drives the speed of the remaining phases construction. what the big 10 'usually' do needs to change then doesn't it, rather than holding evryone hostage to their whims. lots needs to happen to get things moving. self building should be promoted more don't you think? " do you actually know how big buisness runs? Profit comes before anything else, if it aint profitable then it wont happen, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most of the land that is so called banked does not yet have planning permission. Instead it is under option which is not the same thing. that's incorrect, most does " According to the Local Government Association (LGA), over 1.1 million homes in England have planning permission but have not yet been built. Separately, “ Approximately 40 per cent of homes granted planning permission since 2015 have not yet been built, according to latest research that identifies a “significant misalignment” between Labour government plans to boost housebuilding and the “reality on the ground”.11 Jul 2024 Covid, Brexit induced materials price rises, interest rate spike, inflation cost of materials, significant increase cost of mortgages etc all at play. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. Developments are usually phased so not all the infrastructure is built prior to house construction. The performance (sales wise) of the current phase drives the speed of the remaining phases construction. what the big 10 'usually' do needs to change then doesn't it, rather than holding evryone hostage to their whims. lots needs to happen to get things moving. self building should be promoted more don't you think? do you actually know how big buisness runs? Profit comes before anything else, if it aint profitable then it wont happen," Also larger developments are phased to take into account flexibility of design etc. plus building too much too soon creates maintenance costs (which would inevitably be passed on to the consumer). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is their strategy as a business, what labour are doing is trying to force them into a corner and basically telling them they need to change their business model to suit this governments demands. That is not going to float and they should expect poor outcomes as a result. it could go either way. taking the banked land and allowing small local firms a chance to build would be advantageous in many respects, especially simulating the economy from the bottom up, instead of the enormous profits in the billions leaving the country every new tax year as happens now. Do you realy think the small builders can bank role a medium size development as all the services and roads need to be in befor you even start on the first property. Developments are usually phased so not all the infrastructure is built prior to house construction. The performance (sales wise) of the current phase drives the speed of the remaining phases construction. what the big 10 'usually' do needs to change then doesn't it, rather than holding evryone hostage to their whims. lots needs to happen to get things moving. self building should be promoted more don't you think? do you actually know how big buisness runs? Profit comes before anything else, if it aint profitable then it wont happen, Also larger developments are phased to take into account flexibility of design etc. plus building too much too soon creates maintenance costs (which would inevitably be passed on to the consumer)." exactly why the system needs to be broken up ... thanks for agreeing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most of the land that is so called banked does not yet have planning permission. Instead it is under option which is not the same thing. that's incorrect, most does " Are you ready to cite some sources? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on Rayner said nobody can say NO. “The BBC reported that Sir Keir acknowledged his approach would not provide a “quick fix”. “The simple fact is that we do not currently have enough workers in the construction industry – in 2023, there was a net loss of 10,000 construction workers. Our research shows that under Labour’s homebuilding plans alone, the equivalent of an additional 152,000 workers will need to be found,” Woodcroft (FMB) added. A report by CITB in May revealed that 251,000 extra construction workers are required by 2028 to meet demand, with 31 percent of construction employers finding suitably skilled staff remains their key challenge.” Does Rayner understand this " Rayner is thick as mince…she has no idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are not the tradesmen to build that number nor the materials. Rayner has the intellect of a potato. " I read 251,000 additional construction workers are needed to hit Rayners 1.5M target. Assuming all other matters enable them to be built. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are not the tradesmen to build that number nor the materials. Rayner has the intellect of a potato. I read 251,000 additional construction workers are needed to hit Rayners 1.5M target. Assuming all other matters enable them to be built. " if that was the case then house bashers would be earning 80 quid an hour atm .... the fact is that trades can't be arsed and are sticking with commercial/industrial/infrastructure because they don't fucked around like they do by the big housing developers and can actually earn some reasonable money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are not the tradesmen to build that number nor the materials. Rayner has the intellect of a potato. I read 251,000 additional construction workers are needed to hit Rayners 1.5M target. Assuming all other matters enable them to be built. " Polish builders suddenly jumped up the visa queue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
