Stephen Gilbert, MP for St. Austell and Newquay, claims he can't afford to buy a house in his constituency despite earning £65k. He also claims renting is "increasingly unaffordable".

This a man who represents an area of the country where the average wage is around £13-15k (if not less!).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/gallery ... ng-newquay

Imagine how he would struggle if he had to abide by the Housing Benefit regulations. As someone of 35 he would only be entitled to share accomodation. Also 65K is well above average for most people. Let alone in his constutuency.

If I had £65k/yr I'd be able to afford a house and the petrol to drive into work!

According to The Office of National Statistics, mean average wage in the UK this time last year was, to within a smidgeon, £25K and the trend was down even then. So what he's actually saying is, as it stands, a couple both with decent jobs, cannot afford to live in his constituency. If that's actually true and he's not immediately doing something about it, he should be recalled from parliament and they should give the job to someone who can do something about it. It's an utter disgrace.

Jon

It is even worse in his constituency, where the average wage is £13-15k (courtesy of Linux_user) So there is no prospect of them ever owning a place in their area. I do wish they would hurry and make this recall law active. My local MP has been remarkably absent. It even made the local news.

It's the same here. There's not a lot any politicians can do about it.

he could always rent/buy a caravan ...

There is a lot politicains can do. They can put interest rates up, put restrictions on mortgages such as maximum loan to values, and ratio to wages, rules on second homes, capital gains taxes on all property or even all property of second home owners, eliminating the benefits of being able to switch for tax or MP's expense purposes. There is so much that can be done. What is lacking is political will.

I agree with this.

The old Labour MP for Oldham who had written a book on Socialism attacking the captialist culture and living to excess was found to own at LEAST 8 properties, yet his 'affordable housing' was (in 2001) £780 per WEEK in London, not monthly, weekly

Most people these days can't afford to even stand a chance of owning their own home, I'd have to pretty much be earning twice what I do now, and the same for my gf to even consider buying a place, it's just too expensive, the deposit alone is the real killer given that we would need ~£20k just to get a deposit for a mortgage for most places, and that is more than either of us earn in a year

Then add in the fact that if ypu lose your jobs you would be expected to use that sum up before you qualified for income support. It does become a catch 22.

Yep, a population that the majority is struggling to get onto the housing ladder is actually better off spending all their income so they receive benefit quicker in bad times than those that didn't fritter away their incomes

You're thinking of Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West and Royton.

His book was called "Socialism with a Human Face: the Political Economy in the 80s".

I should have said, there's not a lot a few politicians can do. Rural areas are just not a massive vote winner, so their wishes are rarely listened to by the party big wigs. Especially as their concerns don't affect the majority of the voting populace. The suburb dwelling nine to fivers with an interest in continually rising property prices and two cars on finance.

Thats the one

All sound good but



Makes no difference - a low rate means I can afford a higher multiplier a high rate means that people cannot afford a mortgage in the first place. It would also affect industry


Better as at least it targets houses but there are 101 ways around any limits


The first is a total vote looser, the second would be more (or slightly less un-)popular