Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

Bubble go pop soon.

This is madness. Part of me thinks/hopes the bubble bursts, part of me thinks it's reached 'too big to fail' stage. No government of any stripe could hope to survive the kind of crash that is possible.

Societal consequences are going to be extremely significant. Huge decline in births for one and it's unaffordable and a knock on massive population crunch.

Maybe we can't afford to fix it but maybe we can't afford not to. I'm the same age as my dad when he had me (third born), have a girlfriend and just about can afford a house in Oxford but cannot afford a house and childcare for sure. My dad had 3 children, I might have one. Far from alone I have a decent enough social life where I play lots of sport so meet a number of people and only 1 has a child. Most are in their late 20s/30s too.

[Paddington Bear]

Strikes me that the longer we put off building a proper number of houses, the worse the consequences will be.

Incidentally I went for a walk the other night just up the road from me, where there is a proposal to build around 100 houses on brownfield land walking distance from the shops and the train station. Every house in the area has a 'keep our village green' sign in their garden.

[Torquemada 1420]

Bubble go pop soon.

This is madness. Part of me thinks/hopes the bubble bursts, part of me thinks it's reached 'too big to fail' stage. No government of any stripe could hope to survive the kind of crash that is possible.

The debt escalator insanity (massively accelerated by the banks in cahoots with Gordon Brown) long got out of control:
house prices can only go up --> so let's lend massively high LTV ratios --> including to the BTL sector --> and exasperate it with record low interest rates --> overheat house prices by creating artificial demand --> go back to square one

All seems fine right up to the point where either
- someone walks into his bank and says I want all my savings back and the bank says "sorry, we need to pull 10 mortgages to do that: you have to wait". Northern Rock anyone
- or the thick c**ts who have borrowed to the hilt and haven't worked out a rise in their mortgage interest rate from 1% to 2% means they go bust suffer exactly that

It's not too big to fail this time. Unlike last time, there is no way funds could be raised to prop up all banks that might become affected. I only bank with G-SIBs.

[SaintK]

There is so much on these self serving c**ts that they are immune now due to our being desensitised by the deluge.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-lobbying.


Cameron answering calls about a growing access and lobbying scandal

Sorry. I thought I had already posted this last week!

You did, but it isn't going away and certainly The Sunday Times appear to have a little more to add each weekend and then the Dailies start following up again.

David Cameron has released a 1800 word statement about his work for Greensill. The short version? He didn't break any laws (which, remember, he helped to write) but he does have lessons to learn from the affair.
The statement could almost be laboratory-designed to prolong rather than end the row. If Cameron behaved improperly but broke no laws, that raises obvious questions about the effectiveness of the laws his government brought in, while we are still no closer to having clarity about what, exactly, Cameron said in his messages to Rishi Sunak

https://inews.co.uk/news/david-cameron ... l-952337
He was bought in by Jeremy Heywood who coveniently can't confirm or deny Cameron's assertion as he died last year
The remuneration in shares was nowhere near the amount speculated in the press. So only a few million and not 10's of millions?
I accept that communications need to be done through formal channels so there can be no room for misinterpretation
How bloody thick does the entitled cunt think we all are? What a crock of shit!!!

[Torquemada 1420]

Strikes me that the longer we put off building a proper number of houses, the worse the consequences will be.

Incidentally I went for a walk the other night just up the road from me, where there is a proposal to build around 100 houses on brownfield land walking distance from the shops and the train station. Every house in the area has a 'keep our village green' sign in their garden.

I see this sh*t trotted out all the time. It's not simply a matter of building more houses. Not least because what's being built is the wrong housing in the wrong areas anyway.

It's an issue of affordability. You can concrete over the entire country but house ownership is not going to rise** unless people in rental can afford to buy. Not happening whist
- BTL speculators hoover up new builds
- forcing prices even higher
- 1st time buyers can't afford to buy
- so demand for rented increases
- rents have risen disproportionately to wages
- 1st time buyers can't save a deposit fast enough to buy
............

** it's actually on the decline

[JM2K6]

A lot of houses and flats are empty, too.

[Torquemada 1420]

You did, but it isn't going away and certainly The Sunday Times appear to have a little more to add each weekend and then the Dailies start following up again.

David Cameron has released a 1800 word statement about his work for Greensill. The short version? He didn't break any laws (which, remember, he helped to write) but he does have lessons to learn from the affair.
The statement could almost be laboratory-designed to prolong rather than end the row. If Cameron behaved improperly but broke no laws, that raises obvious questions about the effectiveness of the laws his government brought in, while we are still no closer to having clarity about what, exactly, Cameron said in his messages to Rishi Sunak

https://inews.co.uk/news/david-cameron ... l-952337
He was bought in by Jeremy Heywood who coveniently can't confirm or deny Cameron's assertion as he died last year
The remuneration in shares was nowhere near the amount speculated in the press. So only a few million and not 10's of millions?
I accept that communications need to be done through formal channels so there can be no room for misinterpretation
How bloody thick does the entitled cunt think we all are? What a crock of shit!!!

Like I said. There is so much of it now, it's hard to keep track.

Whenever I see "lessons will be learned", I know it'll be another whitewash with no-one held accountable.

He knows he'll get off scott free just like all his other cronied c**ts have done previously.

[Torquemada 1420]

A lot of houses and flats are empty, too.

That too. An estimated 1m empty properties although the geographic spread of those is contentious.

[Torquemada 1420]

Decline in house ownership



So........... population increase is nowhere near enough to compensate for the fall in ownership across ALL age bands (youngest hardest hit) and therefore the only possible conclusion
is that the massive amount of housing being and been built since 2000 has been concentrated into the hands of the yeebs.

[fishfoodie]

Bubble go pop soon.

This is madness. Part of me thinks/hopes the bubble bursts, part of me thinks it's reached 'too big to fail' stage. No government of any stripe could hope to survive the kind of crash that is possible.

This goes some way to explain how, un-enthusiastically the Tories passed Magnitsky legislation, & how infrequently it's being used.

The amount of dirty money invested in propping up Londons property market must be awesome; but everyone knows that if the music stops ....

[Torquemada 1420]

The amount of dirty money invested in propping up Londons property market must be awesome; but everyone knows that if the music stops ....

UK is biggest centre for laundered money in the world. There are swathes of "executive waterside developments" which sit nigh empty. Go down the river at night and see how many lights are on. Sold off plan in Moscow, Riyadh and Shanghai to crooks looking to shelter illegal gains away from their own regimes.

[I like neeps]

Bubble go pop soon.

This is madness. Part of me thinks/hopes the bubble bursts, part of me thinks it's reached 'too big to fail' stage. No government of any stripe could hope to survive the kind of crash that is possible.

This goes some way to explain how, un-enthusiastically the Tories passed Magnitsky legislation, & how infrequently it's being used.

The amount of dirty money invested in propping up Londons property market must be awesome; but everyone knows that if the music stops ....

And it's why the Cameron Greensill story won't be a major talking point in Britain.

People just refuse to believe the UK is corrupt. Because the people who set the conversational agenda are corrupt themselves and don't want it to be discussed. So we discuss the Royal Family instead.

Flat whites and avocados are why people can't buy houses. The Tories were trying their best is how their mates made a tonne of cash. Lord Rothermere and the Barclays are true patriots in their feathered tax haven nests etc etc etc.

[SaintK]

Like I said. There is so much of it now, it's hard to keep track.

Whenever I see "lessons will be learned", I know it'll be another whitewash with no-one held accountable.

He knows he'll get off scott free just like all his other cronied c**ts have done previously.

I wonder who they will appoint to hold the whitewash bucket?

The government is expected to announce an investigation into David Cameron's efforts to lobby ministers on behalf of finance firm Greensill Capital.
The former prime minister has been criticised for contacting ministers via text on behalf of the company, which collapsed in March.
The probe is likely to be independent, carried out on behalf of the Cabinet Office, the BBC understands.

[Slick]

This is madness. Part of me thinks/hopes the bubble bursts, part of me thinks it's reached 'too big to fail' stage. No government of any stripe could hope to survive the kind of crash that is possible.

This goes some way to explain how, un-enthusiastically the Tories passed Magnitsky legislation, & how infrequently it's being used.

The amount of dirty money invested in propping up Londons property market must be awesome; but everyone knows that if the music stops ....

And it's why the Cameron Greensill story won't be a major talking point in Britain.

People just refuse to believe the UK is corrupt. Because the people who set the conversational agenda are corrupt themselves and don't want it to be discussed. So we discuss the Royal Family instead.

Flat whites and avocados are why people can't buy houses. The Tories were trying their best is how their mates made a tonne of cash. Lord Rothermere and the Barclays are true patriots in their feathered tax haven nests etc etc etc.

Yup, they are all at it

An SNP minister’s unrecorded dinner with Lex Greensill and Sanjeev Gupta has sparked calls for an investigation into whether he broke the ministerial code.

Fergus Ewing, rural economy secretary in the Scottish government, dined with the banker, the steel billionaire and two of their senior colleagues at one of Glasgow’s top restaurants in 2017. A freedom of information request by the Sunday Mail has revealed that the minister had no officials with him, no notes were taken, and the government claims to have no emails, texts or phone records about the meeting.

[Paddington Bear]

Strikes me that the longer we put off building a proper number of houses, the worse the consequences will be.

Incidentally I went for a walk the other night just up the road from me, where there is a proposal to build around 100 houses on brownfield land walking distance from the shops and the train station. Every house in the area has a 'keep our village green' sign in their garden.

I see this sh*t trotted out all the time. It's not simply a matter of building more houses. Not least because what's being built is the wrong housing in the wrong areas anyway.

It's an issue of affordability. You can concrete over the entire country but house ownership is not going to rise** unless people in rental can afford to buy. Not happening whist
- BTL speculators hoover up new builds
- forcing prices even higher
- 1st time buyers can't afford to buy
- so demand for rented increases
- rents have risen disproportionately to wages
- 1st time buyers can't save a deposit fast enough to buy
............

** it's actually on the decline

If you increase the supply of homes (note not flats in city centres) then prices will fall. BTL is a complication rather than a showstopper.

As mentioned this development is 100 homes walking distance from a train station that gets you into central in 40 minutes. It is the right location.

[I like neeps]

This goes some way to explain how, un-enthusiastically the Tories passed Magnitsky legislation, & how infrequently it's being used.

The amount of dirty money invested in propping up Londons property market must be awesome; but everyone knows that if the music stops ....

And it's why the Cameron Greensill story won't be a major talking point in Britain.

People just refuse to believe the UK is corrupt. Because the people who set the conversational agenda are corrupt themselves and don't want it to be discussed. So we discuss the Royal Family instead.

Flat whites and avocados are why people can't buy houses. The Tories were trying their best is how their mates made a tonne of cash. Lord Rothermere and the Barclays are true patriots in their feathered tax haven nests etc etc etc.

Yup, they are all at it

An SNP minister’s unrecorded dinner with Lex Greensill and Sanjeev Gupta has sparked calls for an investigation into whether he broke the ministerial code.

Fergus Ewing, rural economy secretary in the Scottish government, dined with the banker, the steel billionaire and two of their senior colleagues at one of Glasgow’s top restaurants in 2017. A freedom of information request by the Sunday Mail has revealed that the minister had no officials with him, no notes were taken, and the government claims to have no emails, texts or phone records about the meeting.

I am no SNP fan, would not vote for them. This guy should be investigated and ideally resign..

It's a teensy bit different to a former PM lobbying his mates expecting to make 60m for himself though.

[Slick]

Well, we don't know since no notes were taken or officials with him

[robmatic]

And it's why the Cameron Greensill story won't be a major talking point in Britain.

People just refuse to believe the UK is corrupt. Because the people who set the conversational agenda are corrupt themselves and don't want it to be discussed. So we discuss the Royal Family instead.

Flat whites and avocados are why people can't buy houses. The Tories were trying their best is how their mates made a tonne of cash. Lord Rothermere and the Barclays are true patriots in their feathered tax haven nests etc etc etc.

Yup, they are all at it

An SNP minister’s unrecorded dinner with Lex Greensill and Sanjeev Gupta has sparked calls for an investigation into whether he broke the ministerial code.

Fergus Ewing, rural economy secretary in the Scottish government, dined with the banker, the steel billionaire and two of their senior colleagues at one of Glasgow’s top restaurants in 2017. A freedom of information request by the Sunday Mail has revealed that the minister had no officials with him, no notes were taken, and the government claims to have no emails, texts or phone records about the meeting.

I am no SNP fan, would not vote for them. This guy should be investigated and ideally resign..

It's a teensy bit different to a former PM lobbying his mates expecting to make 60m for himself though.

In either case, we are basically in an era now where there are no consequences for corruption or unethical practices.

Remember the good old days when politicians would at least put on a good show of resigning and keeping a low profile for a couple of years if they got caught out.

[Torquemada 1420]

If you increase the supply of homes (note not flats in city centres) then prices will fall. BTL is a complication rather than a showstopper.

As mentioned this development is 100 homes walking distance from a train station that gets you into central in 40 minutes. It is the right location.

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

[Torquemada 1420]

Like I said. There is so much of it now, it's hard to keep track.

Whenever I see "lessons will be learned", I know it'll be another whitewash with no-one held accountable.

He knows he'll get off scott free just like all his other cronied c**ts have done previously.

I wonder who they will appoint to hold the whitewash bucket?

The government is expected to announce an investigation into David Cameron's efforts to lobby ministers on behalf of finance firm Greensill Capital.
The former prime minister has been criticised for contacting ministers via text on behalf of the company, which collapsed in March.
The probe is likely to be independent, carried out on behalf of the Cabinet Office, the BBC understands.

Was it Yes Minister where it was said the best way to bury a scandal was to hold a public enquiry: it would take a decade and by the time any conclusions were formed, any culprits will be long
gone (or dead) and everyone else will have forgotten what it was all about. But lessons would be learned.......

[fishfoodie]

If you increase the supply of homes (note not flats in city centres) then prices will fall. BTL is a complication rather than a showstopper.

As mentioned this development is 100 homes walking distance from a train station that gets you into central in 40 minutes. It is the right location.

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

My moment of realisation for our property bubble; was when I looked at where I; with a stable job, & a good salary, could actually afford to buy a house; without burying myself in debt for 40 years.

The only viable properties were in the arse end of nowhere, & were ridiculously over priced even then.

If I; as someone in a good job, earning significantly more than the Industrial wage couldn't afford housing; what the hell was holding up the prices ? At that stage, the average house price, was running at about 10x the average wage.

[Hal Jordan]

There is also the issue that the houses we build are not fit for purpose in a world about to get fucked by climate change.

[tabascoboy]

There is also the issue that the houses we build are not fit for purpose in a world about to get fucked by climate change.

Our (Tory run) council insists on building (unattractive) apartment blocks by the river. The river which, despite reasonable flood defences still overflows the banks two or three times a year. So they build the flats with a ground level garage area and the accommodation one floor higher. Then when it floods it's impossible to get into the garage or out of the main exits without wearing waders or having a handy canoe.

Predictably the cost is still jaw-dropping because it's centre of town but with plenty of greenery and less than 15 mins walk from the station with connections to London. Near to great schools too but already with huge pressure for places and doctor's surgeries unable to accept new patients as they are already at capacity.

It's all very well building houses based on prime location, but it appears to be more motivated by reaching targets rather than sensible strategic planning; and these are very clearly aimed at people moving out of London rather than locals ( the properety ads make a point of it ).

[Sandstorm]

There is also the issue that the houses we build are not fit for purpose in a world about to get fucked by climate change.

Our (Tory run) council insists on building (unattractive) apartment blocks by the river. The river which, despite reasonable flood defences still overflows the banks two or three times a year. So they build the flats with a ground level garage area and the accommodation one floor higher. Then when it floods it's impossible to get into the garage or out of the main exits without wearing waders or having a handy canoe.

You're being a bit silly here. Everyone around the world builds the car park into the ground floor of their water-side apartment blocks, specifically to defend them against floods. No point building 8 flats on the ground floor next to the river. They will get ruined. The carpark dries out on its own in 3 days with minimal damage.

[Torquemada 1420]

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

My moment of realisation for our property bubble; was when I looked at where I; with a stable job, & a good salary, could actually afford to buy a house; without burying myself in debt for 40 years.

The only viable properties were in the arse end of nowhere, & were ridiculously over priced even then.

If I; as someone in a good job, earning significantly more than the Industrial wage couldn't afford housing; what the hell was holding up the prices ? At that stage, the average house price, was running at about 10x the average wage.
[/quote]

Cheap debt will unravel all this in a very bad way the moment it ceases being cheap or someone asks for the money back.

[Torquemada 1420]

There is also the issue that the houses we build are not fit for purpose in a world about to get fucked by climate change.

Our (Tory run) council insists on building (unattractive) apartment blocks by the river. The river which, despite reasonable flood defences still overflows the banks two or three times a year. So they build the flats with a ground level garage area and the accommodation one floor higher. Then when it floods it's impossible to get into the garage or out of the main exits without wearing waders or having a handy canoe.

You're being a bit silly here. Everyone around the world builds the car park into the ground floor of their water-side apartment blocks, specifically to defend them against floods. No point building 8 flats on the ground floor next to the river. They will get ruined. The carpark dries out on its own in 3 days with minimal damage.

There is damage.
- your car insurance goes up
- your property insurance goes up (and that's if you can get it at all)
- your service charge goes up

Coincidentally a friend told me this morning that she could not sell her deceased mother's flat which was built by a flood plain (the Ouse) and all of the above has made it unsaleable in 6 months. The only interested buyers could not get anyone to lend against it!

[JM2K6]

Our (Tory run) council insists on building (unattractive) apartment blocks by the river. The river which, despite reasonable flood defences still overflows the banks two or three times a year. So they build the flats with a ground level garage area and the accommodation one floor higher. Then when it floods it's impossible to get into the garage or out of the main exits without wearing waders or having a handy canoe.

You're being a bit silly here. Everyone around the world builds the car park into the ground floor of their water-side apartment blocks, specifically to defend them against floods. No point building 8 flats on the ground floor next to the river. They will get ruined. The carpark dries out on its own in 3 days with minimal damage.

There is damage.
- your car insurance goes up
- your property insurance goes up (and that's if you can get it at all)
- your service charge goes up

Coincidentally a friend told me this morning that she could not sell her deceased mother's flat which was built by a flood plain (the Ouse) and all of the above has made it unsaleable in 6 months. The only interested buyers could not get anyone to lend against it!

[tabascoboy]

There is also the issue that the houses we build are not fit for purpose in a world about to get fucked by climate change.

Our (Tory run) council insists on building (unattractive) apartment blocks by the river. The river which, despite reasonable flood defences still overflows the banks two or three times a year. So they build the flats with a ground level garage area and the accommodation one floor higher. Then when it floods it's impossible to get into the garage or out of the main exits without wearing waders or having a handy canoe.

You're being a bit silly here. Everyone around the world builds the car park into the ground floor of their water-side apartment blocks, specifically to defend them against floods. No point building 8 flats on the ground floor next to the river. They will get ruined. The carpark dries out on its own in 3 days with minimal damage.

That's not really the point - which is why build houses in a floodplain? We see this more and more because the land is flat and easy to build on regardless of the known incidences of flooding over centuries and which any flood defence can often only lightly mitigate with consequences simply moved to other places.

At least there is finally some realisation that this policy needs to be examined

Policy of building homes on flood plains to be reviewed

Changes may put in question more than 11,000 homes already planned for flood zones

Building on land prone to flooding is a risk to new homeowners and compounds the danger for surrounding areas, experts have said, as flood water that could otherwise be soaked up by green space instead runs quickly off concrete and into rivers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e-reviewed

[Torquemada 1420]

[Torquemada 1420]

That's not really the point - which is why build houses in a floodplain? We see this more and more because the land is flat and easy to build on regardless of the known incidences of flooding over centuries and which any flood defence can often only lightly mitigate with consequences simply moved to other places.

+ it often commands a premium for being waterside, river views etc

I would welcome all insurers refusing to cover homes built on or near flood risk areas. Or at least cease loading the premiums across the rest of us. Eventually one insurer will wake up to this and only insure
lower risk dwellings = lower premiums for those of us who jump ship and a 2 fingered salute to the other idiots (builders, buyers and insurers).

[fishfoodie]

That's not really the point - which is why build houses in a floodplain? We see this more and more because the land is flat and easy to build on regardless of the known incidences of flooding over centuries and which any flood defence can often only lightly mitigate with consequences simply moved to other places.

+ it often commands a premium for being waterside, river views etc

I would welcome all insurers refusing to cover homes built on or near flood risk areas. Or at least cease loading the premiums across the rest of us. Eventually one insurer will wake up to this and only insure
lower risk dwellings = lower premiums for those of us who jump ship and a 2 fingered salute to the other idiots (builders, buyers and insurers).

It's gradually happening in Ireland; & the Banks themselves are sometimes refusing mortgages on houses that properties that have been subjected to repeated flooding; unless flood remediation work has happened; as they don't want to be left holding the note on a valueless property.

Edit: I should also say that one of the most infuriating things I saw in the US; was the way that millionaires summer pads on the Florida Keys, or other low lying, & hurricane regions; were always able to be insured; because the State Farm will cover anything.

So the people who can afford it most; allow the rest of us to subsidise their beach mansions getting flattened every couple of decades or so.

[Paddington Bear]

If you increase the supply of homes (note not flats in city centres) then prices will fall. BTL is a complication rather than a showstopper.

As mentioned this development is 100 homes walking distance from a train station that gets you into central in 40 minutes. It is the right location.

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

Well we haven't built enough houses since 1990 and so the point is moot. If housebuilding kept up with demand then it would be a different picture.
I guarantee that in almost every town with a 40 minute rail connection into London you could build 100 3/4 bed homes. If you did that the price of a 3/4 bed house would fall. This is fairly straight forward.

[tabascoboy]

If you increase the supply of homes (note not flats in city centres) then prices will fall. BTL is a complication rather than a showstopper.

As mentioned this development is 100 homes walking distance from a train station that gets you into central in 40 minutes. It is the right location.

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

Well we haven't built enough houses since 1990 and so the point is moot. If housebuilding kept up with demand then it would be a different picture.
I guarantee that in almost every town with a 40 minute rail connection into London you could build 100 3/4 bed homes. If you did that the price of a 3/4 bed house would fall. This is fairly straight forward.

Apparently the last thing that homeowners want is for the value of their own home to fall, however. How do you balance a sensible "readjustment" of falling prices against the fear of negative equity?

I understand the two aren't mutually dependent but we seem to have driven ourselves into a corner where a home is an "investment asset".

[JM2K6]

I think the point is that it's not a clear relationship between "housing availability" and "house prices". Those 100s - 1000s of homes will be purchased at a high price, and the effect on the market would be minimal. As the data makes clear, the absurd rise in house prices does not match the rise in population.

[Paddington Bear]

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

Well we haven't built enough houses since 1990 and so the point is moot. If housebuilding kept up with demand then it would be a different picture.
I guarantee that in almost every town with a 40 minute rail connection into London you could build 100 3/4 bed homes. If you did that the price of a 3/4 bed house would fall. This is fairly straight forward.

Apparently the last thing that homeowners want is for the value of their own home to fall, however. How do you balance a sensible "readjustment" of falling prices against the fear of negative equity?

I understand the two aren't mutually dependent but we seem to have driven ourselves into a corner where a home is an "investment asset".

There are winners and losers to the property market, whatever happens to prices, and I don't blame homeowners for not wanting the value of their house to fall. Similarly though I can't be blamed for hoping they crash through the fucking floor in much the same way I'd be hoping they soared if I owned one.

That said, the economic consequences of pricing a huge amount of people out of the housing market already (I would argue) outweigh the potential fall in value. This is before we start looking at the delays in starting families, reduction of ability to start businesses etc that comes from this.

Negative equity is shitty. However at the end of the day, assuming they can keep up the mortgage payments they still get to have a house, just so do lots of others as well.

I think the policy option that creates the fewest losers that can legitimately feel hard done by is by aggressively targeting BTL, which no doubt distorts the market.
Would find the link if I could be bothered but once you account for rental costs Londoners have lower purchasing potential than almost any other region of the UK. So what, in effect you're getting is the additional productivity of London and the SE skimmed off to people who are not productively earning it and have less of a propensity to actually spend the money.
My landlady is lovely, but she retired at 55 and my partner & I's work funds her retirement. I can't be expected to be delighted about that.
BTL landlords will be disproportionately owner occupiers so as losers go from any change in housing policy it has the least human cost.

[fishfoodie]

I think the point is that it's not a clear relationship between "housing availability" and "house prices". Those 100s - 1000s of homes will be purchased at a high price, and the effect on the market would be minimal. As the data makes clear, the absurd rise in house prices does not match the rise in population.

The joys of cheap credit.

The longer the credit boom goes on, the worse the bubble gets, & the recovery from Covid, & Brexit for the UK; are only going to add more.

[tabascoboy]

Well we haven't built enough houses since 1990 and so the point is moot. If housebuilding kept up with demand then it would be a different picture.
I guarantee that in almost every town with a 40 minute rail connection into London you could build 100 3/4 bed homes. If you did that the price of a 3/4 bed house would fall. This is fairly straight forward.

Apparently the last thing that homeowners want is for the value of their own home to fall, however. How do you balance a sensible "readjustment" of falling prices against the fear of negative equity?

I understand the two aren't mutually dependent but we seem to have driven ourselves into a corner where a home is an "investment asset".

There are winners and losers to the property market, whatever happens to prices, and I don't blame homeowners for not wanting the value of their house to fall. Similarly though I can't be blamed for hoping they crash through the fucking floor in much the same way I'd be hoping they soared if I owned one.

That said, the economic consequences of pricing a huge amount of people out of the housing market already (I would argue) outweigh the potential fall in value. This is before we start looking at the delays in starting families, reduction of ability to start businesses etc that comes from this.

Negative equity is shitty. However at the end of the day, assuming they can keep up the mortgage payments they still get to have a house, just so do lots of others as well.

I think the policy option that creates the fewest losers that can legitimately feel hard done by is by aggressively targeting BTL, which no doubt distorts the market.
Would find the link if I could be bothered but once you account for rental costs Londoners have lower purchasing potential than almost any other region of the UK. So what, in effect you're getting is the additional productivity of London and the SE skimmed off to people who are not productively earning it and have less of a propensity to actually spend the money.
My landlady is lovely, but she retired at 55 and my partner & I's work funds her retirement. I can't be expected to be delighted about that.
BTL landlords will be disproportionately owner occupiers so as losers go from any change in housing policy it has the least human cost.

Thanks for that, agree about BTL

[Insane_Homer]

[Torquemada 1420]

If you increase the supply of homes (note not flats in city centres) then prices will fall. BTL is a complication rather than a showstopper.

As mentioned this development is 100 homes walking distance from a train station that gets you into central in 40 minutes. It is the right location.

1) How's that been working out so far? Say........... since 1990? Suggest you read this because even the BofE says you are wrong
https://positivemoney.org/2019/09/bank- ... se-prices/

2) Remind me how many 1st time buyers could afford to buy a flat, near a train station that gets you into the Smoke in 40 mins?

Well we haven't built enough houses since 1990 and so the point is moot. If housebuilding kept up with demand then it would be a different picture.
I guarantee that in almost every town with a 40 minute rail connection into London you could build 100 3/4 bed homes. If you did that the price of a 3/4 bed house would fall. This is fairly straight forward.

That is nonsense but too long to go into now.

You still don't get it, do you? This is not CSE economics demand/supply curve stuff? Did you bother to read the link? But sure, if you built 120 million homes for a 60 million population, I'm sure the over supply effect would come into play!

How many 1st time buyers want, or could afford, a 3-4 bed home FFS? But again, you miss a key point which I mentioned earlier = "wrong location". The London-centric policy of concentrating all the wealth in the SE (which you are advocating) has been a socio-economic disaster for the UK and yet it continues unabated. What was needed was full scale regeneration programmes in place like Wolverhampton, Bradford and Sunderland.

Oh. And whilst is is physically possible to build that number of homes in the SE, it undesirable on soooooooo many levels. Come to Milton Keynes and take a look at the hospital. Because house builders don't construct social infrastructure: hospitals, playing areas, schools, pubs, community centres ........ or anything for that matter that builds and serves communities. Because there's no profit in it (or not enough).

[Torquemada 1420]

I understand the two aren't mutually dependent but we seem to have driven ourselves into a corner where a home is an "investment asset".

Nail & head.

The UK lost the plot right at the point property became investments rather than homes. A home should be a basic human right but once you throw profit into the mix you end up with the inevitable exploitations and, as ever, it's the poorest who are wrung to balloon the pockets of the wealthy.