First Time Buyers go on strike over extortionate house prices

A report out last week confirmed that First Time Buyers are now priced out of over 90% of towns and cities all over Great Britain because of the inflated house prices.
Mortgage approvals are down almost 40% on a year ago and First Time Buyers now make up less than 18% of buyers down from a long-term average of almost 3 times that number.
Key workers like nurses and fireman are similarly priced out and unable to buy near their places of work.
Gordon Browns scheme announced today in the Observer will not help those already priced out and is just a smokescreen to make it look like he is trying to help people who want to buy a house. I suspect it is part of his plan to win support for his bid to take over as Prime Minister once lame-duck Blair has gone.
In effect the UK housing market is now a busted flush and the vast majority of First Time Buyers have shown that ridiculously high house prices have forced them to go on strike.
There may be some return to the market when prices have come down by about 30% or more. This process has already started with increasing numbers of house round here (West Mids.) being cut by between 5 and 15% but still not selling. They will be tumbling even more by the autumn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 May 2005 05:32:23 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

As long as Jews are making a 'killing', house prices will remain unaffordable for the average young couple.
Regards, John G
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 22 May 2005 at 12:41:02, John Gilbert wrote :

Some young couples are themselves Jewish...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Which the best thing they can do. The only way that there will be a downward adjustment in house prices is if people decline to buy at these prices. That must start with first time buyers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:42:22 +0100, "Harry The Horse"

S'ok GB has a plan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4570045.stm
--
http://www.pokerfreebies.co.uk
Free poker play
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"mogga" wrote

In one breath the article says "there will be no means test" then it says "will have to sift out deserving applicants whose salaries simply will not stretch to the average-priced house".
How is that *not* a means test??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
X-No-Archive: yes

We've been here before in the 1960s and 1970s with the Wilson administration's ill-fated option mortgage scheme, and the even more ill-fated Land Commission. We have high house prices because we like high house prices and have created a market that can't be bucked and nor can treasury. High prices are man made -- not handed down on a mountain top. Although, on second thoughts, treasury is as pretty close to a mountain top, or so they think.
Any bright wheeze that isn't brought into the world with the aid of treasury forceps, is strangled by treasury.
--
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk
"Return of the Eagles", the last book in James Follett's 'Eagles' trilogy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the planning system is an issue too, strangling the supply by one group of people deciding what is acceptable (irrespective of what people want) and another group trying to fit what they want into that template.
Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Thompson wrote:

Planning is done at a local level by elected representatives. How does this make it "irrespective of what [the] people want"?
--
Gavin Ayling

My site:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Maybe because it's done at a local level by elected representatives... That means that the only people who can influence decisions in an area are people who already live there. At an extreme example consider the country divided into 2, the left half with a population density of 1000 per sq. mile, and the right half with 0.0001 per sq. mile, the right half would vote for no new houses to built in their half as it would effect their lifes, the left half would love to build some more houses so they can have some more space to live in, yet...
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Ley wrote:

Surely the people who live there *should* have the say? It is their property that would be affected for goodness sake!
--
Gavin Ayling

My site:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

but at what scale?
It's my house, I can do what I want with it? - no, that effects your neighbours, they are also affected by what you do.
It's our road, we can do what we want with it? - no, that effects the surrounding roads too..
etc. etc. Why is the correct scale the local council?
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Ley wrote:

Each aspect of planning should be done at the appropriate level. For example, whether shadow from a proposed extension will affect a neighbour requires input from the two houses involved; for changes to a road layout that affects other roads, a council can take that into account; for changes that affect the whole town, a council can take that into account.
To suggest that housing issues are the government's responsibility presupposes that employers will not move as a result of employment issues from too few staff.
That most people want to live in the south east does not mean that they should be able to. The pressures on house prices are economic and the market will work them out. I would personally like house prices lower, but I don't want planning protection to be overruled in order for that to be realised.
--
Gavin Ayling

My site:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think you're missing the shortage of supply, the only places where there are surplus supply is in decrepid terraces in inner northern inner-cities and similar homes which few people have an interest in living in. Whether it's the south-east or anywhere else, more homes are needed, yet more homes are generally not being built at anything like a realistic rate due to the excessively tight planning regulations. That doesn't mean that I'm saying central government to control all of it, you read in way too much into my claims that the local level is not the appropriate level for all planning decisions, I'm sure Milton Keynes wouldn't exist if the original villagers controlled planning.
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..or considerably less people.
I know my preference.
Which would benefit the quality of average Joes's existence the most?
--
Aramis Gunton

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 May 2005 09:56:08 +0100, Aramis Gunton

Well on average Joe would be say 50% dead, I would suggest that would impact his life much more significantly than someone having to live next to some different neighbours.
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why dead and not deported?
--
Aramis Gunton

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because 2 faces Prescott can step in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Truth Seeker wrote:

... crikey, there's another reason the people of Hull shouldn't have voted for Labour...
--
Gavin Ayling

My site:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

not really, remote faceless officials define policies and structures without recourse to the public or the market. They then get to pass plans at appeal.
Local elected representatives get to accept or reject plans against that structure, but the mismatch arises in the construction of a vision that doesn't match what people want.
So the result is planning policies to build houses in flood risk areas where builders can't sell houses because they won't get insurance. Or developers applying to build in an area where housing was not planned (but somebody wanted it) while ignoring areas where it is planned (but nobody wants it).
Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.