Profound changes for the housing market?

Blacklight

I thought you'd have picked your toys up by now Carol. Top whack tax payers shouldn't get state benefits.

Percy1983

The government wants the current and future generations to own homes not investments, what a brilliant idea.

IveSeenTheLight

Jenniefour wrote: »

If indeed the Government are putting their money where their mouth is, and this is true and is going to become policy i.e. they definitely will intervene if the market rockets up again - then the use of the word "stability" is simply a get out clause if prices do go down. It will be deemed an unintended consequence. I say "go down" with a bit of a rider - the only thing that's keeping this market looking not so bad in the national statistics is that London prices are propping it all up.

The Government could not be seen to be openly supporting a drop in prices - upset far too many voters.

Bean for the B of E did actaully say as much very recently - that there would be intervention is property took off again. Maybe they've finally learned their lesson. We shall see.

I'm all for inflation linked rises.
There does not need to be rampant HPI.

Inflation linked rises are the best for most as far as I am concerned.
That would be stable

Unfortunately there are so many factors involved, it's going to be extremely difficult to have that stability.

twadge_face

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Stability, not HPI, not crashes, confirmed here

Haha. Sucker. You believed a politician.

That'll be "stability" coded as "oh jaysus we can't prevent a crash so let's call it stability and make it look like a political intention as the market naturally corrects itself."

Oh, and "...at the same time let's get the priced-out first time buyers on our side, they're young and vibrant and will be Tory voters forever and will permanently hate Labour for betraying them so grievously."

Good, innit?

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How excellent is that?!?!

Well it got better!! :D

I am obviously quoting select parts of this article, but please, read the full article, which can be found here: http://www.channel4.com/news/is-housing-market-headed-for-profound-change

Briliiant article

It all sounds like sensible stuff. But all new governments come in with these good intentions and fantastic quotes, like people joining gyms and starting diets after New Year. Full of optimism and good will. Maybe it'll stick, maybe it won't.

Shall we remind ourselves of that famous Gordon Brown speech from 1997?

For most people the acquisition of a house is the biggest single investment they will make. Homeowners rightly expect their investment to be protected by sensible policies pursued by Government.


I am determined that as a country we never return to the instability, speculation, and negative equity that characterised the housing market in the 1980s and 1990s. Volatility is damaging both to the housing market and to the economy as a whole.


So stability will be central to our policy to help homeowners. And we must be prepared to take the action necessary to secure it. I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.

22225

I think that prices will stabilise/fall but I think foreign buyers/cash buyers will still want to do BTL. If prices fall too much they will get snapped up. If the government had a rule that you could only have one house/flat then things would plummet, but as they don't I think there will be even more landlords. In east London extended families pool their cash (including from relatives abroad) to buy up BTL properties. So it's not a sure thing that traditional FTB using a mortgage are definitely going to benefit. I think in the long term a smaller amount of people are going to get richer and richer.

carolt

bendix wrote: »

Still wondering how you're going to manage losing the invaluable child benefit from your top 10% family income, carol?

Ouch . that must really smart!

Yes, I am - like millons of other parents - but that is rather to miss the point I was making.

Which is that what the Tories say they're going to do and what the Tories actually do are two entirely unrelated things.

And that people should bear that in mind next time they're wondering how to vote.

A._Badger

carolt wrote: »

Yes, I am - like millons of other parents - but that is rather to miss the point I was making.

Which is that what the Tories say they're going to do and what the Tories actually do are two entirely unrelated things.

And that people should bear that in mind next time they're wondering how to vote.

In what way that would make them different from the previous government?

carolt

Very little - but Graham was, for obvious reasons, posting about the current govt, given that the tendencies of the previous one are not likely to have any impact on the lives of ordinary people in the immediate future.

Wookster

carolt wrote: »

Yes, I am - like millons of other parents - but that is rather to miss the point I was making.

Which is that what the Tories say they're going to do and what the Tories actually do are two entirely unrelated things.

And that people should bear that in mind next time they're wondering how to vote.

Before you get all high and mighty about the 'sell out tories' you'd better read Nick Robinson's blog here:

Here's what to remember when you hear politicians trading blows about tuition fees:

• Labour introduced them and commissioned the report proposing that the cap on them be lifted, but now says it wants them abolished

• the Tories originally proposed scrapping them, but now backs almost doubling them

• the Lib Dems said they'd vote against any increase in tuition fees, but are now in charge of the department which will do just that

• if Lib Dem ministers and the Tories stick together, these proposals will get through - even if a large number of Lib Dem MPs rebel against their party line

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/fees_made_simpl.html