Of course, the theoretical justification for imposing such tough new controls on how much people can borrow might have a superficial moral basis to it, or be even based on the new mantra of so-called behavioural economics, but both are flawed.
A semi-state defined morality when it comes to the management of one’s income is undemocratic and a step too far, and the myth of behavioural economics is an attempt to create a sub-discipline out of a meta-discipline which already has bogus claims to being a science.
There would be a national outcry if the state, through any of its agencies, tried to tell households what make of car they could afford, or where they should go for their annual holiday, or if they could afford a fee-paying school for little Johnny.
The regulation of mortgage lending should be based on the would-be borrower meeting all the conditions laid down by the lender within a framework of transparency, legality and consumer rights.
Once the borrower is made aware of all the bells and whistles surrounding the loan and the penalties for defaulting and is convinced that he or she can still afford the repayments, then there should be no legal reason why the two parties should not enter in to a legally-binding contract.
Undertaken with good professional financial advice, the borrower would be strongly advised to put in place a number of protection safeguards in case of an accident, the one in 200 event that insurance actuaries talk about.
This is the democratic framework, the rules and regulations, that surround our market economy.
It is arguable that it is not too late to call a halt to the MMR, or even put in place an early review with the ready-made excuse that economic circumstances have changed and so should policy.
Contrary to popular opinion, the real crisis in housing in England and Wales, and particularly so in London and the South East, is not one of house price inflation, or even simply affordability, but a shortage of supply.
Shortage of housing in desirable areas where jobs and the quality of life is better, is what is driving house prices up and up; and, in terms of affordability, there is no possible reason why our outstanding financial engineers cannot come up with a product that is repayable over a longer period than the traditional 25 or 30 years, or even across generations.
Because someone is poor, low-paid, or even a single parent, does not mean that someday they too would not like to have a place they can call their own home.
