BOE Governor "housing has deep problems"

thorsoak

Parker Morris standards were essentially to ensure that people had sufficient space in which to live!

Gangaweed

Generali wrote: »

Interesting that Nationwide and also the local news regularly used to cover people living in damp ridden council flats if construction was so good.

I also wonder why you can't get a normal mortgage on so many ex-council flats. You couldn't even in the days when any bum on the streets could get a 125% mortgage.

The housing crisis in the UK started when councils were stopped from building replacement houses in the 1980s.

Yes, councils may not have done a great job, however, they were responsible for about 50% of the houses completed until the curtain came down.

The private sector simply cannot build fast enough to meet demand and that is not only due to planning restrictions.

TickersPlaysPop

I've just seen the interview with Mark Carney and Murnahan.

Carney didnt mention anything about prosperity of the citizens, he is only concerned with a stable secure recovery from recession. That means stopping people from taking very large mortgages compared to wage, and compared to value of the property. He didn't mention anything about limiting the term of the mortgage. All sounds great and sensible?

He also said building more houses would help to situation.

Limiting mortgage lending, and increasing building will result in more houses falling into buy to let hands....

Now... this is a situation, combined with recent pension changes freeing more money to flow into the housing market that will help fuel houses price increases, and an increase in the rental sector. Carney will be happy with this, because there is low risk in this type of lending, some buy to let will be 100% cash.

This is a policy/ situation that suits very nicely the large and growing demographic in the UK and that is the over 50's. Is it a coincidence that these active voters are being looked after nicely before an election?

I seriously wish the young in our country would wake up and become politically active, they have no idea they are being robbed of a secure and prosperous future. They are apthetic and disillusioned because they have no idea what their vote can do, politicians just don't care about them because they don't need to win their vote.

Want to address the supply/ demand problem, prevent buy to let having immediate access to new properties. They should be on the market for at least 6mths before buy to let can get them.

Btw.... Carney also had China as his second place worry for UK's financial stability/ security behind the euro zone crisis. It is nice for me to be vindicated by one of the top financial bods in the uk.... cheers Carney!

Oh yes!... And he also mentioned that in London the non UK resident investment was a concern.... cheers again Carney....

I guess you will all now have to disagree with Carney after many of you have told me I am wrong on both of these counts?

CLAPTON

thorsoak wrote: »

Parker Morris standards were essentially to ensure that people had sufficient space in which to live!

given where we are today in the SE, would you prefer we built fewer properties but bigger or allowed people to make their own choices as to size/cost?

Roundabouts

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

I shouldn't worry about Chuncky, he's on a couple of weeks holiday in fact this is the third time in the last few months he's gone on holiday! I think he's gone to see MrRee's friend Pricklepants :rotfl:

He never learns, does he.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I've just seen the interview with Mark Carney and Murnahan.

Carney didnt mention anything about prosperity of the citizens, he is only concerned with a stable secure recovery from recession. That means stopping people from taking very large mortgages compared to wage, and compared to value of the property. He didn't mention anything about limiting the term of the mortgage. All sounds great and sensible?

He also said building more houses would help to situation.

Limiting mortgage lending, and increasing building will result in more houses falling into buy to let hands....

Now... this is a situation, combined with recent pension changes freeing more money to flow into the housing market that will help fuel houses price increases, and an increase in the rental sector. Carney will be happy with this, because there is low risk in this type of lending, some buy to let will be 100% cash.

This is a policy/ situation that suits very nicely the large and growing demographic in the UK and that is the over 50's. Is it a coincidence that these active voters are being looked after nicely before an election?

I seriously wish the young in our country would wake up and become politically active, they have no idea they are being robbed of a secure and prosperous future. They are apthetic and disillusioned because they have no idea what their vote can do, politicians just don't care about them because they don't need to win their vote.

Want to address the supply/ demand problem, prevent buy to let having immediate access to new properties. They should be on the market for at least 6mths before buy to let can get them.

Btw.... Carney also had China as his second place worry for UK's financial stability/ security behind the euro zone crisis. It is nice for me to be vindicated by one of the top financial bods in the uk.... cheers Carney!

Oh yes!... And he also mentioned that in London the non UK resident investment was a concern.... cheers again Carney....

I guess you will all now have to disagree with Carney after many of you have told me I am wrong on both of these counts?

it is very sad you have such a low opinion of people under 50 as they obviously disagree with you

presumably you view it as impossible the majority are right and you are incorrect?

michaels

Planning policy does not seem to be the only problem with housing supply, the structure of property companies seems to be a problem to.

They purchase land and get permission then when prices are rising they are making more via capital gains than via building so little incentive to ramp up production and when prices are falling building and selling at market means they must crystallize losses potentially on all their land banks so again little incentive to build. Most of the payroll is on contract so it is easy to just stop building.

So no real incentive to build when prices are rising or falling. Perhaps this is because land supply is limited so price moves are so exaggerated but it certainly doesn't help.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We know what the mistakes were, we can now avoid them. Others will be made, but the same can be said of everything.

Politicians repeat many mistakes - why would things be different with housing policy?

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

Planning policy does not seem to be the only problem with housing supply, the structure of property companies seems to be a problem to.

They purchase land and get permission then when prices are rising they are making more via capital gains than via building so little incentive to ramp up production and when prices are falling building and selling at market means they must crystallize losses potentially on all their land banks so again little incentive to build. Most of the payroll is on contract so it is easy to just stop building.

So no real incentive to build when prices are rising or falling. Perhaps this is because land supply is limited so price moves are so exaggerated but it certainly doesn't help.

makes no sense: builders make a fortune for not building?

as there are few barriers to entry one, would expect a flood of new building companies to enter the easy market to make a fortunate by doing very little.

most builders buy on a 4/5 year building plan (for which they are also very heavily criticised)

Graham_Devon

I rather like Lord Lawsons comments on Carney's speech.

Former Chancellor Lord Lawson said he would be quite sure the Government would accept the advice if Mr Carney called for the Help to Buy scheme to be scaled back or ended.

He said: “They wouldn't argue, they would accept it, that's the reason why they asked him to advise them so it's up to him to decide is he going to do it or not.

“I think just sort of bleating about it, however well justified his views are, is not really what he should be doing.”

We do seem to get a lot of "well we could do this and we could do that" but like Lawson says, it's alright saying these things, but he's basically in a position to actually do them, not keep talking about them. He's just said the same things as he did 3 months back.