Comment on: Cable hints at state guarantee plan for housing
This looks like Plan B - a Brownian motion touched by a Balls flavour wih roots in Ponzi.
When you're in debt, take on more debt. Casinos love it.
Comment on: First-time buyers gain from credit easing scheme
Easing credit to stimulate asset purchase of questionable valuation. Wasn't this Brown's trick for a goldilocks economy.
The market has got to suffer creative destruction for equilibrium, and commonsense, to be established. Prices have to fall.
Comment on: Investors scared off by direct payment plan
So, as it turns out in the text, institutional investors don't have a directly-sourced view but one which Mr Kent - who clearly has a personal view - constructs on their behalf.
It's hearsay, mate. It's inadmissable. There's method, even if it's desperately cack-handed, in Mr Kent's potties.
Comment on: Labour urges data watchdog to investigate Shapps
A tad more on Shapps response:
"Without a single housing policy of their own, the latest Labour Shadow Housing Minister has instead spent his time writing this multi-page letter. Yet he ignores the most serious point of all. Under the nine Labour Housing Ministers who occupied the post in the last Government, house building plummeted to its lowest level since the 1920s. This catastrophic failure locked millions out of home ownership and taken together with the record debts they created, everyone is still paying the price.
"Worse still, not only did his Government fail to build more homes, despite the apparent good times, but they actually introduced programmes designed to destroy entire neighbourhoods. Hence their Housing Market Renewal programme bulldozed 10,000 homes, whilst only replacing 1,000. So just to be clear, no one did more to destroy our nation's homes since the Luftwaffe bombs of WWII.
"By contrast this Government has taken radical action. Reformed the planning system. Introduced the New Homes Bonus. Reinvigorated the Right To Buy with the money raised paying for one for one replacement. Introduced the NewBuy Guarantee meaning 5% deposits are back for new home purchases. And set out our wider plans in the Housing strategy.
"And what does Labour's Housing spokesman do in return? Apologise to those who saw their homes and communities destroyed through their flagship programme? Apologise to the young people who are locked out of the housing market due to the last Government's ramping up of house prices to 10x average earnings?
"No. Instead, perhaps conscious that after two years they've never once called their own House of Commons debate on housing, they resort to boring the stats authority with an incomprehensible rant in the hope that we'll all forget that Labour left housing in a huge mess in this country."
Shapps is clever, telegenic, puts his case well. Dromey isn't. Next.
Comment on: Freud insists welfare reforms are cutting rents
Mr Kinsey. Is it realy that difficult to work out?
Take away state subsidy which has created an artificial market in the form of housing benefit. Demand is therefore reduced. By the same token, supply will increase.
Prices are forced down. This is because producers will be forced to drop prices to a level which consumers can afford.
A new lower equilibrium is established.
This mechansim has been understood for the best part of 2000 years. Alternatively, you could adopt Mr Campbell's approach which is to yell "Liar" and sink back into your armchair in smug splendour at your wit.
John Redwood, Conservative right-winger, but surprisingly compassionate, writes on social housing on his blog. He plays a part in making the weather. "Yesterday I attended a meeting organised
Posted in: John Redwood - on social housing
John Redwood, Conservative right-winger, but surprisingly compassionate, writes on social housing on his blog. He plays a part in making the weather. "Yesterday I attended a meeting organised by the National Housing Federation where a number of public sector housing groups came to lobby MPs.
Their gloomy presentation was based on the usual precepts that state direction and control and more use of the state cheque book were the only possible answers to a problem. We were told that the cuts to Housing benefit, the removal of regional planning and housing targets and the level of public funding were all bad decisions which stood in the way of a good housing policy.In the discussion which folllowed it was good to see some newly elected MPs cut through their two central propositions that all that was needed was more public cash and more central control to solve the problems. It was also good to have an old fashioned meeting about the issues with some disagreements and differing views in a Commons committee room, instead of the informal meetings with drinks or running buffets available that were so common in the Labour years. It emerged as we questioned the panel of presenters that:
1. Current new public sector housing provision costs more than it need do thanks to the rules and bureaucracy surrounding its procurement
2. There are substantial numbers of empty homes already owned by the public sector which need to be brought back into use
3. Subsidising people rather than houses makes more sense. If you subsidise houses people living in them may get better jobs and good incomes but you cannot withdraw the house subsidy.
4. There are problems with a small minority of tenants whose anti social behaviour disrupts neighbours. The Housing Association representatives complained about courts and legal enforcement standards
5. The current policy does not allow sensible incentives to be offered to people in social housing to encourage a move to smaller homes when their families have left home
6. New home building hit new lows during the easy spending Labour years, so even Labour did not in practise think they could build their way out of the problem.I pointed out that around half of those living in rented accommodation would prefer to buy but cannot afford to do so. We need more pathways into home ownership, assisted by more shared ownership and easier purchase schemes.
The aim of housing policy should be to offer more people the choice and security which ownership brings. For all those approaching retirement it is especially important to lift the need to pay rent for the rest of their lives. The poorest of our society end up paying the most for their housing at the end of their lives when they can least afford it. We should look again at schemes like the proposals I put forward to help members of the armed services own a home whilst on Her Majesty’s service, so they have some housing
The silence is deafening.
Our Mr Halewood is only too ready to pop up at a moment's notice to slice and dice the figures as if he takes a nose full of the white stuff on his cornflakes every morining, afternnon and evening.
But on that £37bn he has been struck dumb.
And Mr Webb attempts to neutralise the £37bn by asserting it's a government grant.
This establishes him as a loony lefty fascisti. For your information, that £37bn is directly out of the taxpayer's pocket. It is monumental subsidy.
And now I come to think of it, why is it in Mr Halewood's calculations of revenues from housing receipts there is no mention of capital expenditure through the Housing Corporation, again by government grant, again out of the taxpayer's pocket.
Such inconvenient figures.