Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Milo

Can Ftbs Influence Elections?

Recommended Posts

FTBs represent a large number of potential voters, possibly large enough to influence the outcome of a close election (and there’s always some election taking place).

But to date politicians have largely ignored FTBs, presumably because there is no electoral advantage in seeking their votes.

To change this there needs to be a policy which a party could latch onto.

But what Government policy would attract your vote, if any? And would it really work or just create another problem.

Here’s some examples (not necessarily my preferences):

• Some form of penalty for second home owners, BTL to discourage this type of investment and give FTB a competitive advantage.

• Some form of financial assistance to FTB.

• Build more houses, more quickly.

• Tackle debt not just HPI. Restrict lending practices. Incentives to save and provide for pensions.

• State owned housing.

• Adjust the way interest rates are set.

• A wholesale reassessment of macro-economic policy.

• It doesn’t matter – not being able to buy a house isn’t really that important in comparison to other policies which win my vote.

• No policy is necessary, the market will correct itself, so just go on strike and don’t buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Keep the total amount of greenbelt land the same

2) Add land that is liable to flooding to the greenbelt.

3) Combine 1 & 2 and you can build on sime of the existing greenbelt land

4) Take the basic IR a bank lends, tax morgages so that the IR goes up 1% per multiple of income, after 3.5x

E.G Earns = 20K, IR=4.5%, so loan of 60K (20x3) is at 4.5%

Earns = 20K, loan of 80K (20x4) is at 5.5% with 1% going to gov.

5)Change right to buy, so that you can still buy from local Authority, but you can only sell back to local auth, at the price you bought it + inflation.

6)Allow register of FTBs so that local authorities have an abligation to build starter homes, where FTBs work.

(Would cut down on communting, solve traffic issues).

However, whilst this is going to be a big issue for a lot of people, the fact remains that politicans will continue to chase the grey vote. So they don't care about us little ol' FTBs! ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make second homes illegal or at least 200% council tax.

Cancel buy-to-let mortgages

Many more things that I'll think on.

Wait until Greenland completely defrosts, invade it, and make the entire place one big new build housing estate.

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
• Some form of penalty for second home owners, BTL to discourage this type of investment and give FTB a competitive advantage.

• Some form of financial assistance to FTB.

• Build more houses, more quickly.

• Tackle debt not just HPI. Restrict lending practices. Incentives to save and provide for pensions.

• State owned housing.

• Adjust the way interest rates are set.

• A wholesale reassessment of macro-economic policy.

• It doesn’t matter – not being able to buy a house isn’t really that important in comparison to other policies which win my vote.

• No policy is necessary, the market will correct itself, so just go on strike and don’t buy.

And -

1) Keep the total amount of greenbelt land the same

2) Add land that is liable to flooding to the greenbelt.

3) Combine 1 & 2 and you can build on sime of the existing greenbelt land

4) Take the basic IR a bank lends, tax morgages so that the IR goes up 1% per multiple of income, after 3.5x

E.G Earns = 20K, IR=4.5%, so loan of 60K (20x3) is at 4.5%

Earns = 20K, loan of 80K (20x4) is at 5.5% with 1% going to gov.

5)Change right to buy, so that you can still buy from local Authority, but you can only sell back to local auth, at the price you bought it + inflation.

6)Allow register of FTBs so that local authorities have an abligation to build starter homes, where FTBs work.

(Would cut down on communting, solve traffic issues).

Ah, Student Politics. That takes me back a few years. :rolleyes:

Edited by JohnG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FRUGALISTA PARTY SUSTAINABLE HOUSING POLICY MANIFESTO

I have distilled my various thoughts into 3 top housing priorities, in descending order of urgency.

1. First and foremost, above everything else regulate mortgage lending. It costs the government almost nothing to do this; it will bring prices down to sensible levels and reduce the risk of reposession misery.

2. Next improve tenants' rights. Especially, prohibit exorbitant rent increases and increase the length of assured leases. Again, almost no revenue required to fund this. BTLs will become less attractive and so BTL investors will compete less with FTBs for housing; also some people will be happier with renting and there will be less pressure to get on the ladder; prices will fall.

3. Finally, and less importantly, liberalise planning law. There is plenty of land which could be used for sustainable new communities. Permission should be granted for this kind of land use if it passes sustainability tests. Again, almost no revenue required to fund this. Increased supply will bring down prices.

Importantly, in none of the above cases could the government be accused of raising taxes or spending profusely. So, theoretically could be adopted by any of the main parties.

Can't see the Tories going for it though.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't see the Tories going for it though.

There’s the rub. I’m not a Tory but I think they’ll be the best source of meaningful policy initiatives. In recent years the age group most represented by this forum is one which has either voted labour or liberal or not voted at all. But now the Tory’s have a real opportunity to change this.

Someone posted recently that they met George Osborne in an airport and handed him a piece of paper with Housepricecrash.co.uk written on it. If he bothered to look he would have noted a poll which showed that people on this forum overwhelmingly felt that the Tory party is best placed to mange the economy.

Obviously, Osborne will not want anything to do with a ‘crash’ but he could hardly fail to realise the level of discontent with New Labour and the opportunity to win votes with some carefully selected policies.

Hate the Tories? Fair enough, but if they come up with a policy that wins them votes Labour will most likely adopt it. It then becomes everyone’s policy.

BTW Frugilistica – I agree with your proposals (at least in principle ;) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s the rub. I’m not a Tory but I think they’ll be the best source of meaningful policy initiatives. In recent years the age group most represented by this forum is one which has either voted labour or liberal or not voted at all. But now the Tory’s have a real opportunity to change this.

Why did I make the comment that the Tories will never go for my policies?

They have actually intimated that they might well do a bit of tinkering with planning (my policy area number 3).

But they will never touch the most important area, regulation of mortgage lending, with a ten foot barge pole. They are far far too cosy with City banks to ever go near that one.

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, whilst this is going to be a big issue for a lot of people, the fact remains that politicans will continue to chase the grey vote. So they don't care about us little ol' FTBs! ;(

The only reason they do this is because us l'il ole FTB's just don't make enough noise to be on their radar's. If we spent as much time (as the grey vote) writing to our MP's, councillor's, newpapers and actually voting we would be much higher up on their agenda's.

I've seen this first hand with the campaign against Software Patents... it's amazing how much a relatively small group can achieve just by hassling of the aforementioned groups.

Edited by DoubleBubbleTrouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTBs represent a large number of potential voters, possibly large enough to influence the outcome of a close election (and there’s always some election taking place).

Actually you're dead wrong, younger voters are in a worse position than ever when it comes to sheer numbers and they have the lowest propensity to vote. The older demographic is greater in number and they're twice as likely to vote than younger people, in effect a single vote from a pensioner is equal to four young people.

This should already be apparent when it comes to issues like tuition fees, it doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not, but the facts are clear, they explicity promised in their manifesto not to introduce them and they went and did the direct opposite; it didn't matter, they can get away with it because when it comes to elections this group of people are worthless, there are no repercussions.

Same with things like "anti-social behaviour", it plays well to paint all young people as a hoard of murderous thugs, it gets in the grey vote, the fear card always works well.

Politicians are concerned with the short-term, they do not seriously concern themselves with the lives of younger generations or their future prospects because quite simply by the time this is a serious issue it will be somebody elses problem to deal with.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you're dead wrong, younger voters are in a worse position than ever when it comes to sheer numbers and they have the lowest propensity to vote. The older demographic is greater in number and they're twice as likely to vote than younger people, in effect a single vote from a pensioner is equal to four young people.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but while there’s no doubting the power of the older voter the proportion of voters under 35 would still be significant in a closely fought election. I certainly wouldn’t right off that part of the electorate for being too small in number.

It’s the ‘propensity to vote’ that makes all the difference. That’s the big challenge for political parties, and that’s why I used the word ‘potential’ voters. Living up their promises would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that young voters stubbornly and steadfastly stick to Lib-Lab-Con and won't ever consider supporting a smaller party or establishing a new party.

I can't for the life of me understand why young people would want to support Victorian political ideologies any more than wanting to wear a Fauntleroy suit in public. Yes there is the old argument of political clout with the heavyweight parties but remember that Labour was once a small force in politics compared to the old guard Liberals and Conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the ‘propensity to vote’ that makes all the difference. That’s the big challenge for political parties, and that’s why I used the word ‘potential’ voters. Living up their promises would be a start.

We're in a catch 22, young people don't vote in large numbers so parties don't target them, which means entire election campaigns go straight over their heads as they're directed at a different demographic. When in office politicians don't think twice about screwing over non-voting segments of society, even going against previously stated promises, which then leaves said segment even more disenfranchised and less inclined to vote for what they justifiably see as a bunch of lying ba$tards.

Some groups are politically engaged but that has created a negative bias, hence the commonly held impression amongst politicians that young people only care about fluffy crap like the environment, even though the vast majority are battling rather more hard edged issues like housing, debt, working conditions and a livable wage. Astute politicians obviously know this but it's easier to play along as the latter are difficult issues in need of difficult answers, it's easier to pretend everyone is a naive tree hugger.

It's doubtful young people can have much impact on the tired 'new establishment' which is controlled by old pot smoking hippies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're in a catch 22, young people don't vote in large numbers so parties don't target them, which means entire election campaigns go straight over their heads as they're directed at a different demographic.

I am still interested, purely out of curiousity, why 20 somethings don't take much interest in the BNP. Last time I asked this question I didn't get any sensible intelligent replies.

Most of the BNP support vote originates from pensioners and 35 to 45 year old parents of young children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still interested, purely out of curiousity, why 20 somethings don't take much interest in the BNP. Last time I asked this question I didn't get any sensible intelligent replies.

Most of the BNP support vote originates from pensioners and 35 to 45 year old parents of young children.

Or basically the first unemployed malcontents you encounter on a trawl of the council estates.

Young people don't take much interest in politcs in general, not least the lunatic fringe, you may think young people are stupid but they know a bunch of thugs with criminal convictions when they see them.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we not missing the point here, most FTB's these days aren't "young" people any more are they. I've seen various estimates of the average age recently but all them put it in the 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or basically the first unemployed malcontents you encounter on a trawl of the council estates.

As a matter of fact one of the prerequisites of a BNP voter is being a homeowner. Investigations at several votecounts have been used to identify which neighbourhoods in a council ward or parliamentary constituency do and don't vote BNP. Neighbourhoods with homeowners almost always produce better BNP results than council estates.

Young people don't take much interest in politcs in general, not least the lunatic fringe, you may think young people are stupid but they know a bunch of thugs with criminal convictions when they see them.

Calling the BNP a bunch of thugs with criminal convictions is not just unjustified but totally moronic nowadays. Clued up voters (of any political party) fully well know this although the media continues to smear.

Leaked information from the local branch of the Lib-Dems stated that Lib-Dems should stop referring to the BNP as Nazis as this was ineffective. Instead they should attack them on how well (or badly!) BNP councillors have handled nitty gritty everyday issues such as street lighting or keeping parks clean and tidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FRUGALISTA PARTY SUSTAINABLE HOUSING POLICY MANIFESTO

I have distilled my various thoughts into 3 top housing priorities, in descending order of urgency.

1. First and foremost, above everything else regulate mortgage lending. It costs the government almost nothing to do this; it will bring prices down to sensible levels and reduce the risk of reposession misery.

2. Next improve tenants' rights. Especially, prohibit exorbitant rent increases and increase the length of assured leases. Again, almost no revenue required to fund this. BTLs will become less attractive and so BTL investors will compete less with FTBs for housing; also some people will be happier with renting and there will be less pressure to get on the ladder; prices will fall.

3. Finally, and less importantly, liberalise planning law. There is plenty of land which could be used for sustainable new communities. Permission should be granted for this kind of land use if it passes sustainability tests. Again, almost no revenue required to fund this. Increased supply will bring down prices.

Importantly, in none of the above cases could the government be accused of raising taxes or spending profusely. So, theoretically could be adopted by any of the main parties.

Can't see the Tories going for it though.

frugalista

Yep, things like altering planning laws and tenancy laws are far more feasible than spending a fortune on building...........

and daft things like the key worker scheme must be stopped as although these help the individuals involved they simply underpin and support the existing high prices...........

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.