THE UK’s housing crisis is no secret, and political solutions are offered two a penny. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s plan to limit rents is perhaps the one thing that can be relied upon to make the situation worse for Britain’s renters.
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
In other news, Pope unearthed as Catholic, PB Tories found to screech.
Your usual level of engagement with the argument....how are rent controls going to increase supply of rental properties?
Answer came there none......
This package is not designed to do that. Labour have already published proposals for increasing supply, such as use it or lose it.
The PB Tories, of course, also oppose that. Just like Nimby Tories in rural areas with plenty of land oppose pretty much any proposal to build new houses anywhere near them.
I'm not sure if I'm one of these mythical creatures 'PB Tories' who were last seen frolicking amongst the mermaids and centaurs, but I opposed the 'use it or lose it' policy because it's terrible, for the reasons we've gone into so many times before.
And 'use it or lose it' wouldn't increase supply anyway.
Oh, and I'm in favour of further housebuilding. I had a rather heated but polite discussion with Mr Kendrick about housebuilding in this area. I was in favour, he was not.
I'm surprised the Electoral Commission has allowed this. I thought that one of the reasons that the whole illiberal* process of requiring parties to register themselves, their names and electoral straplines with the EC was to stop the Literal Democrat type of event from occurring.
In fact, I had heard (on here I think) that at one time UKIP were considering simplifying their name to the Independence Party, but were stopped because they were advised that it could be confused with Independent candidates and was unlikely to be allowed by the EC.
We might as well scrap the EC and go back to the old idea that anyone can stand for Parliament and use any six words to describe themselves. It wouldn't solve the problem, but we wouldn't be spending taxpayers' money on not solving the problem either.
* Why illiberal? Because anyone should be able to set up a political party and run for office, with no more regulation that it takes to set up a knitting circle.
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.
The PB Tories have declared it so.
Unfortunately your continual resort to 'pb tories' 'screech', etc, etc simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork - blind loyalty to the Miliband posterior and a complete failure to address any of the questions you are being asked.
Diplomacy: wouldn't normally post about it here, but if anyone sees Mr. Foxinsox please do give him a nudge and ask him to check his e-mail, as admin have sent him something.
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
Having read as much detail as is available, some of the measures seem reasonably reasonable but, perhaps just like Communism in its way, rent controls, although fine in theory, have been shown to be very damaging in practice.
"The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me."
haha - you mean if they don't agree with it on aesthetic grounds?
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.
The PB Tories have declared it so.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork
In Scotland we have Short Assured Tenancies which run from between 6 months and 5 years, ideal for the short term letting market. The minimum notice period is 2 months except where there is an alleged breach e.g. persistent non/late payment of rent, damage to property etc. There is a list of around 15 categories under which a court MUST grant eviction and restore occupancy to the landlord. As part of the procedure, the landlord/agent must serve a copy of the schedule of these on the tenant before the lease is signed and receive a signed acknowledgement. The landlord/agent also serves a copy of the minimum standard of habitation notice prior to signature and it contains details of whom the tenant can complain to if the landlord doesn't meet the required minimum standard.
Rents are not pegged or imposed at any level. However if a landlord tries to charge an exorbitant rent, the tenant can apply to a court to have it independently assessed. For longer leases, these are Assured Tenancies and as the name implies, provide a great deal of security for responsible tenants.
Scotland has traditionally had a much larger rented housing market than England. In the 1970s Glasgow had a higher % of local authority council housing than communist Moscow.
We tend to find rogue landlords sit on the fringes of organised crime and are often caught in e.g. sweeps by the Ganggmasters Licensing Authority on rogue employers.
I'd be amazed if An Independence From Europe gets anything more than about 2%. The idea they might get more than the Greens is just silly IMO.
Although given the current level of feeling amongst the voters about all of the 'main' political parties, and the ease at which UKIP can tap into discontent for this...one big question is
Why on earth aren't the greens making progress at all in the current political environment?
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
More lies , you unionists are really desperate. You cannot get supporters so have to try and smear the YES side and normal people who want to have an opinion. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Interesting article By Tom Entwistle, Editor of LandlordZONE from last year I think - who appears to have anticipated this latest proposal by Ed. – A few choice quotes from Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck and Allister Heath, editor of City AM.
Retired Colonel in the 19th Hole with a glass of Gin impressed by Farage
"Young Qatari Mohammed Alattan, aged 18, who is studying at Bath Academy, stopped to take the leader’s photograph. “I don’t exactly know much about him, but I think he’s very nice,” he said. “I only met him for a second but I feel I know him.” "
The increasingly shrill attitude the establishment generally and Conservatives especially show towards UKIP is deeply off putting and counter productive.
The whiny self entitlement underlying it - "how dare you vote for another, don't you know you're obliged to vote for us" - is never attractive, in particular so when its based not on achievement but upon privilege.
The establishment's hatred towards UKIP merely confirms to millions of ordinary people that the establishment hates ANYONE different to itself.
So UKIP increasingly becomes the channel of protest of ANYONE who feels themselves a victim of the establishment's hatred / bullying / unfairness.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Salmond does appear to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to homophobes, doesn't he?
Schapps continues to prove to be a major drag on the effectiveness of Tory comms."Venezuelan" is his description this time which at least makes a geographical break from the usual Marx/Stalin reference but just how many people know much about Venezuela? Schapps' comments may prove more useful to the Venezuelan tourist board than to the Conservative party.
I thought UKIP were polling at an all time high in the Euro's, and doing very well in Westminster VI... but Desperate Dan Hodges reckons it all gone wrong in his daily anti UKIP piece
This is the highlight for me, showing lobby journalists for the out of touch, sycophantic creeps they are
"In the eyes of most Westminster commentators, Clegg smoothly bested him. But not according to the polls that followed."
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.
The PB Tories have declared it so.
Unfortunately your continual resort to 'pb tories' 'screech', etc, etc simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork - blind loyalty to the Miliband posterior and a complete failure to address any of the questions you are being asked.
Bobafret should stick to posting about fancy haircuts, which his 'staff' can't afford.
I'd be amazed if An Independence From Europe gets anything more than about 2%. The idea they might get more than the Greens is just silly IMO.
Although given the current level of feeling amongst the voters about all of the 'main' political parties, and the ease at which UKIP can tap into discontent for this...one big question is
Why on earth aren't the greens making progress at all in the current political environment?
I believe that the Greens in the UK, a bit like Plaid C, tend to be somewhat left-wing, and mainly seem to be taking votes from 2010 LDs.
Also they oppose fracking and support on-shore wind and both of those policies would put off some voters who are looking for a new home for their vote away from the former Big 3.
I thought UKIP were polling at an all time high in the Euro's, and doing very well in Westminster VI... but Desperate Dan Hodges reckons it all gone wrong in his daily anti UKIP piece
This is the highlight for me, showing lobby journalists for the out of touch, sycophantic creeps they are
"In the eyes of most Westminster commentators, Clegg smoothly bested him. But not according to the polls that followed."
Another thought on the FTT; it's a milestone because it'll mean a tax created by Brussels and paid directly to Brussels. A very significant step in the wrong direction.
Schapps continues to prove to be a major drag on the effectiveness of Tory comms."Venezuelan" is his description this time which at least makes a geographical break from the usual Marx/Stalin reference but just how many people know much about Venezuela? Schapps' comments may prove more useful to the Venezuelan tourist board than to the Conservative party.
The main way that people will be reading the Conservative account of this proposal is on the BBC website:
"The Conservatives said evidence from other countries suggested rent controls lead to "poorer quality accommodation, fewer homes being rented and ultimately higher rents"."
"Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said the Labour plan was a "short-term gimmick" and accused the opposition of "political tampering".
"The only way to raise people's living standards is to grow the economy, cut people's taxes and create more jobs. We have a long-term economic plan to do that, Ed Miliband doesn't." "
I would have thought that from a Conservative perspective they'd be pretty happy with that reporting of their position.
In Scotland we have Short Assured Tenancies which run from between 6 months and 5 years, ideal for the short term letting market. The minimum notice period is 2 months except where there is an alleged breach e.g. persistent non/late payment of rent, damage to property etc. There is a list of around 15 categories under which a court MUST grant eviction and restore occupancy to the landlord. As part of the procedure, the landlord/agent must serve a copy of the schedule of these on the tenant before the lease is signed and receive a signed acknowledgement. The landlord/agent also serves a copy of the minimum standard of habitation notice prior to signature and it contains details of whom the tenant can complain to if the landlord doesn't meet the required minimum standard.
Rents are not pegged or imposed at any level. However if a landlord tries to charge an exorbitant rent, the tenant can apply to a court to have it independently assessed. For longer leases, these are Assured Tenancies and as the name implies, provide a great deal of security for responsible tenants.
Scotland has traditionally had a much larger rented housing market than England. In the 1970s Glasgow had a higher % of local authority council housing than communist Moscow.
We tend to find rogue landlords sit on the fringes of organised crime and are often caught in e.g. sweeps by the Ganggmasters Licensing Authority on rogue employers.
Who or what deems what is an "exorbitant rent"? I make an industrial product 95% of people have never considered , it's a "widget". If I sell it for a healthy margin in a free world market would it be reasonable for the "price police" to come along and "independently assess" the price?
As I said last night, this is a nuanced issue, there are problems I'm sure with families being forced to move more frequently than they would wish which will cause problems with jobs and schools etc, but the more I see of these proposals the more it smacks of "rent control" and there lies short term gains for the lucky winners (ie tenants in the right place at the right time when they are introduced) and long term perdition for the housing stock and rental market as it ceases to be worth anyone's while to rent property out in the long term.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
More lies , you unionists are really desperate. You cannot get supporters so have to try and smear the YES side and normal people who want to have an opinion. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
I thought UKIP were polling at an all time high in the Euro's, and doing very well in Westminster VI... but Desperate Dan Hodges reckons it all gone wrong in his daily anti UKIP piece
This is the highlight for me, showing lobby journalists for the out of touch, sycophantic creeps they are
"In the eyes of most Westminster commentators, Clegg smoothly bested him. But not according to the polls that followed."
I read Hodges for entertainment and Kettle for analysis:
[UKIP] is a party that stands against what is happening here and now, not for anything that it has any practical hope of achieving or for which it will accept responsibility
Hodges has form here - he prefers to take the view of a small coterie of Westminster Villagers (and entirely mythical private polling) than actual polls...
I think it is worth repeating . A snake oil salesman like Farage will receive adulation from the masses until the minority who called him correctly are proved right usually unfortunately after the gullible have been harmed .
When will journalists and others realise that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. The signatories of the former just happen to include the 28 members of the latter. We could leave the latter and still be signatories of the former.
Mr Evans-Pritchard was referring to the ECJ, a different thing.
"The European Court of Justice (ECJ), officially just the Court of Justice, is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law."
Mr. Isam, I can't remember where I heard it but there's a line about a party preferring common ground with the British people to the centre ground of the political class.
That's the divide that exists now. It's partly due to protest, and UKIP shouldn't think otherwise, but it's also due to the fact the mainstream parties have been squabbling over a tiny scrap of ground and has vacated swathes of the left and right. Immigration is a genuine concern, and the playing of the race card has alienated and pissed off huge numbers of people who aren't racist, merely concerned by the huge numbers continually coming over here.
This is exacerbated by the multi-cultural approach which has damaged integration and the soft and weak response to any elements of extremism (FGM, protests demanding Death To The West, the intimidation of Geert Wilders, an elected politician, the barely mentioned importance of freedom of speech whilst the cartoonist of Jesus and Mo and Maajid Nawaz are lambasted for daring to have an opinion).
UKIP needs to be wary, though. Things that grow quickly often die quickly.
The UK should never have passed regulatory authority over financial services to the EU.
Still, if the London based financial services industry starts to depart because of EU regulation, even the Civil Service should get behind the BOO campaign.
THE UK’s housing crisis is no secret, and political solutions are offered two a penny. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s plan to limit rents is perhaps the one thing that can be relied upon to make the situation worse for Britain’s renters.
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
In other news, Pope unearthed as Catholic, PB Tories found to screech.
Your usual level of engagement with the argument....how are rent controls going to increase supply of rental properties?
Answer came there none......
This package is not designed to do that. Labour have already published proposals for increasing supply, such as use it or lose it.
The PB Tories, of course, also oppose that. Just like Nimby Tories in rural areas with plenty of land oppose pretty much any proposal to build new houses anywhere near them.
How is "use it or lose it" going to increase supply exactly?
There you are a private company that has invested in stock. For building companies that happens to be land (for engineering companies it might be steel say). Then the Govt comes along and says we are going to "nationalise" (ie dispossess you) of your stock. Meaning the Govt has land now and needs expertise to build 1000's of houses with, and where's that coming from - oh yes the very organisations you've just taken the land off. That's going to go well isn't it?
Does Ed intend to rifle through my stock of chemicals and metals at work and decide whether we are hoarding things against the "good of society"? He is full of good intentions, I'm sure, and he does identify some real issues, but he appears to have no intuition at all about the motivations that drive an economy so that he keeps coming up with prescriptions that do more harm than good, or at best displace the problem elsewhere.
I think it is worth repeating . A snake oil salesman like Farage will receive adulation from the masses until the minority who called him correctly are proved right usually unfortunately after the gullible have been harmed .
Surely its the Telegraph that have been taken for fools by this fellow? He writes the same thing every day and they pay him for it!
Dan is the Telegraph's version of the Guardian's Polly Toynbee - they may both be relied upon to churn out column inches that entertain some, frustrate others and wind the bajebers out of the others. - The fact that you have read the article and disseminated it to other blogs rather inclines me to think they are earning their keep.
Interesting how the chattering classes have already decided that UKIP don't have any chance of winning Newark. I think they still have a fairly good shot at it, no matter who the candidate is.
Surely its the Telegraph that have been taken for fools by this fellow? He writes the same thing every day and they pay him for it!
Dan is the Telegraph's version of the Guardian's Polly Toynbee - they may both be relied upon to churn out column inches that entertain some, frustrate others and wind the bajebers out of the others. - The fact that you have read the article and disseminated it to other blogs rather inclines me to think they are earning their keep.
Rent control is a tricky one. Is this really what Labour is proposing? I genuinely do not know. As I understand it - and I could be wrong - what they are looking to restrict is the ability to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant. That is not the same as telling the landlord what he can charge in the first place. If I am right, perhaps a fairer way of putting it would be rental rate rise control.
As I said ;last night, EdM has identified a source of real concern to a lot of voters. But he has probably come up with a sub-optimal solution (although the cataclysm that some on here predict may turn out to be less dramatic than forecast). However, what it should do is kick-start a conversation and, perhaps, alternative policies that deal with the same issues. This is what happened when he put energy pricing at the top of the agenda. And that has to be a good thing.
Jeremy Vine @theJeremyVine 13m Can’t believe I missed this moment from the Nigel Evans court case. Thanks @PrivateEyeNews and @lembitopik pic.twitter.com/cxLs3zjnRz
The rental market has been shambolic for years and is in dire need of regulation. Your forecasts of disaster will not be realised, as few PB forecasts of disaster are.
I don't know how old you are, Boba, but take it from me: I'm old enough to remember exactly what happened when Ed's predecessors did much the same thing.
It was a spectacular, unmitigated disaster, which effectively wiped out the normal rental market completely. In many places the only landlords who were left were the real nasty ones, often actual criminals, because the only way you could survive as a landlord was to use intimidation. It was also incredibly difficult to correct - it took nearly twenty years to get back to sanity. That Ed Miliband is so pig-headed, or perhaps so cynical, as to ignore the experience of not that long ago is just staggering - or at least, it wouild be staggering if we hadn't already seen a consistent pattern of him wanting to wreck a whole series of markets.
Surely its the Telegraph that have been taken for fools by this fellow? He writes the same thing every day and they pay him for it!
Dan is the Telegraph's version of the Guardian's Polly Toynbee - they may both be relied upon to churn out column inches that entertain some, frustrate others and wind the bajebers out of the others. - The fact that you have read the article and disseminated it to other blogs rather inclines me to think they are earning their keep.
As it was always amusing to point out to tim, he must have been so frustrated that his genius and political insight was overlooked for the likes of Hodges...
Manufacturing PMI of 57.3 against expectations of 55.4, nice outperformance and a sign that the economy is still growing at a pretty high rate. GBP passes the 1.69 barrier. Though the PMIs have tended to overstate growth compared to the ONS, taking this reading forward would see manufacturing growth rise from 1.3% last quarter to around 1.6-1.9% next quarter, if the PMI were to fall to down to 55-56 then 1.5% growth would be achievable.
• All political parties should make a commitment not to introduce rent controls in the private rented sector, as this would reduce the level of supply in the rented housing market at a time when the country is becoming more dependent upon the sector.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
Rent control is a tricky one. Is this really what Labour is proposing? I genuinely do not know. As I understand it - and I could be wrong - what they are looking to restrict is the ability to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant. That is not the same as telling the landlord what he can charge in the first place. If I am right, perhaps a fairer way of putting it would be rental rate rise control.
As I said ;last night, EdM has identified a source of real concern to a lot of voters. But he has probably come up with a sub-optimal solution (although the cataclysm that some on here predict may turn out to be less dramatic than forecast). However, what it should do is kick-start a conversation and, perhaps, alternative policies that deal with the same issues. This is what happened when he put energy pricing at the top of the agenda. And that has to be a good thing.
They also wish, with caveats, to give tenants three-year leases, whereas tenants only have to give a months notice. Nick Palmer seems to think that this is a rebalancing; in reality it tips the scales too far the other way IMHO.
At least you have identified a problem: "the ability of a landlord to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant."
So the next question is how big a problem it is? I certainly never had a problem in twenty years of renting, but as I said last night, I'm probably not the sort of tenant who gets affected by this sort of ruse. However I can easily imagine it does go on.
Then the next question is what a 'certain level' should be. For instance, if the landlord has a mortgage, is it reasonable for him or her to increase the rent in line with mortgage increases? Perhaps so, perhaps not.
Manufacturing PMI of 57.3 against expectations of 55.4, nice outperformance and a sign that the economy is still growing at a pretty high rate. GBP passes the 1.69 barrier. Though the PMIs have tended to overstate growth compared to the ONS, taking this reading forward would see manufacturing growth rise from 1.3% last quarter to around 1.6-1.9% next quarter, if the PMI were to fall to down to 55-56 then 1.5% growth would be achievable.
That's a bit like saying Man U have been doing really well since Giggs took over. Manufacturing still hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008.
George Osborne even crapper than Brown and Darling who'd have thunk it ?
@AndyJS - Thanks - do you have a link for that 5th June date for Newark, and is there a timetable available to your knowledge (ie when do Nominations have to be in etc.)
Interesting how the chattering classes have already decided that UKIP don't have any chance of winning Newark. I think they still have a fairly good shot at it, no matter who the candidate is.
I'm continuing to lump on the Conservatives in the Newark by-election. 8/13 with Ladbrokes look like fantastic odds, given the sizes of swing that either Labour or UKIP would need to achieve, bearing in mind that any protest vote might well be split between them to some extent.
Decided to pop my head in for the first time in ages. I see the latest silliness from the Milibrain is being discussed. Interesting that he is announcing his latest plank of crypto-communism on the day when most of the world has their Communist Bank Holiday.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch.
Vanilla has been behaving for me (famous last words) for the last couple of days, but goes through phases of logging me out, then refusing to accept my password - so I "change" it again. I certainly didn't see Pork's icon repłaced with the "don't panic banned" one".....
'Tis one poll, but does chime in with the ICM poll, and well we're all ICM junkies round here, that said, my own instinct says UKIP will come first.
It will be interesting to see the press reaction if UKIP do not come first now.
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
The rental market has been shambolic for years and is in dire need of regulation. Your forecasts of disaster will not be realised, as few PB forecasts of disaster are.
I don't know how old you are, Boba, but take it from me: I'm old enough to remember exactly what happened when Ed's predecessors did much the same thing.
It was a spectacular, unmitigated disaster, which effectively wiped out the normal rental market completely. In many places the only landlords who were left were the real nasty ones, often actual criminals, because the only way you could survive as a landlord was to use intimidation. It was also incredibly difficult to correct - it took nearly twenty years to get back to sanity. That Ed Miliband is so pig-headed, or perhaps so cynical, as to ignore the experience of not that long ago is just staggering - or at least, it wouild be staggering if we hadn't already seen a consistent pattern of him wanting to wreck a whole series of markets.
Well quite. And we have Nick Palmer speculating below that the sharks might be driven out of the market. Of course, it will instead be the amateurs who are more likely to decide to sell rather than rent properties out - the couples who have moved in together and who find themselves with a spare property, the children who have inherited a property and who are deciding what to do with it. The additional hassle, the time commitment and the asymmetric risks will push more of them into shrinking the rental market.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
I agree with that divvie we need a bit of grit to keep the indy action rolling.
@Cyclefree There should be no suggestion that a fair rent should not be charged, and if it were so I would oppose it. What any law should do though is to stop your "b*stard" landlord from exploiting people for so long.
There are already laws to do that though better enforcement is probably needed.
How to define a "fair rent" though?
Were I a landlord a 3 year lease with a good tenant could be attractive: security of income etc. But I would want to make sure that over that three year period I don't end up with a rent way below what market rents are in year 3 (though a small discount for a good tenant may be in my interests). So the likelihood is that I would set the rent sufficiently high at the start of the 3-year term to take account of how the rental market may develop over that period. The effect could therefore be to increase rents.
If you know that the price you can charge after a set date is going to be limited the likely reaction is to increase it when you can before it is "frozen". There's no reason to think that the same won't happen with rents and that is what did happen in the past when there were rent controls. What also happened was (a) landlords selling; (b) neglect of properties; and (c) Rachman-style harassment. What didn't happen was a thriving rental market with good supply at reasonable prices.
Labour are right to focus on housing. The criticism is not of their focus or their intentions to right wrongs in the houseing makrket but how they propose doing this. But let's see the details of the proposals.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Salmond does appear to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to homophobes, doesn't he?
Once again more lies. He has championed gay marriage , does not appear to support your lies I am afraid. Tory smears , where they have openly homophobic members and keep them in position.
5th June is a clever date as the result will come on 6th June when all media eyes will turn to the 70th anniversary of D-day so it will likely get buried.
Well quite. And we have Nick Palmer speculating below that the sharks might be driven out of the market. Of course, it will instead be the amateurs who are more likely to decide to sell rather than rent properties out - the couples who have moved in together and who find themselves with a spare property, the children who have inherited a property and who are deciding what to do with it. The additional hassle, the time commitment and the asymmetric risks will push more of them into shrinking the rental market.
The other thing we'd see is that those landlords who do take the risk of staying in the market will be incredibly picky in who they accept as tenants - last time, the general view was that it was safe only to let only to companies on behalf of foreign executives, who could be relied upon not to overstay and who probably wouldn't try to abuse their position.
Not intending to sound bumptious but I posted that about 20 mins ago.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.
The PB Tories have declared it so.
Unfortunately your continual resort to 'pb tories' 'screech', etc, etc simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork - blind loyalty to the Miliband posterior and a complete failure to address any of the questions you are being asked.
Bobafret should stick to posting about fancy haircuts, which his 'staff' can't afford.
With Mick banned someone has to try and punt the truth
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Salmond does appear to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to homophobes, doesn't he?
Once again more lies. He has championed gay marriage , does not appear to support your lies I am afraid. Tory smears , where they have openly homophobic members and keep them in position.
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....
More lies , you unionists are really desperate. You cannot get supporters so have to try and smear the YES side and normal people who want to have an opinion. Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
The Sun's on your side you Murdoch mouthpiece :-)
Always on the winning side Alan, Murdoch is not daft
5th June is a clever date as the result will come on 6th June when all media eyes will turn to the 70th anniversary of D-day so it will likely get buried.
OGH was recommending 19th June yesterday because it would have buried by the England/Uruguay match.
So now we have one Tory poster accusing Miliband of "crypto-communism" and another describing it as a likely "unmitigated disaster".
Given the signs, it can surely only be a matter of weeks before the government adopts the measure...
Interesting logic.... if we'd welcomed it with open arms, presumably you'd be saying it was a turkey of an idea? Did any legal people have a view on my post last night as to where this leaves BTL mortgages which require ASTs of no more than a year?
Not intending to sound bumptious but I posted that about 20 mins ago.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
I quite agree... I thought that June 19th (same as Eng v Uruguay) was a pretty good suggestion by someone (Morris Dancer?)
Not intending to sound bumptious but I posted that about 20 mins ago.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
You assume that the less zealous voters are going to opt to vote in the first election rather than the second.
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
I assume he's tried all the usual things: clearing cache, trying different browsers etc?
simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork ....Who is himself a third-rate tim......
Speaking of Mick Pork (how his ears must be burning), it appears from a post on a site I'm not allowed to link to that he's currently blocked from posting here. It may of course be just yet another Vanilla glitch, but any clarification would be appreciated.
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
I agree with that divvie we need a bit of grit to keep the indy action rolling.
Salmond appears well lubricated in his flirtatious interview with reformed alcoholic reptile Campbell.
“He is a remarkable man. What is wrong with this relationship? Why shouldn’t politicians engage with people in the media? I am unsure where this is taking you my boy,” Mr Salmond told Mr Campbell.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
Plenty will have postal votes, plus the longer it gets left the more other campaigns have to get established. I think the timing is as good as can be.
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.
The PB Tories have declared it so.
Unfortunately your continual resort to 'pb tories' 'screech', etc, etc simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork - blind loyalty to the Miliband posterior and a complete failure to address any of the questions you are being asked.
Bobafret should stick to posting about fancy haircuts, which his 'staff' can't afford.
Another of your weird obsessions. For the record, my staff are all female and spend far more on their hair than me!
That's a bit like saying Man U have been doing really well since Giggs took over. Manufacturing still hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008.
George Osborne even crapper than Brown and Darling who'd have thunk it ?
Rather, that's a bit like saying manager Giggs is to blame for United's shite season.
That manufacturing hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008 is hardly the fault of someone who wasn't in post until 9 quarters later. How does it look compared to the day he took the job? That is surely the metric to use. That - and direction of travel.
No fan of Osborne, certainly as a possible PM, but I have to concede he has a done a damn fine job as Chancellor.
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
Plenty will have postal votes, plus the longer it gets left the more other campaigns have to get established. I think the timing is as good as can be.
"With Mick banned someone has to try and punt the truth"
I don't think Mick is banned.. if you go click on a posters name it takes to another page.. type a posters name into the search option and it brings up their profile.. Mick's avatar is there when you search for him, whereas banned posters have a "USER BANNED KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON " red message
Comments
And 'use it or lose it' wouldn't increase supply anyway.
Oh, and I'm in favour of further housebuilding. I had a rather heated but polite discussion with Mr Kendrick about housebuilding in this area. I was in favour, he was not.
In fact, I had heard (on here I think) that at one time UKIP were considering simplifying their name to the Independence Party, but were stopped because they were advised that it could be confused with Independent candidates and was unlikely to be allowed by the EC.
We might as well scrap the EC and go back to the old idea that anyone can stand for Parliament and use any six words to describe themselves. It wouldn't solve the problem, but we wouldn't be spending taxpayers' money on not solving the problem either.
* Why illiberal? Because anyone should be able to set up a political party and run for office, with no more regulation that it takes to set up a knitting circle.
Unfortunately your continual resort to 'pb tories' 'screech', etc, etc simply confirms your status as a second rate Mick Pork - blind loyalty to the Miliband posterior and a complete failure to address any of the questions you are being asked.
"The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me."
haha - you mean if they don't agree with it on aesthetic grounds?
RICS perhaps?
Rents are not pegged or imposed at any level. However if a landlord tries to charge an exorbitant rent, the tenant can apply to a court to have it independently assessed. For longer leases, these are Assured Tenancies and as the name implies, provide a great deal of security for responsible tenants.
Scotland has traditionally had a much larger rented housing market than England. In the 1970s Glasgow had a higher % of local authority council housing than communist Moscow.
We tend to find rogue landlords sit on the fringes of organised crime and are often caught in e.g. sweeps by the Ganggmasters Licensing Authority on rogue employers.
Why on earth aren't the greens making progress at all in the current political environment?
Better Soutar funding anything than the NO campaign taking money from crooks who bribe and deal with war criminal's.
Interesting article By Tom Entwistle, Editor of LandlordZONE from last year I think - who appears to have anticipated this latest proposal by Ed. – A few choice quotes from Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck and Allister Heath, editor of City AM.
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/content/threat-rent-control-rears-ugly-head
"Young Qatari Mohammed Alattan, aged 18, who is studying at Bath Academy, stopped to take the leader’s photograph. “I don’t exactly know much about him, but I think he’s very nice,” he said. “I only met him for a second but I feel I know him.” "
Read more: http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/happened-people-Bath-met-Ukip-leader-Nigel-Farage/story-21034859-detail/story.html#ixzz30RyBcbPY
The whiny self entitlement underlying it - "how dare you vote for another, don't you know you're obliged to vote for us" - is never attractive, in particular so when its based not on achievement but upon privilege.
The establishment's hatred towards UKIP merely confirms to millions of ordinary people that the establishment hates ANYONE different to itself.
So UKIP increasingly becomes the channel of protest of ANYONE who feels themselves a victim of the establishment's hatred / bullying / unfairness.
Schapps' comments may prove more useful to the Venezuelan tourist board than to the Conservative party.
This is the highlight for me, showing lobby journalists for the out of touch, sycophantic creeps they are
"In the eyes of most Westminster commentators, Clegg smoothly bested him. But not according to the polls that followed."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100269687/nigel-farage-will-pay-the-price-for-taking-the-british-public-for-fools/
Surely its the Telegraph that have been taken for fools by this fellow? He writes the same thing every day and they pay him for it!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/newark-real-meaning-nigel-farage-ukip-anti-politics
Also they oppose fracking and support on-shore wind and both of those policies would put off some voters who are looking for a new home for their vote away from the former Big 3.
Sigh. Plus ca change.
been out with the estate agents again Mr Pole ?
here in the industrial heartlands I somehow suspect the blues won't be picking up votes this month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27225421
"The Conservatives said evidence from other countries suggested rent controls lead to "poorer quality accommodation, fewer homes being rented and ultimately higher rents"."
"Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said the Labour plan was a "short-term gimmick" and accused the opposition of "political tampering".
"The only way to raise people's living standards is to grow the economy, cut people's taxes and create more jobs. We have a long-term economic plan to do that, Ed Miliband doesn't." "
I would have thought that from a Conservative perspective they'd be pretty happy with that reporting of their position.
A staggering admission of how out of touch the Westminster bubble is
"In the eyes of most Westminster commentators, Clegg smoothly bested him. But not according to the polls that followed."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100269687/nigel-farage-will-pay-the-price-for-taking-the-british-public-for-fools/
As I said last night, this is a nuanced issue, there are problems I'm sure with families being forced to move more frequently than they would wish which will cause problems with jobs and schools etc, but the more I see of these proposals the more it smacks of "rent control" and there lies short term gains for the lucky winners (ie tenants in the right place at the right time when they are introduced) and long term perdition for the housing stock and rental market as it ceases to be worth anyone's while to rent property out in the long term.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/30/article-0-1D7ACAF100000578-504_634x443.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616981/Ukip-course-win-HALF-votes-areas-despite-1-3-voters-saying-Farages-party-racist.html
[UKIP] is a party that stands against what is happening here and now, not for anything that it has any practical hope of achieving or for which it will accept responsibility
"The European Court of Justice (ECJ), officially just the Court of Justice, is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights
That's the divide that exists now. It's partly due to protest, and UKIP shouldn't think otherwise, but it's also due to the fact the mainstream parties have been squabbling over a tiny scrap of ground and has vacated swathes of the left and right. Immigration is a genuine concern, and the playing of the race card has alienated and pissed off huge numbers of people who aren't racist, merely concerned by the huge numbers continually coming over here.
This is exacerbated by the multi-cultural approach which has damaged integration and the soft and weak response to any elements of extremism (FGM, protests demanding Death To The West, the intimidation of Geert Wilders, an elected politician, the barely mentioned importance of freedom of speech whilst the cartoonist of Jesus and Mo and Maajid Nawaz are lambasted for daring to have an opinion).
UKIP needs to be wary, though. Things that grow quickly often die quickly.
http://order-order.com/2014/05/01/labours-shadow-housing-minister-opposed-rent-controls/
Send her back for re-education.
Still, if the London based financial services industry starts to depart because of EU regulation, even the Civil Service should get behind the BOO campaign.
How is "use it or lose it" going to increase supply exactly?
There you are a private company that has invested in stock. For building companies that happens to be land (for engineering companies it might be steel say). Then the Govt comes along and says we are going to "nationalise" (ie dispossess you) of your stock. Meaning the Govt has land now and needs expertise to build 1000's of houses with, and where's that coming from - oh yes the very organisations you've just taken the land off. That's going to go well isn't it?
Does Ed intend to rifle through my stock of chemicals and metals at work and decide whether we are hoarding things against the "good of society"? He is full of good intentions, I'm sure, and he does identify some real issues, but he appears to have no intuition at all about the motivations that drive an economy so that he keeps coming up with prescriptions that do more harm than good, or at best displace the problem elsewhere.
Apologies if posted before
Sun YouGov poll on the Euros (changes since the Sunday Times one)
Lab 29 (nc)
UKIP 28 (-3)
Con 22 (+3)
LDs 9 (nc)
Greens 8 (nc)
So, UKIP lose first place.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/danny-alexander-more-evidence-loch-3477897
As I said ;last night, EdM has identified a source of real concern to a lot of voters. But he has probably come up with a sub-optimal solution (although the cataclysm that some on here predict may turn out to be less dramatic than forecast). However, what it should do is kick-start a conversation and, perhaps, alternative policies that deal with the same issues. This is what happened when he put energy pricing at the top of the agenda. And that has to be a good thing.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/uk-european-election/most-votes
I wonder if there's a shy Lib Dem effect.
Jeremy Vine @theJeremyVine 13m
Can’t believe I missed this moment from the Nigel Evans court case. Thanks @PrivateEyeNews and @lembitopik pic.twitter.com/cxLs3zjnRz
It was a spectacular, unmitigated disaster, which effectively wiped out the normal rental market completely. In many places the only landlords who were left were the real nasty ones, often actual criminals, because the only way you could survive as a landlord was to use intimidation. It was also incredibly difficult to correct - it took nearly twenty years to get back to sanity. That Ed Miliband is so pig-headed, or perhaps so cynical, as to ignore the experience of not that long ago is just staggering - or at least, it wouild be staggering if we hadn't already seen a consistent pattern of him wanting to wreck a whole series of markets.
http://www.rics.org/Global/RICS Housing Commission Report - June 2013.pdf
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/04/15/are-we-reaching-a-tipping-point-for-nick-cleggs-leadership/
I'm sure there are even PB Tories who realise that they need some grit to enable them to produce their lustrous (if somewhat repetitive) pearls of wisdom.
At least you have identified a problem: "the ability of a landlord to increase rental prices beyond a certain level to an existing sitting tenant."
So the next question is how big a problem it is? I certainly never had a problem in twenty years of renting, but as I said last night, I'm probably not the sort of tenant who gets affected by this sort of ruse. However I can easily imagine it does go on.
Then the next question is what a 'certain level' should be. For instance, if the landlord has a mortgage, is it reasonable for him or her to increase the rent in line with mortgage increases? Perhaps so, perhaps not.
George Osborne even crapper than Brown and Darling who'd have thunk it ?
5th of June.
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Newark-election-place-June-5/story-21042151-detail/story.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bexley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Election_in_the_1970s
From a Tory perspective, I'd have thought a Labour win with UKIP second is much more serious than the reverse.
But whatever happens next month the real issue is how much of its vote UKIP can hold onto. I'd see current assaults against the party through that prism rather than the Euro one. What the attacks are doing may well be playing into UKIP's short-term hands, but they may also be (deliberately) fuelling the idea that UKIP is a party of protest and nothing more - a means to let off steam in relatively unimportant elections, but not to be seriously contemplated when it really does matter.
It was a spectacular, unmitigated disaster, which effectively wiped out the normal rental market completely. In many places the only landlords who were left were the real nasty ones, often actual criminals, because the only way you could survive as a landlord was to use intimidation. It was also incredibly difficult to correct - it took nearly twenty years to get back to sanity. That Ed Miliband is so pig-headed, or perhaps so cynical, as to ignore the experience of not that long ago is just staggering - or at least, it wouild be staggering if we hadn't already seen a consistent pattern of him wanting to wreck a whole series of markets.
Well quite. And we have Nick Palmer speculating below that the sharks might be driven out of the market. Of course, it will instead be the amateurs who are more likely to decide to sell rather than rent properties out - the couples who have moved in together and who find themselves with a spare property, the children who have inherited a property and who are deciding what to do with it. The additional hassle, the time commitment and the asymmetric risks will push more of them into shrinking the rental market.
Even if it is just from Newscorps lackies
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-hails-remarkable-rupert-murdoch-1-3394340
How to define a "fair rent" though?
Were I a landlord a 3 year lease with a good tenant could be attractive: security of income etc. But I would want to make sure that over that three year period I don't end up with a rent way below what market rents are in year 3 (though a small discount for a good tenant may be in my interests). So the likelihood is that I would set the rent sufficiently high at the start of the 3-year term to take account of how the rental market may develop over that period. The effect could therefore be to increase rents.
If you know that the price you can charge after a set date is going to be limited the likely reaction is to increase it when you can before it is "frozen". There's no reason to think that the same won't happen with rents and that is what did happen in the past when there were rent controls. What also happened was (a) landlords selling; (b) neglect of properties; and (c) Rachman-style harassment. What didn't happen was a thriving rental market with good supply at reasonable prices.
Labour are right to focus on housing. The criticism is not of their focus or their intentions to right wrongs in the houseing makrket but how they propose doing this. But let's see the details of the proposals.
Given the signs, it can surely only be a matter of weeks before the government adopts the measure...
I think it's the wrong decision by the Tories. It means Newark voters will have to visit the polling stations twice in two weeks: a lot of voters won't bother, the less zealous ones, which will benefit UKIP.
No.
Oh well, the mark to market right now is actually a profit of £1,129...
Should I sell and capture this profit before there's any chance for Ed Miliband to cap it?
Pah ! Has he married a man since ? No.
Shows his lack of commitment.
“He is a remarkable man. What is wrong with this relationship? Why shouldn’t politicians engage with people in the media? I am unsure where this is taking you my boy,” Mr Salmond told Mr Campbell.
1/7 to beat the Tories... the other side must be a bet at 4/1 if ICM/You Gov are in the right ball park
That manufacturing hasn't overtaken the peak of Q1 2008 is hardly the fault of someone who wasn't in post until 9 quarters later. How does it look compared to the day he took the job? That is surely the metric to use. That - and direction of travel.
No fan of Osborne, certainly as a possible PM, but I have to concede he has a done a damn fine job as Chancellor.
"With Mick banned someone has to try and punt the truth"
I don't think Mick is banned.. if you go click on a posters name it takes to another page.. type a posters name into the search option and it brings up their profile.. Mick's avatar is there when you search for him, whereas banned posters have a "USER BANNED KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON " red message