Some questions to be answered on the housing announcements

I have been out most of the day so am just catching up with the various announcements on the housing market.
The words that spring to mind,voting fishing and short term.Not a government that has any long term planning.
But what strikes me most is if surging house price inflation and over lending has fueled the problems of the past few years?
Why introduce measures that will simply fuel it again?

I also note Jim Pickard over at the FT who can't work the sums out.he

still can’t get his head around the maths of the £615m which the government has promised to spend on its stamp duty holiday for those buying a home worth between £125,000 and £175,000.
The figure suggests that - at about £1,500 per home-buyer - about 30,000 people will be helped every month.
But the TOTAL number of mortgages taken out in whole of the UK in July was 33,000. Do they expect the market to suddenly pick up….or do they secretly think this will be a cheaper measure than suggested?

and the same analyst asks another question

Everyone knows that 125 per cent mortgages (Northern Rock et al) were a dreadful, top of the market idea. Most realise that 100 per cent mortgages are also a bad idea. Because a home-owner has no equity in his house, any fall in prices leaves him - immediately - in negative equity.
So what on earth is the new “HomeBuy Direct” scheme which will form part of today’s package of measures to help the housing market? Under the programme, first-time buyers can borrow up to 30 per cent of the value of a new-build home - interest-free for five years - co-funded by both the government and housebuilders.
In other words, they wouldn’t have to put in any equity at all. And when five years have passed, they will be owners of a property, funded 100 per cent by debt, on which they have to pay interest.

Anyway more on the topic later