Labour attack tories on housing starts

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mortgage rationing.

Builders wont build what they cant sell.....


"Whilst the country's housing needs continue to grow, the number of new homes being built will only see a sustainable increase with a step change in mortgage lending"
~Bob Lawson, Chairman, Barratt


“Government needs to address the lack of liquidity in the finance market and limited availability of mortgages which are the real obstacles standing in the way of a resurgence in new house building and helping people to secure finance to purchase a home.”
~Mike Jones, Chairman, Local Government Association’s Environment and Housing Board.


“We anticipate continued firm underlying demand for new homes but this will remain constrained by the low level of mortgage availability,”
~ Nicholas Wrigley, Chairman, Persimmon


“The biggest post recession issue affecting house building is quite simply a lack of mortgage finance. The overall number of mortgages that are being written is radically down. At the moment house builders’ output is driven by mortgage availability. The Government needs to find a way of encouraging the banks to lend more money to first-time buyers at higher LTVs and rates that are affordable,”
~ Peter Andrew, Director, Taylor Wimpey

Any quotes from non vested interests then Hamish?

the_flying_pig

shortchanged wrote: »

Any quotes from non vested interests then Hamish?

waddaya mean "vested interests?"

what's vested about a bloke who sells nothing other than houses squealing for lots more loans that can be spent on nothing other than houses?

Graham_Devon

the_flying_pig wrote: »

waddaya mean "vested interests?"

what's vested about a bloke who sells nothing other than houses squealing for lots more loans that can be spent on nothing other than houses?

A bloke who sells new houses, squeeling for loans that can only be spent on new houses?

Turnbull2000

You'll get lots more homes when we get lots of 95-100% mortgages at lower interest rates. Yes, that will mean house prices resume an upwards trend - but that's the choice you have.

Lots of new housing through devaluation of land, land banks competition in house building and reduced house prices is considered neither desired or politically acceptable. It just won't happen.

Of course, if you're happy for house price rises to remain relatively modest and FTB mortgages tight, you can enjoy seeing investors snapping up starter properties instead - and hand them your money and not the banks.

homelessskilledworker

james_toney wrote: »

cant believe the cheek of labour created the biggest housing bubble then try to talk about affordable housing,

You beat me too it, the bloomin cheek of them, a "socialist" government that built hardly any social housing and encouraged a property bubble, who were in power for 13 years when there was money available.



p.s Are we talking James Toney.. Iran Barkley, light heavy Roy jones, Mike McCullum fights:)

Graham_Devon

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

You'll get lots more homes when we get lots of 95-100% mortgages at lower interest rates. Yes, that will mean house prices resume an upwards trend - but that's the choice you have.

Explain why?

Only the same was said when there weren't many 90% LTV loans. Now we are there and nothing remotely has changed, the ceiling has just been raised to 95-100%.

We were supposed to get more when funding for lending and newbuy took hold too....but quelle surprise, they just build fewer and charge more while taking less risk and producing more profit.

So why would 95% loans make a jot of difference to new builds? Please tell me, as all I see if a HPI ramper wanting to see HPI on the back of risky lending, making out it will see more housing being built....which sounds like a load of rubbish.

Personally, the logical thing for me would be they would build more if they had to to keep profits up on their own accord, by selling their commodities. Which may have happened had the government not stepped in.

Tesco's and Morrisons don't just state "oh, we could sell more cheese if they would give more credit cards out". They compete on the price of cheese to sell more.

james_toney

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You beat me too it, the bloomin cheek of them, a "socialist" government that built hardly any social housing and encouraged a property bubble, who were in power for 13 years when there was money available.



p.s Are we talking James Toney.. Iran Barkley, light heavy Roy jones, Mike McCullum fights:)

Could not put it better myself, about Labour..

and Yes the very same James Toney :T

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Any quotes from non vested interests then Hamish?

the_flying_pig wrote: »

waddaya mean "vested interests?"

what's vested about a bloke who sells nothing other than houses squealing for lots more loans that can be spent on nothing other than houses?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A bloke who sells new houses, squeeling for loans that can only be spent on new houses?

Except of course that this bloke doesn't sell houses at all....

“Government needs to address the lack of liquidity in the finance market and limited availability of mortgages which are the real obstacles standing in the way of a resurgence in new house building and helping people to secure finance to purchase a home.”

~Mike Jones, Chairman, Local Government Association’s Environment and Housing Board.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course that this bloke doesn't sell houses at all....

“Government needs to address the lack of liquidity in the finance market and limited availability of mortgages which are the real obstacles standing in the way of a resurgence in new house building and helping people to secure finance to purchase a home.”

~Mike Jones, Chairman, Local Government Association’s Environment and Housing Board.

http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=881&HID=1076&FID=0&HPID=2642018

look under "interests". they're very much, not perhaps altogether surprisingly, of the vested sort. the bloke's income is earned through owning a building company & a pwoperdee investment company.

and the other three absolutely do nothing else for a living other than sell houses.

it's true that a second order effect of magicking up lots of credit that can be spent on nothing other than housing will, as a second order effect, lead to more housing being built, but it's no more than a second order effect. the main, first order, effect would be on price.

by way of an analogy - in the war there was a shortage of loads of foodstuffs. no one ever thought of, as a way to deal with these shortages, printing lots of money so that people could buy food. it kind of, well, it wouldn't have worked so well in terms of addressing the underlying shortage. would have been great for prices, mind.

chewmylegoff

of course housebuilders have a vested interest in mortgage finance becoming more readily available - any business has an interest in being able to sell more stuff.

but why are their comments just dismissed as being "VI" and therefore irrelevant.

housebuilders are in it to make a profit. if they could build more houses and make more money then they would - that's the point of them existing. if the CEOs of basically all of the housebuilders are saying that it's not worth their while building more houses until more people can get mortgages then i would say that is worth listening to [at least, if you want more houses to be build that is - if you want housebuilding to continue at current rates then the right thing to do is ignore them].

do people think that the housebuilders are just lying and that they could just build a load more houses and make larger profits for their shareholders (whilst getting bigger bonuses for themselves), but for some unstated reason they're just being a bit awkward and going on about the government needing to sort out lending for the sake of it?