When did housing start to go backwards?

[Guest]

On 12/04/2018 at 10:42 AM, MattW said:

Probably early 2000s I'd say...with the lowering of base rates and giving landlords mortgages.

If I had got a full time job at age 18 instead of going to college, saved up hard for a deposit for a year or two I perhaps could have bought a better house (smaller but in a nicer area) than my parents by 1998/1999/2000. Perhaps.

Edited to add: bought with a mortgage.

I would say you are pretty spot on there, talking to older family members it seems that there were even some who were only just leaving the world of negative equity from the early 90's around then, so soon people forget the depression some newbie homeowners went through. I often wonder how people would deal with all that  "housing wealth/equity" if it was lost overnight in the near future, which could well happen so easily, to some it is everything.

[iamnumerate]

18 hours ago, byron78 said:

When did it start? 

Thatcher. 

And to think I voted for her... 

But when under Thatcher?  My parents bought in 84 a house that now days would cost the equivalent of 10 months (or more) take home pay for my dad in stamp duty alone (and my mum was not working).  So obviously it was a lot better than today!  (They were not so well off that they could easily pay this).

[PopGun]

On ‎12‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 11:00 AM, Dorkins said:

It would have been helpful if in 6th form in 1999-2001 instead of talks about drugs we'd been told to buy a house right now because our next chance would be over 2 decades later. Might have been difficult though as most of us were too young to sign a mortgage.

As I've said on here many times. Even up fooking noortthh, those in my school cohort (>16 mid 90s) with the best houses are those very few who did very well (worth >£500k now, bought then >£80k), or those who skipped College/Uni and bought as soon as they could working straight from school/sixth form (£250k - £300k now then £40k).  

Essentially those who left school in my cohort who did poor to ok career wise started out in housing back then which heavilly qualified professionals can bearly afford now.

[PopGun]

As to answer @iamnumerate's question. Difficult to say.

Easy to point at big jumps 2000-2002, and then the mega HPI 2004-2007 when banks abandoned all risk..

and of course >2009 when said banks and the market was bailed out and propped by their goons. Yet I'd say late 90s.

The frogs where boiling even before New Labour wer inflicted on us. IMO we just only remember the big jumps, not the steady creeps in one direction. It was then that the foundations were laid.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by PopGun

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, PopGun said:

As to answer @iamnumerate's question. Difficult to say.

Easy to point at big jumps 2000-2002, and then the mega HPI 2004-2007 when banks abandoned all risk..

and of course >2009 when said banks and the market was bailed out and propped by their goons. Yet I'd say late 90s.

The frogs where boiling even before New Labour wer inflicted on us. IMO we just only remember the big jumps, not the steady creeps in one direction. It was then that the foundations were laid.

 

I think you are right, although of course New Labour - to use your analogy, turned up the heat.

From 97 prices rose a lot.

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, PopGun said:

As I've said on here many times. Even up fooking noortthh, those in my school cohort (>16 mid 90s) with the best houses are those very few who did very well (worth >£500k now, bought then >£80k), or those who skipped College/Uni and bought as soon as they could working straight from school/sixth form (£250k - £300k now then £40k).  

Essentially those who left school in my cohort who did poor to ok career wise started out in housing back then which heavilly qualified professionals can bearly afford now.

In some places in the North West house prices have doubled since 1997 which compared to places in London where it is 5x + is not nearly as bad.

[PopGun]

34 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I think you are right, although of course New Labour - to use your analogy, turned up the heat.

From 97 prices rose a lot.

yep when the credit taps got turned fully on, barring the dotcom bubble burst and then post 9/11 mini wobbles.

[byron78]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

But when under Thatcher?  My parents bought in 84 a house that now days would cost the equivalent of 10 months (or more) take home pay for my dad in stamp duty alone (and my mum was not working).  So obviously it was a lot better than today!  (They were not so well off that they could easily pay this).

There's your answer really. 

It shifted hugely when the social housing stock got dumped. It also meant the state didn't build very much anymore - left us reliant on big builders. With the greenbelt and all the house building restrictions that make it so hard to get planning permission, it was the start of land banking and the shrinking of living rooms in those homes that were being built. It gave big builders a monopoly they were very happy to take advantage of. 

It was of course Brown that lit the BTL torch paper when he got in (but the banking deregulation for BTL mortgages was already coming in under Major's previous government anyway). 

We've also got an absolutely enormous housing benefit bill as a result of shifting a lot of social tenants over to private landlords. So now instead of spending tens of billions on infrastructure or building new homes the state just spends tens of billions lining the pockets of landlords instead. 

 

 

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, byron78 said:

There's your answer really. 

It shifted hugely when the social housing stock got dumped. It also meant the state didn't build very much anymore - left us reliant on big builders. With the greenbelt and all the house building restrictions that make it so hard to get planning permission, it was the start of land banking and the shrinking of living rooms in those homes that were being built. It gave big builders a monopoly they were very happy to take advantage of. 

It was of course Brown that lit the BTL torch paper when he got in (but the banking deregulation for BTL mortgages was already coming in under Major's previous government anyway). 

We've also got an absolutely enormous housing benefit bill as a result of shifting a lot of social tenants over to private landlords. So now instead of spending tens of billions on infrastructure or building new homes the state just spends tens of billions lining the pockets of landlords instead. 

 

 

Not really (I was not clear) but my parents moved from one private house to another.

Saying that I agree with you about the problems of housing benefit, although I would also suggest reducing in additional ways  - no housing benefit for people who don't need to live in an expensive area, no housing benefit for new immigrants etc as well.

 

[winkie]

7 minutes ago, byron78 said:

There's your answer really. 

It shifted hugely when the social housing stock got dumped. It also meant the state didn't build very much anymore - left us reliant on big builders. With the greenbelt and all the house building restrictions that make it so hard to get planning permission, it was the start of land banking and the shrinking of living rooms in those homes that were being built. It gave big builders a monopoly they were very happy to take advantage of. 

It was of course Brown that lit the BTL torch paper when he got in (but the banking deregulation for BTL mortgages was already coming in under Major's previous government anyway). 

We've also got an absolutely enormous housing benefit bill as a result of shifting a lot of social tenants over to private landlords. So now instead of spending tens of billions on infrastructure or building new homes the state just spends tens of billions lining the pockets of landlords instead.

Selling council housing was not the problem........many families had lived in their homes over many years, sometimes 30 or more, they must have repaid in rent over the years enough to buy it over the years.....the error was to not invest in more social homes, where the money collected went from the sales who knows, but it is spent........ the governments at the time wanted to privatise social housing, just like they are now wanting to do with the NHS......now we have a huge housing problem, next will be the huge health problem.  

[nothernsoul]

It was very deliberate that right to buy money was not re invested in building more social homes. Wasnt there legislation that forbid councils from doing this? 

[Riedquat]

20 hours ago, byron78 said:

It shifted hugely when the social housing stock got dumped. It also meant the state didn't build very much anymore - left us reliant on big builders. With the greenbelt and all the house building restrictions that make it so hard to get planning permission, it was the start of land banking and the shrinking of living rooms in those homes that were being built. It gave big builders a monopoly they were very happy to take advantage of.

Shouldn't need to keep building anyway. Encouraging increasing population was the sign of gross governmental irresponsibility, not not building more crap to accommodate it (although I'm still saying loose credit's the main cause of ludicrous house prices).

[iamnumerate]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Shouldn't need to keep building anyway. Encouraging increasing population was the sign of gross governmental irresponsibility, not not building more crap to accommodate it (although I'm still saying loose credit's the main cause of ludicrous house prices).

True, true.

[byron78]

On 16/04/2018 at 2:19 PM, winkie said:

Selling council housing was not the problem........many families had lived in their homes over many years, sometimes 30 or more, they must have repaid in rent over the years enough to buy it over the years.....the error was to not invest in more social homes, where the money collected went from the sales who knows, but it is spent........ the governments at the time wanted to privatise social housing, just like they are now wanting to do with the NHS......now we have a huge housing problem, next will be the huge health problem.  

Yes you're quite right. 

Had the Thatcher government reinvested funds raised from selling off old council stock in a new building program it wouldn't be an issue. 

I think, in hindsight, I've gone from quite liking Thatch at the time to absolutely loathing her. 

Very little to show for the North Sea oil windfall she had (hundreds of billions) and really painted us into a corner with regards the country's future economic prospects. We had London and HPI basically... 

New Labour ran with both hard. But nobody else would have done it differently. There really isn't anything left to do anything differently with. I could lament how Osborne basically just poured money over London and went with HPI again but... 

Edited April 17, 2018 by byron78

[byron78]

7 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Shouldn't need to keep building anyway. Encouraging increasing population was the sign of gross governmental irresponsibility, not not building more crap to accommodate it (although I'm still saying loose credit's the main cause of ludicrous house prices).

Hmmm. 

At the very least we needed to keep building houses at the rate we had been for the previous half century. 

Not dropping an axe on the number of homes built. 

The population boom isn't just down to immigration. It's the improvement of healthcare and people living longer, and it's also the fact there are more single parent families or sole occupiers then ever now. 

Population trends change. 

I suspect we'd have less crap had social housing continued. Ever been in an old council house? Most have decent room sizes. Private houses built at around the same time had to offer even more than that. 

These days your choices are a rabbit hutch or a rabbit hutch. And chances are you'll be renting it from someone like me who voted to take away your option to do anything different. 

[Riedquat]

And there I thought the broken quoting had stopped...

Immigration is the big driver of population growth in the UK, particularly if you include the children of immigrants (although to be fair I could do with checking numbers to see if that impression stands up to scrutiny).

The amount of building over the last 50 years has been scary and depressing, and has left a huge negative impression on the country (and it's not just houses, there's everything else you need to support more people). The last thing anyone should want is to continue that. If the population is growing and it's needed to accommodate that growth then it's a necessary evil, but that's why we really need to get to grips, to stop it from being necessary, only limited by ethical and physical boundaries (so no mass genocide - the end doesn't always justify the means!)

The disintegration of families is a problem to be solved, not pandered to.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Riedquat

[byron78]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

And there I thought the broken quoting had stopped...

Immigration is the big driver of population growth in the UK, particularly if you include the children of immigrants (although to be fair I could do with checking numbers to see if that impression stands up to scrutiny).

The amount of building over the last 50 years has been scary and depressing, and has left a huge negative impression on the country (and it's not just houses, there's everything else you need to support more people). The last thing anyone should want is to continue that. If the population is growing and it's needed to accommodate that growth then it's a necessary evil, but that's why we really need to get to grips, to stop it from being necessary, only limited by ethical and physical boundaries (so no mass genocide - the end doesn't always justify the means!)

The disintegration of families is a problem to be solved, not pandered to.

And the aging population? Euthanasia? Or just let Hunt's NHS finish us off?

To be fair you make a good point, but us baby boomers had a lot of babies ourselves, and now those babies are themselves having babies. 

Growing up (had my family end of the 70s) UK house building was always around double the population growth. Which might sound weird, but families were breaking up even back then. And of course old houses were also being pulled down... 

I certainly wouldn't have wanted my parents to stay together unhappily and enjoyed a far happier childhood thanks to them seperating. 

There has of course been a huge immigration spike of late and I think at one point we were building less than a fifth of the new homes in the UK comparison to population growth. If you think we used to build double it's alarming. 

I'm out in the sticks and homes simply haven't kept up with demand even here. And round this way it's certainly not immigrants - it's older folk moving out this way to retire or invest in BTL pricing everyone else out.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by byron78

[Steppenpig]

There seem to be plenty of houses, just most of them seem to be in undesirable areas. In the 80s or 90s, you could just ste your budget and whatever area you could afford to live in,  would provide you with a satisfactory home and neighbourhood. Now most of the country has turned into badlands, so everyone wants to live in the few remaining habitable bits and the prices get bid up massively.

[Timak]

Headline in the Cambridge Evening News in 2005 "City's first £1m house"

I've just counted and there are 70 £1m+ houses on the market.

Cheapest house now over £300k. Average family house £750k.

People in their twenties look at my ex-council, mid-terrace as some kind of dream home. When I bought it I thought it was a dump.

The madness started in the early 2000s. 

Yet when I look at prices outside the SE bubble they look to cost less than rebuild costs.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Timak

[Riedquat]

12 hours ago, Timak said:

Yet when I look at prices outside the SE bubble they look to cost less than rebuild costs.

Really? Whilst there are a few cheap pockets here and there (mostly in places where you'll have everything nicked within two minutes of moving in) I find the idea of anywhere else being in that situation hard to believe.

[iamnumerate]

22 hours ago, byron78 said:

And the aging population? Euthanasia? Or just let Hunt's NHS finish us off?

 

 

Do we need immigrants to deal with the aging population?  Japan does not seem to think they do.  They have a slightly longer life expectancy as well.

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Do we need immigrants to deal with the aging population?  Japan does not seem to think they do.  They have a slightly longer life expectancy as well.

The argument seems to be that you need more young people at the bottom because there are more older people at the top. The flaw in that is that the young people eventually grow old too. It's a short-termist pyramid scheme style argument. If people are living longer the reality of it is that you need to adjust to deal with a society where a greater proportion of the population is old, rather than trying to constantly add more at the other end. The solution to dealing with a widening hole in the bottom of a boat isn't a bigger bucket for bailing.

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The argument seems to be that you need more young people at the bottom because there are more older people at the top. The flaw in that is that the young people eventually grow old too. It's a short-termist pyramid scheme style argument. If people are living longer the reality of it is that you need to adjust to deal with a society where a greater proportion of the population is old, rather than trying to constantly add more at the other end. The solution to dealing with a widening hole in the bottom of a boat isn't a bigger bucket for bailing.

Good summary.

[byron78]

33 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Do we need immigrants to deal with the aging population?  Japan does not seem to think they do.  They have a slightly longer life expectancy as well.

The NHS certainly needs them yes. And in fact care homes employ an extremely high number as well. 

But this shouldn't really be collapsing into a "send them all home to fix things" argument. 

It's not that simple. In fact I personally don't really have a problem with UK immigration per say (40% live in London and the rest other cities... we've got next to no immigrants round here). 

They still pay more in tax than they've taken in other things and we should still be able to build enough new blocks in cities and things like that to accommodate. 

This is a multi tier problem. Immigration has certainly added pressure on our low housing stock... not building enough new homes (relative to previous generations of UK house building)... aging population... more sole occupiers. It's a perfect storm that didn't just happen overnight. In fact I remember in the early 90s us Tories in Con Clubs up and down the country being told immigrants would come in to further smash the unions and lower wages in public services. It was actually sold to us as a positive back then! 

Edited April 19, 2018 by byron78

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, byron78 said:

The NHS certainly needs them yes. And in fact care homes employ an extremely high number as well. 

 

I am not saying that immigration is all bad and I am married to an immigrant and certainly wouldn't want to see anyone here legally deported (unless they have broken a law of course or call for murdering people).

However I am not sure that health care in a first world country needs* immigration, Japan doesn't have it and their life expectancy is slightly higher than ours (I don't think this is anything to do with immigration, Switzerland has lot of immigrants and a very similar life expectancy to Japan).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

*By needs I mean cannot be good without it,

Also don't forget that immigrants get ill as well so create more demand.