Sir K claims "a budget for Working People", ha!!!

David49

M0nica

Having looked at new builds recently, I found them poky and small, and far too many spread over three and even 4 floors to make their footprint and plot size as small as possible.

I have friends living in new properties. A 4 bedroomed house had a 12 foot square living room, in another, the hall is barely wide enough for one person to walk down it, the staircase is virtually in a cupboard.

I must say I have not noticed this preference for new v older properties. In the area I live in and the one we wanr to move to, all property, old and new is not selling and the housebuilders, as well as the usual incentives are also slashing prices by up to £50,000

Maybe it wouldn’t suit you but you arent typical, you quite likely have the money to buy broad acres exactly to your liking.
Most buyers want a convenient easy to maintain place, even the the new luxury homes are built on a small plot, there are those with £1m plus to spend on in individual architect designed mansion, they are not part of the housing shortage in the UK.

I’m not sure that’s true David49, maybe for a starter home. Round me biggest demand from families is for houses built in 1920s to 50s, the footprint and garden is generally much larger than more modern houses and they are well built.

Smileless2012

If KS is saying that transwomen are women, then he doesn't know what a woman is Doodledog. He may have fallen for TRA propaganda that the trans community are the most vulnerable in society, but that doesn't excuse his ridiculous statement that 99% of women don't have a penis.

No it doesn’t.
Saying he doesn’t know what a woman is, is now called a trope whether or not that term is appropriate.
trope
a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression.

a significant or recurrent theme; a motif.

Saying 99% of women do not have a penis or that transwomen are women (AHF) is a lie, and, trope or not, either means he doesn’t know what a woman is or means he is a liar.

Middle range houses are selling in my area, but middle range is affordable here.

M0nica

Having looked at new builds recently, I found them poky and small, and far too many spread over three and even 4 floors to make their footprint and plot size as small as possible.

I have friends living in new properties. A 4 bedroomed house had a 12 foot square living room, in another, the hall is barely wide enough for one person to walk down it, the staircase is virtually in a cupboard.

I must say I have not noticed this preference for new v older properties. In the area I live in and the one we wanr to move to, all property, old and new is not selling and the housebuilders, as well as the usual incentives are also slashing prices by up to £50,000

Maybe it wouldn’t suit you but you arent typical, you quite likely have the money to buy broad acres exactly to your liking.
Most buyers want a convenient easy to maintain place, even the the new luxury homes are built on a small plot, there are those with £1m plus to spend on in individual architect designed mansion, they are not part of the housing shortage in the UK.

If KS is saying that transwomen are women, then he doesn't know what a woman is Doodledog. He may have fallen for TRA propaganda that the trans community are the most vulnerable in society, but that doesn't excuse his ridiculous statement that 99% of women don't have a penis.

Having looked at new builds recently, I found them poky and small, and far too many spread over three and even 4 floors to make their footprint and plot size as small as possible.

I have friends living in new properties. A 4 bedroomed house had a 12 foot square living room, in another, the hall is barely wide enough for one person to walk down it, the staircase is virtually in a cupboard.

I must say I have not noticed this preference for new v older properties. In the area I live in and the one we wanr to move to, all property, old and new is not selling and the housebuilders, as well as the usual incentives are also slashing prices by up to £50,000

Despite what others are saying the market in this area is good, new houses are being built and sold, so they ARE affordable, demand is still greater than supply.

Most of the sites closeby are nearing completion, there is one site entangled in planning issues no resolution likely soon. Local expansion is a 5000+ new site about 8 miles away close to the motorway.

Buying newbuild is much easier than than older houses which is part of the reason they are so popular, because they are energy efficient they offer a green mortgage, and will take your former home in part exchange.

If I was planning to move, having seen seen the houses they are building, it’s a no brainer you buy the newbuild, and let the developer worry about selling the old place.

Doodledog

Absolutely, M0nica.

Another downside of the Thatcher sell-off was that council housing became seen as just for those who had no alternative. There are often posts on MN suggesting that people should be means-tested before getting one, and then regularly afterwards so that they are there for the poorest in society.

That is almost guaranteed to create ghettoes, and IMO is the wrong way to look at the issue. If we went back to a third of people living in decent and affordable housing, prices might fall as there would be less pressure to buy, and if anyone could apply for one, they would lose the 'poverty' image, which they should. Full rents are only cheap by comparison to private ones which pay landlords' mortgages, and council houses pay for themselves after the initial build - the rents cover the maintenance etc.

We are such a long way from that, though.

The new estates we are having built in this area are mixed occupancy, 4 bed, 3 bed, 2 bed semis, 1 bed apartments,. There is no risk of a “ghetto”. Your next door neighbour may be in affordable housing association property, even blocks of apartments in town are mixed, some sold some rented

Absolutely, M0nica.

Another downside of the Thatcher sell-off was that council housing became seen as just for those who had no alternative. There are often posts on MN suggesting that people should be means-tested before getting one, and then regularly afterwards so that they are there for the poorest in society.

That is almost guaranteed to create ghettoes, and IMO is the wrong way to look at the issue. If we went back to a third of people living in decent and affordable housing, prices might fall as there would be less pressure to buy, and if anyone could apply for one, they would lose the 'poverty' image, which they should. Full rents are only cheap by comparison to private ones which pay landlords' mortgages, and council houses pay for themselves after the initial build - the rents cover the maintenance etc.

We are such a long way from that, though.

Where my son live “starter homes” are around £400K how can young people afford that?

Assuming they are selling, then there are people about who can afford them.

More generally, councils started building houses for rent in the late 19th/early20th century because most working class (as it was understood then) families could not afford to rent decent accommodation and were living in appalling conditions. By 1979, when Right to Buy came in about one third of all households were living in council accommodation

They had a house with security of tenure, at an affordable rent, in other words a secure roof over their heads and a house/flat fit to live in, which is essentially all anyone wants.

Once Right to buy came in. Houses were sold into the private sector and the private rented sector expanded, but teprivate sector cannot deliver affordable rents nor long term security of tenure and the conditions that some private sector tenants live in has taken the whole sector back to where it was in the late 19th/early 20th century.

The only way to get secure housing is to buy a house. This puts unreasonable pressure on those on low incomes to beggar themselves to buy, a probably, too small home.

We need to get back to where we were in 1978. A third of the housing stock should be in the public sector, tenants should know that when they get a public sector house their tenure is assured long term and rents should be affordable, based on oncome not market rent. This should take the pressure off the housing market as owning your own home becomes nice work if you can afford it, but if not you have a safe home kept to an acceptable standard at an affordable rent in the public sector.

Of course he knows what a working person is - he's from a family of working people. Does owning a SME mean you are not a working person? That's an interesting perspective. I think very many people in that position would say they work very hard.

He also knows full well what a woman is. He's been married to one for years and has, I believe, got daughters? I fully disagree with the LP's stance on trans rights, and I don't think for a minute that transwomen are women, but it is clear that Starmer's so-called 'confusion' is semantics, and what he is actually saying is that transwomen are, in fact, women. Whether he believes that or not, I have no idea. To me it is self-evident that it is nonsense, but many people do believe it, for reasons I don't understand.

As I say, I couldn't disagree more, but it is perfectly clear to me that this 'he can't define a woman' trope is just that - he knows exactly what women are, but has swallowed the TRA propaganda that transpeople are 'the most vulnerable group in society' and is choosing his language accordingly.

Calipso

Am I the only one to be completely baffled that someone who in a previous existence was a barrister and QC cannot clearly articulate what he means by a "working person"?

Neither could he define a woman. According to Starmer 99.9% of women don’t have a penis! He also said often his father was a toolmaker, in actual fact his father owned the company! He lives in his own little world.

Where my son live “starter homes” are around £400K how can young people afford that?

On a different note I worked with a chap who had been in the NHS for years he said it was a black hole no ,alter h
Ow much you poured into it, it disappeared

Not in the areas we are selling and hope to buy. The market is just stuck. In the middle market people need to sell to buy and if they sell a middle market house they are usually trading up.

Not totally contradicting, MOnica. There are properties vacated by death of owner and landlords selling rental properties, too. I think medium price properties are still selling, but the highly priced ones are sticking.

SueEH

Just copied and pasted from another thread as cba to type it all again….
But surely the general idea is that the government will TRY to do their best for everyone - “working people” or not?
The bottom line is that if we want public services to work we have to pay for them. If “working people” don’t earn enough to contribute then where is the money going to come from to pay pensions/NHS for example?
I work part time and would have been happy to pay an extra penny in income tax to support the country but they ruled that out. A mistake I think.
I’m a lifelong Labour supporter but that doesn’t mean I agree carte blanche with everything they do by any means, but I think that they have the good of the country in mind rather than the good of their bank balances.

I agree with your post Sue.

I think the government does want to do the best for everyone, but nobody ever wants to have to pay for anything. Sometimes those who can afford to do without schools, the NHS or whatever say they would prefer to 'pay as they go', but what about defence, roads, police etc? Also, it's one thing paying for new knees or hips, but quite another to finance an ongoing health situation. And do people really want to go back to the days when those who could read were a minority? How is that good for the country, never mind the people themselves?

I agree that it was a mistake to rule out extra tax, as these days people look for ways to interpret things in negative ways, so once something is said it is impossible to take back. I think that if people were asked for an extra penny in the pound with the guarantee that it went to the NHS, social care, education or whatever, most would be willing to pay. The vast majority of people more than get back the money they pay in tax as it is, and there is a law of increasing returns. We are now paying for things like podiatry, dentistry, ear wax syringing and so on, which used to come out of money in the NHS. It's swings and roundabouts for most, but as ever, in a low tax, low service economy it is the poor who lose. They may pay less (or no) tax in the first place, but if they can't afford to buy the 'extras' they have to do without. To me it makes sense to have that insurance in place, so that whenever any of us needs an essential service it is there. We never know what life is going to throw at us.

MaizieD

Surely part of the problem is, MOnica, that people just can't afford the houses?

Cheap properties in my area get snapped up within a few weeks of going on the market, but then, many cost less than £100,000.

The £450,000 property just up the road from me took 2 years to sell...

Maizie Youcontradict yourself. If first time buyer houses are selling the ccurrent occupants of these properties are generally moving up the housing chain. That is how it works, OK not all, but most. Often wen a particular house sticks there is a reason for it. poor condition, awkward layout, small rooms, a nice house in a poor area, there can be many reasons why it doesn't sell.

foxie The housing market is patchy. I can assure you that in Oxfordshire where I live and in west Cambridgeshire, where we want to move, the market is dead in the water, and prices are falling. The only activity Rightmove shows, is houses going down in prices, very little coming on the market and little under offer. If you watched Locaton x 3 this week, which featured St Neots, the are we are looking in. Phil Spenser did say that prices in the area had fallen. This was summer 2024.

You will also find that if you read the property pages in the finacial sections, they are saying much as I am saying, the market is flat and not expected to pick up until January - unfortunately that is what they said this time last year - but it didn't.

Other factors that affect the market, in the past, included unavailability of mortgage funds, or, as now, lack of confidence in the economic conditions that make people unwilling to risk moving. This year the constant uncetainity has been mortgage rates, and that continues, then people were expecting an election, after that, waiting to see what a new government would do, then worries about the budget and now digesting that - and now Christmas is looming. So a lot of people, who want to move house have delayed it until the economic situation settles down and they feel that they can move house confident that they can be confident about interest rates and which way the economy is going is clear.

The development where I live is all "first-time buyer" 2 and 3 houses/flats (about £350k for a 3 bed terraced house). I see "For Sale" signs going up and "Sold" signs appear within days. I was told that the flats don't even get advertised because the estate agents have waiting lists.

she's looking for something that would be a first time buyer's type of house and says everything is selling very quickly and she's finding it difficult to get viewings

That seems to back up what I said, foxie....

"The average UK house price was £288,000 in June 2024 (provisional estimate), which is £8,000 higher than 12 months ago. Average house prices in the 12 months to June 2024 increased in England to £305,000 (2.4%), increased in Wales to £216,000 (1.8%) and increased in Scotland to £192,000 (4.3%)."

Increase in house prices doesn't reflect a slowing market, quite the opposite. We are now in traditionally the slowest period for sales, when people often take their house off the market until Spring so it's not unusual for sellers to struggle to find a buyer at this time of the year. A friend has sold her house and is down sizing, she's looking for something that would be a first time buyer's type of house and says everything is selling very quickly and she's finding it difficult to get viewings. She's a cash buyer and currently renting!

Surely part of the problem is, MOnica, that people just can't afford the houses?

Cheap properties in my area get snapped up within a few weeks of going on the market, but then, many cost less than £100,000.

The £450,000 property just up the road from me took 2 years to sell...

Just copied and pasted from another thread as cba to type it all again….
But surely the general idea is that the government will TRY to do their best for everyone - “working people” or not?
The bottom line is that if we want public services to work we have to pay for them. If “working people” don’t earn enough to contribute then where is the money going to come from to pay pensions/NHS for example?
I work part time and would have been happy to pay an extra penny in income tax to support the country but they ruled that out. A mistake I think.
I’m a lifelong Labour supporter but that doesn’t mean I agree carte blanche with everything they do by any means, but I think that they have the good of the country in mind rather than the good of their bank balances.

David49

Interest rates are still high and stamp duty on higher priced properties is significant, middle market properties seem to be moving but price has got to be right. New properties are selling off plans, anything that needs refurbishment sells at a discount, not much hope of increases until spring then maybe interest rates will be lower.

Nproperties are not selling off plan. Many builders are offering big discounts to try and sell houses, but they are still not selling.

A property that has had previous owners is not necessarily in need of refurbishment, whether that house is 5, 50 or 500 years and older houses are often more spacious than new houses and offer better value for money.

The current situation, quite simply, is that in most parts of the country, and there will always be exceptions, most people who would like to move house do not feel confident enough to risk it. They have been awaiting interest cuts, the election, the budget - and now those are behind us, the budget faces them with the prospect of interest rate rises, not falls.

Meanwhile those of us who are trying to sell our houses are stuck. We want to downsize and move somewhere more convenient for our children, others want to move because they now work elsewhere, or the sale is needed to pay car home fees or for a host of different reasons, but we can't because the buyers are just not there.

Well I can't go back and check but I would (almost) have bet the house that at least one poster was certain there'd be mitigations, and others agreed it was most likely. I remember posting at the time that in that case now (which was then) was the time to announce them not 3 months later.
We'll have to wait and see any impact this measure will have, while hoping they're processing new applications for pension credit at lightning speed.

Casdon

I don’t think anybody said there would be mitigations for the withdrawal of the WFP in the budget Rosie51. A lot of us said we hoped there would be, which is not the same thing. I’m disappointed about that aspect of the budget.
I am however happy to pay more taxes to improve public services, and it really grates on me when people who complain about paying more taxes now are the most vociferous complainants about the public services they use.

I believe I wrote that I hoped there might be some mitigations, so I'm disappointed about that too. On the positive side, there is not one single thing in the budget which will effect me directly/personally. As I'm in the poorest decile of the population, I was hoping that would be the case. If they get it right (and I'm still holding my breath), the NHS might begin to improve, which will improve my well-being.