Under the last government, hard work and self betterment was not encouraged. I know many many teenagers, who 5 years ago had no aspiration, because it was not encouraged.
They were brought up with little hope of a job and started life, after leaving school on benefits, thinking that was all they had to look forward to.
Benefits paid as much, probably more, than many junior roles, so there was no point in any case, they felt.
Additionally, there was a good chance, that they could secure their "own" home, by way of a council property and (girls) getting pregnant asap.
Thankfully, 5 years on, the present coalition has changed the ethos and most of these teenagers, have now found a job and their attitude has changed.
They now have hope for the future, which they never had 5 years ago.
It is still very very difficult on low wages, but at least they have made a start.
I have absolutely no doubt, that the posters on here, that have different views to me, will disagree.
But I know what I have seen, with my own eyes.
I think you need to look a back a bit further than the last Government. Mottingham for example, in the 90's (Pre 97) was full to brim of single english teenage mothers who were given flats, living of benefits with no aspiration to do a days work.
I agree. I think it started early 80's, but the coalition have finally made a start at addressing the issue.
The housing market is one of the biggest issues that affects virtually everyone in the UK so why is there no political party with radical ideas to build more housing. If a war was just ended and half our homes had been bombed do you think political parties would be talking about subsidising house purchase, or how to build more housing. Just because lack of housing is not down to enemy action doesn't make it less of an emergency.
The biggest issue faced by the vast majority of the population is housing, and politicians looking only at the next four years, just use it as a political football.
Completely against my natural instincts but I would probably support a party that proposed serious control of the market in land supply. If planning consent was subject to capping the price at which it could be transferred to developers it would remove the developers having to outbid one another for building land, reduce the need to build up six years worth of building land and eliminate the biggest impact on house prices.
I'm scaring myself by getting close to suggesting nationalisation of housing!!
Aliwibble I agree we need more social and cheaper housing, not less but you can combine the two sell at discounted rate to those who can now take that option and build more, nothing is stopping that the point that gets lost amongst us all is that there is no reason other than targeting the voters to enable a higher share for all parties and their target audience, but in reality like I said before in order to really bring around change why does the main parties not look to adopt both possibilities, build more, help those who have helped themselves and can now buy their own and offer assistance to do so,
The answer is neither to not allow or allow but to find a solution to enable both,
Now if you build more does the country have the infrastructure in place to give more schools, hospitals, dentists etc to facilitate that
There is a way to grow this country and make it a truly better place, but in order to do so we need to have a stability and consistent government in power long enough to get the policy and commitment in place, changing every 4 yrs is not the answer, as nothing will ever really get past words, how that would be done would be a real tough task
Nothing fuelled the ferocious rising of the British house price more than Maggies 'right to buy' scheme. Sounds good at the time, but the far reaching effects over time could be catastrophic. I fear for my kids ever getting a place of their own ten or twenty years down the line.
Stoking a fire that really doesn't need it is not a good idea in my opinion
A nice concept about ferocious house price inflation - but it's fantasy to blame "right to buy". (See figures below).
First, selling off a house doesn't make it magically disappear! It's still part of the housing stock. If no more houses had been built and the population had remained the same the ratio of the number of houses available would have been the same. So why would any more have been needed?
Of course the real reason there is pressure on house prices has nothing to do with who owns them. When Thatcher was in power the population was around 56mn; it's now around 64mn. That's 14% more people. A result of more immigration and the immigrants having more children mainly. (Of the 246,000 births in 2012, 91,000 were to mothers born in the UK and 155,000 to mothers who were not. That population pressure plus improving mortality rates and stupidly low mortgage rates are the real driver of house price inflation.
Whether they are owned by the state, landlords or private individuals is an irrelevance.
1976 – 1979
James Callaghan – Labour
Years in power: Three Average property value at start: £11,519 Average property value at end: £16,823 Difference: £5,304 Average increase per year: £1,768 Annualised return: 13%
1979 - 1990
Margaret Thatcher – Conservative
Years in power: 11 Average property value at start: £17,793 Average property value at end: £61,495 Difference: £43,702 Average increase per year: £3,973 Annualised return: 12%
1997 – 2007
Tony Blair – Labour
Years in power: Ten Average property value at start: £55,810 Average property value at end: £172,065 Difference: £116,255 Average increase per year: £11,626 Annualised return: 12%
Exactly the same as under Thatcher!
All well and good. But the stats you put up clearly show that Thatcher opened the gates and Blair went along with the tide!
Not precisely. I was trying to cut out the complexity but during Thatcher's time in office general inflation averaged (a truly shocking) 11.89% - about the same as house price inflation, and I expect wage inflation may(?) have been even higher. When Blair was in office, regular inflation was only averaging 2.97%. So Blair did more than go with the tide - he had the engine going full throttle in top gear!
"I agree. I think it started early 80's, but the coalition have finally made a start at addressing the issue."
Completely agree Covered End, but they had 18 years before that to do something they did nothing.
My Ex was one of those single mothers, due to this policy she is now getting off her back side. However, I would not say her aspirations have changed. She does it only to claim her benefits.
Also she does a bit of cleaning a few hours a week but still the majority of her income is from benefits ? I believe - correct me if I am wrong. Shes is now classed as self employed so this means she does not appear on the unemployment figures.....hmmmmmmm. Is Unemployment really that low ??????
Its also worth remembering not all of todays ills go back to just the last Labour government.
The housing market is one of the biggest issues that affects virtually everyone in the UK so why is there no political party with radical ideas to build more housing. If a war was just ended and half our homes had been bombed do you think political parties would be talking about subsidising house purchase, or how to build more housing. Just because lack of housing is not down to enemy action doesn't make it less of an emergency.
The biggest issue faced by the vast majority of the population is housing, and politicians looking only at the next four years, just use it as a political football.
Completely against my natural instincts but I would probably support a party that proposed serious control of the market in land supply. If planning consent was subject to capping the price at which it could be transferred to developers it would remove the developers having to outbid one another for building land, reduce the need to build up six years worth of building land and eliminate the biggest impact on house prices.
I'm scaring myself by getting close to suggesting nationalisation of housing!!
Another option which you might be happier with is to scrap the building controls that require a "Rolls Royce" housing product. One of the reasons houses are so, so cheap in the States is because they are made out of cheapo materials, shingles, instead of roofing tiles; wood frame and plywood with plastic cladding instead of bricks and blocks; Tyvec to keep out the wet; and hardly any foundations unless you go for the basement option. Okay, they tend to blow away whenever it's windy and fall over if you lean on a wall but you can just put up another one for next to nothing.
I don't really know why people are sniffy about what the yanks would call trailers. But these places give you a good home, kitted out for £150,000 brand new. Perhaps leaning on the banks to make loans on such homes would be good? I suspect they are not that easy to get on decent terms?
The demise and problems facing the uk will continue to be blamed on each part and I for one don't no longer give a rats arse attributing blame as it really doesnt change anything , the fact is that for decades it's been about point scoring and blaming eachother and promises to build a better Britain and any other strap line a well paid advertising genius can think of
Yet if they targeted actually addressing the issues and few at a time making it better making it work and moved on to the next set of issues that need addressing it can be resolved, it will never be to everyones liking there will always be potential to improve
But surely you are all bored to death of lies broken promises and bullshit and if the voters could actually step away from point scoring and one upmanship, moral high ground you may well get the change our kids deserve
Zero hour contracts if used correctly and monitored as not to be abused putting more defined rules in place to ensure it is not done just to maximise the profits of business but to enable business to grow at a rate that's realistic and viable for the person who created the company and services it provides can be done,
As much as the work shy bone idle annoy me those that try to make their business and themselves millionaires as quickly as possible are as annoying and creating as big a problem, I don't have the plan in place to do that as I don't believe there will be a longevity in my business if I detract from the level of service we offer and the way I will maintain my staff to be able to match my service level expectations,
The reason zero hr is such a bone of contention is its abuse, instead of dismissing it out right why not look to use it for what it's intended
The demise and problems facing the uk will continue to be blamed on each part and I for one don't no longer give a rats arse attributing blame as it really doesnt change anything , the fact is that for decades it's been about point scoring and blaming eachother and promises to build a better Britain and any other strap line a well paid advertising genius can think of
Yet if they targeted actually addressing the issues and few at a time making it better making it work and moved on to the next set of issues that need addressing it can be resolved, it will never be to everyones liking there will always be potential to improve
But surely you are all bored to death of lies broken promises and bullshit and if the voters could actually step away from point scoring and one upmanship, moral high ground you may well get the change our kids deserve
The thing is, the electorate is fickle and greedy - I admit I am. They will only vote in a party on the basis of "what's in it for me?" Rather than what is best for the country. I suspect that, with our population issues all parties know that encouraging people to have kids by paying them to do it with benefits, paternity leave, tax-free child care, free dental treatment, etc,etc is madness - people ought to be encouraged to be steralised rather than to procreate. But no one will ever have the bottle to put that stuff in a manifesto, even if there was a fair warning about changes only coming into effect in nine months! We're doomed.
The political parties we have, all of them, have no answers to the countries problems. They whore themselves to the electorate making hollow promises in order to either gain or keep power. Does anyone else find the whole thing rather unseemly and skin crawlingly embarrassing ?
I am sure I will vote Labour in the desperate hope that there is something left in the parties working class roots than can make things better for the working man and women and their families but I'm far from certain that there is.
The political parties we have, all of them, have no answers to the countries problems. They whore themselves to the electorate making hollow promises in order to either gain or keep power. Does anyone else find the whole thing rather unseemly and skin crawlingly embarrassing ?
I am sure I will vote Labour in the desperate hope that there is something left in the parties working class roots than can make things better for the working man and women and their families but I'm far from certain that there is.
The housing market is one of the biggest issues that affects virtually everyone in the UK so why is there no political party with radical ideas to build more housing. If a war was just ended and half our homes had been bombed do you think political parties would be talking about subsidising house purchase, or how to build more housing. Just because lack of housing is not down to enemy action doesn't make it less of an emergency.
The biggest issue faced by the vast majority of the population is housing, and politicians looking only at the next four years, just use it as a political football.
Completely against my natural instincts but I would probably support a party that proposed serious control of the market in land supply. If planning consent was subject to capping the price at which it could be transferred to developers it would remove the developers having to outbid one another for building land, reduce the need to build up six years worth of building land and eliminate the biggest impact on house prices.
I'm scaring myself by getting close to suggesting nationalisation of housing!!
From a completely selfish point of view and because I am not on the housing ladder I simply don't like buy to let. I know that no government can ever introduce policy to interfere with such a practice and it's not all about me, so it is about trying to find the best approach for the majority given the booming population, but I only see it getting worse or staying the same for the reasons you've outlined. I just can't understand this build more houses mentality either, particularly if those houses coming onto the market are priced out of most people's reach anyway. The circle of shit continues where they get snapped up by those who are already wealthy. I started a whole thread on this after the channel 4 dispatches property boom, so don't want to go back over old ground on this thread, but you make some good points.
@Callumcafc@kentaddick I am just under 10 years older than you both. I am not on the housing ladder, not look like getting there soon. Personally, I am of the opinion that I don't beat myself up about it anymore. I would like to, as I am sure most would. Obviously both your individual circumstances may be different and I hope you both get there at some point soon, but don't let the bastards grind you down as they say
Conservative candidate for Cambridge suggests mental health patients should wear colour coded wristbands.
Interesting. Caused a furore no doubt? But I think there are about 25 (+?) conditions that people wear medical identification tags for. Surely if people with mental health issues want to be treated the same as everyone else in society, they should embrace the idea with open arms? I have a friend (a Millwall supporter as it goes) who has a mental problem in that he was born with a part of his brain missing (no sniggering at the back please*) which causes him to have fits every now and again and he wears a tag. So it's already happening - what's wrong with alerting professionals to any likely problems you might have?
* another effect is that it's like he is wearing a horse-style blinker because the brain doesn't process what his eyes see properly. It curtailed his goalkeeping career somewhat.
I am troubled by the pension release thing, the stupid boom in house prices, and now this thing about right to buy from housing associations. The latest one is really troubling as Housing Associations often provided a bit of a chance and a refuge for low paid essential workers like nurses and so on, to get somewhere to live in their area and near to their work. It also looks like local authorities have to sell their ornate or attractive municipal buildings (much like the big sell off of nicely sited police stations, and also pubs) and build concrete monstrosities, while the money made selling off the good stuff for massive conversions into tiny apartments is supposed to go to brown field development of social housing. Now I can see the reasoning, but it really does smell bad. Traditional places are being hollowed out to become god knows what, the more ordinary working population is being financially re-located, and we will end up with sort of architecturally disassembled and fractured communities where there was once a sense of belonging. In London, jobs, transport and housing have always been the three main pillars of city survival, and in my view the housing has gone to pot. I am indeed all right jack as I am well embedded on the housing ladder, but I really fear for the younger generation. I honestly think on this one the Tories are very very wrong.
The housing market is one of the biggest issues that affects virtually everyone in the UK so why is there no political party with radical ideas to build more housing. If a war was just ended and half our homes had been bombed do you think political parties would be talking about subsidising house purchase, or how to build more housing. Just because lack of housing is not down to enemy action doesn't make it less of an emergency.
The biggest issue faced by the vast majority of the population is housing, and politicians looking only at the next four years, just use it as a political football.
Completely against my natural instincts but I would probably support a party that proposed serious control of the market in land supply. If planning consent was subject to capping the price at which it could be transferred to developers it would remove the developers having to outbid one another for building land, reduce the need to build up six years worth of building land and eliminate the biggest impact on house prices.
I'm scaring myself by getting close to suggesting nationalisation of housing!!
From a completely selfish point of view and because I am not on the housing ladder I simply don't like buy to let. I know that no government can ever introduce policy to interfere with such a practice and it's not all about me, so it is about trying to find the best approach for the majority given the booming population, but I only see it getting worse or staying the same for the reasons you've outlined. I just can't understand this build more houses mentality either, particularly if those houses coming onto the market are priced out of most people's reach anyway. The circle of shit continues where they get snapped up by those who are already wealthy. I started a whole thread on this after the channel 4 dispatches property boom, so don't want to go back over old ground on this thread, but you make some good points.
This may surprise nearly everyone on the thread but I too am opposed to both right-to-buy and the idea that residential property should be allowed to be used as investment vehicles (e.g. buy-to-let). When we have rising house prices, critical housing shortages and a disgraceful level of homelessness we cannot justify either of these luxuries. There are other developed countries with far better housing situations where the government interferes a lot more, so when we have a country like our which is both overcrowded and unable to keep pace with the growing demand for housing, it is utterly baffling that this issue isn't being more prominently dealt with and in fact parties are suggesting solutions that will hurt rather than help the situation. The Tories need to drop this outdated policy, it's like they're clinging onto one of the last vestiges of Thatcherism like a drowning man clinging onto a bit of driftwood.
For me, that article nails it in terms of the economics and the principle behind this policy. I am a little surprised tbh that so many posters, who are normally so critical of what they see as public money wastage on other topics, are happy for their taxes to be used to subsidise the purchase of someone else's property.
I've never bought into the supply-side 'housing shortage' theory of rising house prices because rents have broadly risen in line with incomes (only) - as a result, rental yields have fallen significantly (to sub 5% in the South East even before costs, voids etc.)
Instead it's been a demand-driven phenomenon as the continued chipping away of lifetime pension allowances encouraged people to find alternative ways to create a retirement income via buy-to-let (supplemented by often spivy over-leveraged wannabe property speculators). In addition globalisation and the attraction of London has encouraged foreign demand on an unprecedented scale (however this demand can easily reverse if Labour get their way).
So in short in my view the housing crisis is only a 'crisis' if you think young people have a right to own their own property. I didn't get onto the housing ladder until I was 38 (having rented seven places in the previous decade) and whilst with hindsight it seems my timing was good, the appreciation hasn't been of much use to me given anywhere better I want to move to has gone up by even more (in nominal terms).
Indeed on the one hand I have capital appreciation that I can't 'get my hands on' (most likely until I retire and downsize) and on the other I have a veritable money pit and significant interest rate risk.
I don't find it particularly braggable that one pays their taxes. It is in fact rather pious to say 'well I'm rich enough to avoid taxes but choose not to', as if to rub it into the rest of our faces that we're not rich enough to bother avoiding tax.
She also mires her act with her rather inaccurate claim that David Cameron wishes to get rid of the welfare state in its entirety. And as much as she does her best to slate the welfare state under John Major, it was good enough to give her the support she needed to become a millionaire by writing about a boy who goes to wizard school. Surely a sign that the welfare state was working as it was intended to - enough support to survive on but not enough support to live a decent life on unless you actually earn yourself a living. Champagne socialists like her really don't do their agenda much good with their pathetic polemics.
We need more social housing, not less. With that quick thought out of the way. Tonight's Standard is normally Tory, but not normally a party political broadcast for them on paper like tonight's was. Amazing what effect the Non Dom statement has had on it's rich Russian owner. Might work in Russia but the readers are not fools, you have to be more subtle than that. It will backfire on them.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11535234/Extending-the-right-to-buy-is-economically-illiterate-and-morally-wrong.html
The biggest issue faced by the vast majority of the population is housing, and politicians looking only at the next four years, just use it as a political football.
Completely against my natural instincts but I would probably support a party that proposed serious control of the market in land supply. If planning consent was subject to capping the price at which it could be transferred to developers it would remove the developers having to outbid one another for building land, reduce the need to build up six years worth of building land and eliminate the biggest impact on house prices.
I'm scaring myself by getting close to suggesting nationalisation of housing!!
The answer is neither to not allow or allow but to find a solution to enable both,
Now if you build more does the country have the infrastructure in place to give more schools, hospitals, dentists etc to facilitate that
There is a way to grow this country and make it a truly better place, but in order to do so we need to have a stability and consistent government in power long enough to get the policy and commitment in place, changing every 4 yrs is not the answer, as nothing will ever really get past words, how that would be done would be a real tough task
When Blair was in office, regular inflation was only averaging 2.97%. So Blair did more than go with the tide - he had the engine going full throttle in top gear!
Completely agree Covered End, but they had 18 years before that to do something they did nothing.
My Ex was one of those single mothers, due to this policy she is now getting off her back side. However, I would not say her aspirations have changed. She does it only to claim her benefits.
Also she does a bit of cleaning a few hours a week but still the majority of her income is from benefits ? I believe - correct me if I am wrong. Shes is now classed as self employed so this means she does not appear on the unemployment figures.....hmmmmmmm. Is Unemployment really that low ??????
Its also worth remembering not all of todays ills go back to just the last Labour government.
I don't really know why people are sniffy about what the yanks would call trailers. But these places give you a good home, kitted out for £150,000 brand new. Perhaps leaning on the banks to make loans on such homes would be good? I suspect they are not that easy to get on decent terms?
Yet if they targeted actually addressing the issues and few at a time making it better making it work and moved on to the next set of issues that need addressing it can be resolved, it will never be to everyones liking there will always be potential to improve
But surely you are all bored to death of lies broken promises and bullshit and if the voters could actually step away from point scoring and one upmanship, moral high ground you may well get the change our kids deserve
As much as the work shy bone idle annoy me those that try to make their business and themselves millionaires as quickly as possible are as annoying and creating as big a problem, I don't have the plan in place to do that as I don't believe there will be a longevity in my business if I detract from the level of service we offer and the way I will maintain my staff to be able to match my service level expectations,
The reason zero hr is such a bone of contention is its abuse, instead of dismissing it out right why not look to use it for what it's intended
But the loonie lefts the raging rights, the moderate middle doesnt exist,
I will call queenie and tell her to get rid of them all and decide what's best for us all
God save the Queen
I am sure I will vote Labour in the desperate hope that there is something left in the parties working class roots than can make things better for the working man and women and their families but I'm far from certain that there is.
It's all very depressing.
Remember Nick Clegg was extremely popular around this time in the campaign in the last election after the first TV debate.
@Callumcafc @kentaddick I am just under 10 years older than you both. I am not on the housing ladder, not look like getting there soon. Personally, I am of the opinion that I don't beat myself up about it anymore. I would like to, as I am sure most would. Obviously both your individual circumstances may be different and I hope you both get there at some point soon, but don't let the bastards grind you down as they say
Conservative candidate for Cambridge suggests mental health patients should wear colour coded wristbands.
My previous efforts only reinforce my socialist leanings to be honest.
I have a friend (a Millwall supporter as it goes) who has a mental problem in that he was born with a part of his brain missing (no sniggering at the back please*) which causes him to have fits every now and again and he wears a tag. So it's already happening - what's wrong with alerting professionals to any likely problems you might have?
* another effect is that it's like he is wearing a horse-style blinker because the brain doesn't process what his eyes see properly. It curtailed his goalkeeping career somewhat.
The latest one is really troubling as Housing Associations often provided a bit of a chance and a refuge for low paid essential workers like nurses and so on, to get somewhere to live in their area and near to their work.
It also looks like local authorities have to sell their ornate or attractive municipal buildings (much like the big sell off of nicely sited police stations, and also pubs) and build concrete monstrosities, while the money made selling off the good stuff for massive conversions into tiny apartments is supposed to go to brown field development of social housing.
Now I can see the reasoning, but it really does smell bad. Traditional places are being hollowed out to become god knows what, the more ordinary working population is being financially re-located, and we will end up with sort of architecturally disassembled and fractured communities where there was once a sense of belonging.
In London, jobs, transport and housing have always been the three main pillars of city survival, and in my view the housing has gone to pot.
I am indeed all right jack as I am well embedded on the housing ladder, but I really fear for the younger generation.
I honestly think on this one the Tories are very very wrong.
A property that has a pretty high probability of ending up eventually in the hands of a private sector landlord btw theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/right-to-buy-housing-scandal
Instead it's been a demand-driven phenomenon as the continued chipping away of lifetime pension allowances encouraged people to find alternative ways to create a retirement income via buy-to-let (supplemented by often spivy over-leveraged wannabe property speculators). In addition globalisation and the attraction of London has encouraged foreign demand on an unprecedented scale (however this demand can easily reverse if Labour get their way).
So in short in my view the housing crisis is only a 'crisis' if you think young people have a right to own their own property. I didn't get onto the housing ladder until I was 38 (having rented seven places in the previous decade) and whilst with hindsight it seems my timing was good, the appreciation hasn't been of much use to me given anywhere better I want to move to has gone up by even more (in nominal terms).
Indeed on the one hand I have capital appreciation that I can't 'get my hands on' (most likely until I retire and downsize) and on the other I have a veritable money pit and significant interest rate risk.