Guest blog: Shelter's Chief Exec on the rise of unaffordable housing

[JessMumsnet]

This week, to highlight the fact that housing is increasingly unaffordable for many, Shelter published research which showed what our weekly shop would cost if food prices had risen to the degree that housing costs have done over the last decade.

In this guest blog, Shelter's Chief Exec Campbell Robb warns that unless something changes, the next generation will find it even tougher to get a stable and affordable home.

What do you think? Are you struggling to get on the property ladder, with rising rents making it increasingly difficult to save for a deposit - or are you worried for your children's prospects? How do you think the situation could be improved? Post your URLs here if you blog on the subject, or tell us what you think here on the thread.

Quite a lot of homeowners want price drops though, either because they want to trade up or (like my dad) they would lose out from it but can see the negative consequences of the bubble all around them and simply think it is very bad for society.

yep - some people want there children to be able to afford a home too. some of them have 30yos living with them saving for a deposit. some would rather prices went down than they end up remortgaging their own home to help get their adult children on the ladder.

Yes but what about those parents with children of 30 who have bought properties? Do they want them living back with them having lost the deposits they have saved hard for? I'm only 32 and bought in my mid 20s at the peak of the market. It is mildly annoying that if I was 10 years older I could have had a much better house but that's life.

Why should I lose out so that someone else the same age can buy? Why is it unfair that I worked hard and managed to get on the ladder when prices were at their peak? Do I not matter at all?

The footfall in shops is falling quiet badly; jobs are not being created. I know the media is reporting that unemployment is falling, but the reality is that people are being encouraged to go self-employed. Very often there is no business but tax credit they can claim & for a year they don?t have to go through what is now a very rough ride at the job center. Thousands are being sanctioned for trivial reasons. This brings the unemployed count down. I am only referring to landlords with portfolios who have bought since 2000 when I mention pigs. GDP would go up if extra workers were being employed. It?s going down not up, tax take goes down & buy to let will be seen as a cash cow for tax. The lib dems have already said that they want portfolios include in the mansion tax.
Labour party are now pro mansion tax and hearing the Libs will give them the same idea.

We are not even paying off the deficit yet alone the debt so drastic policies will be enacted at the budget or election out of the way time.

Only 2 base points on interest and hundreds of thousands will not be able to pay their mortgages.

If you read my previous posts, it gets tiring and repetitive.

The media and the government are waking to the facts, it?s stifling the economy so many on low wages and high rents to pay. Something is about to give.

I predicted the 2007 crisis also northern rock almost to the week.

Seen it before and it is (housing) now a ponzi scheme

The last desperate attempt to keep the banks from failing was governments special loans scheme for homes.

We shall see. Markets go up and down but on the whole if you hold property for several decades that tends to be to your advantage. Private property ownership is a moral good.

As more negative news on jobs and living costs is broadcast people go into cautionary mode, same as last time . That odd house that was a forced sale becomes the (new price )on the street. That?s when & if you look at how much auction stuff is going cheap that?s a clue too .
It?s not doom and gloom for everyone just those that are out of their depth

Private home should be as my paid for property is (A HOME TO live in ) not an investment.

Not a ponzi scheme

Please can some of you work out what high house prices really mean

We are stifling the young and ruining their prospects they actually won't be willing to work hard and pay our nursing home fees and wipe our bottoms with kindness if it only means that they get to return to their rented little hovel.

We have screwed them with fees we don't need to stick the knife in with high house prices too

I have said it before so at the risk of being boring I'll say it again

High house prices benefit those trading done and BTL EVERYONE else just pays more

Watching the price of the most expensive thing you will ever buy increase and being pleased is so stupid it defies all reason.

High house prices transfer money from the young to the old and the rich to the poor

Do we really want that from our society, we will all be old soonis that really what we want
I don't think I do

There have been so many funding for lending is just a joke

The reason the banks won't lend is they know prices are too high

OB you and your friends have no special right to government protection for your financial choices over and above anything else

Xenia your reply to me doesnt make sense sorry if you live in a house you rent the landlord can off set all the interest he or she pays against tax (and a lot of other things as well)

How am I asking for special government protection? I'm not.

I'm was responding to swallowed's point that parents of 30 year olds would welcome a housing crash to enable their children to get on the property ladder. I am of this age and have worked and saved hard to buy property, as have many of others. I can ride out interest rises but not everyone would be able to. I just don't think it's right that people are willing a crash to enable some people to get on the property ladder when it means others would come off. Why are certain groups in society more important? I am totally against this government and their policies but am sick of reading people on here who are actively nasty to those (young) people who have managed to suceed in this tough climate.

There are always winners and losers, OBface. One generation has it easy, the next suffers. Boom and bust economics.

It seems to be an integral part of the sort of capitalism that we have. But it's not the only sort of capitalism.

If some people weren't greedy, there would be enough to go round, but there's no incentive to be self-sacrificing when the whole of society actually commends you for grabbing what you can.

This is too big for us to deal with as individuals, and it's pointless to blame people for doing what we would probably do ourselves, if we were lucky enough to have their opportunities (or business acumen).

What it needs, imo, is government will to change it. They will only ever move to make things more equal when they think that is what we want them to do. If we don't vote for the parties that stand for social justice, there won't be any change.

The govt listens to the people who shout loudest. Unfortunately at the moment they are the wealthiest members of society.

Couldn't agree with you more Solo. I would be 100% behind any government who made waves towards greater social justice.

It would seem however that some of the posters on here want to penalise those in the 'middle' rather than the wealthiest in society. Young people such as myself who have managed to suceed but are by no means super rich. There are so many ways of raising income rather than going for the hardworking people at the bottom and middle all the time (though I appreciate that it is those with the least who are set to lose the most under this government).

Most landlords in the UK are like OBface. There are very few who have more than one buy to let property. Some have two. Not very many have hundreds. Tenants have homes to rent because of the buy to letters and it has improved the standard of rented housing that this market exists.

On tax I am not sure what the disagreement is about. You are taxed on profit whether you have a sweet shop andbuy the sweets at X and pay Y rent and then deduced x and Y from your turnover and are taxed on the difference,. Same with landlords. Indeed if you are a tenant allowed to sublet you would be taxed on the subletting income after deducting the rent you pay to your own landlord. There is nothing wrong with any of this - it just means you are taxed on the profit you actually make rather than profit you don't make.

managed to suceed in this tough climate

You borrowed money at low variable rates in order to 'purchase' illiquid depreciating assets at the very top of their bubble. Equating this with success is at best bizarre. A fool and their money.

Most landlords in the UK are like OBface

Quite. Does anyone else around here spot a housing and economic crisis? How'd that happen then?

It would clearly take more time than there is left in the universe to explain simple economics to most buy to let property bulls, and even those like Xenia who admit to losing a third or more of their investment last time still sing properties praises like baaing sheep being led to the slaughter.

Many confused posts here, both amusing and sad at the same time. Boom bust boom bust boom bust boom .... Ok now what's next? Boom until forever, that must be it right?

If you hold property over 40 or 50 years like many of us will never in recent UK history since 1910 has it been worth less than you bought it for even allowing for inflation. The fact I made a loss then does not mean that over 30 years I have not made any gains and will not make any future gains. It will certainly be sensible for most people not just for investment but for security to buy not rent.

The difference this time is our economy is wrecked, the debt levels are going to take generations to pay back.To cap it all the world is in an economic mess.
Never have we been here before, even after you overcome these problems we have emerging economies that are preventing us from manufacturing out of our unemployment spiral.

The pound is dropping and whilst that may help exports it also makes all our imports more expensive.

We are going to see things get worse and anyone stretched by debt is going to feel the heat.

I would rather Buy to let failed than to see social order irretrievably break down.

It?s a car crash in slow motion and the crash test dummies can?t think their way out of the inevitable outcome they just do not

Have the IQ

Has it occurred to anyone that here in the present we and our children have been used to being able to have a chance to make a life and have a home?

We now at this point are seeing this disappear along with our standard of living. Those on NMW must have virtually no chance, yet not so long ago a family could get by ok with just one wage.

Give someone no hope and they cease to be members of society and slowly society breaks down . sound familiar?

If you hold property over 40 or 50 years like many of us will never in recent UK history since 1910 has it been worth less than you bought it for even allowing for inflation

even allowing for inflation is a worrying term. Of course allowing for inflation, it is a fundamental part of the calculation, one that many people simply forget about, along with other elements such as the costs of borrowing, maintenance, the cost of not having the money tied in property to invest elsewhere, etc. Many buy to letters are just not up to the task of simply working this out, many think they are better off by the end when they are worse off.

There are underlying macro economic reasons for an increase in what people have been prepared to pay for property since 1910, if you account for inflation, etc. Just as there are reasons today why the future is not at all promising for our economy on a similar time scale.

The 30 year time horizon the likes of obface have in mind is based on nothing more than blind hope, there is no rationale behind that at all, other than it seems far off so by then people will be prepared and willing to pay more in real terms for the same thing as they do today, won't they, of course!

Utterly bizarre thinking, until I hear a rational economic argument from a buy to let bull I remain unconvinced. I'm not hopeful of one, because their isn't one.

It's just a gamble, and not even an informed one. Which would be fine were it not for the cumulative effect of many gamblers creating a property bubble and harming others in the process.

Roneik, sadly we live in a global economy now where the standard of living is being evened out, resulting in not the same standard of living that we're (people in the UK are) used to. That is for an entirely different thread but I think, in relation to this thread, I don't think we'll ever have it as good again and that's not about boom or bust but about our entire world economy.

However as we are in a global economy I think one big issue is that non-UK, non EU are able to buy property in the UK (specifically London) which dramatically increases the prices. In Thailand it's not possible for foreigners to buy property there if they are not connected to the country. Surely we should follow suit in the UK?

it's not how the uk works though is it? thailand isn't the centre of world banking or the central base for americans and australians, say, in europe. they don't share a language with the us and have cheap fast flights to anywhere in europe.

yes it would potentially be good to have that rule but the logistics of why we have foreigners buying here and what implications there would be to not letting them would be very different to thailand or perhaps anywhere in the world.

Williamina, Have you forgotten that the last two governments took the stance that the (city mile) and bankers) would be our economy. Rather than manufacturing?
Thatcher preached it and Labour who are Tories mk2 supported that view for 13 years.

When they should have been using our money to support industry and skill creation not forever propping up housing and buy to let to prevent banks failing.

That IMO is why we cant compete , lack of the right skills and lack of vision by our millionaires in government who are not really fit for purpose

The property ponzi scheme relies on someone being able or willing to pay the current price, they cant that?s why there have been government loan schemes.

What next collection boxes for donations to people that took out loans and did not consider that interest rates would not be low or at 0.5%

Mondaytuesday, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I just don't see the point of personal attacks on people who have been brave enough to post on here about the choices they have made.

I don't know any buy-to-letters, so I've learnt something from OBface (and others). They haven't changed what I think, though I am more aware of why people do things.

I still think we need more council houses and we should stop people buying them. I think that would be more of a win-win situation than any other I have read on here. And easy for councils to do. Much easier than evicting people from their homes.