The Politics Thread
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36040
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Quick poll.
Does anyone think allowing people to use benefits to secure mortgages is a good idea?
And as a follow up…can anyone believe a Conservative prime minister is actually suggesting this as a plan?
Does anyone think allowing people to use benefits to secure mortgages is a good idea?
And as a follow up…can anyone believe a Conservative prime minister is actually suggesting this as a plan?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14026
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
They'll be all over this - He's an evil cvnt and so are his colleagues, peers and friends. So when these claimants do buy a house, they'll soon get their benefits reduced and when interest rates go up, they will inevitably default and then his mates can swoop in and buy up all these houses on the cheap, let them out to other people and make a shit load of moneyBWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:15 pmQuick poll.
Does anyone think allowing people to use benefits to secure mortgages is a good idea?
And as a follow up…can anyone believe a Conservative prime minister is actually suggesting this as a plan?
You just know there will be a pool of preferred bidders on seized homes. It will wreck our economy, but his donors will love him forever
It'll also mean even more shitloads of sub-standard housing on any available bit of green space, with feck all local amenities and feck all local infrastructure to cope. I really don't see this being anything other than an absolute disaster in waiting
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
Re: The Politics Thread
I go the other way and think it's a nothing policy. Bit of a headline but nothing will actually happen.
You aren't eligible for universal credit if you have savings of over £16k. Almost nobody in the entire country will be able to get a mortgage with a deposit of less than £16k, and in reality almost all UC recipients have essentially £0 in savings.
You aren't eligible for universal credit if you have savings of over £16k. Almost nobody in the entire country will be able to get a mortgage with a deposit of less than £16k, and in reality almost all UC recipients have essentially £0 in savings.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36040
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
I agree. Mortgage lenders aren’t going to bite.Prufrock wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:46 pmI go the other way and think it's a nothing policy. Bit of a headline but nothing will actually happen.
You aren't eligible for universal credit if you have savings of over £16k. Almost nobody in the entire country will be able to get a mortgage with a deposit of less than £16k, and in reality almost all UC recipients have essentially £0 in savings.
If they did then we’ve recreated them exact same conditions that led to the sub prime mortgage crash in the states and the subsequent global recession.
My point was really I’ve yet to speak to anyone right or left who thinks this is anything other than incoherent utter garbage. For the reasons you’ve outlined. And some BB has stated too.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32366
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Not forgetting half their fcuking donors are house builders. Hence the policy of 300,000 per year, lob 'em on the greenbelt at £450k so all their investor mates can snap them up, and lo and behold, no one who needs them can actually afford them. Fcuking criminal.boltonboris wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:33 pmThey'll be all over this - He's an evil cvnt and so are his colleagues, peers and friends. So when these claimants do buy a house, they'll soon get their benefits reduced and when interest rates go up, they will inevitably default and then his mates can swoop in and buy up all these houses on the cheap, let them out to other people and make a shit load of moneyBWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:15 pmQuick poll.
Does anyone think allowing people to use benefits to secure mortgages is a good idea?
And as a follow up…can anyone believe a Conservative prime minister is actually suggesting this as a plan?
You just know there will be a pool of preferred bidders on seized homes. It will wreck our economy, but his donors will love him forever
It'll also mean even more shitloads of sub-standard housing on any available bit of green space, with feck all local amenities and feck all local infrastructure to cope. I really don't see this being anything other than an absolute disaster in waiting
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
Interesting rant there, Boris.Of course, the landlords to whom exorbitant rents are currently paid to house many on benefits are indeed the Little Sisters of the Poor.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36040
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
You don’t fix one problem by creating another ticking time bomb though.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 12:26 amInteresting rant there, Boris.Of course, the landlords to whom exorbitant rents are currently paid to house many on benefits are indeed the Little Sisters of the Poor.
There is only one answer really to the problem and that is to build houses like never before and make them affordable to take the demand out of the system. But we’ve had twelve years of promises here yet it’s going backwards not forwards.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43215
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Politics Thread
Ha, and I thought it was only Hindus who walk on fire. A right barrel of treacle that is, with America ( as ever) at the forefront .Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 12:26 amInteresting rant there, Boris.Of course, the landlords to whom exorbitant rents are currently paid to house many on benefits are indeed the Little Sisters of the Poor.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32366
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
This housing thing smacks of desperation. RTB is an idiocy of a public finances policy. Why would councils or housing associations, pay to build homes, only to be directed under legislation, to sell them at a discount and lose rental income that will have been part of the ROI, so the Treasury can take the receipts and tell councils they need to do a 1 for 1 replacement? That's loss making for the councils (and HA's) - so there's no incentive to build, other than a government directive that they must do 1 for 1 replacement. We wonder that we're then building more shit houses and nowhere near enough of them.
The national housebuilders have zero interest in building affordable properties. They don't make enough (and in many cases would have you believe zero) profit from them. Persimmon reported an average of £66k profit per property with an average selling price of £240k. Which means the average buyer would need £80k salary to get a mortgage.
Housing is broke. This won't fix it.
The national housebuilders have zero interest in building affordable properties. They don't make enough (and in many cases would have you believe zero) profit from them. Persimmon reported an average of £66k profit per property with an average selling price of £240k. Which means the average buyer would need £80k salary to get a mortgage.
Housing is broke. This won't fix it.
- Gary the Enfield
- Legend
- Posts: 8600
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: Enfield
Re: The Politics Thread
I don't even know where to start on how fvcked up this is............BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:15 pmQuick poll.
Does anyone think allowing people to use benefits to secure mortgages is a good idea?
And as a follow up…can anyone believe a Conservative prime minister is actually suggesting this as a plan?
Re: The Politics Thread
I'm not sure about *exact* same conditionsBWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:01 pmI agree. Mortgage lenders aren’t going to bite.Prufrock wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:46 pmI go the other way and think it's a nothing policy. Bit of a headline but nothing will actually happen.
You aren't eligible for universal credit if you have savings of over £16k. Almost nobody in the entire country will be able to get a mortgage with a deposit of less than £16k, and in reality almost all UC recipients have essentially £0 in savings.
If they did then we’ve recreated them exact same conditions that led to the sub prime mortgage crash in the states and the subsequent global recession.
My point was really I’ve yet to speak to anyone right or left who thinks this is anything other than incoherent utter garbage. For the reasons you’ve outlined. And some BB has stated too.
The financial crisis wasn't so much the mortgage defaults themselves but that they'd been wrapped up in "investment grade" securities which tanked on their default. Don't think that's likely here, but yeah the narrower point of "to benefit anyone you'd need lenders to offer pretty much 100% mortgages to people with no income beyond UC" seems pretty risky to say the least.
And yeah housing is fecked. Prices need to come down. There's arguments how though I don't see much beyond build a shit load more, but ultimately the mechanics don't matter much. There are just too many people who's interests are against prices going down. Builders, current owners. It's bollocksed.
If someone has a great scheme for building loads more affordable houses while not lowering the price of current houses I'm all ears but that seems the economic equivalent of trying to make 2+2=5. The worst thing is it's only getting worse. Prices are constantly going up at a rate far more than most people can even save. So it's not like you're getting closer.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32366
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Strange as it might seem, I don't think house prices coming down will sort the "problem" other than maybe a short term hit, notwithstanding that there would need to be a huge acceleration to "flood the supply side," which the vested interests mainly builders and landowners, rather than home owners (owners have no say in how fast the supply side is operating), have absolutely no intention of doing. They're happy with land banking and the like, to control the overall market.
So I'm a bit more nuanced that the problem is no-one is building the "on-ramp" to the housing market. No one (seemingly) can even build houses for anything like 4 times average annual salary - which is why at planning permission developments say "25%" affordable housing, then time and time again use S106 to get out of delivering any.
To coin an old Tory favourite phrase, we need to get tough with housebuilders and hold them to the commitments they made when planning permission was put in. More stick and a lot less carrot. Persimmon make 30% GM. Every time they renege on an affordable housing commitment, reduce the volume of PP's they can submit. (in the recent white paper on house building, the govt were proposing the exact opposite - if we don't build enough, then the volume we need to build goes up. Great incentive for developers.
They often cite land values as being a huge part of the problem. CPO shitloads of it on brownfield (that'll stop landbanking), put in a government investment fund to clear it up and if Persimmon won't build there set up a national homebuilder who works at the direction of the government/LA's. Sorted.
So I'm a bit more nuanced that the problem is no-one is building the "on-ramp" to the housing market. No one (seemingly) can even build houses for anything like 4 times average annual salary - which is why at planning permission developments say "25%" affordable housing, then time and time again use S106 to get out of delivering any.
To coin an old Tory favourite phrase, we need to get tough with housebuilders and hold them to the commitments they made when planning permission was put in. More stick and a lot less carrot. Persimmon make 30% GM. Every time they renege on an affordable housing commitment, reduce the volume of PP's they can submit. (in the recent white paper on house building, the govt were proposing the exact opposite - if we don't build enough, then the volume we need to build goes up. Great incentive for developers.
They often cite land values as being a huge part of the problem. CPO shitloads of it on brownfield (that'll stop landbanking), put in a government investment fund to clear it up and if Persimmon won't build there set up a national homebuilder who works at the direction of the government/LA's. Sorted.
Re: The Politics Thread
I think I agree. The problem is swathes of the population being locked out of being able to own a house. That's due the cost which is due to supply. So yeah, fix that.
My point with home owners is not so much any individual is blocking anything, but that lots of people now have houses with overinflated values, and doing something which reduces that is difficult electorally. You're not going to get votes from the buy to let lot, or people who's retirement planning is partly based on the value of their house. I'm sure plenty would say they want young people to be able to afford to own a home, but if the price of that is their own value drops well...
I read the other day that spare capacity (i.e. empty houses) is about half of e.g. Europe. There aren't enough of the feck*. On with Worthy's plan, and get the landlords up against the wall!
My point with home owners is not so much any individual is blocking anything, but that lots of people now have houses with overinflated values, and doing something which reduces that is difficult electorally. You're not going to get votes from the buy to let lot, or people who's retirement planning is partly based on the value of their house. I'm sure plenty would say they want young people to be able to afford to own a home, but if the price of that is their own value drops well...
I read the other day that spare capacity (i.e. empty houses) is about half of e.g. Europe. There aren't enough of the feck*. On with Worthy's plan, and get the landlords up against the wall!
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36040
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
You want the price of houses to come down. That is the whole point of satiating demand. And yes as a homeowner it’s shit. But if it doesn’t happen then we are fecked anyway.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 11:24 amI'm not sure about *exact* same conditionsBWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:01 pmI agree. Mortgage lenders aren’t going to bite.Prufrock wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:46 pmI go the other way and think it's a nothing policy. Bit of a headline but nothing will actually happen.
You aren't eligible for universal credit if you have savings of over £16k. Almost nobody in the entire country will be able to get a mortgage with a deposit of less than £16k, and in reality almost all UC recipients have essentially £0 in savings.
If they did then we’ve recreated them exact same conditions that led to the sub prime mortgage crash in the states and the subsequent global recession.
My point was really I’ve yet to speak to anyone right or left who thinks this is anything other than incoherent utter garbage. For the reasons you’ve outlined. And some BB has stated too.
The financial crisis wasn't so much the mortgage defaults themselves but that they'd been wrapped up in "investment grade" securities which tanked on their default. Don't think that's likely here, but yeah the narrower point of "to benefit anyone you'd need lenders to offer pretty much 100% mortgages to people with no income beyond UC" seems pretty risky to say the least.
And yeah housing is fecked. Prices need to come down. There's arguments how though I don't see much beyond build a shit load more, but ultimately the mechanics don't matter much. There are just too many people who's interests are against prices going down. Builders, current owners. It's bollocksed.
If someone has a great scheme for building loads more affordable houses while not lowering the price of current houses I'm all ears but that seems the economic equivalent of trying to make 2+2=5. The worst thing is it's only getting worse. Prices are constantly going up at a rate far more than most people can even save. So it's not like you're getting closer.
There are absolutely ways to build a lot of affordable houses there are indeed responsible building firms who do just that. But they are often locked out of developments by the big boys (many of whom are Tory donors too) and the big development companies abuse the system. Taking money for ‘affordable housing’ then sitting on the plots citing some ‘difficulty’ before having to eventually build non affordable houses. They squeeze one or two cheaper ones onto the plot which lets them retain their grant and move on.
There are ways it can be done. I spent some time with someone who looks to do this and she explained that the perceived wisdom that large developments allow for scale and affordability doesn’t work. Smaller developments can be managed more tightly are less prone to issues mid development and lend themselves better to the creation of affordable homes. A lot of these plots require some government and LA backing to really progress.
We also need some government backed mortgage schemes similar to those post credit crunch that provides confidence in developers that these properties will sell and sell to those needing an affordable home.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32366
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
England's housing stock is (latest figures available 2020) - 24.66m - England's projected volume of households in 2020 was 23.5m. Similar government statistics report nearly 700,000 empty properties in the same period. So first, someone needs to explain where the shortage is, before the idiot alliance decides it's time to concrete over England's green and pleasant.
The other thing is. Satiating demand (and I'm not at all convinced it would work, even if you managed it) - how exactly are you going to do that, when the people who own the land are throttling supply and the builders who build are throttling supply and want to maintain their 30% profit margins. Broad brush, the cost of building is only 30% the cost of the house. The other 70% is land and profit. If you reduce your profit to zero on the "average" £270,000 house, it still costs ~£190,000 which is more than 4 times what the average salary of £30k is. As unworkable without some really significant legislation and possibly a national housebuilding programme as thinking RTB is going to solve it.
The other thing is. Satiating demand (and I'm not at all convinced it would work, even if you managed it) - how exactly are you going to do that, when the people who own the land are throttling supply and the builders who build are throttling supply and want to maintain their 30% profit margins. Broad brush, the cost of building is only 30% the cost of the house. The other 70% is land and profit. If you reduce your profit to zero on the "average" £270,000 house, it still costs ~£190,000 which is more than 4 times what the average salary of £30k is. As unworkable without some really significant legislation and possibly a national housebuilding programme as thinking RTB is going to solve it.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32366
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Just as an aside, there's lots of research from both BoE, Govt and others, showing that the biggest determinant of house pricing is monetary policy related to interest rates and other non-supply related interventions, and that supply only has a marginal impact in likely deliverable scenarios. I guess in a stupidly satiated market that's only achievable on paper, then this would change, but compared to deliverable models, the impact, whilst it can be evidenced, is fairly modest.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43215
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Politics Thread
"Politics" and "sensible" don't sit comfortably together. Never have done.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
That's basically my point. What's being proposed and what currently happens are pretty much the same shit but on different shoes.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:30 am
You don’t fix one problem by creating another ticking time bomb though.
It's a little like South Africa's answer to racism being to introduce even more of it.
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: The Politics Thread
Worthy you've lost me on what your point is?
700k out of 24m is about 3%. There's your shortage.The thing I read reckoned average equivalent in other European rich countries was about double that.
There are defo other factors but BoE interest rates have been essentially zero for over a decade. I'm not convinced it's that.
Absolutely agree the big housebuilders are part of stifling supply, but it's the short supply that pushes the prices up.
700k out of 24m is about 3%. There's your shortage.The thing I read reckoned average equivalent in other European rich countries was about double that.
There are defo other factors but BoE interest rates have been essentially zero for over a decade. I'm not convinced it's that.
Absolutely agree the big housebuilders are part of stifling supply, but it's the short supply that pushes the prices up.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32366
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Maybe poorly explainedPrufrock wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:57 pmWorthy you've lost me on what your point is?
700k out of 24m is about 3%. There's your shortage.The thing I read reckoned average equivalent in other European rich countries was about double that.
There are defo other factors but BoE interest rates have been essentially zero for over a decade. I'm not convinced it's that.
Absolutely agree the big housebuilders are part of stifling supply, but it's the short supply that pushes the prices up.
If there are 24.66m properties and 23.5m households there are more properties than households...700k is part of the difference between 23.5 and 24.66...so why is there a shortage? Answer: Because some people own more than one house..but the problem isn't "there aren't enough houses"
The point about the interest rate being near zero, is precisely the problem. Makes house buying very attractive to investors as the money costs them fcuk all while the asset shoots up in value....
Some in BoE and other economists believe this has a much more material effect on the price than the supply issue.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 195 guests