So what's the solution?

Really2

leitmotif wrote: »

Firstly, it can only be said that 71% owned their own home in 2005 if we stretch the definition of 'owned' to include those who haven't yet paid off their mortgage.

They do own it, check the deeds, do you think they get registered at the land registry under the banks name?
They just have a loan secured against it (called a mortgage).

In other words, it's all well and good to say 71% is higher than 40%, but if that higher proportion comprises a large number of people who have stretched themselves to near breaking point in order to get on the property ladder, then that's hardly an indicator of 'good times'.

Wonder how often that was also said in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

:eek: we agreed on something.

why should you be surprised? even more amusing, why would you put an emoticon to say you're surprised.

nickmason wrote: »

But for different reasons. I was answering your question about affordability - not about whether it's a good time from an investment perspective. This fixation with investment (remember all those people talking about making more from their house price increases than their salary) is much of the problem.

a red herring, i'm not sure anyone mentioned investment. just you...

nickmason wrote: »

Only for those with a sufficient equity/deposit. It didn't satisfy the second part of your question "when anyone could buy a property" - moreover it didn't even get close to satisfying it.

it may have skipped right past you but that's the lending criteria in place for anyone wanting a mortgage currently. so i'll stand by what i said 2009 was a great time for people that could buy, just like the mid-1990s was for those people who could qualify for a mortgage whatever the underwriting criteria.

nickmason wrote: »

It was rhetorical - a plea for you to engage in the conversation rather than continue with misleading sniping.

lol - that really did make me smile

have you thought about lobbying your local MP about allowing to build more houses? if you feel that strongly about it, that should be the first thing you'd be doing.

Generali

nickmason wrote: »

Planning used to (it's either been repealed or is about to be) require adherence to minimum "dwelling per acre" - which is why you see these tight new developments, typically with insufficient car parking etc (another bizarre ruling that new estates should have, iirc, only 1.5 cars per house, to encourage people to take public transport. Possibly okay if the public transport is there, total nonsense if it isn't).

Looking to other countries, the "vernacular" seems preserved by spreading out building - abandoning the "green belt" shibboleth and having houses dotted around the countryside. Which ties in with Generali's point. Rather flippantly, I have wondered in the past whether we should have certain zones where there's a maximum instead. I would have thought that would:
1) be less offensive to local residents
2) be less lucrative for land-owners and developers, thus avoiding so much of the heat/anger that this debate generates
3) probably push down the prices of the houses that were built to very high densities
4) most importantly, encourage building of suitable homes.

It all seems very sensible. I'm not sure why you're getting so many ad hominem attacks unless it's just anti-Tory stuff.

It seems a shame really as you have a clear inside understanding from a particular pov.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

It all seems very sensible. I'm not sure why you're getting so many ad hominem attacks unless it's just anti-Tory stuff.

it's nothing to do with party politics - i understand his posts but i don't understand Nick's point or even the purpose of the thread.

Generali

chucky wrote: »

it's nothing to do with party politics - i understand his posts but i don't understand Nick's point or even the purpose of the thread.

You're not likely to get to the bottom of either by having a pop at him IMHO.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

You're not likely to get to the bottom of either by having a pop at him IMHO.

that's true

JonnyBravo

chucky wrote: »

if that's a bit of political hot potatoe for you Mr Mason and it would mean that it would go against the Tory party whom you work for - it's fine if you don't want to answer

You are Dan Quayle and I claim my £5.

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

a red herring, i'm not sure anyone mentioned investment. just you...

i agree house prices started rising and mortgage rates fell which was an excellent opportunity for people wanting to buy a house.

Apologies - I took your point about house prices rising being a good opportunity to suggest an investment mindset. One doesn't need house prices to rise to inhabit a house, therefore for the purposes of home ownership/affordability it's not a primary concern.

it may have skipped right past you but that's the lending criteria in place for anyone wanting a mortgage currently. so i'll stand by what i said 2009 was a great time for people that could buy,

but that wasn't what you said - you suggested it as a good year for affordability and allowing people to buy; we were talking about - frankly - the "have-not's" not the "already haves". The lending criteria in place at the moment, combined with the high prices, means that first-time buyers aren't able to buy. Which was where this discussion started. Ergo, 2009 was not a good example. I do find it wierdly ironic that you berate me for being a Tory yet I am trying to understand how to help people who haven't got on the ladder, while you seem very happy with years when those that can buy prosper and those that can't, don't.

lol - that really did make me smile

and your reply, me.

have you thought about lobbying your local MP about allowing to build more houses? if you feel that strongly about it, that should be the first thing you'd be doing.

What makes you think I'm not? As it happens, I'm reviewing our local plans at the moment. As per my previous post, I'm trying to make sure I understand as much as possible - both facts and perspectives.

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

Apologies - I took your point about house prices rising being a good opportunity to suggest an investment mindset. One doesn't need house prices to rise to inhabit a house, therefore for the purposes of home ownership/affordability it's not a primary concern.

but the price you pay for the property plus the mortgage rate where the better time. i know that you know this but the ticket price of the house isn't the be all and end all.

for example someone buying in 2007 whose house price has fallen with a good 2007 mortgage is/could be better off than someone buying the same property in 2010 with todays mortgage rates.

the combination of the two is what is key - that's what i'm saying here.

nickmason wrote: »

but that wasn't what you said - you suggested it as a good year for affordability and allowing people to buy; we were talking about - frankly - the "have-not's" not the "already haves". The lending criteria in place at the moment, combined with the high prices, means that first-time buyers aren't able to buy. Which was where this discussion started. Ergo, 2009 was not a good example. I do find it wierdly ironic that you berate me for being a Tory yet I am trying to understand how to help people who haven't got on the ladder, while you seem very happy with years when those that can buy prosper and those that can't, don't.

see above why i say it's a good time and also to add it's also because the minority do not own anyway - politically they're not important as they're in the minority (currently). that's why i'm berating you for being a Tory because the housing market is a political tool for all parties. the current Government is Tory.

nickmason wrote: »

What makes you think I'm not? As it happens, I'm reviewing our local plans at the moment. As per my previous post, I'm trying to make sure I understand as much as possible - both facts and perspectives.

nothing tells me you are and that's why i asked the question.

i find you coming onto this forum to get the right perspective and even 'facts' quite worrying, especially with the nature of these forums and the kind of 'people' that post here.

it's not the best approach and that's why you will get a hard time from me.
sorry but you'll have to suck it up.

leitmotif

Really2 wrote: »

They do own it, check the deeds, do you think they get registered at the land registry under the banks name?
They just have a loan secured against it (called a mortgage).

The deeds from the Land Registry always specify the name of the lender. The buyer is certainly not the only name mentioned on the deeds, unless they're a cash buyer.

Allow me to present the following analogy:
If, due to exceptionally high availability of financing on new cars, everyone were to rush to the car dealers and buy expensive vehicles on a financing scheme, would the shrewd say 'look, people have more cars than ever before, aren't we in good times?' or would we say 'irrespective of who is termed owner, how indebted are these people as compared with car-buyers in the past?'.

In other words, the bare percentages presented are not enough in themselves to determine whether we are living in the best of times. What is needed is a comparison of (for example) national average annual wage versus national average house price, and in this regard you would also have to factor in the effect on house prices caused by interest rates, recessions, multiple wages (after it became the norm for women to work as well), etc. etc. You do highlight the fact that people may have been overstretched at other points in time, but this assertion is too sweeping to actually present any kind of case to uphold the claim that the past 20 years constitute the best of times. Furthermore, no necessary link has been established between home ownership and 'best of times' - on what grounds would a high percentage of home owners be considered a great thing? It's common in many countries to rent (Germany, for example), and many of these countries have a higher standard of living than the UK (Germany, for example). Additionally, with children under 18 making up a good 20%+ of the population (I assume), it's simply not true that 71% of people own their own home.