Twattishness supreme

Rent controls in cities, a tax on landbanking by big developers, and forcing slumlords to bring their homes up to scratch:

You cut the amount they can earn and then expect them to invest more?

How’s that going to work?

25 thoughts on “Twattishness supreme”

  1. The irony is that many of middle class Labour voters will be hit by this attack on property ownership, as its not just Tory voters who own buy to lets etc. As will Asian voters, who tend to over-represented in the landlord classes. Highly amusing really. A nice target for the Tories, if they can stop attacking landlords themselves……….

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    This sort of delusion is more common than you think. Because it occurred to me the other day it is what happened to the marriage market. Women are insisting that it is wrong for them to offer as much as they used to – and I know a lot of women who are proud of refusing to cook and clean because it is demeaning. On the other hand they are demanding men do more – more housework and more emotional labour as well.

    Then they wonder why there are no good men.

    No doubt we will be having National Taskforces to deal with the sudden drought in rental properties soon.

    Personally I quite enjoyed the Seventies. Yes, I did wear flares. I am not proud but I did. I don’t mind doing it again. Or at least a return of Saturday Night Fever would be better than a return of Stagflation, the Winter of Discontent and gang-related crime involving landlords.

  3. Assar Lindbeck: “next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities”.

    It’s really quite amazing how much damage Labour could do in a very short space of time. Every single one of their policies is either mad or evil. There is not a single redeeming feature in any of them. If they get in, non-traditional methods of removing them may be necessary.

  4. BiCR: “It’s really quite amazing how much damage Labour could do in a very short space of time.”

    Yup, the whole conference is one long warning against voting for them. I just hope enough people are listening.

    I caught the BBC clip of Corbyn ascending the platform last night, and it looked like some Moonie convention.

  5. The key is not Corbog. He and McNasty cannot win outright under their own steam.

    The Fish Faced Hag and whoever–Please God–replaces her are where victory will be won or lost.

  6. As Tim supports Land Value Tax I can’t see why he is getting his knickers in a twist over anti-land- hoarding proposals which would encourage “developers” to actually develop sites.It was Adam Smith who intro’d the idea of LVT into Economics in Britain after all.

  7. DBCR,

    ” anti-land- hoarding proposals which would encourage “developers” to actually develop sites.”

    You’ve never run a business have you? As in, you have no conception whatsoever about the working capital implications of holding a landbank.

    Do you really think that these big, greedy, entirely money-grubbing companies would be sitting on the massive upfront investment required to buy land and just have it sit there, unproductively, on their books if they could just get it developed and sold on? So they could get their return earlier? Like, really?

    Perhaps there is some other impediment that means that they cannot develop as fast as they would like?

    And if there is, and you tax them and their returns fall whilst the actual underlying impediment remains, what do you think will happen?

  8. When even left-wing economists think an idea is bonkers, you really have to begin to accept that an idea is bonkers.

    Rent control is a superficially attractive policy to toddler adults who are unable to understand simple explanations of what happens afterwards. So that’s a large part of the electorate then, especially the younger ones.

    Unfortunately societies aren’t particularly rational, and every now and again need a dose of reality to wake them up. I think we are going to get it soon with that nutter in Number 10.

  9. In corbyworld we’d all be living in council blocks of flats ideally – if you live in a private house with more bedrooms than residents then that will be confiscated and given to more deserving people (immigrants and other brown people) and don’t even think of being a private landlord (kulak) in this marvellous nirvana where the state decides what’s good for you and what you need. murphy clones will be on every street corner making sure that theres no excessive consumption or wrongthink.

  10. ” anti-land- hoarding proposals which would encourage “developers” to actually develop sites”

    Do you have any actual knowledge of how developers work? That the vast majority of sites that are zoned for development, but do not yet have an extant planning permission, or have an outline planning permission but not a detailed one, are in fact rarely owned by the developer at all? That they will still be owned by the original landowner (farmers in the case of greenfield sites, or non property developer bodies in the case of brown field ones) and the only connection the developer will have is a legal agreement to purchase the land at some future date? That developers only purchase the land when they are about to start actual digging? And then only in small chunks, so a large urban extension of thousands of houses may still be largely owned by the farmer(s) whose land it is until many years have passed?

    Developers control land via legal agreements, they don’t own it, so taxes aimed at the owners of land with outstanding planning permissions will fall on people entirely unable to do a single thing about speeding the development process up. Thats unless you think that ageing farmers are going to be able to borrow tens of millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of pounds to finance and project manage large housing developments.

  11. Of course one of the reasons for high rents is the large increase in demand caused by immigration. Of course steptoe is all for unlimited immigration – to do otherwise would be racist. He can’t see a link between demand/supply and price – he wants to increase demand whilst throttling supply – he’s learnt his economics from Spud alright.

  12. @ Jim
    If you should venture to read the reports and accounts of some of the leading housebuilders quoted on the stock exchange you will learn that they do own substantial amounts of land – albeit they also buy options on further amounts. Redrow, the first one at which I looked has 26k owned plots, roughly 5 times annual sales, and 26k plots in its pipeline (60% of plots added to its owned landbank last year were from its pipeline, 40% were purchased without prior contract). Taylor Wimpey just paid £190m to Royal Mail for some land in London and that’s in addfition to the 76k plots, roughly 5.5 times annual sales, that it held at end-2016. Taylor Wimpey has a bigger pipeline of 100k plots.
    They have to balance their cash needs with the need to secure enough plots to plan ahead but it’s nearer 50:50 owned: contracted than 1:99.

  13. @The Pedant-General, September 28, 2017 at 9:15 am

    DBCR,

    ” anti-land- hoarding proposals which would encourage “developers” to actually develop sites.”

    You’ve never run a business have you? As in, you have no conception whatsoever about the working capital implications of holding a landbank.

    Do you really think that these big, greedy, entirely money-grubbing companies would be sitting on the massive upfront investment required to buy land and just have it sit there, unproductively, on their books if they could just get it developed and sold on?

    Correct, they don’t always. Yesterday, Jim provided a good description of what they do. Summary: purchase subject to acceptable planning permission approved.

  14. @john77, September 28, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    The leading house-builders quoted on the stock exchange often buy land to prevent a competitor owning & building on it; supermarkets do same. It’s usually (all or part) sold-on later when a non-competitor wants it.

  15. @ Pcar
    Excuse me, but where the hell did you get that idea from? It’s nonsense. Why on earth should a non-competitor want to buy land with planning permission for housing at a multiple of the price of land without planning permission in order to do something other than build houses

  16. Very interesting to see the changes in opinion being expressed on this thread versus comparable threads from a year ago

  17. @john77, September 28, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Not all necessarily has planning permission, other factors such as development trends apply.

    If eg Tesco see a site near enough to an existing store to be a competition threat, but they don’t want to build there, they may buy subject to planning permission then do nothing.

    Change of use from a retail/supermarket to eg offices & housing or from housing to retail/housing/office mix is strategy.

    Before attacking, try thinking rather than demonstrate your ignorance.

  18. @ Pcar
    I was discussing housebuilders not Tesco (who could easily sell a retail site to a hardware store or Body Shop).
    You said “usually (all or part) sold-on later when a non-competitor wants it.” and try to defend that by saying “not all necessarily has planning permission” – that could defend *unusually* part sold-on later but not “usually”. I suggested that you look at some quoted housebuilders – Redrow added 5,419 plots to its owned land bank against 5,319 completions and increased its owned landbank from 26,000 to 26,100. So how many plots did it sell?
    Taylor Wimpey had 13,808 completions in 2016, moved 9519 plots from pipeline to landbank, bought 6355 plots and increased the short-term landbank from 75,710 to 76,234 implying that they sold 1542 or 2% of their landbank. I think that you need to look up the meaning of “usually” before you choose to accuse *me* of demonstrating ignorance.
    You should know by know that I attack abuse of arithmetic even when it is not used to support a Guardianista misinformation campaign.
    One reason why the big housebuilders hold large landbanks is the time it takes to build a big housing development – Taylor Wimpey mention that their Didcot estate is taking eleven years to build and they could not (safely) apply for detailed planning permission without owning all the land – eleven years supply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *