Why has property played no part in the election? - 4 May 2010

Posted by Paul Collins 2 comments

And so there we have it; the final televised debate in the run-up to the General Election has taken place. The party big-hitters have all been wheeled out to claim victory in the debate for their man, regardless of the reality of the situation and the final leg of campaigning has started. While the debates have doubtless been a good thing for politics as a whole, they have highlighted just how little any of the three main parties have talked about property in this campaign.

Of course, there are various parts to housing policy and property that tie into different parts of the issues in the campaign, but it is amazing that with property still one of the main obsessions of the British public, how little clear policy we have had on the subject. This is even more serious when you think of the huge issues we face in property over the course of the next Parliament.

Without even thinking of addressing the property bubble that at least partially caused the current recession, there are huge issues such as mortgage lending, help for first-time buyers, the general shortage of available property in the country, regulations for second home owners, the amount of empty and disused property, and social housing. These things will affect just about every single voter out there, whether they are faithfully following their party or a genuine floating voter, so why did it take until the second half of this week’s debate for it to come to the fore?

Not only that, but why then did all three party leaders decide to avoid the main thrust of the question, namely, what will they do to help people who want to buy their own homes?

So far, I’ve avoided getting too deeply into the housing policies of each of the parties – I know there are various trade bodies and media figures that have come out in support of one or another of the parties and their proposed housing policies. The problem for me here is that there is a distinct lack of detail to what has been said. Even Nick Clegg, who came closest to flirting with answering the question in the debate with his proposals to use empty property for occupation once again (it’s not rocket science, is it?) seemed pretty vague on the exact costings and numbers of properties this would involve.

Perhaps I’m expecting too much. Perhaps asking for a little clarification on how exactly the parties propose to make the banks lend to buyers again is unrealistic and wanting to know how they propose to tackle the social housing problem is impossible until they know the full extent of future finances. Or is it possible that none of the want to risk putting off potential voters by revealing what their plans really are?

Keep blogs friendly, read our posting policy for guidelines.

Found an offensive/inappropriate comment? Please report it.

© Copyright Buy Associates Ltd

All circumstances vary. BuyAssociation provides general advice for guidance purposes only. It is strongly recommended that you seek professional advice before making any purchase.