Anyone understand why Johnson is so far ahead in the polls? ( 2)

Take a comfy chair next time Urmstongran

I would rather people explained the thinking behind their posts and viewpoints than trot out meaningless simplifications though.

It can be difficult to do that in a few snappy sentences, but I am always grateful when posters take the time to do it, whether or not I agree with their point of view.

Oh how rude yet again. That was interesting Pippa. Don’t they say a lot of people are in their thirties before they can buy their first home? And people that have to rent have to pay so much they can’t afford to save up for the down payment (or whatever it’s called these days) because the Conservatives encourage the buy to let market? A young couple rent a house opposite to me and they must pay @ 500 a month in rent, possibly more. How can people afford to save with an outgoing like that.

Lemongrove and Urmstongram

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and I'm sure you both know that.

I think you get the odd wind-up merchant on all forums Maybe70. Some very odd indeed.

I think you are right about the rents. It's probably a good thing not to buy until your 30s as you are more mobile during your 20s then you would hope young people could use this time to save as much as possible so they are taking on smaller and/or shorter mortgages.

Buy to Let was a disaster for all but a small number of people. Not only did it remove homes from the sales market but many on a Buy to Let mortgage have to agree to a short-term lease to appease the lenders head office.

My two are in late 20s, and both left home when they went to university and stayed near their university cities, so have rented all along. Their rents for modest accommodation are ridiculous, so it is very difficult for them to save enough for a deposit on a house, although both want to buy, and both are engaged to be married.

I blame the sale of council houses for crowding the rental market. If they had been sold at market value and the money used to buy more local authority houses, there would be fewer people needing to line the pockets of private landlords, and rents would be more affordable.

^ If they had been sold at market value and the money used to buy more local authority houses,^

Local authorities weren't allowed to spend the proceeds in building more LA housing.

In 2017 a report found that some 40% of houses sold under the Right to Buy scheme was being rented out by private landlords. Which kind of negated the whole purpose of the scheme, didn't it?

(I can't link to the actual report mentioned in this article as it's behind a paywall)

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/more-40-council-houses-sold-11657996

I'm not sure it would have negated Ma Thatcher's purpose Maizie. The poor are costly and keeping them poor while pretending to help them is even more costly. Now they can blame someone else - probably the poor themselves

Local authorities weren't allowed to spend the proceeds in building more LA housing.

I know ?

That was my point. If they had been, there wouldn't be the problem now where so many young people are unable to save enough to buy a house of their own.

LA rents were already subsidised, so giving people the right to buy the houses at massive discounts was (IMO) unnecessary. It took a huge chunk of taxpayers' money, which had been used to build them in the first place as well as to subsidise the rents, and used it to buy votes.

It worked, though - the number of working class Tories seems to have grown enormously ever since, despite the fact that they basically pulled the rug from under the feet of their children and grandchildren.

The vast discounts led to a huge degree of unfairness. Someone I knew paid £24k for a new three bedroomed semi on a small development and the house next door was bought by the council, then immediately sold to the tennant for £12k.