Tory manifesto proposes measures to boost house prices

robin_banks

Malcolm. wrote: »

Abolish the unelected, bureaucratic tier of regional planning and return power to local communities and their elected councillors to protect their Green Belt and determine the right level of development

I like this pledge, it makes sense.

The tories appear to be pro local accountability.

This may, and I say may lead to the rise of the NIMBY's.

DaddyBear

• Strengthen shared ownership schemes which allow those on low-to-middle incomes to own or part-own their home.

Shared ownership is wrong on so many levels. As others have pointed out, if you can't afford a house then that's just life. If enough people can't afford it then prices will drop, meaning more can afford it. It's not rocket science. Using tax subsidy so that people can own half a house is just insane.

• We will offer tenants with a record of five years’ good behaviour a 10 per cent equity share in their social rented property, which can be cashed in when they want to move up the housing ladder

SO after paying rent for five years, probably with housing benefit, they get gifted 10% equity for "being good". What a load of rubbish. Maybe they should try it in the private sector... private renters are gifted 10% of the property value if they pay rent on time for 5 years. Good idea??? I didn't think so

Abolish the unelected, bureaucratic tier of regional planning and return power to local communities and their elected councillors to protect their Green Belt and determine the right level of development

So the local councillors decide on local planning applications? Local councillors are the epitomy of NIMBY. I think we can safely assume that their idea of "the right level of development" will be NO development at all, at least not within 5 miles of their houses. Another rediculous idea.


I think the Tories just lost my vote.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DaddyBear wrote: »

I think the Tories just lost my vote.

All that AND Kirsty Allsopp as housing advisor.

They just locked my vote in.:D

Blacklight

DaddyBear wrote: »

So the local councillors decide on local planning applications? Local councillors are the epitomy of NIMBY. I think we can safely assume that their idea of "the right level of development" will be NO development at all, at least not within 5 miles of their houses. Another rediculous idea.

It you were right it would very interesting to see how the local councils meet their housing targets. Bit of generalising there I think.

System

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

All that AND Kirsty Allsopp as housing advisor.

They just locked my vote in.:D

She'll probably suggest tax credits on MDF and garish paint colours so we can all jazz up our houses!

One of the few things these parties seem to agree on is that crashing property prices is not a good idea.

ninky_2

not sure what 'strengthen' shared ownership means so can't really comment.

giving 10 percent equity to those in social housing is outrageous and the 'good behaviour' totally patronising. are those in social housing less well behaved than those in private sector housing? there are good and bad neighbours in all sorts of housing i would say and it's not just about dangerous dog breeders and asbo teens it can be landowners cutting off rights of way.

taking power away from unelected bureaucracy and giving it to local people. well who are the 'local' people and who elects them. won't it just mean those with more power and influence (and we know the sort that is likely to be) taking over and stamping their interests all over the place? i know someone who has one of those parent created school things near them and of course it just means they want to keep all the disadvantaged kids out and make it for their privileged offspring.

robin_banks

ninky wrote: »

not sure what 'strengthen' shared ownership means so can't really comment.

giving 10 percent equity to those in social housing is outrageous and the 'good behaviour' totally patronising. are those in social housing less well behaved than those in private sector housing? there are good and bad neighbours in all sorts of housing i would say and it's not just about dangerous dog breeders and asbo teens it can be landowners cutting off rights of way.

taking power away from unelected bureaucracy and giving it to local people. well who are the 'local' people and who elects them. won't it just mean those with more power and influence (and we know the sort that is likely to be) taking over and stamping their interests all over the place? i know someone who has one of those parent created school things near them and of course it just means they want to keep all the disadvantaged kids out and make it for their privileged offspring.

Shared ownership is not low cost home ownership, why can't politicians see this ?.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

taking power away from unelected bureaucracy and giving it to local people. well who are the 'local' people and who elects them. won't it just mean those with more power and influence (and we know the sort that is likely to be) taking over and stamping their interests all over the place? i know someone who has one of those parent created school things near them and of course it just means they want to keep all the disadvantaged kids out and make it for their privileged offspring.

We do they are called the local councilors, I think it is on about stopping them just passing things through for self interest and not letting the locals know.
I can't see the problem with local tax payers having more of a say on how their funds are spent.
We have had years of government telling us how well they can spend our money better than us, why not challenge it to see if it is true?

Also on the schools they can't change the boundrys so how can they stop disadvantage kids?

Really2

robin_banks wrote: »

Shared ownership is not low cost home ownership, why can't politicians see this ?.

Is it not a more realistic and cheaper option for single people? (I don't know but obviously single people must find it hard to compete against dual incomes)

chucky

after seeing the 3 major parties manifestos - who's going to be the party to help the HPCers???

the answer is that none of them will provide cheaper house prices... :eek: