Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Talking Politics

    We can’t help the squeezed middle unless we talk about housing

    People want to know why they can't raise their children in the kind of place they were raised.

    By Nicola Hughes

    In the run up to the chancellors next budget, politicians are fighting to position themselves on the side of 'the squeezed middle'. So far debates have centred on reducing fuel costs and taking low earners out of income tax, but all parties will be missing a trick if they neglect housing policy.

    As recent figures from the English Housing Survey show, homeownership is continuing to decline and doesn't look likely to stop in the next few years. Policy makers should be looking hard at how other parts of the housing system can help meet the needs and aspirations of families squeezed by high living costs and stagnant incomes. More and more people are finding their housing is unaffordable or that their housing choices are constrained, with negative impacts on their lives.

    Recent reports have highlighted a whole generation of young people who feel 'stuck' in private rented accommodation. Unable to afford to save a deposit to buy a home and finding social housing out of reach, the private rented sector is providing increasing numbers of these households a place to live, yet offering them little of the long term stability so important for those planning to have a family.

    The temptation for politicians trying to meet the needs of this group is to announce a new first-time-buyer scheme. A hand onto the ladder, through arrangements with lenders or shared ownership schemes, can make a good press release and raise the expectations of would-be buyers. But such schemes are often a smokescreen.

    Shelter' analysis has revealed there are 900,000 households for whom even the cheapest shared ownership schemes are out of reach, and there's increasing anecdotal evidence that even those who do squeeze on them are then stuck with a share in a house that won't meet their future needs. What's more, ad hoc schemes don't address any of the underlying problems - the cost of housing or the reasons that people feel unable to settle down in the private rented sector, such as lack of security or the inability to make improvements to their home.

    Another group being constrained by housing are the families squeezed by spiralling housing costs. Low-middle earners who bought on high Loan-to-Value loans often now find themselves facing negative equity, unable to move, or struggling to keep up with monthly mortgage payments. Private renters face spiralling rent costs and low-income working households will be hit by benefit cuts. The constant struggle to cut back and scrimp and save has a negative effect. Families are held back by their housing - stuck in an rented flat too small for their needs because they can't afford something bigger, unable to move for work because it will be too expensive, putting off starting a family because they can't afford a suitable home.

    Housing is central to the squeeze on low to middle income households, but their problems cannot be solved until wider dysfunction in the housing system is addressed. This means stabilising the market, improving the rented sector, making benefits work and developing fair social housing tenancy strategies. There is also a bigger question about how to ensure that families who work hard can access a reasonable and stable place to raise their kids. This isn't the whinge of a spoilt youth fixated on the best rather than what's okay. It's a generation understandably asking why, with progress in so many other fields, they can't raise their children in the kind of place they were raised. The solution isn't yet neatly packaged, but it's within grasp for politicians bold enough to tackle this question. Politically, the rewards could be great.

    Nicola Hughes is a senior policy officer at Shelter, where she focuses on housing market issues including repossessions and empty homes.

     

    70 comments

    • Phoenix  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      I agree with a lot of this. I feel for people on "lower middle" incomes who earn just enough to get no help with the costs of housing and end up paying through the nose to live in accomodation that is worse than non-working people get for free off the back of their tax contributions. Whatever way you look at it, and whether you naturally lean to the left or the right, that is an immoral way to treat hard working tax payers on "lower middle" incomes which doesn't reward the type of behaviour we need to help get us out of our current national financial difficulties. It is also a problem that both Tories and Labour are equally responsible for, so should be one that we could encourage the politicans to adopt an apolitical, non-partisan approach to solving
    • brainstorm  •  Reading, England  •  3 months ago
      It all dates back to Thatcher allowing the sale of council houses and then not allowing the money raised to be used for building more,
      • Kate 3 months ago
        shut up you idiot!!
      • Christopher 3 months ago
        Kate - Go away and read your Daily Mail!!
      • PETER 3 months ago
        Council homes are a scourge. We need a proper homes strategy that incorprates people into the way they live not a public policy on building so called low cost homes that pensioners like me will have to help pay for. Thatcher sowed the seeds for doing things right.
    • Bugsie  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      Politicians with there many homes don't help do they - I wonder how many homeless we could squeeze into Camerons many homes - how many are the tax payer paying for.

      How many properties has Blair now got.

      We should seriously cut child benefits to 2 only per female - why do they have so many when they can't afford or control them. Wont be any jobs for them either if whats going on now is anything to go by.

      Buy to let is the 'in thing' - I've heard friends say money isn't safe in pension funds and there is no interest in investments - so they put their savings into property - thank the greedy government for that.
      • Bugsie 3 months ago
        Spelling mistake in first paragraph - should read THEIR many homes.
      • doogie 3 months ago
        Bugsie got nothing sensible to write just critisizing spelling mistakes
    • ALASDAIR  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      The real issue is second homes and buy to let. If you want to solve the housing crisis this is where you need to start.

      Second homes should not get discounts for council tax if you can afford a second home you should pay for it not have others subsidise it. The sale of Second homes should be subject to capital gains tax, at the moment people sell their primary home no tax paid and move into the second and then claim that as their primary and pay no tax this is clearly fraud and needs to be stopped.

      Buy to let - all the above applies and because they can get discounts on unoccupied properties there is little incentive to cut rents. We also need rent control officers people should be allowed to make reasonable profit but that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing tenants paying off the full cost of a mortgage this is immoral.

      Then we should look at mortgages one of the main causes of the banking crisis. Buy to let mortgages should be scrapped they should be treated as a business loan. Loans for personal mortgages should be based on a single income only. This will reduce price pressure and make a mortgage more affordable particularly for the younger families.
      • Amethyst velvet 3 months ago
        Excellent post.
      • brian h 3 months ago
        Because there is a shortage of public social housing, the private landlords are taking the slack. Renting out is not an easy option especially at the lower end of rentals. Any disincentive to invest in property to let will make things much worse
    • Sarah S  •  Surbiton, England  •  3 months ago
      How about converting empty office blocks into flats and instituting a more rigorous sytem of compulsory purchase orders on empty properties? This country based its boom on soaring property prices and the positive equity feelgood factor. The bubble has burst and I hope it stays burst.
    • CHRISTOPHER  •  Manchester, England  •  3 months ago
      The house price index (land registry) shows an increase of 257% since 1992.
      The RPI index (ONS) shows a rise of around 50% in RPI.
      For many people their house has made more anually than their
      wages over the past 20 years.
      In the mid 1970's we had price and wage inflation at up to 16% and a lot of people
      lost homes or went into serious negative equity.
      All I can say is that God help everyone if we get another dose of that !
      • David J 3 months ago
        If that happened then people would have to do what we did and cut back on everything.
    • Paul L  •  Piscataway, United States  •  3 months ago
      The second thing that needs to change is to get some real innovation into the house building sector. Houses have really not changed at all in the last 50 years and yet there have been incredible advances in materials and equipment.

      Government should start a prize fund for low cost housing designs and challenge what is an incredibly innovative architecture industry in the UK to come up with new housing designs that would be much cheaper to construct (through industrialised manufacturing approaches) but maintain a decent standard of build quality, environmental footprint and level of comfort.
      • David J 3 months ago
        In the South East it's the cost of the land, not the building
      • I 3 months ago
        It is hard to equate housing today compared to say 50 years ago as now the spec is much higher in regards to heating,insulation power points etc bathrooms I think that we will have to get used to the old maxim of 3x your income as outdated and perverse.
      • karen 3 months ago
        Most know of cheap housing methods, but here in the uk you cant just buy some cheap land and place your home on it. Its a shame because land is meant to be shared(not owned). Only about 5% of the land in britain is lived on, the rest is owned mainly by landowners.
    • Paul L  •  Piscataway, United States  •  3 months ago
      The fundamental change that nobody ever talks about but is so blindlingly obvious that it should be implemented is that the bank of england should change the way it calculates inflation to include rent and house prices.
      The recent financial crisis came about because people were speculating on the boom in the housing market. Prices became inflated simply because credit became easier to come by due to a mistaken belief by the banking sector that house prices would continue to rise.

      What should have happened was that interest rates should have risen to reduce the demand for credit and thus reduce the inflation in the housing market. The reason this didn't happen is because the Bank of England only assesses utility, food and clothing/retail prices when it assesses the rate of inflation. Considering that the vast majority of everyones income gets spent of either rent or their mortgage it is completely insane to ignore these factors when calculating national inflation rates.

      The Bank of England MUST include house prices and rent in its inflation calculation.
    • ODDBIN  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      The British housing record, post WW2 has been consistently appalling in most parts of the country. The efforts of various Labour controlled local councils to solve their peoples housing needs by the building of large numbers of Council houses, using the financial benefits of the 'Public Works Loans' Bill, under which they could borrow money from the Treasury over long terms at a fixed rate of interest of one half percent above Bank Rate, were frustrated when the political balance of power in that council's local district changed to Lib or Tory and the housing schemes were frequently wound down and terminated.
      Thatcher deliberately gave the coup de grace to all social housing developement in Britain by her termination of the facilties of that financial scheme, ordering that any Local Council housing costs were to be met by borrowing from the shylocks of London, at commercial interest rates. (She knew that possession of a mortgage and working for your own home was the biggest inducement to persuading Labour voters to vote Tory and turn potentially militant Trade-Unionists to 'Non-Strikers') No average sized council could negotiate loans at an interest rate low enough to achieve this and enable them to provide property that could be rented at a price affordable by tenants earning the wages/salaries within the maximum limits laid down for a tenancy of a council house. (In 1933, in the 'London-Weighting' area, the limit was £150 PER YEAR gross income) The Greater London Council was big enought to effectively tell Thatcher and her minions to 'Go stuff it' and went to the bankers of Europe and negotiated their first £100M loan from that source. The City of London's shylocks actually sought to have the deal scrapped by Parliament in order thet they could get their sticky hands upon it.(At a much greater interest rate)
      We have never got anywhere near solving the housing shortage that existed at the of the war and the steadily increasing population has made matters much worse and given rise to the shortage of decent affordable housing for anybody who wishes to take it on.
      In the thirties and forties, it was the norm that a husband's wages were sufficient to meet the housing (and rates) costs as well as being enought to feed and clothe his family. Even in the fifties, mortgages were limited to a level that could be met on that basis, usually about three times the husband's gross income. No allowance was ever made for any contribution from the wife. If housing costs had risen by the same percentage as most other staple needs, the average three-bedroomed semi would still be about £120K in the outer London area instead of the £350/450K level of today. It is a national disgrace that can be laid squarely at the door of Tory greed and chicanery and the specimens of that mob currently in power have no desire or intent to improve the situation for benefit of the general population.
    • Louis  •  3 months ago
      The answer is money! Too much is leeched off potential buyers by mortgage brokers and bankers/ building society's 'arrangement fees' then there are agents fees and solicitors fees all adding to the cost of selling or buying. What is needed is a funding system possibly backed by government and an end to all the 'add-ons' We need a sort of 'Tesco' in the housing market!
    • LISA  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      In Leeds, most reasonable sized family homes have been bought up by private landlords and split into flats or student housing. This is a hug problem as it sent prices sky high for regular family homes.
    • Leo  •  3 months ago
      Rents in the UK have increased by an average of almost 200% since 1993. It astounds me that people in the UK just accept it.
    • karen  •  Nottingham, England  •  3 months ago
      I thought there were no classes? its ok it is so very obvious that there is. Shoe box for the middle?????? and lower??????? classes,the rich get to have it all.
    • A Yahoo! User  •  Maidenhead, England  •  3 months ago
      How about demolishing the empty shops in city centres and replacing them with decent housing?
    • FRANK D  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      When I was a small boy in the 1940's working people normally lived in rented accomodation and moved frequently according to their finances and job prospects, the childrens's education came last on the list. The result of this was that we had a very flexible worksforce. Today there are people out of work who cannot move because they are stuck in a house they can't really afford and can't sell.
    • MICHELLE  •  London, England  •  3 months ago
      Housing! what housing? unless you have a decent income you don't have a home!!!!!
    • Euan  •  Edinburgh, Scotland  •  3 months ago
      let me guess, yet more legislation...?
    • scottie  •  Edinburgh, Scotland  •  3 months ago
      Council houses were being sold to fund the building of new council houses.Where did the money go? A big question that only the guilty councils can answer!! Shared ownership is a big "con"! People end up paying MORE with part rent and part mortgage monthly than a mortgage alone.BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Guitar6  •  Oxford, England  •  3 months ago
      Just proves that the low wage economy doesnt work. The minimum wage does not even equate to a full tank of petrol for the fat cats who have businesses.
    • Nigel E  •  3 months ago
      Its good to see the thoughtful,considered responses on here. Most people are not fooled by the 'lets build more houses' argument.Today a drought was announced (again) in the southeast. I wonder why? We don't need thousands more houses. We need more efficient use of what we have, e.g, the thousands of empty homes. We need to keep our population from getting out of control. We should not be supporting people who think it's ok to have 6 or 7 kids while living on benefit. We should not allow citizens of foreign origin to bring their extended families and arranged spouses over here.

    WRITTEN BY...