The Leader of the Opposition has been pretty vocal on Twitter in recent days promoting Labour’s housing policy ahead of the General Election on June 8.
Jeremy Corbyn launched Labour’s election campaign in the marginal Croydon constituency of the current housing minister Gavin Barwell and pledged more action on housing, particularly building more council homes.
But does Corbyn know the difference between asking prices and the value a property sells for?
In one of his messages yesterday, Corbyn tweeted a Guardian article on the Rightmove House Price Index, stating: “This has gone way too far. Labour will build homes that people can actually afford to live in.”
This has gone way too far. Labour will build homes that people can actually afford to live in. https://t.co/9QJavMR0dX
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) April 24, 2017
But Corbyn seems to have missed the point that the Rightmove index in the story he cited is actually based on asking prices for properties new to the market, not on recent sold prices.
So while new asking prices did indeed rise to a record high this month of £313,655, actual sold prices may not be as high as Corbyn thinks.
The latest Land Registry figures for February show average sold prices were actually £96,153 lower at £217,502, while the more recent Halifax House Price Index for March put average values £93,900 lower, at £219,755.
Comments (12)
He’s just confused, full stop.
To be honest we need less govenment interference. Govenment does not add any value. Market forces is a very stable and real foundation of this country and of a fair society. The govt needs to stop dabbling and let things settle out.
So what if some people cant afford to live in London or wherever if its a prime location, jobs/houses/ etc will find a natrual balance.
There are plenty of good schools outside of London, life does go on outside of London !
We all want a ‘fair’ deal or crack of the whip.
Where many people will differ I would suggest is at the level of of wealth redistribution. Some want us all to be financially equal, some will have a different sliding scale of the redistribution some dont feel it fair for the policy of redistribution at all.
The more a govenment jumps in the more it purpetulates a false free market and the checks and balances a free market will eventually provide.
Too expensive to live in London? more people will live outside, too expensive to live outside of london and commute in then work and jobs will move outside of London when they cant recruit people.
Taking money away from others to redistrubute is a moral question but kicking the well off who create jobs such as self employed EA or Letting agents or any selfemployed person is not the way to go I would suggest. (pls excuse my spelling Dyslexia not good today and I cant get an auto corect to work)
Im sure many of us have heard ot the pub/tax/ story but post it below again.
It concerns 10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.
Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).
The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.
That’s such a great story…..never seen it before. I agree in principle, but I have a slight concern that is going be very controversial, I don’t doubt. There is wealth and then there is hoarding of wealth including deliberate and contrived avoidance of taxes, even if it is by legitimate means.
last night I watched the news at 10 and there was a lady who had crossed Somalia to find refuge and food because of the drought. Along the road she had lost to starvation, one by one, each of her seven children and buried each one in turn. By the time she had reached refuge she was a mother of seven dead children. If I was a multi billionaire or a company sitting on huge amounts of money that could never be spent in a thousand lifetimes, let alone one, and I had seen the news last night…I would feel deeply deeply ashamed.
In our area at the moment there are typically 20 to 30 people chasing every property that is reasonably priced. And when we sell a property our vendors are struggling to find anywhere to move to. People can’t find places to live and prices are being pushed through demand.
I think regulatory measures and uncertainty over the last few years have had a terrible effect on supply, which is no good for any of us. Someone seriously needs to look at the housing market…..and do something instead of talking about it. There are lots of ideas I can think of, but no one ever asks agents do they?
We seriously need more supply to balance demand….otherwise something is going to go catastrophically wrong at some point.
Is this just another anti labour, pro Tory article? Do you not actually think that people deserve affordable housing in areas they actually have a chance to get a decent job? Or do you want everyone to move up North? The point is. In most areas close to London it is unattainable to purchase a property unless you have been gifted some of your deposit and you are on a joint high income. Which is wonderful because those people work hard, but what about everyone else that also works hard, that aren’t fortunate enough to be gifted a deposit or have the skills to be on a high income? Do they not deserve to be in an area with good transport links and good Schools? Just look at what he is actually trying to say. I’m sure most high commission greedy percentage based Estate Agents, do not want to hear that sort of policy, as it affects their own pocket. Perhaps you should start charging people fairly!
Good to see that the Politics of Envy is alive and well nextchapter.
Listen. We are one of the fortunate ones. We are lucky enough to afford to live in a nice area, and give my Daughter the best opportunities, but that doesn’t mean everybody else can’t have that.
And I suppose that all those greedy capitalist b*stard estate agents who, because they had the skill and b*lls to take the risks of building successful businesses that provide employment for tens of thousands of people so that they in turn can give their daughters ‘the best opportunities’ are contributing nothing to Society in your book.
Sorry nextchapter. It is precisely your attitudes that will ensure Labour remains in the wilderness for the foreseeable future. Thank god.
We are also a business that employs people with plans for super growth, which will equate to mine and my teams wealth, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t want a fairer society surely? All I’m saying, is that of course the High percentage based Estate Agents do not want a shift in house prices. The more a property is worth, the more you earn! Sometimes It’s not all about ridiculously high profit margins, it’s about making sure every single person in the country and on the planet has a fair opportunity, and that’s all the guy wants to do! More council housing and more affordable housing. What the hell is wrong with that?
P.s. I’m not some keyboard warrior, we run a very successful business in an affluent area.
I think it best if we leave our political differences to one side. And I actually agree with you that we need more council housing (though not ‘affordable’ housing).
One thing I would observe – the bulk of the profits of most estate agencies do not come from sales commissions.
The one thing I would say is that I would rather sell five properties in a road to five different buyers at fair prices, rather than just have the one with thirty buyers chasing it, which is what is happening at the moment.
“I’m sure most high commission greedy percentage based Estate Agents, do not want to hear that sort of policy, as it affects their own pocket. Perhaps you should start charging people fairly!”
I’m sorry but you’ve got me on that one. Are you saying that house price increases are caused by Estate Agent charges?
Are the properties you list for sale cheaper than those of your competitors to take into account the difference between an Agent who can command a decent fee and your own?
Or are you just rattling your keyboard for the Hell of it?