Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Dave Beans

Tories admit that the housing market is broken

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Assume The Opposite said:

The Tories must be desperate for my generations vote (I'm 27)

The white paper just contains hollow words when the party is backed by bankers, hedge funds. big business and land owners. 

Not that any other party will have the balls to admit it's ponzi schemes driving the insane housing bubble. 

Maybe we should make our own white paper!

Great idea.

My white paper would be a white sentence: 'raise interest rates to 5%'

Job done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is very disappointing if somewhat predictable.

The white paper mentions tenants concerns focussing around security of tenure, then avoids making any recommendations whatsoever. Pisspoor. Obviously build to rent types will be looking for long term tenants so suggesting rules for this sort of stuff seems to be avoiding the areas where it is most needed.

Banning agents fees etc, client money rules, good stuff, but ignoring security of tenure for existing tenants, often priced out by the sort of 'investment' the sector could do without, is a bitter blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, slawek said:

They have a problem, how to make house prices affordable and rising at the same time.   

Yup, and believe it or not that has been their rough aim. Stagnant prices and rising wages. Oh dear, we've gone gang busters on the price props and accelerants, and the wage increases are nowhere to be seen. Oh well, we must need more of the same. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the Govt release from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590043/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_housing_white_paper.pdf

section 4.41 is very interesting...

Quote

Improving neighbourhoods and making best use of existing homes

...

Empty homes

4.41 We will also continue to support local authorities to encourage efficient use of our existing stock, making best use of homes that are long-term empty. Local authorities have powers and incentives to tackle empty homes. Through the New Homes Bonus they earn the same financial reward for bringing an empty home back into use as building a new one. They also have flexibility to impose a council tax premium of up to 50% (on top of the council tax bill), on properties that have been empty and substantially unfurnished for more than two years. Great progress has been made in recent years and the number of empty homes stands at its lowest since records began. At May 2010 over 300,000 homes in England had been standing empty for longer than 6 months. As of October 2015 the number of long-term empty properties had fallen to 204,000.81

Can you imagine the stink from the landlords with empty properties just sitting on the capital increase with them empty, because the capital growth is more than the cost of the council tax.

Imaging if the HPI goes down and they get charged 150% of the council tax...lol Come on councils do it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Assume The Opposite said:

The Tories must be desperate for my generations vote (I'm 27)

The white paper just contains hollow words when the party is backed by bankers, hedge funds. big business and land owners. 

Not that any other party will have the balls to admit it's ponzi schemes driving the insane housing bubble. 

Maybe we should make our own white paper!

 

You sound like me .....13 years ago.  Go back and read some of my early posts.  That was before the financial crisis and when we were still getting 6% interest through IceSave!  Then go outside and live life.  Don't waste 11 years talking to strangers on a forum, it won't change anything.

You either have to suck it up and get involved or forget it.

I've been in my property now 15 months - I'm actually quite happy ....Happier than I was back then.  £1000 a month goes on my mortgage every single month on top of the nearly £1800 I pay under obligation.

I'd love my second car to be a BMW M2 instead of a VW Polo but this is how life is - nothing has stopped this market since it started on the up post 1995 -   I'm eternally thankful I'm not looking at one of those prefabs that were on BBC news this morning.

Made me sick listening to how excited the BBC were getting promoting how first time buyers can now live in a 'glamorous shed'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IFS: Taxes up and away. Diminishing likelihood of a balanced budget even by 2025.

http://news.sky.com/story/tax-burden-set-to-be-highest-since-1980s-and-austerity-to-be-extended-ifs-10759342

 

Quote

Britain is facing its biggest tax burden for more than 30 years and an austerity regime stretching well into the 2020s, according to a study of Government spending plans.

The "Green Budget" report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimated revenues from taxation would rise to more than 37% of national income by the 2019/20 tax year, for the first time since 1986/7.

But the IFS said spending cuts would bear the greater burden as Chancellor Philip Hammond aims to eliminate the Budget deficit in the next Parliament.

IFS director Paul Johnson said: "For all the focus on Brexit the public finances in the next few years look set to be defined by the spending cuts announced by George Osborne.

"Cuts to day-to-day public service spending are due to accelerate while the tax burden continues to rise."

Mr Johnson added that the Chancellor may still struggle to meet his target on the deficit.

"Even on central forecasts that is going to require extending austerity towards the mid-2020s.

"If the economy does less well than hoped then we may see yet another set of fiscal rules consigned to the dustbin."

The IFS said Mr Hammond's plans would see £17bn of tax rises over the course of this Parliament, with the continuation of deep public service cuts leaving spending 13% lower in real terms by 2019/20 compared to 2010/11.

It sees further pain for the NHS and social care budgets, finding that efforts to cut spending on disability and incapacity benefits have delivered much lower savings than hoped.

A further £34bn of tax rises and spending cuts would then be needed from 2020 in order for the Chancellor to meet fiscal targets.

The analysis finds that despite years of austerity, debt as a percentage of GDP is at its highest since the mid-1960s while the annual deficit is the fourth highest of 28 advanced economies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

The extension of Javid's pet policy, Help to Buy, I'm sure will be a great filip to all those people who didn't buy a house yet due to the immense prices.

Was it going to be any other way..?

Yup, and they trotted out the old line "HTB has not increased prices".

I had high hopes that this alleged change in policy was paving the way for it to be withdrawn. Not to be.

When are these people going to get into their thick skulls that builders are not going to build at a rate that eats into their profit margins unless they are forced to, and people are not going to stop hoovering up every property they can lay their hands on until we see a sustained period of house price growth of 0% or below.

There's nothing in this paper that will break the cycle. More of the same old shite.

Our only hope is that a good number of less cynical people interpret it as getting tough on HPI.

Any policy attempting to address affordability MUST target HPI and it's success measured by that. A strong message needs to be delivered that property is not a viable investment vehicle, otherwise it's boom and bust forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introducing the white paper in Parliament, Sajid Javid did at least mention that houses were too expensive, concentrating on the increase in affordability ratio from 3.5 to >7. He did this rhetorically to hammer Labour on the fact that the ratio had doubled during Labour's last period in power. However, in terms of real action, as his shadow minister said when commenting on the white paper: "is that it?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Digsby said:

Yup, and they trotted out the old line "HTB has not increased prices".

I had high hopes that this alleged change in policy was paving the way for it to be withdrawn. Not to be.

When are these people going to get into their thick skulls that builders are not going to build at a rate that eats into their profit margins unless they are forced to, and people are not going to stop hoovering up every property they can lay their hands on until we see a sustained period of house price growth of 0% or below.

There's nothing in this paper that will break the cycle. More of the same old shite.

Our only hope is that a good number of less cynical people interpret it as getting tough on HPI.

Any policy attempting to address affordability MUST target HPI and it's success measured by that. A strong message needs to be delivered that property is not a viable investment vehicle, otherwise it's boom and bust forever.

I was told by Nick Boles, then Minister for planning etc in a public meeting in 2013, that Help to Buy was essential as otherwise builders wouldn't build. Nope, they needed Govt money thrown at them otherwise, they'd sit there, debt liabilities, wages, etc, all paid out of thin air, waiting for largesse to come their way. Got a few "here here's" from the assembled crowd too. And the Govt paid up, handsomely.

Here we are, four years hence, being told the same again. Yet they haven't built much in the intervening period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 8:16 AM, Si1 said:

You bunch of unimaginative moaning crazies.

 

So, were you impressed by the white paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2017 at 9:12 PM, The Knimbies who say No said:

Problem is that it's Cameron's 'Help to Buy' brain who is working on the white paper. Time will tell, as you say...

 

Looks like time told us that the Tories are not serious about fixing the problems with housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One measure is to require councils to have plans to meet housing needs and update them every 5 years. Given that no minister has yet answered the question "what's the right number of immigrants post-Brexit", just how the hell are councils supposed to arrive at the numbers they need to plan for.

I think it's crap and fails to address the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Barwell responding to a call on Radio 5 Live declared explicitly that the 'last thing we all want' is a house price crash because of the economic consequences that would follow. :rolleyes:

What consequences?

I thought they spent the past 8 years shoring up the badly capitalized banks and stopping them from doing dodgy lending like that again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the measure to ensue that there is no low density provision in places of high demand... another excuse for developers to build shoe boxes, not that they need any excuses.

My son bought recently and was limited to older stock because after two viewings of new builds he ruled them out: tiny and leasehold.  Yes house building is needed but they should make sure they're houses people want to live in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

Indeed. Northern Rock were fine.

I don't think we have exactly those same problems now- 

  • 1) The government will bail out any bank if necessary.
  • 2) The rules for lending since 2008 became stricter.
  • 3) The BOE has been stress testing banks.
  • 4) All lenders should have cleaner lending books than they had ten years ago in 2007 (greatly reduced subprime borrowers).
  • 5) The confidence and 'liquidity availability' problems of 2007-2008 should not apply to Northern Rock or others now (because of points 2, 3, 4 and 7).  
  • 6) Any theoretical crash would release pent-up demand, so lenders would still be in demand.
  • 7) NRAM (the mortgages themselves) are still owned the government.
  • 8) If the crash occurred back to 2008 prices, it would penalise those who over-valued their property since then, but all of those people would have been subject to stricter borrowing rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dorkins said:

So, were you impressed by the white paper?

 

3 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Looks like time told us that the Tories are not serious about fixing the problems with housing.

Indeed. I am really quite upset by it, to be honest. And I am fortunate enough to live in a 'bought' property. I do care about the price of my house too. It is far too high.

This will always be my #1 priority, eternal vigilance being the price of liberty.

Here's the author of the White Paper in correspondence with me (via my MP) in 2013, defending "Help to Buy". Can anyone think of any workplace examples of someone screwing something up spectacularly and being asked some years later to write policy (and be taken seriously) on exactly the same subject matter...?

image.jpg

 

Edited by The Knimbies who say No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Young and the Nestless said:

What consequences?

I thought they spent the past 8 years shoring up the badly capitalized banks and stopping them from doing dodgy lending like that again?

Barwell was talking about the impact of recession on the economy proper, he didn't mention the banks at all. Although, naturally, they would incur massive capital losses directly from an hpc, and concurrently via a stockmarket crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

 

Indeed. I am really quite upset by it, to be honest. And I am fortunate enough to live in a 'bought' property. I do care about the price of my house too. It is far too high.

This will always be my #1 priority, eternal vigilance being the price of liberty.

Here's the author of the White Paper in correspondence with me (via my MP) in 2013, defending "Help to Buy". Can anyone think of any workplace examples of someone screwing something up spectacularly and being asked some years later to write policy (and be taken seriously) on exactly the same subject matter...?

:lol:B)
 

Quote

 

..blah blah £600,000 equity loans 'help'

 

 

Only skim read the latest stuff but feel disappointed.  Can only hope it's a feint, or not much by way of real belief behind it - 'looking to be concerned and to be thinking of doing something against foreverHPI that must never be questioned' - and that market itself begins to correct core problems (HPI/BTL). 

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 349 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

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


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



×
×
  • 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.