Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

In regards to UK and property, how widespread is the whole leasehold thing in the world? Coming from an ex-communist state its existence blindsided me but maybe it's not so rare out there.

I think we have something similar in Germany. You sign a contract for 99 years and have to pay some annual rate for the land. You can build etc. and I think after the 99 years the land and the building go back to the land owner, but I think they have to pay market value for the building. Not very common here I think. Church-owned land is often in that legal form.

[Sheilbh]

There's current reforms being proposed as you have statutory rights to extend the leasehold. I think the government's plan is basically that the standard statutory extension will be a new lease of 990 years with a peppercorn (zero) ground rent - as well as making it easier to buy the freehold (including as a group).

It's largely based on Law Commission recommendations.

I think what gets slightly mixed up is that it's very different from leases for tenants who are renting. I think the leasehold reform all sounds like a very good idea. But I think the most vulnerable group who probably need reform more are rental tenants.

[Sheilbh]

Japan has informed my views on this: that the libertarian approach may be good for house prices but otherwise spells sprawling donut doom.
I do think the solution lies more in empowering government to bash heads and guide development in sensible places. New towns done right.
Though I do think on a very limited level in unspectacular neighbourhoods of London et al having local virtual free for all laws could be good.
And make it easier to build within 2 stories of existing buildings elsewhere.

So I don't think these are the only alternatives.

But I'd point out that average rents in Tokyo are almost half what they are in London, the average floorspace per person is also higher (broadly because it's easier as a single person or couple to rent your own flat, not live in a shared flat/house) and Japanese urban new builds are larger than British ones. If the choice was between unsightly sprawl and people spending more on a smaller amount of space and less able to live independently, then I think it's  a pretty easy decision.

And it might be sprawling but from what I've read I don't think Japan's cities are more car-dependent than the UK's (if anything the opposite).

[Josquius]

Right but that's sort of the problem from the left. The argument has always been that actually the problem isn't supply, it's that it's the wrong type of supply (luxury flats etc).

I wouldn't agree on this. I can remember seeing voices on the left saying just build more houses for a long time.
When you've gotten the leadership of the left historically concentrating on building the right sort of houses, rent control, etc... I get the impression this isn't saying those things are the way to solve the core problem, and rather admitting defeat before even trying on the 'just build more houses' front and instead doing what they could around the edges to reduce the pain of the situation.

In recent years however things are reaching such a critical level that they can/have to address the core issue instead. There's quite a push back against NIMBYs brewing and altering the planning system seems to be something you even get the Tories agreeing on.

This ignores the fact that the UK has an unusually high share of social housing and spends an unusual amount on social housing in comparison with the rest of the OECD.

The UK has a lot....ehhh....depends who you're comparing to really. I'd say our most comparable country on this front, especially concentrating on the south east, is the Netherlands, and they've a lot more.
Zooming in I see some basic data for key cities too which is interesting; where we really need it (London) its low.
https://housing-base.journalismarena.eu/social-and-public-housing/data-sources-sets-and-visualisations/share-of-social-housing-per-country-in-europe-housing-europe-2019

Also worth saying the UK spends a lot for crap payoff, in large part thanks to Thatcher destroying all cohesion in its management.

But also ignores the point that the Centre for Cities made that actually the UK has been under-building basically since 1948 and the Town and Country Planning Act.

I'd be careful of this one. I've seen this floated about elsewhere and it does seem to be an argument to push liberal reforms based on dodgy info.
Its definitely true in the inter-war period there was quite the housing boom. But before WW1 when planning law was also rather lax?

I'd argue the inter-war boom was quite a unique one off due to the situation of the time. Extensive tram networks, widespread bike ownership, cars really taking off, and vast expanses of undeveloped fields within an hours walk of city centres.

The 48 act then came in to reign this in as it was growing quite out of control in some key places.

The mid 20th century, when the current planning system worked largely as designed with state and council development aplenty alongside the private sector chugging along, did see huge amounts of housing completions.
Our current problem arises not because state control bad but because if your system is designed around the state leading house building then the state should actually build some houses. Instead we have an attitude of leave everything to the magic of the market when the market is trying to work in a system designed for government building.

More broadly I think it's another example of the UK's goldilocks obsession of wanting exactly the right perfect level of things, which I think leads into the problem of us developing very complicated, expensive, bespoke systems that deliver worse results at higher costs but cannot be changed because that's the way things are done. So we've had a very, very long time of stopping cities from growing and promising well designed new towns, we have algorithms that work out how many houses are likely to be needed in an area - and it's not worked. I think we actually just need to let things happen.

I'm reminded again of the absolutely wild deliberate decisions by governments in the 50s and 60s to hobble the economy of Birmingham because it was the wrong type of economic boom (services, more than manufacturing) and it was in the wrong place (an early attempt at levelling up). The result wasn't that that investment was displaced into Britain's goldilocks plan (more manufacturing, in the north) but that it went to other countries, to London and investors built to exactly the limit of what they were allowed before they had to engage with the government.

Or, for example, this chart on solar farms in the UK:

Because above 50MW you have to go through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning process (which I believe was intended to simplify things for important projects but actually requires vast amonts of assessments etc).

Maybe we should stop trying to get the exact perfect result and just simplify the system, make it easier and let () markets decide what gets built - because that is better than too little getting built whether its homes, businesses in the West Midlands or renewables.

It's why I think it's really significant to have someone from the left of the party like Rayner talking about increasing supply rather than the usual stuff about the wrong type of supply. It suggests Labour are starting to grasp the problem (and reaching a similar conclusion to Poilievre - albeit in very different systems).

I think it's a bit like that project management trilemma of cost, quality, speed and you have to pick two - but British decision makers, and the British public respond "yes" I think I mentioned before but I think Gove's idea of allowing significant development around Cambridge is a really good idea - which is facing a lot of local opposition. But one real problem is that there is a potential lack of water. This is seen as a fait accompli by campaigners against development, as opposed to a state failure given that there have been private sector attempts to build reservoirs but none have been approved since 1992 (especially given that the population has grown by about 10 million in the same time period) and it is, frankly, just embarrassing that an island as damp as this one should really potentially be facing water shortages or having to restrict building because we don't have enough water

Edit: Oh and what he meant by ginger group:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_group

Definitely agreed that perfection is the enemy of good.
But knowing the UK I really wouldn't trust our developers for a second if left to their own devices. They'd just chase the quick profits and build shitty estates of detached houses on remote flood planes without even having footpaths.
We need to guide development towards the less profitable but more sustainable and generally better long term places.
I don't mean on the level of in the 1960s thinking "Heavy industry is the future so lets build for Middlesbrough being a thriving industrial city in 2000" and more "We need housing in this area and in the future will definitely need more. Oh. Look at this village 10 miles from the centre of the city with a train station and a population of 1000. Definitely a place where we should be building rather than a random field out the other side of town"

I think here we've also got a psychological problem vs. Japan in how we view buildings.
In Japan buildings are temporary transient items to be used for a time and then without ceremony. Removed.
All these ancient thousand year old temples? They're rebuilt every 80 years or so. The samurai castles? Half of them are post-war concrete reconstructions.
If you meet someone who has been living in the same house for 60 years, then they've probably got huge money troubles. More common is they rebuild their home on the same location within that time period.

In the UK meanwhile we view buildings as permanent. Even crappy post-war prefabs exist far beyond their timescale because....they're buildings. They're forever.
Demolishing old buildings to build new is a very very big deal. Not just business as usual. Its a sign that huge mistakes were made with that building (e.g. mid 20th century tower blocks).
This naturally leads to a view that we have to get things perfect as we're stuck with it forever.

IMO what we really need is more power for the government and/or regions to push forward stuff like this Cambridge development, the development around train stations, etc...

So I don't think these are the only alternatives.

There's not only two alternatives its true.
IMO Japan lies at one end of a binary extreme- virtually zero regulation, just let the developers do whatever the hell they want. This gives you cheap housing galore.... but ugly samey towns, crap infrastructure, dead town centres (the mentioned donut effect), car centric living and all the associated problems.
The best example of the other extreme is probably the Netherlands. Very rigorous planning. Transit focussed development where new islands are built with tram tracks and housing as part of a united plan. This leads to wonderful towns that are the envy of the world with remarkable people focussed infrastructure but a housing crisis worse than the UK.

We do need to seek a balance between these two- and I suspect this balance might lie less in one plan nationally and rather designating ultra liberal zones in urban areas whilst planning and building properly in areas with heritage and out in the countryside- and here I mean actually doing it. Not the current taking 50 years to build one house.

But I'd point out that average rents in Tokyo are almost half what they are in London, the average floorspace per person is also higher (broadly because it's easier as a single person or couple to rent your own flat, not live in a shared flat/house) and Japanese urban new builds are larger than British ones. If the choice was between unsightly sprawl and people spending more on a smaller amount of space and less able to live independently, then I think it's  a pretty easy decision.

Sadly I do think the majority would choose the bigger house when directly asked the question yes.
But there's my favourite fake Henry Ford quote "If I asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses."
People's behaviour; house prices et al. Do suggest that the area of a house matters a lot more than people will admit.
For me I'd much rather have a smaller house if it means when I go for a walk I have a forest and a decent pub within 15 minutes walk rather than just mile after mile of anonymous suburbia.

And it might be sprawling but from what I've read I don't think Japan's cities are more car-dependent than the UK's (if anything the opposite).

They absolutely are.
Don't make the mistake of Tokyo=Japan here.
Public transport in Japan overall outside of the big cities is pretty shit unless you're fortunate enough to live next to one of the few train stations; which was likely until a few decades ago but these days increasingly isn't.

In terms of numbers a google gives me 600 per 1000 cars for the UK vs 661 in Japan, but break that Japan number down beyond the key cities and it gets much higher.
https://stats-japan.com/t/kiji/10786

Similar breakdowns are out there for the UK too if you're interested.

[viper37]

King Charles Iii has a cancer and his retiring from public life for the time being.

William's wife is also still gravely hill, I believe.

[HVC]

Feel bad for him, I mean besides the cancer. Waited all this time to be king and looks like he'll croak soon. GF called it.

[Josquius]

Now I feel bad for all those jokes about how we should have a coronation every year.

But hey. With all the best doctors I'm sure it has been caught fairly early and he should have awhile ahead of him.

[Barrister]

In regards to UK and property, how widespread is the whole leasehold thing in the world? Coming from an ex-communist state its existence blindsided me but maybe it's not so rare out there.

I think we have something similar in Germany. You sign a contract for 99 years and have to pay some annual rate for the land. You can build etc. and I think after the 99 years the land and the building go back to the land owner, but I think they have to pay market value for the building. Not very common here I think. Church-owned land is often in that legal form.

Leaseholds are rare but not unheard of in Canada.

Where it's most common I think is homes built on Indian Reserves.  First Nations are perhaps understandably very reluctant to sell off reserve land - but in some cases close to cities they have allowed development based on 99 year leases.

[Sheilbh]

Where it's most common I think is homes built on Indian Reserves.  First Nations are perhaps understandably very reluctant to sell off reserve land - but in some cases close to cities they have allowed development based on 99 year leases.

Yeah commercial leaseholds are very, very common here. Recent example is the government selling Admiralty Arch which is fairly prime property on the Mall/Trafalgar Square/Whitehall to become Waldorff Astoria for a 99 year leasehold

I wouldn't agree on this. I can remember seeing voices on the left saying just build more houses for a long time.
When you've gotten the leadership of the left historically concentrating on building the right sort of houses, rent control, etc... I get the impression this isn't saying those things are the way to solve the core problem, and rather admitting defeat before even trying on the 'just build more houses' front and instead doing what they could around the edges to reduce the pain of the situation.

Yeah I disagree. I don't think it was cowardice from a chunk of the left I think it was that they fundamentally didn't think the issue was supply but that it was private supply, supply for profit, luxury flats, land-banking, rentiers etc. At best I don't think it was tinkering around the edges but a mental displacement activity.

There's been voices - like Jonn Elledge of "build more bloody houses" fame - who have been pushing this for over a decade and it's a remarkable achievement (and I think a sign they're right) that they've now got the young centre right and libertarians and the Labour party more or less singing from the same hymn sheet.

The UK has a lot....ehhh....depends who you're comparing to really. I'd say our most comparable country on this front, especially concentrating on the south east, is the Netherlands, and they've a lot more.
Zooming in I see some basic data for key cities too which is interesting; where we really need it (London) its low.
https://housing-base.journalismarena.eu/social-and-public-housing/data-sources-sets-and-visualisations/share-of-social-housing-per-country-in-europe-housing-europe-2019

Also worth saying the UK spends a lot for crap payoff, in large part thanks to Thatcher destroying all cohesion in its management.

This is what I mean by how much we have and how much we spend:



I think it's more that we have a lot of social housing and spend a lot on social housing, precisely because of the lack of supply, which means the normal market is pricing out far more people than in most countries and more every year:


Again spend a lot comparatively, don't get much bang for our book - precisely because we've made things more expensive.

But knowing the UK I really wouldn't trust our developers for a second if left to their own devices. They'd just chase the quick profits and build shitty estates of detached houses on remote flood planes without even having footpaths.
We need to guide development towards the less profitable but more sustainable and generally better long term places.

Right - but what is profitable is driven by the system. If the process of getting planning is expensive and very uncertain then you'll be broadly risk averse and then you'll try to recoup some margin in the actual building phase.

I've mentioned before but the world's leading prefab manufacturers are in Germany and Japan. Companies from both markets have looked at expanding in the UK because their product is popular here, but the problem is you need a steady, predictable line of orders coming in for that type of business to work. And at every level (and not just in housing) development in the UK is not steady or predictable or the type income that allows you to make long term plans.

In the UK meanwhile we view buildings as permanent. Even crappy post-war prefabs exist far beyond their timescale because....they're buildings. They're forever.
Demolishing old buildings to build new is a very very big deal. Not just business as usual. Its a sign that huge mistakes were made with that building (e.g. mid 20th century tower blocks).
This naturally leads to a view that we have to get things perfect as we're stuck with it forever.

Again something Japan is far more comfortable with. They demolish and build vastly more - so that sprawl also isn't forever but a contingent choice.

I think embodied carbon and the environmental impact of demolition is going to become the main focus of NIMBYism  once Labour takes power. It'll be attacking this policy from the left and using environmental issues as the way to do that.

People's behaviour; house prices et al. Do suggest that the area of a house matters a lot more than people will admit.
For me I'd much rather have a smaller house if it means when I go for a walk I have a forest and a decent pub within 15 minutes walk rather than just mile after mile of anonymous suburbia.

Really? I mean there's literally a property program called "location location location" because that's the standard answer on what's the most important thing in choosing where to live.

And I'm an urban homosexual, you like living in by a forest and a pub - but practically lots of people like anonymous suburbia There's a reason it's an enduring form and that people like Barrett Houses. I think we should sort of meet people where they are and let them have the houses they want even if it doesn't match up with our ideas of how people should live (I feel like the 20th century is a big demonstration of the failure of architecture's normative power ).

In terms of numbers a google gives me 600 per 1000 cars for the UK vs 661 in Japan, but break that Japan number down beyond the key cities and it gets much higher.
https://stats-japan.com/t/kiji/10786

Similar breakdowns are out there for the UK too if you're interested.

I'd take people being able to afford housing and people having more floorspace of their own for 10% more cars - especially if they're EVs.

[Barrister]

Yeah I disagree. I don't think it was cowardice from a chunk of the left I think it was that they fundamentally didn't think the issue was supply but that it was private supply, supply for profit, luxury flats, land-banking, rentiers etc. At best I don't think it was tinkering around the edges but a mental displacement activity.

I think until very recently the right in Canada completely ignored cost of housing as an issue (that is if they weren't celebrating the increase in prices), while the left focused entirely on either "building more low-income housing", or rent control.  Both of the left-wing solutions of course actually just supressed the building of more housing.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's basically the same here - except that a very large chunk of the Tory party activists and base are elderly property owners (who have generally paid off their mortgage). They're just not as exposed to the impact of the cost increases and generally only see the upside.

I think there's some polling that basically the more old people see their younger family and friends struggling with housing the more they "get" the issue. But fundamentally they don't really see the issue. Often they'll point out that when they got mortgages interest rates were running at 10-15%, which is true - but ignores that because of the price point the amount of debt you take on is vastly higher and even saving for a deposit is a huge ask.

And I think with Poilievre as an alternative who is winning over young voters, the Tories are facing an existential risk here (the "cross-over" age in the 2019 election was, I think, 37 and, I think in the 2010 election the Tories won a plurality of every age group over 24):


Although I should add for completeness that I don't believe those Reform UK figures for a second and I'll believe the polling on them - especially internet pollsters like YouGov - when they achieve anything like the numbers they should be in by-elections.

[Barrister]

And I think with Poilievre as an alternative who is winning over young voters, the Tories are facing an existential risk here (the "cross-over" age in the 2019 election was, I think, 37 and, I think in the 2010 election the Tories won a plurality of every age group over 24):

I think I've said something like this before but just in case I haven't...

while I'm cautiously optimistic about POilievre, and have posted approvingly here, first and foremost you have to remember that Trudeau is approaching 10 years in power and there's lost a lot of anti-incumbency going on.  Poilievre has to be "good enough" to win over disaffected Liberal supporters, but there's no huge wave of "Poilievre-mania" going on in Canada.

[Sheilbh]

I think I've said something like this before but just in case I haven't...

while I'm cautiously optimistic about POilievre, and have posted approvingly here, first and foremost you have to remember that Trudeau is approaching 10 years in power and there's lost a lot of anti-incumbency going on.  Poilievre has to be "good enough" to win over disaffected Liberal supporters, but there's no huge wave of "Poilievre-mania" going on in Canada.

For sure and here the Tories have had 13 years in power - and I think this economic moment is really, really tough for incumbent anywhere. And obviously you're still, what, a year out from an election and from a UK perspective a 10 point lead for an opposition a year from an election is not safe.

But Poilievre is discussed a lot on the right here - especially the young centre right and the more libertarian wing. The Tory wars are coming - and one of the wings of that will be looking at Poilievre, especially if he wins and the idea that actually the Tories can make a pitch for younger voters, especially on housing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Badenoch make that pitch - in the same way that Harper was seen as a big inspiration for Cameron in opposition.

Obviously the lessons from any country are always going to be specific to that political context and all of those unique factors, but also politicians from broadly similar political families will always be looking at each other (particularly the ones leading in the polls and/or winning elections) for ideas either on the strategy or tactics.

If Peter Dutton wins in Australia next year, the Tory Eye of Sauron will swing in that direction too (Although not seen many "this is what we can learn from Dutton" takes yet).

Edit: And to be clear I think the lessons they're talking about from Poilievre (which is basically popular capitalism, housing etc) would be far healthier for the Tories and our politics - I'm not sure that side will win and I imagine there are others who would look at a Trump victory as carrying lots of lessons for the right in Britain, and I think they might win out in the short term especially if the Tories are reduced to a rump.

[Barrister]

For sure and here the Tories have had 13 years in power - and I think this economic moment is really, really tough for incumbent anywhere. And obviously you're still, what, a year out from an election and from a UK perspective a 10 point lead for an opposition a year from an election is not safe.

But Poilievre is discussed a lot on the right here - especially the young centre right and the more libertarian wing. The Tory wars are coming - and one of the wings of that will be looking at Poilievre, especially if he wins and the idea that actually the Tories can make a pitch for younger voters, especially on housing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Badenoch make that pitch - in the same way that Harper was seen as a big inspiration for Cameron in opposition.

I feel like that's more of a sense of desperation from the UK Tories then anything else.

I *LIKE* Poilievre's position on housing, but maybe it's just because I'm in the middle of Conservative-country I haven't heard anyone "on the ground" talking about it (or also because our housing is more reasonable than Toronto or Vancouver).

[Sheilbh]

Fair. And I think to be clear these were people who were already talking about housing as an issue the Tories needed to grasp with supply side reforms if they wanted to have any hope of winning - and also of securing a toehold with younger voters. So it is basically confirmation bias - it's not "Poilievre is showing the way for the right", it's more "Poilievre is doing what I already think we should do - and it's working!" If he was 10 points behind in the poll they'd just be talking about someone else - I don't know, Luxon in New Zealand who gets a few mentions.

I think it is relatively common here and what a foreign political leader "means" in British internal party fights may not really be very close to what they're doing. But I think of Blair and Clinton, or Cameron and Harper (and, to an extent in opposition, Merkel) - in both case they're figures who can plausibly be pitched as doing what they already think and want to do. Starmer's team have talked about Bidenomics, Scholz and Albanese as useful examples to learn from.

The reformist, younger centre right, libertarian-ish, more thoughtful side are talking about Poilievre a lot as their model - because they see him as doing what they already think the Tories need to do. Other factions will adopt/point to other foreign right-wing leaders, or their versions of them, as examples. And worth saying if I was putting money on the next Tory leader - I would not bet on them being the one supported by the reformist, young, libertarian-ish side of the party.

This is all very niche too - these are think tank people and columnists. But they'll matter in setting the narrative - especially if the Tories lose and have to elect their first Leader of the Opposition in 20 years. It'll be interesting to see which leadership campaign goes down that route (as I say I suspect it'll be Kemi Badenoch).

For me, I think the really interesting thing is that faced with similarly affordability issues in housing a right wing Canadian Conservative and centre left British Labour leadership are identifying similar issues (as are right-wing, non-partisan and some leftie think tanks in the UK). That sort of convergence makes me think there's something to it because people coming at the question from different perspectives are coming to a similar conclusion.

Totally separately - and not really interested in the King stuff, but I found the last half of this on how regency works, who decides if the monarch is incapable etc interesting. Particularly striking that the five who decide whether or not to declare a regency are the monarch's partner, the Lady Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls as well as the Speaker of the Commons and Minister of Justice as Lord Chancellor. I did not know it was so judge heavy
https://x.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1754643847060001110