Rishi Sunak has ‘killed dream of home ownership’, says Keir Starmer

[henry the king]

6 minutes ago, Insane said:

You also have all three who will carry on with mass immigration at a faster rate than house building , so the problem is going to get worse not better. I watched this segment of QT the other night and have heard a few discussions on the radio recently when they debate landlords , rent controls , building and costs however no one ever mentions mass immigration. How can anyone ever fix a problem if they don't look at the biggest factor? 

True, it will never be solved.

It is why I think in the long term HPI is here to stay. We aren't ever going back to 4x earnings house prices.

My guess would be real terms 2019 prices (vs earnings) are totally reasonable. And we are about 5% off that or something. So if we see house prices flat for the rest of 2023 then we will be back to 2019 prices vs earnings and I no longer believe that is a bubble given mass immigration and no house building will both continue.

However, maybe within 10-20 years AI and automation will cause politicians to actively not want more people.

Edited April 30, 2023 by henry the king

[PropertyMania]

23 minutes ago, Insane said:

You also have all three who will carry on with mass immigration at a faster rate than house building , so the problem is going to get worse not better. I watched this segment of QT the other night and have heard a few discussions on the radio recently when they debate landlords , rent controls , building and costs however no one ever mentions mass immigration. How can anyone ever fix a problem if they don't look at the biggest factor? 

If they do mention immigration, most journalists focus on how we can bring in yet more migrants via safe and legal routes, as if we haven't been doing that with Hong Kong, Ukraine and many others. It's utterly shameful

[Insane]

10 minutes ago, PropertyMania said:

If they do mention immigration, most journalists focus on how we can bring in yet more migrants via safe and legal routes, as if we haven't been doing that with Hong Kong, Ukraine and many others. It's utterly shameful

Yes

They never mention immigration as a factor causing the housing crisis. 

[bartelbe]

Ah the good old developers charter. Vast numbers of house have been built in my area, thanks to local development plans and house prices have gone up. Developers want to build expensive executive detaches and town houses, on greenfield land. Not affordable housing for young people and key workers.

Starmer is retuning to the bent old days of Nu Labour and the red tories. Which means he is in the developers pockets and his pledges are worthless.

[zugzwang]

Starmer, the unchange agent. Infinitely depressing.

 

[bartelbe]

26 minutes ago, PropertyMania said:

If they do mention immigration, most journalists focus on how we can bring in yet more migrants via safe and legal routes, as if we haven't been doing that with Hong Kong, Ukraine and many others. It's utterly shameful

Safe and legal is the standard get out of the woke left, it is also non-sense. Are they seriously saying if we had a quota for say 20000 refugees a year, the ones who we reject will say that is a fair cop and stay in France?

The reality is, they won't, they will hop on the nearest dingy and come over here.

So unless the safe and legal crowd can outline their deterrent for stopping illegals immigrants, what they are effectively advocating is open borders. 

[bartelbe]

2 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Starmer, the unchange agent. Infinitely depressing.

 

He has gone full red tory, now he is has got Blair on board.

Pointless voting for him, whoever you vote for you get a Tory.

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

He has gone full red tory, now he is has got Blair on board.

Pointless voting for him, whoever you vote for you get a Tory.

The important thing is not to vote for Sunak, nor anyone else who was in the BJ government.

Tactical voting, against the Tory Party will be the order of the day in the next GE.

[bartelbe]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

The important thing is not to vote for Sunak, nor anyone else who was in the BJ government.

Tactical voting, against the Tory Party will be the order of the day in the next GE.

Why is it important? Starmer is advocating a Tory agenda and is in the pocket the Tory bribers (donors).

If you get the same policies with Starmer, what is the point?

[winkie]

9 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Starmer, the unchange agent. Infinitely depressing.

 

It is what any political party can do with the tools they have been given/passed to them.....what would like to do and what they mainly can only talk about....what happens more and more, keep talking about it, the populas believe it has happened....deal with the causes not trying to deal with the effects by providing more help short-term that heightens and prolongs the causes...... government easy money help...bit for you, some from you and lots to the cause of the problem.....big money for them who will not do anything for nothing......make it lucrative for them and those close to the money.

 

Words are the new way and cheap way of getting things done.

 

 

[Bruce Banner]

12 minutes ago, bartelbe said:

Why is it important? Starmer is advocating a Tory agenda and is in the pocket the Tory bribers (donors).

If you get the same policies with Starmer, what is the point?

This looks to be the current doctrine coming out of Tory HQ.... "Vote for us because the others are no better", whereas I would say "Get the Tories out because nothing could be as bad".

I speak as a former life long Conservative when I say... "These are not Tories, they are an extension of NuLabour and they are liars!"

Conservative-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdf (general-election-2010.co.uk)

One thing is clear. We can’t go on with the old model of an economy built on debt. Irresponsible public spending, an overblown banking sector, and unsustainable consumer borrowing on the back of a housing bubble were the features of an age of irresponsibility that left Britain badly exposed to the economic crisis. Now, with the national debt already doubled and in danger of doubling again, it is this debt – together with the jobs tax that Labour will introduce to help pay for it – that threatens to kill the recovery

[ChrisSussex]

I wouldnt be surprised if a Labour government did not bring rent controls in or something. They probably view most landlords as Thatcherite Tory Types.

[zugzwang]

17 minutes ago, winkie said:

It is what any political party can do with the tools they have been given/passed to them.....what would like to do and what they mainly can only talk about....what happens more and more, keep talking about it, the populas believe it has happened....deal with the causes not trying to deal with the effects by providing more help short-term that heightens and prolongs the causes...... government easy money help...bit for you, some from you and lots to the cause of the problem.....big money for them who will not do anything for nothing......make it lucrative for them and those close to the money.

 

Words are the new way and cheap way of getting things done.

 

 

The UK is in a state of near collapse! The national debt has quadrupled since 2008 and is racing off to infinity at a furious clip. These clowns have been in opposition for thirteen years and the only answer they can come up with is a return to the market defying subsidies that put the economy on its current trajectory?

Starmer's completely off his gourd.

[Insane]

11 minutes ago, ChrisSussex said:

I wouldnt be surprised if a Labour government did not bring rent controls in or something. They probably view most landlords as Thatcherite Tory Types.

It has been tried here and abroad it causes more problems than it solves. 

We need houses not more legislation. 

[godnose]

On the whole I support a Labour government over a tory one (would have preferred Corbyn) but the notion of house price props is f**king scary and infuriating.

With the tories in, committed, more or less, to monetarism right now, it seems to mean high(ish) interest rates. So house prices are and will continue to come down. The tories are locked in until December 2024. Not bad. That's a good year and a half of time to fall further.

If Labour get in in January 2025, this is is the real moment to consider buying or not. Will Labour spook the wealthy and cause a continuation of falls, or put props in to placate the wealthy and gas light poor people into thinking they're getting help... That's the major question. To buy or not to buy under the (potential) Labour government. Additionally, could Labour's props not be enough to keep it up?

[mynamehere]

I was reading that most swing voters are aspiring home owners, so I fully expect Labour to zone in on these. Those stuck in rentals are unlikely to be swing voters.

 

[Riedquat]

So Starmer wants to kill the dream of not having an ever more overdeveloped country does he. Screw him, screw Sunak. Where's the decent party that wants to kill demand, and reduce the amount of development needed (even if there's no way around having to build as a very ugly necessity in the short term)?

[mynamehere]

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

So Starmer wants to kill the dream of not having an ever more overdeveloped country does he. Screw him, screw Sunak. Where's the decent party that wants to kill demand, and reduce the amount of development needed (even if there's no way around having to build as a very ugly necessity in the short term)?

The only party realistically aiming to reduce demand is the green party.

'A key plank of the Green Party’s national housing strategy would be to improve affordability by stabilising house prices and rents so that there is no further real terms growth in housing costs. In the least affordable markets we would seek to effect a gradual and managed real-terms decline in house prices until average prices are below four times average incomes'

no other party aims to reduce economic activity. Choose your poison

[Trampa501]

16 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

I was reading that most swing voters are aspiring home owners, so I fully expect Labour to zone in on these. Those stuck in rentals are unlikely to be swing voters.

 

This is probably a key weakness of a two party democratic system, particularly under FPTP. The aspiring Prime Minister is not interested in policies that he or she think will benefit the country as a whole (and in the long term). Instead they will pursue policies that appeal to a small percentage of voters in swing seats.

[MARTINX9]

Home ownership for many - especially in the south east and London - was killed in about 2003.

Its just got even less attainable.

[MARTINX9]

27 minutes ago, mynamehere said:

The only party realistically aiming to reduce demand is the green party.

'A key plank of the Green Party’s national housing strategy would be to improve affordability by stabilising house prices and rents so that there is no further real terms growth in housing costs. In the least affordable markets we would seek to effect a gradual and managed real-terms decline in house prices until average prices are below four times average incomes'

no other party aims to reduce economic activity. Choose your poison

You say 'realistically' - but how do they propose to deliver the above in practice.

The Greens of course also support effective open borders - which will increase the pressure on and demand for housing.

One factor Greens don't seem to believe drives man made climate change, pollution and consumption - is the number of men and women causing them! The world has seen a four fold rise in population in less than a century.

Given the Greens tend to get most votes in high house price areas - Brighton, Camden, Islington etc - I was wondering how their voters might feel if this actually hit them in the pocket. You have to be even richer to have Green councillors than Lib Dem ones! They did win 3 councillors in Newham last May - not of course in any of the poor/deprived/diverse wards but in the Olympic park where one beds cost £500k!

Edited April 30, 2023 by MARTINX9

[winkie]

1 hour ago, bartelbe said:

Why is it important? Starmer is advocating a Tory agenda and is in the pocket the Tory bribers (donors).

If you get the same policies with Starmer, what is the point?

What a strange comment.....if people are not happy with what we have got, why vote for more of the same, vote for much of the same but a slightly different way of doing it, different benefactor different recipients......

[Lagarde's Drift]

13 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

You say 'realistically' - but how do they propose to deliver the above in practice.

The Greens of course also support effective open borders - which will increase the pressure on and demand for housing.

One factor Greens don't seem to believe drives man made climate change, pollution and consumption - is the number of men and women causing them! The world has seen a four fold rise in population in less than a century.

Given the Greens tend to get most votes in high house price areas - Brighton, Camden, Islington etc - I was wondering how their voters might feel if this actually hit them in the pocket. You have to be even richer to have Green councillors than Lib Dem ones! They did win 3 councillors in Newham last May - not of course in any of the poor/deprived/diverse wards but in the Olympic park where one beds cost £500k!

They will draw on humanitys rich history of price controls which worked as intended to the benefit of the whole population.

Plenty to like in their manifesto but until we get proportional rep it's pointless.

[winkie]

2 hours ago, Insane said:

Yes

They never mention immigration as a factor causing the housing crisis. 

What are you on about... immigration has not been curtailed or processed in a prompt, fair, civil, and professional way by this party..... cutting back on staff won't get things done, ignoring the build up until too many living in limbo to ignore..millions of pounds is being made by some from it.

 

 

 

 

[Insane]

28 minutes ago, winkie said:

What are you on about... immigration has not been curtailed or processed in a prompt, fair, civil, and professional way by this party..... cutting back on staff won't get things done, ignoring the build up until too many living in limbo to ignore..millions of pounds is being made by some from it

No what are you on about now?

We have had an extra 10 Million people in the last 20 years, plus more that have not been counted (water companies and supermarkets estimate the population to be far higher than official figures) yet politicians talk about the other party not building enough houses while ignoring the ever increasing demand due to mass immigration. 

Why do you continue to waffle?