Clegg Wants To Protect The Hpi -- Merged

[winkie]

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

All singing from the same hymn sheet.....so few answers to the same old questions.

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

Clegg is there to make the one eyed Scottish git look good. The Libdem's have had their day as "King makers", now they will disappear into obscurity and give UKIP a go. Good riddance Nicky, Vince, that red headed git (that made such an impression on me) and the rest of the hand wringers.

[sPinwheel]

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

Wouldn't that require people to vote for the Lib Dems as much as last time? They look much weaker these days.

[Riedquat]

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.

It isn't a separate issue (and I didn't even mention immigration). Both need to be tackled hand-in-hand. I've gone into a "sod it" attitude towards accepting measures to deal with the consequences of a problem we're unwilling to even think about, let alone try to solve, since the end result of it is just to gradually degrade the quality of life in the country. The net result of building may well be a slower degradation of average quality of life but the prospect of an ever-increasingly depressing future isn't something I can find any enthusiasm for whatsoever. All options are bad, some are just not quite as bad as others (posters and politicians who don't see anything bad just make my blood boil). Sometimes that's all you're able to do but there's no sign at all about TPTB even trying to look for a win-win solution. Perhaps it's simply a case of "we don't have a solution so if we admit that there's a problem we'll look incompetent - and therefore we'll pretend the problem doesn't exist."

I wonder how many people in such communities are fairly happy with the level of services they've already got, at least to the point of thinking an increase in them doesn't make up for the loss? There's also the problem of the cumulative effect of a heap of changes that look fine individually, a few negatives to them but useful nevertheless.

[Bruce Banner]

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

I knew that reminded me of something.

[sPinwheel]

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

I remember Nick Clegg did "very well" when he presented himself as being very different to the other two

[Dorkins]

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.

I agree that something needs to change, but it isn't to make property ownership even more of a one-way bet. The special flower homeowners need to be told by politicians that they can't always have everything their own way. They want society to compensate them for falling land values? Fine, but only if they agree to pay extra tax when their land values go up.

Young people are constantly being told "suck it up, life's not fair, you have to work for things if you want them, it's never been easy, blah blah blah" and yet there's money in the pot to guarantee everybody's unearned house price increases? I'm sick of subsidising people who already have far more than I do and who have done precious little to earn it. If the Boomers want intergenerational conflict they can have it. No more special treatment, they've had enough.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Dorkins

[oracle]

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

are they all auditioning for that "pointless" gameshow?

[bomberbrown]

homeowners nearby a discount on their council tax during the construction phase

Hang on a minute, doesn't a council discount apply to RENTERS just as much as as it does home owners?

[snowflux]

I agree that something needs to change, but it isn't to make property ownership even more of a one-way bet. The special flower homeowners need to be told by politicians that they can't always have everything their own way. They want society to compensate them for falling land values? Fine, but only if they agree to pay extra tax when their land values go up.

Young people are constantly being told "suck it up, life's not fair, you have to work for things if you want them, it's never been easy, blah blah blah" and yet there's money in the pot to guarantee everybody's unearned house price increases? I'm sick of subsidising people who already have far more than I do and who have done precious little to earn it. If the Boomers want intergenerational conflict they can have it. No more special treatment, they've had enough.

Ok, years of bitter strife, slow development and continuing high house prices it is then.

[Dorkins]

Ok, years of bitter strife, slow development and continuing high house prices it is then.

Fine, if that's what it takes. Sometimes a bit of conflict is necessary to achieve a better settlement for the long term. The last thing this country needs is even more subsidies for landowners.

[snowflux]

Fine, if that's what it takes. Sometimes a bit of conflict is necessary to achieve a better settlement for the long term. The last thing this country needs is even more subsidies for landowners.

Taking an objective view, why would we not compensate homeowners for blight arising from new housing development when we do compensate homeowners for blight arising from new road or rail development? Or should we just scrap compensation altogether and if a new road, rail or housing development is built nearby, then it's just tough luck?

[Uncle_Kenny]

Or should we just scrap compensation altogether and if a new road, rail or housing development is built nearby, then it's just tough luck?

Of course. It's called property rights, or more specifically in this case the lack of property rights. If someone wants to build an oil refinery in my back garden then I can either deny them the right, or ask for financial compensation by selling them the land. If someone wants to build an oil refinery at the bottom of my garden, then unless I have the means to outbid them and buy the land for myself, I can't do anything to stop them. NIMBY's are effectively exercising ownership over land that they haven't paid for.

Actually, thinking about it more, NIMBY's are exercising ownership over land that other people have paid for. A government compensation scheme would involve an additional cost on top as the government gets it's money through tax/extortion/theft, whatever you want to call it.

[Venger]

Where is the compensation for non home-owning savers from £375 Billion of QE (and everything else... asset swaps/FLS), then Global QE $Trillions (US & China).

Come on. It would have been a 80% UK House Price Crash without all the stimulus and bailouts.

Now rewarding home-owners even more. Yes renters council tax parity, but price guarantees for owners not in their interests.

[btl_hater]

Taking an objective view, why would we not compensate homeowners for blight arising from new housing development when we do compensate homeowners for blight arising from new road or rail development? Or should we just scrap compensation altogether and if a new road, rail or housing development is built nearby, then it's just tough luck?

Let's compensate everyone for everything they don't like!

[snowflux]

Of course. It's called property rights, or more specifically in this case the lack of property rights. If someone wants to build an oil refinery in my back garden then I can either deny them the right, or ask for financial compensation by selling them the land. If someone wants to build an oil refinery at the bottom of my garden, then unless I have the means to outbid them and buy the land for myself, I can't do anything to stop them. NIMBY's are effectively exercising ownership over land that they haven't paid for.

Actually, thinking about it more, NIMBY's are exercising ownership over land that other people have paid for. A government compensation scheme would involve an additional cost on top as the government gets it's money through tax/extortion/theft, whatever you want to call it.

While removing compensation for nearby roads or railways would reduce the cost of such projects, it would make them extremely difficult to build due to the massive public opposition that would then arise. You'd need a very authoritarian government to push such projects through.

Looking from the other direction, you'd imagine that compensating property owners for nearby housing developments would make it much easier to realise such projects and would result in more houses being built and thus lower house prices. Mr and Mrs Nimby might get £10k in cash, but they'd see £50k knocked off their property value, partly due to "blight" but mostly due to increased supply of housing). What's not to like?

[renting til I die]

Where is the compensation for non home-owning savers from £375 Billion of QE (and everything else... asset swaps/FLS), then Global QE $Trillions (US & China).

Come on. It would have been a 80% UK House Price Crash without all the stimulus and bailouts.

Now rewarding home-owners even more. Yes renters council tax parity, but price guarantees for owners not in their interests.

It still could be, even with all the stimulus!

[Dorkins]

Taking an objective view, why would we not compensate homeowners for blight arising from new housing development when we do compensate homeowners for blight arising from new road or rail development? Or should we just scrap compensation altogether and if a new road, rail or housing development is built nearby, then it's just tough luck?

If people want asset price insurance, let them go and buy it in the marketplace. It's not the job of people who don't own assets to protect the wealth of people who do via compulsory taxation.

[Uncle_Kenny]

While removing compensation for nearby roads or railways would reduce the cost of such projects, it would make them extremely difficult to build due to the massive public opposition that would then arise. You'd need a very authoritarian government to push such projects through.

One of the governments legitimate functions is to enforce property rights and law and order. The NIMBY's have no right to stop development for their own selfish reasons. This is like saying that we need an authoritarian government to set up a police force.

[Uncle_Kenny]

If people want asset price insurance, let them go and buy it in the marketplace. It's not the job of people who don't own assets to protect the wealth of people who do via compulsory taxation.

Free market economics is seemingly beyond the understanding of the current government.

[bubbleturbo]

Why are we surprised? This total to55er is only in it for himself and if given the opportunity will throw skips of public money around simply down to his own vanity and need for people to "like" him:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10791556/Nick-Clegg-is-a-self-obsessed-revolting-character.html

Nick Clegg is a “self-obsessed” and “revolting character” who is “so dishonest” that he cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, a former aide to Michael Gove has said.

Dominic Cummings, who repeatedly clashed with Mr Clegg’s team in his role as Mr Gove’s special adviser, said that Mr Clegg is the “worst kind of modern MP” and "only cares about his image".

He told The Sunday Times that whenever Mr Clegg gave a speech he used to demand "hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money" for his "latest absurd gimmick".

Mr Cummings said that the Department for Education "thwarted Clegg as much as we could" and blocked his involvement in major policies such as free schools and exam reform.

He said: "He is self-obsessed, sanctimonious and so dishonest he finds the words truth and lies have ceased to have any objective meaning, and he treats taxpayers money with contempt.

"He won't do the hard work to get policy right – all he cares about is his image. He is a revolting character. And I say that after spending 15 years in Westminster.

"Whenever Clegg gave a speech, he'd demand we spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money for his latest absurd gimmick. We thwarted Clegg as much as we could."

Edited August 4, 2014 by bubbleturbo

[snowflux]

If people want asset price insurance, let them go and buy it in the marketplace. It's not the job of people who don't own assets to protect the wealth of people who do via compulsory taxation.

That sounds reasonable, but you're obviously still going to have problems with the uninsured when it comes to construction time. I think I'm inclined to agree with you though. What we need, then, is a government that has the balls to say, "Ok, no more compensation. Buy insurance if you're worried about new roads / rail / housing" and is prepared to enforce construction whereever necessary. Can't see it happening, myself.

Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, though, I'm not so sure. It'd be a massively confrontational approach leaving a lot of people feeling very hard done by, and we'd probably end up in a situation where no more roads, railways or houses are built due to politicians fearing the boot. I think the carrot approach used in Germany, where the whole community is rewarded for allowing development (of housing), has got to be better.

Edited August 4, 2014 by snowflux

[Venger]

It still could be, even with all the stimulus!

Been clinging onto that hope, but everything is fading. Restore health of main banks... bring in more HPI forever punters.... allow full-scale hpc... but with FLS/HTB/price-guarantees and so on.... total attrition.

If people want asset price insurance, let them go and buy it in the marketplace. It's not the job of people who don't own assets to protect the wealth of people who do via compulsory taxation.

Oooohh. Bombarded daily with such market VI protectionist thinkings involving being bailed out by other people, that it's a shock when reading a concisely capitalistic and logical position.

[snowflux]

Been clinging onto that hope, but everything is fading. Restore health of main banks... bring in more HPI forever punters.... allow full-scale hpc... but with FLS/HTB/price-guarantees and so on.... total attrition.

Oooohh. Bombarded daily with such market VI protectionist thinkings involving being bailed out by other people, that it's a shock when reading a concisely capitalistic and logical position.

It's a concisely capitalistic and logical position that, in a democratic society, would probably result in very few new roads or railways ever being built. It already results in few new houses being built and, consequently, high house prices.

[Dorkins]

It's a concisely capitalistic and logical position that, in a democratic society, would probably result in very few new roads or railways ever being built. It already results in few new houses being built and, consequently, high house prices.

"Democracy" doesn't always produce the same outcome, it's a complicated function of the electoral system (e.g. whether it allows a large minority to force its will on everybody else), the legal system (e.g. whether there constitutional or other legal constraints on the sorts of policies politicians can implement), and of course cultural values among the electorate.

The UK in the 1950s-1970s was also a democracy. Plenty of houses were built in this time.

In the UK in 2014 there is a large chunk of the population that considers adding a few houses at the edge of urban settlements to be an essentially evil act and we have political and legal systems which enable them to impose that belief on everybody else. In other societies at other points in time it might have been considered a good thing for the local population to grow to enable a richer urban life to be supported and for the local population to remain reasonably balanced across different age groups, for young families to have somewhere to raise children etc.

I don't believe that throwing a few bribes at the anti-construction section of the population will solve the problem of local opposition to housebuilding. The problem is cultural, not economic.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Dorkins