Can you Solve a Housing Crisis by Building 1.5 Million Homes?

A look at whether ambitious plans to build 1.5 million new homes will solve the UK's affordability problems in housing.
1:30 Link between Supply and Price
4:04 Regional Prices
4:46 Other Factors
6:25 Reasons to Build
8:32 Can we Actually Build?
► Please SUBSCRIBE!
► UK Economy - www.youtube.co...
ABOUT
-----------
► www.economicsh... was founded in 2006 by Tejvan Pettinger, who studied PPE at Oxford University and teaches economics. He has published several economics books, including:
► Economic Short Cuts amzn.to/3IgxupC
► 50 Essential Economic Ideas amzn.to/3IgxndG
► Cracking Economics. www.economicsh...
► What Would Keynes Do? Amazon amzn.to/2xShqq4
► Economics Without the Boring Bits amzn.to/48T1hA9

[@jimgrace3492]

Around 30-50% of cost of a newly built house is land purchase. The 1961 Land Compensation Act introduced a rule that if a Council Compulsory purchases farmland it has to pay building land prices. In 2924 that means £2-3M per hectare instead of £10K. If this law was reversed, and housebuilders allowed to bid for the CP'd land on the basis of how low the final sale price is, rather than how much they will pay for the land, there is no reason a 3 ved house shouldn't be £150K. (The houses need to be tightly specified and thoroughly inspected, by council surveyors of course).

[@christopherlockley4737]

Yes but this legislation did not work. Neither did the. Community Land Act or the Development Land Tax Act.

[@jimgrace3492]

@@christopherlockley4737 The legislation worked inasmuch as it achieved its objective: to transfer large chunks of money from many poor ratepayers to a few rich landowners.

[@ianbooth3164]

Agree. It's ridiculous that the land owner profits from a permission given by the public. Allow the land owner a fair premium by all means but there ought to be a fair balance to strike.

[@jimgrace3492]

@markrangers1423 Dozens of times. They are called BCO's these days (Building Control Officers).They used to be called DS's (District Surveyors). I syspect you know absolutely nothing... about anything.

[@ianbooth3164]

@@jimgrace3492 Agree but we're short of them now, and it shows!

[@kittykappa]

I've been watching your videos for quite a bit now, and just want to say thank you for all your work and consistent information. Appreciate it a lot.

[@Daytona2]

It's not just a nightmare for first time buyers, Tejvan. It's also significantly reduced worker mobility. A sanity check is the number of households who couldn't afford to buy the home they currently own. That would make for an interesting historical measure. Thanks, as ever, for your insightful, rational commentary.

[@justjackman]

It would be interesting to hear what effects policies like ban on foreign ownership, ban on second homes and higher property tax would have on housing supply

[@CR-rm4iy]

ban on second homes would be quickly circumvented by setting yourself a director of a company holding ownership of multiple properties

[@justjackman]

@@CR-rm4iy thanks, makes sense. I guess in reality a lot of rules like that would be impractical to implement

[@Batmangutten]

Something not mentioned here is that reducing regulatory barriers will in and of itself lower costs. Lots of time and money is wasted attaining permits, paying fees, engaging with local governments and residents etc. If none of this was necessary, or significantly scaled back, it would lower prices. Some of the other problems mentioned are also more a symptom of an uncompetitive market than insurmountable obstacles. If there's significant profit to be made in building homes, and current producers aren't meeting demand, new entrants will enter the market. I'm willing to bet the reason why this hasn't happened has to do with the regulatory hurdles involved. Skill labor is also a poor excuse for not building more houses. If companies could build 4-5 story apartment buildings at massive markups, they will start training new workers and offering higher salaries to be able to do so. There have been plenty examples of countries that have been able to quickly pivot into new industries. So why can't the UK do the same? Also, if you do build more houses and prices rise more slowly, that will cause inflation to fall. If inflation falls, interest rates are going to be lowered to meet the inflation target. With lower interest rates, mortgages are cheaper. Rents will also fall since the financing cost for new rental units is lower. Lower interest rates also stimulate more housing production since housing is a credit sensitive industry. Higher interest rates have the potential to squeeze profit margins of home builders. So long as there isn't some impediment to bringing more supply on the market, lower interest rates should improve affordability.

[@billturner6564]

You havebit right and wrong Regulations are the number 1 reson why there are no homes Britain has the most complex and difficult building proses in the world and only massive building companies can afford the bribes necessary to achieve a planning consent... And when these companies have there land they hang on 2 it because its like gold and can only go up in value this can be proven as the number of homes built by small companies has gone from 75 % of the market in the 70s to just 5% now. But the idea that there is the workforce out there 2 build homes is dream i am afraid there is no interest in struggling with heavy things in a muddy field at 7 am in the morning in driving rain anymore And with the vast majority of builders in the mid to late 40s there is not much chance of any building going on within 15 years Modern I've seen many of the modern apprentices who've come through polytechnics they last about 3 weeks on site😅

[@psulux]

The Elephant in the Room There are empty Offices and shops Everywhere If these were utilised for residential accommodation Would this not sort the problem out???

[@polyphonics557]

I think I can guarantee that if the UK house builders could deliver 300,000 house per year the quality of this houses will be extremely dodgy, so even if the price came down, first time buyers would be purchasing liabilities despite the 10 year warranty.

[@darrenvincent2040]

1.5 million houses won't be built. Developers build houses not governments. Other issue is lack of skilled trades to build them. Social housing gets built as part of planning process which makes developers build higher value properties

[@vorong2ru]

shortage of labour, insane cost for the manufacturing goods etc won't let them build affordable houses, that's for sure..

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

This is true. Theres no way they will build them. Many studies say we are many times more, short on houses though. 4 million homes is widely talked about. Im not sure 1.5 million would move the dial as you would still be short...

[@haroldine9838]

But government policy in the form of national planning legislation underpins what, where, and how quickly houses can be built!

[@BIGDZ8346]

That's also a problem in the UK developers build homes. People don't buy their own land and build their own home like in many many countries around the world. My native country Poland being a prime example. Even if they don't have the money to finish the house they will build what they can live in it untill they have enough money to finish the rest. People in the UK just don't do that it's developers making the same exact homes and people buying them overwhelmingly with mortgages. One of the prime reasons why in 08 UK was hit very badly and Poland was not.

[@darrenvincent2040]

@@haroldine9838 Developers already have lots of land with planning permission. They will only build what they can sell for profit

[@freedomwatch3991]

No, it wouldn't. There are multiple reasons for the housing crisis, among these are endless quantitative easing; loose monetary, fiscal and credit conditions; foreign buyers (especially in London) and increased population. The increase in demand will outstrip any increase in supply from construction.

[@IAmebAdger]

That was then, we live in a different time now, mortgages are much more difficult to afford and foreign interest has waned, London is exceedingly unattractive, BoE has voted for quantitative tightening, etc.

[@prodlowd]

Needs to be tougher restrictions on holiday homes, AirBnBs, second homes etc. in my opinion. Also they have said they are going to prioritise brownfield sites, but they don't because it's cheaper and easier to build on greenfield. Needs to be more restrictions!

[@vonder7]

@@prodlowd there are already super tough restrictions

[@perthforme]

​@@vonder73 houses 300 metres from me are empty most of the year. The owners live in the far east.

[@margaretmcnamee6411]

if the government could build more social housing and kept rent to 30% of family income that might help.

[@user-we1uo8ou8c]

Government's task is governance, not to run a rental business

[@daftjunk2008]

@@user-we1uo8ou8cit’s the government’s role to look after its people, not to be an arbiter in a capitalist free for all

[@jasonbuksh2958]

It’s simple - build more housing to meet demand. Don’t allow people to own more than 2 houses

[@patdbean]

Better to stop allowing the population to increase by 700,000 a year.

[@BIGDZ8346]

The problem with the UK housing market is also culture and cost of building. Barley anyone here buys land and builds there own houses. Vs in Eastern Europe this is extremely popular. In Poland people will often build the basics and live in it untill they get enough money to finish everything else. In the UK its very diffrent people buy a ready house from a developer with a mortgage. It's pretty stupid for governments to promise to build x number of homes. What they should do is make it as easy and as cheap as possible to encourage people to also be able to build their own homes. Not to mention it would make the country much more pretty instead of every house looking the same.

[@vonder7]

@@BIGDZ8346 the problem is that there is no land to buy, it’s also a much more densely populated country, around 4-5 times.

[@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986]

@@vonder7it also isn’t actually legal to even build what you want on your own land due to the town and country planning act which requires planning permission from the local authorities to even build anything on your own private land and there’s no guarantee they’ll allow you to build a house on it if you apply.

[@vonder7]

@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 yeah, I was looking into it, you can buy a land for crazy amounts of money anyway but you don’t know if and what you can build on it so potentially you can lose hundreds of thousand of pounds. Also you won’t get a mortgage on the land without the planning permission. I’m surprised that such an advanced country has such a basic system. In most countries you have a permitted use of land and know beforehand what you can build on it.

[@aisians435]

perhaps we should stop importing 350-750k people per year if there is a shortage of 4.6 million homes?

[@vorong2ru]

but there is also shortage of staff, the UK lacks millions of workers that it desperately needs for economy. This is a tricky situation, considering fast ageing population, we do need immigrant, the question is about how and where to accommodate them and what's the quality of those immigrants ( education, health, cultural tricks etc).

[@aisians435]

@@vorong2ru ah yes, the gods of the economy. We must all have our quality of life destroyed for GDP to continue rising. Japan seem to have a better quality of life in almost every metric despite the facing the same problems as us, not just using immigration as a band aid for ageing population and having a lower GDP per capita. GDP is not everything. As for national services, the demand for doctors/nurses is lessened if there are less people in the country. The demand itself rises due to population rising.

[@vorong2ru]

@@aisians435 it's not about rising GDP, it's about filling the spaces in the existing businesses that cannot thrive for the sake of everyone's prosperity due to lack of staff. We do need workers, because in 30 years 50% of the UK will be the age of 65+ completely unable to work. So we do need to build the work force, the children of current immigrants will be working while you will be retiring etc. Otherwise, there will be no one to look after you, to treat you in the hospital, to move your groceries and to police your streets. This is extremely serious situation that we can't ignore.

[@aisians435]

>Otherwise, there will be no one to look after you, to treat you in the hospital, to move your groceries and to police your streets. ah you mean like right now? WITH mass immigration? Again, japan has had a static population since around 1980 and their society hasnt just ceased to function without mass immigration in the hundreds of thousands. Your argument is hollow fear mongering.

[@aisians435]

@@vorong2ru >Otherwise, there will be no one to look after you, to treat you in the hospital, to move your groceries and to police your streets. Ah you mean like right now? WITH mass immigration? Again, Japan has had a static population since around 1980 and their society hasnt just ceased to function without mass migration in the hundreds of thousands. Your argument is just hollow fearmongering.

[@kcnmsepognln]

How about doing something about all the empty houses we currently have? And second/holiday homes? Air B&B? If we taxed these appropriately (according to the social & economic harm they cause), then we would be halfway to a solution. Either way there's no shortage of land, just a shortage of available land because the large developers and even supermarkets have large landbanks, that they're sitting on until they can screw as much profit as possible out of it. Tax any land held for longer than say a year, as if it's developed and watch availability soar. Simply building more houses, without addressing the underlying causes (ie greedy b'stards) won't SOLVE anything, merely disguise it and leave the problem for someone else to deal with. House are homes, not financial products.

[@marcus.H]

Almost every "empty house" is actually just someone moving house. It's empty for a few months while the sale goes through. Yes it's hundreds of thousands, but not in the way it seems

[@lukeool]

Did you even watch the video? 🤦‍♀️

[@marcus.H]

@@lukeool who?

[@vonder7]

@@kcnmsepognln how it is to be a commie?

[@Mike-lb1hx]

there is a shortage of land or rather land allowed to be built on due to the town and country planning act. Developers make their money by getting planning permission not building houses. Smash the planning laws and see building rates shoot up and prices fall

[@ANONAAAAAAAAA]

Social housing is the way to go. Hosing price doesn't matter after all, but housing affordability is.

[@vorong2ru]

social housing is just building a ghetto for unmotivated people - those people have no motivation to look after their homes and improve it. This is just plain stupid socialist move. We need to reduce social housing and leave it only for those REALLY in need ( stricter criteria ie elderly and terminally sick), while building more affordable housing - 1 bedroom flats, 2 bedroom houses, more clever land use by building a few stories flat houses etc. Houses should be affordable but they should stay private so people have the motivation to improve and maintain their homes, to move to new places when they can afford it etc.

[@grimaffiliations3671]

Social housing is good, but you also need to remove red tape for market housing as well, or else waiting times will be too large to make the social housing effective

[@christopherlockley4737]

Yes but who is going to pay for it???

[@smellypunks]

Approx 40,000 social houses are built per year mostly by housing associations. Government spends about 10-12 billion on this. Doubling building to 80,000 units a year will help but then gov needs to find another 10 billion a year.

[@OVXX666]

land value tax would be easier

[@lifestoryguy]

I'd have thought if the government grasped the nettle around housing valuations for council tax this could help reduce the price of a home as people might expect sellers to sell their property at a lower price if any council tax reform was to increase the amount of council tax they'd need to pay over the long term. I don't know about you, but one of the reasons I live in a small property is because I know that council tax is something that always increases each year so once the mortgage is paid off. I don't want to be lumbered with a high rate of council tax for a property that has a few more rooms than is neeeded?

[@stephengreen8986]

So houses must be scarce then? They must therefore be easy to sell. Spoiler alert. They aren't. Therefore builders will build what they can sell. Will the government build houses for the homeless? It would be welcome but is very unlikely.

[@harry130747]

Who's going to pay for these houses for the homeless? Can the homeless afford the rent?

[@robc1014]

@@harry130747we could start spending our taxes properly. Amazes me we generate more tax income than germany, have 17 million less people to do it and support with it and yet the quality of life in the uk is still significantly worse. Theres money to help the poor if we stop overpaying for public contracts to put extra cash in the politicians friends pockets. The new national wealth fund will also help to generate extra revenue and so will taking the railways but under national control. Nationalising the energy companies would generate a lot of extra money to fund those things too. But hell, why do things that help the whole nation when we could just help increase the inequality instead.

[@jstoner9029]

@@harry130747the mark of society is how it looks after people who are less fortunate. We can all count piles of money, caring for no one but ourselves. But it turns out to be quite a shit life.

[@CR-rm4iy]

UK has unhealthy preoccupation with houses vs flats. Flats are more eco as there is less heat loss and less waste (for example only one roof has to be built).

[@jamesvdv0]

Have you lived in a flat/apartment? How will it go when you need to park and charge your EV overnight?

[@eddieharris6004]

Now in my sixties i would like to downsize to a flat but would not buy a leasehold property with anual service charges period. Realy disappointed in Michael Gove.

[@CR-rm4iy]

@@eddieharris6004 I live in Scotland, and here we don't have leasehold/ground rents etc. There are laws for "common" area repairs/who is responsible for example the roof/front door to the entire thing, who get's the garden area if that wasn't stated..., so even if you won't pay service charge you will not escape paying if something breaks (and if you sell before paying, my solicitor would find out, and I'd either lower my price/walk off) As you're 60, you might also want to look into flats which are only sold to retired people, those are cheaper, although I'm too young to have a vested interest to look into those, for sure they must be cheaper for a reason. Poland also has service charges, with often no need for a boiler - city sells you hot water for heating/tap for example, owners have voting rights etc., so in principle a service charge isn't that unusual. I don't want to live down south in England, but if I were, I'd just plug those service charge £ into Excel's Net Present Value of Cashflow etc. and would be making a numbers type of decision, and not feelings type of decision.

[@juliusNewgris]

mostly because of leasehold and maintenance fees nonsense

[@PDCRed]

Address the issue of people using housing as a money maker. Increase Capital Gains on second homes by 5% per year indefinitely.

[@vonder7]

@@PDCRed I think you should consider moving to Cuba or North Korea.

[@steeldoubloon19]

It’ll just mean housing will be owned by corporations, that seaside property? Owned by a hotel chain, really house prices are high due to a fall in the value of our money not solely a lack of housing

[@jonholmes1845]

Here we go, jealousy of folk doing better than you

[@PDCRed]

@@jonholmes1845Pathetic. You have no idea how well I’m doing.

[@martinthomson8666]

@@jonholmes1845 its absolutely impossible for young people to even get 1 home whilst the greedy old people are hogging multiple properties

[@garyb455]

The real problem is there is no profit in building affordable housing, and that's the main reason very few get built

[@awild10]

There's one big problem that has been missed here and that is the knock on effect that reducing house prices causes elsewhere in the economy. You cant just reduce the price of homes for sale because doing so knocks valuation off of homes not for sale too. The consequences for home owners of seeing the value of their home drop by 20% would be catastrophic, especially if they only bought in the last few years and now face being in negative equity. For the elderly the value of their home makes up most of their estate so any government actively trying to reduce this will see a big backlash at the poles. And then there's the issue of the cost of building new homes. Labour and material costs have skyrocketed over the last couple of years so you cant just hope that new home built today can be bought to market at 2019 prices as the house builders can't afford to make them for that price and so will start building less and then the cycle of demand outstripping supply will go full circle.

[@jamessmith1652]

Maybe we need high rises. Developers can make hefty profits on high rises, they'd be incentivised. What reason is there that they don't build so many (most modern ones are in London). There'd be plenty demand. Is planning permission preventing them doing it elsewhere?

[@StephenGalvin-hj7jt]

Excellent videos and very informative. Thanks

[@keepitreal2902]

The problem is mass migration. Reduce immigration and that will reduce the pressure on housing (and everything else)

[@davidhorn6008]

Your style of presentation is superb - thank You.

[@jamesmc1272]

Who could have predicted that importing 10million people would cause a housing crisis.

[@InquisitiveBaldMan]

Not when you are 4 Million houses short... You'd still be short. But given most MPs have multiple houses, why would they allow it? It is important hot air they must pump out now.

[@vonder7]

What’s wrong with having multiple houses? Are you a communist?

[@Battleneter]

When you say "short", in some areas of London property investors make up 70% of the ownership, property investors directly compete with first time buyers and nearly always have more money. If you build another 4 million homes most of it will be taken up by, you guessed it property investors. If you regulate to dramatically lower property investor ownership, prices will tumble. Most of the problem is NOT a physical shortage.

[@devilsolution9781]

Dont forget migrant numbers will outstrip building numbers.

[@johnorchard4]

@@Battleneter I do agree with the premise of your statement, but I would add the rider that the basis for the calculation of housing needs has altered very little over the past couple od decades in reality. It was tweaked a couple of years ago, but it is far from being a reliable basis for addressing the real housing needs of the nation. The number needed may well be far less. However, we will also need to become harder as a society of people occupying homes that are far too big for them, or second homes. The environmental impact alone makes this increasingly a serious matter, but the propensity for new developments to be built across the countryside with all the attendant travel and infrastructural demands is simply not sustainable.

[@Cornel1001]

10 million houses are empty 365 days a year in UK, another 5 million are empty 300 days.

[@alex29443]

It will certainly help in the case of the UK, which has a real undersupply issue

[@johnestok277]

How many of the new houses will be council estate social housing? Versus private?

[@steph6109]

It depends on if you sell those homes to local councils, home owners or for profit companies. We have the space and adequate number of homes. It's just the cost relative to the average wage

[@andrewtaylor6737]

Buy a van or motorhome, even families can do this & save a bloody fortune! There you go, fixed the issue!!

[@glyngreen538]

That’s my plan. Though it’s going to take me some years to save up for one (and to learn to drive as I’ve got to my forties managing without).

[@andrewtaylor6737]

@@glyngreen538 You won't regret it, sooner the better! Keep going👌

[@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi]

UK lacks houses where there is work available

[@anthonyferris8912]

House prices and rents are so expensive in Turkey that even the head of the central bank, Hafize Gaye Erkan, says she cannot afford rents in Istanbul. Which is perhaps a little perplexing, given half a million Turks have moved to the UK, with another one million to France and seven million to German. Countries like Turkey and others are effectively exporting their housing crisis, but still experiencing huge rises in housing costs.

[@Birko64]

You can't reduce the price of a houses to buy. We need to build a lot of affordable houses for rent eg council and housing association properties, funded by gov or local gov. This is a sensible and long term investment for the UK. Otherwise many people will never be able to afford a stable and long term home. Nobody ever lost money building homes whether they are owned by an individual or an organisation.

[@user-mu8cg2xy3u]

Good luck to them getting ALL the accessories for a house ie Taps, anything plastic, pipes, etc etc .

[@wattbenj]

You could build a million homes and it wouldn't achieve anything at all. This country has a problem with poor education - hence the inability to comprehend numbers, especially exponentially growing ones.....and an addiction to both free (printed) and cheap labour. Addiction always ends in destruction. We have a net 700,000 increase in population each year and we're already about five million homes short in terms of providing for natives. Whichever way you cut it, we got too far behind and it isn't going to be fixed now. And that's the optimistic version of events.

[@CaribbeanEmbassyUKTV]

Great video as always. Affordability is one of many issues with UK housing. Most of the homes have other issues that homebuilding can solve such as location, quality, increase of size or better use of space. Fixing those would make it easier to accept the prices.

[@kinggeoffrey3801]

New build houses come with a service charge, which comes with huge problems. The fee's start low but increases every year at high percentages.

[@sahanadeshmukh695]

Maybe build flats instead of houses? And tax the super rich people's wealth

[@Mike-lb1hx]

Prices are determined by supply and demand yet the video doesn't really mention the elephant in the room, large scale immigration. The level of immigration implies building 500k per annum just for the immigrants. Building 300k while better than 200k will not stop the positioning deteriorating even further unless immigration is severely curbed

[@bundforex]

I believe you're missing the point. Legal immigration is both a gift and a necessity for our economy, especially given the chronic skill shortages we face. As an employer, we struggle to find qualified recruits, and even attracting skilled immigrants on a large scale is difficult due to the crisis in the UK. There are far more lucrative options elsewhere in the world. Just imagine what would happen to say NHS, IT companies, sports industry etc without immigration. Yes, illegal immigration needs to be addressed, but legal immigration is crucial for our economy, govt is not stupid or may be not completely :)

[@Mike-lb1hx]

@@bundforex There aren't skill shortages, there is a labour market and you are trying to hire labour below the natural rate. If you cannot hire someone simply pay more (or train someone to do it) If the job delivers less value than the real market rate don't hire them but stop using migrants to keep down local wages. What would happen to the NHS, it would have to train UK born staff to do the job and stop raiding poorer countries of their skilled workforce a practice thats immoral.

[@peterteagleteagle9958]

1.5 million houses in 5 years,so you got to built another 300,000 extra houses a year ,pure fantasy

[@marumaru6084]

Even destroying the country wont matter if they dont stop increasing demand.

[@jon-xd7tl]

It would be much more efficient to build tower blocks. With almost 2000 new arrivals every day, we only need to build about four tower blocks every day.

[@marumaru6084]

@@jon-xd7tl There is still a backlog of infrastructure for 15 million immigrants without more. The point is the general public pays for the lousy new buiild houses.

[@user-fm6ns5nb4j]

The current building rate is about 220,000 extra homes a year. So the 1.1m plots with planning permission already in the big builders land-banks is five years supply at current building rates. As far as I can see Labour's plan to release Greenbelt land to house builders is simply allowing them to renew their land-banks at a discounted rate - unless it is accompanied by penalties for a failure to build out their portfolios it will have little effect.

[@philipvjones397]

1) They won;t get anywhere near building 1.5 million homes as there aren't the people to build them and then there's the planning issues etc Additionally, they are relying on the private sector to do the building, and there are very few builders that focus on affordable housing 2) House prices are a function of interest rates, and as the BoE is going to be cutting, there's no reason to think prices will decline significantly absent some economioc catastrophe or major tax or investment rule changes.

[@InnuendoXP]

Interest rates aren't likely to go back to their rock-bottom post-GFC rates either though, the days of cheap debt are over. The historical average of the 19th & 20th centuries is around 4+4.5% & the past generation could easily be seen to be an anomaly. As for the people and the skills - they aren't there now, so If you took 1.5M homes & divided them up equally over the 5 years of Labour'£ parliamentary session, there's no way they could build 300K in year one. But 'if' they spend those 5 years aggressively supporting the expansion of the trades, and 'if' they manage to produce the right incentives for private business to take all this work up, and 'if' they repeal planning certain restrictions and see large developments approved at the national level then they could be seeing those kinds of numbers by year 3-4, they'd be depending on a hell of a year 5 to make that full 1.5M amount though & I definitely don't expect that to happen without them taking extreme measures under the guise of it fulfilling a manifesto pledge. Which, to be fair, conservatives had done themselves. (Not on anything useful unfortunately.)

[@billykotsos4642]

We need drastic action here and now. This is not a game

[@fakename45]

Do you actually have any ideas?

[@billykotsos4642]

@@fakename45 yes sir Beat this country wide awake. Fire all 'consultants', Repeal and reform the planning act. Build HS2 and invest in building 500k homes. Also create a new wealth tax to fund the construction of new houses

[@billykotsos4642]

also reform land ownership

[@Propertyslat]

Fantastic video! The breakdown of market trends and investment strategies was very informative. I found the advice on spotting high-potential areas and understanding property values incredibly useful. Excited to see more content like this. Keep up the great work!

[@CR-rm4iy]

6:50 I disagree partially, low vacancy rate is a healthy sign also. For example Poland has way higher vacancy rate than the UK, but that's because Polish law makes it even more difficult to get rid of non paying tenant, therefore higher vacancy rate is not always a good sign. But then the US rate that you mentioned - obviously that's a different situation, as repositions in the US are the easiest of the 3 countries that I had mentioned.

[@Hookeslaw]

It's a small step in the right direction. I hope it works out.

[@johndover3626]

1.5 million homes was just an election sweetener for the voters. It's pie in the sky, most people know that. In the 1950s much housing demand was met by the state. Today these are mostly in private ownership, but they remain good, solid properties, much better than the paper-thin rubbish churned out by too many private developers in 2024. They actually had gardens, but not the onerous leasehold restrictions that have been introduced on estates. Problem is, if you went back to the 1950s model, you'd get half the population trying to wreck it, as with the NHS, in favour of privatising everything.

[@lh4394]

Easing up regulations will help smaller companies to build as this case by case a lot of them don't want to risk sitting on land that might take years until permission

[@BobBuilder-mq9wr]

Nope as the boat people will get them first

[@barrydwyer2039]

One of the major problems is people wanting to downsize because the difference almost zero in London. 4 bed f/h house to a new build 2 bed l/h flat almost the same and then the service charges council tax makes it all unaffordable the only gain is on gas and electric possibly.

[@vonder7]

@@barrydwyer2039 the difference is in price, if you sell 4 bed house and buy 2 bed flat you have 500k free cash

[@aceofspades5786]

Victorians built 400,000 a year without power tools, machinery or concrete

[@ThomasBoyd-gx9wr]

Awesome. Spot on. Well said. Housing stock needs rebuild 1.5 million houses built in England Labour government has mandate 412 British Labour party MP's. 5 year parliament August 15th 2029.

[@vonder7]

@@ThomasBoyd-gx9wr all they will do is increasing taxes to absurd levels and build nothing

[@davetherave1230]

1.5 million over 5 years won't be enough.

[@James-yl3kk]

What's net migration going to be over the next 5 years? How do you even know how many houses you'll need without managed capped migration.

[@patdbean]

If you think immigration is going to be lower under labour than it was under the Tories. Then as they say In The USA "I have a bridge to sell you" ​@@James-yl3kk

[@patdbean]

1:59 yes, but by the time they build them (5 years at best) the poulation will have increased by aleast 5% at the current 700,000 a year X5 that is 3.5 million. They wouls be better of reducing the imigration numbers.

[@khairulnaeim756]

My opinion was..not just built but redesign back the house.. Ground level and add one more upper level....it looks they use brick..our circle can get lower price...can do much better...the government if not with our tools can get good price with much bigger room..it gotta be different...

[@harry130747]

Can you translate that into English?

[@erongi233]

It would be healthy,although I have to admit not to the party which implemented it, to allow house prices not to be govt guaranteed. If prices are allowed to fall so does the speculators interest. That skews the whole assets market. What also skews the housing market is that the aristocracy seems immune to things like adequately working death duties and manages to pass on vast swathes of land and property from one generation to another without any difficulty. 40% of UK is owned by aristocrats with powerful connections. Prince William runs 0.2% of the land in the UK with the Duchy of Cornwall. Then there is the Duke of Westminster. Then there is leasehold.

[@lecturesfromleeds614]

Anyway, if house prices rise slower than wages rise, then prices in effect, fall

[@johnestok277]

The 300000, how do we know that private home builders won’t just build 300,000 less homes?

[@bmstalker]

How can you talk about supply and demand of property in the uk and not talk about net migration figure. Migrants need to live somewhere and the 1.5m houses won’t be enough to house migrants, never mind ease the housing crisis

[@cshiner7919]

Why is low vacancy a bad thing? Surely property being used is a good thing.

[@justinstephenson9360]

1. Labour are not promising to build 1.5m new homes they are merely setting targets for house building. 2. There is no chance of Labour's targets being achieved, there is a lack of skilled trades people to build the house and the housing market has turned away from factory pre-build homes. 3. Even if we were somehow to build 1.5m homes at least in England roughly 1/3rd would need to be "affordable" we have the problem that the housing associations, who are supposed to be the primary buyers of affordable homes, do not have the money to buy them, they are struggling to fund their current maintenance bill. 4. As for the idea that UK is short of 4.3m homes, that is doubtful. In Europe amongst the leading countries Germany has 2.0 people per household, France 2.18, Spain 2.5, Italy 2.28, Netherlands 2.12, Sweden 2.18 so for a country like the UK which country has 2.36 people per household it would be more correct to say that we are probably 2-2.5m homes short. Of course like many European countries we have a low birth rate and were it not for immigration our population would be falling which is of course another way of reducing the imbalance between supply and demand! 5. As the video correctly shows, the number of households in private renting hasn't changed in the last 6-7 years, the figure for 2017 (4.69m) was actually slightly higher than in 2023 (4.6m), the PRS has effectively gone on strike and is not adding to the rent stock. That is something that may not get worse - small private landlords are leaving the market but being replaced by large corporate landlords (which history suggests is not an improvement but more likely to be the opposite for tenants) - but as the population rises we need more homes for rent not the same number As for house prices rising or falling, it is simple economics - supply and demand but with one important caveat. Homes are usually fixed in location. We could have a balance between supply and demand on average across the country but that could hide a massive imbalance in popular areas (basically the SE England).

[@markturner5534]

Why would developers ever want to match their supply with demand, keeping a stranglehold on supply means they maintain high prices. They know government rely on increasing the population as an economic tool to increase revenue - so its a no brainer for developers.

[@wafercrackerjack880]

increasing prices when no one can afford it makes no sense does it?

[@markturner5534]

@@wafercrackerjack880 yet developers sell the houses they build with ease, when the market slows down they generally offer better deals, while continuing to protect their profit lines, the fact that the market barely corrected 5% after recent inflationary prices shows this, and that ultimately it's the short supply that maintains high prices, do people ever realise that government intervention is largely to blame for asset appreciation, wether its by currency debasement and/or increased population.

[@lecturesfromleeds614]

Do you mean that it takes 9 months to sell a house post Lizz Truss?

[@theant9821]

when i bought my house and left my parents i was suprsed to find rent to be about 25 percent more expensive than mortgage, logic told me renting should be cheaper as you dont have anything to show for it. no brainer i bought a house. now rent is over 50 percent more than my mortgage for essentially the same house. if people can afford to rent surely they can afford to buy a house, relitivly speaking buying is getting cheaper compared to renting.

[@billykotsos4642]

9:38 My father is a Bricklayer and has not seen a payrise in almost 5 years.... I dont understand where the money for 'skilled labour' goes...

[@lesleylamy]

Of course you can, tories did not build houses to keep the prices high.

[@DanielEdwards-]

The answer to your question… will homes become more affordable if 1.5m new ones are built? Well, that depends on who owns them…

[@CR-rm4iy]

In Edinburgh, when I had a building site near me (apartment complex) they were local workers, one could tell from accents, as is often the case (EE workers are mostly owner + a few employees doing renovations). Anyway, loads of caravans appeared, with window curtains, some of them, minority even on Irish plates. Once the base was built, caravans disappeared. This tells you all - who would like to live like this? And think about how long does it take to complete a stage for which you have the skills - once that's done, you're not needed. I don't think running this like that they will attract workers.

[@seawavechau]

1.5 million homes over five years are not enough if social housing fall short

[@joelincoln6560]

Why would we need more houses when the indigenous populations birthrate hasnt been at replacement levels since the 1970s? Maybe an external pressure perhaps.

[@terryj50]

No to reduce prices you need to put up rates as well as build around 3 million homes a year. Issue is in the uk with the 22 million on some form of benefits and wanting the tax payer to pay their rents this will never happen. You need migration to build the homes and this takes away the homes. Migrants work and have to pay visas and the nhs surcharge as well as tax and ni and still can afford the rents in the uk as they are cheaper than in their countries.

[@billykotsos4642]

5:28 Interest rates will go down to 0 in a couple of years... there is nothing to predict here...

[@3d1e00]

Welcome to the UK, where we sold our water, let these companies pile poo into our rivers. But still just keep it going. Here we have our ridiculous inability to understand the issue is lack of social housing and how we really just need to build council houses and remove help to buy. But we won't, we will spend decades watching it get worse and then wonder why nothing changed after all we did.

[@davideyres955]

Spot on. So many “experts” saying build more houses. You literally can’t build enough houses to make a real difference to house prices. Some thing is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. People are prepared to pay what the banks are prepared to lend at, hence the massive increase during the Blair years as they let the banks go crazy lending. Just look at house price graphs. This was how they “afforded” the spending spree they went on. They deliberately inflated house prices by removing housing costs from the inflation reporting. Building council houses with reasonable rent will provide competition to private rental market. Less demand on private rental will put pressure on rental costs and this will provide competition on buying a house.

[@3d1e00]

@@davideyres955 these people aren't experts at all. Experts have been saying we should be building council houses since the 90s. These people are politicians and pseudo celebrity.

[@grimaffiliations3671]

Yes. Housing crisis = Housing shortage

[@sang3Eta]

No, because the price of a house is caused by how much people can borrow. ZIRP Zero Interest Rate Policy sent prices to the moon.

[@tarlkoroban3733]

Building 1.5 million state houses for rent will solve the problem.

[@timeflex]

The quick answer: no. No government is allowed to put sponsors' profits at risk.

[@SmithyD86]

"Concreting the Green Belt" is slightly disingenuous. Labour have been talking about Greenfield sites, which is a completely different thing. Greenfield sites are often not picturesque rolling green fields they can be a piece of grass with a tree that's got litter dumped all over it and is a complete eye sore. Many councils want to build on greenfield sites.

[@vonder7]

@@SmithyD86 you mean greyfield?

[@juliandowen1621]

Better off building factories and give our young people a better future.

[@hungo7720]

Underconstruction due to nimbyism and cumbersome lengthy red tapes have triggered some of the worst housing shortages in the UK history. As such, housing and rental spikes have been rampant across the UK, causing people to languish. To make matters worse, incessant immigration has further strained the rotten housing market of the UK.

[@gogrape9716]

The Chinese built 63 Million homes recently. Whats your problem ???

[@harry130747]

Who's going to pay for all these new houses the government is proposing to build?

[@glenkean3407]

75 million by 2030, not a chance.

[@jamesvdv0]

Again, he is missing an important demand variable in the equation. Let's denote it with the letter "i". 😉

[@555frontier]

Would bet all my money that 1.5m new homes won't be built in the next 5 years.

[@matthewharding-ew1ts]

Here's your answer...........Nope.

[@emiliorodenasgonzalez8568]

If these house,s are for selling,could be..if for benefits..no way

[@definitelynotadam]

1.5 million homes 😂, and who is going to build them?

[@darek795]

Will it solve the crisis ? I depends on amount of immigration - if soon next 5 millions immigrants arrive to the UK it won't solve antyhing.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

The British obsession with home ownership is the problem. Most people should rent, but the private rental sector is a jungle. What we need is publicly owned housing with reasonable rents and house maintenance included in the rent.

[@CCP_Operative]

Zero economic thought

[@vonder7]

@@tancreddehauteville764 no, renting is a slavery. Literally the worst idea ever.

[@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986]

Curious for your reasoning on why most people shouldn’t own a home? I’m open minded to the idea but not one I’ve encountered before

[@tancreddehauteville764]

@@vonder7 Nonsense. In many countries most people rent and live perfectly well that way, e.g. Germany. If renting is properly regulated it can work very well.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 Let me reverse the question. Why should everyone own a home?

[@ChrisTaylor-dz6nk]

The answer is no. 😅

[@mobilephil244]

No but building more houses will create a food-growing crisis in a world where climate change is trashing food production. What are we going to be eating ? houses ?

[@billykotsos4642]

7:23 lol this is going to be so much worse by turn of the decade ....

[@alanjax7685]

whos going to build these houses? i wonder if bricklayers grow on trees?

[@CD-pm9kc]

More houses is bad for the environment. More people we bring into the UK means more of everything else, cars, food, Ikea crap.

[@mynameisnobody5295]

What about building Council Houses where rents will lower than the private sector? Could this reduce rent prices as having more competion? This takes away the Mortgages aspect? "In 2022/23, housing benefit expenditure was estimated at £15.4 billion. Housing associations in England have reduced their planned spending on new affordable homes by 9%, or £1.5 billion, for 2024 compared to the previous year." scource: axxco In October 2022, there were 676,304 recorded empty homes in England. This is a 3.6% increase on the previous year's total. source: UK House of Commons Library If more were public owned homes those on Benefits (many including people that work 36+ hrs) a large amount of the expensses will just be returned back to public purse?

[@archiemcberry7102]

Who can afford to buy a home?

[@timbrown1897]

so probably will cost 150 billion pounds and the people who wants them will not pay the rent so the tax payer will and the council won't get the council tax so the council will put it on the tax so you own a house pay 25 % more c tax and pay income tax to pay for the billions of house costs and the immigrants and benefits people are doing fine

[@higreentj]

We will probably lose fifty percent of jobs over the next three years so I would expect to see people leaving the cities.