How to solve Britain's biggest problems

[Sandydragon]

The truth is the NHS will always need more money. It does more than it was originally planned to do and we have an aging population.

I’d like to think that we can plan for the other challenges with environmental issues in mind, particularly in transport where our obsession with the car is going to cost us long term without a radical change.

I’m not sure what the long long term solution I for housing, there is only so much space available.

[onlynameleft]

Appreciate there are other issues but I’ll stick to what I know. Banning new build leasehold just shows the govt has absolutely feck all clue about the housing market or how to ‘fix’ it. It’s just a headline grabber with absolutely no understanding of where problems in this context have arisen.
And yes, re the electric car debate, where is all this electricity going to come from? And the material for the batteries. And how to dispose of them. I really don’t think electric is the answer and if the fossil fuel ban excludes hybrids then I can’t really see it as any kind of ban at all as 90% of new vehicle sales would have been hybrid by the cut off anyway. Electric/hybrid is short termism imho, we should be looking at hydrogen long term.

[onlynameleft]

Another point re housing, the decline in high street retail is only just starting and it is irreversible. I know we all complain about nail bars and coffee shops but there's more of that to come until we reach a saturation point and after that the space will just stay vacant. We need a cohesive policy or policies for town and city centres, I expect in 20 years' time there will be far more people living in town and city centres and some will commute out. Developers are just starting to address the needs of older people and families who want to live in cities, Urban Splash are building 2000 sqft 4 bed apartments for example. There are already millions and millions of sqfeet vacant in towns and cities, much of it above shops. As a start we could incentivise retailers to bring that space into use. I don't really agree there is a need to build thousands of new houses, we need to use the buildings we have better though.

[Donny osmond]

I don't really agree there is a need to build thousands of new houses, we need to use the buildings we have better though.

I love this, it really validates the sort of educated guess that most people I speak to make, that there is so much unused capacity out there and we just need to be more clever in how we use it, rather than this blunderbus approach of just make more, build more, etc.

I think the much maligned "bedroom tax" that everyone got their panties all bunched up about a few years ago was an attempt, albeit hamfisted, at changing approach. I dont mean to defend the bedroom tax, as it seemed like it was appallingly thought out and implemented, but at least someone was trying something.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[fivepointer]

Housing - more building
NHS - more money
Sometimes the solutions are pretty clear cut, even if getting there isn't always straightforward.
Railways - i'm not opposed to bringing franchises back into public ownership but i've yet to be convinced we would get a better service, or better value for money.
Social care and an ageing population is a massive issue and will only grow. This is something where getting some cross party consensus might be the only way we can arrive at a workable, long term solution.

[onlynameleft]

I don't really agree there is a need to build thousands of new houses, we need to use the buildings we have better though.

I love this, it really validates the sort of educated guess that most people I speak to make, that there is so much unused capacity out there and we just need to be more clever in how we use it, rather than this blunderbus approach of just make more, build more, etc.

I think the much maligned "bedroom tax" that everyone got their panties all bunched up about a few years ago was an attempt, albeit hamfisted, at changing approach. I dont mean to defend the bedroom tax, as it seemed like it was appallingly thought out and implemented, but at least someone was trying something.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Yes, somewhere in there was the beginning of a decent idea but appallingly hamfisted, perhaps use carrots rather than sticks, ie incentivise rather than penalise and it would have been better received.
Most people have this fixed idea of how towns and cities ‘work’, the reality is human populations are ever changing, the industrial revolution gave rise to the cities we have today, in real terms it wasn’t very long ago at all. Now technology is starting to change everything again.
There is an economic theory, originally applied to retailing, called Tesco and Chanel, the large organisations with their economies of scale flourish, as do the small bespoke operations, the middle gets squeezed. It is a bit outdated for retail now, would be better called Amazon and Chanel, but it is happening through the professions, either go small and do one thing really really well, or be huge. The middle ground merges or dies. Your House of Fraser, your C and A and BHS, they are caught in no mans land; people don’t buy there for a service, they want cheap and convenient but Amazon and it’s ilk are cheaper and more convenient still. The likes of Primark are a flash in the pan imho as they can’t compete with the internet based retailers on the one thing that really matters to the people that shop in them. There will be carnage on the high street in the next few years.
Offices are next, why do large law firms need to have 1000 people in a city centre for example. The vast majority don’t go to Court, rarely meet clients. All that is needed is a client suite and some hot desks plus some space somewhere much much cheaper for the paralegals shortly to be replaced by computers. I work from home these days, it makes no difference to what I can do and I save 3 hours a day I used to spend commuting.
Rather than build more and more boxes on green belt let’s start properly thinking about what we are going to do with all that space.

[Sandydragon]

Remove stamp duty for anyone looking to downsize. Perhaps even pass up on capital gains. Older people probably have made a fair amount on property ov r the years, but downsizing can be cost rohibitive.

But there are still housing hotspots where there is a need for more assets.

[Digby]

Remove stamp duty for anyone looking to downsize. Perhaps even pass up on capital gains. Older people probably have made a fair amount on property ov r the years, but downsizing can be cost rohibitive.

But there are still housing hotspots where there is a need for more assets.

Not many people are getting hit with CGT are they?

[Mellsblue]

I don't really agree there is a need to build thousands of new houses, we need to use the buildings we have better though.

I love this, it really validates the sort of educated guess that most people I speak to make, that there is so much unused capacity out there and we just need to be more clever in how we use it, rather than this blunderbus approach of just make more, build more, etc.

I think the much maligned "bedroom tax" that everyone got their panties all bunched up about a few years ago was an attempt, albeit hamfisted, at changing approach. I dont mean to defend the bedroom tax, as it seemed like it was appallingly thought out and implemented, but at least someone was trying something.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Yes, somewhere in there was the beginning of a decent idea but appallingly hamfisted, perhaps use carrots rather than sticks, ie incentivise rather than penalise and it would have been better received.
Most people have this fixed idea of how towns and cities ‘work’, the reality is human populations are ever changing, the industrial revolution gave rise to the cities we have today, in real terms it wasn’t very long ago at all. Now technology is starting to change everything again.
There is an economic theory, originally applied to retailing, called Tesco and Chanel, the large organisations with their economies of scale flourish, as do the small bespoke operations, the middle gets squeezed. It is a bit outdated for retail now, would be better called Amazon and Chanel, but it is happening through the professions, either go small and do one thing really really well, or be huge. The middle ground merges or dies. Your House of Fraser, your C and A and BHS, they are caught in no mans land; people don’t buy there for a service, they want cheap and convenient but Amazon and it’s ilk are cheaper and more convenient still. The likes of Primark are a flash in the pan imho as they can’t compete with the internet based retailers on the one thing that really matters to the people that shop in them. There will be carnage on the high street in the next few years.
Offices are next, why do large law firms need to have 1000 people in a city centre for example. The vast majority don’t go to Court, rarely meet clients. All that is needed is a client suite and some hot desks plus some space somewhere much much cheaper for the paralegals shortly to be replaced by computers. I work from home these days, it makes no difference to what I can do and I save 3 hours a day I used to spend commuting.
Rather than build more and more boxes on green belt let’s start properly thinking about what we are going to do with all that space.

Can’t say I agree with your theory about the hollowing out of city centre commercial property. This would have happened years ago if it were to - conference calling, Skype, email etc have been around for years. The current theory around commercial building design is based on transference of ideas. This is why you have businesses in the same sector clustering and why high end commercial new builds are purposely designed so staff are forced to interact. These clusters will pretty much always be in large conurbations unless the government takes a lead role and some huge gambles, and that isn’t going to happen. I agree that retail space will suffer with internet shopping but these will mostly be filled with whatever the latest fad is - currently coffee shops, delicatessens, restaurants etc.
Last I heard empty residential properties number around the 300,000 mark - and this old info, so I’d guess the number has gone down - so that will cater for less than year’s requirements. The simple fact is we need to build more or radically change the way society works, ie roll the years back when people worked in their home town and stayed at home longer.

[onlynameleft]

Remove stamp duty for anyone looking to downsize. Perhaps even pass up on capital gains. Older people probably have made a fair amount on property ov r the years, but downsizing can be cost rohibitive.

But there are still housing hotspots where there is a need for more assets.

Not many people are getting hit with CGT are they?

No one will be getting hit with CGT on their main residence.

[onlynameleft]

I love this, it really validates the sort of educated guess that most people I speak to make, that there is so much unused capacity out there and we just need to be more clever in how we use it, rather than this blunderbus approach of just make more, build more, etc.

I think the much maligned "bedroom tax" that everyone got their panties all bunched up about a few years ago was an attempt, albeit hamfisted, at changing approach. I dont mean to defend the bedroom tax, as it seemed like it was appallingly thought out and implemented, but at least someone was trying something.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Yes, somewhere in there was the beginning of a decent idea but appallingly hamfisted, perhaps use carrots rather than sticks, ie incentivise rather than penalise and it would have been better received.
Most people have this fixed idea of how towns and cities ‘work’, the reality is human populations are ever changing, the industrial revolution gave rise to the cities we have today, in real terms it wasn’t very long ago at all. Now technology is starting to change everything again.
There is an economic theory, originally applied to retailing, called Tesco and Chanel, the large organisations with their economies of scale flourish, as do the small bespoke operations, the middle gets squeezed. It is a bit outdated for retail now, would be better called Amazon and Chanel, but it is happening through the professions, either go small and do one thing really really well, or be huge. The middle ground merges or dies. Your House of Fraser, your C and A and BHS, they are caught in no mans land; people don’t buy there for a service, they want cheap and convenient but Amazon and it’s ilk are cheaper and more convenient still. The likes of Primark are a flash in the pan imho as they can’t compete with the internet based retailers on the one thing that really matters to the people that shop in them. There will be carnage on the high street in the next few years.
Offices are next, why do large law firms need to have 1000 people in a city centre for example. The vast majority don’t go to Court, rarely meet clients. All that is needed is a client suite and some hot desks plus some space somewhere much much cheaper for the paralegals shortly to be replaced by computers. I work from home these days, it makes no difference to what I can do and I save 3 hours a day I used to spend commuting.
Rather than build more and more boxes on green belt let’s start properly thinking about what we are going to do with all that space.

Can’t say I agree with your theory about the hollowing out of city centre commercial property. This would have happened years ago if it were to - conference calling, Skype, email etc have been around for years. The current theory around commercial building design is based on transference of ideas. This is why you have businesses in the same sector clustering and why high end commercial new builds are purposely designed so staff are forced to interact. These clusters will pretty much always be in large conurbations unless the government takes a lead role and some huge gambles, and that isn’t going to happen. I agree that retail space will suffer with internet shopping but these will mostly be filled with whatever the latest fad is - currently coffee shops, delicatessens, restaurants etc.
Last I heard empty residential properties number around the 300,000 mark - and this old info, so I’d guess the number has gone down - so that will cater for less than year’s requirements. The simple fact is we need to build more or radically change the way society works, ie roll the years back when people worked in their home town and stayed at home longer.

Fair enough, we are both speculating and we’ll see who is right but tech availability and adoption are two entirely different things. And the transference point also suffers on the same basis, that thinking is 10 years’ old but there is always such a drag with real estate.
What in your view is the next ‘fad’ in retail beyond what is essentially service retail?

[Zhivago]

Look to Denmark for answers on this issue

[Mellsblue]

Yes, somewhere in there was the beginning of a decent idea but appallingly hamfisted, perhaps use carrots rather than sticks, ie incentivise rather than penalise and it would have been better received.
Most people have this fixed idea of how towns and cities ‘work’, the reality is human populations are ever changing, the industrial revolution gave rise to the cities we have today, in real terms it wasn’t very long ago at all. Now technology is starting to change everything again.
There is an economic theory, originally applied to retailing, called Tesco and Chanel, the large organisations with their economies of scale flourish, as do the small bespoke operations, the middle gets squeezed. It is a bit outdated for retail now, would be better called Amazon and Chanel, but it is happening through the professions, either go small and do one thing really really well, or be huge. The middle ground merges or dies. Your House of Fraser, your C and A and BHS, they are caught in no mans land; people don’t buy there for a service, they want cheap and convenient but Amazon and it’s ilk are cheaper and more convenient still. The likes of Primark are a flash in the pan imho as they can’t compete with the internet based retailers on the one thing that really matters to the people that shop in them. There will be carnage on the high street in the next few years.
Offices are next, why do large law firms need to have 1000 people in a city centre for example. The vast majority don’t go to Court, rarely meet clients. All that is needed is a client suite and some hot desks plus some space somewhere much much cheaper for the paralegals shortly to be replaced by computers. I work from home these days, it makes no difference to what I can do and I save 3 hours a day I used to spend commuting.
Rather than build more and more boxes on green belt let’s start properly thinking about what we are going to do with all that space.

Can’t say I agree with your theory about the hollowing out of city centre commercial property. This would have happened years ago if it were to - conference calling, Skype, email etc have been around for years. The current theory around commercial building design is based on transference of ideas. This is why you have businesses in the same sector clustering and why high end commercial new builds are purposely designed so staff are forced to interact. These clusters will pretty much always be in large conurbations unless the government takes a lead role and some huge gambles, and that isn’t going to happen. I agree that retail space will suffer with internet shopping but these will mostly be filled with whatever the latest fad is - currently coffee shops, delicatessens, restaurants etc.
Last I heard empty residential properties number around the 300,000 mark - and this old info, so I’d guess the number has gone down - so that will cater for less than year’s requirements. The simple fact is we need to build more or radically change the way society works, ie roll the years back when people worked in their home town and stayed at home longer.

Fair enough, we are both speculating and we’ll see who is right but tech availability and adoption are two entirely different things. And the transference point also suffers on the same basis, that thinking is 10 years’ old but there is always such a drag with real estate.
What in your view is the next ‘fad’ in retail beyond what is essentially service retail?

No idea! I'm a Building Surveyor. I'm paid to build and refurbish for the here and now, not predict the sector's future!! If you forced an answer, I'd go for the next step of what a lot of people already use the coffee shops for - an office. I think the next evolution of business will be single person enterprises and small tech business and lots of self-employed. These demographics are already growing and I think they'll explode as we become more global and as tech improves even further. As I said above, I don't see these people all/always working from home and they will need somewhere cheap and flexible to work and meet. I say all this with little to no research beyond what I read in passing and see at work.
Not sure the ideas transference point is old - if, by old, you mean out of date - the idea itself is very old but most of all the newest, high end commercial buildings have it designed in as a core principle. Though, as you say, it's all speculation.

[Stom]

Remove stamp duty for anyone looking to downsize. Perhaps even pass up on capital gains. Older people probably have made a fair amount on property ov r the years, but downsizing can be cost rohibitive.

But there are still housing hotspots where there is a need for more assets.

Not many people are getting hit with CGT are they?

They are if you read the telegraph...

[Digby]

Remove stamp duty for anyone looking to downsize. Perhaps even pass up on capital gains. Older people probably have made a fair amount on property ov r the years, but downsizing can be cost rohibitive.

But there are still housing hotspots where there is a need for more assets.

Not many people are getting hit with CGT are they?

They are if you read the telegraph...

Actually I do, but only the rugby stories, and it doesn't seem to come up often there

[onlynameleft]

Vacant housing stock in England only for October 2016 was reported at 589,000 although this is likely an under report because it relies on houseowners (other than LA's who report as a matter of course) reporting properties as empty. So, that's maybe 2 years' supply. LA's have powers to bring vacant property back into use but rarely use them. But what I was talking about above was not empty dwellings but unused commercial space which will likely never be used again for commercial purposes or which will become redundant and needs to be factored into the building/demand figures.
The private sector is, in the main, short termist, what is needed now, what can we make the most money on now, which is why I think there is some kind of intervention needed to drive a vision or at least rough plan to deal with changes that are inevitable over the next 25 years.
I'm not suggesting the transference point is old hat, merely that it is not new. Start ups and techs will never ever replace the numbers who will become redundant over the next decade due to AI etc and flexible working is starting to gain traction even amongst the more conservative professions. The start up and tech guys I work closely with don't do 9 to 5, they work wherever they are needed and on the move, few have fixed office spaces, certainly not in city centres and business districts, they use hubs to meet other similar people. They simply do not need anything like as much fixed office space as traditional businesses and this trend will continue.
So the shops become offices, and this is already increasingly common with coffee etc shops that offer free wifi, as do warehouses etc, what ultimately happens to the existing office stock? Forward thinking businesses are already wondering why they are paying £35 a foot to house hundreds of paralegals or juniors in a place they don't need to be.
We need to rethink towns and cities. Whatever happened to Mary Portas?

[Digby]

How much of the empty commercial property available now can be easily converted for residential purposes, including as a for instance how much of that resource has say asbestos used in its construction? It's maybe an idea that can be looked into, but there could be significant costs, and there mayn't be that much demand.

Any which way that the board of a building company (which is building houses with a reasonably high rate of poor quality issues) is set to take the better part of a billion pound in bonuses should give Labour plenty to work with, it'll not be easy to argue the board could've survived sharing a paltry £100 million and the other £700 million could've gone into building new homes.

[onlynameleft]

I couldn't say how much of the available commercial stock contains asbestos or how much it would cost to convert. Of course there may be issues with individual buildings but any building which contains asbestos will have the same issue whether it is refurbed for commercial use or converted to resi. I can say that demand for city centre living by older people and families is on the increase and developers are starting to catch on to it. Also that demand for retail and office space in cities will decrease (an opinion albeit a hopefully reasonably informed one). There's a definite trend away from people travelling to cities to work and shop and increasingly many people who live outside them only go to them to be entertained. That trend will only increase. All I'm saying is that we need to look at this holistically and not simply say the answer is to build more houses but what are we going to do with the millions and millions of square feet of commercial space that will almost certainly be available in the next couple of decades.
It seems the gourmet burger bubble may be bursting sooner than expected as Byron has filed for a CVA.

[Mellsblue]

I’m not convinced that AI will lead to mass unemployment. The same has been said for every industrial or technical revolution and yet here we are with historically low unemployment figures.
On the asbestos point. Converting commercial to resi is a lot more intrusive than simply refurbishing commercial to commercial. This will lead to more asbestos removal when converting. That said, if there is nobody willing to let the space as a commercial unit the landlord will suck up the cost of the refurb, including asbestos. Further to that, asbestos removal is just another process in a project these days. It’s not seen as a major issue. As for how much asbestos there is. 99% of any property built before 1999 will have asbestos in it. It was in everything.
I’ll believe the death of city centres/high streets when I see it. Everyone predicted it’s death in the 80/90’s when out of town retail parks were springing up everywhere. Now, 20/30 years later, I’ve read plenty of pieces about their vacancy rate being so high that they are being earmarked for resi development.
Conurbations will always evolve and adapt, and I can’t ever see the basic human requirement to interact and the basic premise of transference of ideas by proximity ever disappearing.

[Digby]

I agree it's not likely to be all that simple to convert commercial properties for residential use, asbestos was only one point to illustrate there would be issues with transferring use. It's not a crazy idea of course, certainly better than allowing so much building on flood plains just 'cause that's cheaper for the developers.

[onlynameleft]

Your last line is absolutely on point, but people will interact in different ways and in different places. Anyway, we'll see. All I'm saying is that it needs looking at.

[onlynameleft]

Sorry, that in response to Mells.

[Mellsblue]

Sorry, that in response to Mells.

Good job you clarified. It’s not often ‘absolutely on point’, or similar, is written in response to a post of mine!
As you say, we’ll see. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the attitude of policy makers at all levels for goodness knows how long. Javid seems to have upped building rates but that may be a blip and/or sheer luck and other than ‘we must build more’ I don’t see much of a big picture (awful phrase) plan.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Right, how about no-one over the age of 60 being allowed to use the NHS?

This should free up about 2/3 of the beds currently occupied and in the process hasten the demise of all the dying aul feckers who weren't prudent enough to put enough away to see them through their retirement on private healthcare.

Abolish death duties and simply confiscate the property of anyone who dies while occupying an NHS bed.

Sell all confiscated properties to wealthy foreign investors on the understanding that their neglect will make the property unhealthy and therefore begin making inroads into those leaches on society who can't afford to buy their own gaff.

Drowning Nigel Farridge in a barrel of pig slurry will also help.

[Mellsblue]

Right, how about no-one over the age of 60 being allowed to use the NHS?

This should free up about 2/3 of the beds currently occupied and in the process hasten the demise of all the dying aul feckers who weren't prudent enough to put enough away to see them through their retirement on private healthcare.

Abolish death duties and simply confiscate the property of anyone who dies while occupying an NHS bed.

Sell all confiscated properties to wealthy foreign investors on the understanding that their neglect will make the property unhealthy and therefore begin making inroads into those leaches on society who can't afford to buy their own gaff.

Drowning Nigel Farridge in a barrel of pig slurry will also help.

Seems eminently sensible. Especially the last sentence.