UK politics general discussion

[pluk]

People were complaining loud and clear at the time that Boris had failed to attend any of the early crisis planning meetings...he had books to write and people to visit, if I recall his sad excuses correctly.
Those decisions were simply his own ignorance...too busy to attend.

Yes? I haven't disagreed with this at all, my pony's were about eat out help out.

 

[BarryZola]

Rachel Reeves, our shadow chancellor is another waste of space I see. Asked on BBC news if the Bank of England should have done better with regards to interest rates since Covid (or something along those lines). Just refused to answer or offer any criticism at all.

Rachel Reeves used to work at the Bank of England.

They're pretty much all the same. Career first, the good of the country somewhere way down the list.

 

[Slugjc]

Rachel Reeves, our shadow chancellor is another waste of space I see. Asked on BBC news if the Bank of England should have done better with regards to interest rates since Covid (or something along those lines). Just refused to answer or offer any criticism at all.

Rachel Reeves used to work at the Bank of England.

They're pretty much all the same. Career first, the good of the country somewhere way down the list.

As per starmers opposition it's seems to be a "wait and see, before we say anything" approach. A good leader would be all over this now. Again, starmer is missing open goals.

This is the first of the interest rises where I've seen journalists and people with economic know how, coming forward and saying "this isn't working now"

 

[BarryZola]

Loving all of the bleating on the radio from all of the people with buy-to-let housing portfolios getting absolutely murdered by mortgage rates. Absolutely hilarious. Karma. Homes are for living in, not for an early retirement plan whilst someone else pays the mortgages for you and you end up with free houses at the end. As a saver who has been screwed by low interest rates for years, it's not the worst news for me. I do have sympathy with people who have just had to buy a place to house their families and are getting hit by such a quick rates rise, but anyone who has treated homes as an investment has absolutely had it coming to them. The government have no place meddling in this.

 

[rob666]

And what do you think all those buy to let mortgage holders do...put the rent up.
Simple, and already happening on a large scale.
The poor, generation rent, and the benefit system will end up paying.

 

[BarryZola]

Some will, some simply won't be able to put rents up enough to afford it and will sell and put homes back on the market. It's unfortunate that some renters will also feel pain but in the long term less people owning more than one home is a good thing and gets the market back to a bit more normality. Investors bidding up genuine buyers who just want a house to live in can never be a good thing for the market. Now people who have been waiting on the sidelines may be able to finally buy their own home without having to pay 15% over the already ludicrous asking price, like was happening during Covid. Obviously a lack of supply is the main issue but people taking advantage of the shortage to line their own pockets as an added pension fund for themselves is not helpful in the slightest. Near zero % interest rates have not helped because it has given people the opportunity to buy multiple homes. These people gambled that those rates would last forever when that was never promised. Other investments are available like the stock market. If you'd invested very simply in the S&P 500 (one of the world's most popular etf's/funds) over the last decade you'd have made an average of about 10% a year. That's not enough for these people though, it's just absolute greed.

 

[Benzin]

Most people can't even afford the deposit so just end up stuck in the renting cycle.

Most landlords will moan until the government 'help' them. Probably in the same vein of helping all those who owned the empty office spaces over Covid.

 

[BarryZola]

Needs more social housing built alongside private housing but numerous governments (of different colours) have ignored the issue for decades. The country shouldn't be relying on private owners to house renters in such numbers. But whilst there are enough landlords to do so, the government won't build the social housing required to get the market back in a more sensible state. The chickens are finally really coming home to roost now. Some people have been banging on about it for years but as people enjoyed zero % interest rates and saw their home prices rise as if they were the next Warren Buffet they had little concern. Now look.

 

[GaryH]

When I bought my first house my interest rate was 5.4%. However what’s different now is that houses were much cheaper then. My mortgage then was £30,000 for a two bed house. That was before the housing boom started.

I feel very sorry for those coming off a fixed rate deal shortly or those trying to get their own homes. Raising interest rates won’t fix this, people aren’t spending on stuff they don’t need , they are spending it on their energy bills, fuel to get to work and food to eat.

 

[Slugjc]

When I bought my first house my interest rate was 5.4%. However what’s different now is that houses were much cheaper then. My mortgage then was £30,000 for a two bed house. That was before the housing boom started.

I feel very sorry for those coming off a fixed rate deal shortly or those trying to get their own homes. Raising interest rates won’t fix this, people aren’t spending on stuff they don’t need , they are spending it on their energy bills, fuel to get to work and food to eat.

The general tone from everyone yesterday was "I don't know what to do!!!!"

 

[Matt.GC]

Like most people my age and above, I'm very lucky to have had access to far cheaper housing and easy to get mortgages. I can't believe I'm saying this as a homeowner, but parties of both colour have sat on this problem for 2 decades now. House prices are simply too high. My house is "worth" double what I paid for it. But it might as well be monopoly money. Housing is a haves Vs have nots market and young people, renters and new home owners are being completely betrayed.

I don't care if I sound like an old fashioned leftie, but housing needs serious government intervention. Interest rates are getting close to more normal levels but people can't afford their mortgages because the inflated amount they paid for their homes is too high. Not their fault as they bought in good faith and the government have let them down. I feel no sympathy for those with "investment portfolios", but I do for those who have no choice but to rent because they're locked out of the housing market, who will end up paying the mortgages for these people through rent.

It's a national scandal and has been since the early 2000's. Working Class people should be able to buy modest houses to raise a family in if they work hard and save. Those days are long gone, there's hardly any social housing to fall back on either. Now, even nurses, teachers, police officers, middle managers, skilled trades people, engineers and social workers can't get on the ladder. Many are renting and will now have to foot the increased interest bill of their landlords.

It's shameful. Like energy, the whole market is broken. Like bank bailouts, energy bill supplements and poisonous PFI contracts, tax coffers will have to pay for all the short term low hanging fruit grabbing of successive governments from the 1980's up to the present day at some point. What happens when 30 years olds, saddled with student debt, can't afford to move out, can't get access to the health service, can't find jobs with good enough pay and can't afford to have children?

As a country, we keep tucking future generations up, but these people are starting to grow up now and I really hope they make their voices heard.

 

[pluk]

I'm going to sound harsh here, but whatever.

I've lived through this part of the cycle at least three times now. It sucks, but home ownership is always a gamble, the value of your investment may go down as well as up etc etc.

Do people not understand that? Do people really think they can opt out of the risk? Do they think they can put themselves in a position where a move in the rate to something that is well within a historic norm means they can't pay the mortgage?

While I appeeciate the numbers have changed with the invcreased cost of housing, the principles remain the same. When I bought my first house I could have got something bigger and better, but did not because of the risks, I could have paid less per month but did not and took a more expensive fixed rate because of the risk, I've paid a specific insurance to cover many circumstances of being unable to pay because of the risk, when I was in a position to move I did the same things again because of the risk. I've paid for my risk management, both financially and by the propert I have been in.

People that haven't done should now be bailed by the ones that have? We seem to have a significant number of this generation that think they are owed and can be reckless without consequence. No. You can push the boundaries of what you commit to, but that is your risk.

 

[Matt.GC]

I'm going to sound harsh here, but whatever.

I've lived through this part of the cycle at least three times now. It sucks, but home ownership is always a gamble, the value of your investment may go down as well as up etc etc.

Do people not understand that? Do people really think they can opt out of the risk? Do they think they can put themselves in a position where a move in the rate to something that is well within a historic norm means they can't pay the mortgage?

While I appeeciate the numbers have changed with the invcreased cost of housing, the principles remain the same. When I bought my first house I could have got something bigger and better, but did not because of the risks, I could have paid less per month but did not and took a more expensive fixed rate because of the risk, I've paid a specific insurance to cover many circumstances of being unable to pay because of the risk, when I was in a position to move I did the same things again because of the risk. I've paid for my risk management, both financially and by the propert I have been in.

People that haven't done should now be bailed by the ones that have? We seem to have a significant number of this generation that think they are owed and can be reckless without consequence. No. You can push the boundaries of what you commit to, but that is your risk.

It may surprise you to know that I don't disagree with many of your points (but not all). I too was in a situation not long ago where I could have got a large mortgage, cheap and chips interest on it, to buy a rather large house that I could easily afford at the time.

But I resisted for the same reason as you stated. I didn't trust that interest rates would not reach a good 7-8%. So I didn't. I kept my tiny mortgage on my humble home and battened down the hatches and I'm glad I did. Even if interest rate double what they are now, I'll still be OK.

But imagine you are young, on less than £30 - £40k per year, have been told (rightly) that you should own a home rather than pay someone else's mortgage for them and you did just that. You went to see a mortgage advisor, they wanted your money so they told you what they thought you wanted to hear. The government chipped in with some cash as well that you have to pay them back (which further increases house prices at taxpayers expense) and you thought you did everything that the government, your mates, your mortgage advisor, Martin Lewis and just about every Tom, Dick and Harry told you to. You did this, not because you didn't read the threatening small print, but because the alternative was the fact that you would be stuck in rented accommodation forever with no chance of getting out either way, no matter happened with interest rates.

What options were there for younger folk only a few years ago? Sleep on the top bunk above your brother/sister's bed in your parents 2 up 2 down until you turn grey? Get yourself or someone else pregnant, live on a sink estate and raise your kids next to drug dealers and burnt out cars? Spend a fortune on rent paying someone else's mortgage alongside your student loan, trapped forever until a relative potentially dies and leaves you something? Take the risk and buy a property that seemed like a steal at the time and prey that interest rates don't rise too soon?

Yeah, there are risks and you sign many documents saying that you accept them. But what are the alternatives?

You know as well as I do that they'll end up being baled out by the taxpayer sooner or later. Whether they end up getting locked up in prisons, warehoused in temporary accommodation, on Universal Credit, move abroad and thus contributing to the UK's terrible skills shortage and lack of productivity, or through rent/mortgage top-ups.

None of those options sound good to me. I thought we learnt over a century ago that access to healthcare, housing, education, food, warmth, clean water, safety, freedom, democracy, labour in exchange for fair wages and opportunity to progress in life were essential to living in a civilised country?

If you obide by the rule of law, work hard and pay your taxes, you should be able to access all of those things. Some people who can't will just simply turn to other means of achieving those goals. My hope is that is it's the ballot box they turn to. But if you reach 30, can't move out, can't buy a house, can't have a family and can't get on in life when what should you do?

It ain't like when we moved out, bought houses and had kids. That country just doesn't exist any more. Me and you will be fine, but our children won't.

 

[rob666]

Long term, housing has never been a gamble.
Prices over the decades, not a single one has shown a loss since the second world war...I can't think of a single decade where there was a loss on housing.
Short term there may be an occasional fall, but that has always been made up within a matter of a few years.
There is no gamble whatsoever, even in the medium term, it has become the rich man's sure thing.
When I started work at the Halifax after a levels, interest rates were 15%.
My mum purchased the house I was born in for £17,000.
By the time we left it was sold for £70,000.
Within a decade it was worth £130,00.
Lost track since, but well over half a million now.
There is zero risk in property long term.
Never has been.
If you can get on the ladder, and stay in your first property for a decade, you have it made.
People today want more consumer goods than property.
Buying our home skinted us, but we cut our cloth and did it "on the skint".
Unless you have rich parents/family to help you out, young people have little chance now of getting on the ladder.
Thatcher sold off our decent social housing stock, to bribe a whole new generation of home owning Tories.
Blame the usual witch from hell grocers daughter.

 

[Benzin]

Current house is a 3 bed and cost £140k.

Partner's dad initially purchased it after selling house in South London, so plenty of money to spend without needing mortgage for it.

Bought it off him in 2020. Only way was via getting a "gifted" deposit. Was zero chance of us raising £40k and that often is the key thing these days. Expecting people to be able to afford that when the average wage is half of that.

Be interesting to see how it gets valued now. Granted we've redone the bathroom and kitchen so that always adds value to houses. But currently we do have a semi-need to move to a more suited house for partner due to her disability. The issue there is how many bungalows are either poorly designed, need a LOT of work or are just well out of price purely because they are unsurprisingly popular living spaces due to an aging population. So we're pretty much waiting for her grandad to go as he owns a number of properties in London so we can have a boost to assist.

That most young people essentially are relying on relatives to hopefully jump on the ladder is a sad state of affairs.

 

[pluk]

Long term, housing has never been a gamble.
Prices over the decades, not a single one has shown a loss since the second world war...I can't think of a single decade where there was a loss on housing.
Short term there may be an occasional fall, but that has always been made up within a matter of a few years.
There is no gamble whatsoever, even in the medium term

The actual price of the house is only one one part of the risk though, isn't it? As we are seeing now, other factors like interest rates, employment and people's personal circumstances make home ownership (and every significant financial transaction, really) a gamble. For decades there have been anual defaults and repossessions in the tens to hundreds of thousands annually, all those people lost the gamble. If there was no Gamble that wouldn't be the case.

But imagine you are young, on less than £30 - £40k per year, have been told (rightly) that you should own a home rather than pay someone else's mortgage for them and you did just that. You went to see a mortgage advisor, they wanted your money so they told you what they thought you wanted to hear. The government chipped in with some cash as well that you have to pay them back (which further increases house prices at taxpayers expense) and you thought you did everything that the government, your mates, your mortgage advisor, Martin Lewis and just about every Tom, Dick and Harry told you to. You did this, not because you didn't read the threatening small print, but because the alternative was the fact that you would be stuck in rented accommodation forever with no chance of getting out either way, no matter happened with interest rates.

I know it's difficult and am not pretending it's not, but people are still simply buying the wrong property in the wrong place for the wrong proce then. I know the numbers have changed, but when I bought my first house it was smaller than I wanted (it was a house but might as well have been a flat size wise), in a town I had no links to and didn't particularly like, increased my commute 5 or 6 times. But it's what I found within my means without pushing the boundaries of risk so I took the significant sacrifices and bought it. It seems people now are not willing to make those sacrifices.

 

[Benzin]

Increasing the commute is probably not even viable in savings anymore.

Train fares and petrol/diesel prices are ridiculous, so you probably lose out any savings almost instantly.

Even then, some of the cheaper houses round Leeds mean either living in awful areas, or spending money to make it habitable to modern standards. Some houses going just for £50k require practically rebuilding.

Then have the likelihood of my Grandads old fashioned Victorian terraced house going for several hundred grand even though there's no central heating. Purely because of being in a South London suburb.

 

[rob666]

Reposessions usually run between five and ten thousand a year, covid backlog means currently around twenty thousand a year...a long way from hundreds of thousands...unless you are aware of different figures.

 

[pluk]

Reposessions usually run between five and ten thousand a year, covid backlog means currently around twenty thousand a year...a long way from hundreds of thousands...unless you are aware of different figures.

Reposesions and defaults, being over a year in arrears. I seem to recall these being in the hundreds of thousands in the late 90s, not all resulting in reposessions though. I might be wrong. Still, it fluctuates wildly but that's a lot of people losing the gamble!

 

[AstroDan]

Reports from various sources including The Times, The Guardian and Sky News that the government could block the recommendations from pay review bodies for public sector pay in England.

Having been very much of the 'we respect the pay review bodies' paltry recommendations last year, this year the bodies are recommending, for example, 6.5% rises for all teachers. Even this, of course, would remain a real-term cut on top of the 13 years of non-stop real-terms cuts that we have seen since the coalition government came in from 2010 leaving all teachers many thousands of pounds worse off per year in real terms now vs. 2011. But we're in unusual times where we celebrate pay awards that are barely over half recent inflation levels. It is of course similar across the health service, police, prison service, civil service, council workers and other public sector workers.

Given the (healthy enough) pay awards we have seen in Scotland and Wales, if the government do indeed reject the review bodies offer for workers in England, expect calls for strike action to intensify, wider disruption to society to follow and the likelihood of a general strike to increase as workers in the same position in Scotland could be earning 10% more than the same worker in England, for example.