Oooh, look. Half a million more people claiming housing benefit under coalition.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Tories/Liberal Democrats have been in office 5 years now. Time is running out on giving them a free pass because of problems that started under Labour.

That sentiment would have a great deal more credibility if Labour hadn't spent their entire 13 year term in office blaming the Major govt. and Thatcher's before it for everything under the sun. Comparing the state of the nation in 1997 to 2010 only serves to emphasise the point. Labour had it easier, had the time and the parliamentary majority to do whatever they wanted and they still cocked it up as they always do.

Originally Posted by Hugh

My niece can't afford to rent in certain (quite a lot, actually) parts of London, and she has a reasonably paid job, so she has 40-50 minute tube journeys at the beginning and end of each day, but I don't hear anyone calling for support for people like her and her peer group....

I think this is the issue a lot of people want addressed. People with reasonable to high salaries still can't afford to look at buying and now even renting.

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

That sentiment would have a great deal more credibility if Labour hadn't spent their entire 13 year term in office blaming the Major govt. and Thatcher's before it for one thing or another. Comparing the state of the nation in 1997 to 2010 only serves to emphasise the point. Labour had it easier, had the time and the parliamentary majority to do whatever they wanted and they still cocked it up as they always do.

Well that was either wrong then and wrong now or if it's a valid argument now then it was a valid argument then.

Anyway it needs to be on a issue-by-issue basis. There is no sign that the current Government is serious about fixing the issues on housing and the schemes are designed to inflate the housing market further rather than address it.

[Osem]

I know which version is more wrong and least valid.

Originally Posted by Osem

I know which version is more wrong and least valid.

I am guessing people who don't like Labour think it wasn't valid then but does count now whereas people who don't like the Conservatives think it's valid now but was a legitimate excuse then.

Who is most to blame isn't really my concern. As I have mentioned earlier I think successive governments are to blame. It was a problem that occurred under Labour that they didn't fix, it's one the Tories/Liberals having fixed in the last 5 years and to be honest I think it's one that neither party will fixed over the next 5 years. None of them want to deflate the bubble which would be the likely consequence of addressing it.

[Osem]

It's not about not liking Labour - the facts speak for themselves - 13 years in office with a majority as opposed to 5 in coalition picking up the pieces of the biggest bust for decades.

Originally Posted by Osem

The facts speak for themselves - 13 years in office with a majority as opposed to 5 in coalition.

As I said I already believe Labour are also to blame.

It's what the coalition have done during those 5 years. It does take time for economic policies to have an impact but 5 years is still a good amount of time to have done something but house prices are still spiralling upwards. Their policies have been designed to keep them up by underwriting the demand with schemes such as right to buy.

My problem isn't Labour vs Tory here as I don't think either are going to do anything.

[Osem]

5 years is no time to put right 13 years of damage on the scale of what's was done under New Labour - gold sales, PFI, mass immigration, illegal wars to name a few. The fact that we have a coalition govt. hasn't helped matters because one side or the other has tended to block things which otherwise would have been done purely out of short term self interest and point scoring. I'm not saying any of these people are perfect or even worthy of a vote but it's clear which govt. has the most legitimate excuses. Right now things are improving unlike pretty much anywhere in Europe. If anyone thinks that would be the case had Brown won last time out they're Arthur.

Things could certainly be better and mistakes have been made but I think it's unrealistic to expect any govt. to have all the answers which I why I've stated more than once that I'll be voting for the least worst option.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

That's an interesting way of looking at the world but the reality is that a landlord can only charge the market rate for the given location & quality of premises.
If the landlord charges much more than that he/she will find that they have no takers for their accommodation and it is left un-tenanted......costing them money every month.
If you look at rent levels, property purchase costs, tax & mortgage costs etc, you will find that there is very little wriggle room when it comes to what rent a landlord charges and their profit at the end of the month.
As landlords, we don't just think of a figure and charge it. We wouldn't stay in business very long

How is the market deciding anything when the playing field isn't level, the market has decided enough houses aren't being built but that's ignored

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

It's not about not liking Labour - the facts speak for themselves - 13 years in office with a majority as opposed to 5 in coalition picking up the pieces of the biggest bust for decades.

The biggest bust since John majors one, you remember the one where people were posting keys to houses through banks letter boxes, politicians are all the same, different cheeks of the same arse

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

5 years is no time to put right 13 years of damage

Rubbish, garbage and trash.

I bet they can fix it within another 5 years.
on the condition that you are gullible.

[richard s]

I remember going through 17 years of damage by the blue nose brigade back in the late 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. Why did British Banks fund in the American Housing market when they should have been funding here to build houses?... Then BANG it all went tits up in Yank land (2000s) and our greedy Banks were in the dog poo... so the British Tax payers had to bail them out which is still ongoing!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by richard s

I remember going through 17 years of damage buy the blue nose brigade.

18+13+5= 36 years where sadly politicians have sadly put their own narrow political interests first rather then govern for the betterment of the country.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

but isn't the same true for those in employment?

My niece can't afford to rent in certain (quite a lot, actually) parts of London, and she has a reasonably paid job, so she has 40-50 minute tube journeys at the beginning and end of each day, but I don't hear anyone calling for support for people like her and her peer group....

You're right and this is one of the reasons why 25% of private tenants are now in receipt of Housing Benefit. At one time many of these people wouldn't have needed or qualified for assistance.

HB restrictions coupled with rent inflation does affect working people and unemployed people alike.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You're right and this is one of the reasons why 25% of private tenants are now in receipt of Housing Benefit. At one time many of these people wouldn't have needed or qualified for assistance.

HB restrictions coupled with rent inflation does affect working people and unemployed people alike.

How many more times. Eligibility for HB DOES NOT DEPEND on rent levels. Rents could could go up ten fold overnight and NO MORE people would be eligible.

The rate of increase in HB costs and number of employed claimants was pretty much the SAME before 2010 as after. Indeed the LABOUR government admitted in 2009 that a sharp rise in HB costs in 2008 was due to THEIR policies.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You're right and this is one of the reasons why 25% of private tenants are now in receipt of Housing Benefit. At one time many of these people wouldn't have needed or qualified for assistance.

HB restrictions coupled with rent inflation does affect working people and unemployed people alike.

You keep banging on about rent inflation but do you realise that private sector rents only went up by 1% in England last year,1.4% in Scotland and only 0.2 in Wales .Rent inflation isn't really a problem for most renters ,low wage levels are

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ents-rise-year

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

However, this often leaves benefit claimants with the dregs that nobody else wants.

........and? So what? Are you honestly suggesting that people on benefits should expect to live in the same quality housing (ie. location/build quality/same quality mod cons) as someone who is self funding and actually paying their way? Where is the incentive to work harder/get training etc & how is that fair on people who earn a 'decent' wage?
(Excluding the disabled, who we should bend over backwards for)

I don't think that this is any good for society as a whole, particularly with all the hot air that polticians spout on about "The Big Society", " Social inclusion" etc.

Oh please.

---------- Post added at 20:39 ---------- Previous post was at 20:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

It's not about not liking Labour - the facts speak for themselves - 13 years in office with a majority as opposed to 5 in coalition picking up the pieces of the biggest bust for decades.

Needed saying

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

How is the market deciding anything when the playing field isn't level, the market has decided enough houses aren't being built but that's ignored

Thats not being ignored, we all acknowledge that more houses need to be built, price bubbles aren't good etc...but the fact (that you ignored in my post) remains: Private rents are very closely alligned to the other rents being charged in an area which in turn are spookily closely aligned to house prices, mortgage rates, tax rates etc. It's almost as if rents are dictated by external financial forces, not simply landlords whims

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Rubbish, garbage and trash.

Much like your post