Skip to content

Divorce doesn’t suit Mr. Gove

Taxpayers to back 99pc mortgages for first-time buyers
Treasury considers allowing families to put down a 1pc deposit to secure a property

This is one of his plans and it’s mad like near all of his recent plans. D’ye think we could get Sarah Vine to take him back? So sparing the rest of us these plans?

25 thoughts on “Divorce doesn’t suit Mr. Gove”

  1. The maximum house price for the existing scheme is £600,000 so assuming that the 99% mortgage is available at 5%, the deposit will be £6000 and the monthly interest payment will be £2,475.

    No number of Sarah Vines will cure Gove of this level of madness. Only a general election will provide the straight jacket.

  2. The Conservatives would rather make what economists call (technical term, sorry) a complete fucking dog’s arse of our economy, than stop Infinity Immigration.

    But 99% Infinity Mortgages are definitely on trend with getting you, your children, and your grandchildren into trillions of pounds worth of debt so that bankers can own you in the Net Zero regime they think won’t swiftly collapse and lead to their public executions.


  3. I’m struggling to express myself here, so I’m resorting to a rather distasteful comparison.
    Where has all the white dog poo gone?
    I mention this because it matches my level of curiosity as to how politicians achieve Gove’s intellectual level.
    Surgery? Was Jeremy Corbyn’s brother right after all? Is it 5G that causes it? Is there a radiation field around Westminster?
    We need to know to ensure that as few people as possible succumb to this level of idiocy…

  4. Maybe someone like Arthur Engoron, could ensure that properties are not over-valued when applications for finance are made.

    He’s an expert you know.

    (It’s Friday, I’m bored so I’m trying to flush our New York lawyer friend out into the open again).

  5. Also obviously severely bullied at school, and devoting the rest of his life to revenge on everyone larger, better looking and cleverer than him (ie everyone)

  6. Tim, I know you’ve long held that if only there was a way to go short on housing stock then crashes and booms would be mitigated and far less a risk to the overall economy. Well I know someone looking (south east england) not first time but buying a place probably 5 years old with 75% share, and no rent. No rent!? I was amazed, but apparently its getting to be quite common. Some conditions are attached, you have to have some connection with the area. Obviously some sort of council affordable strings attached planning fudge, but wondering who actually is prepared to own something without rent? And if they aren’t that keen after a while can they and to whom do they offload to? And if they can, is this a possible mechanism for no income positions/bets on the housing market?

  7. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    Gove is very useful. Why? Because it’s a truism in life that Gove is wrong about everything all of the time and any time he stumbles across being right, like a stopped clock does twice a day, he will then proceed to make such a complete mess of it as to be wrong.

    Therefore, if you are ever unsure of the correct answer to anything, look at Goves position. It won’t be the one he’s taken.

  8. They can’t all be eaten by lions, we need a balanced approach.

    Crucifixions were a very effective legal punishment for several centuries, and they’re Net Zero compliant.

    True, Michael Gove is more Spasticus than Artayctes, but he’s crossed us, so we should cross him.

  9. Not to put a damper on the Gove hate but wasn’t he on the nose regarding the education blob?

    Although, he’s been a fucking idiot in the massive overreaction to the fire in the tower block and fucked over 100 of 1000s of flat owners who struggle to sell or remortgage their flats.

  10. 3 Sneezer – I was just going to say the same thing.

    Let’s not morn over the Gove we currently have, let’s remember the Gove that used to be.

  11. Hallowed Be; that sounds interesting, but unfortunately I have no idea what your comment actually means; buying, ok, 75% share? Equity/deposit? If buying, why would there be rent?

  12. Let’s not morn over the Gove we currently have, let’s remember the Gove that used to be.

    The one who said conservative things, and in true conservative style completely failed to follow through on them?

    Or the guy who threw the 2016 Tory leadership contest to Theresa May?

    Either way, ✝

  13. The Gove who pushed the education reforms in England through, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Educators. I suppose the Gove who campaigned for Brexit too. I don’t think he’s done anything good since then.

  14. A generally perceived closeness to the slimy little turd has pushed Kemi Badenoch, who should have had the sense to tell him to feck right off, way down the current pecking order for next party leader.

    Mind you that’s not a bad thing right now and I’d rather have front-runner Mordaunt as opposition leader where her superficial talents are best suited than anywhere near real power.

  15. Ducky McDuckface
    They’re buying a 75 % share so someone else owns t’other 25%. The 75% owner has exclusive use of the property, the other 25% doesn’t get to use it nor do they get paid anything for the 75% owner using 100% of it.

  16. @HB
    Any idea what your friend´s connection with the area is? For some time, the housing associations have been using offers of shared ownership deals to their tenants to clear them out of London so they can house the ethnic enrichment. (Yep that is policy. From the mouth of a regional manager horse) Maybe they ran out tenants were attracted by the schemes so they´ve upped the inducements. The lack of control over the 25% wouldn´t bother them. The aim´s to get 100% control over the previous tenancies. Nor would the lack of rent money. Not their money.

  17. HB, ah, right.

    OPSO – Older People’s Shared Ownership
    Supporting people over 55 to home ownership, it follows the same principles as other shared ownership schemes but the properties available are exclusively for those over the age of 55. The maximum you can own however is 75% of the property and if you do so, you will not have to pay rent on the remaining 25%.

    Although the other schemes outlined all involve rent. The above seems to imply that if the buyer only takes 70% of the property, then rent needs to be paid on the 30% remaining.

    What’s interesting is that if house price growth is 5% pa, then the value of the 25% stake doubles in a tad under 15 years, or just south of two-thirds of the standard UK mortgage term, 25 years, where a 55 y/o borrower would have paid that off by age 80.

    Annual rent increases on the schemes are capped at either RPI+0.5% (prior to October 2023) or CPI+1%.

    Average term/duration in a dwelling in the UK is about 15 years.

    The bet would seem to be that house price inflation beats the rental increases.

    By coincidence, there have been changes to the law around leasehold over the past few years, still ongoing. The Secretary of State for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing & Communities is the Rt. Hon. Michael Gove, MP.

  18. BiS- They previously lived in the next county but it was enough they work in the county as a teacher.

    Saw them tonight and brought this up! Apparently there is actually rent to be paid to the 25% owner.* So got that wrong. The rent p.m is calibrated to the same you would be be paying if it were a 100 p.c mortgage. So it sounds as if its a way of getting round the mortgage percent rules. So still relevant to this post.
    * Abri or Abbri is the company that owns the 25 p.c according to my friend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *