I live in Cambridgeshire so housing is expensive. Which party will help the housing situation the most.

the ones offering to move cambridgeshire further north?

None of the above

In the next 5 years?
None of them. (Another resident of Cambs)

None.
Just suck it up, the same as the rest of us have had to..

You need to emigrate to either,

a) abroad or

b) the North.

HTH.

House prices are too heavily tied into the economy of this country. No one has the desire to do anything about that, and even if they did, a single term in office wouldn’t be enough. A cynical person might also think that it is also the reason why who ever is in power will never solve the housing crisis.

You are rich! Rich!

You are guilty! Guilty of being well off and buying a house.

Stone him!

😆

House prices are too heavily tied into the economy of this country

or….a more accurate way of putting it is “the market sets the price for housing in this country”.

There’s no “too” about it.

Move north. Whippets, gravy and housing is much cheaper there.

I don’t think building a load of houses will make much difference, and I know all about supply and demand. But developers will always release a few houses at a time to keep the price up, and even if someone did buy a house cheap, they’ll sell it for as much as they can, and just take a bigger profit.
As Onzadog says, no one (who has a house) has any reason to change the system (even if it was possible).

Although I’ve been entertaining a Northern visitor who tells me Bishops Finger is the best beer he’s ever tasted.

You win some you lose some, your choice.

Don’t forget, property is also tied into pensions.

Stamp duty might get tweaked a little depending on who gets in but it’s not a significant amount compared to the price of the house.

This cheaper further north thing doesn’t always work either. We need to move from Nottingham to Sheffield but the price hike for a like for like move is causing us a headache.

The only solution is a state backed social housing programme, using mainly brownfield sites in towns and cities because that is where most people need to get to for work, thus reducing commuting problems as well.

And I say that as a (usually) Tory voter.

Stoner – Member
or….a more accurate way of putting it is “the market sets the price for housing in this country”.

I think the manipulation of “the market” by successive governments puts that one on fairly thinnish ice, stoner

I can’t see any party making property in Cambridge any more affordable, they’re already building on every spare spot and they sell out in seconds. We’re a boom town and London commuter suburb.

Only hope would be they release a chunk of the green belt and built 10k flats. That might have an effect.

far too many conflicts of interest for anything to be done about the affordable housing ‘problem’. Shortage of houses, although true, is also a massive red herring. Annoys the shit out of me that the media repeat that message over and over and never challenge it. Why? Because probably most of them own houses.
Likewise politicians.

Ship has sailed, will take generations to turn it around.

Why not come and buy a house in Macc. They’re just about to complete the process of shutting down AZ and moving it to Cambridge so there’ll be loads of people without jobs and no option but to sell.

Could we worse for yo :evil:u…

You need to emigrate to either,

a) abroad or

b) the North.
I looked at prices in Leeds today. No different to bristol really (well the burbs) and bristol aint cheap.

UKIP: once they’ve returned us to medieval feudalism you’ll be entitled to one whole mud hut and an acre of land to spread your fecaes on and grow turnips.And they won’t be no foreigners to come and steal it from you neither.

thestabiliser – Member

UKIP: once they’ve returned us to medieval feudalism you’ll be entitled to one whole mud hut and an acre of land to spread your fecaes on and grow turnips.And they won’t be no foreigners to come and steal it from you neither.

What a drama queen it will be more like holding the red book and goose stepping by the look of things.

Long live proletariat!

Down with you lot pseudo proletariat!

Down with you lot bourgeoisie!

Let the cultural revolution II begins!

🙄

The only solution is a state backed social housing programme, using mainly brownfield sites in towns and cities because that is where most people need to get to for work, thus reducing commuting problems as well.

And I say that as a (usually) Tory voter.

Funny, that…
That’s Dave’s plan too- 400,000 new homes on brownfield sites by 2020.
In other words, not near anyone who might vote for them.
And even that figure is a lie…

Although I’ve been entertaining a Northern visitor who tells me Bishops Finger is the best beer he’s ever tasted.

Clearly not a beer drinker then.

That’s Dave’s plan too- 400,000 new homes on brownfield sites by 2020.

So nowhere near enough…

No party will build enough to bring prices down because too many people are either too close to negative equity or have their entire retirement plan tied up in their house.

mikewsmith – Member
…too many people … have their entire retirement plan tied up in their house.

people buying a big house, with the intention of selling it one day, isn’t a problem.

landlords, buying n+1 houses, with the intention of never selling them, that’s a problem.

two points:
1. Why don’t you vote for the party that you think will do the best job for the country

2. I’m not 100% sure you’re vote will be the deciding factor as I believe there will be other residents of your constituency who may express an opinion at the ballot box

I admire your optimistic narrow self interest, though.

I find this an interesting topic.
I don’t even know what party policy would help, let alone which party is even investigating it.

It’s the fact that you want to buy a house even though you can’t afford it that starts the trap.

I was really struck when I talked to a few people who had (perhaps temporarily) emigrated to New Zealand. They chose Auckland to live in, because the house prices and salaries were most in line with UK. They were scared that if they wanted to move back they wouldn’t be able to do so unless they lived in Auckland.
When really, what attracted them to NZ in the first place was the South Island wilderness, freedom, cheap land, work/life balance, etc. Unsurprisingly, all but one of the people I kept in touch with are back in the UK.

I don’t know the answer (except I’ll be voting Green, work from home and live in the North), but we have been educated to be very fearful of accepting compromise when it comes to salary and house.

UKIP: once they’ve returned us to medieval feudalism you’ll be entitled to one whole mud hut and an acre of land to spread your fecaes on and grow turnips.And they won’t be no foreigners to come and steal it from you neither.

🙂

landlords, buying n+1 houses, with the intention of never selling them, that’s a problem.

Not really. There are several more structural issues at play:
1. Mass sell of of social housing without being replaced (since Mrs T’s era), pushes social tenants into private market
2. Mass urbanisation trend (all over Europe) meaning more people want to live in towns & cities
3. Lower household density over last 30 years (meaning more houses needed for same number of people)
4. Increasing life expectancy – reducing the return of large family homes back into the market
5. Very low house building rates (compared with trends over last 70 years)

Following on from Footflaps, my clients all tell me that the single reason none of the parties can say with confidence they can build 200,000+ houses is because, the industry contracted so much in the mid 2000’s that there simply aren’t enough bricks coming out of the ground or brickies to lay them.

Our population rates need around 250,000 houses per annum to be built. Even in 2005/6 we only managed 233,000. In 1970, there were 175,000 council houses built! It’s probably less than 1,000 per year now. See Footflaps’ Point 1 above…

landlords, buying n+1 houses, with the intention of never selling them, that’s a problem.

Why? There’s people living in all of them. If there are “too many” properties being let, the cost of renting will go down and the landlords will sell their houses – depressing house prices.

You always need rented accommodation, not everyone wants to own. There is an economic argument that a high rental percentage is good as it reduced inertia and allows labour to move to where it can find the highest pay etc. However, with both parents working, this probably no longer holds as you can’t just up sticks if one job moves etc. Plus people have kids in school and don’t want to move.

landlords buying their n+1 house increase the pressure on house prices.

the number of people wanting to buy a house is bigger, if you include landlords.

something like 20%* of all houses are now owned by landlords. that reduces supply.

more bidders = higher prices.

reduced supply = higher prices.

note: i said ‘a problem’, not ‘the problem’

yes, i appreciate that some people are happy renting. But i’m not alone in thinking that it’s long reached problem-proportions.

(*number from the telegraph)

anyway, it doens’t matter. nothing will get done to really harm the landlord business. Our MP’s are very much in the club.

that reduces supply.

No, the total number of houses is still the same.

You also need to factor in that not everyone wants to buy, so you’ll never have 100% of houses owner occupied, even if prices fell 50% over night.

as farage has said he is willing to accept a 3% contraction in our economy on our exit from europe then you can be sure this will affect house prices. of course whether or not you have a job to pay for a house might be another question… 🙄

footflaps – Member

No, the total number of houses is still the same.

the number of houses making it to market is reduced.

Your job is at more risk if labour get to power, assuming you are employed

Your job is at more risk if labour get to power, assuming you are employed

Not mine it ain’t.

Just sit tight and wait and the problem will sort itself out soon enough… The UK market has only once grown for more than 10 years without a big crash – the last 15 years are a historical anomaly, not the norm.

1. London is already flatlining as buyers give up or leave…South East London has between 25-30% of properties on a discount from their original asking price. All first time buyers I know are moving out.
2. Foxtons share price is down from 400p to c200p over the last year, suggesting lack of future profits for them… not a sign of a strong market
3. Halifax research the other week showed 80% of London renters have given up ever owning, and something like 70% nationwide. No buyers at current prices = no sales
4. Interest rates will go up eventually which will make other assets more attractive again, as well as spoil the party for a lot of BTL…
5. London is rammed full of speculative money which is there because it thinks London is a one-way bet. When prices stop rising that money is likely to bail out at speed to avoid losing too much…
6. Currently there’s a massive oversupply of high-end flats being built in prime London which is limiting price rises… and increasing liklihood of foreign money leaving
7. Global economy is not in a good way – China slowing up, Russia and Brazil both an utter mess, US and UK not growing as well as expected, Eurozone and Japan stagnant, Greece possibly about to exit Euro/EU. All of these will play on confidence of investors and consumers
8. Baby boomers will be selling en-masse at some point to realise their gains/downsize which could alter the supply/demand argument somewhat
9. UK housing crisis has been manufactured by both Labour and Tories by restrictive planning and excess credit to hide flat wages and stagnant living standards over the last 15 years. However the last couple of years has put house owning beyond so many that it’s finally become an electoral issue so pressure to change this strategy is now growing, which it hasn’t before, so the next government is going to find it harder to continue the game without loud protests and possibly unrest…
10. It’s fast impacting on everyday voters – pressure to resolve the situation is higher now than it’s before.
11. Housing costs are impacting on the real economy – people have a lot less left at the end of the month… so it’s suppressing consumer spending which has been the main source of growth…
12. UK banks were stress tested by Bank of England to survive a 35% drop in prices, and a 20% drop in London wouldn’t be a collapse, it would only impact on that small number who bought since early 2014… so a 20% drop nationwide is unlikely to kill the banks (which is one of the BoE’s concerns)

My theory is that Osborne, whilst is not a nice person, is not a fool, and is a real political game player. His recent repeated subsidies were purely and simply to prevent the underlying crash before the election. If there was healthy demand at current prices, he wouldn’t have had to subsidise the market, would he?
As of next week, if Tories are in, they can let the market slide, knowing they have 5 years fixed term parliament to get it growing again. If they’re not in power they just sit jeering from the opposition benches, blaming the collapse on the incumbents…

At the end of the day, extreme prices are holding UK economy back, a big drop will be healthy rather than negative in the short and long term… it’s just a question of letting it happen at the right time that it doesn’t tip the banks back over the edge

Your job is at more risk if labour get to power, assuming you are employed

Total nonsense.

Based on what?

Did you write that yourself Brooess? 😯