Clegg Wants To Protect The Hpi -- Merged

[The Generation Game]

He's got a fighting chance of being leader of the junior party in a coalition government until 2020 so no, not really.

I doubt they'll keep him as leader when he doesn't have a seat.

[Executive Sadman]

My guess is the orange team could be wiped out. Even if they manage to scrape an MP or two, it may well be without Clegg.

I am not political party oriented - I think we all realise how useless and self serving they all are. However I would place the reds as favourites for an outright majority with a coalition of the blues and purples second favourite to form the next government.

And the next government will rule over the 75%, who are against them or think they are all a waste of space, with less than 25% of voters.

And given turnout will likely be 50-60%, itll probably be closer to 15-20% in terms of 'the electorate'

Aint mobocracy great?

[Executive Sadman]

Someone young people should start a "Future Party". For the slogan you could use "Making a better world, for our children and grandchildren".

If you looked to do things only for the next two generations, it would get away from the selfish short term thinking.

I doubt it, the average voter isnt known for his inclination towards deferred gratification.

[olliegog]

errm - this is not thieving from the young to give to the 'oldies' - it is rewarding a group of 'homeowners' (all ages and stripes) who may be affected by 'blight' - and it is WRONG on so many levels

'non-homeowners' (renters) who would also benefit from 'council tax rebates' can be of all ages you know.

Edited August 3, 2014 by olliegog

[honkydonkey]

Surely all homes benefiting from crossrail should pay more tax as their prices increase. This makes perfect sense too...right?

[Corruption]

errm - this is not thieving from the young to give to the 'oldies' - it is rewarding a group of 'homeowners' (all ages and stripes) who may be affected by 'blight' - and it is WRONG on so many levels

'non-homeowners' (renters) who would also benefit from 'council tax rebates' can be of all ages you know.

But most homeowners are over 45, look at the stats.

And read the rest of the bleedin article before commenting.

[cool_hand]

funny how the goverment start talking about doing something to address the "housing crisis" just a year before an election.

cynical

it's not like there wasn't a problem when they got in 4 years ago.

of course they have a solution it's called increase demand with-out increasing supply.

Clegg's statement today doesn't even surprise me, we have greatest fools in my lifetime running the country.

[bubbleturbo]

Nick Clegg is a lightweight joke.

His party are a joke too and seemingly have not even got the wherewithal to remove him.

[Uncle_Kenny]

This is possibly the most depressing thing I have ever read on this forum. The arrogance and smugness that Clegg displays whilst casually throwing our money around on his bizarre social engineering schemes. I remember driving to work when LBC where discussing his absurd plan to set the children:adult ratio in nurseries, as well as "more money" (note the Orwellian use of "more") for hard working parents. He must think that he is some sort of genius for being able to solve the country's high child care costs. I despise everything he stands for.

[snowflux]

It's clear that the system is broken and something needs to be done. We desperately need more housing, but communities generally perceive that any new development can only be to their detriment. This basically leaves two choices: you either make it worth the while of communities to accept new development, or you ignore their protests and build anyway. The latter of these can only lose a politician votes (and is intrinsically unfair) so that leaves the former.

I think Clegg's idea of simply giving money is crass, but clearly something has to be done. Interestingly, my experience from Germany is that communities are generally happy to assign land for new development because the laws are such that they know it will bring more money from central government for new facilities - schools, libraries, leisure centres and the like. Surely we could learn something from this?

[sPinwheel]

Nick Clegg is a lightweight joke.

His party are a joke too and seemingly have not even got the wherewithal to remove him.

Mainly because they don't know who to replace him with.....

[Dorkins]

It's clear that the system is broken and something needs to be done. We desperately need more housing, but communities generally perceive that any new development can only be to their detriment. This basically leaves two choices: you either make it worth the while of communities to accept new development, or you ignore their protests and build anyway. The latter of these can only lose a politician votes (and is intrinsically unfair) so that leaves the former.

I think Clegg's idea of simply giving money is crass, but clearly something has to be done. Interestingly, my experience from Germany is that communities are generally happy to assign land for new development because the laws are such that they know it will bring more money from central government for new facilities - schools, libraries, leisure centres and the like. Surely we could learn something from this?

This is a clear example of landowners wanting to be treated like special flowers.

Let's imagine the opposite, which is a change happening in the local area which increases land values. Could be anything: the government sorting out the local school and pushing it up the league tables, the construction of a new transport link, the demolition of local houses which reduces the local population and increases land values (because as we all know, in NIMBY mythology, local population and land values are inversely correlated). Would local homeowners be begging the government to be allowed to chip in a bit more tax to compensate society for the increase in their property values? No? So why do they expect society to pay them for changes which decrease their property values? It's a case of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose privatising gains and socialising losses where the winners are landowners and the losers are non-landowners. It's exactly this kind of special treatment that makes people in Britain so desperate to join the landowner class, and you want more of it?

The true unfairness is the institution of private land ownership accompanied by no financial obligations on the landowner to repay the society that granted him/her exclusive use of a bit of land that nobody created. The idea that somebody should need to be compensated for losing a bit of this unfairness is ridiculous. It's like asking former serfs to compensate their lords for the financial losses they experienced when being tied to the land was abolished.

If Clegg wants to argue for a land value tax he's welcome to do so, it would achieve the kind of effect he appears to be after.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Dorkins

[olliegog]

But most homeowners are over 45, look at the stats.

And read the rest of the bleedin article before commenting.

nice!!!!!!! - lots of so-called 'homeowners' are under 45 - OK then 'mortgage-holders'

and my comment is not allowed - under 45s (old?) and renters would be council tax payers - no?

[frederico]

This countries land and building market is completely messed up, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some secret rule that house prices must be kept high to avoid financial collapse or something.

As for Clegg, the man is deluded on so many levels.

[winkie]

Compensation culture alive and kicking.....blame and claim.....all very much encouraged by the state. Not a good omen.

[Blod]

This countries land and building market is completely messed up, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some secret rule that house prices must be kept high to avoid financial collapse or something.

As for Clegg, the man is deluded on so many levels.

If any normalization of housing costs is to occur a scheme is needed to support the mortgage liabilities of the banks to allow it to happen. Doing that would be political suicide.

[Venger]

nice!!!!!!! - lots of so-called 'homeowners' are under 45 - OK then 'mortgage-holders'

and my comment is not allowed - under 45s (old?) and renters would be council tax payers - no?

Times. 207.07.2014 (Money)

Silver linings for customers as banks raise the age barrier.

.. Mortgages: More and more property assets are held by the silver generation. The average property value, minus mortgage debt, for a retired couple is £210,000 according to Prudnetail.

.. Lenders are increasingly accepting older cutomers for buy-to-let mortgages. This month Preceise raised the maximum age of borrowers at the end of a term from 75 to 85. It also said it will accept pensions as a sole source of income.

To be fair some of the article was residential mortgages getting harder for older would-be buyers/upsizers, but celebrate reforms from next April for them being able to access pensions early.

Fixed for longer in our home. ... 69, and his wife Alison, 60, have just taken a 10 year fixed rate mortgage. ... surprised at how long a term they were offered. "We would probably have had to downsize if we had got a shorter mortgage term. Now we can stay in our house for longer," says Normal, a former civil servant who works part-time for a security company.

Milton Keynes? I thought much of it was owned by Glenn A, via investor vehicles, along with many other of his/other landlord/flip investors. At least the bottom of the class students I went to school with now are in lovely homes, still upsizing in fact (£400,000 buy the latest)...... better the buyers who didn't know what they were doing/victims of everything but their own decisions, rescued via QE/schemes, than non-owner/savers. Get ready to compete with victim/investor buyers in 5 years time, on the new Garden Cities... keep renting.

03 August 2014

A sharp increase in the number of homelessness interviews has been described as “very unwelcome” by Milton Keynes Council.

The number of people presenting at the councillor homeless interviews jumped by 50 per cent in just one week.

There were also 79 families living in bed and breakfast accommodation at the taxpayers’ expense – a 27 per cent increase as compared to the two weeks prior.

There were 57 families staying in B&B in the final two weeks of December 2013.

Councillor Hannah O’Neill, cabinet member responsible for housing, blamed rising house prices.

in full: http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/sudden-rise-in-homeless-people-in-milton-keynes-is-shocking-say-experts-1-6214845

[snowflux]

This is a clear example of landowners wanting to be treated like special flowers.

Let's imagine the opposite, which is a change happening in the local area which increases land values. Could be anything: the government sorting out the local school and pushing it up the league tables, the construction of a new transport link, the demolition of local houses which reduces the local population and increases land values (because as we all know, in NIMBY mythology, local population and land values are inversely correlated). Would local homeowners be begging the government to be allowed to chip in a bit more tax to compensate society for the increase in their property values? No? So why do they expect society to pay them for changes which decrease their property values? It's a case of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose privatising gains and socialising losses where the winners are landowners and the losers are non-landowners. It's exactly this kind of special treatment that makes people in Britain so desperate to join the landowner class, and you want more of it?

The true unfairness is the institution of private land ownership accompanied by no financial obligations on the landowner to repay the society that granted him/her exclusive use of a bit of land that nobody created. The idea that somebody should need to be compensated for losing a bit of this unfairness is ridiculous. It's like asking former serfs to compensate their lords for the financial losses they experienced when being tied to the land was abolished.

If Clegg wants to argue for a land value tax he's welcome to do so, it would achieve the kind of effect he appears to be after.

Yes, I largely agree with you and, yes, I would also be very much in favour of a land value tax which, incidentally, is a policy promoted by the Lib Dems, but obviously rejected by the Conservatives. However, in lieu of that, something needs to change or else we are condemned to years of bitter strife for every new housing development. The system needs to change so that new development is not always seen as detrimental to an area, otherwise we're stuck with snail-pace development and rocketing house prices.

[Riedquat]

It's clear that the system is broken and something needs to be done. We desperately need more housing,

No, we desperately need fewer people, or at the very least stopping the number increasing. The unwillingness of politicians to even acknowledge that this is an issue is utterly disgraceful. As is all the cheering we get for building more on this forum. I could just about stomach it as a one-off necessary evil but this cheering on ever-increasing development is just downright depressing.

However, in lieu of that, something needs to change or else we are condemned to years of bitter strife for every new housing development. The system needs to change so that new development is not always seen as detrimental to an area, otherwise we're stuck with snail-pace development and rocketing house prices.

********. It is detrimental to wherever it's built. It might be necessary but don't pretend that it's nice, that it doesn't contribute towards a less pleasant area wherever it's built and that it wouldn't be a much nicer place to live if there was much less built. This complete and utter denial of the downsides is as ridiculous as anything the government says.

Wouldn't be quite as bad if there was any reason to think that what'll get built won't be badly built ugly, souless, characterless crap.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Riedquat

[Errol]

Clegg makes me sick.

[snowflux]

No, we desperately need fewer people, or at the very least stopping the number increasing. The unwillingness of politicians to even acknowledge that this is an issue is utterly disgraceful. As is all the cheering we get for building more on this forum. I could just about stomach it as a one-off necessary evil but this cheering on ever-increasing development is just downright depressing.

********. It is detrimental to wherever it's built. It might be necessary but don't pretend that it's nice, that it doesn't contribute towards a less pleasant area wherever it's built and that it wouldn't be a much nicer place to live if there was much less built. This complete and utter denial of the downsides is as ridiculous as anything the government says.

Wouldn't be quite as bad if there was any reason to think that what'll get built won't be badly built ugly, souless, characterless crap.

Where did I deny that there was a downside to development? The point I'm trying to make is that if communities are going to accept new development without a bitter and expensive struggle in every case, then they need to be able to see some benefit in it too. In Germany, as I said, the drawbacks of new development are tempered by the knowledge that it will bring new facilities and services with it. This means that there is much less local opposition to development.

The debate about immigration is a separate issue; for now though we desperately need new additional housing in order to properly and less expensively accommodate our current population. We can either bury our heads in the sand and let house prices continue to rise, or we can acknowledge the problem and try to do something about it.

[Democorruptcy]

[zugzwang]

What did they ever find to argue about? Can anyone remember?

[iamnumerate]

I suspect these 'garden cities' will actually be pretty crappy affairs, like they always are. Ebbsfleet is a former quarry, where old Doctor Who episodes were filmed. To be replaced, no doubt with rows of identical monoculture developments with odd patch of dog pooping ground.

Of course if they were to recover the ho moanerz bail out with hefty death duties, but doubtless they will abolish those too, to win votes.

I think you are probably going to be right.

[NewBrit]

Clegg is just trying to buy some votes, give him a break.