The UK has an ever increasing problem. There simply are not enough properties to house the population. Probably one of the truest facts of life is, everyone needs somewhere to live. We all need a home. Without a home everything else falls apart. A roof over your head is everything, it also helps to have money to pay the bills and enough to warmth and comfort to satisfy the basic human needs. Food, friendship or family, adequate shelter. When I say home I don't mean something which is temporary, it has to be permanent and preferably not rented from a private landlord. The best choice would be owned.
There are many reasons why the UK does not have enough properties. The population is increasing every year. This is not organically either, immigration is higher than net migration. Over the last two decades or even more, the number of new build properties in the entire UK has not kept up with these population increases. It has been pitiful no matter what government has been in power. There has always been a proportional trend for citizens of the UK to purchase their own home, so once in ownership it will stay in ownership for many years. Families no longer live in the cohesive units they used to live in. They break up. There is not the social pressure for partners to stay together. This is a good thing for those who want to get out of a relationship so they can do so. Unless they happen to believe in a religion which sees marriage break ups in a poor light. Individuals and organizations own more than one property, those excess properties are used as cash cows by renting them out, we see an ever growing set of entrepreneurs have developed in an ever growing buy to rent market. There should be a maximum number of domestic properties any single individual can be allowed to own in the UK.
As people buy their own homes, it means taking out a mortgage and a number of years paying this back. Home owners hope the valuation of their property increases every year. Over time the actual mortgage level drops lower than rental values and they win out on two fronts. For banks and for home owners there is an interest in keeping property valuations high and consequently there is also an advantage in more properties not being built and synchronized with the needs of a growing population. In a catch 22 like situation, the fewer people own their own homes the better it is for those who do own their own home. Property ownership is static wealth, those with high mortgages are tied to banks with their burdens. The higher demand the higher property valuations but this comes at a caveat, if interest rates increase home owners may have difficulty in paying back their mortgage. Those with interest only mortgages actually become the most vulnerable. In a time of recession which has been more than a decade, being in work is also one of the most valuable factors anyone can have.
The solutions can only come from a multiple fronts. Especially when looking at the interdependent link between banks, mortgages and home ownership, which is insidious to the entire country. A nationally owned and nationally ran bank, not one of those which has been bailed out might be an option, but is unlikely to happen. More stringent regulations on allowing mortgages, interest rates, the even the failure of banking institutes should be considered. In an ever chaotic financial situation it is unfair the tax payer has to bail out banks because they are too big to fail. If they really are too big, then they need to be broken up, their capital held increased and the culture of awarding massive financial rewards to the few ceased. House builders should be forced to either sell back the land banks they have or to actually build on them. Local Authorities should be given permission to purchase and to build their own housing again, their role has previously been central in stabilizing the housing crisis, but they have been shut out. A new rent regulation should be introduced, the maximum level of rent any private organization can charge is then capped. No matter where the property is situated. Empty and abandoned properties should also be examined, with forced purchase orders come into play given owners had sufficient time to act.
The introduction of apprenticeship schemes which are only a few weeks long are worthless to everyone. The definition of an apprenticeship should be defined with a minimum period and a minimum standard of education associated to it. Universities and colleges must create courses centred on vocational skills should provide vocational qualifications and those who go on these courses given financial support. The agism of apprenticeship schemes should also be examined. People of any age should be given an equal chance to go on these schemes. You are never too young to learn, if the retirement age is increasing it stands to reason older people need to be included higher in new workforces. The UK no longer produces goods in factories and through engineering to the degree it used, the entire field of private sector industry must be encouraged and supported. Through reduced business rates, increased financial support, tax breaks and long term R & D investment. The future of the UK has to be considered beyond the term of one or two governments. We now should be looking 30 to 50 years ahead. This can only be done a little bit at a time.
More jobs for more people at a higher level of skill and education will ensure they are able to have a better standard of living and so purchase their own house or afford to rent. However, the idea is to bring down rent levels and increase numbers of available homes. These are just a few ideas some of which have been mentioned in previous BLOGs.
No comments:
Post a Comment