Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

All governments change course as events dictate. Some policies have to be scrapped. This is the normal process of government.

The Blair government did few U turns by leaking possible policies. If the public reaction was not good then the policy never made it to the official lists. That is weak government and just courts public approval.

would you rather that no help was offered at all?
if the answer to the above is negative, but you don't like the currently proposed concept, what do you suggest?

Lenders brace for stampede as over 600,000 homes eligible for Help to Buy

Demand may outstrip supply for the £12bn scheme, while Zoopla says buyers need average £10k deposit


Rupert Jones

The Guardian, Monday 7 October 2013


High street bank Santander claims that up to 1.7 million people are planning to use the scheme. Photograph: Rebekah Downes/PA


More than 600,000 homes on the market are eligible for inclusion in the £12bn second phase of the Help to Buy scheme, according to the latest in a series of surveys leading to predictions that lenders will be flooded by pent-up demand for the government-backed mortgages.

Details of the 95% mortgages, which are available to existing homeowners as well as first-time buyers, are to be unveiled by the chancellor , with some banks expected to invite loan applications within hours of the Tuesday announcement. The second phase of the flagship scheme to give more first-time buyers and others wider access to the housing market was brought forward by three months, with a report from high street bank Santander claiming that up to 1.7 million people are planning to use the scheme.

"It is going to accelerate more people going into the market, so the number of mortgage applications will increase and that will put more pressure on lenders and their [loan] processing," said David Hollingsworth of broker London & Country Mortgages. "But in terms of gross [mortgage] lending we are about less than half where we were in 2007."

Another mortgage broker predicted a surge in demand, stoked by media coverage of the scheme, that could be blunted by stringent eligibility checks from lenders. "A lot of people want to get on the property ladder and the lenders who come out with these products will be inundated with inquiries," said Andrew Montlake of Coreco. "But lenders are not going to suddenly forget about being prudent, so people are going to have to qualify for the loans."


More re-election house price ramping here:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/07/lenders-600000-homes-eligible-help-to-buy

Cynic,

The money should have been put into "social housing" when this coalition crew took office.

That money would have gone into a broader group of the public and supported local economies and fed into general economy, rather than a smaller number of society.

Also, would have been a major employer and increase in "work force" skill.

The effect would have been less drive up of housing and housing costs and relieved over likely "indebtedness" which is being stoked once more.


Simplistic, but think and DYOH.

at least that's a sensible answer

as far as i can tell, there are huge stocks of empty and/or badly run down or derelict housing and similar that are already owned by local councils ...... there seems to be remarkably little interest in bringing those up to spec, though I don't know who would or should pay the cost

there are certainly one or two small schemes dotted around the country where the properties are sold to first time buyers at a peppercorn cost but with certain provisos related to the time the property must be retained and also the necessary work carried out

rather more common are housing association properties and also houses sold under partial ownership (don't know how either system works)

One difference is that the government are acting as guarantors of the loan. They are not spending money. Social housing would require funds to be spent.

true, though in the longer term the benefit would be better utilisation of existing housing stock and arguably at least some extra jobs created as well as the slow up-grading of the areas where this unused housing is located

They may not be spending money today, but they sure as hell will be when the latest Ponzi scheme goes tits up.

And in the meantime, the banks are laughing their asses off...cant lose!

and in the meantime, what is your sensible and constructive suggestion, or is it that like usual, that you have none?

cynic. as said many times on these threads, empty vessels make most noise.

I believe the MOD has also got spare capacity of homes, maybe those could be sold off cheaply.
2517

quite possibly, and certainly round here there was a big batch sold off a good number of years ago
whether or not there should be covenants to whom they are sold or other restrictions (length of tenure etc) is a different question

If the gov has money to burn, they should be investing it in manufacturing.

People need jobs, and pushing bits of paper around cannot provide this.

You have missed the point completely. The help to buy does not involve the government spending money. The government is guaranteeing the loans, subject to conditions.

Hays - MK is not worth wasting your breath on ...... he has nothing sensible of constructive to say - ever! ...... he can't or won't even answer the base question which is whether or not he thinks first time buyers should get any financial assistance ...... at least fred comes up with some possible alternative when he chooses not to just goad you!

Cynic,

As a man of wisdom of foresight do you think that Georgie Boy and Wavey Davey have made the correct economic changes over the last 3 years for the benefit of "all" of the "country", or on expeditious political grounds?

"If" the country was a Public company and you had responsibility for it, would think the investments that the above have made over the last three years, be the one's you would have made, and for the benefit for the shareholders?

Are the long term "social" consequences of their actions to be beneficial?

correct economic changes over the last 3 years for the benefit of "all" of the "country", or on expeditious political grounds?
always a difficult one to call, but certainly the austerity measures, tough as they most definitely were, probably pulled the uk economy around an awful lot quicker than the dribs and drabs (or nothing at all) that i recollect being recommended by others

though i have a pretty jaundiced view of most politicians (some more than others), i think whichever party is in power tries to perform as it perceives being in the best interests of the country.
that said, the labour party gets its arm twisted very heavily (in my opinion) by the more militant and vocal unions, while the conservatives gets its strings pulled to a greater or lesser extent by those on the more extreme fringes


"If" the country was a Public company and you had responsibility for it, would think the investments that the above have made over the last three years, be the one's you would have made, and for the benefit for the shareholders?
i don't know, or more relevantly, i don't know what i would have done or even suggested differently - always remembering that we know very few of the true facts and figures behind most decisions made
i'm pretty sure, on reflection, that i would not be so gung-ho about HS2, though there are certain elements who still maintain that even at £80bn it's a "must have"


Are the long term "social" consequences of their actions to be beneficial?
the inevitable curved ball always comes at the end!
this is not and never will be a utopian society, let alone world
human beings by their genetic nature are aggressive and greedy with, in the most simplistic way, the strong imposing their will on the weak and it always will be thus
however, these traits are somewhat suppressed in times of economic strength with all strata of society benefitting from it
you'll notice, i am sure, that i have not plunged down the blind alley of political nonsense and nor have i brought up the subject of immigration and its attaching social problems and reactions

Haven't you?

At least, you have avoided immigration which some believe the root of all UK problems!

i don't hold with that view though assuredly the open door policy has had serious consequencies across a wide range of social and other issues

a points system as used in australia would seem to be pretty effective in ensuring that those allowed in will not be a drain on resources ...... having saddled ourselves with assorted bits of nonsense laid down by brussels, we have exacerbated the problem - as usual, other countries within eu are not as accommodating