Vince Cable - Bubble developing now could be more serious than before

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

After Cleggs show with Farage the LibDems are in disarray. No coherent policies. This was an attempt to distract the media rather be anything serious about housing .

Spin doctors are so predictable...........

You think? It was an independant exclusive.

And Clegg wasn't part of the debate - secondly, no one is really talking about the debate in the press today, so why the need to distract?

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You think? It was an independant exclusive.

And Clegg wasn't part of the debate - secondly, no one is really talking about the debate in the press today, so why the need to distract?

The way politics works. If something bad happens. Turn the attention elsewhere.

Let's be frank. On a personal level Clegg took a beating. Whole approach to Farge was wrong, bordering on cringeworthy. Didn't address the TV audience with his answers. Facts were wrong. Didn't sell his vision of Europe.

Cable can say anything he likes about property. As with the article where is the policy? The long term plans that address the issues over the next 10 to 20 years.

thequant

ukcarper wrote: »

With only about 60% of people owning homes why should the average earner be able to buy average home surely it's the average earner of the 60% who are able to buy.

Spot on!


or put it another way,


with 20% social housing, 20% private rentals, and the other 60% owner occupiers.


Then the average earner, i.e at 50% level of the population, they should be looking at the bottom 10% of that 60%.


Unfortunately, they expect to be in the middle of that 60%.


Simple fact, the "average" person in this country does have expectations way above their station in life.

brit1234

Thrugelmir wrote: »

After Cleggs show with Farage the LibDems are in disarray. No coherent policies. This was an attempt to distract the media rather be anything serious about housing .

Spin doctors are so predictable...........

No I doubt it, Vince has been regulary pointing out the dangers of housing bubble for last decade. He was the only politician calling out the dangers way before the credit crunch. Unlike his colleague Sarah Teather the lib dem housing spokeswoman who was just a house price ramper.

thescouselander

ukcarper wrote: »

At any given time it is always the higher earners who can buy so it is their earnings that determine price. You talk as if prices have risen linearly but they haven't and there has been times in the past when prices in relation to earning have been almost as high as they are now. As it happens I agree it would be better if prices were lower but the only real solution to that is to build more properties.

Not true at all. My parents managed to buy their house on just my dad's distinctly average wage at the time. Now to buy the same house a couple would need combined earnings of over £70k if they had a 10% deposit.

I know a lot of people who say they couldn't afford to buy the house they currently live in if they had to buy it all over again. it's clear the housing market has got way out of balance vs earnings. It's only a matter of time (and probably not much) until this damages the wider economy as an ever higher proportion of earnings will be going on housing leaving nothing for other categories of spending.

ukcarper

thescouselander wrote: »

Not true at all. My parents managed to buy their house on just my dad's distinctly average wage at the time. Now to buy the same house a couple would need combined earnings of over £70k if they had a 10% deposit.

I know a lot of people who say they couldn't afford to buy the house they currently live in if they had to buy it all over again. it's clear the housing market has got way out of balance vs earnings. It's only a matter of time (and probably not much) until this damages the wider economy as an ever higher proportion of earnings will be going on housing leaving nothing for other categories of spending.

I hear this all the time but it depends when in the past you bought you certainly couldn't do it when I first bought in the early 70s prices were almost as high as they are now. I was earning more than average wage but couldn't buy where I worked and had to move 20 miles away and commute. I could buy that house now all be it with a slightly bigger mortgage but then interest rates were higher.

Thrugelmir

brit1234 wrote: »

No I doubt it, Vince has been regulary pointing out the dangers of housing bubble for last decade. He was the only politician calling out the dangers way before the credit crunch. Unlike his colleague Sarah Teather the lib dem housing spokeswoman who was just a house price ramper.

One thing to point them out. Another to suggest solutions.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You think? It was an independant exclusive.

And Clegg wasn't part of the debate - secondly, no one is really talking about the debate in the press today, so why the need to distract?

The Lib Dems hand a gift to UKIP and Vince Cable is thawed out to deliver some frothy attention seeking headlines.

Maybe it's just co-incidence.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apparently he will be taken seriously, after he was shunned last time around suggesting that the housing market would tumble....just before it, well, tumbled.

Good move by him taking the limelight away from selling Post Office shares too cheaply. Let's speak about something else shall we...

Good strategic move Mr Cable

wotsthat

chucky wrote: »

Good move by him taking the limelight away from selling Post Office shares too cheaply. Let's speak about something else shall we...

Good strategic move Mr Cable

What do you mean?

This is the chap who took advice on the value of the PO from people who 'promised' that they'd buy the shares and cherish them for life. Fast forward 2 weeks and 50% of the shares had been sold.

To the casual observer it might look as if he'd been done like a kipper.

The frother doesn't see it this way - when Vince says there's a bubble it's gospel.