So the Crown Prosecution Service cases against journalists who bribed public officials are falling apart and the press are crowing. "Is it in the public interest to hound journalists for doing their job?" asks the Times in its leader. Well when put like that yes, but then the Press spins as much as politicians when it wants to. Is bribery part of a journalist's job? When paying relatively large sums of money to lowly public officials the journalists concerned, and their management, know that they are bringing undue pressure to bear. The journalists concerned, and their management, know that they are encouraging someone to break the law. Is that the job of journalists?
For some time now it has been unacceptable for businesses to pay bribes to drum up business or "facilitation payments" to induce public officials to act in their favour. Such bribes are unethical and, in many countries including the UK, illegal. Many's the multinational that has felt the wrath, and paid the fines, of the U.S. Department of Justice for bribery in far off lands. These payments not only distort markets (in some cases) but more importantly they also undermine public morality. And that is all quite correct; businesses and people working in businesses should in my view be held to high ethical and moral standards.
And our oh-so-moral press have filled pages and pages with stories of corporate bribery and corruption scandals. They have published, with much glee and smug self-appreciation, stories of stings where bribes have been deliberately offered as entrapment. And in the case of some public figures their "crime" is not breaking the law, but merely being hypocritical. Isn't there something hypocritical about journalists paying bribes while shaming others for taking them?
Don't get me wrong. I am not in favour of building barriers to protect corrupt and venal public servants. But is there a line that should be drawn when it comes to bribery? Should the press not do their job without inducing people to break the law? Perhaps the right response to the unravelling Eleveden enquiry is to revisit the public interest defence and the use of the official secrets act to tie the hands of public officials absolutely.
If it is in the public interest to pay a bribe, why is it not in the public interest to receive one in return for information? Now that would be a worthy topic for the journalists to consider, although in my view, bribery will never be the ethical way to conduct any business, including journalism.
Saturday, 18 April 2015
Monday, 13 April 2015
Are the Lib Dems the only party of one nation?
In the coming election Lib Dems have cast themselves as the
“reasonable Party”. The “In the middle
Party”. The “Neither extreme left nor
extreme right Party”. Labour to the Left
of them, Tories to the Right. As a Lib Dem
I have a problem with this. I don’t want
to be in the middle. I want to be out in
front. Other supporters and members I
have spoken seem to feel the same way.
The question is how do we get there?
Of course Labour and Conservative parties want to represent
a wide swathe of society. They have to
or they would not get elected. But at
the heart of their positions they are partisan.
Labour says tax the rich to help the disadvantaged in society. That will, and does happen; the rich will
always pay more tax than the poor, as do those in the middle. But the message is one of envy. It is mean spirited and partisan and however
you phrase it, it divides society into “us” and “them”.
On the other hand, Conservatives say they stand for
aspiration; they want a society where everyone has the opportunity to work hard
and be better rewarded. But somehow the
bulk of the prize seems to go to the richest few. Their appeal to the richer in society is to
keep what you’ve got and their appeal to the poorer (and not-so poor) is that
you can aspire to be rich. And if not
rich then at least you can aspire to own your own home. But at the end of the day the philosophy is as
mean spirited and selfish as the Labour message. The aspiration is not just to do better, but
be like “one of them”; own your home, go to a private school, drive a flash
car. The words of the song “the working
class can lick my arse, I’ve got the foreman’s job at last” say it all.
Conservatives can continue to appeal to the Upper Class. Labour
can appeal to the Lower Class. But almost
all of us are working class today; the minimum wage carer, the teacher, the
engineer, apprentice, accountant, senior manager, even the journalist and
politician. They all have to work hard. They are the new working class. I say Workers of the World Unite, and let
Lib-Dems be the party of this new working class.
Of course there will always be richer and poorer people. Markets mean that some skills are valued more
highly than others while circumstance and serendipity also play a part. One can, one should, aspire to improve one’s
position but, to use the football analogy, not everyone has the ability to be a
Premiership footballer. Furthermore no-one
is born with the right to play in the Premiership; they have to earn it and
continue to do so in order to stay there. But the reality is that most people will be
playing in one of the lower divisions, and they are still a long way from a
playground kick-about. So some people will only ever work in relatively poor
paid jobs, while others will through a mixture of ability, effort and desire,
be more successful. So it should be with
society and those who earn less should be recognised for the contribution they
make to that society, because without them it would not exist.
Money is not the only measure of value, of status, of pride
or of standing. “The rich” need “the
poor”, and vice versa. We are all part
of society, part of one nation. One Nation Conservatism sought to stand for
that but their basic model meant that it inevitably favoured the small
oligarchy of rich and powerful that ran Britain. They were the chosen, mainly by birth, the
paternalistic oligarchy that ran Britain to keep things the “way they are”,
which suited them best of course.
But one nation should mean a society in which everyone is
treated fairly, justly and with respect, that their worth is recognised, that they
have influence over their lives, that the well-off recognise the contribution
made by the less well-off and vice versa.
Lib Dems can bring about that society.
Perhaps that is the basis of the current slogan of a Stronger Economy, a
Fairer Society. Lib Dems can be the real
party of the Nation.
In a Liberal Democrat One Nation there will continue to be
widely divergent wealth within society for lots of reasons, some listed above,
but everyone should receive a fair wage for their effort. If we cannot afford to pay a living wage, then
we cannot afford the service or goods provided.
Payment of benefits to under-paid workers is as much a distortion of
free markets as a minimum wage and has further undesirable consequences by encouraging
an undesirable attitude towards the role of the state as well as undermining
individual’s personal sense of worth. So
far from being heavy handed state interference in the market, I would argue
that a minimum living wage actually makes markets work more effectively.
A Liberal Democrat One Nation means that everyone recognises
that they have a role in making it an attractive, fair, egalitarian, place to
live. A fair society recognises that
people fall on hard times and a society with a significant number of
disenfranchised people struggling to survive is unstable and unattractive. Wealthy people will happily pay taxes to live
in a state where it is safe to walk the street, which is not made up of
ghettos, slums and gated communities, where roads are surfaced and lit. The term “progressive” taxation to me does
not only mean that the wealthy pay more; it also stands for a forward-looking
society to which all citizens are proud to belong.
In a Liberal Democrat One Nation everyone would have a say in
the way society in which they live is organised; in their regions, towns,
neighbourhoods. Central government will
always have a role in providing coherence, the bigger picture, grand projects,
and the essentials of defence, peace and justice, as well as services such as
health, education and others where common standards are of benefit to society
as a whole. But more power should be
devolved closer to where decisions have an impact, subject to efficiency of
course. We should not be afraid of allowing
a thousand flowers to bloom (perhaps not quite as Chairman Mao did), as
different parts of our nation try to solve their problems differently..
A Liberal Democrat One Nation means that the diversity of
people’s views should be reflected in our public life. No more partisan politics. Instead of Punch
& Judy knocking sense out of each other, can we have thoughtful,
intelligent politics where divergent views are respected and accommodated as
far as possible. Let people vote for whom they want, not negatively,
not tactically “to stop the other lot getting in”. The 2015 election will probably see the
biggest range of parties represented in Westminster in three generations, but
how many of those who voted will have a stake in the government that is formed? Unless there is a coalition, it will be a
minority of those who voted and an even smaller minority of the electorate as a
whole. But ultimately the electoral
system should change. With the right
electoral system you can even vote for a coalition; Single Transferrable Vote
multi-seat constituencies mean you can vote for more than one party if you
wish! But in the meantime, the last parliament
demonstrated the moderating benefits of coalition even without proportional
representation.
Liberal Democrat One Nation means recognising cultural and
philosophical diversity. The regions of
the UK are different from each other and ethnic groups in the UK have different
roots, all of which should be allowed a place.
But recognising diversity works both ways. When people come to this country from abroad
they do so because they are attracted by the values and opportunities that the
British way of life offers. They need to
be helped to embrace those values, which the vast majority of individuals do. Religion, which is inherently authoritarian
in nature, and community leaders who are suited by their power base, can be
barriers to integration. Religion should
be taken out of public life (that includes the Church of England) and out of
all schools. English is the language of
public life and should be learned, and spoken, by all. People will learn and speak other languages for
cultural or reasons or because they want to. I believe that speaking more than
one language is a great personal attribute and contributes to mutual
understanding.
£8 an hour in 2019 is not a living wage
Does Ed Milliband think a promise of £8 per hour eliminates low pay? And that is not now but some time in the future (2019). This is already less than the living wage.
A real commitment would be to a living wage that meant no subsidy from welfare benefits, which is a subsidy to the employer and consumer by the tax payer and a distortion of the market.
If an employer cannot afford a living wage then perhaps the customer should not get the service. Consumers would simply have to pay the full cost instead of being subsidised out of the public pocket (ie: yours and mine). Most of these jobs are in local (UK) services so I doubt that many jobs would be lost. But if they are then the work would be re-organised and still be done, by fewer people. So as an added bonus, productivity would improve!
A real commitment would be to a living wage that meant no subsidy from welfare benefits, which is a subsidy to the employer and consumer by the tax payer and a distortion of the market.
If an employer cannot afford a living wage then perhaps the customer should not get the service. Consumers would simply have to pay the full cost instead of being subsidised out of the public pocket (ie: yours and mine). Most of these jobs are in local (UK) services so I doubt that many jobs would be lost. But if they are then the work would be re-organised and still be done, by fewer people. So as an added bonus, productivity would improve!
Parties can't deliver promises. Ask if they can govern.
I write while listening to Ed Milliband launching the Labour party manifesto, and his commitment that every promise made has been funded. Of course it is ludicrous. Politicians say this at every election. Promises are made to cut the deficit, put more into the NHS, spend more on defence, out up pensions. These promises may or may not be met not because of the perfidy of politicians but because they cannot predict what will happen over the next 5 years. They are at the mercy of national and global events and trends that they cannot influence. They should be honest and recognise this; not later when policies are stopped in their tracks by some global crisis, but during the election. The fact is that most policies are aspirations, not commitments. And the electorate should be sensible enough to recognise this too of course.
So the real question at elections is not what the parties promise in the manifesto, but how they will cope with the unknown. That is when policy is made in response to developments and when party principles are fudged in the light of what is practicable.
The evidence is strong that coalitions make better decisions than any single party government (see the recent Electoral Reform Society publication "Working Together"). Coalition partners provide a different perspective when deciding on what to do, and they hold more sway over the largest party than does Her Majestiy's Opposition (though they are not paid for the privilege).
So if you want good government, vote for a change in our electoral system. Vote for Proportional Representation. Labour and Conservative Parties won't give that to you of course. But Greens and LibDems will. Not that they will be able to implement it with the present system in place.
So the real question at elections is not what the parties promise in the manifesto, but how they will cope with the unknown. That is when policy is made in response to developments and when party principles are fudged in the light of what is practicable.
The evidence is strong that coalitions make better decisions than any single party government (see the recent Electoral Reform Society publication "Working Together"). Coalition partners provide a different perspective when deciding on what to do, and they hold more sway over the largest party than does Her Majestiy's Opposition (though they are not paid for the privilege).
So if you want good government, vote for a change in our electoral system. Vote for Proportional Representation. Labour and Conservative Parties won't give that to you of course. But Greens and LibDems will. Not that they will be able to implement it with the present system in place.
Friday, 3 April 2015
Still no honesty about Islamic Extremism? I blame the parents.
The story in today's paper about the son of a Rochdale Councillor stopped on the Turkish border on his way to Syria prompted this thought. Why are we still pussyfooting around the issue of religious extremism in our society and who to hold accountable for these runaways?
I feel for Mr Shakil Ahmed, the aforesaid councillor, but only a bit. It seems to me that he, and a lot of other parents in our Islamic communities, are doing a passable impression of an ostrich with its head in the sand. The media ask why children brought up in middle class households, with a good education should show signs of extremism. I think the answer is obvious; blame the parents. Many of them, and I think this is a feature of many South Asian communities (though my comments may apply to others, I have insufficient experience to comment) tend have authoritarian tendencies and are patriarchal is extreme. Wives and daughters are required to subjugate themselves to the father's will; sons are spoilt but also expected to do as they are told; all children are expected to absorb their conservative cultural traditions. None of this sits easily with the liberalism of modern Britain. And the parents, and children, I am talking about are second or third generation, not recently arrived in this country.
How difficult is it for these kids to reconcile the messages they get from their friends, peers at school and the media with the messages their parents are giving them? All teenagers struggle to develop their own independence and some of course rebel; it is part of growing up. But if your family and society's values are so different the strain must be even greater. In these circumstances is it so surprising that some will be lured by a third alternative that offers a unified view of the world, based on your own religion, revolutionary, with the excitement of being in at the start of something new? Never mind about the gross depravity that we see in the media from ISIS (or is it ISIL?); this can be explained away by conspiracy theorists as deliberate media distortion. After all no one can be that ghastly, right? You don't make omelettes without breaking some eggs! And anyway, look at the people killed by the USA in pursuing it's foreign policy (I used to work with an active Catholic American who was absolutely convinced that abortion was murder and should be stopped, but that killing a few dozen wedding celebrants or children with a stray bomb in Afghanistan was "just collateral damage").
Returning to the theme,what is so different between these children running to Syria and the kids who joined the Moonies, Charles Manson or the Bader Meinhof Gang? Some are no doubt sociopaths, but most are just rebelling against the straight jacket of family expectations and looking for a way that they can live their own lives that may even, when the caliphate is up and running, make them heroes. Perhaps their parents are also quite fundamentalist in their religious thinking (in the sense of the 50 million Americans who think that the bible is literally the word of God, not in the sense of chopping heads and hands off unbelievers) and will one day be proud of them for what they did.
So I blame the parents. Let your children grow up as full members of 21st century Britain, and not try to make them live by a different set of standards (yours). They are different from you and should be allowed to express that fact. This is not a plea by the way for sex, drugs and rock and roll; these are temptations that all parents and children have to struggle with. But at least their children will not be torn in two directions. And they may even be more open to more liberal interpretations of their religion that are consistent with a modern liberal democracy. However for that the parents ought also to be more active in their own Mosques so that they know what is gong on and can ensure that extremist views are effectively countered.
I feel for Mr Shakil Ahmed, the aforesaid councillor, but only a bit. It seems to me that he, and a lot of other parents in our Islamic communities, are doing a passable impression of an ostrich with its head in the sand. The media ask why children brought up in middle class households, with a good education should show signs of extremism. I think the answer is obvious; blame the parents. Many of them, and I think this is a feature of many South Asian communities (though my comments may apply to others, I have insufficient experience to comment) tend have authoritarian tendencies and are patriarchal is extreme. Wives and daughters are required to subjugate themselves to the father's will; sons are spoilt but also expected to do as they are told; all children are expected to absorb their conservative cultural traditions. None of this sits easily with the liberalism of modern Britain. And the parents, and children, I am talking about are second or third generation, not recently arrived in this country.
How difficult is it for these kids to reconcile the messages they get from their friends, peers at school and the media with the messages their parents are giving them? All teenagers struggle to develop their own independence and some of course rebel; it is part of growing up. But if your family and society's values are so different the strain must be even greater. In these circumstances is it so surprising that some will be lured by a third alternative that offers a unified view of the world, based on your own religion, revolutionary, with the excitement of being in at the start of something new? Never mind about the gross depravity that we see in the media from ISIS (or is it ISIL?); this can be explained away by conspiracy theorists as deliberate media distortion. After all no one can be that ghastly, right? You don't make omelettes without breaking some eggs! And anyway, look at the people killed by the USA in pursuing it's foreign policy (I used to work with an active Catholic American who was absolutely convinced that abortion was murder and should be stopped, but that killing a few dozen wedding celebrants or children with a stray bomb in Afghanistan was "just collateral damage").
Returning to the theme,what is so different between these children running to Syria and the kids who joined the Moonies, Charles Manson or the Bader Meinhof Gang? Some are no doubt sociopaths, but most are just rebelling against the straight jacket of family expectations and looking for a way that they can live their own lives that may even, when the caliphate is up and running, make them heroes. Perhaps their parents are also quite fundamentalist in their religious thinking (in the sense of the 50 million Americans who think that the bible is literally the word of God, not in the sense of chopping heads and hands off unbelievers) and will one day be proud of them for what they did.
So I blame the parents. Let your children grow up as full members of 21st century Britain, and not try to make them live by a different set of standards (yours). They are different from you and should be allowed to express that fact. This is not a plea by the way for sex, drugs and rock and roll; these are temptations that all parents and children have to struggle with. But at least their children will not be torn in two directions. And they may even be more open to more liberal interpretations of their religion that are consistent with a modern liberal democracy. However for that the parents ought also to be more active in their own Mosques so that they know what is gong on and can ensure that extremist views are effectively countered.
Friday, 27 March 2015
Britain needs more homes, not more "help to buy" the ones it already has
According to the National Audit Office report “The New Homes Bonus”:
“The government estimates that 232,000 additional households could require homes each year to 2033. Since 1970, levels of private housebuilding in England have shown no consistent growth (Figure 1) and In 2012, only 115,600 new homes were built in England. This is the background against which successive governments have tried to increase rates of housebuilding”. [i]
“The government estimates that 232,000 additional households could require homes each year to 2033. Since 1970, levels of private housebuilding in England have shown no consistent growth (Figure 1) and In 2012, only 115,600 new homes were built in England. This is the background against which successive governments have tried to increase rates of housebuilding”. [i]
Figure 1 above (from the NAO report quoted) shows how:
a) Local Councils have been effectively eliminated from the equation;
b) Housing associations have not, and are unlikely to be able to, make
up the for the shortfall, which is in excess of 100,000 houses p.a.; and
c) The private sector has not stepped in to close the gap.
The rate of build in proportion to population in the UK has been lower
than many countries in Europe for decades and more recently has been falling. In 2000 it was the lowest of any north-western European
nation and this trend is unlikely to have changed. It is also harder today to buy a home today
than it ever has been[ii]. Meanwhile it is widely recognised that
social (or sub-market) housing remains in undersupply [iii]
and the private sector rental market remains relatively underdeveloped in
England (and the UK) relative to other countries[iv].
Since 2010 the government have implemented at least 15 housing-specific policies[v]
, focussing primarily on encouraging first-time buyers, though with some
intention to free up the supply side by relaxing and simplifying planning
controls. But, while government policy
attempts to address “affordable rental” and “affordable buy”, it is doing
neither in sufficient quantities to make up the shortfall. In fact by increasing the supply of financing
without sufficiently increasing the number of houses for sale, it is highly
likely that these policies are helping to fuel property price inflation
generally.
All political parties recognise the shortage of suitable housing in the
UK as one of the most critical, and so far intractable, issues in the UK
today. It has been particularly acute since the 1980’s when the
Thatcher government halted construction in the public sector. Housing has
wide implications for standards of living, health and social cohesion, and is also
an important element of infrastructure underpinning economic growth. The
problem is nationwide, but particularly acute in London and no more so than in
Islington. The National Housing Federation, representing Housing
Associations, has called for the parties to commit to developing a long-term
(ie: multi-parliament) plan after the election in May 2015, and for cross-party
consensus. This issue should, like many others, be above narrow party-political
jostling, but unfortunately there must be a low expectation of this
happening.
The facts are that the private sector is not building, and has no
incentive to build, reasonably priced homes in the numbers needed. In free markets, scarce capital and resources
will be allocated where they generate the highest returns. In London it is profitable to build expensive
properties which are then marketed overseas as investments and if they are occupied
by their owners or left empty, they do not add to the available housing stock. The Mayor of London suggests that the effect
is only marginal; overseas investment mainly affect houses in central London and
account for around 6.5% of the value of purchases (of old and new stock) and
10-15% of new-build[vi]. This nevertheless amounts to 2-3,000 homes p.a.
in London that are lost to Londoners.
Nor is overseas acquisition
of older properties on the scale suggested above all concentrated in
high-value Mayfair and Knightsbridge mansions, so it must have some impact on
prices generally as well as the availability of older houses to meet local demand. Both Islington and Westminster Councils have
measured a significant reduction in the number of registered voters, which they
believe is due to “buy to leave”, ie: properties being purchased by
non-residents who choose not to rent them out[vii].
But while foreign investment is
mainly a London problem, the mix of new build is also an issue elsewhere. Affordable family accommodation (3 and 4
bedrooms) is in short supply everywhere and developers are unwilling to
take on the numbers of affordable homes that are needed. They earn much better returns on so-called
starter homes (tiny one- and two-bedroom flats) and student accommodation
(where yields of 14% have been reported) or on the luxury end of the market. Student accommodation is particularly
an issue in Islington[viii]
as well as elsewhere[ix].
The media, and Westminster politicians (more particularly the Tory ones), are preoccupied with the private
sector market and with the cost of purchase in particular. But with house prices so high, there is also
clearly a large demand for long-term rental accommodation from people who
would like to buy but cannot, and from those who are never likely to have the
wherewithal to purchase their own home, whether at a market price or not. In addition, there are those who for one
reason or another are unable to or choose not to buy at a point in time.
The private rented sector today is largely represented by small-scale
“buy-to-let” landlords, mostly in older housing stock. Residential property returns rely on short
leases and frequent rent increases, with capital gains to offset the lower
income, while the normal commercial investment model is based on frequent vacant
possession and rent uplift. Long-term institutional
investors in contrast require stable tenants and stable income. Changes are required in the legal and fiscal
regimes to stimulate to create a viable long-term institutional investment
market, as exists in the USA and much of Europe.
In 2012 the Government
commissioned Sir Adrian Montague to undertake a review of constraints to institutional
investment in private rented homes (“The Montague
Report”)[x]. The government responded by providing £1bln funding
for private sector investment in a mixture of private-rented and private owned
property, and a £10bln loan guarantee scheme for long-term institutional
investors. It also announced setting up
the Private Sector Rented Taskforce[xi]
. Despite £200m promised to the new task
force (presumably out of the £1bln referred to above) to be used to provide
equity for private-rental projects, this received a luke-warm reception from
the British Property Federation[xii].
Perhaps current market players
are not interested in addressing the problem, because their interests are
largely tied in with the existing buy-to-let model, or they are afraid of
structural change that may occur if big investors begin to play a significant role.
Different
investment objectives, and different models, are needed to attract new players
into the market, as Montague recommends. And large scale investment can also
reduce the cost. Legal & General[xiii],
who claim to be leaders in institutional financing of build-to-let projects, have
said that large-scale investment will lead to lower unit construction and
operating costs that will partly address profitability issue. Unit costs of £100,000 are achievable, particulalry with more pre-fabrication in dedicated factories. Long-term and stable tenancies also reduce
operating costs. L&G have also proposed government intervention, including
changes in the tax system to treat property investment consistently with other
business activities.
Perhaps social changes are also
required. It is time we separated the
British public from its fixation on home ownership, and introduced them to the
idea that long-term, stable rental is economically viable and socially acceptable. It was after all the model for the social sector for many years. But we need another 120-150,000 homes built
in England every year. Leaving aside the
question of whether the building industry actually has the capacity, it is
clear that the public sector cannot pay, housing association do not have the
capacity and private developers prefer to use their capital on other, more
profitable projects. Only pension funds,
insurance companies and other (new?) long-term investors can mobilise the funds
required for this enormous task. The sooner they start, the better.
The original paper by Tim O'Brien, dated January 2015, is available here.
The original paper by Tim O'Brien, dated January 2015, is available here.
[ii] The Housing Federation
(representing Housing Associations) paper “Broken Market, Broken Dreams”, September 2014 quotes the
average deposit today as £30,000 (1980 £3,000) or roughly 100% of average
annual salary (1980 about 15%).
[iii] Local
councils, building industry representatives and others, argue strongly that
there are a large number of people who cannot afford to pay full market rents.
Ongoing government policies involving subsidy to social housing costs, from
both sides of the political spectrum, suggest this is widely accepted, at least
with private sector rents at present levels. This is seen as an acceptable cost
for society in order to maintain social cohesion. In any event eliminating low
wages may never be possible and a significant shift would take at least a
generation.
[iv] The private rented sector is
largely represented by small-scale “buy-to-let” landlords, and mostly in older
housing stock. Institutional investment
in property to rent is new in this country and needs stimulating. Changes are
required to create a viable long-term institutional investment market, as
exists in the USA and much of Europe.
See “The Montague Report”.
[v] The list may be
incomplete but I have counted the following:
Affordable Homes Guarantee Programme (AHGP) (September 2012)
The Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012
Affordable Rent-to-buy
New Homes Bonus
The Growing Places Fund
The Get Britain Building Fund
Builders Finance Fund
Estate Regeneration Fund
Single Local Growth Fund
Build Now, Pay Later
FirstBuy
NewBuy Guarantee
Help to Buy
Mortgage Guarantee Scheme
Right to Buy
Affordable Homes Guarantee Programme (AHGP) (September 2012)
The Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012
Affordable Rent-to-buy
New Homes Bonus
The Growing Places Fund
The Get Britain Building Fund
Builders Finance Fund
Estate Regeneration Fund
Single Local Growth Fund
Build Now, Pay Later
FirstBuy
NewBuy Guarantee
Help to Buy
Mortgage Guarantee Scheme
Right to Buy
[vi] Homes for London –
The London Housing Strategy, June 2014, from the Mayor of London
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Housing%20Strategy%202014%20report_lowresFA.pdf
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Housing%20Strategy%202014%20report_lowresFA.pdf
[viii] The Islington Core Strategy (February 2011) notes the quantity of student
accommodation being built in the borough as a particular concern, not only
because it is using up scarce development land, but also for the inevitable
impact it has on the demand for services.
Ironically, new-build student accommodation is too expensive for most
local students, so is also aimed largely at wealthier students (or more likely
parents) from the UK and overseas, mirroring the building boom in luxury flats
in central London.
[x] See “The Montague Report”. Legal
& General have also been vocal on this and are actively investing in
build-to-rent. See “The UK Housing Crisis: 2014 - Lets
House Britain” (May, 2014) produced jointly by Legal & General
and Shelter.
[xii] Chief
executive Liz Peace said: “We have been here before… Every so often the
government trots out this idea that it wants to encourage private
renting. But it has to show
that it really does mean what it says.”
[xiii]
Legal &
General have been vocal on the housing crisis and are actively investing in
build-to-rent. See “The UK Housing Crisis: 2014 - Lets House Britain” (May, 2014)
produced jointly by Legal & General and Shelter. http://www.lgim.com/library/property/lets_house_britain_report.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)