From Mortgage Stategy:
John Gummer, the former Conservative MP for Suffolk Coastal and the chairman of the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries has claimed non-homeowners have no freedom. Speaking at the AMI annual dinner last night he said home ownership has been one of the main strengths of Britain.
He told the audience: “Home ownership is the basis of freedom, people who do not own their own home do not have independence... AMI is a proper representation of a great profession, which is crucial to the property owning democracy in the UK and as such makes a bigger contribution to freedom than perhaps any other profession.”
Gummer claimed people who dealt with him throughout his time in parliament could be much tougher with him if they owned their own home. He adds: “Home ownership gives people who otherwise would not have a stake in society a real stake, it is the basis for any democratic system, it’s because people own something that matters that they are able to proceed.”
Absolutely bizarre.
That is the most extreme kind of deluded Home-Owner-Ist ranting I have seen for ages. As plenty of people in the comments point out, while it's nice to own a home to live in, it's not nice having a massive mortgage debt hanging over you. I'd be tempted to turn the whole thing on its head to show what Home-Owner-Ism is really all about, to wit:
Gummer claimed people who dealt with him throughout his time in parliament could be more or less ignored if they were only tenants. He adds: “Home ownership gives politicians a stake in people in whom they otherwise would not have a stake, it is the basis for any system of oppression, it’s because people own something that they think matters that we can threaten them and bully them.”
Spotted by Jack C at HPC.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
"Non-homeowners have no freedom, claims Gummer"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
This isn't home-owner-ist on its own. If he believes home ownership gives freedom, but doesn't believe in freedom to build homes, that becomes home-woner-ist, as it restricts freedom to the privileged.
To be fair, he's probably just an old-school Tory, who thinks the reform acts giving tenants the vote should never have been allowed.
Personally, I reckon the fact that I've got a fair-sized amount of equity in fungible investments but still rent a place makes me much less of a slave than someone who's required to pay a mortgage no matter what they do, but then again I live in a place where I've got no vote at all, other than the most significant "with my feet" one.
Personally I'm pretty much with Mr Gummer on the last paragraph, about why it is socially desirable for as many people as possible to own their homes.
Home-owner-ism is not the same as favouring home ownership afterv all. In fact, they are opposed really - home-owner-ism says you need to restrict new building and keep prices going up, which self-evidently prevents new people becoming home owners.
But as for the rest, words fail me. The idea that mortgage INTERMEDIARIES are crucial to the property owning democracy is utterly laughable. In my experience they typically have less knowledge of the market than I can get by using a single comparison website, and seem to be more interested in who gives the best commission than who is offering the best mortgage for me.
After all, applying for a mortgage direct with a lender, having investigated the market yourself, is at least as easy as using an "intermediary".
I like the freedom of knowing I can up sticks and move in a flash if the right job opportunity comes up.
My employer knows I can too, which will hopefully make it all the easier to threaten and bully pay rises out of them.
DS, AC, you are right, Home-Owner-Ism wants to restrict the spread of homeownership. But if we are agreed that owner-occupation is a good thing (and I think it is), why not make every citizen an owner-occupier or landowner by right, by introducing LVT and dishing it out as a Citizens' Dividend?
JB, SL, I am in the same happy position as you two. It's quite liberating NOT owning a home any more.
"people who dealt with him throughout his time in parliament could be more or less ignored if they were only tenants."
Really? Was that his first question? I don't think so.
Just paid off the mortgage. I now feel I have regained some freedom. Encouraging people to saddle themselves in debt is plays a major part of keeping them under control. And is also the cause of widespread depression and despair.
My wise father used to assure me that in his parents' and grandparents' times, it was perfectly normal for middle- and upper-middle class families to rent their houses.
But my wife's genealogical researches showed that one of his grandfathers had, between one census and the next, gone from "farmer" to "farmer and landed proprietor". We assume that he'd bought his farm in the interim.
AKH, good spot. But I can easily imagine he ignored people from council estates.
Anon, having paid off your mortgage is nice, but it's still not quite as good as having loads of income to pay rent.
D, being a private tenant is also a form of slavery, or privatise tax collection. Whether it's better or worse than having a mortgage just depends on the situation. Owning outright is nice, but all that means is that you are imposing slavery on everybody else. Best of all is giving everybody an economic interest in land from Day One by adopting a Georgist system - that's the best kind of 'property owning democracy'.
You are only more free if you own a really expensive house, preferably in London.Otherwise a homeowner can only tranfer to somewhere of a similar-ish price : moving to somewhere with good well-paid work is impossible and London out of the question.The "free" market in houses is so restrictive it allows as much right of settled reisdence as S.Africa under the pass laws .Allowing people to move where there's work is perhaps best facilitated by giving people a council tenancy as of right: with the advent of the Internet council transfers could be done more quickly than all that conveyancing of private property.
DBC, we are all free, only some are more free than others.
Agreed that council housing could be used much more efficiently. But if you think that it should be used to allow people to move to areas where they can find a job, then the flip side is that unemployed people in council housing in such areas have to move somewhere else, they have had their chance and blown it.
MW Up to a point Lord Copper: council places also come up when people retire and move to places like Cornwall where there's sweet FA in the way of work .There people might gladly swap their place with a sea view and unemployment for somewhere in the middle of London. You should be able to induce some churn or movement between places with or without work or rural charm.
There is a huge problem in London where, through right to buy, key workers have let out their ex-council flats at exorbitant (for London quite normal) rents and retired from work to live off the proceeds.It should be possible to arrange things better than that.
DBC, problem is (as you well know) that people in a council house in London can't afford to retire to Cornwall UNLESS they bought their London council house for pennies under RTB (see your second para).
Yes, it is possible to arrange things better than that.
The 'private sector' (NIMBYs, Homeys, home builders, banks etc) have clearly failed miserably in providing affordable housing where it's needed*, so in this particular instance I agree that it is time for The State to step in and just build loads of council housing wherever there is demand for it (which is a sort of crude Georgism by the back door).
* The private sector, OTOH, has succeeded in providing us with affordable food, cars, televisions etc, it usually works but not always.
"The 'private sector' (NIMBYs, Homeys, home builders, banks etc) have clearly failed miserably in providing affordable housing where it's needed*,
I'm not so sure: remember that the 'private sector' provided 100% of affordable housing until the councils stepped in, pinched most of their customers, condemned their housing stock and demolished it. If the economic conditions were right, i.e. building land was not prohibitively expensive, then the private sector would once more get into the business of providing affordable housing. The only reason why the local authorities can make money out of social housing and the private sector can't is that the LAs can grant themselves planning permission and so not have to buy building land at its open market cost.
"it is time for The State to step in and just build loads of council housing wherever there is demand for it"
Pointless until the State get rid of the fscking "right to buy", which I can't see the Tories doing any time soon. Anyway, getting rid of the planning permission premium on building land would be a better move and then the state wouldn't need to involve itself in housing the poor.
B: "If the economic conditions were right, i.e. building land was not prohibitively expensive, then the private sector would once more get into the business of providing affordable housing."
Ah yes, but it's exactly the NIMBYs, the Homeys, the home builders and the banks who conspire to keep building land as prohibitvely expensive as possible.
And we've had council housing for over a century, it filled a gap in the market then and could fill the same gap in the market now.
There is little or no 'crowding out' here, except for making developers hand over half what they build as affordable homes (which is a very new phenomenon).
Agreed that RTB was and is a shit idea, on whatever level.
You should worry. Gummer also politically fronts up the AIFA to which I pay subs...
"Gummer claimed people who dealt with him throughout his time in parliament could be more or less ignored if they were only tenants. He adds: “Home ownership gives politicians a stake in people in whom they otherwise would not have a stake, it is the basis for any system of oppression, it’s because people own something that they think matters that we can threaten them and bully them."
Yeah, try being made bankrupt as a homeowner and see if you keep your home. Provided your landlord isn't amongst the list of creditors, go bankrupt as a tenant and you pretty much will carry on as before.
Post a Comment