Who will be the next Tory leader?

[Fab Foodie]

How are we feeling about the suggestion that Right to Buy is being pushed again? Sounds like a cheap and easy ploy to win votes. It seems a good thing in principle but all it leads to is more housing being removed from the lower end of the rental market, forcing low earners into private renting. A commitment to build more affordable properties or council housing would be better but that actually costs money and causes rows over planning.

It will do nothing to help the UK economic shitshow.
It will as happened under Thatcher fuel a housing price boom.
It's another piece of red-meat 'policy' to keep his voters happy and detract from his personal shitstorm....

 

[Beebo]

They haven’t worked through any of the practicalities in the rush to get this out.
It’s total nonsense, they don’t have they buy in from lenders or housing associations.
Was any of this swiftly made up nonsense in the manifesto?

 

[Rusty Nails]

They haven’t worked through any of the practicalities in the rush to get this out.
It’s total nonsense, they don’t have they buy in from lenders or housing associations.
Was any of this swiftly made up nonsense in the manifesto?

Expect some more fantasy stuff to be made up in the next months as a figurative dead cat.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, so many issues with it and no sign that the big lenders are even on board with it. Getting people's hopes up when it will likely come to nothing. It feels like there's an election looming already.

As we've seen before though, they lure you in with promises but always let you down in the end....

 

[Bromptonaut]

Some detail announced today via DWP's 'Touchbase' newsletter:

• Local Housing Allowance (LHA) for first time buyers – housing support contributions towards mortgage payments for first-time buyers
• Universal Credit: change capital rules so those saving for a deposit are not penalised, aiding aspiration
• Changes to Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) entitlement: SMI entitlement starting at three months, with eligibility not tied to zero earnings
• The Housing Support Initiative (HSI): to explore the possibility of a pilot to bring forward new supply of social homes with right to buy potential.

The first would, in admin terms, be fairly straightforward. However it would need some thought so that the taxpayer is not contributing to capital or seen to be subsidising an appreciating asset. As already noted lenders would need to be on board.
The second will need savings to be in a vehicle tied specifically to home ownership and not accessible in other circumstances
The third would be welcome in that it supports people to stay in their own homes. It's completely contrary to the direction of travel for mortgage support from governments of both stripes over 25+ years. SMI is a secured loan so will eat into equity or create negative equity. There's a contradiction between that and the apparent subsidy to first time buyers allowed a contribution equal to that allowed for rent.

No idea about HSI.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Some detail announced today via DWP's 'Touchbase' newsletter:

• Local Housing Allowance (LHA) for first time buyers – housing support contributions towards mortgage payments for first-time buyers
• Universal Credit: change capital rules so those saving for a deposit are not penalised, aiding aspiration
• Changes to Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) entitlement: SMI entitlement starting at three months, with eligibility not tied to zero earnings
• The Housing Support Initiative (HSI): to explore the possibility of a pilot to bring forward new supply of social homes with right to buy potential.

The first would, in admin terms, be fairly straightforward. However it would need some thought so that the taxpayer is not contributing to capital or seen to be subsidising an appreciating asset. As already noted lenders would need to be on board.
The second will need savings to be in a vehicle tied specifically to home ownership and not accessible in other circumstances
The third would be welcome in that it supports people to stay in their own homes. It's completely contrary to the direction of travel for mortgage support from governments of both stripes over 25+ years. SMI is a secured loan so will eat into equity or create negative equity. There's a contradiction between that and the apparent subsidy to first time buyers allowed a contribution equal to that allowed for rent.

No idea about HSI.

I don't pretend to understand the above, but surely one of the pressing issues today with housing is that there's simply not enough and that supply and demand principles maintains unrealistic price growth. This then leads to property being an investment product.
The impact of never-ending property price growth has a major impact on the economy and society.
We need to break the upward cost-spiral of housing and I don't see any other answer other than build more houses, particularly small/affordable or alternative house schemes like tiny houses.

Helping people to buy/get on the ladder is great, but I only see this initiative fuelling house price rises as it did under Thatcher.

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't pretend to understand the above, but surely one of the pressing issues today with housing is that there's simply not enough and that supply and demand principles maintains unrealistic price growth. This then leads to property being an investment product.
The impact of never-ending property price growth has a major impact on the economy and society.
We need to break the upward cost-spiral of housing and I don't see any other answer other than build more houses, particularly small/affordable or alternative house schemes like tiny houses.

Helping people to buy/get on the ladder is great, but I only see this initiative fuelling house price rises as it did under Thatcher.

Agreed. But, for the 60%+ who own property (even if it is mortgaged), what is the incentive to see prices fall? (which, as you say, the laws of supply and demand imply they would, if supply is increased).

In practice, I believe the situation is more complex than that, increasing the supply of less expensive homes, would, no doubt, depress the (selling) price of similar homes, but, it may well increase the price of larger or 'better" homes, if the demand for such homes increased.

I don't know what the answer is, but, I agree, the current situation is not healthy for the economy. IMHO.

 

[theclaud]

Yes, so many issues with it and no sign that the big lenders are even on board with it. Getting people's hopes up when it will likely come to nothing. It feels like there's an election looming already.

As we've seen before though, they lure you in with promises but always let you down in the end....

View attachment 1404

Her own owl. I would vote for that.

 

[lazybloke]

How are we feeling about the suggestion that Right to Buy is being pushed again?.

With fuel/energy prices, inflation in general, rising poverty levels, rising interes rates, poor economic forecasts and a possible trade war, I'm wondering who will be feeling so flush they can afford right-to-buy?

 

[Milzy]

With fuel/energy prices, inflation in general, rising poverty levels, rising interes rates, poor economic forecasts and a possible trade war, I'm wondering who will be feeling so flush they can afford right-to-buy?

Right to buy is a bad thing, it will only cause the problems to get worse. The government should build new council houses with all the taxes they rob from us.

 

[Mr Celine]

Right to buy example from a welfare rights forum -

True story: 3B flat in block on post-war estate in West London with a certain notoriety for crime and squalor. Rent charged to council tenants: £90 a week at the time. Events occurred just before LHA upper limits were introduced in 2011.

This flat had been bought by its original Council tenant a few years previously. She had waited for the RTB discount penalty period to expire then sold it to a BTL landlord. That landlord then leased it to the Council to use as temp acc for homeless families, at £500 a week which was the HB subsidy limit for temp acc. So the Council is paying £500 a week of public money to a private landlord to use one of the flats in its own block.

But that’s only the introduction. This landlord has been observing London LHA rates going bonkers since the 2008 launch of the LHA scheme. The Council’s lease on the flat expires in 2010 and the landlord decides to offer the place to private tenants on HB because the LHA rate for 3B accommodation is, wait for it, £725 a week. So an HB claimant moves in and gets £725 a week for a flat which would be £90 a week for a council tenant.

Then in March 2011, just before the LHA caps come in, she turns up in reception and says she wants to cancel her HB claim. Certainly madam, can we help you with anything else? OK, have a lovely rest of your day.

One week later: she’s back, with a new tenancy and a new HB claim. Same gaff, but now £790 a week because the LHA rate has crept up to £790. By claiming £790 a week HB in March 2011, she will prolong her entitlement to that LHA rate for almost two years under the transitional arrangements that applied when the caps were brought in. Otherwise, the LHA cap would have been £340 a week, which is still preposterous but, I mean, £790!!!

 

[Milzy]

Let them be reprocessed so the rich people can take them & rent them out for high amounts.
Tory scum tactics.

 

[FishFright]

Her own owl. I would vote for that.

My late father wouldn't. He used to try to bring back to health injured birds including successfully a young barn owl. Which once landed on my shoulder from behind with zero noise or air movement, we all know this is how it works with owls but its a real shock when one lands on you !

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'd be happy with wol....

 

[AuroraSaab]

I love owls but apparently they are really thick. You can't train them to do stuff like falcons. When they're babies their heads are heavier than their bodies so they sometimes sleep like this: