Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Milton

Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report On Uk Housing Market

Recommended Posts

Overview:

http://www.jrf.org.u...t-volatility-uk

Full Report PDF.

Tackling Housing Market Volatility in the UK

Summary:

As a supposedly impartial organisation, the JRF do mention inequality in the Housing Market, but their emphasis seems to be on pushing 'Alternatives to Ownership' as a pose to where the emphasis should be, acknowledging that the UK is in a 'State Controlled Planned Economy' as a pose to a 'Free Market Economy' [When they all bought their own houses....:rolleyes:]

This report addressed four areas of policy – housing supply, managing the housing market cycle, providing better

protection against volatility and developing alternatives to ownership – where the need for action is most urgent.

While there are clear trade-offs in terms of restricting access to mortgage credit, reducing volatility is in the wider public good and credit controls are worthy of serious consideration.

Their views seem to pander to the present Coalition Government's attempts to solve the housing problem, by following a completely failed model of Shared Equity. [As proponents themselves of Shared Equity Schemes]

[i.E. methods of pushing First time Buyers into accepting debt which is not ours.]

Without fully acknowledging the fraudulent economic nature of the reasons behind the need for these programme's of severe social inequality.

Since they were introduced in 1979, shared ownership schemes have attracted 170,000 households, about a quarter of which went on to become full owners

They acknowledge the failure of previous Shared Equity schemes, and seem to suggest 'repackaging' these schemes for new generations. As well as reforming the Private Rented sector, which is in the mainstream, run by BTL landlords.

However, not one mention of over a decade of endemic mortgage fraud, and liar loans, resulting in the beneficiaries of the bubble. Instead they suggest options to protect the small landlord.

Conservatives attempting to Push First Time Buyers into Shared Ownership remains the only policy the Coalition Government can offer First Time Buyers. The coalition continue Pursuing a 'Neo Corporatist' or 'New Fascist' policy of massive social inequality in housing.

The government have blatantly refused to spread the pain of deficit reduction more equally between those taxpayers who own property and those who do not.

.

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been argued that including housing costs within the official measure of inflation would have reduced the scale of the recent boom, as the Monetary Policy Committee would have increased the Bank Rate in response to rising house prices. However, this is questionable, not least because the UK's inflation targeting is forward looking.

The Labour government moved the housing inflation figures from RPI to CPI in 2003. I think this chart is evidence of what happened next:

debt-sovereign.png

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, the Jrf report does suggest tighter lending controls, reform of stamp duty, reform of council tax, and the introduction of a property tax to control the market - not just shared equity.

Which is what I posted......:angry:

While there are clear trade-offs in terms of restricting access to mortgage credit, reducing volatility is in the wider public good and credit controls are worthy of serious consideration.

But the overall Emphasis of their report is obvious throughout and clear to see in their final statement:

This report addressed four areas of policy – housing supply, managing the housing market cycle, providing better

protection against volatility and developing alternatives to ownership – where the need for action is most urgent.

I.E. Keeping the bubble inflated.....Or Keeping our fraudulently manufactured profits 'locked in'.

:D

hb.jpg?w=500&h=354

:D

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowntree?

TY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting very suspicious about this kind of angle on housing.

I started to think a lot about it when I was doing some research into how societies historically rewarded and resettled soldiers back into society after a period of war. It was pretty interesting to find that one of the most common ways to do this was to gift land to soldier survivors -- the Romans, who understood the issues surrounding war and soldiers probably better than anyone else since, ran this policy, and you still saw it in the early 20th century in some European countries.

And this got me thinking: why, after the first and second world war, didn't the British government give returning soldiers land instead of social housing? In the whole "homes for heroes" malarky, why didn't they just gift those soldiers or families who had lost a household head their council houses?

In short, why did the state need to retain ownership? Those houses weren't worth much; many couldn't be resold until recentally because you couldn't get a mortgage on a back-to-back or those built from non-standard material; as part of the state stock of housing, many wouldn't reenter the pool for decades as occupiers had life leases and could pass homes onto their children; and the state was lumbered with the cost of maintenance, and many of the homes, particularly in tower blocks, weren't structurally built to last very long at all. And what did the state receive in return? Peppercorn rents that turned to dust in the 70s and 80s?

It is interesting to think about what the consequences of such a policy might have been. What the effect on wage pressures might have been in the 60s? You would have removed the need to pay rent for a huge number of working class households in the 40s through to the 70s/80s. How would that have affected national disposable income? How would that have affected historical housing benefit payments? What would have been the effect of giving working class people their own land at possibly the last time you would ever be able to enfranchise the working classes into land and property in this way? How would this have affected the politics of the post-war period? The economy?

The final question: has there been any viable financial or social benefit to the state of retaining the ownership of those first two tranches of social housing? Did people ever pay enough rent to cover the cost of maintenance? So many questions you could ask about this.

So, these days, I wonder why the common wisdom is still to clamour for social housing, or shared ownership housing, rather than very cheap housing that can be purchased easily on NMW incomes (or less), and I just come to the conclusion that these voices want people to be tied into consistent housing payments (mortgage or rent) every month and that they do not want these people to accumulate any kind of capital, or be able to reduce their cost of living over time.

I know this is a very peculiar comment, and no doubt I will be shot down in flames for writing it, but it just makes me wonder how different our landscape might have been if government had done this after the wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...good to be aware.... :rolleyes:

Influenced by this research, and by his Quaker principles, Joseph took measures to improve the quality of life of his own employees.He provided a library and free education for workers under seventeen, and employed a social welfare officer, doctor and dentist in his factory.He donated £10,000 to establish a workers’ pension fund, and gave the workers a say in the appointment of their immediate supervisors.

A united village life

In 1901 Joseph Rowntree purchased 123 acres at New Earswick on the edge of York to build houses for his employees and other working people.

http://www.dta.org.uk/ourlongandlivelytraditionUNPUBLISHED/historycontentsummary/josephrowntree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.