Conference: a response to the housing and mortgage crisis

“Can I ask James Graham to stand by?” said the chair at the start of this morning’s first debate. Do I detect the approaching rumble of intergenerational equity?

We shall see, but for now Julia Goldsworthy introduces the motion. The history is well rehearsed, the need for action obvious – Northern Rock, repossessions, over-lending by banks and the collapse of the property market. We told you so is, naturally, the overtone.

The motion would:

  • allow councils and Registered Social landlords to borrow against their assets to buy up unsold properties aand replenish the social housing stock, to deal with the current 1.67 million households on the social housing waiting list.
  • Introduce a Code of Practice for mortgage lenders to ensure reposessions is only ever the last resort.
  • Protect vulnerable homeowners against rogue doorstep compan ies by regulating the private “sale and leaseback” market as a financial service through the Financial Services Agency.

James Graham and Neil Upstone’s amendment would add the following measure:

  • Help stabilise property prices and discourage irresponsible credit practices through a charge on all sterling deposits created by commercial lenders, over and above the deposits they secure from private investors.

No, not intergenerational equity, then. James Graham speaking for the amendment referred to the private local currency in circulation in the town of Lewes – it really was that easy, as Lewes had discovered, to print money, and for banks it’s easier still. Regulation was required to make banks take lending seriously.

Vince Cable summated, commenting particularly on younger contributors who have expounded what all this means for the younger generation. He mentioned his own experience, buying his first house “not in the last boom, but the one before” and coming face-to-face with negative equity in the early 1970s. Boom and bust goes on and always has, and yet every generation of bankers and government ministers thinks that prices will go up and up forever.

He suggested that the amendment would essentially put a tax on bank lending, and this is the wrong time for that. Being Our Vince, all he has to do is mildly recommend that conference reject the amendment for everyone to start nodding sagely. He concluded that we have put together a raft of practical and compassionate measures and recommends it to conference.

The amendment was clearly defeated and the motion was carried, unanimously the Chair thought, unamended.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Conference.
Advert

4 Comments

  • Andrew Duffield 16th Sep '08 - 8:48pm

    Interesting that, while Vince correctly (IMO) stated that “now” was indeed the wrong time to start taxing bank lending, he didn’t rule this out as a fiscal tool for the future.

    In a few years time, as we move “beyond the crunch” (and the world finally drags itself out of a depression to rival the 1930s), a charge on deposits created by the banks will be exactly the sort of policy needed to help stop the whole bloody boom-bust cycle cranking up all over again.

    I think Vince’s comments show he understands the fundamental economic truth of this – but he is understandably nervous over a PERCEPTION that we might be sticking the knife in to the banks at the start of the current crisis – albeit that they helped to create it!

    In any event, controlling money supply by capturing some of the “interest” that banks levy on deposits they have created out of nothing deserves a proper debate. A motion which clearly states that this is a policy we would phase in AFTER the crunch may be the answer – but we shouldn’t leave it too long.

    As Jock says, this is a cyclical problem (cum disaster!) with an authentic Liberal solution. Unfortunately, and despite several references in the motion to “irresponsible lending”, we still have NO POLICY to curb the banks’ unfettered ability to stoke up another massive crash for the next generation.

    Not about “intergenerational equity” Alix? Think again!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tim Leunig
    The EU has been pretty clear that we could join the customs union - not sure they would be so keen to have us in the single market. Baby steps to rebuild trust ...
  • Tim Leunig
    "The cost of living is spiralling, wages are stagnant" - not so, average pay rises have been higher than inflation for over a year now - https://www.ons.gov.uk/...
  • Tim Rogers
    Jenny Barnes. Trouble is millions of people understand simple answers and vote for it....
  • Mick Taylor
    Mark Frankel is always 110% on the side of Netanyahu and the Israeli state, but his comments are not wholly wrong. I do feel angry that far too many people try ...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Might it be appropriate to promote whole nation-beneficial policies and their marketing, rather than concentrate on attacking other parties? Might it help to...