The General Election was a disaster for the UK

As regards housing benefit etc, currently we have the situation where the taxpayer shovels cash into private landlord’s pockets, very often for some substandard housing, we not only give those on benefits a roof over their heads, but also pay the mortgage for a private landlord, still a free house. At least with council funded rented accommodation, the council still owns the house that they pay for.

There is much truth in what you say and it is not a situation that I am really happy about…

…but if I had to decide between a private landlord getting the ‘free house’ (although not completely ‘free’) and somebody who is on benefits for twenty-five years getting the ‘free house’ (and I know you are not suggesting that) I’ll go for the private landlord!

The answer would seem to be more council housing…..but, where do you draw the line?

There must be a finite limit to the number of council houses that the government can afford to own (buy or build) and maintain! The private landlord may end-up with the ‘free house’ but for that he must find a deposit, pay stamp duty, cover legal costs, cover insurance, maintenance and damage, pay agent fees (or not) and handle any disputes with tenants.

Yes, exactly!

How can it be a zero-sum investment if millions of people end-up owning something that they cannot ‘afford’; something the government doesn’t own yet provided on easy terms?

And what about those on income-support or housing-benefit; in those cases the government pays for somebody to rent-to-buy a property from the government…

…there is another way to describe that…..a free house!!!

As regards housing benefit etc, currently we have the situation where the taxpayer shovels cash into private landlord’s pockets, very often for some substandard housing, we not only give those on benefits a roof over their heads, but also pay the mortgage for a private landlord, still a free house. At least with council funded rented accommodation, the council still owns the house that they pay for.

I’m not sure I understand the theory either, especially the ‘credit cards / better-off on the dole’ part?

As I pointed out before, it has to be done over a long timescale, decades, to avoid a hard shock and to reduce prices to a point where most can afford…

Most people can afford a house now. And do you not see a problem in reducing the prices of houses? Many people, most people, own their own property, or have entered into a mortgage agreement that means that they will end-up owning their property. Yes, your plan may take decades, but what about those that will be paying a mortgage for decades?

You get a mortgage, save for your deposit, pay your stamp-duty (tax), pay interest for twenty-five years…

…and then the government deliberately devalues your house…..because it is fairer???

I’m not even sure I understand the theory.

Its vital that government is able, at a local level to provide housing for those who need it the most. However, there are those on a decent income who still use social housing which does block up the system somewhat. I tend to favour the idea that once income goes over a certain level, that it is possible to buy that house, although I don’t think there should be as big a discount as is being suggested.

Every penny from sales must then be ploughed back into building more – of the right type, which means more smaller properties, and less larger ones. Time to rebalance the stock. Government on every level stopped building social housing, which was a big mistake. Time to get on with it.

Whatever the time scale it is a collossal sum of money which the nation does not have and which will hugely extend the time required to reduce the deficit by increasing debt repayment.

It just makes no sense at all and having completed the task it will then have to be managed – a portfolio of 2/3 million properties within a government department requiring more people and resources when the opposite is needed. I can easily see government incompetence writ large.

I understand the principle but suggest it is totally impractical.

Privatising a sector comprising 2.4 million properties with a value of approximately £900 billion! With what exactly? Ah, yes of course we can easily borrow another £900 billion……la la land – again!

As I said to Creaking Door, its done slowly over time.

I would envisage that initially houses will be acquired by first-time buyers[1] looking to have their own house. As the years roll on, [1] will be complemented by [2] and eventually [3] the government would then start to get involved in buying houses, which can then be rent-to-buy for those that are working, but cannot save for deposits or afford commercial interest rates (not in groups [1]-[3]).

If you are on housing-benefits, you cannot be essentially handed a house for free, that would be madness.

[1]of medium wealth
[2]of low to medium wealth
[3]of low wealth

obviously [1],[2] and [3] are all not reliant on benefits for their wealth.

How can it be a zero-sum investment if millions of people end-up owning something that they cannot ‘afford’; something the government doesn’t own yet provided on easy terms?

As I pointed out before, it has to be done over a long timescale, decades, to avoid a hard shock and to reduce prices to a point where most can afford.

Unless you actually think that its first time buyers with relatively little liquidity that drive the price of houses?

And what about those on income-support or housing-benefit; in those cases the government pays for somebody to rent-to-buy a property from the government…

They don’t get possession of the house. Obviously.

Furthermore, enforcing the coupling up of personal loans and credit cards to assets against those acts as a further benefit to people of being in work rather than being “better-off on the dole”.

The SNP win 56 seats and suddenly everybody is a vocal critic of FPTP. I see the Kippers have donned their tinfoil hats as well for good measure. Very predictable.

Say what you like about Mhairi Black, but there is a rough pub (with Union Jacks fluttering outside no doubt) missing its barmaid somewhere in Glasgow right now.

And another way…..pie in the sky!!

Yes, exactly!

So its a zero-sum investment.

How can it be a zero-sum investment if millions of people end-up owning something that they cannot ‘afford’; something the government doesn’t own yet provided on easy terms?

And what about those on income-support or housing-benefit; in those cases the government pays for somebody to rent-to-buy a property from the government…

…there is another way to describe that…..a free house!!!

Privatising a sector comprising 2.4 million properties with a value of approximately £900 billion! With what exactly? Ah, yes of course we can easily borrow another £900 billion……la la land – again!

Right -if house prices stagnate builders dont built.

No, developers won’t build massive new sites unless they get people wanting to buy the houses to live in them (not buy to rent).

People still replace dwellings, so builders will still be employed, and it will be on a sustainable level.

However mass migration stays the same and people wanting houses exceeds the numbers of available houses. Therefore house prices rise due to demand.

Indeed, but given net migration was 0.5% of population in 2014, and migrating families will occupy less houses /person than the indigenous population, its not massive pressure.

Put this way, migration is not a massive driver of house price rises.

Couple all of this with wage increases and the cost of living and its clear that builders cannot be expected to produce houses for the same price as the 1970’s .

I think you need to try and understand just what is the material cost of building a house. Excluding the land, 200K gets you something akin to a mansion.

Therefore cool the market and reduce the number of houses built and you will very quickly start an inflationary track that will be like a rocket !

Rubbish. About 800,000 homes in England are sitting empty/vacant right now and furthermore, there is no moratorium on new build, just a limit on renting that build.

What you are suggesting is effectively nationalising the private rental sector.

Yip.

As for the supposed benefits you suggest these could not be achieved without a massive injection of (borrowed) public money that the return would not justify

Why the massive injection of public money?

The gradual reduction in house prices would allow people that otherwise couldn’t to buy, and most of the rest to buy off public bodies in rent-to-buy. Depending on interest rates, the rent would cover the interest payments (and a bit of capital) anyway. So its a zero-sum investment.

Many people don’t understand that the General election is not a National election. It is a series of local elections at each of which we elect a representative for that area. If we had PR, it would likely not be national either, but still applied at a local level. If we didn’t, we could end up with having elected MP’s that no one wanted. BNP anyone?

I know it sounds a little like a rant, but I honestly feel that this election more than any other has shown how broken the voting system is, we need get people to vote, be part and challenge the system. But people now think votes don’t count and nothing changes, I fear next five years will see a lot of unrest and protest in the country and people are growing tired of how out of touch all the main parties are with reality. It’s a mess no matter who got in, and if we are going to get another 5 years of bickering it will never change,

As you have just said ‘a mess no matter who got in’…

…so why do you think that voting in a different (new?) political party will significantly change the fortunes of the majority of the United Kingdom population (apart from all those undeserving rich people that we’ll tax, rob and / or guillotine)!

What you seem to be looking for is a mythical magical political system that the majority of the population will naturally (and correctly) vote for, if only the voting system was ‘fairer’ and they could escape the (wrong) status quo…

…well, I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t exist!

Or, at least, nobody, anywhere, ever, has discovered it…..even those that have ‘proportional’ voting! 😉

Perhaps you have forgotten that the referendum on the Alternative Vote was lost 2 to 1 on a turnout of less than 50%. So apathy not only ruled but was in the ascendant if you assume over 50% were not interested and of those who were only a third wanted it.

Legally binding manifestos is a nonsense. No party would be prepared to be bound by law on matters over which they might have little of no control once in office and it would only be of interest to parties unlikely to gain office, and therefore of little relevance.

I will never agree to voting as a legal obligation; absolutely the last thing we need is more disengaged, clueless, cannot-be-bothered voters going to the polling-station (or clicking their computer / tablet / phone!) and voting for the party-of-least-resistance…

…or the party-of-unachievable-promises!

Besides, what makes you think that more people voting will improve the end decision?

The more you look at it or think about it our voting system in the UK is not logical. Firstly I am not going to bash the Conservatives for winning, although I feel that is ultimately awful for the country as they will be a weak majority government open to attack from their own rebels with the opposition parties leaderless and needing to rebuild. That can never be a good thing and shows what a crazy political system we have.

Surely this system can be changed, and a Government formed in proportional representation way rather than first past the post.
For example
• Scottish National Party won 56 seats with total voters across the country of 1,454,43
• Liberal Democrats won 8 seats with total voters in Scotland of 2,415,888
• UKIP won one seat with total with total voters across the country of 3,881,129
• The Green party also won one seat but had total voters of 1,157,613
• Social Democrat and Labour Party have 3 seats but only have a total of 99,809 voters
There are many other odd things like this across the results even the Conservative and Labour figures don’t really add up
• Conservatives 331 Seats for 11,334,920 voters
• Labour 232 seats for 9,347,326 voters

No matter what way you look at it, that is not 99 extra seats worth of voters, although I agree it’s a clear winning margin and If Westminster was to have a government filled proportionally they would still be the lead party
It’s also worrying when you see that only 66.1% of voting population voted, I have become so fed up with the way things are that I chose to go along and vote but spolit my paper with the “Words none of the above” . It did not fill me with any joy doing this, but it is the only way I can be heard, I was not against any of the local candidates in particular, but had issues with the leaders of the parties they represented.

I truly want to see voting made a legal obligation, with the option of “None of the above” on ballot papers. I would also like to see manifestos made law so if any Government is failing to do as promised it will need go to a new election. I am glad to see the Conservatives will give us a referendum on Europe, but I really wish we could get a referendum on the voting system that makes it more simple and fairer to all.

I know it sounds a little like a rant, but I honestly feel that this election more than any other has shown how broken the voting system is, we need get people to vote, be part and challenge the system. But people now think votes don’t count and nothing changes, I fear next five years will see a lot of unrest and protest in the country and people are growing tired of how out of touch all the main parties are with reality. It’s a mess no matter who got in, and if we are going to get another 5 years of bickering it will never change,

‘Exactly! The idea of this being a good thing beggars belief.

Just think for a moment of all the negatives associated with an inflated property market. Then name one positive aside from easy money for those with the assets to stand over the mortgages 2 or more houses.’

Right -if house prices stagnate builders dont built. However mass migration stays the same and people wanting houses exceeds the numbers of available houses. Therefore house prices rise due to demand.

However if house prices rise -house builders build -even using land that is expensive to exploit. That cools demand as demand for houses and availability start to get closer.

Couple all of this with wage increases and the cost of living and its clear that builders cannot be expected to produce houses for the same price as the 1970’s .

Therefore cool the market and reduce the number of houses built and you will very quickly start an inflationary track that will be like a rocket !

I don’t know how you protect them from ‘market forces’ but I agree entirely with you about releasing equity.