FSA changes cancelled, now housing benefit cuts postponed a year...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

First the FSA mortgage market proposals were watered down, then delayed for a year, and now it looks like they'll be completely toothless as the housing minister calls them a "step too far"......

The Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, says he himself would have failed to get a mortgage had new proposals for the mortgage market drawn up by the City watchdog been in effect when he bought his home.

Speaking at the National House-Building Council's annual lunch, Mr Shapps said: "I think it was about the moment I realised that I wouldn't have a mortgage if the Mortgage Market Review (MMR) changes went through that I kind of thought that this might be going a step too far."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/i-would-have-been-denied-mortgage-says-minister-2145051.html

And now it seems that even the limited housing benefit cuts are being kicked into the long grass, with the changes now postponed until 2012.

Iain Duncan Smith will this week announce that families will not lose large chunks of their housing benefit from April next year, as first announced, but will, in fact, have until the following year to arrange somewhere cheaper to live.

The Work and Pensions Secretary will make the concession this week, as part of moves to head off possible protests about the clampdown, which will see housing benefit payments capped at £400 a week.

It is understood senior Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition demanded the concessions to avoid the possibility of protests next April, which could have fuelled a damaging political row just before the May local elections.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8165318/Housing-benefit-cuts-postponed.html

There is only one possible explanation......

God hates housing bears. :rotfl:

michaels

Only one possible explanation - if you deflate a balloon by letting it go pop you might just break a few things in the vicinity - like the banks; so instead the policy tools can be tweaked to produce a gradual deflation, or that is what is hoped. The reality may be a bit more messy.

PasturesNew

I've been looking today for somewhere to live... it takes virutally a whole person's take home salary for a month to pay the rent on a 1-bed flat + basic bills (no sky, no posh stuff).

It's ridiculous.

Tr1pp

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've been looking today for somewhere to live... it takes virutally a whole person's take home salary for a month to pay the rent on a 1-bed flat + basic bills (no sky, no posh stuff).

It's ridiculous.

:eek:wheres this?

THE_GHOULS_OF_GREED

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've been looking today for somewhere to live... it takes virutally a whole person's take home salary for a month to pay the rent on a 1-bed flat + basic bills (no sky, no posh stuff).

It's ridiculous.

Didn't realise you were a burger flipper. Gos no wonder you come across quite the angry man.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

THE_GHOULS_OF_GREED wrote: »

Didn't realise you were a burger flipper. Gos no wonder you come across quite the angry man.

PN is neither a burger flipper or a man, and although I don't necessarily agree with everything she posts, she is one of the nicer and more reputable posters on here.

So comments like that are completely uncalled for.

Prudent

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

PN is neither a burger flipper or a man, and although I don't necessarily agree with everything she posts, she is one of the nicer and more reputable posters on here.

So comments like that are completely uncalled for.

She is indeed. PN has made some very interesting and valid observations about how expensive it is for a single person to rent and pay bills alone. Benefits have been perhaps too heavily skewed towards families, with people like PN who are genuine jobseekers missing out. PN has IT skills that are way beyond mine (and I am a professional person not a burger flipper).

macaque_2

Hamish, good try but no cigar I'm afraid.

FSA rules
The new FSA rules are not in place yet. Despite this, lending at its lowest level since the start of the millenium. This reflects shifts in lending practices driven by much bigger forces than the FSA.

Some Banks have gone bust whilst others have been taken over by governments. The memory of that will have a salutory effect on band management and lending practices for at least 100 years. Rules for capital ratios have also changed for good. Finally, banks will never be able to offload opaque CDO's again on an industrial scale. Bottom line? Lending practices have changed for good and the FSA is about as important as a milk monitor in the wider scheme of things.

Housing benefits
In your excitement to get into print, you failed to read the article properly. The new rules are in fact coming into effect in 2011.

Mr Duncan Smith will tell MPs this week that while all new benefit claimants will have to abide by the new rules from April 2011, the changes will not come into force for existing claimants until January 2012.

What has changed is that existing claimings will be given a further 12 months of grace. I certainly support that.

Does God hate bears?
I don't the answer to that but I do know that house prices went down last month and will go down again this month.

Lance

The Government do not want to upset voters at the April / May elections apparently so they will appease voters by showing they are totally gutless and will reverse policy at the slightest sign of a demo! No wonder the Lib Dems couldn't win an election.... they just want to be 'nice'. Also, what happens to the places pre-booked by councils 'up North'.... I assume they will still have to pay despite the homes not now being required.

ceridwen

Yep...as stated PasturesNew is both a woman and intelligent.

I dont always agree with her - but she usually makes very rational thought-out posts in a succinct clear manner.

In this case - speaking as another single person - the reason why it would take such a huge chunk of any salary PN might earn for rent/bills is likely to be because she lives in a dear part of the country. I sympathise - because I do too - and often think "Thank goodness I have a (mortgage-free) house now". I recall having had to live in bedsits when I was younger (because flats are just so darn dear here....) and being astonished when I went to visit a friend elsewhere in the country once to find that she was renting a whole flat for little more than I had to pay for a bedsit in my area..

andykn

ceridwen wrote: »

Yep...as stated PasturesNew is both a woman and intelligent.

I dont always agree with her - but she usually makes very rational thought-out posts in a succinct clear manner.

In this case - speaking as another single person - the reason why it would take such a huge chunk of any salary PN might earn for rent/bills is likely to be because she lives in a dear part of the country. I sympathise - because I do too - and often think "Thank goodness I have a (mortgage-free) house now". I recall having had to live in bedsits when I was younger (because flats are just so darn dear here....) and being astonished when I went to visit a friend elsewhere in the country once to find that she was renting a whole flat for little more than I had to pay for a bedsit in my area..

I just shared until I was into my 40s. There are few times in history many people could afford to rent a 1 bed flat in a good area on their own.

Look at "Man about the House" or "The Liver Birds" for examples. My girlfriends' parents had a BBC Producer as a lodger in the 50s in London (presumably because a BBC producer's salary couldn't afford a 1 bed flat). It has ever been thus.