Honest Work Can't Put A Roof Over People's Heads

[Guest TheBlueCat]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100268487/honest-work-cant-put-a-roof-over-our-heads-true-conservatives-should-be-appalled/

Nails the problem, if not necessarily the solution, pretty well:

In two generations we have come to accept that even a dual-income family with "decent-paying jobs" needs either rich parents or government assistance to buy a house. How can we speak of the rewards of work and the virtue of self-reliance, when honest, useful work is not enough to put a roof over one’s head, much less offer hope of a better life for one’s children and grandchildren?

Interesting to see this issue taken up by a national newspaper in a serious fashion. Oborne is pretty senior at the Torygraph, not just some two-bit blogger.

[Bear Goggles]

Social conservatism meets economic liberalism - Brainfart occurs.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100268487/honest-work-cant-put-a-roof-over-our-heads-true-conservatives-should-be-appalled/

Peter Osborne, The Telegraph's chief political commentator has a problem. He's started to sound like a socialist. It seems that nowadays even Telegraph journalists can't afford to live in London...

Forty years ago hotel workers and hospital porters could and did work hard, save up and buy houses in inner London...

Forty years ago in the socialist 1970s you mean?

We’re now meant to believe that a wealthy "investor" in Moscow or New York or Kuala Lumpur has more right to own a piece of London than these Londoners have to live in it

Yes, those so-called foreign "investors" taking our homes, something should be done...

It is not socialism to suggest that money is not the be-all and the end-all, and that the rich have some responsibility towards – and are always indebted to – society.

Argh, the 'S' word (no, not socialism, the other one!). I thought that was banished forty years ago.

...And the article goes on to bemoan second home ownership and "unbridled greed" - a sentiment any self-respecting union leader could agree with.

Basically the problem is that economic liberalism and globalisation is now becoming seen as detrimental by those who were previously its greatest advocates - affluent middle class conservatives from the South East.

There appears to be no way they can describe what is wrong without using the language of the left. Concepts of "society", "the greater good" and deriding "the rich" does not sit well with these lot, so things must be getting genuinely bad for them.

The comments section generally blames immigration, which is good news for UKIP. So with even the Telegraph going off-message on the housing issue, it looks like Osborne's pre-election housing boom plan might be about to backfire.

[cybernoid]

Social conservatism meets economic liberalism - Brainfart occurs.

There not much 'liberal' about the state interfering with the mortgage market and the other raft of anti free market moves to attempt to prop up the bubble. If you want the bubble to pop you're arguing for a free market. 'Brain fart' indeed.

[Executive Sadman]

Social conservatism meets economic liberalism - Brainfart occurs.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100268487/honest-work-cant-put-a-roof-over-our-heads-true-conservatives-should-be-appalled/

Peter Osborne, The Telegraph's chief political commentator has a problem. He's started to sound like a socialist. It seems that nowadays even Telegraph journalists can't afford to live in London...

Forty years ago in the socialist 1970s you mean?

Yes, those so-called foreign "investors" taking our homes, something should be done...

Argh, the 'S' word (no, not socialism, the other one!). I thought that was banished forty years ago.

...And the article goes on to bemoan second home ownership and "unbridled greed" - a sentiment any self-respecting union leader could agree with.

Basically the problem is that economic liberalism and globalisation is now becoming seen as detrimental by those who were previously its greatest advocates - affluent middle class conservatives from the South East.

There appears to be no way they can describe what is wrong without using the language of the left. Concepts of "society", "the greater good" and deriding "the rich" does not sit well with these lot, so things must be getting genuinely bad for them.

The comments section generally blames immigration, which is good news for UKIP. So with even the Telegraph going off-message on the housing issue, it looks like Osborne's pre-election housing boom plan might be about to backfire.

Indeed. A good start would be calling FDI/Foreign direct investment what it is: mortgaging our futures away.

Attracting foreign investment is nothing to be proud of, despite 30 years of Thatcherite propaganda telling us it is.

[Executive Sadman]

Social conservatism meets economic liberalism - Brainfart occurs.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100268487/honest-work-cant-put-a-roof-over-our-heads-true-conservatives-should-be-appalled/

Peter Osborne, The Telegraph's chief political commentator has a problem. He's started to sound like a socialist. It seems that nowadays even Telegraph journalists can't afford to live in London...

Forty years ago in the socialist 1970s you mean?

Yes, those so-called foreign "investors" taking our homes, something should be done...

Argh, the 'S' word (no, not socialism, the other one!). I thought that was banished forty years ago.

...And the article goes on to bemoan second home ownership and "unbridled greed" - a sentiment any self-respecting union leader could agree with.

Basically the problem is that economic liberalism and globalisation is now becoming seen as detrimental by those who were previously its greatest advocates - affluent middle class conservatives from the South East.

There appears to be no way they can describe what is wrong without using the language of the left. Concepts of "society", "the greater good" and deriding "the rich" does not sit well with these lot, so things must be getting genuinely bad for them.

The comments section generally blames immigration, which is good news for UKIP. So with even the Telegraph going off-message on the housing issue, it looks like Osborne's pre-election housing boom plan might be about to backfire.

Not economic liberalism perse though, more precisely Thatcherite Banksterism.

[Bear Goggles]

The thing is, there are both free market and interventionalist 'solutions' to the problem. But no party is prepared to propose them. So we're left with conservative commentators lamenting the lost social mobility of the 1970s.

It's a funny old world.

[Executive Sadman]

The thing is, there are both free market and interventionalist 'solutions' to the problem. But no party is prepared to propose them. So we're left with conservative commentators lamenting the lost social mobility of the 1970s.

It's a funny old world.

The tories want expensive housing to benefit the landowning class.

Labour want it so they can hold it up as a faux 'market failure' and propose some horribly corrupt, discriminatory (single men need not apply) and bureaucratic 'social housing' scheme and allow them to recruit another client class of labour voters who somehow feel indebted to the state for providing them with something they could have easily provided themselves with if the state wasnt there in the first place.

[Bear Goggles]

The tories want expensive housing to benefit the landowning class.

Labour want it so they can hold it up as a faux 'market failure' and propose some horribly corrupt, discriminatory (single men need not apply) and bureaucratic 'social housing' scheme and allow them to recruit another client class of labour voters who somehow feel indebted to the state for providing them with something they could have easily provided themselves with if the state wasnt there in the first place.

Both Labour and the Tories wanted expensive housing because they thought (correctly) it would get them elected.

Now they are beginning to realise that it may not get them elected, but they cannot do anything about it without turning their back on the last 40 years of economic rhetoric.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bear Goggles

[interestrateripoff]

The problem is if the rich are allowed to win all the money just what is everyone else meant to do? How do you redistribute the tokens if hoarding of wealth is permitted?

Income inequality drives depressions, however any talk of rectifying the problem is immediately branded socialism. Pretty soon the new "norm" will be swinging 4somes who can only afford to buy. The moral nanny state will be in uproar.

[Corruption]

So why wasn't this pointed out at the peak of the last boom, or any time in the last 10 years by the MSM!

Is it only when new breed "Londoners" (not cockneys as they've been bright enough to sell up and get out) can't afford to buy any longer that it becomes an issue.

Anyone know when Carneys next speech is as im dying to hear what he has to say about having an eye on the bubble.

[1929crash]

If Farage had written this, he would have been denounced as racist.

[bristolhunter]

The comments section generally blames immigration, which is good news for UKIP.

Pretty much anything that involves hair-pulling hystercism, wild conspiracy theories, and a complete rejection of reality or sanity goes well with UKIP, which is why their supporters are only found in the crazier ends of internet boards, far away from the real world which spits on those thieves, liars, & traitors.

[The Knimbies who say No]

When equality of opportunity leaves the party, aspiration ain't far behind.

[Corruption]

Pretty much anything that involves hair-pulling hystercism, wild conspiracy theories, and a complete rejection of reality or sanity goes well with UKIP, which is why their supporters are only found in the crazier ends of internet boards, far away from the real world which spits on those thieves, liars, & traitors.

You just keep voting for your the 3 main partys who have created a system where honest work gets you absolutely nowhere.

That isnt a conspiracy theory.

[1929crash]

Pretty much anything that involves hair-pulling hystercism, wild conspiracy theories, and a complete rejection of reality or sanity goes well with UKIP, which is why their supporters are only found in the crazier ends of internet boards, far away from the real world which spits on those thieves, liars, & traitors.

Are you paid by the Tories for your posts?

[billybong]

.

Edited April 23, 2014 by billybong

[gf3]

Pretty much anything that involves hair-pulling hystercism, wild conspiracy theories, and a complete rejection of reality or sanity goes well with UKIP, which is why their supporters are only found in the crazier ends of internet boards, far away from the real world which spits on those thieves, liars, & traitors.

Well having immigrants coming into the country does push down wages and push up rents. I think you would have to agree with that.

We have a birth rate of 1.8 children per couple so it isn't that that is putting pressure on houses and rents. The old are living longer that must be pushing up demand. But one and a quarter million immigrants in the last ten years must be pushing up rents and house prices.

I would be interested if someone has got any figure the difference between people living longer and immigration on housing demand.

[wonderpup]

Basically the problem is that economic liberalism and globalisation is now becoming seen as detrimental by those who were previously its greatest advocates - affluent middle class conservatives from the South East.

There appears to be no way they can describe what is wrong without using the language of the left. Concepts of "society", "the greater good" and deriding "the rich" does not sit well with these lot, so things must be getting genuinely bad for them.

The comments section generally blames immigration, which is good news for UKIP. So with even the Telegraph going off-message on the housing issue, it looks like Osborne's pre-election housing boom plan might be about to backfire.

Yes-it's funny how all that stirring rhetoric about letting the market decide has vanished since the market has decided that the southern middle class are to be priced out.

I think you are right about Osborne's boom- all he seems to have done is shine a spotlight on the cost of housing while being cast as one of the bubble blowing villans -not at all what he had in mind.

Help to buy was supposed to be the jewel in the electoral crown- in the way that right to buy was for Thatcher- a perfect combination of right wing aspiration and populist egalitarianism.

And on paper it should have worked- but the timing is lousy- he's launched it just as HPI was getting it's second wind and now risks taking the heat for it.

[billybong]

Forty years ago hotel workers and hospital porters could and did work hard, save up and buy houses in inner London.

Forty years ago was 22 April 1974 and was 2 months after the 28 February general election that Labour won (albeit minority government) after about 3 1/2 years of Heath's Conservative government. To put forty years ago in context.

Forty years ago the 1974 Labour victory was immediately after The Barber Boom - Dash For Growth from 1972 to 1974 which was an electioneering boom under the Conservatives that resulted in massive increases in house prices especially in London.

So it's just possible that 42 years ago in 1972 (just before The Barber Boom) "hotel workers and hospital porters" could indeed save up and buy houses in "inner London" but forty years ago in 1974 after The Barber Boom for hotel workers and hospital porters to be able to buy houses in inner London would be extremely unlikely to virtually impossible.

The Osborne Boom - Dash For Growth (although so far the media doesn't seem to have used the expression dash for growth for The Osborne Boom) is very like Anthony Barber's early 1970s manipulation of the UK economy and UK house prices for electioneering purposes (unsuccessfully) - and is just as wicked if not more so.

[fluffy666]

The tories want expensive housing to benefit the landowning class.

Labour want it so they can hold it up as a faux 'market failure' and propose some horribly corrupt, discriminatory (single men need not apply) and bureaucratic 'social housing' scheme and allow them to recruit another client class of labour voters who somehow feel indebted to the state for providing them with something they could have easily provided themselves with if the state wasnt there in the first place.

Actually, both parties want to come into office with cheap housing and then see it rise in price strongly, if we are to be properly cynical.

[Bear Goggles]

Help to buy was supposed to be the jewel in the electoral crown- in the way that right to buy was for Thatcher- a perfect combination of right wing aspiration and populist egalitarianism.

And on paper it should have worked- but the timing is lousy- he's launched it just as HPI was getting it's second wind and now risks taking the heat for it.

HTB represents old tried and trusted policy ideas. Create a housing boom and the "feel-good factor" will ensure electoral success, mix this with free-market rhetoric, while at the same time using tax-payers' money to subsidise the housing market in the name of aspiration, and you can pursue your neo-liberal ideology while gaining legitimacy via the ballot box from those you are screwing over.

It's worked for the last 40 years, what could possibly go wrong?

Nothing, until your key political advocates start questioning your myths by pointing out that the country was a fairer place before you started.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Bear Goggles

[Bear Goggles]

I should add, it's not just that the political establishment's advocates are criticising them that I think is significant. It is the fact that they are using the very concepts that the political establishment has spent the last 40 years trying to suppress and discredit to criticise them that I think is significant.

The Telegraph criticising "the rich" and suggesting they should be "indebted to society"? I feel like I've stubbled into a parallel universe.

[The Knimbies who say No]

In reply to gf3, as I recall Nick Boles was setting out the need for more housebuilding by stating that demand from household formation was related to immigration (40% of housing demand), longevity (40%) and the remainder via social trends (divorce, more single living).

Where those figures are from I cannot see, so they are not necessarily to be relied upon but as I recall they were not really disputed by anyone at the time so perhaps were from an independent authority.

[StainlessSteelCat]

I should add, it's not just that the political establishment's advocates are criticising them that I think is significant. It is the fact that they are using the very concepts that the political establishment has spent the last 40 years trying to suppress and discredit to criticise them that I think is significant.

The Telegraph criticising "the rich" and suggesting they should be "indebted to society"? I feel like I've stubbled into a parallel universe.

Agreed. I reckon we only have another 20 years of this before the Telegraph is publishing Eat the Rich stories.

[1929crash]

Agreed. I reckon we only have another 20 years of this before the Telegraph is publishing Eat the Rich stories.

As long as that?