We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Intervention ... my take on it all....

2456

Comments

  • lvader
    lvader Posts: 2,579 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    No intervention would have led to the 2nd great depression so in my view that makes it justified.
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    ukcarper wrote: »

    Agree need more social housing but that needs money up front and I can't see any of the parties providing that.



    I am currently reading a book which briefly touches on some form of enforced private rental property purchase, by London councils, to provide affordable social housing.

    You seem to know these things and have been around long enough.

    How did that work? Is that something that could be reused?

    I guess the answers are, not very well and probably not, but any light you could shed would be of interest.
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    Tried reading it a couple of times and it sounded like the normal rant to me.

    Agree need more social housing but that needs money up front and I can't see any of the parties providing that.


    Whatever one's political views are, it is obvious that building more properties is better than not building more properties.

    There may be differences is what sort of housing to build but the above fact is surely obviously true except for the true mad socialists.

    So surely it is obviously better, at no cost to allow the market to work by reducing planning regulations and enabling banks to lend more to credit worthy people and so to build more houses.
  • TruckerT
    TruckerT Posts: 1,714 Forumite
    Thrugelmir wrote: »
    Look at where we were. How close to the cliff edge. Fixing the problems is going to take years. Only people themselves i.e. the next generation can make the cultural change.

    I disagree. Only the elected government can make the necessary changes. Cultural changes may, or may not, follow from the elected government's economic changes. But the choice of government belongs to the people.

    According to one version of economic history, the reason why post-war socialism was so short-lived is because their programme was actually quite small and easily accomplished (the Welfare State, the NHS, and lots of good housing at affordable prices).

    All three of those areas are now under increasingly serious attack, for all sorts of reasons.

    TruckerT
    According to Clapton, I am a totally ignorant idiot.
  • TruckerT
    TruckerT Posts: 1,714 Forumite
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    Whatever one's political views are, it is obvious that building more properties is better than not building more properties.

    There may be differences is what sort of housing to build but the above fact is surely obviously true except for the true mad socialists.

    So surely it is obviously better, at no cost to allow the market to work by reducing planning regulations and enabling banks to lend more to credit worthy people and so to build more houses.

    You don't seem to understand that 'credit-worthiness' is as forlorn a hope for many people as 'home-ownership'.

    The post-war council houses gave a start to many ordinary people, and the right-to-buy scheme made some of them rich.

    There is now a new under-class, who, in the modern, post-banking-rip-off, democratic world, are as fully entitled to a fresh start as were the survivors of the 1930s depression and WW2.

    TruckerT
    According to Clapton, I am a totally ignorant idiot.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I don't really understand why the Government subsidizing house purchases is wrong when subsidizing rents is right. Can anyone explain?
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I am currently reading a book which briefly touches on some form of enforced private rental property purchase, by London councils, to provide affordable social housing.

    You seem to know these things and have been around long enough.

    How did that work? Is that something that could be reused?

    I guess the answers are, not very well and probably not, but any light you could shed would be of interest.

    I don't know anything about that but would be interested.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Generali wrote: »
    I don't really understand why the Government subsidizing house purchases is wrong when subsidizing rents is right. Can anyone explain?


    maybe so

    however there is no need for the government to subsidise house purchase; they merely need to stop preventing it.
    and it would have the very useful side effect of reducing rents too.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I am currently reading a book which briefly touches on some form of enforced private rental property purchase, by London councils, to provide affordable social housing.

    You seem to know these things and have been around long enough.

    How did that work? Is that something that could be reused?

    I guess the answers are, not very well and probably not, but any light you could shed would be of interest.

    What about owners' property rights? Confiscation of property seems like the start of a very nasty process.
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    Generali wrote: »
    I don't really understand why the Government subsidizing house purchases is wrong when subsidizing rents is right. Can anyone explain?

    When we're all reliant on benefits the government's work will be done. We'll all be in awe of the politicians that created a utopia where the government pays for everything and we all live happily ever after.

    I'm slightly worried about how it will be funded but I'm sure the politicians have considered this and I don't need to tax my tiny little brain about such trivia.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.