I thought this was interesting

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

Thatcher manipulated housing prices for political reasons.

Blair manipulated housing prices for political reasons.

Cameron has manipulated housing prices for political reasons.

(You will have to wait for one of my books, when I retire re pre and post war house building)

If people feel richer that they actually are, they are more inclined to vote for you !

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

You are going to have to justify each of those wild statements......oh, I can't wait that long!!

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

Thatcher
Sold social housing vastly reducing supply whilst increasing demand by opening up credit, pushing up prices.
She also banned local authorities on spending earned money from sales on building new houses. Her record on building (or lack of building) new housing was a crime.

Blair
During his boom years.....failed to build new housing....ensuring demand exceeded supply

Cameron
Actively produced housing boom by bringing in schemes to make mortgages easier to get, but not increasing in real terms the
number of houses required. Also assisted by very low interest rates. manipulation of supply and demand....basic stuff. Please don't tell me you have not seen the massive increase in house prices in the south east...the Tory heart lands.

Thats the very short version.

The expanded explanations could be the basis for an interesting book .

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Cameron: Actively produced housing boom by bringing in schemes to make mortgages easier to get...

Genius! Cameron increases house prices in the 'Tory heartlands' thus making it impossible for the people who voted for him to afford a house...

...and in return they, what.....re-elect him? :confused:

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

yep...but put but another way...he has made the people that voted for him richer.

If he wanted to provide housing for people he would have built more social housing......but that would have reduced prices......which he does not want to do . Exactly as you stated earlier !!!!!

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

I think you have seriously misunderstood the economics of government; this is not about ideology, it is about money.

Firstly, the country is in debt, quite seriously in debt; successive governments have borrowed money to satisfy the demands of the people of this country until we, almost literally, cannot afford to borrow any more money. But yet, successive governments still spend more every year than is 'earnt' in taxation. Anybody who does not understand this has no business discussing 'politics'!

Secondly, house prices are not 'set' by the government; yes, some government policies can influence the prices of houses but there is no 'magic wand' to change prices and all changes in house price have a knock-on effect (many of them very bad). House prices are most influenced by the ability of people to afford them; and by that I mean the ability of people to borrow money to afford them.

Thirdly, we live in a (relatively) 'free market' economy, in a (relatively) 'free market' world; the price of 'stuff' is set by supply-and-demand (plus taxes) and you cannot change that without artificial subsidy (and that means taxing you, or somebody else, to 'make' stuff cheaper). Don't believe any government who tells you otherwise!

Fourthly, there are plenty of commercial house builders that are in business solely to build marketable housing as cheaply and efficiently as possible; they have no shortage of land or other raw materials (although skilled labour is currently expensive and in demand). These commercial house builders can only make money by selling houses but they can also only build houses to sell if there is demand for them; the fact that house building has slowed is an indication that people cannot afford to (borrow enough to) buy them.

Lastly, government, any government, that cannot borrow any more money can only get money from you and I in taxation; that taxation will come in many forms but basically there is no other source open to government.

So, given all those accepted facts, what you are asking the government to do is to somehow pay for and build lots of new houses and then 'give' them to people who cannot afford to buy or rent such a house...

...can you see where there may be a slight flaw in this plan?

This is not about ideology; it is about economics!

Economics is like gravity. You can build an aircraft to fly but there are costs; you cannot just ignor gravity and fly!

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

Well CD - that was well and as concisely as possible put. And should leave no room for doubt as to the realities of what we are discussing.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

 Affordability problems are not confined to London and the South East, but are found across the country.
 In more than half (55%) of local authority areas, less than one in ten available properties are affordable to a working couple with children on average wages.
 There are seven local authority areas where no available properties are affordable to a working couple with children on average wages.
 In more than four fifths (82%) of local authority areas, less than one in ten available properties are affordable to a single person on average wages.
 There are seven local authority areas where no available properties are affordable to a single person on average wages.
 Three central London areas are completely unaffordable to either couples with children or single people on average wages: Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Camden.
 In 31 out of 32 London boroughs1, less than 10% of available properties are affordable to a couple with children on average wages.
 In the North East region, there are no local authority areas in which less than 10% of available properties are affordable to a couple with children on average wages.
 In every local authority area in London and in the South West, less than 10% of available properties are affordable to a single person on average wages.

Our NHS is collapsing under the weight of bed blocking due to lack of affordable care for the elderly.
Our housing situation is crazy.
I could go on about a thousand other things..........
Sometime soon is all going to fall apart......what happens then.

Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour are clueless.
UKIP will destroy the country.

Help !

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour are clueless...

They are not 'clueless'.....they are just (mostly) realistic about the reality of the economic situation.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

Oh CD...just love the contradiction between posts 39 & 45.

and while we are on the subject

I have an O level in Economics (old fashioned O level)
I have an A level in economics (old fashioned A level)

And have Economics passes in a number of professional exams........

Copy of documents available for inspection.......but only over a pint !

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

modern politics is about preserving the status quo and only considering short term solutions.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Oh CD...just love the contradiction between posts 39 & 45.

Specifically?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

modern politics is about preserving the status quo...

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you are in charge of your household.

So how would the financial position of your household change if your wife was in charge?

Or your children?

Or your dog (UKIP)?

Would any of those changes of leadership make you richer, and able to afford a bigger house?

...and only considering short term solutions.

Voters have short memories!

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Re 51

I am very impressed. It's jolly useful to have an old fashioned O and A level backed expert on the premises !

Just pulling your leg Waco, don't get excited !

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Copy of documents available for inspection.......but only over a pint !

Good, I like talking to intelligent people who disagree with me!

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

Like it JG !!!

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 585

CD
always !

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

Sorry to intrude on this mutual admiration society.....but waco #49, you have, as can we all, listed the facts and identified the problems, but the clever bit is proposing and realistically implementing solutions. Yours would be interesting to read. ( I passed A Level Economics as well!!;) but gawd knows where the Certificate is after all these years.....)

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

The 'cat's out of the bag'. Pandora's lid is well and truly open. The law of 'unintended consequences' once more is fulfilled.

The problem with the 'housing market' began with that title; the housing market. When houses ceased to be a place where you laid your head and became a tradeable commodity is when the trouble began.

Mrs. Thatcher intended to create a property owning democracy but failed entirely to anticipate the effect of the law of unintended consequences. Alongside the demand her government created was the creation of property wealth. Property, apart from the odd hiatus, increased in value year on year.

People began to see the chance of making a significant capital gain, perhaps the only chance they would ever get. The banks did not stand aside from this bonanza. The roof over your head - which was all it ever was, became the cast iron security demanded by the banks and other lenders.

People borrowed against the equity in their house to fund a new business (good) or, to fund a more enhanced lifestyle (bad). The notion of housing equity and equity release and your residence as a bargaining resource is the notion that still to-day prevails. I don't think that it is now possible to change that concept. Once out, you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Even building half a million new homes per annum, whether they be private or social, won't change to any sgnificant degree the current mindset. Human greed knows few limitations and people will continue to view their home as a pathway to comparative wealth.

It might be possible to more effectively control social housing and possibly influence the private sector if social housing could not be sold. If there was a covenant in place which made it possible to only rent, not buy. Thus re-asserting the pre-eminent role of the home as just that - a home.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

House prices have almost continuously increased - fourfold from 1945 to the late 60s and then ten fold over the subsequent two decades. The biggest increases have been far more recently and long after the Thatcher years. So I don't think she can bear the blame entirely.