The sheer audacity of Cameron

[mattx]

The audacity of Cameron & hypocrisy of 'help to buy'. | ilegal

[Michael]

Would you expect anything less from the Government or Politicians in general?

 

It'll only be a matter of time before interest rates rise and people who've bought into the 'project' will struggle. As it stands, current Help to Buy mortgages are in the region of 5-6%, plus an application fee of £1K or more on average!

 

Now let me think, what caused these financial problems in the first place? People borrowing and banks lending too much money willy nilly and ending up in the red. Why the banks are foolish enough to start this idea up again is beyond belief.

 

In France the maximum you can borrow is 70% and it's been like this for decades.

[jinnantonnixx]

Help-to-buy is a crazy policy. It is insane. It is irresponsible.

With private rents, in parts of the Midlands as well as the south, in the stratosphere, the government rightly saw that something had to be done. Sadly, the something it embarked on – Help to Buy – could not have been better designed to make the root problem worse. With no regard for who needs the help, it subsidises the scramble to take possession of a pretty fixed stock of dwellings, something guaranteed to pump prices up further.

The housing recovery: built on sand | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

 

 

 

Even the slowest of minds can see that this is a cynical state-funded policy to try and shore up house prices. The Daily Mail and their ilk will no doubt rejoice at the theoretical increase of the wealth of their readers, but it's never been adequately explained why not being able to afford a place to live is a good thing. But hey ho.

 

Matt will like this:

“Hopefully we will get a little housing boom and everyone will be happy as property values go up,” George Osborne is said to have quipped at a Cabinet meeting earlier this year. The Chancellor’s joke misfired; some Cabinet colleagues felt that raising the prospect of another housing bubble was no laughing matter.

 

This week David Cameron launched phase two of the Help to Buy scheme, designed to help people who cannot raise a big deposit to get on or move up the housing ladder with 95 per cent mortgages backed by government guarantee.

Inside Westminster: George Osborne Edited January 6, 2014 by jinnantonnixx

[SpuffMonkey]

Yeah its mad - mortgages should be fixed at 3-4 times your salary, then we wouldn't have had the stupid short term increases in prices

[Arthur]

The Daily Mail and their ilk will no doubt rejoice at the theoretical increase of the wealth of their readers, but it's never been adequately explained why not being able to afford a place to live is a good thing.

Hopefully a lot of Daily Mail readers will have moved to Spain after reading the article below.

 

London rents are so high it is now cheaper to live in BARCELONA and commute in (and here’s how…) « Daily Mail

[jinnantonnixx]

The Daily Mail is a joke - that's a fundamental axiom - but for sheer, 100-octane lunacy, you'd be hard pressed to trump the Express.

 

Exhibit A, M'lud.

Booming Britain: Joy for millions as house prices rise six months in a row | UK | News | Daily Express

[zag]

I'm a big conservative supporter but on this case I agree!

 

Help to Buy is just going to cause another massive bubble and crash when interest rates go up.

 

They need to stop it, and stop it quickly!

[sparkeh]

The Daily Mail is a joke - that's a fundamental axiom - but for sheer, 100-octane lunacy, you'd be hard pressed to trump the Express.

 

Exhibit A, M'lud.

Booming Britain: Joy for millions as house prices rise six months in a row | UK | News | Daily Express

You sure that's a legitimate Express article, I looked but there was no reference to Diana at all!

 

Also, good fun in the comments below:

youre a deluded **** if you think this is real if prices do rise they will lose even more when the crash come as it most certainly will, hopefully taking ***** like you down with it.

[Michael]

Just think a 5% deposit of £600,000 is £30,000 with £570,000 mortgaged. This is excluding stamp duty and legal fees which for a £600,000 property would be 4% which is £24,000. Legal fees would probably be approx. £1500.

 

Bearing in mind the interest rate is 5-6%, you could be paying £3000+ per month.

 

Who on earth would do this? Paying that much a month for just mortgage re-payments, you should easily be able to save for a deposit. The maths just doesn't add up I'm afraid.

[zag]

Just think a 5% deposit of £600,000 is £30,000 with £570,000 mortgaged. This is excluding stamp duty and legal fees which for a £600,000 property would be 4% which is £24,000. Legal fees would probably be approx. £1500.

 

Bearing in mind the interest rate is 5-6%, you could be paying £3000+ per month.

 

Who on earth would do this? Paying that much a month for just mortgage re-payments, you should easily be able to save for a deposit. The maths just doesn't add up I'm afraid.

 

Most people would have equity already from another home I would imagine. I don't think this scheme is limited to first time buyers.

[Michael]

Most people would have equity already from another home I would imagine. I don't think this scheme is limited to first time buyers.

 

You'd think so, but the point is under the Help to Buy scheme you 'could' apply for this much credit. As to whether you'd get it is a different matter. Logically the scheme should be for First Time Buyers only, isn't this the whole point?

 

This just isn't the answer. Give it 12 months when interest rates rise and the poo will hit the fan for many, forced to sell and move back in with mum and dad.

[zag]

You'd think so, but the point is under the Help to Buy scheme you 'could' apply for this much credit. As to whether you'd get it is a different matter. Logically the scheme should be for First Time Buyers only, isn't this the whole point?

 

This just isn't the answer. Give it 12 months when interest rates rise and the poo will hit the fan for many, forced to sell and move back in with mum and dad.

 

Totally agree but there is an election to win and this scheme is there to boost the economy in 18 months time when we are all voting.

 

Its crazy in my opinion especially when they actually are doing things to cut the deficit in the wider economy (which is a good thing).

[Michael]

As to whether it'll be an election winner, I doubt it. Interest rates will most likely go up towards the end of 2014 or early 2015 before the next election. It is baffling why the Government are essentially creating their own nest of debt, slowly building up and up as quite rightly, people see this as their opportunity to get on the ladder.

 

Question is, how many of these individuals/couples have thought 12-24 months down the line with regards to payments and interest rates? I think people have gone mad as the Help to Buy interest rates are essentially double what Jo Public can get with a 'normal' repayment mortgage (at the moment). It's safe to say Help to Buy interest rates will hit double figures before everyone/everything else.

[Earthling]

The housing 'market' and situation, in its present form, in this country is unsustainable.....end of story.

 

Not enough houses being built, private or 'social' ( I hate that term 'social housing'), an ever-growing population, and an increasing reliability on lack of housing to shore up property values.

 

Really, the only thing that will go anywhere near to solving the (ever growing) housing problem is a huge programme of Council housing, just like we had to do in the 50's and 60's. Like it or not, and there'll probably be loads who, from the safety and comfort of having a roof over their heads, don't like the idea, private housing alone isn't going to cut it, #HelpToBuy scheme or not.

 

All these crackpot 'schemes', 'initiatives', or whatever you want to call them are absolutely no substitute for building new houses, which is what we need.

 

When Thatcher began selling off council houses (and who said they were hers to sell, anyway?) and, at the same time, restricting local council's rights to build more stock, that was when the seeds of where we are today were laid.

[Michael]

The housing 'market' and situation, in its present form, in this country is unsustainable.....end of story.

 

Not enough houses being built, private or 'social' ( I hate that term 'social housing'), an ever-growing population, and an increasing reliability on lack of housing to shore up property values.

 

Really, the only thing that will go anywhere near to solving the (ever growing) housing problem is a huge programme of Council housing, just like we had to do in the 50's and 60's. Like it or not, and there'll probably be loads who, from the safety and comfort of having a roof over their heads, don't like the idea, private housing alone isn't going to cut it, #HelpToBuy scheme or not.

 

All these crackpot 'schemes', 'initiatives', or whatever you want to call them are absolutely no substitute for building new houses, which is what we need.

 

When Thatcher began selling off council houses (and who said they were hers to sell, anyway?) and, at the same time, restricting local council's rights to build more stock, that was when the seeds of where we are today were laid.

 

I agree, however interestingly (according to statistics), there is actually enough housing stock out there for the numbers of people applying for council housing. The issue is that it's been poorly managed/distributed, hence for years you had one person living in a 2 or 3 bed house. This is still the case today, as pensioners as well as people with some special needs/requirements are excluded from the so called bedroom tax. Unfortunately this just means it's one less house for a young family, however it's really difficult to choose who should get priority. Someone who's worked their whole life or a young family just starting out their working life.

 

The other problem (on the flip side), is many more flats/apartments are being built and not houses. It's quite common practice now that a building company will buy a large house with plenty of land around it. They'll demolish this, then build as many as 12 apartments in the same physical space. Everything's small/open plan with a high price tag and councils love it as they get 12 x council tax and not just one.

 

It's less common to see building companies actually buying land and building decent sized houses at reasonable prices. To be honest that's why I bought a 1930's property as they're considerably more generous in size than a modern equivalent.

[Hefferzzzz]

When Thatcher began selling off council houses (and who said they were hers to sell, anyway?) and, at the same time, restricting local council's rights to build more stock, that was when the seeds of where we are today were laid.

 

Yes its is all Thatchers fault again Nothing to do with the 20 years of governemnts since then....

 

The real problem is trying to build out and not up. Land is at a premium so stop putting 10 houses on a bit of land where 200 apartments could go.

[pbainbridge]

I've got a three bed Victorian Terrace with a small mortgage because I live in the North East. Not planning to buy, not planning to sell. Help to buy, no thanks it will finance another bubble, and when interest rates rise I won't be bothered. When the bubble pops all the expensive houses in the South will take the brunt of the fall. All the new aspirational house buyers will be devestated.

 

and i'll laugh, oh how i'll laugh...

[tmcd35]

Yes its is all Thatchers fault again Nothing to do with the 20 years of governemnts since then....

 

On this particular issue, I do think Thatcher had a lot to answer for. The "right to buy" policy itself I think was a good idea, no problem with that at all. It was the restricting of local authorities from replenashing stock that caused the biggest problem. Right to buy should have been married with a policy of income gained through sale of council stock should only have been used in refurbashing or new housing stock - rather than pocketing the money as most authorities did.

 

But sure, successive governments did nothing to rectify the problem. Personnally I think it's one of the biggest travisties of the last Labour government that they never sorted this mess out why they were in power.

 

I agree with above, we need a 50's/60's style mass social housing development scheme urgently. And we need to be less precious about the "green belt" while we are at it.

 

Edit: I don't think the housing bubble will burst (or at least not drastically) until there is a major development scheme in place. Probably why successive governments have avoided it.

Edited January 6, 2014 by tmcd35

[Earthling]

No, the only problem is NOT building anywhere near the necessary numbers of new houses, not whether they're built upwards, downwards, sideways or corner-to-corner....they're just not being built. Well, that and the fact that too many people buying their homes would, all of a sudden, see about £100,000 ( I would reckon) knocked off the value of their house as supply begins to meet demand.

 

And Yes, it is all Thatcher's fault.......she started it. Other governments could have done more to avoid or at least alleviate the problems, but ultimately, it's all down to her for implementing it with ALL THE WRONG motives. It was a vote-getter, pure and simple, and she got the votes and we all know where that ended.

 

If you believe it was some sort of philanthropic, largesse-spreading, wealth-sharing, owner-occupier-empowering plan, then.......I don't know.

[Earthling]

On this particular issue, I do think Thatcher had a lot to answer for. The "right to buy" policy itself I think was a good idea, no problem with that at all. It was the restricting of local authorities from replenashing stock that caused the biggest problem. Right to buy should have been married with a policy of income gained through sale of council stock should only have been used in refurbashing or new housing stock - rather than pocketing the money as most authorities did.

 

But sure, successive governments did nothing to rectify the problem. Personnally I think it's one of the biggest travisties of the last Labour government that they never sorted this mess out why they were in power.

 

I agree with above, we need a 50's/60's style mass social housing development scheme urgently. And we need to be less precious about the "green belt" while we are at it.

 

Edit: I don't think the housing bubble will burst (or at least not drastically) until there is a major development scheme in place. Probably why successive governments have avoided it.

 

Completely agree. I live in the 'Green Belt' and it really give me peace of mind to know that, should my children or grandchildren EVER be able to afford to buy a house where they were born and grew up, they'll have nice green fields to look out onto...................NOT.

 

The Green Belt is just another way of saying 'Not In My Back Yard', without being so up front about it.

 

Yes.....green fields, hedgerows and open countryside are very nice, but I happen to believe in people first, and too many people are, or are about to be, homeless. By 'homeless', I mean unable to afford to rent or buy their own home, so end up staying with families.

[Hefferzzzz]

Yes.....green fields, hedgerows and open countryside are very nice, but I happen to believe in people first, and too many people are, or are about to be, homeless. By 'homeless', I mean unable to afford to rent or buy their own home, so end up staying with families.

 

That is one of the greatest problems with mankind. The belief that we are the most important thing on the planet. How about we curb the sprawling destruction of the natrual habitat? How about we stop breeding so much? How about families learn to live together again like we used to rather then using some false sense that we are entitled to do as we please?

[Andrew_C]

What were Labour to do? Re-nationalise our* houses that Maggie had sold off? (One, perhaps cynical, view is that she sold them to "poor people" so they couldn't afford to strike any more as they now had mortgages to support).

 

As to not building new houses; the south is getting over run with development. I live in a market town with a population of c 30000. Currently 800 houses being built, and applications in for another 13-1600. The drainage system is already broken, and the roads hopelessly choked. Do the LA care? Not a bit of it, they are 20 miles away, and totally out of touch.

 

For the price of a 4 bed house here (>£250000) you could buy whole streets up north. We need to shift the population back up north; preferably by creating real jobs up there that people will move for.

 

 

*In the sense that they belonged to the Nation, not me. Although I have bought two ex-LA houses over the years

[FishCustard]

How about families learn to live together again like we used to rather then using some false sense that we are entitled to do as we please?

 

This is an interesting (and very valid) point - in some parts of Europe you'll see three generations of the same family under one roof, and nobody thinks that this is unusual or unsuitable. However, in Britain and even moreso the US people are almost expected to move out when they hit 20 or so, and if you don't then there's something wrong with you.

[SpuffMonkey]

While we're moaning about Thatcher - don't forget that she abolished rent controls as well - so the rents charged could balloon upwards - great for the landlords in the short term - very bad for the tenants and people claiming housing benefits now - especially with the news that whole swathes of landlords will no longer consider renting to those on benefits - it ain't gonna be pretty...