Five questions answered on the rise in first time buyers

How big is it and what does it mean?

There has been a big boost in the number of mortgages taken out by first time buyers, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML). We answer five questions on the rise.

How many more first time buyers are there?

According to the CML, the number of mortgages taken out by first time buyers has risen by 42per cent in a year.

What has caused this surge in first time buying? 

Mortgage brokers say it is proof that banks are lending again to first time buyers following government attempts to support the housing market.

Government schemes such as Funding for Lending, which offered £80 billion to banks to boost mortgage and business lending, have increased high loan-to-value lending.

The Help to Buy scheme launched in the March Budget, which is designed to help borrowers with small budgets, has also bolstered loans.

How many first time mortgages were actually approved this year compared to last?

In May, 25,100 first time buyer loans were approved, a rise of 29 per cent from April, and 42 per cent higher than May last year.

At its lowest figure just 8,500 loans were issued to first time buyers in January 2009.

A separate survey released today by e.surv reveals that June showed a total of 7,046 loans were approved to borrowers with deposits of 15 per cent or less – up from 4,790 loans at this level in June.

Total lending to home-buyers was up 23 per cent year-on-year, e.surv found. 

What are people saying?

Richard Sexton, director of e.surv, told The Telegraph: “Last year the lending market was thorny for first-time buyers. But over the last year, lenders have softened the process for them to get a house purchase loan.

“Buoyed by Funding for Lending [the Government scheme], and having had enough time to adjust to regulatory requirements and balance sheet restructurings, banks are more prepared to lend at these levels.”

What next – will the figure continue to rise?

Possibly. The Bank of England’s Credit Condition Survey suggests lenders are planning to increase their lending levels to buyers with a 10 per cent deposit in the third quarter of the year.

Messrs Cameron and Clegg accompany a first time buyer around her new neighbourhood. Photograph: Getty Images.

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496