Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
Yes, mine has dropped about 2-years' income worth already. It makes me wonder what we pay fund managers for if not to forecast and react to market conditions. Making the right connections at Oxbridge, I expect.
It is a bit brutal for equity investors. My overseas portfolio is down 15% over 6 months, my domestic portfolio about 10%. Both better than the markets, but losing money less quickly isn't much solace.
I am holding for the long term.
Hard thing is not selling. Was an option a week or two ago and I was tempted but did not do it, all 3 back down again.
This is the first year since I retired in 2017 that my SIPP capital growth hasn’t kept pace with my withdrawals. I was thinking of taking out a bit extra, but as someone once said, now is not the time.
Red, bit of a pain not knowing when you will peg it. Do you let rip and end up skint for years or watch how you go peg it early and leave a shedload for the children.
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
Driving freight trucks through Leith might be a bit challenging.
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
I think tourists from Holland would probably prefer to disembark a stone's throw from Edinburgh than in Rosyth too.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
What it comes down to, is issues with actual payment of rent. Because benefit claimants renting privately are the Local Housing Allowance, by the local Authority.
Firstly, that can go wrong. And then you have the joys of the extreme efficiently of local government to deal with.
Then there is the problem of tenants simply taking the money and not paying the rent.
While these are only issues for a minority of tenants on benefits, they represent a significantly increased risk to landlords, vs non benefits tenants.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Indeed. But then you have nothing when you might need (or really want) something.
I haven't used supermarket delivery since I bought a car.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Buying doesn't necessarily beat renting on the financials. It depends on various factors. Also a rented option could provide peace and security if it were structured that way and became more of the norm. But with how we roll you're right, you have to buy if you can, and if you can't you're excluded from the main mechanism for personal wealth accumulation for doing nothing. As to whether we ought to lionize and be so reliant on a mechanism for accumulating wealth for doing nothing, I'd say not. It's very ingrained though so I doubt we'll be changing it much.
Listening to the vox pops in Tiverton and Honiton on R4 WATO. If a party comes up with removing the franchise from the terminally stupid I'm in. "Boris is doing his best". "Boris has had difficult things like Brexit to deal with".
People you don't agree with in other words.
That's about the measure of it.
Do you believe "Boris is doing his best"? Right, I'll add you to the list.
It's possible to believe that - and also that he ought to be removed immediately from office.
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
I think tourists from Holland would probably prefer to disembark a stone's throw from Edinburgh than in Rosyth too.
It must be aimed at the commercial truckers in large part.
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
Driving freight trucks through Leith might be a bit challenging.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Don't disagree with most of that, although if I remember correctly, pre-COVID visits to supermarkets had been going up over the past 5-10 years. It used to be people did a weekly shop and that was it, now common for people to make multiple visits per week and buy as they need (or want) things.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Better affordability for prospective property buyers is also a big silver lining.
Many mortgage payers are in for a nasty shock in the coming months, and I don't see how there won't be some distressed sellers emerging, what with the cost of everything else rocketing.
However when that happens it does not benefit those at the low end, those with money and assets mop it up
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Don't disagree with most of that, although if I remember correctly, pre-COVID visits to supermarkets had been going up over the past 5-10 years. It used to be people did a weekly shop and that was it, now common for people to make multiple visits per week and buy as they need (or want) things.
And I think in part that's because supermarkets have made themselves more attractive to customers: new ranges, more space, self-checkout, etc.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
I think tourists from Holland would probably prefer to disembark a stone's throw from Edinburgh than in Rosyth too.
There was at one time a small passenger ferry from Rosyth to Granton
Even earlier, the ferry used to steam up to Alloa stopping on the way eg at Charlestown. We could do with that again. Maybe when the Leith and Newhaven trams open in a year or so, the Ocean Terminal stop will make someone look at the possibilities.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
They were built for artisans, and symbols of the trade or craft are carved into the stones of the end walls of the terraces. Highly fashionable now, though less so when we lived there in the early 70s in our first own house.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
The graphs I saw seemed to show that yes, the online-sales dropped post-lockdown, but not right back to the levels pre-COVID. That makes intuitive sense to me -- the lockdowns forced lot of people who'd been happy enough doing their shop in the supermarket to try online food shopping. Post-lockdown, those who preferred going to the shop reverted to that, but there were clearly also a lot of people who, having tried out online shopping, found that they actually liked it better and stuck with it.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Buying doesn't necessarily beat renting on the financials. It depends on various factors. Also a rented option could provide peace and security if it were structured that way and became more of the norm. But with how we roll you're right, you have to buy if you can, and if you can't you're excluded from the main mechanism for personal wealth accumulation for doing nothing. As to whether we ought to lionize and be so reliant on a mechanism for accumulating wealth for doing nothing, I'd say not. It's very ingrained though so I doubt we'll be changing it much.
If you own the property, you have zero rent in perpetuity.
If you rent, you are paying money to others until you die.
The emphasis on rental simply means that property is owned by a smaller group of people.
The reason that owning a house has become an investment is because of the dedication of many in society to preventing properties being built to match a rising population.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Indeed. But then you have nothing when you might need (or really want) something.
I haven't used supermarket delivery since I bought a car.
Well, that's another factor: it's 10 mile round trip to our preferred supermarket; 6 miles to the nearest. I haven't worked it out but I suspect the delivery cost is less than the car mileage cost.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
One difference is that right to buy has been abolished up here, so they remain in the public housing sector. This doesn't logically affect the issue of whether new council houses should be reasonably decent, of course, but it must have some sort of psychological connexion ...
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
I think tourists from Holland would probably prefer to disembark a stone's throw from Edinburgh than in Rosyth too.
Birthplace of my father (much to his disgust) as I was reminded when digging through some paperwork this morning.
Not that that would impress Dutch tourists I imagine.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
They were built for artisans, and symbols of the trade or craft are carved into the stones of the end walls of the terraces. Highly fashionable now, though less so when we lived there in the early 70s in our first own house.
Wonderful, as are the tenement blocks of Morningside and the like for the more well to do. Scotland can teach the rest of the UK a lot about housing.
Johnson should make the next election a battle between cavaliers and roundheads, with himself in the cavalier camp and Starmer, Davey, Lucas and Robertson in the roundhead camp.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
They were built for artisans, and symbols of the trade or craft are carved into the stones of the end walls of the terraces. Highly fashionable now, though less so when we lived there in the early 70s in our first own house.
I used to visit a specialist teacher in one of them back in the 1970s - even then they were coveted.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
At the risk of sounding like a Sainsbury salesman, these things aren't really a problem with them. If you say you're happy with substitutions for an item, you usually get something extremely similar, just a different brand. If you say you're not (e.g. I love Coke but won't touch Diet Coke), they tell you that morning (not just when delivering) that they can't deliver it, and you can then pop out for it if you really care enough. Physical grocery stores won't disappear, but I think they'll become less numerous.
Obviously all this makes most sense for generic goods for which you probably don't much care whether you get one brand or another. It won't work so well where personal taste is involved, and I agree that physical bookshops will always have a role, if only to introduce you to new ones so you don't keep buying the same authors forever.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Buying doesn't necessarily beat renting on the financials. It depends on various factors. Also a rented option could provide peace and security if it were structured that way and became more of the norm. But with how we roll you're right, you have to buy if you can, and if you can't you're excluded from the main mechanism for personal wealth accumulation for doing nothing. As to whether we ought to lionize and be so reliant on a mechanism for accumulating wealth for doing nothing, I'd say not. It's very ingrained though so I doubt we'll be changing it much.
High quality social rent is more common in Central Europe too. And they didn’t sell theirs off. Having a big pool of social tenancies damps the wilder swings of the rental markets. In the UK the only way to not get constantly screwed by the rental sector is to buy. I don’t know anyone in my peer group with a good thing to say about renting because it has become so expensive and poorly managed. The added expenses of home ownership are more than offset by the aggro of poorly managed and pricey tenancies.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
They were built for artisans, and symbols of the trade or craft are carved into the stones of the end walls of the terraces. Highly fashionable now, though less so when we lived there in the early 70s in our first own house.
Wonderful, as are the tenement blocks of Morningside and the like for the more well to do. Scotland can teach the rest of the UK a lot about housing.
Presumably familiar to rUK thanks to the Rebus TV series, and Taggart for that matter? (Haven't watched Rebus on TV ever, buit have all the books.)
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
They were built for artisans, and symbols of the trade or craft are carved into the stones of the end walls of the terraces. Highly fashionable now, though less so when we lived there in the early 70s in our first own house.
Wonderful, as are the tenement blocks of Morningside and the like for the more well to do. Scotland can teach the rest of the UK a lot about housing.
Johnson should make the next election a battle between cavaliers and roundheads, with himself in the cavalier camp and Starmer, Davey, Lucas and Robertson in the roundhead camp.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
The graphs I saw seemed to show that yes, the online-sales dropped post-lockdown, but not right back to the levels pre-COVID. That makes intuitive sense to me -- the lockdowns forced lot of people who'd been happy enough doing their shop in the supermarket to try online food shopping. Post-lockdown, those who preferred going to the shop reverted to that, but there were clearly also a lot of people who, having tried out online shopping, found that they actually liked it better and stuck with it.
My parents certain did convert to now having an online delivery, but as I say they still visit the physical shop as well.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
One difference is that right to buy has been abolished up here, so they remain in the public housing sector. This doesn't logically affect the issue of whether new council houses should be reasonably decent, of course, but it must have some sort of psychological connexion ...
It does. Right to Buy is "ladder" type thinking as per grammar schools. People "climbing out" of something deemed to be and thus cemented as shoddy and inferior - eg in these cases comprehensive education or rented housing.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
They were built for artisans, and symbols of the trade or craft are carved into the stones of the end walls of the terraces. Highly fashionable now, though less so when we lived there in the early 70s in our first own house.
Wonderful, as are the tenement blocks of Morningside and the like for the more well to do. Scotland can teach the rest of the UK a lot about housing.
The only issue with tenements is trying to work out if you’ve put a picture up squint, or if the wall isn’t straight.
"By Invitation | Finance and economics Claudia Sahm on what is driving inflation in America The former White House economist considers whether covid-19 rescue plans deserve any blame"
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
At the risk of sounding like a Sainsbury salesman, these things aren't really a problem with them. If you say you're happy with substitutions for an item, you usually get something extremely similar, just a different brand. If you say you're not (e.g. I love Coke but won't touch Diet Coke), they tell you that morning (not just when delivering) that they can't deliver it, and you can then pop out for it if you really care enough. Physical grocery stores won't disappear, but I think they'll become less numerous.
Obviously all this makes most sense for generic goods for which you probably don't much care whether you get one brand or another. It won't work so well where personal taste is involved, and I agree that physical bookshops will always have a role, if only to introduce you to new ones so you don't keep buying the same authors forever.
Again, I think you will be surprised. A lot of people are very protective about only using certain brands, hence why Heinz baked beans all the way through to laundry detergent are still dominant despite it not being very hard to copy baked beans or laundry detergent (and cheaper alternatives are available). Yes we now have Aldi or Lidl who have copied these products, and some people do shift, but then they become funny about only uses their new brands i.e. people will only use brand x from Aldi rather than y from Lidl (when they will more than likely be exactly the same). Its a funny world when it comes to branding.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
However you spend most of your money on upkeep and upgrading so debatable. Unless you later downsize you have spent your existence paying for a house for someone else to inherit. Renters are more mobile and need care not a not about repairs, upgrading etc. I have just formed out £15k for a new bathroom and boiler, 2 years ago it was £30k for a kitchen/family room. Apart from use of it I will never get that money back.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
One difference is that right to buy has been abolished up here, so they remain in the public housing sector. This doesn't logically affect the issue of whether new council houses should be reasonably decent, of course, but it must have some sort of psychological connexion ...
Rtb or not is a more difficult question, but lets get the houses built. My nan and grandad lived in a pre war council house for decades, eventually bought under RTB with assistance from my mum and her siblings very late in their lives but it was solid, cosy, practical with a very generous back garden with an apple and pear tree and room for a decent veg garden and a little lawn. And why not? Grandad dug up roads etc for the GPO for 40 years after serving in the war. Homes for heroes innit.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
However you spend most of your money on upkeep and upgrading so debatable. Unless you later downsize you have spent your existence paying for a house for someone else to inherit. Renters are more mobile and need care not a not about repairs, upgrading etc. I have just formed out £15k for a new bathroom and boiler, 2 years ago it was £30k for a kitchen/family room. Apart from use of it I will never get that money back.
Chances are though, if you were renting you'd have just had to lump it with the old bathroom, boiler and kitchen.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Don't disagree with most of that, although if I remember correctly, pre-COVID visits to supermarkets had been going up over the past 5-10 years. It used to be people did a weekly shop and that was it, now common for people to make multiple visits per week and buy as they need (or want) things.
And I think in part that's because supermarkets have made themselves more attractive to customers: new ranges, more space, self-checkout, etc.
I think the experience factor is definitely true when you talk about Waitrose, but also strangely the likes of Lidl or Aldi...its the mystery box experience, what will they have on offer in the middle aisle for this week only never to be seen again.
I am starting to think that everything is completely fucked and everything's probably not going to be ok.
Personally I think things are about to get a lot better. Politically, we're about to get rid of stale leader, economically, we're experiencing the headwinds of artificially created issues that cannot (much as some would wish it) be sustained indefinitely, after which the situation will improve. Geopolitically, we seem to be entering a 'multi-polar' phase, where the USA can no longer dictate what happens to the rest of the world - the end of that isn't pretty, but one would not expect it to be. The UK has every chance of taking advantage of a fluid and ever-changing world - it is what we're good at after all.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Don't disagree with most of that, although if I remember correctly, pre-COVID visits to supermarkets had been going up over the past 5-10 years. It used to be people did a weekly shop and that was it, now common for people to make multiple visits per week and buy as they need (or want) things.
And I think in part that's because supermarkets have made themselves more attractive to customers: new ranges, more space, self-checkout, etc.
I think the experience factor is definitely true when you talk about Waitrose, but also strangely the likes of Lidl or Aldi...its the mystery box experience, what will they have on offer in the middle aisle.
Yes, I agree. We only ever visit Waitrose and Lidl, except in emergencies like we've run out of hummus or avocados.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Buying doesn't necessarily beat renting on the financials. It depends on various factors. Also a rented option could provide peace and security if it were structured that way and became more of the norm. But with how we roll you're right, you have to buy if you can, and if you can't you're excluded from the main mechanism for personal wealth accumulation for doing nothing. As to whether we ought to lionize and be so reliant on a mechanism for accumulating wealth for doing nothing, I'd say not. It's very ingrained though so I doubt we'll be changing it much.
If you own the property, you have zero rent in perpetuity.
If you rent, you are paying money to others until you die.
The emphasis on rental simply means that property is owned by a smaller group of people.
The reason that owning a house has become an investment is because of the dedication of many in society to preventing properties being built to match a rising population.
But depending on capital values, rental yields, interest rates etc, renting can work out as the better choice financially. The notion of rent as "dead money" cf paying off a mortgage is a popular one, and often true, but it isn't gospel.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Gets them double tax releif. So common to buy a house rent it out and then you rent someone else's and both get tax relief.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Cost you a fiver in petrol, they do not collect returns
Out of interest, pre pandemic the likes of Tesco and Asda, their big stores were all 24hrs. That stopped with COVID, they were only allowed to open a restricted number of hours, have they gone back to normal or has 24hr shopping now become a thing of the past?
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
One difference is that right to buy has been abolished up here, so they remain in the public housing sector. This doesn't logically affect the issue of whether new council houses should be reasonably decent, of course, but it must have some sort of psychological connexion ...
Rtb or not is a more difficult question, but lets get the houses built. My nan and grandad lived in a pre war council house for decades, eventually bought under RTB with assistance from my mum and her siblings very late in their lives but it was solid, cosy, practical with a very generous back garden with an apple and pear tree and room for a decent veg garden and a little lawn. And why not? Grandad dug up roads etc for the GPO for 40 years after serving in the war. Homes for heroes innit.
RTB is a headache for supply since the discount on market rate makes it hard to rebuild with the money the council gets from it. Especially with planning laws that allow NIMBYs to jam everything solid on mushy grounds. It’s something I’d like to see, but only after stabilising the housing situation, and not with a market rate discount (but perhaps favourable mortgage terms instead, lower deposit etc).
Johnson should make the next election a battle between cavaliers and roundheads, with himself in the cavalier camp and Starmer, Davey, Lucas and Robertson in the roundhead camp.
Johnson is not much of a Royalist, declaring war on the next Monarch. I would have thought he was more the anti- establishment Oliver Cromwell figure.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Indeed. But then you have nothing when you might need (or really want) something.
I haven't used supermarket delivery since I bought a car.
Well, that's another factor: it's 10 mile round trip to our preferred supermarket; 6 miles to the nearest. I haven't worked it out but I suspect the delivery cost is less than the car mileage cost.
I think supermarket deliveries are excellent, but we stopped because my wife wanted to go to the supermarket. I think she just wants to escape from me for a few hours.
Faro harbour eating an omelette and having a beer before taking the coastal train along the Algarve.
I am starting to think that everything is completely fucked and everything's probably not going to be ok.
Car problems?
The car game is good because you make money when you buy a car, not when you sell it. When the economy gets bad it's possible to swoop on bargains via some choice search terms on FB/forums ('incomplete project', etc.)
I just meant the British economy is getting rod knock yet we've got Johnson and his ship of fools concentrating on stupid shit like Rwanda and blowing up the 6 Counties Protocol rather than anything that would actually improve things. Fizzy Lizzy is bestriding the world stage in permanent campaiging mode for Johnson's job despite the fact that she is as thick as fuck. Sunak is getting smaller and is soon expected to collapse into a singularity. Penny Dreadful has caused some pb tories to experience their first quality erections since Whiter Shade of Pale was number one despite the Flowers for Algernon trajectory of her ministerial career. Where is the hope?
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Don't disagree with most of that, although if I remember correctly, pre-COVID visits to supermarkets had been going up over the past 5-10 years. It used to be people did a weekly shop and that was it, now common for people to make multiple visits per week and buy as they need (or want) things.
And I think in part that's because supermarkets have made themselves more attractive to customers: new ranges, more space, self-checkout, etc.
I think the experience factor is definitely true when you talk about Waitrose, but also strangely the likes of Lidl or Aldi...its the mystery box experience, what will they have on offer in the middle aisle.
Yes, I agree. We only ever visit Waitrose and Lidl, except in emergencies like we've run out of hummus or avocados.
Lidl are the nuts. A decade and more ago i was on holiday with mum and dad in the great glen and the hotel we were in did the best jam with breakfast toast - not those shitty packs but jam loose in a dish. My mum pestered the waitress where they got their jam and she just winked and in a thick eastern european accent put finger to lips then went 'leeeeeeeedl' Actually the catalyst for mum shopping with them having thought they were 'like kwiksave'
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
A thought never far from my mind.
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
Headline: Scotland to Europe ferry link 'to return in 2023'
Body: 'A statement of intent released by DFDS and Ptarmigan Shipping reads: “Ptarmigan Shipping and DFDS have signed an agreement with the intention to further investigate the possibility for a new ferry route between Rosyth and Zeebrugge"... SNP MP Douglas Chapman... [said] "I am hugely excited by this announcement of further investigating the possibility to start a direct freight service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in 2023"'
If Dougie is hugely excited by an agreement to investigate the possibility of doing something, Dunfermline and West Fife must be duller than I'd anticipated.
Ever been there? It's not been the same since the mines closed, not to mention the naval dockyard. Or the paper mill. Amazon is almost as good as it gets.
I'm actually surprised it's not to run from Leith, but there may be some technical issue of which I am unaware. And of course Rosyth is mcuh easier of access, just off the M-way, than the middle ofr a large conurbation, even if the seaside road is relatively clear by Edinburgh standards - having two road bridges is a big help.
Driving freight trucks through Leith might be a bit challenging.
Could they still dock ships as big as that in Leith nowadays
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
One difference is that right to buy has been abolished up here, so they remain in the public housing sector. This doesn't logically affect the issue of whether new council houses should be reasonably decent, of course, but it must have some sort of psychological connexion ...
Rtb or not is a more difficult question, but lets get the houses built. My nan and grandad lived in a pre war council house for decades, eventually bought under RTB with assistance from my mum and her siblings very late in their lives but it was solid, cosy, practical with a very generous back garden with an apple and pear tree and room for a decent veg garden and a little lawn. And why not? Grandad dug up roads etc for the GPO for 40 years after serving in the war. Homes for heroes innit.
RTB is a headache for supply since the discount on market rate makes it hard to rebuild with the money the council gets from it. Especially with planning laws that allow NIMBYs to jam everything solid on mushy grounds. It’s something I’d like to see, but only after stabilising the housing situation, and not with a market rate discount (but perhaps favourable mortgage terms instead, lower deposit etc).
RTB wasn't *completely* abolished in Scotland - there were certain grandfathered rights. But ti does seem that the 2010 Act freed things up - it would certainly be dfficult for a council to justify building replacement houses fror those sold even if it had the money, whichn per se it doesn't - let alone do them to a modest but decent standard.
As an aside the government are making it obtusely hard to buy things from Ukraine right now. We have to prove it doesn’t come from occupied territory which can be quite tricky when dealing with stuff that was made before 2014 (specialist kit, so a lot of the inventory is old). As a result (and for other obvious reasons) I’m staring at a bit of kit I need to perform a simple repair on and procrastinating about doing it in case I brick it.
Out of interest, pre pandemic the likes of Tesco and Asda, their big stores were all 24hrs. That stopped with COVID, they were only allowed to open a restricted number of hours, have they gone back to normal or has 24hr shopping now become a thing of the past?
I don't think it's true they weren't allowed to open restricted hours, is it? I think they just used it as an excuse to do what they've been wanting to do for years. Midnight to 6am isn't worth their while opening.
Logically, they should have stayed open at least as long as before and promoted the benefits of shopping at a different time to have a smaller (or no) queue. But instead they crammed the same number of necessary visits into fewer hours.
No Conservative MPs read their manifesto or they'd have seen all that state spending (or investment) in there long before the Wuhan bat bit the lab technician.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
A thought never far from my mind.
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
Nothing stops Trump 24 now, the Democrats have blown it. Biden was a disastrous pick, Harris worse. There's a reason she got like minus 500% in the primaries. And both will be revenge impeached after Novembers slaughter. Gonna get very messy.
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
I am starting to think that everything is completely fucked and everything's probably not going to be ok.
Car problems?
The car game is good because you make money when you buy a car, not when you sell it. When the economy gets bad it's possible to swoop on bargains via some choice search terms on FB/forums ('incomplete project', etc.)
I just meant the British economy is getting rod knock yet we've got Johnson and his ship of fools concentrating on stupid shit like Rwanda and blowing up the 6 Counties Protocol rather than anything that would actually improve things. Fizzy Lizzy is bestriding the world stage in permanent campaiging mode for Johnson's job despite the fact that she is as thick as fuck. Sunak is getting smaller and is soon expected to collapse into a singularity. Penny Dreadful has caused some pb tories to experience their first quality erections since Whiter Shade of Pale was number one despite the Flowers for Algernon trajectory of her ministerial career. Where is the hope?
My colleagues are looking at me strangely after that snorty chortle so thanks for that 😅
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Customary usage. One German chap of my aquaintance has invested heavily in property for his retirement fund. But he still rents his own property. When I asked him why he didn't move into one of the places that he owns - he actually scratched his head at that one for a bit.
It may be discrimination with respect to benefits people, but I reckon a ton of landlords are gonna pull out of this now. More hassle than worth. There will be consolidation with the bigger boys i reckon as someone mentioned.
Maybe they'll build some decent 1920s and 30s style council housing stock for those of that cant afford to buy to rent for life. With some outside space and communal shops and services. Fantady post of the day
Edinburgh has a superb housing type called a colony which is essentially a terraced row of upstairs-downstairs but with entrances on alternate sides going through a garden/yard. I think modern ones were built recently under a council scheme. They’re high density but all come with green space or yard space if wanted. That requires investment though, and the government would rather spend it on hats, or fighting itself or something.
Theres so much good thats been abandoned over the decades. Acres of good policy for a new party to occupy and free us from the tree rose and sandal cancer
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
NEW: The Tory candidate in the Wakefield by-election has said voters should still back the Conservatives because “we still trust GPs” after Harold Shipman killed 250 people.
Nadeem Ahmed says Imran Ahmad Khan was just "one bad apple".
NEW: The Tory candidate in the Wakefield by-election has said voters should still back the Conservatives because “we still trust GPs” after Harold Shipman killed 250 people.
Nadeem Ahmed says Imran Ahmad Khan was just "one bad apple".
RTB is a headache for supply since the discount on market rate makes it hard to rebuild with the money the council gets from it. Especially with planning laws that allow NIMBYs to jam everything solid on mushy grounds. It’s something I’d like to see, but only after stabilising the housing situation, and not with a market rate discount (but perhaps favourable mortgage terms instead, lower deposit etc).
Central government should pay councils a premium for every RTB sale, to cover the difference between sale price and market rate, plus a bit more to encourage building replacements.
(Finding the unintended consequences of this spur-of-the-moment policy proposal is left as an exercise for the reader :-))
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Buying doesn't necessarily beat renting on the financials. It depends on various factors. Also a rented option could provide peace and security if it were structured that way and became more of the norm. But with how we roll you're right, you have to buy if you can, and if you can't you're excluded from the main mechanism for personal wealth accumulation for doing nothing. As to whether we ought to lionize and be so reliant on a mechanism for accumulating wealth for doing nothing, I'd say not. It's very ingrained though so I doubt we'll be changing it much.
If you own the property, you have zero rent in perpetuity.
If you rent, you are paying money to others until you die.
The emphasis on rental simply means that property is owned by a smaller group of people.
The reason that owning a house has become an investment is because of the dedication of many in society to preventing properties being built to match a rising population.
Skint all your days paying it and then you pop your clogs and get nothing free
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Why doesn't that argument apply in Germany. I rented off a private landlord there - and they rented a nicer place off some other private landlord.
Gets them double tax releif. So common to buy a house rent it out and then you rent someone else's and both get tax relief.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Cost you a fiver in petrol, they do not collect returns
They take them away at the time of delivery and refund you - just say you don't want it!
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Or try Waitrose: no substitutions again yesterday in our weekly delivery.
Sure, the point is it a hassle for people and sours the experience, hence why I don't see physical stores going the way of the bookshop anytime soon.
I think there will be a new balance where a lot of commodity items are bought online but the experience of shopping attracts people into shops to see, touch, smell, certain items.
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Don't disagree with most of that, although if I remember correctly, pre-COVID visits to supermarkets had been going up over the past 5-10 years. It used to be people did a weekly shop and that was it, now common for people to make multiple visits per week and buy as they need (or want) things.
And I think in part that's because supermarkets have made themselves more attractive to customers: new ranges, more space, self-checkout, etc.
I think the experience factor is definitely true when you talk about Waitrose, but also strangely the likes of Lidl or Aldi...its the mystery box experience, what will they have on offer in the middle aisle.
Yes, I agree. We only ever visit Waitrose and Lidl, except in emergencies like we've run out of hummus or avocados.
Lidl are the nuts. A decade and more ago i was on holiday with mum and dad in the great glen and the hotel we were in did the best jam with breakfast toast - not those shitty packs but jam loose in a dish. My mum pestered the waitress where they got their jam and she just winked and in a thick eastern european accent put finger to lips then went 'leeeeeeeedl' Actually the catalyst for mum shopping with them having thought they were 'like kwiksave'
Very drinkable Sicilian white from Lidl is EUR 1.60 per bottle in Sicily
I am starting to think that everything is completely fucked and everything's probably not going to be ok.
Personally I think things are about to get a lot better. Politically, we're about to get rid of stale leader, economically, we're experiencing the headwinds of artificially created issues that cannot (much as some would wish it) be sustained indefinitely, after which the situation will improve. Geopolitically, we seem to be entering a 'multi-polar' phase, where the USA can no longer dictate what happens to the rest of the world - the end of that isn't pretty, but one would not expect it to be. The UK has every chance of taking advantage of a fluid and ever-changing world - it is what we're good at after all.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
A thought never far from my mind.
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
I think you would be 100% correct in that calculation, from your political viewpoint.
Trump 2 would be Trumpier than Trump 1 surely. The party is being purged. Neo-cons are getting targeted and beaten in primaries by Trump backed candidates. The ones that are even bothering to stand. Some just threw in the towel and did not bother.
NEW: The Tory candidate in the Wakefield by-election has said voters should still back the Conservatives because “we still trust GPs” after Harold Shipman killed 250 people.
Nadeem Ahmed says Imran Ahmad Khan was just "one bad apple".
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
A thought never far from my mind.
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
I think you would be 100% correct in that calculation, from your political viewpoint.
Trump 2 would be Trumpier than Trump 1 surely. The party is being purged. Neo-cons are getting targeted and beaten in primaries by Trump backed candidates. The ones that are even bothering to stand. Some just threw in the towel and did not bother.
The GOP is a dumpster fire.
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/1537431472365195269 "Republican gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley’s recent arrest by the FBI for his suspected involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol appears to have boosted his name recognition and favorability among GOP voters in Michigan"
NEW: The Tory candidate in the Wakefield by-election has said voters should still back the Conservatives because “we still trust GPs” after Harold Shipman killed 250 people.
Nadeem Ahmed says Imran Ahmad Khan was just "one bad apple".
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
Many look far better than the private built ones.
And probably are!
The thing I noticed when renting an ex-council place in Cambridge was that the design was better laid out because it avoided the tricks used in private-sector builds that push up the sale price. It was about the same size as the place I'm in now, but instead of shoehorning in a can't-even-fit-a-single-bed third bedroom and having the tiniest possible bathroom, the council build had two good-sized bedrooms and a decently spacious bathroom.
Well firstly a lot of people pay a lot more than the loss leader £1 slot. £5 is pretty standard or you pay equivalent of a type of subscription. But also vast economy of scale and also you aren't ever ordering £5 of shopping, most people are ordering say £100 weekly shop 40 odd weeks of the year, so lots of profit margin in that. Same way as Amazon offer "free" delivery.
Also, the likes of Ocado, the picking is basically all automated by robots in purpose built facilities.
There's a minimum purchase of £40 to get the £1 rate (no subscription needed), but it's always available, 7 days a week, if you're not too worried about it coming in the evening. And if it's a loss leader it's a very persistent one - they've been doing it for years now. I think it's just a cross-subsidy, but my point is that it's such a bargain that it will erode supermarkets for physical sale, in the same way that bookshops have been eroded by Amazon.
Sure, if you're in the supermarket you can examine a banana and ponder whether it's green enough, just as in a bookshop you can browse. But busy people choose speed and convenience every time.
You would have thought that a bit like WFH, after massive uptick in online food shopping during COVID, that would led to a similar revolution to Amazon and book stores. I might be wrong, but fairly certain I read that hasn't been the case, as soon as restrictions were lessened / COVID levels dropped, people were steaming back down to the physical locations.
My wife loves delivery for bulk or dry goods, but always goes to the physical shop for fruit & veg, fresh meat, salads, dairy etc. mostly because the delivery guys pick out the crap or nearly-out-of-date versions of fresh produce.
The other factor is substitutions. There are plenty of things that I have in mind that what I really want to buy is item X - but if they're sold out I'd take item Y, then Z (and possibly then A, then B...). That's something that's difficult even to communicate to a spouse, let alone a random picker on the supermarket shop floor (if they gave you an option. Which they don't).
Substitutions is the absolute worst thing about online food shopping. You literally don't know until it arrives and you might have been really needing something (or looking forward to it) and then they don't have it. I think that really sours a lot of people's experience.
Any other online shopping experience doing that, they wouldn't survive.
You can always send the substitution back.
Indeed. But then you have nothing when you might need (or really want) something.
I haven't used supermarket delivery since I bought a car.
Well, that's another factor: it's 10 mile round trip to our preferred supermarket; 6 miles to the nearest. I haven't worked it out but I suspect the delivery cost is less than the car mileage cost.
I think supermarket deliveries are excellent, but we stopped because my wife wanted to go to the supermarket. I think she just wants to escape from me for a few hours.
Faro harbour eating an omelette and having a beer before taking the coastal train along the Algarve.
Platform numbers at the smaller stations on the Algarve line are often not shown on screens: you must consult a printed-out schedule pasted on the information board on the platform itself, and move to another platform if necessary. Faro being larger, this may not be the case - but be aware.
NEW: The Tory candidate in the Wakefield by-election has said voters should still back the Conservatives because “we still trust GPs” after Harold Shipman killed 250 people.
Nadeem Ahmed says Imran Ahmad Khan was just "one bad apple".
Ghastly, if I knew I would be forced to rent out to doleys, I would never have become a landlord.
Landlords will be forced to rent to people on benefits and reimburse tenants whose homes aren't up to scratch under new Government plans to overhaul the buy-to-let sector.
In “the biggest shake-up of the private rented sector in 30 years”, landlords will have to repay rent to tenants if homes do not meet new minimum standards.
Blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits or to families with children will be outlawed according to the Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper.
The Government will also bring in its 2019 election manifesto promise to abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions into law in the proposed Renters Reform Bill. This will make it harder for landlords to gain repossession of their properties unless they can prove tenant wrongdoing.
Watch rents rocket as landlords pull out of the market entirely rather than have bad tenants.
There could be a big fire sale of property down the line as the attractiveness of buy to let pales.
To be fair I quite like all of that, as a long-term tenant who has never had a problem with any of half a dozen landlords. Discriminating against people on benefits is simply a form of class discrimination, since actually the rent is better guaranteed than usual. Asking for a reference from a previous landlord would be a better protection against troublemakers.
Some BTL landlords may sell out to property companies who do nothing else and do it well, and that's fine. Every other country that I've lived in has had a healthier rental market than Britain, where too many people see it as an unfortunate necessity to be avoided if possible, rather than a legitimate choice. I think it's weird that people want to tie up their savings and take a loan to live somewhere that they don't necessarily know how to maintain well - why not leave it to professionals and spend your money on enjoying life?
Interesting that an ex-Labour MP doesn't know the answer.
You *have to* invest in property. If you rent, you are buying a property for someone else. If you buy, you are being it for yourself.
If you own, after you pay off the mortgage, you own the property outright. Which means that when you are retired, you have zero rental/mortage costs. No "rent man" to fear, as in the old days.
You are secure in your home, and need very little money for the rest of things in life (comparatively).
Buying doesn't necessarily beat renting on the financials. It depends on various factors. Also a rented option could provide peace and security if it were structured that way and became more of the norm. But with how we roll you're right, you have to buy if you can, and if you can't you're excluded from the main mechanism for personal wealth accumulation for doing nothing. As to whether we ought to lionize and be so reliant on a mechanism for accumulating wealth for doing nothing, I'd say not. It's very ingrained though so I doubt we'll be changing it much.
If you own the property, you have zero rent in perpetuity.
If you rent, you are paying money to others until you die.
The emphasis on rental simply means that property is owned by a smaller group of people.
The reason that owning a house has become an investment is because of the dedication of many in society to preventing properties being built to match a rising population.
Skint all your days paying it and then you pop your clogs and get nothing free
It used to be that people could afford to buy their houses much earlier in their lives. You'd be in your "last" property by 40 or earlier. So a 20 year mortgage would finish nicely in time for your retirement.
How much would you have to save into a pension to pay the rent on a property for your retirement?
I actually asked a friend who is an ex-private financial advisor. He confirmed my suspicion that people with no prospect of buying aren't increasing their pension contributions to deal with renting for like. Some people are going to be in a really, really shit situation when they retire.
I've been impressed by the council houses built around here under the SNP 2010 onwards after a long drought under Labour. They're not huge, but from the outside they seem decent places - a backyard, solar panels, off road parking. Labour seem to be picking up the challenge too which is good news.
A positive development we could do with copying down here
Many look far better than the private built ones.
And probably are!
The thing I noticed when renting an ex-council place in Cambridge was that the design was better laid out because it avoided the tricks used in private-sector builds that push up the sale price. It was about the same size as the place I'm in now, but instead of shoehorning in a can't-even-fit-a-single-bed third bedroom and having the tiniest possible bathroom, the council build had two good-sized bedrooms and a decently spacious bathroom.
That’s precisely why I bought my house rather than some silly little there bedroom. Two decent bedrooms over a very large kitchen and lounge with the stairs in the lounge. Built back when good design rather than bubble inflating was the norm.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
A thought never far from my mind.
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
I think you would be 100% correct in that calculation, from your political viewpoint.
Trump 2 would be Trumpier than Trump 1 surely. The party is being purged. Neo-cons are getting targeted and beaten in primaries by Trump backed candidates. The ones that are even bothering to stand. Some just threw in the towel and did not bother.
The GOP is a dumpster fire.
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/1537431472365195269 "Republican gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley’s recent arrest by the FBI for his suspected involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol appears to have boosted his name recognition and favorability among GOP voters in Michigan"
There’s no hope for the USA . It’s fast becoming a failed state .
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
Bailey doesn't want the blame for crushing the economy with aggressive interest rate increases.
He'd rather let inflation crush it with soaring costs, and avoid the blame.
Either way, its surely going to get crushed eventually, along with every advanced Western economy out there
What a shame if that happens on Boris Johnson's watch and as a consequence he is forced into ignominious retirement.
The giant cloud inside that silver lining for you is what happens after Biden.
A thought never far from my mind.
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
I think you would be 100% correct in that calculation, from your political viewpoint.
Trump 2 would be Trumpier than Trump 1 surely. The party is being purged. Neo-cons are getting targeted and beaten in primaries by Trump backed candidates. The ones that are even bothering to stand. Some just threw in the towel and did not bother.
The GOP is a dumpster fire.
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/1537431472365195269 "Republican gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley’s recent arrest by the FBI for his suspected involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol appears to have boosted his name recognition and favorability among GOP voters in Michigan"
Makes sense. Anything that feeds into the "they're all out to get us" narrative will have that effect.
Presumably the Bank of England financial models suggest that inflation is only transitory. So as interest rate increases only has an impact on inflation in around 2 years time and that inflation then is back to "normal" it is not worth increasing rates now? The problem is whether the model is correct and whether the risk is on the upside or downside.
34. In the MPC’s central projections in the May Monetary Policy Report, UK GDP growth had been expected to slow sharply over the first half of the forecast period and, although the labour market had been expected to tighten slightly further in the near term, the unemployment rate had been projected to rise to 5½% in three years’ time. CPI inflation had been expected to average slightly over 10% at its peak in 2022 Q4. Conditioned on the rising market-implied path for Bank Rate at that time and the MPC’s forecasting convention for future energy prices, CPI inflation had been projected to fall to a little above the 2% target in two years’ time, largely reflecting the waning influence of external factors, and to be well below the target in three years, mainly reflecting weaker domestic pressures. The risks to the inflation projection had been judged to be skewed to the upside at these points.
6-3 for 0.25% with 3 voting for 0.5%. That's very likely to be the BoE forming the bulk of the majority and the outsiders wanting more radical action.
As inflation bounds ahead the real rate of interest, of course, becomes more and more radically negative. An increase of 0.25% and then a delay of 2 months means that our monetary policy is in fact becoming even looser at a time of very high and increasing inflation. The hope is that these external factors are transitory but in the meantime we will see wages, food prices and pretty much everything else going up. To be blunt, I really cannot follow the logic of the majority.
What on Earth do they do, when the Fed adds 75bps more to the US$ base rate next month?
At some point reality will hit them on the arse, and we’ll end up seeing 150bps in one go. That will wake everyone up.
Let's crack on with the 500bp now and then another 500bp if that doesn't work.
We have highest inflation since 1980 and we need a 1980 approach to deal with it 15% interest rates now!
...says a man with no mortgage!
(And presumably, with no income source dependent on people with mortgages!)
Correct no mortgage. Paid it off a long time ago. Never paid less than 6% interest.
Current borrowing rates are Fantasy Island. There needs to be a readjustment to ensure that borrowers pay real positive interest rates.
But I will settle for a 5% interest rate increase for the time being 👍
The current bout of inflation is shit for those who have savings, but it allows the real value of peoples' debts to be inflated away, and also means that house prices can come back in line with earnings without painful and difficult negative equity.
Covid and Vlad may have done us all a big favour in helping us rebalance our economy.
Comments
https://hiddenscotland.co/the-stockbridge-colonies/
Government? Hats? Have I missed something?
We already see this with bookshops to an extent - we enjoy an hour browsing an actual bookshop for actual books and nearly always come away buying something we didn't expect to buy.
Firstly, that can go wrong. And then you have the joys of the extreme efficiently of local government to deal with.
Then there is the problem of tenants simply taking the money and not paying the rent.
While these are only issues for a minority of tenants on benefits, they represent a significantly increased risk to landlords, vs non benefits tenants.
I haven't used supermarket delivery since I bought a car.
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019
And no, I’m just being silly in despair.
If you rent, you are paying money to others until you die.
The emphasis on rental simply means that property is owned by a smaller group of people.
The reason that owning a house has become an investment is because of the dedication of many in society to preventing properties being built to match a rising population.
Well, that's another factor: it's 10 mile round trip to our preferred supermarket; 6 miles to the nearest. I haven't worked it out but I suspect the delivery cost is less than the car mileage cost.
Not that that would impress Dutch tourists I imagine.
Obviously all this makes most sense for generic goods for which you probably don't much care whether you get one brand or another. It won't work so well where personal taste is involved, and I agree that physical bookshops will always have a role, if only to introduce you to new ones so you don't keep buying the same authors forever.
Claudia Sahm on what is driving inflation in America
The former White House economist considers whether covid-19 rescue plans deserve any blame"
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/05/17/claudia-sahm-on-what-is-driving-inflation-in-america
The first attempt was really well made, and badly cast.
The second was well cast, and done poorly.
Agree on the supply point.
Faro harbour eating an omelette and having a beer before taking the coastal train along the Algarve.
I just meant the British economy is getting rod knock yet we've got Johnson and his ship of fools concentrating on stupid shit like Rwanda and blowing up the 6 Counties Protocol rather than anything that would actually improve things. Fizzy Lizzy is bestriding the world stage in permanent campaiging mode for Johnson's job despite the fact that she is as thick as fuck. Sunak is getting smaller and is soon expected to collapse into a singularity. Penny Dreadful has caused some pb tories to experience their first quality erections since Whiter Shade of Pale was number one despite the Flowers for Algernon trajectory of her ministerial career. Where is the hope?
A decade and more ago i was on holiday with mum and dad in the great glen and the hotel we were in did the best jam with breakfast toast - not those shitty packs but jam loose in a dish. My mum pestered the waitress where they got their jam and she just winked and in a thick eastern european accent put finger to lips then went 'leeeeeeeedl'
Actually the catalyst for mum shopping with them having thought they were 'like kwiksave'
Would I accept more Johnson as the price for no Trump 2?
Lord take me now for this, but I think I would yes.
Logically, they should have stayed open at least as long as before and promoted the benefits of shopping at a different time to have a smaller (or no) queue. But instead they crammed the same number of necessary visits into fewer hours.
Nadeem Ahmed says Imran Ahmad Khan was just "one bad apple".
Story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/16/wakefield-byelection-candidate-conservative-nadeem-ahmed-tory/ https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1537439707818209280/video/1
Marketing genius
(Finding the unintended consequences of this spur-of-the-moment policy proposal is left as an exercise for the reader :-))
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1537440487036006401
Trump 2 would be Trumpier than Trump 1 surely. The party is being purged. Neo-cons are getting targeted and beaten in primaries by Trump backed candidates. The ones that are even bothering to stand. Some just threw in the towel and did not bother.
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/1537431472365195269
"Republican gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelley’s recent arrest by the FBI for his suspected involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol appears to have boosted his name recognition and favorability among GOP voters in Michigan"
How much would you have to save into a pension to pay the rent on a property for your retirement?
I actually asked a friend who is an ex-private financial advisor. He confirmed my suspicion that people with no prospect of buying aren't increasing their pension contributions to deal with renting for like. Some people are going to be in a really, really shit situation when they retire.
Covid and Vlad may have done us all a big favour in helping us rebalance our economy.