Tony Blair in The Times today

[oviraptor21]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4955e1e4-88d3-11ec-a837-0153f5f4adaf?shareToken=94c076de44190bb4e85a3885618c9f80

I assume he is going to cite the third way again, but Blair comes down firmly on the side of the author JK Rowling. “They [voters] don’t want a situation where women can’t talk about being women. I have this conversation quite often with Labour people and I know their inclination is to walk round this issue, but I am telling you to go right into it and resolve it in a way that makes it absolutely clear where you stand. That is how to shut down the Tories on it.”

Long article but about 4/5 of the way down.

@OldCrone

So the sub-prime mortgage boom that started in the US had no influence on anything that happened here? RBS, Barclays and the rest of the reckless bankers — they weren't at all influenced by what was going on across the pond?

Influenced, yes. As far as I am aware the banks in the US were the first to start selling on mortgage debt in CDOs, but the UK banks weren't compelled to do the same. And it all happened under a Labour government which failed to take any action to stop it.

So many countries were caught up in this kind of thing.

It's similar with Thatcherism - it's not wrong to blame her for her approach and policies, but at the same time, she wasn't outside of the zeitgeist. The same things were being done in many other countries, there was a widespread push by certain types of elites away from traditional conservatism to toward a kind of economic liberalism that was alien to what had come before. If she hadn't done it then it's very likely someone else would have steered a similar course soon enough.

A lot of what happens in politics and economics now seems to be happening across many different places, I suspect explanations won't be found just within nations.

So many countries were caught up in this kind of thing.

Of course, it was an international issue, which many countries, including the UK, are still paying for, but I don't find the argument that "it's OK because everyone else was doing it" very compelling.

The UK under the Blair/Brown government was something of an outlier in Europe, even against a backdrop of inflating house prices elsewhere, apart from Germany and one or two other countries. (The right hand graph is on a different scale which makes it look as though some other countries were up there with the UK - they weren't.)

I remember Gorgon Brown saying "No more boom and bust" repeatedly. Blair/Brown leadership then experienced the biggest bust in history.

Anyway. Tony Blair had his go. Sadly the Labour party have been doomed ever since.

Yes a global financial crisis.
If it was a UK only situation then you’d have a fair point. It wasn’t that though. All the advanced economies were absolutely ravaged.

It’s fair to say that Britain with its lax rules in the city helped create the crisis. Banking in London was known for being innovative and was beginning to eclipse New York.

The UK helped create the global financial crisis just as much as the other major economic player countries did, I agree. The actual causes are multiple and complex though and it’s not accurate to say (as some people like to believe), that Gordon Brown was somehow the architect of the whole thing. I like to believe that he made it less bad than it could have been. I can’t prove that though..

I think you could point a finger at ‘New Labour’ inasmuch that under lobbying from the banking industry they allowed relaxation of rules which would/could/might have prevented UK banks from being so over exposed to the US sub prime loans.

It wasn't just the US sub-prime loans that were the problem. UK banks like Northern Rock were (like the US banks) funding their mortgage lending by packaging up the loans into mortgage-backed securities, and selling them on.

Taking the risk of default off their own books combined with lending based on self-certification of income was what fuelled the over-enthusiastic mortgage lending in the UK and the consequent massive house price inflation. This only stopped when the US sub-prime market collapsed and investors no longer wanted to buy the loans from the UK lenders.

Brown and Blair obviously weren't responsible for the global financial crisis, but it was their lack of action to stop these lending practices by UK banks which led to the out of control house price inflation.

Blair and Brown substantially increased demand/need whilst simultaneously reducing access to affordable housing. Everyone (British born or migrant should have decent affordable housing but sadly Blair and Brown opted to support exploitative employers and slum landlords). Expanding the population through largescale immigration is not a problem...if you increase social housing provision, end Right to Buy, and ensure that housing benefits (for the low waged and those too disabled or ill to work) are sufficient to meet private rents.

Blair and Brown did the opposite. They continued Right to Buy, cut housing benefits, and heavily flogged Buy to Let you any old Tom, Dick, and Sally. Buy to Let saw would be FTB priced out by multi property owning investors (including Blair's family, who have made millions out of property).

ensure that housing benefits (for the low waged and those too disabled or ill to work) are sufficient to meet private rents.

The problem with just paying out housing benefits to meet private rents is that rents just keep on rising, since there is no limit as there is when people are paying out of their own pockets. There has to be either a cap on housing benefits or rent controls.

@OldCrone

ensure that housing benefits (for the low waged and those too disabled or ill to work) are sufficient to meet private rents.

The problem with just paying out housing benefits to meet private rents is that rents just keep on rising, since there is no limit as there is when people are paying out of their own pockets. There has to be either a cap on housing benefits or rent controls.

Cutting benefits doesn't (and didn't) lower rents. That was very obviously never going to happen - not with increasing demand for housing.

All it did was cause harm and suffering to already disadvantaged groups - the poor, the disabled, migrants.

If governments wanted to cut housing benefit bills, they would buy and build a lot more social housing (and ban Right to Buy, which is still happening in England).

It is a pity nobody can grasp that poverty is not neatly defined by claiming 'benefits'. People with apparently high incomes qualify for benefits, and people with a minus income, living on scrimped life savings or the remnants of selling all they own, are banned from benefits.

Independent Age points out that millions, especially the oldest, have an old state pension of less than £100 per week, but no benefits, therefore no housing benefit, for the 17% in private rental, with no private pensions.

They therefore must live on the life savings which dwindle daily because of inflation, and which cause them to be barred from all 'social housing', all 'benefits', all 'legal aid', and all perks and freebies and cost reductions which are triggered by 'being on benefits'

Remember the Bournmouth Bus shelter couple, in their 90's, he a wheelchair user? No flat-sharers, no letting agents, no mortgage providers, would rent them anywhere to live, when their previous private landlord wanted to sell. Council rules said, and still say, they need not help anyone, however desperately vulnerable and homeless but who has savings instead of income.

Raising benefits or wages stokes inflation which harms the poorest, especially the 'hidden poorest'. Raising Housing Allowance fuels the already surging rent increases for an increasingly scarce supply and an increasing demand for private rented homes.

Rent caps, forced insulation improvements, or any other deterrent to private landlords makes a dire situation a complete disaster, by stopping even more of the supply, as landlords sell up or board up.

Nothing can force home owners to rent out at all, and it isn't worth the bother since leaving the house empty earns an average of £2,000 a month, due to house price inflation.

Radio 4 Analysis this week, on wealth inequality, is worth a listen (free on Sounds) By the way, Bliar and Cameron are both noted for their enormous property portfolios

If governments wanted to cut housing benefit bills, they would buy and build a lot more social housing (and ban Right to Buy, which is still happening in England).

I agree with that, but they could also bring in rent controls as I said in my previous post. The BTL market was a major cause of the house price inflation in a market where people could set whatever rent they wanted to knowing the government would step in if people couldn't afford to pay it.

If you have a free market in rents charged, but the government will foot the bill for anyone who can't pay them, then the rents just continue to increase without any limit. It's the result of allowing rents to find their 'market value' when that market value is artificially inflated by the government paying whatever is asked for.

You're right that just turning off the government taps wouldn't solve the problem when there is a housing shortage, and people would just get into debt to pay their rent or be made homeless. Rent controls are a better solution which also improves things for working people who are paying their own rent.

The question is really why was a Labour government continuing with the Thatcherite policy of paying out housing benefits to prop up private landlords instead of controlling the rents charged so that ordinary working people could afford them without needing state handouts?

@TheLeadbetterLife

It's unfashionable I know, but I have a lot of time for Tony Blair.

^^THIS

The question is really why was a Labour government continuing with the Thatcherite policy of paying out housing benefits to prop up private landlords instead of controlling the rents charged so that ordinary working people could afford them without needing state handouts?

It sometimes seems to me that there is a sort of collective madness.

It's similar to the question, why were all these governments at the same time influenced to put in place certain policies? For some reason, a whole bunch of people become convinced that they are the Way Forward. Or they can't see another way?

@nauticant

Thanks for the explanation.

I read somewhere that 70% of Maps are landlords.

So the housing crisis is never going to be addressed.

No maps, bloody phone, MPs

I have a lot of feelings for Blair, too. Granted, the war in Iraq led to 600,000 deaths, but they were, after all, only the deaths of foreigners. His support of J K Rowling redeems him totally. :)

@Ides

I have a lot of feelings for Blair, too. Granted, the war in Iraq led to 600,000 deaths, but they were, after all, only the deaths of foreigners. His support of J K Rowling redeems him totally. :)

Where has anyone said that?

@ScreamingBeans

No maps, bloody phone, MPs

Ha ha, I was trying to figure out what it meant!