George Venning

529 posts

George Venning

George Venning

@VenningGeorge

Katılım Haziran 2023
176 Takip Edilen41 Takipçiler
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@johndotwills Just to note that, as some of the most generous donors in politics, the big plc housebuilders have spent 20 years insisting that "just build more" is all the housing policy we need whilst stubbornly refusing to build more and blaming it on planners. They've had all they asked for
English
0
0
0
2
John Wills
John Wills@johndotwills·
This is fine stuff. Also- note that the people funding the paper that proposes a massive increase in social homes are a massive private housebuilder and the G15- which are London's 15 largest housing associations.
Simon Inman@SimonInmania

In April, the BBC featured an upcoming Report claiming that London's housing crisis is not caused by a shortage. The report (from Centre For London) has now been released. The analysis arguing for a lack of shortage is fundamentally broken. 🧵 bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

English
0
0
2
346
Kevin Hollinrake MP
Kevin Hollinrake MP@kevinhollinrake·
What you don’t understand, @wesstreeting - is that your cleaner’s landlord is taking a risk with their money. Just like every entrepreneur, business person and investor does. If you increase taxes on risk takers there’ll be fewer entrepreneurs, fewer risks taken, fewer jobs created, lower growth, less tax collected from wealth creators, which will then shift the tax burden back onto your cleaner. It’s naive 6th form political nonsense, which just goes to show that it’s not just Starmer that’s the problem, it’s the whole Labour movement that really doesn’t have a clue how the system actually works.
Steven Swinford@Steven_Swinford

Wes Streeting has this morning set out his tax plans - specifically bringing capital gains tax into line with income tax He says that the current system is unfair because it penalises work Higher or additional rate taxpayers will pay 24% on gains in the current financial year. Streeting said that the rates should mirror income tax bands - so 40% for higher rate taxpayers and 45% for additional rate taxpayers He says that the approach could raise £12billion a year Streeting said: “A member of my family is a cleaner in Lancashire. She pays a higher tax rate on her salary than her landlord pays for the growing value of the home she lives in. She slogs her guts out, he puts in far less effort, yet the state rewards him more than her. And we wonder why people are angry. “The system is penalising work. It’s not fair and it’s bad for our economy. We need a wealth tax that works. A pound made from simply owning assets should not be taxed less than a pound made from a hard day's work. We can do it in a way that is pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur and pro-work.”

English
117
209
1.2K
74.3K
m.
m.@WhyAlwaysMoe_·
@VenningGeorge @nessimmersion @TypeForVictory I understand what you’re saying but the public sector cannot *currently* build houses. If the government wanted them to do that, it would take years to build the capacity and expertise. Until then, we should be supporting private developers
English
1
0
0
12
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@nessimmersion @WhyAlwaysMoe_ @TypeForVictory ...perfectly nice but, thinking of the stock near my house, I'd much rather live in the 1960s Sceaux Gardens Estate than the interwar neo Georgian LCC blocks nearby. Private enterprise and the state both do good and bad. Your dichotomy is false
English
0
0
0
5
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@nessimmersion @WhyAlwaysMoe_ @TypeForVictory Nonsense. The slum clearances of the 20th century were mostly of shoddy 19th century housing built to accommodate the urban poor of the industrial revolution. That clearance was overwhelmingly done by municipal and charitable endeavors. 1930s semis in metroland are... 1/2
English
3
0
0
8
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@nessimmersion @WhyAlwaysMoe_ @TypeForVictory Yes and no. But the point I was responding to was the public sector cannot build. It can. Sometimes well, sometimes not. Also true of the private sector. It wasn't the State that built the rookeries, the squalid back to backs and the one up one downs. Those too are gone now
English
1
0
0
8
Jeremy Driver
Jeremy Driver@J_D_89·
As someone that used to live in Peckham, but moved away in part due to affordability, I've written for @CityAM on why I think the decision to reject the Aylesham development was the wrong one: cityam.com/rejecting-affo…
English
5
20
151
103.2K
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@WhyAlwaysMoe_ @TypeForVictory Actually, the public sector did have the capacity to build. And when it did, we built loads, massively improved quality, as well as security of tenure and a host of other things. Consider what working class housing was like in 1920 Vs 1960.
English
2
0
0
20
m.
m.@WhyAlwaysMoe_·
@VenningGeorge @TypeForVictory If you don’t incentivise developers to build homes, no one will build them and we will be stuck in a housing crisis. The public sector does not have the ability to build homes.
English
1
0
2
67
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@TypeForVictory No, the rules are complex and, necessarily, a little subjective. When it has to balance so many competing objectives, how could it be otherwise? But you surely agree that bad schemes can and should be rejected. If they aren't why build anything good?
English
0
0
0
50
James 🇬🇧 👑
James 🇬🇧 👑@TypeForVictory·
@VenningGeorge The system is arbitrary, unlike most of the world. You can follow the rules and still get rejected. That adds massive risk, time, and cost, and leads to land banking.
English
1
0
6
145
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@lfg_uk @doktor_val Steve Reed is the boss of the planning inspectorate - it's not the judiciary, it speaks on his behalf. He had the power to call the decision in and determine it himself. He didn't. Having opted not to do so why would he waste parliamentary time doing it this way?
English
0
0
0
30
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@timleunig Hard to say: 1. Their viability appraisal showed a £70m shortfall. 2 But they insisted that they wouldn't be doing it it if it weren't profitable & that they wanted to get dozers on the site next week. 3 Finally, they said that the market had fallen since the appraisal Odd
English
0
0
0
100
Tim Leunig
Tim Leunig@timleunig·
The proposal was for about 850 houses, of which therefore around 100 would have been social houses. Given the fall in London house values since the scheme was submitted, it is very unlikely that any new scheme will offer more, unless grant funded... 1/3
Richard Livingstone@Livingstone_RJ

I'm delighted that the planning inspectorate has backed @lb_southwark in turning down Berkeley Homes' Aylesham shopping centre application - which both reduced retail space & provided just 12% social housing. Well done to the local councillors & residents who made the case.

English
2
3
68
15.2K
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@johndotwills @LondonNewLibs Not sure you covered the fact that the place appears not to be her main residence or, alternatively that her kids have inherited the tenancy, which doesn't often happen now. Odd story
English
0
0
1
46
John Wills
John Wills@johndotwills·
What my ex colleagues would say is this: You are asking two questions- 1/ Is this legal? Yes it is, she pays the rent herself. Social housing tenancy rights in England attach to the individual regardless of subsequent changes in personal circumstances, provided the property is the tenant's principal home or is occupied by qualifying family members. Her children's occupation of the property as their primary residence satisfies that condition. She has committed no fraud and breached no tenancy obligation that Southwark has identified) and 2/ Is it moral? You'd think that would be an easier one than the first, but: consider the alternative — that social housing tenants should surrender their homes when their circumstances improve. That is a principle that, applied consistently, would be deeply perverse. It would mean that social housing functions as a poverty trap: stay poor enough to deserve the home or lose it.
English
7
2
28
2.4K
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@_night_brain__ The station looks like that because it is about to be restored and all of the crap you're posting pics of cleared away. That restoration is itself a result of the tireless unpaid campaigning work of some of the very same people who objected to the Aylesham scheme. Get lost
English
1
1
12
1.3K
night brain
night brain@_night_brain__·
The Peckham planning refusal has reached escape velocity, but it's difficult to convey the sense of the area. So here are some shots from Peckham Rye station (<30m service to City and Canary Wharf)
night brain tweet medianight brain tweet medianight brain tweet medianight brain tweet media
English
14
27
370
65.6K
George Venning retweetledi
Patrick Condon
Patrick Condon@pmcondon2·
This needs to be posted from time to time. Bottom line, the more you build the more housing costs. Correlation is not causation but my god!
Patrick Condon tweet media
English
209
42
186
783.1K
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@johndotwills ...would certainly bring values down. But most likely by means of a boom and bust. The extra value might initially support prices but, because it remains unconnected from actual affordability, it would fall to pieces in time. Also, private tenants would get screwed AGAIN, no?
English
1
0
0
11
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@johndotwills In that sense, your model seems to me to replicate existing inequalities rather than address them. Also, you present it as repricing to a market that is currently overvalued. Feeding vastly more supply into an overheated market at a price disconnected from real value... 2/3
English
1
0
0
15
John Wills
John Wills@johndotwills·
When we talk about social housing shortage, we talk about supply- how many homes we have, how many we need and how many we're building. We almost never talk about the other side of the equation: How long each home is effectively out of circulation once allocated. (1/6)
English
4
3
18
2.1K
George Venning
George Venning@VenningGeorge·
@rosegrayston @RosieP4 This is true. It was the exact finding of the Letwin Review. It's also pretty obvious Yet no one anywhere near power paid any attention. Worth asking why not?
English
0
1
2
578
Rose Grayston
Rose Grayston@rosegrayston·
We cannot increase long-term housing supply without diversifying how Britain builds homes. This is sometimes taken to mean we need a greater diversity of developers building to the speculative model. This will help at the margins, but it's not the solution... 🧵
English
8
16
46
26.4K