| Housing shocker surprise.......not! 08:13 - Jan 25 with 1474 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/25/george-osbornes-help-to-bu
The Lords-built environment committee has revealed that all of the £29bn spent on the help-to-buy scheme has been wasted. The scheme gives subsidies for homeownership, but all they do is “inflate prices by more than their subsidy value”. They “do not provide good value for money”, which would be “better spent on increasing housing supply.”
The report, chaired by the Tory ex-minister and businesswoman Lucy Neville-Rolfe, shows that Margaret Thatcher’s signature right-to-buy policy lies at the heart of the ballooning housing crisis.Â
|  |
| |  |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:21 - Jan 25 with 1429 views | Durovigutum |
I find it so frustrating that the "free market economists" that are meant to be the Tory party keep messing around in the market. Tinkering always brings this sort of result, either deal with the problem or don't.
Build 1.5 million 3 bed social semi detached houses properly (as in will last 200 years not 50) and rent them unfurnished for build price divided by 200 and leave the tenant to maintain them. Cost of housing is at the root of so many problems in this country... |  | | |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:24 - Jan 25 with 1417 views | giant_stow |
It was only ever a subsidy for the house builders. |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:29 - Jan 25 with 1404 views | bluelagos |
Is bizarre that politicians think giving subsidies to help first time buyers will be anything other than inflationary. But the minute an application for new homes goes in the locals go full on NIMBY and fight them all the way...
Maybe the shift to home working can provide come opportunities for town centre homes where offices once stood? Something needs to change... |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:34 - Jan 25 with 1375 views | homer_123 |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:21 - Jan 25 by Durovigutum |
I find it so frustrating that the "free market economists" that are meant to be the Tory party keep messing around in the market. Tinkering always brings this sort of result, either deal with the problem or don't.
Build 1.5 million 3 bed social semi detached houses properly (as in will last 200 years not 50) and rent them unfurnished for build price divided by 200 and leave the tenant to maintain them. Cost of housing is at the root of so many problems in this country... |
Costs is one factor, yes, but moreover the social conditioning that has led to 'you must own your own home or you are a failure' is more problematic. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 8:35]
|  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:46 - Jan 25 with 1346 views | Guthrum |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:21 - Jan 25 by Durovigutum |
I find it so frustrating that the "free market economists" that are meant to be the Tory party keep messing around in the market. Tinkering always brings this sort of result, either deal with the problem or don't.
Build 1.5 million 3 bed social semi detached houses properly (as in will last 200 years not 50) and rent them unfurnished for build price divided by 200 and leave the tenant to maintain them. Cost of housing is at the root of so many problems in this country... |
What, Council Houses? It'll never catch on ... |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:55 - Jan 25 with 1329 views | Guthrum |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:34 - Jan 25 by homer_123 |
Costs is one factor, yes, but moreover the social conditioning that has led to 'you must own your own home or you are a failure' is more problematic. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 8:35]
|
The issue was not so much that people were allowed to buy Council Houses, but that they were never replaced (on the same scale) and the money went elsewhere. | |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:56 - Jan 25 with 1323 views | JeanManuelThetis |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:21 - Jan 25 by Durovigutum |
I find it so frustrating that the "free market economists" that are meant to be the Tory party keep messing around in the market. Tinkering always brings this sort of result, either deal with the problem or don't.
Build 1.5 million 3 bed social semi detached houses properly (as in will last 200 years not 50) and rent them unfurnished for build price divided by 200 and leave the tenant to maintain them. Cost of housing is at the root of so many problems in this country... |
Spot on. The only problem is I’m not sure how well ‘building lots of houses’ goes down with the ageing house-owning Tory electorate. |  | | |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 09:07 - Jan 25 with 1308 views | homer_123 |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:55 - Jan 25 by Guthrum |
The issue was not so much that people were allowed to buy Council Houses, but that they were never replaced (on the same scale) and the money went elsewhere. |
Indeed the housing stock wasn't replaced but why the heavy move to ownership - ultimately the shift was to reduce the burden on Government provided housing stock and people to be more self-sufficient....all it has served to do is widen the gap between the haves and have nots.
It has played a significant part in reducing social mobility for those that needed it the most, served to stigmatise those that rent, are within social housing etc. With the driver to 'ownership' increase government housing stock doesn't reduce, negate or address these issues and would never have done.
Ownership isn't a problem per se - it's everything that has gone around that that has served to increase poverty, add to the unbalance of wealth and serve to further isolate communities that is the real issue. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 09:08 - Jan 25 with 1309 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 08:21 - Jan 25 by Durovigutum |
I find it so frustrating that the "free market economists" that are meant to be the Tory party keep messing around in the market. Tinkering always brings this sort of result, either deal with the problem or don't.
Build 1.5 million 3 bed social semi detached houses properly (as in will last 200 years not 50) and rent them unfurnished for build price divided by 200 and leave the tenant to maintain them. Cost of housing is at the root of so many problems in this country... |
Indeed...
In 1980, a third of people lived in socially rented homes, at genuinely affordable below-market rents. That’s now fallen to 17%. Over the past 30 years, England has seen a net loss of 24,000 social homes every year on average. Another 29,000 social homes vanished alone through sales and demolitions.
Those disappeared tenants end up in the expanding private-rented sector. Instead of paying for lasting brick-and-mortar council homes, the taxpayer subsidises private landlords through housing benefit, costing £22bn a year. The Lords report quotes the housing analyst Toby Lloyd: “The private rented sector is by far the most expensive, by far the lowest quality and by far the least popular. It is absolutely the worst possible tenure for almost everybody in it.” | |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 10:21 - Jan 25 with 1226 views | Churchman |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 09:07 - Jan 25 by homer_123 |
Indeed the housing stock wasn't replaced but why the heavy move to ownership - ultimately the shift was to reduce the burden on Government provided housing stock and people to be more self-sufficient....all it has served to do is widen the gap between the haves and have nots.
It has played a significant part in reducing social mobility for those that needed it the most, served to stigmatise those that rent, are within social housing etc. With the driver to 'ownership' increase government housing stock doesn't reduce, negate or address these issues and would never have done.
Ownership isn't a problem per se - it's everything that has gone around that that has served to increase poverty, add to the unbalance of wealth and serve to further isolate communities that is the real issue. |
There are several elements to this. When I worked in that world in the last century housing provision was mixed and balanced. Council, private tenancy, home ownership, shared ownership. First time buyers were supported by the mortgage guarantee schemes that enabled lenders to lend up to 95%. It made the deposit feasible. You could only borrow a max of 3.25 + 1 of earnings. If you wanted to buy to let, you could but it was expensive and rarely done through mainstream lenders.
This approach, trying not to sound ancient, was more balanced than what we have now. It began to unravel in the 80s. Lenders started de-linking saving to lending by raising money elsewhere for that and started lending anything to everyone. It boiled the housing market nicely for the first crash of 1990.
The right to buy scheme was ridiculous. The best of the housing stock sold off for a song and not replaced. Councils sought to make a quick buck and lose the maintenance costs, government sought popularity - and succeeded. Why wouldn’t they? My mate’s mum bought her 3 bed house for £17k, 4 years later after she died, it sold for £120k. Happy days for them. Poorer days for housing provision/stock. We’re still paying the price.
Anyway, enough of the past, I would actually programme a build of proper council houses in the way they did in the early 50s to increase decent quality housing provision. In return, I would gradually make it more difficult for people to buy houses to rent them out. Part of this would be to stabilise house prices to at some stage enable people to buy their own place if they wish.
Houses should be bought to live in. I would help people to buy with guarantees to enable FTBs to get into the market if they want to. I would encourage shared ownership schemes. In other words, a diverse housing provision to try and reduce that gap between the haves and have nots you so rightly point out.
Lastly, I’d simplify the law relating leasehold (should have been done years ago, makes lawyers a fortune) and adopt Scottish law with regard to house purchase.
Just thoughts/my rant of the day. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 10:22]
|  | | |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 10:32 - Jan 25 with 1194 views | EdwardStone |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 10:21 - Jan 25 by Churchman |
There are several elements to this. When I worked in that world in the last century housing provision was mixed and balanced. Council, private tenancy, home ownership, shared ownership. First time buyers were supported by the mortgage guarantee schemes that enabled lenders to lend up to 95%. It made the deposit feasible. You could only borrow a max of 3.25 + 1 of earnings. If you wanted to buy to let, you could but it was expensive and rarely done through mainstream lenders.
This approach, trying not to sound ancient, was more balanced than what we have now. It began to unravel in the 80s. Lenders started de-linking saving to lending by raising money elsewhere for that and started lending anything to everyone. It boiled the housing market nicely for the first crash of 1990.
The right to buy scheme was ridiculous. The best of the housing stock sold off for a song and not replaced. Councils sought to make a quick buck and lose the maintenance costs, government sought popularity - and succeeded. Why wouldn’t they? My mate’s mum bought her 3 bed house for £17k, 4 years later after she died, it sold for £120k. Happy days for them. Poorer days for housing provision/stock. We’re still paying the price.
Anyway, enough of the past, I would actually programme a build of proper council houses in the way they did in the early 50s to increase decent quality housing provision. In return, I would gradually make it more difficult for people to buy houses to rent them out. Part of this would be to stabilise house prices to at some stage enable people to buy their own place if they wish.
Houses should be bought to live in. I would help people to buy with guarantees to enable FTBs to get into the market if they want to. I would encourage shared ownership schemes. In other words, a diverse housing provision to try and reduce that gap between the haves and have nots you so rightly point out.
Lastly, I’d simplify the law relating leasehold (should have been done years ago, makes lawyers a fortune) and adopt Scottish law with regard to house purchase.
Just thoughts/my rant of the day. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 10:22]
|
A very good rant, to be sure
I like that you identify one of the facts that makes my blood boil....the fact that these valuable assets were sold for a fraction of their true price
We are endless fed the line that the Tories understand business and money, yet they are the ones who are knocking stolen items out on the cheap just to get an instant bit of cash in hand
Some years ago, in my surveying days, we had a £6500 theodolite nicked by a random opportunist. He tried to sell it to a friend of mine in the local pub a few hours later for a tenner....the Council housing situation is no different to this |  | | |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:01 - Jan 25 with 1143 views | homer_123 |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 10:32 - Jan 25 by EdwardStone |
A very good rant, to be sure
I like that you identify one of the facts that makes my blood boil....the fact that these valuable assets were sold for a fraction of their true price
We are endless fed the line that the Tories understand business and money, yet they are the ones who are knocking stolen items out on the cheap just to get an instant bit of cash in hand
Some years ago, in my surveying days, we had a £6500 theodolite nicked by a random opportunist. He tried to sell it to a friend of mine in the local pub a few hours later for a tenner....the Council housing situation is no different to this |
And don't get me started on privatisation.... | |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:02 - Jan 25 with 1143 views | monytowbray |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 09:07 - Jan 25 by homer_123 |
Indeed the housing stock wasn't replaced but why the heavy move to ownership - ultimately the shift was to reduce the burden on Government provided housing stock and people to be more self-sufficient....all it has served to do is widen the gap between the haves and have nots.
It has played a significant part in reducing social mobility for those that needed it the most, served to stigmatise those that rent, are within social housing etc. With the driver to 'ownership' increase government housing stock doesn't reduce, negate or address these issues and would never have done.
Ownership isn't a problem per se - it's everything that has gone around that that has served to increase poverty, add to the unbalance of wealth and serve to further isolate communities that is the real issue. |
It was an election tactic for Thatcher, there was no long term thought behind it.
And now we have a whole generational wealth gap, from an older population that had more access to opportunity, who go all snowflakey when you tell them “hard work pays” is a fallacy and social mobility/lucky timing is what helped more than anything.
I’m still yet to meet any young people whom used the H2B scheme, are there any on here? |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:08 - Jan 25 with 1116 views | giant_stow |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:02 - Jan 25 by monytowbray |
It was an election tactic for Thatcher, there was no long term thought behind it.
And now we have a whole generational wealth gap, from an older population that had more access to opportunity, who go all snowflakey when you tell them “hard work pays” is a fallacy and social mobility/lucky timing is what helped more than anything.
I’m still yet to meet any young people whom used the H2B scheme, are there any on here? |
"And now we have a whole generational wealth gap, from an older population that had more access to opportunity, who go all snowflakey when you tell them “hard work pays” is a fallacy and social mobility/lucky timing is what helped more than anything."
true, bar the snowflakey bit (alot of them/us freely admit this and think it wrong.)
I'm 47 and bought my first property at 2005 and remember thinking we'd missed the boat / there'd already been so much house price inflation. Little did I know, we were bludy lucky compared to the next generation. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 11:10]
| |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:14 - Jan 25 with 1081 views | Churchman |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:01 - Jan 25 by homer_123 |
And don't get me started on privatisation.... |
Me neither. Telling me that I could buy something I already owned as a citizen of this country drove me nuts. It made no sense whatsoever and the long term consequences have been horrendous.
We all know why they did it. Flogging off state assets for peanuts made fortunes for them as individuals. MPs wound up on boards as paid advisors etc, envelopes and influence. The people who bought into it made a few pounds too but at what cost?
Personally, I wanted nothing to do with it at the time and I don’t regret that. ‘Tell Sid’ to go do one! | | | |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:21 - Jan 25 with 1066 views | EdwardStone |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:14 - Jan 25 by Churchman |
Me neither. Telling me that I could buy something I already owned as a citizen of this country drove me nuts. It made no sense whatsoever and the long term consequences have been horrendous.
We all know why they did it. Flogging off state assets for peanuts made fortunes for them as individuals. MPs wound up on boards as paid advisors etc, envelopes and influence. The people who bought into it made a few pounds too but at what cost?
Personally, I wanted nothing to do with it at the time and I don’t regret that. ‘Tell Sid’ to go do one! |
This happens so often.....
A tiny number of individuals make an obscene amount of money off the back of a Govt. decision
A large number of people gain a moderate advantage in some way, financial or otherwise
And we, as a society, are all diminished as the situation is irreversible
Privatisation, roadbulding, HS2, Hinckley Point Glow in the Dark facility | | | |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:34 - Jan 25 with 1041 views | monytowbray |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:08 - Jan 25 by giant_stow |
"And now we have a whole generational wealth gap, from an older population that had more access to opportunity, who go all snowflakey when you tell them “hard work pays” is a fallacy and social mobility/lucky timing is what helped more than anything."
true, bar the snowflakey bit (alot of them/us freely admit this and think it wrong.)
I'm 47 and bought my first property at 2005 and remember thinking we'd missed the boat / there'd already been so much house price inflation. Little did I know, we were bludy lucky compared to the next generation. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 11:10]
|
Institutional issues are not personal attacks. Men are a massive problem for the world too, I do not get bothered when this is pointed out.
It is definitely a generational issue though. You only need to look at the garbage opinions Bloo or Blubbers used to post to see it in action.
SOCIAL MOBILITY IS STILL THERE AND NOTHING'S CHANGED. PULL YOUR BOOT STRAPS UP, BUY A HOUSE NOT FIT FOR HABITATION IN BURNLEY OR GET A TIME MACHINE TO GO BACK TO 2003 WHEN YOU WERE DOING YOUR GCSES AND BUY ONE.
One step that would help fix it IMO is abolishing landlords. There are middle grounds of course like limiting the number of properties owned or banks lending at better rates to folk like me who have rented 16 years and have a good payment track record. But at present my Landlord is being an uber pain in my arse through greed so also f**k 'em and abolish them entirely.
I've given up on owning a house, I've got a better idea anyway, which is get a tiny house and p1ss off to the woods. [Post edited 25 Jan 2022 11:36]
| |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:42 - Jan 25 with 1010 views | clive_baker |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:02 - Jan 25 by monytowbray |
It was an election tactic for Thatcher, there was no long term thought behind it.
And now we have a whole generational wealth gap, from an older population that had more access to opportunity, who go all snowflakey when you tell them “hard work pays” is a fallacy and social mobility/lucky timing is what helped more than anything.
I’m still yet to meet any young people whom used the H2B scheme, are there any on here? |
When I was living in London my barber once had the nerve to tell me how lucky our generation was, as in his day interest rates on his mortgage were 6 or 7%. I had to remind him that was 6% or 7% of a considerably lower number relative to salaries than our 2% now. I asked him how much he would pay me if I started cutting hair for him, and having perused rightmove that morning could confidently tell him that a 1 bed 1st floor, 400 square ft flat down the road had just come on the market for 14 x that salary. It wasn't even a nice area particularly. |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:50 - Jan 25 with 977 views | Swansea_Blue |
A mess innit. It's horrible that so many people can't get on the ladder and are at the mercy of sh*t landlords, but on the flipside which house owner wants to see their investment fall (at best) or end up in negative equity? |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 12:12 - Jan 25 with 925 views | Radlett_blue |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 11:42 - Jan 25 by clive_baker |
When I was living in London my barber once had the nerve to tell me how lucky our generation was, as in his day interest rates on his mortgage were 6 or 7%. I had to remind him that was 6% or 7% of a considerably lower number relative to salaries than our 2% now. I asked him how much he would pay me if I started cutting hair for him, and having perused rightmove that morning could confidently tell him that a 1 bed 1st floor, 400 square ft flat down the road had just come on the market for 14 x that salary. It wasn't even a nice area particularly. |
Mortgage rates went up to 15% in 1989, setting off a housing crash. The government - and, especially, the Conservative Party, is desperate to avoid such a thing happening again, partly because most Conservative voters are now home owners. This has led to an addiction to ultra low interest rates, which has created all sorts of other asset bubbles & opportunities for financial engineering, in addition to the manipulation of the housing & rental markets. None of these things are ultimately good for the economy. |  |
| |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 17:27 - Jan 25 with 809 views | monytowbray |
| Housing shocker surprise.......not! on 12:12 - Jan 25 by Radlett_blue |
Mortgage rates went up to 15% in 1989, setting off a housing crash. The government - and, especially, the Conservative Party, is desperate to avoid such a thing happening again, partly because most Conservative voters are now home owners. This has led to an addiction to ultra low interest rates, which has created all sorts of other asset bubbles & opportunities for financial engineering, in addition to the manipulation of the housing & rental markets. None of these things are ultimately good for the economy. |
Disaster capitalism is biting. It will get worse. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
