Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007
It's Housing, Stupid!
BBC News: Housing to dominate Brown agenda
I don't like Gordon Brown and I don't think he has been a very good Chancellor. IMHO, he was lucky for a long period. I am also thoroughly fed up of New Labour. I was so looking forward to voting Tory again - which I used to do pre-Blair - and thought I could do again under David Cameron.......However, Brown just got my (swinging) vote back - or, more precisely, the Tories have lost me again. For me affordable living space is of far greater importance than green belt - and I will vote for whoever pushes those priorities.
Posted by royston @ 09:46 AM (193 views) Add Comment
35 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. mrmickey said...
Oh dear when the government decides it's time to "cure" the housing problem you know it's time to head for the hills. Just as the housing market is about to crash the government wants to flood the market with jerry built houses made of cow dung and recycled cardboard and sell them to people who can't afford them.
2. uncle chris said...
I'm also looking to purchase a house when the prices are right, but I have to disagree Royston, the green belt has to be protected at all costs otherwise you get the nightmare sprawl that afflicts various parts of the USA. Just take a flight over California or Atlanta to see what I mean. Endless, bland houses devoid of community spirit. I for one will be joining Swampy if they try to push this through, as there are plenty of other options available before we go down that route.
If the government feels there is a housing crisis, then they should take crisis actions - (1) reclaim holiday homes and empty properties (I could point you to literally 100's of empty, overpriced new-builds within 10 miles of me) for the social housing of local families, (2) remove unfair BTL tax breaks, (3) increase restrictions on work passes for East-European migrants, (4) release the failed 'pathfinder' housing stock (there are 1000's in Liverpool) to young families willing to use their own funds to refurbish them, (4) legislate to prevent the banks lending too much to individuals. These will bring house prices down faster than they are already.
3. uncle tom said...
OK, lets see if this is just another exercise in well publicised good intentions, or a serious and immediate program to free up land and the planning process.
The country is awash with brownfield land that cannot be developed for various reasons. I know - I own three acres of former MOD land near Cambridge, definitely brownfield, but also in the Cambridge green belt...
Come on Gordon - make me a millionaire! :)
4. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
yep - destroy the last vestiges of quality of life (green space) whilst completely missing/avoiding the point which is fiscal policy.
- it's not suppy, it's overstimulated demand.
5. p. o. o. r said...
I am certainly not a fan of GB, I also think he has been the luckiest chancellor in history - The question is will his 'luck' run with him as PM - I hope not! Even if prices dropped by 75%, for many on or close to minimum wage property will still not be affordable.
6. Delboypass said...
For all you people who keep protesting the building on Green Belt..Off you go to a different website or go join CPRE...because you are of no use here.
I live in Aberdeen, Scotland and there is only land here. Fields everywhere with nothing on them...Is this good for the UK??
I dont think so...
Its about time they opened up more of the Green belt for development and stopped catering to you pansys.
I want to live in a nice house outside of a city witha garden and not a stupid 2 bed flat in a 20 block high rise....!
7. David20040_0 said...
Royston, you honestly believable that Gordon Brown will actually help?
It will just be more shared ownership schemes further inflating prices.
He said that he would not let house prices run out of control in 1997.
Voting Labour again will prolong this madness.
8. harold said...
I reckon this is just political posturing by Brown - he knows full well that the housing crisis is due to a huge property bubble (partly of his own making). You cannot build your way out of this problem, because land prices, especially in the green belt, will be astronomical even before the turf has been cut. Brown is simply playing for time by making vacuous speeches (and in so doing endangering the countryside). He knows the problem will be solved by the coming crash. For the sake of what little unspoilt environment we have left in this country let's hope that the crash is sooner rather than later.
9. planning4acrash said...
If you think that having Tories will result in house price stability, remember the stupidity that led to to us crashing out of the european exchange rate mechanism and sent our economy smashing down. Remember the unemployment, remember that the only investment in council estates was to allow individual families to buy their properties, whilst the rest had to wait for a labour administration for upgrades to decent homes standards. Remember that the dismantling of the social housing program occured during Thatcher's reign and please do remember that the one party that puts its full weight behind protecting the green belt and stopping development is the nimby labour party.
10. planning4acrash said...
I meant, nimby tory party! Oops.
Is there another non tory on this website? I'm not pro labour, but, as you can see, totally anti tory. Am I alone here?!
11. Realist said...
What on earth is this new nonsense about 20 year fixed rate mortgages having anything to do with affordability? If Gordo wants to make housing more affordable he should just give old Merv a bit of encouragement to give base rates another couple of nudges upwards. That should sort things out. I suspect affordability for first time buyers will be an issue which disappears off the radar over the next couple of years....
12. also sold to rent said...
I think we'll have a crash before any of this really gets going anyway.
13. Utterlee said...
planning4acrash said... says "Is there another non tory on this website? I'm not pro labour, but, as you can see, totally anti tory. Am I alone here?!"
You're not the only one, I'm definitely anti-Tory, don't particularly like Labour either. I really like reading the comments on the website, and am hoping for something of a crash myself, but am often saddened at some of the Daily Mail Reader right-wing rants that I sometimes see here. Still, room for opionions of all colours and varieties I suppose...
14. uncle chris said...
P4C, I think I'm anti-politician, they are all a bunch of wasters, but the sad fact is that a New Liebour that had so much promise, has turned out to be a more corrupt and devious bunch of liers than the past government. Whatever you thought of Thatcher, she was straight-up and had none of the slimey, deceitful tendancies of Bliar.
15. george monsoon said...
The crash here... Nobody wants to admit it yet.
16. Algenon said...
If supply was the problem then rents should be sky high. They do not seem to be.
17. harold said...
"I think I'm anti-politician, they are all a bunch of wasters"
uncle chris, me too until I came across this guy:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Seriously cool and wise.
What a shame we don't have someone like this in the UK.
18. royston said...
Harold,
Let me introduce to a serious politician:
http://www.ndd.ie/
19. Planning4acrash said...
I'm actually less against Thatcher than subsequent tory leaders, I achnowledge that Thatcher did amazing things for the country. My very personal view is that Thatcher did her bit very well, but, like Tony, overstayed her welcome, primarily because Labour, like the Conservatives now, could not fundamentally reform. For Labour then, it was dropping clause 4, for the tories now, its recognition that well considered state intervention is required to meet unprofitable services, like universal healthcare, education, public transport, museums, free travel for the elderly and for minor's, etc and a recognition that we must be involved in europe, albeit as a critical friend, to have a say and benefit. I couldn't stand the leaders that followed, felt that they were always under maggie's shadow, and really didn't take the country where people wanted it to go, but people felt, quite rightly, that we had no alternative. I think that's where we are now, and am really annoyed that the Tories cannot organise themselves to form a progressive opposition, that they have failed ever since Maggie went. Basically because the core of the party will not and cannot recognise the public's desire for progress centred on the centre, people are sick of arguments for left or right, they don't want a party to argue against the state or against liberal free markets, they want the two to get on and move forward together. That is the challenge for the Tories, and the fundamental reason why they can't reconcile themselves, is, because the wealthy people who characterise the tories benefit from free markets at the expense of those who they must subsidise through taxation to pay for social progress. It is the wealthy banker who pays for social housing, for an OAP's free bus pass, etc. If the Tories can achnowledge that services are required, that the state must intervene, but argue for a step change in efficiency, productivity and modernity in public services, then they will have broken the mould, but they shy away from this because they know that this could require massive investment in the first instance. The relevance for house prices? Don't expect any focus on affordable housing from the Tories, for them, an affordable house is a 400k mews property in Kensington for young George. For them, the issue is family breakdown and social malaise, all will be solved if people sort themselves out and help themselves. Sure, but you need a caring, proactive, non-judgemental government to help them on their way.
20. planning4acrash said...
I'm actually less against Thatcher than subsequent tory leaders, I achnowledge that Thatcher did amazing things for the country. My very personal view is that Thatcher did her bit very well, but, like Tony, overstayed her welcome, primarily because Labour, like the Conservatives now, could not fundamentally reform. For Labour then, it was dropping clause 4, for the tories now, its recognition that well considered state intervention is required to meet unprofitable services, like universal healthcare, education, public transport, museums, free travel for the elderly and for minor's, etc and a recognition that we must be involved in europe, albeit as a critical friend, to have a say and benefit. I couldn't stand the leaders that followed, felt that they were always under maggie's shadow, and really didn't take the country where people wanted it to go, but people felt, quite rightly, that we had no alternative. I think that's where we are now, and am really annoyed that the Tories cannot organise themselves to form a progressive opposition, that they have failed ever since Maggie went. Basically because the core of the party will not and cannot recognise the public's desire for progress centred on the centre, people are sick of arguments for left or right, they don't want a party to argue against the state or against liberal free markets, they want the two to get on and move forward together. That is the challenge for the Tories, and the fundamental reason why they can't reconcile themselves, is, because the wealthy people who characterise the tories benefit from free markets at the expense of those who they must subsidise through taxation to pay for social progress. It is the wealthy banker who pays for social housing, for an OAP's free bus pass, etc. If the Tories can achnowledge that services are required, that the state must intervene, but argue for a step change in efficiency, productivity and modernity in public services, then they will have broken the mould, but they shy away from this because they know that this could require massive investment in the first instance. The relevance for house prices? Don't expect any focus on affordable housing from the Tories, for them, an affordable house is a 400k mews property in Kensington for young George. For them, the issue is family breakdown and social malaise, all will be solved if people sort themselves out and help themselves. Sure, but you need a caring, proactive, non-judgemental government to help them on their way.
21. Dbna22 said...
Gordon Brown knows exactly whats coming. Whatever people think of him, he certainly isn't stupid. Alarm bells are ringing in all directions about the property market at the moment, and I think, like somebody else has mentioned in the discussions, that he is biding time until a crash occurs. Personally I don't think this is far way at all. The fact that so many people are now talking about a crash, means that one will more than likely happen. After all the property market, like alll financial markets, are built on belief ie if enough people in the economy think something will happen, then it will happen.
22. Scott said...
Listen people. Property prices are driven by herd mentality, everyone wanting to go into property. How can this be the government's fault. The private sector has superceded the power of all governments since the mid-20th century. All the government can do is take the credit/blame for the things we do.
23. planning4acrash said...
So lets be clear, the issue is, that the Tories must stop blaming sections of society for issues, hoodies, broken families, immigrants, etc. Instead, they must decide which services need reform and improve and how, which they will axe and form a clear manifesto. Brown is beginning this by focusing on education and affordable housing, notwithstanding whether we agree with his specific proposals. Cameron is in the wilderness.
24. harold said...
royston, lol.
25. mrmickey said...
The reason houseprices are hyperinflating is because Sterling is being devalued and the general public have bought property as a hedge against inflation although they probably don't realise that's what their doing. This is wealth destruction not wealth creation, without this devaluation of Sterling the UK economy would have very little economic growth in it for the last 10 years. There are historical examples of this in the past usually leading to revolution and warfare.
26. Ihopeitgoeswithabang said...
Scott,
'How can this be the government's fault'
Quite easily. They are supposed to be in charge are they not? Insufficient social housing and an immigration policy that is I accept not entirely to blame - but clearly does not help.
If there were not millions of extra people in this country we would not need to built 'out' would we!
I for one don't want to live in some tiny modern flat in the middle of town or indeed what used to be someone's back garden.
Building on the green belt is the ONLY option.
Has no one ever driven from London to Wales on the M4. I have nearly died of boredom driving that journey. Nothing for miles! No one can tell me there isnt the room to build there!
27. 0thtimebuyer said...
Whilst Brown may not be able to do a lot about the bubble & burst himself, this may be the start of a 'repositioning': beginning a media campaign that paints the housing bubble as "a bad thing" in the governments eyes, highlighting the severe financial and social issues it causes, stating clearly that house prices must come down.
With sufficient ‘bubble is bad’ media coverage, people may begin to shift their mindsets, and gradually come to accept that prices must moderate / fall (which, given the psychological nature of markets, will be a self-fulfilling prophecy)
Whilst he will likely do little to actually burst the bubble, he can afterwards point back at the responsible pre-bubble pronouncements and claim not only that the government recognised the issue (and so were not stupid), but also that they did not actively do too much to burst it (i.e. peoples’ pain is not their fault).
28. 0thtimebuyer said...
P.S. For anyone who doesn't think there is plenty of available land to build on - take a walk down Hackney Road. The number of derelict or run-down buildings on a street that is within walking distance of the city is reprehensible - the council should be ashamed of themselves (I am informed that they block many proposed developments)
29. Cautious Buyer said...
Increased house prices are directly related to government policy. Tax regulations, lending controls and criteria, regulation of the BTL market, and enforcement of a code of practice on estate agents are just few of the levers that government has. This New Labour government is guilty of creating an illusion of wealth through increased house prices which led to increased debtness and reduction in saving. This also increased the rich poor divide and made life intolerable for many young and hard working people. This also contributed to consumerism and harm for the environment. In todays Britain you can do well only if you are dishonest or linked to dishonest business. Brown has a lot to do to redeem himself if he is really serious and means what he says. He must know that this is now a real "make or break" issue for a large group of people who will not hesitate to act at next elections.
30. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
Algenon, that is a cracking point.
Stunningly simple logic.
31. talking rot said...
0thtimebuyer
We used to have "PR" who knew a lot about planning - I think PR transmogrified into "planning4acrash" but I might be wrong. In which case, apologises to planning4acrash.
If the former PR is reading, why would a council block proposed developments of run-down buildings?
32. 0thtimebuyer said...
In one instance it was apparently because Hackney council didn't want all these 'new' businesses and people moving into the area (derelict buildings are obviously more pleasant). The development company even went so far as to hire the architects who had built a development on the other side of the road and submitted the same designs to Hackney council to ensure that the new development would 'fit in'. Application denied.
Come to think of it, I think the other side of the road (on which building had successfully been done) is Tower Hamlets council rather than Hackney.
P.S. Above is admittedly from discussion with neighbours - I don't have any first hand experience of this
33. Anon-and-on said...
Didn't want to post this on the front:
Anyone notice a 3rd aircraft carrier bound for the Middle East from US. I hope it's true its replacing one of the others. If not I can see an old tactic to take people's eye off the economic ball.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3362122&page=1
"During the swap, there will not be a three-carrier presence in the Middle East." Correct, one will be in the Suez covering Syria.
34. Planning4acrash said...
0thtimebuyer, I am one of the planning officer's for Hackney Road!
35. Planning4acrash said...
PR is planning4acrash
Talking Rot, Say, for example, you have a listed building that is derilict, you may wish to have it restored. All of the Georgian buildings around Spitalfields, and the Christchurch, for example, were derilict. They are now million pound houses, Fournier Street has the best preserved 18thC backdrop in the country, and is on countless films, but, developers wanted to knock them down and build housing projects. It is now one of London's most beloved areas, and most successful. Planners have to take the longer view. The main problem tho, is hope value. A developer buys land and expects to be able to overdevelop the site. The planning authority refuse the application, but are fine with development/refurbishment in principle, but the developer can't afford to reduce the amount of development or do things required, like restore historic buildings on-site, because they paid too much. Most decent developers employ planning consultants to work out the value of a site. Those who don't get duped and stuck between a rock and a hard place. Local authorities should, in my mind, have a duty to compulsory purchase and do back to back deals with suitable developers when a site has been derilict for a certain time, but their powers, resources for it and mandate is weak and should be improved.