I imagine - and hope - that you're being sarcastic.
I mean, you don't actually think that the way to encourage housebuilding companies to take a risk, buy land, and try to get planning permission, is to fine them if it doesn't work out quite as quickly as they had hoped, do you?
I imagine - and hope - that you're being sarcastic.
I mean, you don't actually think that the way to encourage housebuilding companies to take a risk, buy land, and try to get planning permission, is to fine them if it doesn't work out quite as quickly as they had hoped, do you?
"Marchessini once published a book, Women in Trousers: a Rear View. The book included photographs of women in the street wearing trousers, taken from behind. The aim, Mr Marchessini said, was to show how unflattering women looked in trousers."
Actually, what I said above is slightly wrong. I am surprised, but only because I was expecting Ed to produce this particular piece of utter lunacy at the Labour Conference in September, not now.
This is extremely worrying - what on earth is he going to come out with then? It's genuinely hard to think of anything more damaging he could go for, but he's bound to want to pull another big turkey out of the hat.
Substantial penalties for second home ownership, property taxes, minimum wage increases and requirements for all businesses regardless of size, to take on apprentices and trainees. Price controls. Maximum salary caps.
Actually, what I said above is slightly wrong. I am surprised, but only because I was expecting Ed to produce this particular piece of utter lunacy at the Labour Conference in September, not now.
This is extremely worrying - what on earth is he going to come out with then? It's genuinely hard to think of anything more damaging he could go for, but he's bound to want to pull another big turkey out of the hat.
Substantial penalties for second home ownership, property taxes, minimum wage increases and requirements for all businesses regardless of size, to take on apprentices and trainees. Price controls. Maximum salary caps.
I'll add Employee share ownership schemes, 'People Directors' on Company Boards, and City transaction taxes.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
But in that case the price of property will come down because the increase in supply and the reduction will turn renters back into buyers because mortgage payments will become competitive with rental payments. Your error is to assume that everyone is immutably either a renter or a buyer.
The proposal makes no difference to the pressure on the housing stock, be it BTL, Owner occupied or Social. The number of properties is the same, the number of households is the same, they are competing for the available housing.
Reduce rents by building more houses. Now which party was trying to loosen planning regulations?
Quite so, but the point I was answering was that "The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy" which assumes that renters can never turn into owners.
In fact this proposal would almost certainly crash the housing market. Perhaps that is the plan.
Ironically, that would finally be something which truly helps first-time buyers.
lolz cerise putting some cats among some pigeons on renting. whatever the effect of this it won't stop BTL people letting out cos they're mostly leveraged to the eyeballs to get as many properties as possible.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
That's not a problem politically. As we saw with the energy price pander, floating voters aren't typically the sharpest knives in the draw and have no way to tell the difference between a very good solution and a not very good solution.
I am amazed that someone in law would even think to quote any case involving a jury that predates the Bushel's [sic] Case of 1670. It is one of the cornerstones of modern legal proceedings and it sets the absolute precedent that no jury can be forced to make a decision one way or the other by anyone including the judge.
No Jury can be punished because of returning a particular verdict - although individual jurors may still be punished if they are shown to have acted improperly.
Let us have a look at Bushell's case in the English reports, at 89 ER 2. At p. 5, note (h):
'[I]t is now settled, that (with the exception of the proceeding in attaints) jurors are in no way questionable for their finding either by summary process, indictment, or action.
At footnote (g), doubt is expressed by the reporter as to whether attaint still lay in criminal matters. Hale asserted that it did, albeit Hawkins among others disagreed. Bushell's case did not concern writs of attaint against a jury, but whether the judge had a right to fine the trial jury for returning a verdict contrary to the evidence and direction of the court. All that was decided was that immunity belonged to decisions of a judicial character, and that the return of a verdict was a decision of that character. As for the suggestion of Chief Justice Vaughan that no jury could be punished for a perverse verdict 'because the jury may know that of their own knowledge, which might guide them to give their verdict contrary to the sense of the Court' (Ibid, p. 5), the reporter rightly observers at footnote (h) that 'the doctrine is now treated as exploded'. If a juror has private knowledge of the case, he should be sworn as a witness.
Bushell's case certainly does not establish that a jury has a right to return a verdict contrary to the evidence or direction of the court. There is no such authority for that heretical proposition.
Sorry LIAMT but clearly the incumbent Attorney General and the House of Lords do not agree with you.
"As recently as 2005 the House of Lords confirmed in the case of R v Wang ([2005] 1 W.L.R. 661) that there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty."
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
I can agree with all of that post.
The rental market can (and for many does) work very well. However, when it fails it causes misery for tenants, and sometimes for landlords.
Not only do we need more homes built, but we need good homes built.
The solution is to build more homes, not drive rentals into an underground black market.
Labours got the answer to that - use or lose policy.
Farage stood in the Buckingham constituency against the Speaker at the last General Election.
Despite the constituency being stronly Conservative, Farage was easily beaten into second place by an independent who was little known and not local, although he put out a lot of election material.
Comments
Jen Copestake @jencopestake
Reports the 230 schoolgirls abducted in #Nigeria are being sold as brides to Boko Haram militants - via @AP @bbchausa http://apne.ws/1meJ2vP
Bloody hell.
http://www.channel4.com/news/ukip-donor-donations-demetri-marchessini-views-politics
"Marchessini once published a book, Women in Trousers: a Rear View. The book included photographs of women in the street wearing trousers, taken from behind. The aim, Mr Marchessini said, was to show how unflattering women looked in trousers."
http://www.channel4.com/news/ukip-donor-donations-demetri-marchessini-views-politics
I thought that sort of stuff was disallowed under most tenancy agreements !
http://marchessini.co.uk/
Bushell's case certainly does not establish that a jury has a right to return a verdict contrary to the evidence or direction of the court. There is no such authority for that heretical proposition.
Sorry LIAMT but clearly the incumbent Attorney General and the House of Lords do not agree with you.
"As recently as 2005 the House of Lords confirmed in the case of R v Wang ([2005] 1 W.L.R. 661) that there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/in-defence-of-the-jury-trial
Despite the constituency being stronly Conservative, Farage was easily beaten into second place by an independent who was little known and not local, although he put out a lot of election material.