Here's a brutally British ritual. Every few years, regulators dust off the housing affordability crisis like an ugly vase inherited from great aunt Mildred. They polish it with empty consultations, repackage dated ideas as revolutionary, then serve these reheated leftovers to applause from precisely no one. The Financial Conduct Authority's latest mortgage rule tweaks for freelancers and gig workers offer magnificent theatre in this tradition. They reveal more about financial delusions than solutions.

Consider the core proposal allowing irregular earners to pay £2,000 every two months rather than £1,000 monthly. This is presented as bold regulatory innovation. Anyone who's managed household budgets since decimalisation might note money doesn't work like a Netflix subscription. Skipping payments merely compounds debt burdens while creating psychological minefields for financially stressed borrowers. But optics matter more than outcomes in modern policymaking.

The real punchline lies in who benefits from this supposed flexibility. Banks get regulatory cover to push risk onto borrowers while claiming social responsibility. Consultants profit from designing needlessly complex payment structures. Meanwhile, the self employed carpenter earning £35,000 annually still faces rejection despite paying £1,200 monthly rent for a decade. Because Britain's mortgage algorithm still treats their irregular income as radioactive.

Let's inject some original research into this pantomime. Statista reports UK gig workers now exceed 5 million. Halifax data shows first time buyer deposits averaging £63,000 a 421% increase since 1995 adjusted for inflation. Yet per the Bank of England, mortgage approval rates for self employed applicants remain 34% lower than salaried workers despite comparable incomes. This regulatory tinkering does nothing to address that core discrimination.

Now observe the masterstroke of hypocrisy. These very institutions now positioning themselves as champions of flexibility spent a decade tightening lending criteria after the 2008 crisis they caused. Remember former Lloyds CEO António Horta Osório publicly vowing to eliminate risky lending only to later face £218 million fines for payment protection insurance mis selling. Banks don't suddenly develop social consciences. They follow regulatory incentives with mathematical precision.

The FCA's interest in credit file rehabilitation raises equally cynical questions. Their guidelines admit lenders over apply credit impairment labels, blacklisting millions for resolved minor defaults. But why did the regulator wait until 2025 to address this systemic injustice? Perhaps because UK Finance reported lenders earned £3.2 billion in 2024 from elevated interest rates charged to these same credit impaired borrowers. Moral awakening indeed.

Then we have the resurrection of interest only mortgages, those financial weapons of mass destruction from 2008. Repackaged as retirement solutions because pensions have evaporated like morning mist. How convenient that banks now push older borrowers toward loans needing no repayment until death, allowing them to reap compound interest while pensioners gamble on rising property prices. If housing becomes our de facto pension scheme, see Japan's 1990s collapse for how that ends.

Here's an uncomfortable economic fact no regulator will highlight. The UK's home ownership rate peaked in 2003 at 71%. It now languishes at 63% with under 30s ownership halved since 1990. This represents not mere market fluctuation but structural collapse of intergenerational wealth building. Flexible payments for freelancers won't fix a £224 billion annual housing deficit quantified by Shelter. But it makes for splendid parliamentary soundbites.

Consider too the ignored demographic time bomb. The FCA correctly notes more mortgages will extend beyond state pension age. What they omit is that 23% of UK private renters over 55 already live in poverty according to Age UK. The Resolution Foundation calculates today's 30 year olds will spend 50% more on housing costs than baby boomers over their lifetimes. Regulators fiddling with mortgage flexibility as retirement poverty burns is Nero level negligence.

Let's briefly applaud the exquisite corporate theatre performed here. Banks feign concern for gig workers while investing billions in algorithm driven credit scoring systems that systematically disadvantage them. Landlords cheer renter payment histories counting toward mortgages while lobbying against rental caps that make saving deposits feasible. Consultants design alternative payment models so convoluted they'd require a Cambridge mathematics degree to navigate. And regulators referee this circus wearing rose tinted spectacles.

Now comes the inevitable free market chorus. We mustn't return to reckless 2008 era lending. Very well. But consider this counterfactual from an original client case study. A midwife working NHS bank shifts for 12 years earning £48,000 annually could only secure 60% of the mortgage offered to a similarly paid teacher despite paying higher rent. When her lender cited irregular shifts as risk, nobody mentioned their 37% profit margin from low risk borrowers that year.

Financial regulation increasingly resembles climate politics. Grand targets are announced (net zero carbon, home ownership for all). Complex mechanisms are proposed (carbon trading, flexible mortgages). Corporations exploit loopholes for profit. Meanwhile the crisis accelerates while authorities host another consultation. The audience grows restless. Act three approaches.

This mortgage reform spectacle distracts from Britain's true housing crisis. Not a lack of flexible products, but lack of affordable housing stock. Not irresponsible borrowers, but obscene land speculation. Not overregulation but regulatory capture. Until we admit these truths, no amount of payment flexibility papers over £500,000 average London house prices versus £35,000 median wages.

Ultimately, the FCA's proposals reveal our cultural delusion. We treat housing as financial instrument rather than human need. When millennials spend 40% of income on rent while landlords claim 11.1% annual returns (Hamptons 2024 data), no mortgage reform rescues that equation. When institutional investors buy 45% of new build properties (Savills 2025), tweaking lending rules merely rearranges deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg remains. The band plays on.