Sensible decision. It would only inflate prices higher and make young people take on even more debt.
I’m glad that they’ve decided not to press ahead with this idea. 1% deposits would be very risky if prices dropped (putting FTBs into negative equity) and there’d be a real risk that it would simply push up house prices even more.
The easiest solution to prices going up is banning owning more than one house per person (so if you split from your partner but are still technically married you can get another place to live among other valid reasons ) and don’t allow companies to own houses.
Well let’s face it it looked like another shit idea with negative consequences. The solution to the housing situation is known… build lots of houses, especially affordable houses. Everything else is just a distraction and for headlines.
I’m for this and unfortunately against this.
I think if the right checks were in place with affordability this wouldn’t be a major issue, and would assist with a lot of people struggling to buy their first home.
Like the article says, it does risk massive defaults, but everyone should be given an opportunity in life and sometimes to improve things risks are to be taken.
Should massive defaults happen, I don’t think it’s a major issue as properties generally hold and even rise their value most often than not.
Surely even a pre school age child could see this wasn’t going to be a good idea.
It was a cynical attempt to give the housing market a quick sugar rush before the election.
They have nothing left except parlour tricks and they can’t even perform them properly.
Damn… I am am surprised!
I was so sure the Tories would try to strong arm this through with the banks.
They know they’re out and they have nothing to lose by leaving behind irresponsible economic landmines that should blow up under Labours watch just in time for them to get back in.
I’m glad the banks saw through this and told them to get fucked.
My 125% mortgage in 2006 had no issues. Why can’t we do that again
/s
Imagine the political scene being so deranged that Banks are now the good guys
Christ, where are we as a country when UK banks are taking the moral high ground over the government?
From… THE BANKS?
I’m guenuinely surprised… I would’ve thought they’d jump at the chance to charge higher interest rates due to the higher loaned amount…
I guess there’s something in the bigger picture and banks are the rare kind of businesses that take that into consideration as opposed to just going for more profit in the short term?
Oh… yet another surprised pikachu face…
That banks don’t want their gravy train of 30-year risk-free income streams (mortgages) affected.
I don’t blame the banks for pushing back on this, but in what world was this even considered?
“Hey, we have a massive supply issue with housing, and need 100s of thousands of new homes. No one can afford housing anymore. What if we didn’t really build any more, but did something to massively increase demand?”
A joke policy from a joke of a government.
Politicians will do anything to solve the housing crisis except build affordable homes.
You fix the crisis by building more social housing and scrapping green belt laws.
Whatever happened to 50 year mortgages was that scrapped?
The government are now so irresponsible that even banks are reigning them in
As much as I don’t think we should be structuring policy based on placating the banks, this is probably for the best.
The housing crisis will not be solved by tinkering with mortgages.
Considering as those were one of the causes of the Financial Crash, a good idea from the banks for once
The deposit isn’t necessarily the issue. We had a bigger problem with the amount they’d lend us. Being only 4.5x household income left us with hardly any choice but shared ownership, where we pay rent and mortgage on 40% of a property that is more than just the mortgage would have been on the whole property. I don’t understand it.
Repeal the Town and Country Planning Acts, repeal every piece of legislation with “Town and Country Planning Act” in its name. Go back to the Urban planning system we had in the 1800s where despite far fewer female participation in the labour force, much less advanced technology, much lower rate of immigration, and a much higher rate of population growth, we managed to get falling house prices to GDP per capita ratio.
Reckless Hunt – just Loony Liz tax cuts left to bribe the electorate
As someone who used a 100% mortgage on the mid 90s to get out of renting. It’s a real shame this idea has been scrapped.
They could easily have done this and capped the multiples or used an insurance product to protect against the higher default risk.
23 comments
Sensible decision. It would only inflate prices higher and make young people take on even more debt.
I’m glad that they’ve decided not to press ahead with this idea. 1% deposits would be very risky if prices dropped (putting FTBs into negative equity) and there’d be a real risk that it would simply push up house prices even more.
The easiest solution to prices going up is banning owning more than one house per person (so if you split from your partner but are still technically married you can get another place to live among other valid reasons ) and don’t allow companies to own houses.
Well let’s face it it looked like another shit idea with negative consequences. The solution to the housing situation is known… build lots of houses, especially affordable houses. Everything else is just a distraction and for headlines.
I’m for this and unfortunately against this.
I think if the right checks were in place with affordability this wouldn’t be a major issue, and would assist with a lot of people struggling to buy their first home.
Like the article says, it does risk massive defaults, but everyone should be given an opportunity in life and sometimes to improve things risks are to be taken.
Should massive defaults happen, I don’t think it’s a major issue as properties generally hold and even rise their value most often than not.
Surely even a pre school age child could see this wasn’t going to be a good idea.
It was a cynical attempt to give the housing market a quick sugar rush before the election.
They have nothing left except parlour tricks and they can’t even perform them properly.
Damn… I am am surprised!
I was so sure the Tories would try to strong arm this through with the banks.
They know they’re out and they have nothing to lose by leaving behind irresponsible economic landmines that should blow up under Labours watch just in time for them to get back in.
I’m glad the banks saw through this and told them to get fucked.
My 125% mortgage in 2006 had no issues. Why can’t we do that again
/s
Imagine the political scene being so deranged that Banks are now the good guys
Christ, where are we as a country when UK banks are taking the moral high ground over the government?
From… THE BANKS?
I’m guenuinely surprised… I would’ve thought they’d jump at the chance to charge higher interest rates due to the higher loaned amount…
I guess there’s something in the bigger picture and banks are the rare kind of businesses that take that into consideration as opposed to just going for more profit in the short term?
Oh… yet another surprised pikachu face…
That banks don’t want their gravy train of 30-year risk-free income streams (mortgages) affected.
I don’t blame the banks for pushing back on this, but in what world was this even considered?
“Hey, we have a massive supply issue with housing, and need 100s of thousands of new homes. No one can afford housing anymore. What if we didn’t really build any more, but did something to massively increase demand?”
A joke policy from a joke of a government.
Politicians will do anything to solve the housing crisis except build affordable homes.
You fix the crisis by building more social housing and scrapping green belt laws.
Whatever happened to 50 year mortgages was that scrapped?
The government are now so irresponsible that even banks are reigning them in
As much as I don’t think we should be structuring policy based on placating the banks, this is probably for the best.
The housing crisis will not be solved by tinkering with mortgages.
Considering as those were one of the causes of the Financial Crash, a good idea from the banks for once
The deposit isn’t necessarily the issue. We had a bigger problem with the amount they’d lend us. Being only 4.5x household income left us with hardly any choice but shared ownership, where we pay rent and mortgage on 40% of a property that is more than just the mortgage would have been on the whole property. I don’t understand it.
Repeal the Town and Country Planning Acts, repeal every piece of legislation with “Town and Country Planning Act” in its name. Go back to the Urban planning system we had in the 1800s where despite far fewer female participation in the labour force, much less advanced technology, much lower rate of immigration, and a much higher rate of population growth, we managed to get falling house prices to GDP per capita ratio.
Reckless Hunt – just Loony Liz tax cuts left to bribe the electorate
As someone who used a 100% mortgage on the mid 90s to get out of renting. It’s a real shame this idea has been scrapped.
They could easily have done this and capped the multiples or used an insurance product to protect against the higher default risk.
This is not a good outcome for the general public