Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
@contradevian

Lets Face It. You Are Only Here Because Of The Tories

Recommended Posts

Lets face it, we like to blame Labour for trebling house prices, selling off gold and its financial recklessness but a lot of you are where you are due to the Tories introducing the Assured Shorthold Tenancy in the 1988 and 1996 Housing Acts.

The introduction of this legislation are portrayed as a success by revitalising the private rented sector, after long years of decline, but these Acts turned houses into rental investment vehicles and not just places to live.

Prior to the introduction of the AST people generally bought houses to live in. Indeed when I bought my first house in 1981, there really was "no alternative" as it just wasn't possible to easily rent a flat or a house (though quite a considerable "grey" market existed).

It was the Tories that gave home owners the "we'll just rent" get out of jail card! "Oh if we can't sell, we'll rent" and the infamous "its good enough to rent" phrase that we hear so much on HUTH.

Just bear this in mind before you ever vote the Tories into power ever again. You are likely to remain a "rent forever loser" entirely due to their policies, and why the property owning democracy will eventually be restricted to a relatively small number of wealthy rentiers.

The private market only works for renting if the tenants are prepared to accept insecure tenancies with little or no rights, and the general population needs to accept that it will spend most of its working life, buying an asset for their Tory rentier masters.

The shame of Labour was not improving tenants rights, when in power, and turning the power back in favour of the tenants.

Discuss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, hasn't the housing market under Tory administrations ensured that housing for sale is relatively attainable? :unsure: Especially when Thatcher allowed my parents to buy their council house (it may be part of my legacy but I still have a moral objection to it).

Not this time around, admittedly. I did kinda hope that the Coalition would have allowed house prices to decline. I certainly didn't expect Osborne to p*ss petrol onto the flames by introducing 'Help to Buy' . D'oh! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, hasn't the housing market under Tory administrations ensured that housing for sale is relatively attainable? :unsure: Especially when Thatcher allowed my parents to buy their council house (it may be part of my legacy but I still have a moral objection to it).

Not this time around, admittedly. I did kinda hope that the Coalition would have allowed house prices to decline. I certainly didn't expect Osborne to p*ss petrol onto the flames by introducing 'Help to Buy' . D'oh! :angry:

My feeling is that Labour's housing bubble was in fact the Tory housing bubble, and the introduction of the AST played a large part of it.

Its interesting the 1988 Act was introduced just as the 80's boom was running out of steam. They needed BTL to take the housing market to another level, though it took another ten years to get the BTL bubble fully underway.

IMO a lot of posters on here would be happy home owners now, rather than less than happy priced out renters if it were not for this legislation. The house you could have owned is now in a rentiers portfolio.

I think the Tories will get a working majority at the next election. Will dismantle what is left of social housing and the welfare state, and this will be hugely popular!

Many might think this is a good thing and necessary (at one time I would have done too) but without many other supply side reforms this will only benefit "the few." Britain will be a full on rentier state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain that before 1997 or so it was near to impossible for the average joe to borrow money on any property that wasn't their primary residence.

My neighbour explained that when he tried to re-mortgage on his new wifes pre marital home the banks refused and would only let him re-mortgage on the home they were both living in. This was back in the early mid nineties.

I'm sure that this condition being dropped is one of the main accelerants that fuelled the buy to let boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain that before 1997 or so it was near to impossible for the average joe to borrow money on any property that wasn't their primary residence.

My neighbour explained that when he tried to re-mortgage on his new wifes pre marital home the banks refused and would only let him re-mortgage on the home they were both living in. This was back in the early mid nineties.

I'm sure that this condition being dropped is one of the main accelerants that fuelled the buy to let boom.

The received wisdom is that buy-to-let mortgages became much more easy to obtain after AST's were introduced, because tenants became much easier to evict and therefore lenders felt that properties could be more easily possessed and disposed of should borrowers default.

So yes, the introduction of AST's did facilitate BTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO a lot of posters on here would be happy home owners now, rather than less than happy priced out renters if it were not for this legislation. The house you could have owned is now in a rentiers portfolio.

How many BTLers (other than the Wilsons) went for first rung family homes? 'Executive' apartments was the main BTL product.

If BTL had any impact it was to underpin the bottom end of the market in the absence of sufficient FTB. It wasn't the driving force behind the overall price inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that Labour's housing bubble was in fact the Tory housing bubble, and the introduction of the AST played a large part of it.

Its interesting the 1988 Act was introduced just as the 80's boom was running out of steam. They needed BTL to take the housing market to another level, though it took another ten years to get the BTL bubble fully underway.

IMO a lot of posters on here would be happy home owners now, rather than less than happy priced out renters if it were not for this legislation. The house you could have owned is now in a rentiers portfolio.

I think the Tories will get a working majority at the next election. Will dismantle what is left of social housing and the welfare state, and this will be hugely popular!

Many might think this is a good thing and necessary (at one time I would have done too) but without many other supply side reforms this will only benefit "the few." Britain will be a full on rentier state.

Tories have no chance of forming the next Govt. on current polling. My MP is a dead man walking, maj 2,500 or so. Plenty more like him too.

Not sure why this is a red/blue issue, LibLabCon have all played their part in bringing us to this idiotic position, whether in opposition or Govt. Too many MPs balls-deep in BTL-8 homes Huhne etc etc from all parties.

Current polling (%):

Con:31

Lab:38

Lib:10

UKIP:14

Green:3

Translates to a Lab majority of over 80.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many BTLers (other than the Wilsons) went for first rung family homes? 'Executive' apartments was the main BTL product.

If BTL had any impact it was to underpin the bottom end of the market in the absence of sufficient FTB. It wasn't the driving force behind the overall price inflation.

Well, apart from the 2 and 3 bedroom terraces (now 3 and 4 bedroom terraces if they used to have two reception rooms) in any town/city with a university and/or young workforce.

The sort of houses the children of all my middle-aged acquaintances share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AST doesn't bother me too much, it's the subsidies for people who borrowed too much, artificially low IRs and the limits on building that do my head in. Rent controls also distort the market in odd ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn yawn. There are a million theories about why housing bubbles occurred and what caused them . They are all equally irrelevant. Like water finding its path to the sea there would have been and sometimes were a million ways of this bubble being inflated . Housing policy did nothing more than facilitate the movement in a certain or certain directions .

The fact is we have a debt bubble, debt bubbles find an asset to inflate, they beget more bubbles .

If it wasn't housing it would have been something else , its what happens when the money supply is allowed to increase . Money and wealth become disconnected and you run out of savings eventually .

It's happened countless times on history and will happen again . We are not special and nor is our generation . Smell the roses you only get one life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is there is no real alternative as all parties are the same now with very minor differences.

Choose blue and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the ruling classes.

Choose red and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the unemployed and low wagers to implement socialism.

It's just a choice of where you want your money to go - toffs or doleys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is there is no real alternative as all parties are the same now with very minor differences.

Choose blue and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the ruling classes.

Choose red and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the unemployed and low wagers to implement socialism.

It's just a choice of where you want your money to go - toffs or doleys?

You do not shift or transfer wealth to the `doleys` via the benefit system or tax credits. Its arranged so its virtually impossible for them to hang onto these "ill gotten gains." Regardless of how many kids they have, they are doomed to poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is there is no real alternative as all parties are the same now with very minor differences.

Choose blue and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the ruling classes.

Choose red and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the unemployed and low wagers to implement socialism.

It's just a choice of where you want your money to go - toffs or doleys?

The first one is worse. The rich hoard wealth and wealth attracts more wealth.

Say I open a cafe selling the usual fancy mochas and lattes. If some single mum that works 20 hours a week and gets a fat top-up of credits and benefits comes by we can do some business. If she's holed up in a Dickensian hovel spending food stamps we can't.

Now, I'd prefer to do away with the subsidies, land ownership patterns, perverse incentives, etc. that keep the cost of living brutally high and renders 'work' a pretty useless way to pay for things for all but the highest earners. But seeing as that isn't going to happen any time soon...

Edited by CrashedOutAndBurned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain that before 1997 or so it was near to impossible for the average joe to borrow money on any property that wasn't their primary residence.

My neighbour explained that when he tried to re-mortgage on his new wifes pre marital home the banks refused and would only let him re-mortgage on the home they were both living in. This was back in the early mid nineties.

I'm sure that this condition being dropped is one of the main accelerants that fuelled the buy to let boom.

It was the nexus of Secure Tenant's AST observation, the Tory building society acts (permitting them to become banksters) turning homes into financial assets.

The Lawson household debt boom (doubling it in the 80s) sowed the seeds of homeowner greed culminating in the '90 housing boom crash.

It was a complete no-brainer in the mid 90s to buy as much housing as you could.

The scene was thus set for people like Inside Track and Northern Rock when the Chinese/Asian money started flooding into the West due to the trade imbalances caused by globalised labour markets and free capital flows. Another 80s right wing f*ck up.

Of course Tony's New Labour was seriously relaxed about being filthy rich. The big lie was that they ever remotely resembled a socialist party. That's laughable. They're all millionaires.

Once you turn social need into a financial instrument you get what you voted for. It seems pretty daft for Tories to later rail against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is we have a debt bubble, debt bubbles find an asset to inflate, they beget more bubbles .

The rot set in pre 1979, so imo blaming either Tories/Labour is mute. The only question is whether it was by accident, greed, design or a combination of all three!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not shift or transfer wealth to the `doleys` via the benefit system or tax credits. Its arranged so its virtually impossible for them to hang onto these "ill gotten gains." Regardless of how many kids they have, they are doomed to poverty.

I wouldn't call living in a house with free health care, dental care, education, travel etc and still money left over to run a car, keep pets, buy a smartphone, living in poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is there is no real alternative as all parties are the same now with very minor differences.

Choose blue and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the ruling classes.

Choose red and you will be made poorer by shifting wealth to the unemployed and low wagers to implement socialism.

It's just a choice of where you want your money to go - toffs or doleys?

Yes that seems to be much about it.

I hated fatcher and the YUPPIE's she endorsed. and I felt that labour was the party of the common working man. Little did I know that benefits would over take wages.

Now the tory's are having to sort out the mess that labour left. I find it hard to believe it's the tory's that have raised the tax fresh hold to £10,000 that is the sort of policy I would have expected from a left wing party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call living in a house with free health care, dental care, education, travel etc and still money left over to run a car, keep pets, buy a smartphone, living in poverty.

Its not living in poverty agreed, but then again you would have a hard time convincing me that eventually that all the wealth, land, industry, stock, shares and bonds in the country will end up being owned by all the single mum's out there.

The "wealth" will stay where its always been, thank you very much cos thats how "they" like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Tony's New Labour was seriously relaxed about being filthy rich. The big lie was that they ever remotely resembled a socialist party. That's laughable. They're all millionaires.

The guys running socialism are always rich. Strange that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets face it, we like to blame Labour for trebling house prices, selling off gold and its financial recklessness but a lot of you are where you are due to the Tories introducing the Assured Shorthold Tenancy in the 1988 and 1996 Housing Acts.

The shame of Labour was not improving tenants rights, when in power, and turning the power back in favour of the tenants.

Discuss!

Labour brought in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and that is the point where the monopoly UK housing market too off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour brought in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and that is the point where the monopoly UK housing market too off.

Indeed, forget the Norman Yoke, it's actually the Attlee Yoke.

Not that you'll get many lefties to admit that Saint Attlee might have done something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the nexus of Secure Tenant's AST observation, the Tory building society acts (permitting them to become banksters) turning homes into financial assets.

The Lawson household debt boom (doubling it in the 80s) sowed the seeds of homeowner greed culminating in the '90 housing boom crash.

It was a complete no-brainer in the mid 90s to buy as much housing as you could.

The scene was thus set for people like Inside Track and Northern Rock when the Chinese/Asian money started flooding into the West due to the trade imbalances caused by globalised labour markets and free capital flows. Another 80s right wing f*ck up.

Of course Tony's New Labour was seriously relaxed about being filthy rich. The big lie was that they ever remotely resembled a socialist party. That's laughable. They're all millionaires.

Once you turn social need into a financial instrument you get what you voted for. It seems pretty daft for Tories to later rail against it.

And none of that was the fault of boomer voters. Oh no siree.

The youngest person to vote in '92 would be how old now? 39? So basically no one under 40 is responsible for evil Tory governments?

Just the 1%, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour brought in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and that is the point where the monopoly UK housing market too off.

Which was subsequently extended (not repealed) in 1962, 1971 and 1990 when the Tories were in power. One suspects that the original Town and Country Planning was probably being considered by the Tories (if you were to dig back far enough).

FWIW I believe AST's and the Housing Act's would have probably been brought in under Labour though they may have been given a slighly more "socialist" bias (I wouldn't count on it though).

Basically they are all rentier Tories now.

Toryism could be summed up as making populist demand side reforms (for example increasing credit availability and at the same time reviving the rental market) whilst keeping the old supply side cartels nicely intact.

Edited by Secure Tenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS

Who did what is irrelevant now. Deluded allegiances to any of these people in Westminster who are actively working against everyone except themselves are just plain sad.

Who is prepared to change any of it is the question.

The answer appears to be nobody (although Labour have at least discussed a massive building programme).

What is needed is a new political movement that is not dependent on bankers to fund it, crowdfunded maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was subsequently extended (not repealed) in 1962, 1971 and 1990 when the Tories were in power. One suspects that the original Town and Country Planning was probably being considered by the Tories (if you were to dig back far enough).

FWIW I believe AST's and the Housing Act's would have probably been brought in under Labour though they may have been given a slighly more "socialist" bias (I wouldn't count on it though).

Basically they are all rentier Tories now.

Toryism could be summed up as making populist demand side reforms (for example increasing credit availability and at the same time reviving the rental market) whilst keeping the old supply side cartels nicely intact.

Yes - once the home owning "my house value always up" class have the idea that their 'investment' needs to be protected, no sane politicians will go against their interest.

They key was not to have created the expectation in the first place (too late now, obviously).

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.