Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fru-gal

What Would Be The Best 2015 General Election Result For Generation Rent?

Recommended Posts

Which party/coalition would be best for those who have been priced out of housing, both in the form of high house prices or high rents/insecure tenancies?

Which party (if any) do you think offers the best likelihood of adopting policies to genuinely help "generation rent", either by bringing down the cost of housing or making renting cheaper/more attractive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above.

The people with land have had the power for hundreds of years and will probably continue

to do so for hundreds of years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which party/coalition would be best for those who have been priced out of housing, both in the form of high house prices or high rents/insecure tenancies?

Which party (if any) do you think offers the best likelihood of adopting policies to genuinely help "generation rent", either by bringing down the cost of housing or making renting cheaper/more attractive?

None of them explicitly.

On balance though, I think the Tories have nailed their colours to the mast with the triple-lock pensions bribe. They are going to use tax payers money to bribe the old at the expense of the young. HTB should also let you know that they have no intention of allowing market forces to precipitate a correction.

Unless the right pledge a return to capitalism, stop the bailouts and corporate welfare and allow the zombies to go bust - they have no answers.

Labour on the other hand are talking about boosting building (new towns etc.) and are willing to refer to the housing situation as a crisis, however building new towns would be a long slow process, and is currently just empty rhetoric - we've heard it all before.

Unless the left are willing to engage in some more radical social policies like reforming tenancy law, capping rents or other measures to curb BTL, they have no answers either.

So in short - if you are priced out of housing, you have no one to represent you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which party/coalition would be best for those who have been priced out of housing, both in the form of high house prices or high rents/insecure tenancies?

Which party (if any) do you think offers the best likelihood of adopting policies to genuinely help "generation rent", either by bringing down the cost of housing or making renting cheaper/more attractive?

Full-on economic collapse would finally get house prices down and reduce the population so, on balance, Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass abstentions from voting combined with mass ballot paper spoiling, so the elites have to offer much more convincing puppets/actors for us to vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reasonable chance that Labour will put a ban on letting agent fees to tenants in its 2015 manifesto. It's a vote-winner that would cost the Treasury nothing and they can point to Scotland as an example of the policy being successfully implemented. Maybe the Lib Dems would copy them on this, I'm sure the Tories wouldn't.

The Greens are the only ones proposing a system which might actually cure the economic disease (full reserve banking plus a citizens income funded by a value land tax). They will send zero MPs to Westminster, but I'm probably going to vote for them anyway.

Nobody will have anything serious to say about reforming ASTs to shift the power towards the tenant. There will be lots of voluntary codes of conduct and nothing will change.

No party will suggest that house prices are too high and ought to be allowed to fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full-on economic collapse would finally get house prices down and reduce the population so, on balance, Labour.

Wouldn't a vote for UKIP have the same effect? In that most of their policies (except for the headline "out of Europe" one) will lead to economic paralysis (e.g. they would give pretty much carte blanche to the NIMBYs)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of them directly, but a Labour victory with UKIP getting a significant percentage of the votes (10%+) would shake up the Conservatives enough to make them realize they can't just appeal to pensioners.

There is no "best" general election result for Generation Rent, since none of the main parties are that bothered about them... for now.

That's why voting for UKIP is actually more significant than voting for Red, Blue or Yellow... because by doing so, you're actually shaking up the system a bit... and even if UKIP don't win any seats, it sends a clear wake-up call to the two current "main" parties.*

* Just to be clear, I don't have any "stake" in UKIP or anything like that... I just would like to see the current political establishment shaken up a bit, instead of hearing the old "vote X, get Y" nonsense that leads us to perpetual Red and Blue "musical chairs" as someone else put it recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass abstentions from voting combined with mass ballot paper spoiling, so the elites have to offer much more convincing puppets/actors for us to vote for.

Unfortunately, mass absentions or ballot spoiling are largely ignored in the political conversation, so there's little chance of those things FORCING the elites to do anything :)

On the other hand, giving your vote to a party like UKIP *will* have an impact, if enough people do it (probably 10% or more of the total of those who vote) because it will force the two main parties to realize they are losing votes if they don't address that particular issue seriously.

Look at the impact just of UKIP poll numbers upon the Conversatives... and we haven't even had the election yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting UKIP won't move the needle with first-past-the-post.

Voting Labour and letting Balls finish the job he started is compelling but he'd probably screw that up and not break it properly enough.

A comfortable Tory majority would bring the stripy blazer squad back - which could force them to do some proper deficit reduction and get EU under control - but effectively be a worse coalition than what we have now.

We'll get another Tory/Lib coalition.

It doesn't matter anyway - if the correction you want does happen the impact will mean you can't borrow what you need anyway. What follows is years of negative equity, bank insolvencies, bail-ins/haircuts, commodity inflation and capital controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting UKIP won't move the needle with first-past-the-post.

True, but it WILL at least force the main losing party to realize they lost partly *because* of those votes lost to UKIP... perhaps forcing them to address the issues of those voters more seriously.

The fact that Cameron is giving the appearance of doing so already, is proof that smaller parties *can* influence the larger ones.

It doesn't matter anyway - if the correction you want does happen the impact will mean you can't borrow what you need anyway. What follows is years of negative equity, bank insolvencies, bail-ins/haircuts, commodity inflation and capital controls.

Negative equity... for those who brought at the PEAK, but not for the majority (although of course this depends on how much of a "correction" we're talking about).

Bank insolvencies, bail-ins/haircuts... the banks had 6 years to get their houses in order, and now they're also shielded from the effect of a 20% drop thanks to Help To Buy. I think they'll be OK. But if not... perhaps we might actually trying letting some of the more irresponsible lenders actually go under, like they would do in any other sector... and flogging their viable assets (like branches and ATM machines) to more responsible banks?

Commodity inflation, capital controls... maybe, but maybe commodities will drop since people will have less money to buy the stuff that commodities make or fuel.

Of course there will be consequences of a correction, just as there have been consequences of prices being massively inflated over a 10+ year period.

That's why the UK housing market is so INSANE. Buying a HOME shouldn't have to be like buying into the stock market... but that's what it is, sadly, at least here in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank insolvencies, bail-ins/haircuts... the banks had 6 years to get their houses in order, and now they're also shielded from the effect of a 20% drop thanks to Help To Buy. I think they'll be OK. But if not... perhaps we might actually trying letting some of the more irresponsible lenders actually go under ...

HTB is a drip in the ocean - if property corrects 50% - there will be a massive direct socialisation of the bank losses (see Cypriot bail-in). There are no other levers to pull now. If it's not a bail-in it's negative interest rates - the mechanism is not important - the result will be you pay again but not through QE next time.

These banks will not be able to lend on property - you won't want to buy a property because they keep going down - bear markets last years.

Commodity inflation, capital controls... maybe, but maybe commodities will drop since people will have less money to buy the stuff that commodities make or fuel.

In new-economy demand is not needed for speculation to happen. During last dip the banks were parking full oil tankers off-shore and filling warehouses with metal. Demand for petrol is down but it's still at near record highs. They have to make money somewhere - if asset prices are dropping they will look elsewhere for returns (in my view it will be commodities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HTB is a drip in the ocean - if property corrects 50% - there will be a massive direct socialisation of the bank losses (see Cypriot bail-in). There are no other levers to pull now. If it's not a bail-in it's negative interest rates - the mechanism is not important - the result will be you pay again but not through QE next time.

Not trying to be argumentative, more a question of wanting to think this through. Running with your 50% correction scenario...

(1) Surely it depends on how much equity a property already has. If I have a mortgage from 2003, I'm likely to have enough equity to withstand even a 50% fall in my property's value, assuming I hadn't spunked it all on holidays and new cars.

(2) The banks only make a REAL loss when they have to sell a repossessed property. My property could go down 90% in value, but as long as I'm making my monthly payment, the banks are happy.

So in your 50% scenario, there would no doubt be a lot of unhappy RECENT buyers who are now probably in negative equity, but if they can still make their mortgage payments, the banks are OK.

(3) Even if individuals cannot make their mortgage payments, banks have lots of options before they need to repossess and sell... including payment holidays, lowering mortgage payments, switching to a rental model temporarily, back to interest only etc. In fact, they might even resort to allowing people to stay in their place while NOT making any payments at all, as has taken place in the US.

So I don't necessarily think even a 50% correction would be a massive catastrophe for the banks. They would simply avoid crystallizing those "losses", and carry on collecting mortgage payments.

These banks will not be able to lend on property - you won't want to buy a property because they keep going down - bear markets last years.

Or perhaps they would be willing to lend, but demand a much higher deposit... kind of like they were doing before the Government intervened with Help To Buy.

I guess that's why people don't buy iPads either... because why buy now, when in 6 months they'll bring out the new, improved iPad x+1? Why do people buy TVs, despite them continually falling in price?

I know you can't easily compare iPads and TVs with houses, but my point is that, even in a falling market, people will buy houses. Female biological clocks will see to that :D

Again, not trying to sound argumentative... I just don't see even a 50% correction scenario as going to necessarily bring down the banks, and bring the housing market to a halt.

In fact, I think they were EXPECTING (and therefore preparing) for falls, hence the reason they were (and still are) demanding 20% deposits.

What brought down the banks last time? If I recall, I don't think it was falling house prices... the banks wobbled at PEAK prices! The fall of house prices came later, as a CONSEQUENCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(2) The banks only make a REAL loss when they have to sell a repossessed property. My property could go down 90% in value, but as long as I'm making my monthly payment, the banks are happy.

They have to mark the rest of their assets at market value - which means they tip back in to insolvency.

If property values are falling yearly - there will be no 20% type deposits, as you say - it will be 50% - and likely in a more hostile IR environment. So proportionately even though the values are dropping so is your ability to buy something unless you're all cash.

Only when this has gone on for years and everyone who owns bricks has had the sh*t kicked out of them will there be a point at which the relative value can be considered cheap - but then you'll be thinking mortgages were a daft idea in the first place. The time to buy is when it's gone up 10% the year after - you missed the bottom but got in earlier than most. 2022?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a vote for UKIP have the same effect? In that most of their policies (except for the headline "out of Europe" one) will lead to economic paralysis (e.g. they would give pretty much carte blanche to the NIMBYs)?

I don't think so - they don't have many economic policies that I can find but it mostly seems to be steady state with the exception of getting out of the EU. The BNP on the other hand are mercantilists so might be a slightly better bet than Labour for a quick crash. In other respects they're pretty similar though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, mass absentions or ballot spoiling are largely ignored in the political conversation, so there's little chance of those things FORCING the elites to do anything :)

That is now becoming less and less true. My generation and down are increasingly not voting and this is starting to worry the experts. The Guardian are covering it with some interesting articles. This is just one.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/26/fury-mps-not-voting-poll

And words like "mass abstention" make it sound like a one off protest. It isn't. This is complete disillusion and and non-belief in the democratic process as it relates to them. It is increasing the younger you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoiled ballots are declared as part of the election, so they do count. Do they effect the result or the behaviour of the elected, no.

With such a poor choice on offer - after 30 years of the same of rubbish politicians (by and large), a co-ordinated campaign of either spoiled ballots or votes for lesser parties would (in time) make a difference. Momentum. In time critical mass. One thing is certain IMO voting LibLabCon is not the way forward. When we get more of the same in 2015 imagine how much worse things are going to become over the next 5 years. 5 more years of total arrogance, detachment, policies that benefit the few not withstanding the ongoing war on the people and our daily lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you have a voting system when the winners don't do what they said they would do to get your vote?

It's just vote for the biggest liar. Do we want a load of liars running the country. Well that's what we've got! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although not being a member of Generation Rent I am one of the disillusioned of which it appears there are many. Casting around in desperation I was trying to think of ways that would register my sentiment and also make an impression whilst constrained within the current democratic process. So I fired off an enquiry to the electoral commission

"Comments: What level of spoilt ballots (if any)would it take to make an election result invalid, and is there any way of voting for a candidate or party not contained on the ballot paper? This question relates particularly to a general election in England.

Regards"

Obviously I am not the first person to think of an 'original' idea like this.

"Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission.t is not possible to vote for a candidate which is not on a ballot paper in addition the number of spoilt ballot papers in an election would also not invalidate the result of the election."

I had read many different things about spoilt ballots but now it is confirmed from the horses mouth that that route is ineffectual.

Registering interest in a candidate not on the ballot paper is ineffectual.

Withdrawing from the process is also ineffectual as it allows the status quo to continue.

The current first past the post system in effect leaves us with one or a combination of two of the current parties being elected if you do vote.

So what are the choices, I don't know I am just throwing it out there?

Apologies if this appears like an attempted thread hijack, but it did feel relevant to this discussion.

Again, I'm not talking about a spoilt ballot or any form of one off protest. I'm talking about never voting again. I'm talking about long term complete withdrawal from the political process. It seems to be happening and the younger you get the more common it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.