Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
The Masked Tulip

End Of The Thatcher Property Revolution

Recommended Posts

A generation of young families in rented properties could turn away from the Conservative Party, experts warned tonight, after new home ownership figures signalled the end of Margaret Thatcher’s housing legacy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10149480/End-of-the-Thatcher-property-revolution.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the next General Election it will be the first time I've not voted Conservative. They've lost my vote. Yet there's no other party offering anything but help for debtors and policies to keep house price high. Can't use my vote, which is depressing.

Not interested in your Help-To-Buy schemes and worries about all those in their 30s and 40s with huge mortgage debt where you don't want rates to rise to save them, at renters' expense.

There needs to be a party who offers more to the 9 million people who rent in the private sector in England.

The private rented sector has grown by 72 per cent since 2001 and there are now over nine million people in England renting privately. The renting population has also changed. A third of renting households are families with children, and half of households renting are 35 or older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When the entitled elect themselves, the party accelerates and the brutal hangover is inevitable."

IMO it is not about Labour or Conservative. Whoever ends up in power will be looking at the metaphorical punchbowl running dry and reflecting on the relative advisability of on the one hand, adding the 11 year old half bottle of advocat to the dregs that remains or, on the other hand, acknowledging that fate has appointed them to be the people in charge when the hangover begins.

What the government is doing is continuing to poison the economy because it remains plausible to suggest that they were acting in good faith, hoping that somehow the party would get going again. Why I feel that Burry's use of the classic punchbowl metaphor is so potent, and why the metaphor itself is so potent is that is assumes, IMO correctly, that we are living through the dog days of a massive credit boom. There are thoughtful posters on here who address the ideas of peak debt and the limits of the debts that can be sustained in the ZIRP and NIRP bound, but I'm willing to bet my own money on the premise that we long since passed those limits. We are now using all available tools to avoid acknowledging the mess, which is not the same as being able to manage or tolerate the mess.

The important fact, discussed here times many already, is that the house price bubble has huge redistributive effects. Sooner or later people will wake up to this and the bubble will become overtly politically contentious. Presently government action to support house prices doesn't draw much incoming fire. It's not going to stay like that.

For my money, the most important political lesson that current politicians of the left and the right learned in recent British political history, they learned from the comedy of Michael Foot. Obama leaned on Martin Luther King's quote to justify the left acting against their ideology to hold power, "..love without power is sentimental and anemic".

There is a political case to be made in favour of a house price crash and that case revolves around the notion that once you are in a hole, then if you wish to extricate yourself, it is crucial to first stop digging.

Setting this up as the End of the Thatcher Property Revolution is a political misstep for those of us who just want to see it end. There was nothing inherently wrong with Right to Buy, and we don't want the political parties to take opposing sides on housing. I want every voter and every politician to see that sky high prices for shelter is killing the economy and lowering standards of living in aggregate, whilst the economic rents facilitated are stretching the social bonds that make a civil society possible. IMO, we win when everyone understands that if house prices rise faster than incomes, then in aggregate, we all lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the next General Election it will be the first time I've not voted Conservative. They've lost my vote. Yet there's no other party offering anything but help for debtors and policies to keep house price high. Can't use my vote, which is depressing.

Not interested in your Help-To-Buy schemes and worries about all those in their 30s and 40s with huge mortgage debt where you don't want rates to rise to save them, at renters' expense.

There needs to be a party who offers more to the 9 million people who rent in the private sector in England.

What he said. I own my own home ( well I have a loan with the bank and a contract for difference on the price , if you want the literal situation) so personally I would see some benefits from low ir's , hpi , homeownerist policies etc etc )

But I am also a father , a citizen and a patriot . This is why I will never allow myself to vote Tory again , and if voting UKIP inflicts the disaster of Ed ******** on the country then ill view it as chemotherapy or amputation for my country , it will be short term disaster for long term gain because I genuinely believe one more term of NULIEBOR will herald a revolution in this country .

It won't be pretty but it will be the only escape for uk before we descend so far that the fascists take over .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A generation of young families in rented properties could turn away from the Conservative Party, experts warned tonight, after new home ownership figures signalled the end of Margaret Thatcher's housing legacy.

The end? No this is Thatcher's housing legacy.

Landlordism was always going to be the ultimate outcome, that's why they did it.

(Well that and buying votes)

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end? No this is Thatcher's housing legacy.

Thatcher isn't responsible for the level of immigration since she left office, nor the monetary regime of targeting CPI, nor the collapse in building in the last decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the next General Election it will be the first time I've not voted Conservative. They've lost my vote. Yet there's no other party offering anything but help for debtors and policies to keep house price high. Can't use my vote, which is depressing.

What do you expect from politicians with an average age of about 50. Pensioner triple locks, housing equity market manipulation and jam today through a growing National Debt are bound to be seen as in older people's interest. Of course you will get a few younger tukeys voting for (Christmas) National Debt to fund welfare as desirable, even though 90% of it is destined for the over 60s.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that with proper regulation on credit, proper zero immigration controls, proper taxation including LVT, and proper planning regs to encourage self builds we would have had a green and pleasant land which was happier, less stressed, and more equal.

Instead we have had negligent regulators, absent immigration controls, taxation not fit for purpose, and broken planning regs that result in poor quality housing and corruption in local councils.

Glad I have global options on where to live, but any pollies reading this should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher isn't responsible for the level of immigration since she left office, nor the monetary regime of targeting CPI, nor the collapse in building in the last decade.

It would have been so much better if you'd said Thatcher wasn't responsible rather than isn't responsible.

That way it produces a much nicer feeling as it reminds me that she is dead.

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that with proper regulation on credit, proper zero immigration controls, proper taxation including LVT, and proper planning regs to encourage self builds we would have had a green and pleasant land which was happier, less stressed, and more equal.

Instead we have had negligent regulators, absent immigration controls, taxation not fit for purpose, and broken planning regs that result in poor quality housing and corruption in local councils.

Glad I have global options on where to live, but any pollies reading this should be ashamed.

On the other hand a steady stream of immigrants may be seen as desirable for those 50+.......competition with the grandkids to keep wages at slave levels and living costs down, propping up housing equity through overcrowding and providing btl fodder, someone to pay their state pension through taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher isn't responsible for the level of immigration since she left office, nor the monetary regime of targeting CPI, nor the collapse in building in the last decade.

No. Nor was she responsible for the dreadful fall from the top flight by Nottingham Forrest, the Indonesian tsunami or the poor performance of my geranium crop this summer. They are all every bit as irrelevant to this discussion as your comments.

Calm down dear, have a nice cup of Ovaltine and Nursie will be along shortly with your meds.

Edited by Stainless Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher isn't responsible for the level of immigration since she left office, nor the monetary regime of targeting CPI, nor the collapse in building in the last decade.

No, but she is responsible for selling off council houses to landlords.

Thatcherism, really neo-liberalism, is responsible for most of the other problems we are seeing now.

EDIT: Not all the problems, obviously. That would be stupid.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but she is responsible for selling off council houses to landlords.

Thatcherism, really neo-liberalism, is responsible for most of the other problems we are seeing now.

EDIT: Not all the problems, obviously. That would be stupid.

would have happened anyway, and maybe sooner had labour won the 1959 election where the right to buy was one of their manifesto policies.

but hey blueteamredteam is all that matters right?

but seriously Tories are *****ers who lost my vote, and so have labour so I'm basically bereft of political representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the next General Election it will be the first time I've not voted Conservative. They've lost my vote. Yet there's no other party offering anything but help for debtors and policies to keep house price high. Can't use my vote, which is depressing.

Not interested in your Help-To-Buy schemes and worries about all those in their 30s and 40s with huge mortgage debt where you don't want rates to rise to save them, at renters' expense.

There needs to be a party who offers more to the 9 million people who rent in the private sector in England.

Instead of sitting around with your fingers up your @res, why don't you join the YPP. At least you can then say that you tried instead of sitting around moaning on internet forums about it.

If I hadn't chucked in the towel I would have joined and started campaigning for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to regulate credit , no need to worry about selling off social housing.

Banks can only extend credit if the lender of last resort provides the backstopping via liquidity and insurance. Remove those and credit will only extend as far as savers allow .

The rest is all about tinkering with a doomed system .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

but hey blueteamredteam is all that matters right?

...

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defence mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[1]

Selling off council houses was a key 'achievement' of the Thatcher government. It was a catastrophe, and we are now suffering the legacy. For some reason, you think this is tribalism?! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people realise that "Thatcher" was a creation of the property owning democracy which got underway in the post war period but in particular under the Labour Government of Harold Wilson who started the deregulation of housing finance.

Without a growing army of "owner improvers" who were snapping up run down housing in Camden and Islington and elsewhere, Thatcherism would never have got off the ground. House prices started to rise strongly in the 60's, though admittedly wage inflation was also higher.

Needless to say the growing army of "generation rent" will come of age and hopefully bring about much need reform, if they can be bothered to politically organise or at least bother to vote. I suspect the three main rentier parties hope they won't, but this reform won't bode well for the parasitical class who think it acceptable to live high on the hog, from a declining number of productive.

The three main Rentier/Parasite parties (be it Red Tory, Blue Tory, and Orange Tory) can't keep pointing both ways at once, by trying to make social tenants move beyond their comfort zone and become more aspirational whilst breeding an entirely new generation of "rent forever loosers" dependent on private landlords.

Edited by Secure Tenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour. Party of young people. :lol:

Youth earnings (under 30s) fell more than any other age group in the labour years. Over 55s increased most.

Home ownership for under 35s near halved

Vast debts payable by youth generation built up.

Still they'll all vote liebour next election, as those nasty libdems didnt keep their pwomises. and they cant possibly vote for any right wing party. And liebour will still increase Uni costs, 100% guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to regulate credit , no need to worry about selling off social housing.

Banks can only extend credit if the lender of last resort provides the backstopping via liquidity and insurance. Remove those and credit will only extend as far as savers allow .

The rest is all about tinkering with a doomed system .

+1 million and 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is all the parties support the rentier parasites that infest the UK.

And yet the moment Miliband deviates from the rentier concensus he's labelled 'Red Ed' and vilified in the right wing media.

There's a definite cognitive dissonance on the Tory right on this too.

The options are Monarchist/Rentier right wing or Monarchist/Rentier centre.

The 'problem' is the complete absence of any 'left' to counter the single party state.

Hence real wages have fallen for 30 years, the corporates have captured and defeated capitalism via the compliant political class and household debt has been the opiate to keep the plates spinning.

Marx was correct. What comes next is anyone's guess..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to regulate credit , no need to worry about selling off social housing.

Banks can only extend credit if the lender of last resort provides the backstopping via liquidity and insurance. Remove those and credit will only extend as far as savers allow .

The rest is all about tinkering with a doomed system .

+1

Banks can only extend credit if they can find willing depositors. If depositors' deposits were not guaranteed then depositors would not be willing to park it in a bank that may blow up (leaving them with nothing) for a meagre 0.5% pa. They'd need say 5% pa to take the risk and a degree of confidence that the bank was making a rigorous assessment of the creditworthiness of the prospective borrowers. The higher cost of funding that the bank was paying would be passed on to the borrowers who having to service a higher interest rate would not be able to borrow so much.

Deposit insurance and the consolidation of the banks. Seemed like a good idea at the time to someone, I'm sure.

I can imagine a world where you have "safe" banks accounts that return nothing and where you pay a charge to be provided with banking services, but where your money is not lent out and is 100% guaranteed and "risk" accounts that pay interest but have no deposit insurance. And I think I'd prefer that to the feeling I have that our High Street lenders are inept, trainee Vampire Squids, half of the time with their money funnels stuck into things that smell like money and the rest of the time with their money funnels stuck up their own rectums wondering why their *rse hurts and why the Q1 profits are down. (And, yes, if wikipedia is to be believed, squids have rectums.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the moment Miliband deviates from the rentier concensus he's labelled 'Red Ed' and vilified in the right wing media.

There's a definite cognitive dissonance on the Tory right on this too.

The options are Monarchist/Rentier right wing or Monarchist/Rentier centre.

The 'problem' is the complete absence of any 'left' to counter the single party state.

Hence real wages have fallen for 30 years, the corporates have captured and defeated capitalism via the compliant political class and household debt has been the opiate to keep the plates spinning.

Marx was correct. What comes next is anyone's guess..............

You are wrong. What is missing is a free market party that would allow failure and therefore prevent excessive credit growth via the cost of failure penalty .

The problem is we are organised into a state where the power and apparatus of state is used to 'enforce' the rights of one sector or another which leads to misallocation, unfairness, and ultimately breakdown. We have had left and right versions of these distorters both with their client states to support them .

What we need is freedom and constitutional enforcement of freedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong. What is missing is a free market party that would allow failure and therefore prevent excessive credit growth via the cost of failure penalty .

The problem is we are organised into a state where the power and apparatus of state is used to 'enforce' the rights of one sector or another which leads to misallocation, unfairness, and ultimately breakdown. We have had left and right versions of these distorters both with their client states to support them .

What we need is freedom and constitutional enforcement of freedom

Surely a market must have rules, and so there must exist a mechanism to first establish, then enforce and later adjust those rules?

Human beings are crafty as hell, so in any sufficiently complex market someone will find a way to game rules so the setting and changing of rules becomes an important activity. Some individuals or institutions will expend resources in order to create opportunities to adjust the rules to their advantage, and hence the "constitutional enforcement of freedom" becomes, really, a political struggle for relative advantage derived from power in the rule setting...

I can never shake the feeling that the promise of free markets (it's be OK if we trade and exchange fairly) is as utopian as Communism (it'll be OK is we all share). Communism gets bent out of shape by the brute fact that we don't all want to share, and free markets get bent out of shape because we don't all want to trade and exchange fairly. So IMO, you are wrong. You can't have idealised free markets and humans, because there are enough crafty humans who want markets but not fair markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour. Party of young people. :lol:

Youth earnings (under 30s) fell more than any other age group in the labour years. Over 55s increased most.

Home ownership for under 35s near halved

Vast debts payable by youth generation built up.

Still they'll all vote liebour next election, as those nasty libdems didnt keep their pwomises. and they cant possibly vote for any right wing party.

Yes, the red team were terrible for the young.

The blue and yellow teams have been in power for 3 years now and earnings, home ownership, and student debts for young people are even worse than they were and with zero sign of turning the corner. They have started talking about tax hikes after the next election, presumably another penny on national insurance so as not to affect their beloved OAPs.

UKIP is full of NIMBYs in their 50s and 60s. They are possibly the most pro-City of London party of all.

Only the Young People's Party is even worth looking at: http://www.yppuk.org

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.

  • 238 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.