Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[roydo]

Some really interesting insights there mate.

Councils don't, but there's no reasons why councils couldn't. It is my understanding Councils were heavily involved previously, and in other places local governments takes a lot more hands on approach.

The issue you have, as is often the case is structural. Developers want to build places in areas where houses cost more money, as it's a lot better profit. Unforutnately these are rarely where there is enormous demand for houses (in poorer, urban areas). You are absolutely right to say there is some croynism involvedin what happens with the affordable ones. Increasingly too targets that are set for local governments mean developers know if they take them to court, they almost always win. So while there may be a desire for x amount of "affordable" houses the number can come in much lower and the price of what is considered afforable can be pushed higher.

There's just not any real market to want to build houses for the poorest in society as they won't gain value and just aren't worth as much to build.

I have been a keen student of the housing situation, in the UK, for many years. Not in an academic way, more that of a slightly bewildered observer. Cos its mad.

My neighbour died a few months ago, and her sons have put her house on the market; they both live miles away. Its nice, but dull as ditch water, in a nice, but not beautiful, village. No buses, 8 miles from a train station, need to drive to get a pint of milk. (But not a pint of beer!). So hardly "family friendly".

£500,000 is the price.

Average salary, what, £30,000? Give or take. Once the shrinking market that can afford, and/or want that type of house, gets smaller, the market will correct itself. Cos thats what markets do.

 

[catcherintherye]

I have been a keen student of the housing situation, in the UK, for many years. Not in an academic way, more that of a slightly bewildered observer. Cos its mad.

My neighbour died a few months ago, and her sons have put her house on the market; they both live miles away. Its nice, but dull as ditch water, in a nice, but not beautiful, village. No buses, 8 miles from a train station, need to drive to get a pint of milk. (But not a pint of beer!). So hardly "family friendly".

£500,000 is the price.

Average salary, what, £30,000? Give or take. Once the shrinking market that can afford, and/or want that type of house, gets smaller, the market will correct itself. Cos thats what markets do.

The trend is though, that people tend to want to move into the countryside as they get older. And older people tend to have made money from other property so it's not as big an uplift.

I would agree with you it ought to correct, though differeing governments have bought into the rising housing market as a sign of success that it is given a protection other aspects aren't. There are limits to how much more it can grow, and it does feel to me we are probably at that limit though.

 

[roydo]

The trend is though, that people tend to want to move into the countryside as they get older. And older people tend to have made money from other property so it's not as big an uplift.

I would agree with you it ought to correct, though differeing governments have bought into the rising housing market as a sign of success that it is given a protection other aspects aren't. There are limits to how much more it can grow, and it does feel to me we are probably at that limit though.

That is true.

I am one of the younger members of The Boomers, and as such, have artificial wealth based on buying and selling a series of houses, when they were affordable as I moved through the life cycle.

I bought my current one 20 years ago; its probably worth 3 or 4 times what I paid for it; probably tons more if I got planning to knock it down and build half dozen smaller homes on the plot.

That makes no sense. Historically, "normal" folk didnt make money just by living in a house, this is the first few generations to do so.

Bubbles burst.

 

[catcherintherye]

That is true.

I am one of the younger members of The Boomers, and as such, have artificial wealth based on buying and selling a series of houses, when they were affordable as I moved through the life cycle.

I bought my current one 20 years ago; its probably worth 3 or 4 times what I paid for it; probably tons more if I got planning to knock it down and build half dozen smaller homes on the plot.

That makes no sense. Historically, "normal" folk didnt make money just by living in a house, this is the first few generations to do so.

Bubbles burst.

The bubble hasn't burst yet though, and the question would be, would a government allow it to be.

It unfortunately becomes a very toxic debate, and I know people of your age can become understandably defensive about it so I try to tread carefully. However the idea houses (or anything) can just magially keep increasing forever is for the birds. Essentially a generation were really able to benefit from a house going from being worth x to being worth 10/15 x over the duration of the term they owned it. They could then downsize when kids moved out etc while pocketing at times hundreds of thousands of pounds.

It's hard to begrudge those individuals, as forthe most part it was hard working people, who in all honesty rarely get anything out of the government who were given a reward for being born at the right time. It's lso not their fault at at all, it's successive governments who haven't sought to mitigate against the problems this causes.

Houses though are like maple syrup in Canada or other products in America, where the prices will be artificially held at a certain price. Land banking etc will ensure this. I dont foresee it ever being allowed to collapse. I certainly hope not, as someone who is about 5 years into to what is a fairly hefty mortage myself haha!

 

[jaycee]

Great cartoon by Squires

 

[tsubaki]

Great cartoon by Squires

that kids track and trace bit is magnificent

 

[jaycee]

that kids track and trace bit is magnificent

That and poppy man

 

[summerisle]

Brought a tear to my eye.

 

[Blues Harp]

Brought a tear to my eye.

Must be Crimbo number one!

 

[Tramps_mate]

People need to remember this too...

 

[mill]

The bubble hasn't burst yet though, and the question would be, would a government allow it to be.

It unfortunately becomes a very toxic debate, and I know people of your age can become understandably defensive about it so I try to tread carefully. However the idea houses (or anything) can just magially keep increasing forever is for the birds. Essentially a generation were really able to benefit from a house going from being worth x to being worth 10/15 x over the duration of the term they owned it. They could then downsize when kids moved out etc while pocketing at times hundreds of thousands of pounds.

It's hard to begrudge those individuals, as forthe most part it was hard working people, who in all honesty rarely get anything out of the government who were given a reward for being born at the right time. It's lso not their fault at at all, it's successive governments who haven't sought to mitigate against the problems this causes.

Houses though are like maple syrup in Canada or other products in America, where the prices will be artificially held at a certain price. Land banking etc will ensure this. I dont foresee it ever being allowed to collapse. I certainly hope not, as someone who is about 5 years into to what is a fairly hefty mortage myself haha!

It’s just a function of interest rates and policy errors following the GFC (austerity). It meant cost of borrowing could remain low as inflation remained low. But markets were flooded with liquidity. So we saw lots of asset price inflation.

that liquidity lowered vol and so the risk premia was reduced too.

people with assets got richer. The uk also benefited as a gateway into the EU and so saw an influx of foreign capital into places like London (which brought up house prices across the board - a little like the fangs have in the US equity market).

i think they’ll keep rates lower than they would for longer and see through any pick up in inflation. that being said, I do think we’ll see a big pick up in risk premia and i dont think we’ll be supported by foreign investment in the way we were pre Brexit. Once inflation does take hold there is another headwind for rates.

im not expecting the kind of growth in property going forward that we’ve seen in the past. The tailwinds arent necessarily there any longer.

That being said, I wouldnt want to call a correction. Anecdotally I have seen a massive influx in rental properties available in various parts of London. that was over the summer. I found that very interesting.....

 

[catcherintherye]

It’s just a function of interest rates and policy errors following the GFC (austerity). It meant cost of borrowing could remain low as inflation remained low. But markets were flooded with liquidity. So we saw lots of asset price inflation.

that liquidity lowered vol and so the risk premia was reduced too.

people with assets got richer. The uk also benefited as a gateway into the EU and so saw an influx of foreign capital into places like London (which brought up house prices across the board - a little like the fangs have in the US equity market).

i think they’ll keep rates lower than they would for longer and see through any pick up in inflation. that being said, I do think we’ll see a big pick up in risk premia and i dont think we’ll be supported by foreign investment in the way we were pre Brexit. Once inflation does take hold there is another headwind for rates.

im not expecting the kind of growth in property going forward that we’ve seen in the past. The tailwinds arent necessarily there any longer.

That being said, I wouldnt want to call a correction. Anecdotally I have seen a massive influx in rental properties available in various parts of London. that was over the summer. I found that very interesting.....

I can see prices rising if inflation does. I am not sure we will see the sort of rises above inflation we did though. I can live with that for my circumstances, if I pay off the mortgage you have somewhere to live in retirement if the worst happens.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

 

[BlueToff]

Not sure where best to post this, but i wrote to my MP over the free school meals thing. Here's my email and his response.

Spoiler: Email

Dear Imran Ahmad Khan,

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your efforts in relation to Wakefield's placement in Tier 2 of the government's new coronavirus lockdown scheme.

I note you have fought tooth and nail for this not to be the case and have voiced the concerns of Wakefield's constituents throughout the ongoing pandemic.

However, that is not the issue I wished to write to you about.

I was disappointed and, given your recent work as mentioned above, surprised to see that you voted against the Labour motion to extend free school meals for underprivileged children throughout school holidays, up until Easter 2021.

My simple question is: Why?

While I understand strides have been made to reduce child food poverty, the United Kingdom is the sixth-largest economy in the world. It is simply unacceptable for yourself, and the other MPs who voted against this motion, to have done so during what is an unprecedented situation. If the impact of coronavirus has taught us anything, it should be to care for each other, and for the most vulnerable in our society. Instead, this vote denies needy children – children! – of a meal which may well be the only one they receive that day.

I appreciate the concerns of dependency to an extent, but a state's job is to care for and provide for the public in times of need. In this situation, I do not understand how anyone could have the gall to vote against a motion which, in some small way, could help so many young people and families who need the assistance. It may not be a long-term fix, and that is a matter for the future, but it does provide some rest bite to those most in need of it; whether they are parents who cannot feed their children or choose not to, that decision is not on the child, and the child should not – ever – be punished.

As the Conservative MP Carlone Ansell has said: “In these unprecedented times, I am very concerned to be doing all we can to help lower-income families and their children who are really struggling due to the impact of the virus.”

I truly hope you reconsider. As a 25-year-old lifelong Labour voter, I am not partizan enough to misunderstand why the Conservative government gained such a majority in the last election. However, I hoped there would be some strides away from the Tory governments of old. Unfortunately, votes such as this make me lose more faith in a government which, day by day, seems to find more ways to deliver death by a thousand cuts.

Spoiler: Response

Thank you for contacting me about the vote in Parliament on the motion relating to free school meals during the holidays.

It is important to dispel some of the misinformation being disseminated. Labour claim that the Conservatives have voted down free school meals for those that need them. This is not the truth.

During the Coronavirus pandemic, Her Majesty’s Government took unprecedented steps to help alleviate child food poverty.

This included extending free school meals to help support those eligible when schools were partially closed, increasing universal credit a week, funding councils to provide emergency food assistance to families, and allocating £63m to councils for struggling families. The national voucher scheme saw over £380m worth of voucher codes redeemed into supermarket e-gift cards for schools and families.

I am pleased to know that during the pandemic, the eligibility criteria for free school meals was temporarily extended. Provision for free schools meals was also extended over the summer holidays. In normal circumstances, free school meals would only be available during the term time, however, these are unprecedented times and Ministers were right to provide as much support as possible to families in dire situations.

It is important to remember that free school meals are not a general welfare measure. They are aimed at providing healthy meals for children in school to ensure disadvantaged students can learn to the best of their ability. A wide range of financial and other support is already available to help families, such as the £9 million summer holiday activities and food programme. This programme also ran over the summer, offering activities and meals to thousands of disadvantaged children.

As schools, and their kitchens, are now open, school meals are once again available for all pupils. Schools have been asked to work with their existing suppliers to provides meals or food parcels to pupils eligible for benefits-related free school meals where they are self isolating.

While schools were restricted from opening to all pupils, additional support was given to families in recognition of the unprecedented levels of disruption and uncertainty for schools during this time. However, provision for free schools meals is ordinarily term time only and there is no requirement for schools to continue this provision during school holidays.

I fully support breakfast clubs at schools in term time from those who would benefit from it. Not only does it provide a nutritious breakfast to those who need it, but has been proven to help boost academic performances and reduce disruptive behaviours. What was proposed by the Labour Party in the Opposition Day debate was a virtue signalling ploy, not a motion, one that would have no legal basis. Even if all Conservative Members of Parliament abstained, the motion would not have become law. The reason the Conservative Party voted against this motion was to clearly spotlight it as a political ruse that would not have cured the disease of poverty. The Conservative Party seeks to eliminate child poverty entirely. The answers is found in building pathways out of poverty through enabling aspiration and achievement.

 

[BlueToff]

I haven't had chance to read fully yet and formulate my response. I'll have to do that over the coming days.