The grumpy thread

[Bobthebeard]

Around 4000 new houses being built in my area (Fylde coast). Of the ones recently built an awful lot* of them have been bought by investors and rented out. The rest will go the same way I expect. So not really helping people to buy a house, just more houses available to rent. Not sure if this is a good thing or not really.

The one thing I do know is that it has caused massive traffic problems here. Thousands of extra cars and no improvement in the road infrastructure. Despite the local government promises years ago.

 

* No exact figures, but based on local knowledge.

[Lacquer Peel]

It's perhaps worth remembering that it was during Labour's 13 years of power that house prices boomed to unsustainable levels in the first place...

 

No defence for New Labour, Thatcher's greatest achievement, here.

They continued to sell off social housing like their political idols in the Tories to create this modern feudal society we live in now.

[LostnotFound]

My issue with the latest push to build new houses is that it is yet more push back on the Green Belt. Sod bowing to pressure to build houses in the South East, once no one can afford to live here business will have to move to the North to be able to attract decent employees as people priorotise their quality of life over a bottom line wage figure they see nothing of (anecdotally this is already happening in a few industries).

 

Part of this is NIMBYISM on my behalf, having grown up in Hertfordshire it'll be a crying shame once all the byways I've enjoyed cycling over no longer exist due to being one big estate. We were always a rural county and it's a shame to kill that off just because 'the markets' rule all and they say this is what must happen.

 

In terms of when more houses are built, I'm also well in agreement that the infrastructure never follows, I've only worked in Cambridge for about two years but in that time on my route in there have been several housing estates built with what must be a couple of thousand new homes, given they are all on the outskirts of the city it's fair to suggest that's another couple of thousand cars on already congested roads.

 

The real issue with affordability is mentioned by several people above, it's housing as investments that is at the root cause, building more homes for landlords to snap up does nothing to help actual local people. We've had a load of flats go up on Brownfield sites (which is brilliant I really wish this would be the norm), but the local paper has had a lot of complaints over the 'affordable' provision amongst them being far out of reach of anyone who couldn't already afford a flat somewhere in town.

[Cheggers]

As a country we need lose this obsession with property ownership - Contrary to popular belief it's not the be-all-and-end-all to a happy and successful life.

 

I'm in the very lucky position of being what most folks would call a "high earner". I have enough for a more than decent deposit squirrelled away and could have a choice of generous mortgages. However, I don't want the burden of my own home to maintain, repair and keep updated. I don't want to be tied to a particular area and like the flexibility of being able to move around if I want or need to. I'm building up a decent pension pot, and with future inheritances will possibly buy a small place outright when I retire (or possibly not and sail off around the world instead 😎).

 

I know my circumstances are a little different, but my point is that for a heck of a lot of people improved security and stability in rented property is as important as home ownership.

 

A lot of the young couples you see with their noses pressed against the window of the Estate Agent aren't excited about home ownership, they're excited about having somewhere they feel they can call home in the longer term - If that's a 3 or 5 year rent which is affordable now and offers them long term stability, I bet a lot would take that over the long-term financial burden of a mortgage and associated deposit (often courtesy of the bank of Mum & Dad).

 

If you look at a lot of other successful economies in Europe, this obsession with home ownership simply doesn't exist. Take Ireland as an example of what happens when an economy becomes almost entirely dependent on people selling each other houses at wildly inflated prices...Not economically pretty.

 

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

[dave21478]

Another problem is that an awful lot of people saw their parents old 2bed semi suddenly become "worth" 250k or more via the property bubble and seem to expect it to happen again....free money, innit? Too many people see housing as investment rather than living space, whether its buy to let or wishing for another price boom.

 

 

I will never be able to buy a house and even if my wage were to suddenly improve I am rapidly approaching the age where the length of a normal mortgage is more than the time until I retire**, so nobody would lend to me anyway. I tell myself that I dont really care anymore, and in many ways I dont....but the uncertainty of always being beholden to a landlord and their plans (or lack of them) in some shape or form can be a real downer.

 

 

** retire. LOL... as if. Work until I drop dead, more like.

[Bobthebeard]

We own a static caravan in Scotland. It cost £25,000 ten years ago but is ours. Site fees are circa £2000 a year.

I would be happy to live in it full time TBH.

[sporty-shite]

My issue with the latest push to build new houses is that it is yet more push back on the Green Belt. Sod bowing to pressure to build houses in the South East, once no one can afford to live here business will have to move to the North to be able to attract decent employees as people priorotise their quality of life over a bottom line wage figure they see nothing of (anecdotally this is already happening in a few industries).

 

Part of this is NIMBYISM on my behalf, having grown up in Hertfordshire it'll be a crying shame once all the byways I've enjoyed cycling over no longer exist due to being one big estate. We were always a rural county and it's a shame to kill that off just because 'the markets' rule all and they say this is what must happen.

 

In terms of when more houses are built, I'm also well in agreement that the infrastructure never follows, I've only worked in Cambridge for about two years but in that time on my route in there have been several housing estates built with what must be a couple of thousand new homes, given they are all on the outskirts of the city it's fair to suggest that's another couple of thousand cars on already congested roads.

 

The real issue with affordability is mentioned by several people above, it's housing as investments that is at the root cause, building more homes for landlords to snap up does nothing to help actual local people. We've had a load of flats go up on Brownfield sites (which is brilliant I really wish this would be the norm), but the local paper has had a lot of complaints over the 'affordable' provision amongst them being far out of reach of anyone who couldn't already afford a flat somewhere in town.

It isn't just the south east! Local to us (Bolton), the last wealthy landowner died a few years ago, and had no children to leave his substantial estate to. It was inherited by some nephews and nieces who promptly proceeded to sell it to Peel Holdings, a ruthless developer. At the moment, Peel want to build residential, industrial and leisure on this green belt estate. Locals have protested, and the local council have up to now, managed to refuse planning. However, Peel are now set to appeal, and have form for taking their appeals all the way to the High Court (Trafford Centre is an example of this). However, the council are now faced with the expense of defending the appeal whilst coffers are empty and people are losing jobs. 

 

In the meantime, there is no mention of any improvements in already overstretched health, transport and education infrastructures. Added to this the fact that Peel have applied for grants from the local authority to provide incentives to new tenants in other commercial property in the area. Effectively, asking the local council tax payers to subsidise their profits.

 

Yes, we probably need more housing, but not the type of housing being proposed.

 

And I now also feel like a NIMBY, which annoys me somewhat.

[dollywobbler]

Buy to let is an evil. But given how much finance is involved in it, I can't see banks liking the idea of killing that off. If it was taxed to become less attractive, then it might actually cause the much-feared housing price crash that would leave a lot of folk in negative equity, so there's not that much desire to kill it off.

 

In terms of infrastructure, I've got better speeds here in rural mid-Wales than some of my friends who live near towns and cities. And that's slow compared to my local friends - the villages either side of me now have Superfast broadband. I'm hoping it'll address the decline in these parts. We need people to live here! They aren't going to do that if broadband speeds aren't there. Lots of people can work online. I'm not the only one!

[Lacquer Peel]

Infrastructure investment in rural areas will be FUCKED when we leave the EU.

[hennabm]

Tried Buscopan, didn't help much.  I'm on Immodium which helps over the runs but it can go the other way and is like trying to shit a breeze block. The worst is trying to shit and vomit at the same time. Luckily the sink is in reach while on the bog.

At 64 getting old can be a pain in the arse. Literally.

 

I used to suffer badly from IBS and yes I would be sick at the same time as sitting on the bog. Thankfully most toilets and sinks are close together to facilitate this. 

I had the very painful cramps, doubling me up for hours. An attack would last about 2 - 3 hrs, after which I would sleep.

 

Immodium did help, if I could catch it in time. But any sort of indigestion tablets and pills would just make me sick.

 

Thankfully the stress in my life has subsided considerably in recent years and therefore my IBS has all but gone. IF I do have an attack it certainly isn't as bad as it used to be.

[Craig the Princess]

TBH broadband speeds in this part of the fens are fast enough for domestic use, i-player and Netflix work properly with another computer also using the connection.

 

We bought a house here because it is very cheap with the land to store loads of chod. Also my parents due to divorce and a severe gambling habit are both renting in their early sixties which is fine while they are working but I don't know what they will do once they cannot work.

[LostnotFound]

Buy to let is an evil. But given how much finance is involved in it, I can't see banks liking the idea of killing that off. If it was taxed to become less attractive, then it might actually cause the much-feared housing price crash that would leave a lot of folk in negative equity, so there's not that much desire to kill it off.

 

 

It's a good point in relation to the financial markets but imo the only real thing that will stop the BTL problem is an increase in interest rates, reducing the easy profit (I know renting property out has a lot of pitfalls but that our mortgage is 30% less than what the rent would be on our house shows the theoretical margin) whilst offering an actual return elsewhere for people's money. 

 

The rates are however unlikely to go up significantly in the short term as it'd be political suicide, not only would people have negative equity but a lot of people are sailing close enough to the wind that even a few percentage points would herald large numbers of repossessions. I hope the rates don't go up for purely selfish reasons that it would certainly make me use an extra left at the end of the month to overpay rather than piss about trying to fix an old motorbike.

[Craig the Princess]

Baby has a cold.

I have a cold.

[cort16]

Me too. I worked from home today so I don't take down the whole office.

Was quite nice to get up at 8.45am even if I was a snotfest rather than spend an hour in miserable traffic

[Guest Hooli]

Infrastructure investment in rural areas will be FUCKED when we leave the EU.

 

Why?

 

You know all those signs in Scotland that say 'funded by the EU' are just our money coming back after a large chunk has been wasted on paying EU minions don't you? No reason at all we couldn't fund the same ourselves with much less wasteage.

[Lacquer Peel]

Why?

 

You know all those signs in Scotland that say 'funded by the EU' are just our money coming back after a large chunk has been wasted on paying EU minions don't you? No reason at all we couldn't fund the same ourselves with much less wasteage.

 

Yeah I get that. But why would they bother? There's no direct incentive for them. They might invest in Tory voting areas to keep their votes safe, but nowhere else.

[LostnotFound]

Why?

 

You know all those signs in Scotland that say 'funded by the EU' are just our money coming back after a large chunk has been wasted on paying EU minions don't you? No reason at all we couldn't fund the same ourselves with much less wasteage.

 

I'm not sure the Civil Service minions will be any cheaper and that the current mob who look set to rule for eternity would have any interest in infrastructure investment that doesn't have an immediate payback for whatever company they will be a director of upon leaving parliament.

[Guest Hooli]

Yeah I get that. But why would they bother? There's no direct incentive for them. They might invest in Tory voting areas to keep their votes safe, but nowhere else.

 

Why do the EU do it either? Personally I find areas 'improved' by investment just turn into modern shitholes without their original character. So no better than before, just duller.

[Pillock]

I'm a NIMBY, because nobody ever solves the whole problem.

We've had a leaflet about them wanting to build 450 homes on fields a quarter of a mile away. They tried it last year too, on other fields, and it got canned since the plans were laughably bad (360 homes that time, each with on average 1 child, so let's say 300-odd kids, the 5-11 year olds would go to the local school which is tiny - that must be 100-150 places needed? But they didn't plan a school in. Or doctors. Or shops)

 

Anyway, it's got more chance of going through this time since the government want so many new houses, and they've gotta go somewhere right? What better place than an ex mining town that's down on its luck a bit. Loads of fields, close to the motorway - sounds brilliant.

Except as always there's 30% "affordable housing" in there. And the last three times I lived near "affordable housing", what that meant was tiny little townhouses with wheelie bins overflowing with nappies, a bull terrier chained up in the shit-strewn garden, boarded up windows, abandoned bikes and pushchairs all over the place. Affordable Housing never goes to those who need a leg up, who deserve it - it goes to the people that cause the most problems by popping out sprogs constantly and getting thrown out of everywhere else.

 

I'm not a snob by any means, but there's a bigger problem that needs sorting.

[rainagain]

I still think the best way to solve the housing problem would be to limit the amount of buytolets like they do parking permits for an area. So an area of say 100 house would get 50 permits for buytolet the rest would be for people to own as their own home. Then there could be a gradual reduction in the amount of permits per year. This would return streets to being homes again. I would do a similar thing with holiday homes to stop villages being ghost towns in winter.

[Guest Hooli]

 

 

Anyway, it's got more chance of going through this time since the government want so many new houses, and they've gotta go somewhere right? What better place than an ex mining town that's down on its luck a bit. Loads of fields, close to the motorway - sounds brilliant.

Except as always there's 30% "affordable housing" in there. And the last three times I lived near "affordable housing", what that meant was tiny little townhouses with wheelie bins overflowing with nappies, a bull terrier chained up in the shit-strewn garden, boarded up windows, abandoned bikes and pushchairs all over the place. Affordable Housing never goes to those who need a leg up, who deserve it - it goes to the people that cause the most problems by popping out sprogs constantly and getting thrown out of everywhere else.

 

I'm not a snob by any means, but there's a bigger problem that needs sorting.

 

Totally agree with that.

 

Social housing should be short term too. Reassess them regularly & if they can afford their own place they should be expected too. Go to any poorish town & all the new expensive cars are outside the council houses, proving they've money to spare so could live without the social housing discount.

 

I've always said that there should be zero benefits or rewards of housing for those who breed when out of work, if you can't afford a kid then you shouldn't have one. The same as dogs.

[Craig the Princess]

.

 

I've always said that there should be zero benefits or rewards of housing for those who breed when out of work, if you can't afford a kid then you shouldn't have one. The same as dogs.

Yeah, because people never have kids then get made redundant, get a disability or a whole host of other reasons why you would need benefits.

 

TBH the sooner we move to a citizens income and away from most non-disability benefits the better.

[Guest Hooli]

Yeah, because people never have kids then get made redundant, get a disability or a whole host of other reasons why you would need benefits.

 

TBH the sooner we move to a citizens income and away from most non-disability benefits the better.

No you misunderstand.

 

No benefits if you aren't working when you have them. People working when they have kids have an income to support the kid so deserve help if on low wages, loose their job etc. It's those who make no effort to provide for their family & look upon them as a meal ticket that deserve no reward for sprogging.

[Lacquer Peel]

Why do the EU do it either? Personally I find areas 'improved' by investment just turn into modern shitholes without their original character. So no better than before, just duller.

 

Because they believe in re-distributing wealth and rural development, the current UK government certainly doesn't.

 

What rural areas have you been to that have been ruined by EU investment? The EU has invested in broadband, better transport links and so on, it's certainly been good for the people who live in these areas.

[Craig the Princess]

No you misunderstand.

 

No benefits if you aren't working when you have them. People working when they have kids have an income to support the kid so deserve help if on low wages, loose their job etc. It's those who make no effort to provide for their family & look upon them as a meal ticket that deserve no reward for sprogging.

Oh OK, I still think that is punishing the blaimless new born rather than the parents but better than what I misunderstood.

[rainagain]

benefits should be a safety net not a life style choice.

 

Its quite easy to tell those who cant be bothered to get a job from those struggling on low pay or who have just lost their job. Less help for the former more help for the latter. If you've never had a job in your life why would having a kid be a good idea?

 

My OH and i saved for a number of years before we had our first kid as we were both on low incomes and wanted to ensure we could properly care for them.

 

We didn't just have a kid and wonder up to the social office with our hand out expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab for bringing them up.

[Guest Hooli]

Oh OK, I still think that is punishing the blaimless new born rather than the parents but better than what I misunderstood.

No way to separate that as far as I can tell. You could give the feckless £100k a year plus a free house & the kid would still have a crap life due to their mindset.

[Guest Hooli]

benefits should be a safety net not a life style choice.

 

Its quite easy to tell those who cant be bothered to get a job from those struggling on low pay or who have just lost their job. Less help for the former more help for the latter. If you've never had a job in your life why would having a kid be a good idea?

 

My OH and i saved for a number of years before we had our first kid as we were both on low incomes and wanted to ensure we could properly care for them.

 

We didn't just have a kid and wonder up to the social office with our hand out expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab for bringing them up.

Exactly.

[Tamworthbay]

benefits should be a safety net not a life style choice.

Its quite easy to tell those who cant be bothered to get a job from those struggling on low pay or who have just lost their job. Less help for the former more help for the latter. If you've never had a job in your life why would having a kid be a good idea?

My OH and i saved for a number of years before we had our first kid as we were both on low incomes and wanted to ensure we could properly care for them.

We didn't just have a kid and wonder up to the social office with our hand out expecting the tax payer to pick up the tab for bringing them up.

Sadly I see a few families where they consider having kids as a 'career' and said kids are treated like shit. People do not realise what a wonderful thing the social security system is for those truly in need and I have no words for what I think of the scum who abuse it and give papers like the daily fail headlines they can then use to throw shit at anyone unfortunate enough to need help.

[Parky]

I have always thought that child benefit should be paid for kid one and kid two, but no more. Not sure that would stop the feckless sadly