purpleronnie Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 So it's what the Tories are planning to do plus building council houses then? I love the idea of just being able to build a place for anyone struggling to pay rent but I don't see how a country 1.5trillion in debt still running a large deficit is going to be able to pay for this? I'd also want to see us regain control of our borders as wel before we engage in a social house building project, we've already had benefit and health tourism, the last thing we would need is a wave of housing tourism. I guess its whether you belive that benefit or health tourism is real or myth theres plenty of studies out there that show both sides. The same goes for immigrants and social housing.
Parafox Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 200.000 homes by 2020...that I would like to see both labour and tories have failed to build enough homes before. They seemingly don't live in the real world. Sure builders like the money straight away but low end small profits...can't see them being a fan of that. Scrapping housing benefits too. I really can't see the benfit (ahem) of this. £250k 'affordable' homes Wasn't it £150K ? I still can't see how anyone can manage a deposit on a house of that price while banks etc demand such a large amount as a deposit. Even with a help to buy scheme it still means thousands who want to get on the property ladder can't, in particular single income families. The private rented sector is so unstable in terms of high rent and short rental periods, landlords evicting tenants at short notice when they want to sell on or need the money from the propery. It seems a fairly depressing and stressful way to live in a home that will never be your own. Plus those who rent and want to buy their own place, can't afford to save a deposit whilst they are paying high rent . There nees to be some kind of rent cap/control to enable people to move up. As for giving people the right to buy, that will result in fewer rentable properties becoming available to those who need them. It's effectively blocking the housing ladder. Given the choice of buying the place you rent at a discount or paying more for another property and moving out thereby making the existing rental available to someone else, what would most people do? And I really can't see 200,000 houses in the next 5-6 years bringing prices down to an accessible level.
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Great point, making housing affordable will be as much about banks lending as cost of property.
MooseBreath Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 200k homes by 2020 is nothing really. We used to build that many in a year. We've built about 70k this year I think. A lot of them are affordable if the definition of affordable is less than £150k. 200k of those by 2020 is an easy target, and should look good when Cameron hits it, but it's nowhere near enough to make an impact when we've got net immigration marching up towards half a million a year and old housing stock dropping out and decent land at a premium and infrastructure investment being blocked by environmentalists. Whether there's a tipping point at which the house price to income ratio just creates new permanent 17th century style land owning and renting classes ow whether people will just leave the country I don't know, but I suspect the value of your house is quite secure under this government. Good thing/bad thing, up to you.
Parafox Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Aside from Theresa May's laughed effort, we've had some fantastic speeches this week, IDS and Boris leading the way. A lot from Cameron to live up too, the central theme appears to be homes for working people. Idealistic rhetoric I'm afraid. Plenty of working people have (rented) homes but want to make a better life, that's fine and unarguable. What doesn't happen is any upward mobility of the majority of those renting as they are trapped by deposit vs rent payments as I alluded to above. Lenders should take into account the rental payment record, as a credit rating would do, of those living in rented properties rather than just their salary value when assessing them for a mortgage, but they don't. People pay £650 a month regularly for their rent but get rejected by lenders as they have an income that lenders consider to be a credit risk even though the mortgage repayments may may well be of a similar or lesser amount.
Rincewind Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Don't you have to be on a certain income to get a mortgage? It will be difficult for those on low to mid incomes getting one if living in a rented property and in a job that does not guarantee security of employment over a long period. Even self employed in some sectors are considered bad risks. I agree that you should be able to buy your own place but there should also be sufficient social housing for those that cannot afford it. If not it will lead to those on the highest income buying up the 'affordable' homes to rent out at higher rents.
Rincewind Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Idealistic rhetoric I'm afraid If you hear it said often enough you may even come to believe it.
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 In the next couple of years only one person will be claiming the crown of the king of the idealist rhetoric. Anyone know where the Labour party are protesting this weekend?
Rincewind Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 This is what is needed to buy an 'affordable' home http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-much-you-need-earn-6587292
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Love how the manage always manage to find a picture of Cameron or IDS laughing or smirking to accompany their rants about Tory policy hurting the poor.
Webbo Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 This is what is needed to buy an 'affordable' home http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-much-you-need-earn-6587292 It's assuming that a first time buyer would be buying a £250,000 home, really?
Rincewind Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Love how the manage always manage to find a picture of Cameron or IDS laughing or smirking to accompany their rants about Tory policy hurting the poor. In other news...... These are rent prices which I assume first time buyers will pay before putting aside savings for a mortgage deposit. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-house-prices-the-map-that-shows-how-much-rent-you-should-really-be-paying-in-britain-10303170.html These are house prices. It depends where you live. A couple in London who are settled in jobs are unlikely to want to move to Glasgow just because houses are cheaper. If they have children and have child or tax credits cut it will be worse. This is better. You can calculate rent and buy according to area. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033 Forgot the rent link. Hang on a sec.
Webbo Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 I don't think anyone's denying that housing is expensive in this country and has been for about the last 30 years. What's new?
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Any chance one day the people who want no cuts, more benefits, more houses, tax credits, more aid, more carers, more nurses, more coppers, higher wages, cheaper trains, public ownership, a living wage etc actually start telling us how we should pay for it? You could almost be forgiven for thinking some people might the ignoring our 1.5 trillion debt and the fact even in these appalling times of austerity we are still borrowing 80 billion a year to get by. Just a thought.
Frank to be Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 How about for a start some of that quantitative easing that was given to bankers to keep was instead used to build houses? Why do people still mainly need to stump up 30% deposits when that QE money was supposed to free up credit. Guess what it didn't. Guess what the banks just kept it all.
Webbo Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 QE is one thing when you're in the depths of a recession. When you're in the middle of strong growth, like we are now, it'll just create inflation.
Frank to be Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 QE is one thing when you're in the depths of a recession. When you're in the middle of strong growth, like we are now, it'll just create inflation. We don't need any new QE, just recall it from the banks (who are supposed to repay it anyway but never do) and reissue it in a way than benefits society.
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Even if that happened (which it can't) it still won't cover anything like the sort of public spending which some are calling for. JC appears to have done another u turn on QE anyway.
Frank to be Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Even if that happened (which it can't) it still won't cover anything like the sort of public spending which some are calling for. JC appears to have done another u turn on QE anyway. It's not that it can't, but for sure it won't. The banks are too powerful to let that happen. But I disagree that it wouldn't cover substantial public spending. There has been £375bn of QE since 2009. At a generous estimate of £80k per unit of affordable housing, that's enough for more than 4.5million houses. We're only asking for 200k, which would cost about £16bn, or 4% of that which was given to the banks. Another way of looking at it, £375bn is £6,750 for every man, woman and child in the country. Do you think honestly that your families have benefitted that extent? Clearly not if you're one of the many whose wages have been stagnant for the best part of a decade.
purpleronnie Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 If people genuinely believe this is a assault on poverty buy creating £450,000 'affordable' homes whilst cutting benefits, then I don't know what else to say...
Rincewind Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 If people genuinely believe this is a assault on poverty buy creating £450,000 'affordable' homes whilst cutting benefits, then I don't know what else to say... I know nothing.
Webbo Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 If people genuinely believe this is a assault on poverty buy creating £450,000 'affordable' homes whilst cutting benefits, then I don't know what else to say... Are all these affordable homes £450,000 or is that up to? I know nothing. That's never stopped you yet.
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Did Cameron even claim the housing project was an assault on poverty?
Wymsey Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 I've no issues with affording housing. But my worry is that the housing associations etc might not be anxious about the types of people they put in - if you've invested in one or a couple of these houses, you don't need this weight on uncertainty.
davieG Posted 7 October 2015 Posted 7 October 2015 Mark Group axes nearly 1,000 staff in Leicester as company goes into administration By Merc_Reporter | Posted: October 07, 2015 By Lauren Mills Mark Group commercial director Bill Rumble Comments (1)Nearly 1,000 jobs were axed today as one of Leicestershire's biggest employers fell into administration. Mark Group, the home insulation firm, emailed 1,165 staff based at its Leicester headquarters at around 3pm ordering them to attend a 4.30pm meeting at its Boston Road base in Beaumont Leys. Earlier in the day, Mark Group's managers had scrambled together to buy the business from its parent SunEdison for an undisclosed sum. But, after taking advice, they decided they had no choice but to put the business into administration, blaming deepening losses on the Government's about-turn on green energy policy. A total of 939 employees based in Leicester are set to lose their jobs, with 226 to be retained to keep the company ticking over while they try to find a buyer. In a statement Mark Group said: "This decision has not been taken lightly but the ongoing losses of the business meant it was our only option. "The turnaround plan, which was already underway, focused on solar PV but the Government's recent policy announcements mean this is no longer viable. "Mark Group's management team recognise the talent and expertise within the business, which has been developed over four decades, and believe there is an opportunity to refocus the business on other energy saving technologies. "Mark Group is now in the hands of administrators who are working to secure an urgent sale of the ongoing business. Prospective purchasers are encouraged to get in contact as soon as possible." Bill Rumble, Mark Group's chief commercial officer, said: "I've been in the business nine years ago and I am desperately sad. "Our thoughts are with all the friends and colleagues and their families and we are keen to do whatever we can to support them at this difficult time." Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Mark-Group-axes-nearly-1-000-staff-Leicester/story-27941778-detail/story.html#ixzz3nuL39YmG Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.