Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
If the middle class can't buy they have to rent and can outbid poorer prospective tenants. So changing policy so that landords are forced out and house prices reduced makes absolutely no difference at all to poorer tenants as the houses are still occupied.
However as the houses are cheaper the middle class people have more disposable income to spend so spend it meaning more and better employment opportunities for the poorer tenants who end up with that income instead of it being sat in a miserly landlords deposit account.
A good slew of that disposable middle class income will be spent on keeping their house well maintained, whereas the miserly landlord does the minimum lowering the quality of the housing stock.
Shafting parasite landlords is good news for everyone except the parasites. The regulatory regime needs to make it virtually impossible for amateur landlords, other than those who rent out a single place short term while they live abroad etc. while privatsing all (council) housing associations, enabling them to sack all the hangers on, become more efficient and borrow on the open market to build dedicated rental properties with 5-10 year leases that are actually an attractive proposition vs buying.
Despite problems with the leader, I reckon Labours problems are superficial. What Labour needs to succeed is the confidence that flows from success. Chicken and egg perhaps.What Labour needs to do to is to bootstrap that process.
IMO that confidence is what keeps the Tories afloat. If things start going wrong, they could easily find themselves where Labour is today.
Fundamental misunderstanding of the increasingly Conservative demographic in this country; it is getting older and more Tory. Socialism was a fad; it doesn't work and isn't popular with western democracies. Socialism hasn't won since the 1970s...
It hasn't received a working majority since 1966.
Loving the way the Tories edit their catastrophic defeats out of history. Orwell eat your heart out.
But we keen being told (by Labour members, no less) that Tony Blair was a Tory
So who is engaged in doublethink?
If Tony Blair had renationalised everything and raise the red flag over no10 those same people on the left would still call him a Tory. They call everyone they don't like Tories. Doesn't mean they are right.
He didn't though, did he?
He expanded the private sector in the NHS; he increased the acadamies programme in education; he was hardline on law and order; he maintained the privatised industries other than when circumstances forced his government's hand (and added a few new privatisations); and he launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq.
There was little that could be defined at all as socialist that his government opted to do; still less that he rather than Brown opted to do.
In social and constitutional matters he was a liberal radical.
Minimum wage. social chapter . Devolution.
Devolution is a liberal idea, not a socialist one. In fact, it runs flat counter to socialist principles.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
It's an overblown story quibbling about accounting technicalities? The public is not going to get het up about where central staff sleep.
And none of the other parties will press the issue given that they all know that the electoral expense rules are shot through with holes and none of their campaigns would stand up to detailed scrutiny. There is an unwritten understanding that only the most blatant transgressions get challenged. Plus the voters don't like a rerun for legal reasons (cf Winchester).
Indeed. You can be sure that were the Lib Dems to pursue the Tories over, say, 20 seats - which would represent an existential threat to May's government - the Tories would retaliation in kind, crawling all over the Lib Dems' MPs' campaign expenses. Given that there are only eight Lib Dems at all and given that nearly all have slim majorities (Farron apart), and given that the Lib Dems must have thrown the kitchen sink at these seats knowing how bad the national picture was, there would have to be a risk that the larger part of the Lib Dem parliamentary party might be found to have broken the rules on something or other.
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
We were told all the same crap awaited us if we didn't join the ERM and later if we didn't join the Euro.
The remain campaign really had nothing to offer so just repeated lies that were discredited in September 1992. September 1992 will be perhaps be looked on as when leaving the EU became inevitable.
He expanded the private sector in the NHS; he increased the acadamies programme in education; he was hardline on law and order; he maintained the privatised industries other than when circumstances forced his government's hand (and added a few new privatisations); and he launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq.
There was little that could be defined at all as socialist that his government opted to do; still less that he rather than Brown opted to do.
In social and constitutional matters he was a liberal radical.
If you accept that Grant Maintained schools were academies under another name (which they were, although slightly different rules applied) he actually abolished the academy programme before shamefacedly bringing back a heavily watered down and geographically limited version when he realised that LEAs were a major problem and not the solution.
That is true. I don't remember the history - did he inherit the GM schools policy from Smith? Either way, he still came to see acadamies as the solution rather than via technocrats using state control.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
If the middle class can't buy they have to rent and can outbid poorer prospective tenants. So changing policy so that landords are forced out and house prices reduced makes absolutely no difference at all to poorer tenants as the houses are still occupied.
However as the houses are cheaper the middle class people have more disposable income to spend so spend it meaning more and better employment opportunities for the poorer tenants who end up with that income instead of it being sat in a miserly landlords deposit account.
A good slew of that disposable middle class income will be spent on keeping their house well maintained, whereas the miserly landlord does the minimum lowering the quality of the housing stock.
Shafting parasite landlords is good news for everyone except the parasites. The regulatory regime needs to make it virtually impossible for amateur landlords, other than those who rent out a single place short term while they live abroad etc. while privatsing all (council) housing associations, enabling them to sack all the hangers on, become more efficient and borrow on the open market to build dedicated rental properties with 5-10 year leases that are actually an attractive proposition vs buying.
If renting is made unattractive for private landlords of middle class tenants, it will be still more unattractive for private landlords of much poorer tenants. So there will be no properties to be had for the poorest in society, who simply do not have the means to buy their own property. Since you are ideologically opposed to state owned housing, I am unclear where you expect them to live.
The real proble, is not landlords but a shortage of property. The solution to that is oblivious though politically fraught:build more homes.
Despite problems with the leader, I reckon Labours problems are superficial. What Labour needs to succeed is the confidence that flows from success. Chicken and egg perhaps.What Labour needs to do to is to bootstrap that process.
IMO that confidence is what keeps the Tories afloat. If things start going wrong, they could easily find themselves where Labour is today.
Fundamental misunderstanding of the increasingly Conservative demographic in this country; it is getting older and more Tory. Socialism was a fad; it doesn't work and isn't popular with western democracies. Socialism hasn't won since the 1970s...
It hasn't received a working majority since 1966.
Loving the way the Tories edit their catastrophic defeats out of history. Orwell eat your heart out.
But we keen being told (by Labour members, no less) that Tony Blair was a Tory
So who is engaged in doublethink?
If Tony Blair had renationalised everything and raise the red flag over no10 those same people on the left would still call him a Tory. They call everyone they don't like Tories. Doesn't mean they are right.
He didn't though, did he?
He expanded the private sector in the NHS; he increased the acadamies programme in education; he was hardline on law and order; he maintained the privatised industries other than when circumstances forced his government's hand (and added a few new privatisations); and he launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq.
There was little that could be defined at all as socialist that his government opted to do; still less that he rather than Brown opted to do.
In social and constitutional matters he was a liberal radical.
Minimum wage. social chapter . Devolution.
Minimum wage I'll give you. Social chapter was accepted by governments of virtually all stripes across Europe so that was at best centralist. Devolution was a mix of his Gladstonian liberal radical streak combined with a desire to carve out eternal Labour enclaves that Tory governments couldn't touch. East Anglia was never considered for devolution.
So that's one policy so far in 13 years. Tell you what, I'll give you another: Sure Start. It's still hardly the common ownership of the means of distribution and production.
A very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.
When I voted remain I did so on a judgement that the economic risks of leaving outweighed the political risks of staying. However, I thought that both sides' claims were grossly overblown and I expect there to be marginal rather than fundamental differences in both spheres as a result of whatever out new status is.
What bothers me even more is that everyone made exactly the same mistake in the Scottish referendum, which had disastrous consequences far beyond the impact of the actual result. Why has nothing changed since Talleyrand commented in exasperation of the Bourbons, 'they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing?'
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Properties being rented are being used by those who need them.
If the Gov't has 9 Bn to hand over to landlords then it has 9 Bn to build more houses. I guess because one is a drip drip regular payment nothing much is done about it whereas the other would be a capital investment decision. Different boxes at the end of the day I guess.
He expanded the private sector in the NHS; he increased the acadamies programme in education; he was hardline on law and order; he maintained the privatised industries other than when circumstances forced his government's hand (and added a few new privatisations); and he launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq.
There was little that could be defined at all as socialist that his government opted to do; still less that he rather than Brown opted to do.
In social and constitutional matters he was a liberal radical.
If you accept that Grant Maintained schools were academies under another name (which they were, although slightly different rules applied) he actually abolished the academy programme before shamefacedly bringing back a heavily watered down and geographically limited version when he realised that LEAs were a major problem and not the solution.
That is true. I don't remember the history - did he inherit the GM schools policy from Smith? Either way, he still came to see acadamies as the solution rather than via technocrats using state control.
No - he accepted it from Brown and Blunkett. It was one of the first signs that he wasn't fully in control of domestic policy. If he had stuck his heels in and told them to wait a little, he would have set useful boundaries over Brown's sphere of influence and many later problems would have been avoided.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Properties being rented are being used by those who need them.
If the Gov't has 9 Bn to hand over to landlords then it has 9 Bn to build more houses. I guess because one is a drip drip regular payment nothing much is done about it whereas the other would be a capital investment decision. Different boxes at the end of the day I guess.
The government doesn't have to spend any money building houses (near me the government has not needed to encourage the building of large numbers of flats up the City Road). It would, however, need to designate areas to be developed or redeveloped. That's the awkward bit.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Properties being rented are being used by those who need them.
If the Gov't has 9 Bn to hand over to landlords then it has 9 Bn to build more houses. I guess because one is a drip drip regular payment nothing much is done about it whereas the other would be a capital investment decision. Different boxes at the end of the day I guess.
A capital investment, but social housing is revenue expensive, really expensive, far more than the rental income suggests.
The reason buy to let has become so contentious is the fact that interest rates have cynically been kept low. Right now it looks like a licence to print money.
Despite problems with the leader, I reckon Labours problems are superficial. What Labour needs to succeed is the confidence that flows from success. Chicken and egg perhaps.What Labour needs to do to is to bootstrap that process.
IMO that confidence is what keeps the Tories afloat. If things start going wrong, they could easily find themselves where Labour is today.
Fundamental misunderstanding of the increasingly Conservative demographic in this country; it is getting older and more Tory. Socialism was a fad; it doesn't work and isn't popular with western democracies. Socialism hasn't won since the 1970s...
It hasn't received a working majority since 1966.
Loving the way the Tories edit their catastrophic defeats out of history. Orwell eat your heart out.
But we keen being told (by Labour members, no less) that Tony Blair was a Tory
So who is engaged in doublethink?
If Tony Blair had renationalised everything and raise the red flag over no10 those same people on the left would still call him a Tory. They call everyone they don't like Tories. Doesn't mean they are right.
He didn't though, did he?
He expanded the private sector in the NHS; he increased the acadamies programme in education; he was hardline on law and order; he maintained the privatised industries other than when circumstances forced his government's hand (and added a few new privatisations); and he launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq.
There was little that could be defined at all as socialist that his government opted to do; still less that he rather than Brown opted to do.
In social and constitutional matters he was a liberal radical.
Minimum wage. social chapter . Devolution.
Devolution is a liberal idea, not a socialist one. In fact, it runs flat counter to socialist principles.
I don't necessarily see that. A tax-funded NHS is a deeply socialist idea (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Sweden runs most of its NHS at county council level. Canada's NHS is largely devolved to the provinces.
Public ownership of utilities, like electricity, gas, water and drainage, is a somewhat socialist approach, but there are more countries with municipal ownership than with nationalised utilities. In Europe, I think only Ireland still has a state-owned electricity system.
Before some people get to much on their high horse. Buy to Lets became popular because many people saw their private pension value plunge down the toilet. After all the scandals many would come into the Bank (where I worked) and would not invest in another pension scheme after the latest fiasco do not trust them. At least with property you actually own something physical.
We can argue it's grown to large etc, but these people are not evil parasites.
As to the problems of renters, there is nothing that government can't make worse.
My sister runs her own letting agency, in a poor part of the country and so deals with a lot housing benefit claims. Boy is it all fucked up.
It was better when housing benefit was paid direct to Landlords, because then there were no arrears. The problem is 30% are chronically unorganised and can't manage their money well. now tenants often spend their rent money on other things. So arrears increase and fewer landlords want to deal with housing benefit.
Now of course local councils are using landlords as a source for free rent. Local authorities are now telling people they won't rehouse them until they have been evicted, despite government saying they have a duty once the notice for eviction has been served for non payment. So it has to go to court, which takes months. So once a landlord has lost 5/6 months rent, they will never rent to someone on housing benefit again.
I imagine the difficulty for people on housing benefit finding rentals in richer parts of the country is more difficult as landlords have plenty of tenants to chose from.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Wouldn't that just lead to a massive shortage of available rental properties, so huge hikes in rent?
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
Will be covered up for sure, they look after their own
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Properties being rented are being used by those who need them.
Middle class owner occupiers have no problem with soaring housing benefit bills because doing anything else hurts their one way punts on the property market.
This pulling up the ladder attitude frustrates me no end.
Taxing second and rental properties at 90% of rental value would free up housing stock for those who need it - either as rentals or as those listed to be sold. It would also provide a fund for building the new tall tower blocks that you seem to love.
Me; I'd build a few new garden cities. Far better quality of life; especially for those blessed with children.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Don't be stupid, it would just be put on rents and we would have millions homeless and end up with taxpayers having to fund it through benefits.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
It's an overblown story quibbling about accounting technicalities? The public is not going to get het up about where central staff sleep.
And none of the other parties will press the issue given that they all know that the electoral expense rules are shot through with holes and none of their campaigns would stand up to detailed scrutiny. There is an unwritten understanding that only the most blatant transgressions get challenged. Plus the voters don't like a rerun for legal reasons (cf Winchester).
Indeed. You can be sure that were the Lib Dems to pursue the Tories over, say, 20 seats - which would represent an existential threat to May's government - the Tories would retaliation in kind, crawling all over the Lib Dems' MPs' campaign expenses. Given that there are only eight Lib Dems at all and given that nearly all have slim majorities (Farron apart), and given that the Lib Dems must have thrown the kitchen sink at these seats knowing how bad the national picture was, there would have to be a risk that the larger part of the Lib Dem parliamentary party might be found to have broken the rules on something or other.
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
Spoken like a true lying cheating Tory, is it any wonder they are reviled.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Wouldn't that just lead to a massive shortage of available rental properties, so huge hikes in rent?
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
Higher rents for some - but the market will not bear 90% hikes in rents so landlords would take the hit or sell, and of course unlikely to put up rents for housing benefit tenants as, as far as I can see locally, they're almost always priced exactly at the limit of housing benefit anyway.
And those who are currently in private rentals could buy the houses that rentiers are currently rinsing them with.
A property owning democracy is better for the future of this country.
The reason buy to let has become so contentious is the fact that interest rates have cynically been kept low. Right now it looks like a licence to print money.
Not just that, but it's the *only* way to get a half decent return on an investment right now, without huge risk.
On the housing tangent, it seems obviously disfunctional to have lots of private landlords owning a small number of houses, rather than a few big companies owning lots of them.
Rental properties give you steady income when it goes well but with a big downside when it goes badly, so it seems like an obvious place to pool risk, so the unlucky bets get covered by the lucky ones. The normal way to do that is to have a company that makes lots of bets, and people with capital to spare buy shares in the company instead.
Since the landlords mostly seem to get the actual management done by lettings agency anyway, it's not really obvious what value they're adding. It's also not a particularly helpful way to get a competitive market, because if your landlord is a dick you may decide not to rent your next house from them or recommend them to your friends, but you weren't going to do that anyway because they only have a few houses. You'd be much better with say 3 to 5 big housing agencies that have brands to worry about if they screw their tenants.
Is there some kind of weird tax incentive that's pushing the market into this ridiculous shape, or is it just tradition?
A lot of fair points about why buy to let is popular, especially with respect to pensions. My main concern is that if the bubble bursts and these people lose their shirts, I don't want to hear any complaints.
Well if Tom Daley continues in his blistering form for the semis and finals then that could be another gold. That would be one that would affect the Chinese the most.
On the housing tangent, it seems obviously disfunctional to have lots of private landlords owning a small number of houses, rather than a few big companies owning lots of them.
Rental properties give you steady income when it goes well but with a big downside when it goes badly, so it seems like an obvious place to pool risk, so the unlucky bets get covered by the lucky ones. The normal way to do that is to have a company that makes lots of bets, and people with capital to spare buy shares in the company instead.
Since the landlords mostly seem to get the actual management done by lettings agency anyway, it's not really obvious what value they're adding. It's also not a particularly helpful way to get a competitive market, because if your landlord is a dick you may decide not to rent your next house from them or recommend them to your friends, but you weren't going to do that anyway because they only have a few houses. You'd be much better with say 3 to 5 big housing agencies that have brands to worry about if they screw their tenants.
Is there some kind of weird tax incentive that's pushing the market into this ridiculous shape, or is it just tradition?
Too many boomers with too much money and too little imagination to invest it in businesses, rather than tax incentives...
A lot of fair points about why buy to let is popular, especially with respect to pensions. My main concern is that if the bubble bursts and these people lose their shirts, I don't want to hear any complaints.
I’ve recently (well my wife has) looked at a residential development for older people.... 70’s +. Full board etc etc, but no “care”. Looks, superficially at any rate, attractive. All meals, including wine (if wanted) provided. Don’t know what the wine is like, of course! Apparently the “norm” is for people to rent out their own homes and use the take from that to at least assist with the costs ....... £2k per month for a single person in a “flatlet”.
@edmundintokyo - those companies do exist, don't they? Aren't they the ones that got into trouble when people started pull their money out post June 23. That is, as soon as there was a hint of trouble, people wanted to get their money back.
A lot of fair points about why buy to let is popular, especially with respect to pensions. My main concern is that if the bubble bursts and these people lose their shirts, I don't want to hear any complaints.
Ditto. It's the demand for BTL, in the absence of attractive investment alternatives, that is driving up prices (remembering that the Uk is almost unique in not having its property bubble burst post-2008), creating a vicious circle with the types of people who would have bought the same property twenty years ago now forced to rent it instead.
There is of course another explanation for the fact that the Labour Party polling and local government by election performance is not as bad as this sites contributors keep assuring us that it must be and that is -----that it is not as bad.
The reason buy to let has become so contentious is the fact that interest rates have cynically been kept low. Right now it looks like a licence to print money.
Not just that, but it's the *only* way to get a half decent return on an investment right now, without huge risk.
Plus the tax regime with mortgage interest being deductible - which was always a nonsense which even the Tories, slowly, are unwinding - and the benefit regime making unaffordable rents affordable via government subsidy.
So that's one policy so far in 13 years. Tell you what, I'll give you another: Sure Start. It's still hardly the common ownership of the means of distribution and production.
Yours is just one narrow definition of socialism. Could add other things to the list, FOI act, the climate change act or the massive expansion of foreign aid. None would or could have been enacted by a continuation of the Major Tory govt (although subsequently adoped by a reformed Tory party). Oh well. Have a good day.
@edmundintokyo - those companies do exist, don't they? Aren't they the ones that got into trouble when people started pull their money out post June 23. That is, as soon as there was a hint of trouble, people wanted to get their money back.
The open ended commercial property funds were clobbered by the Brexit vote, and a fair chunk of them have halted withdrawals, at least temporarily. That's entirely sensible, and I've zero sympathy with people who invest in such illiquid vehicles without taking a long term view.
I would have certainly achieved higher yields from buy-to-let, but despite my IFA's pleading, its never appealed, not sure why.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
It's an overblown story quibbling about accounting technicalities? The public is not going to get het up about where central staff sleep.
And none of the other parties will press the issue given that they all know that the electoral expense rules are shot through with holes and none of their campaigns would stand up to detailed scrutiny. There is an unwritten understanding that only the most blatant transgressions get challenged. Plus the voters don't like a rerun for legal reasons (cf Winchester).
Indeed. You can be sure that were the Lib Dems to pursue the Tories over, say, 20 seats - which would represent an existential threat to May's government - the Tories would retaliation in kind, crawling all over the Lib Dems' MPs' campaign expenses. Given that there are only eight Lib Dems at all and given that nearly all have slim majorities (Farron apart), and given that the Lib Dems must have thrown the kitchen sink at these seats knowing how bad the national picture was, there would have to be a risk that the larger part of the Lib Dem parliamentary party might be found to have broken the rules on something or other.
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
Spoken like a true lying cheating Tory, is it any wonder they are reviled.
You mean like campaigning in local constituencies, then declaring the helicopter expense as 'National Expenditure', Nicola?
I don't necessarily see that. A tax-funded NHS is a deeply socialist idea (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Sweden runs most of its NHS at county council level. Canada's NHS is largely devolved to the provinces.
Public ownership of utilities, like electricity, gas, water and drainage, is a somewhat socialist approach, but there are more countries with municipal ownership than with nationalised utilities. In Europe, I think only Ireland still has a state-owned electricity system.
Ownership of utilities long predated Socialism. Devolution implies differences between areas (or 'postcode lotteries if these are to your detriment) which negates the socialist idea of absolute equality.
Developed socialism, under Brezhnev, involved abolishing Khrushchev's 105 sovnarkhozy and returning economic planning to the centre where it had been under Stalin. This did of course cause terrible economic and environmental damage and indirectly caused the collapse of the USSR, but it was a very Socialist approach.
Well if Tom Daley continues in his blistering form for the semis and finals then that could be another gold. That would be one that would affect the Chinese the most.
That's like the top of the table 'six pointer' in football. If we don't win the gold, then they will.
@edmundintokyo - those companies do exist, don't they? Aren't they the ones that got into trouble when people started pull their money out post June 23. That is, as soon as there was a hint of trouble, people wanted to get their money back.
Yes, rather than seeing it as risk pooling over the medium term, too many people took the short term view and tried to get out at the first sign of uncertainty. Why these funds didn't set up with a 12 month notice period I have no idea.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
It's an overblown story quibbling about accounting technicalities? The public is not going to get het up about where central staff sleep.
And none of the other parties will press the issue given that they all know that the electoral expense rules are shot through with holes and none of their campaigns would stand up to detailed scrutiny. There is an unwritten understanding that only the most blatant transgressions get challenged. Plus the voters don't like a rerun for legal reasons (cf Winchester).
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
Spoken like a true lying cheating Tory, is it any wonder they are reviled.
You mean like campaigning in local constituencies, then declaring the helicopter expense as 'National Expenditure', Nicola?
What a donkey , she was not campaigning as a local MP using dodgy money. What did Cameron do as he criss crossed the country. Next you will be trying to tell me you are Scottish, Tories struggling to find decent lies is most unusual.
Mr. Sandpit, not a financial chap, but it does seem odd to me.
If money is tight or needs quick access, a safe but low return investment would be best. If you're in for the long haul, riding out rough patches because, eventually, the market will pay more than a bank, just leave your cash where it is.
Plus, the referendum was on a knife edge and everyone knew it was happening. Just crossing your fingers and then wetting yourself isn't the most dignified approach.
@edmundintokyo - those companies do exist, don't they? Aren't they the ones that got into trouble when people started pull their money out post June 23. That is, as soon as there was a hint of trouble, people wanted to get their money back.
Yes, rather than seeing it as risk pooling over the medium term, too many people took the short term view and tried to get out at the first sign of uncertainty. Why these funds didn't set up with a 12 month notice period I have no idea.
I don't know what their setups were but what I'm advocating is a normal company that sells shares to investors to get money, uses it to buy assets (houses) and gets money from customers (rent) then hopefully makes a profit that it uses to reward the investors with dividends. If shareholders sell they still have the assets. There's no need to make a fancy fund thing.
Mr. T, I think only a few Remainers were dead against. Most people [also on the Leave side] were a bit soft about it or hesitant, but will accept the democratic decision. A few clowns like Lammy will try and ignore it, and some will try to get us a departure in name only, but most will just be looking at the various options.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
The reason buy to let has become so contentious is the fact that interest rates have cynically been kept low. Right now it looks like a licence to print money.
Not just that, but it's the *only* way to get a half decent return on an investment right now, without huge risk.
Plus the tax regime with mortgage interest being deductible - which was always a nonsense which even the Tories, slowly, are unwinding - and the benefit regime making unaffordable rents affordable via government subsidy.
I fully believe that lots of Londoners are upset and just want to ignore the vote. It would be electoral suicide, though. The PCP will kill off May with efficiency to make Labour MPs weep with envy, and the Conservatives would be consumed by civil war.
I also agree, and have said similar before, that a lot of opinion-formers (media types) are likely to be very pro-EU, skewing coverage (prefixing good news with 'despite' and bad news with 'because' when referring to the vote).
The only real solution to the housing crises is to increase supply, either through more private construction or social or both. For social we need more billions in government spending to make a difference and for the private sector, we need to lower the cost of entry into the market.
That will prove unpopular as it would require most planning restrictions to be lifted, So that instead of big builders agreeing with the council to build 600 houses on one large site over 5 years, anyone could say I've bought an acre here and want to put 1,4 or 6 houses on it. Thousands of small builders could buy plots of land to develop on their own. big builders would no longer need to hold large land banks to ensure future supply and doing so would become a drain as it would be easy to assemble sites.
Of course it would face fierce resistance by all the Nimbies on here decrying overloaded local services etc and they should be built first etc. The reality is the never have and never will. population has to rise first before someone will build an extra school or shopping centre etc. Such lines about infrastructure are just ways to cloak their desire to stop building in their area.
The truth is simple in areas where people can restrict building prices rise faster than in areas where builders can build easily. Once people move to area they try to change the rules of an area to prevent more people moving there.
There is evidence to show that is areas of high home ownership, planning restrictions are tighter, fewer homes get built and prices are higher than those with high rental rates,
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
Mr. Sandpit, not a financial chap, but it does seem odd to me.
If money is tight or needs quick access, a safe but low return investment would be best. If you're in for the long haul, riding out rough patches because, eventually, the market will pay more than a bank, just leave your cash where it is.
Plus, the referendum was on a knife edge and everyone knew it was happening. Just crossing your fingers and then wetting yourself isn't the most dignified approach.
A competent IFA will ask you what sort of investor you are/want to be. Do you want high profits, which means high risk, or slow and steady. Or somewhere in between.
BTL landlords = scroungers leeching off the tax payers.
The worst of it is that because capital is not assessed for tax credits or child benefit) some of these parasite landlords get benefits too (tax credit and child benefit).
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do landlords get housing benefit, such as the cases that their tenants may have mental illness or are vulnerable in some way. The risk of getting direct payment is that in the event of a problem with the eligibility or overpayment the landlord is at risk or having to repay.
In the overwhelming vast cases, housing benefit is paid to tenants, not landlords.
ALL BTL landlords with tenants receiving housing benefit get housing benefit.
It is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money to the Landlord on behalf of the government.
Isnt that a bit like saying that BTL landlords get a person's salary?
"it is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money from his salary to the Landlord"
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
The other option would be to break the stranglehold of local politics over housing. The nimbies can complain to their MP, the MP complains to the relevant ministry, and the relevant ministry say thank you for your letter, we take your opinion very seriously, and the builder builds the house.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
@edmundintokyo - those companies do exist, don't they? Aren't they the ones that got into trouble when people started pull their money out post June 23. That is, as soon as there was a hint of trouble, people wanted to get their money back.
Yes, rather than seeing it as risk pooling over the medium term, too many people took the short term view and tried to get out at the first sign of uncertainty. Why these funds didn't set up with a 12 month notice period I have no idea.
I don't know what their setups were but what I'm advocating is a normal company that sells shares to investors to get money, uses it to buy assets (houses) and gets money from customers (rent) then hopefully makes a profit that it uses to reward the investors with dividends. If shareholders sell they still have the assets. There's no need to make a fancy fund thing.
That's how I'd do that sort of thing too, but there were a obviously reasons why they did as they did. Probably either tax related or startup capital related - who would want to be the first shareholders when there are no assets?
BTL landlords = scroungers leeching off the tax payers.
The worst of it is that because capital is not assessed for tax credits or child benefit) some of these parasite landlords get benefits too (tax credit and child benefit).
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do landlords get housing benefit, such as the cases that their tenants may have mental illness or are vulnerable in some way. The risk of getting direct payment is that in the event of a problem with the eligibility or overpayment the landlord is at risk or having to repay.
In the overwhelming vast cases, housing benefit is paid to tenants, not landlords.
ALL BTL landlords with tenants receiving housing benefit get housing benefit.
It is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money to the Landlord on behalf of the government.
Isnt that a bit like saying that BTL landlords get a person's salary?
"it is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money from his salary to the Landlord"
No it's not because salary levels are determined based on the market value of a job whereas housing benefit is based on the need for housing, and is a significant enough proportion of the overall market that it acts as a prop on rental prices.
I fully believe that lots of Londoners are upset and just want to ignore the vote. It would be electoral suicide, though. The PCP will kill off May with efficiency to make Labour MPs weep with envy, and the Conservatives would be consumed by civil war.
I also agree, and have said similar before, that a lot of opinion-formers (media types) are likely to be very pro-EU, skewing coverage (prefixing good news with 'despite' and bad news with 'because' when referring to the vote).
Yes. Though there's been a slight change in tone from the FT, Economist, in the last week or so. Think they've realised that they have quite a few LEAVE readers, and they were starting to alienate them, badly
Charles has often made the point that the EU, not by malice, more by accident, favours large businesses and MNCs. A single regulatory area is obviously more aligned to their interests and they'll be lobbying hard to preserve that.
In terms of the economy, if people take off their partisan blinkers (on both sides), the PMI numbers have been sliding since late 2013. We're in trouble; the only argument now is 'how much'.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Wouldn't that just lead to a massive shortage of available rental properties, so huge hikes in rent?
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
A room tax would help.
Basically, you have an allowance for two reception rooms, one kitchen, one utility room, one toilet, one bath/shower room and one bedroom per resident occupant. Every extra room in the house is taxed at £500 per year for the first, £1000 per year for the next four per room, £2,000 per year for the next five per room and £5,000 per year per room for spare room 11 and over. All rooms in second or more houses are deemed to be additional rooms in main residence and taxed accordingly (if rented out then occupants count as additional residents in main home reducing tax by one room per tenant)
A room is deemed as a room when house bulit so knocking through walls dosent give you a reduction with exemption if one of the rooms knocked through is 36 sq feet or less.
Would apply to all including pensioners, diabled people get allowance of one extra room with total exemption if house has had to be structurally modified due to severe disability
This would cause a huge wave of downsizing and letting out of spare rooms to lodgers, making far more efficient use of the housing stock and solving the housing crisis.
Charles has often made the point that the EU, not by malice, more by accident, favours large businesses and MNCs. A single regulatory area is obviously more aligned to their interests and they'll be lobbying hard to preserve that.
So it's not a racket designed to help the German Mittelstand?
The only real solution to the housing crises is to increase supply, either through more private construction or social or both. For social we need more billions in government spending to make a difference and for the private sector, we need to lower the cost of entry into the market.
That will prove unpopular as it would require most planning restrictions to be lifted, So that instead of big builders agreeing with the council to build 600 houses on one large site over 5 years, anyone could say I've bought an acre here and want to put 1,4 or 6 houses on it. Thousands of small builders could buy plots of land to develop on their own. big builders would no longer need to hold large land banks to ensure future supply and doing so would become a drain as it would be easy to assemble sites.
Of course it would face fierce resistance by all the Nimbies on here decrying overloaded local services etc and they should be built first etc. The reality is the never have and never will. population has to rise first before someone will build an extra school or shopping centre etc. Such lines about infrastructure are just ways to cloak their desire to stop building in their area.
The truth is simple in areas where people can restrict building prices rise faster than in areas where builders can build easily. Once people move to area they try to change the rules of an area to prevent more people moving there.
There is evidence to show that is areas of high home ownership, planning restrictions are tighter, fewer homes get built and prices are higher than those with high rental rates,
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
Stopping immigration (under government control) and/or increasing emigration would reduce demand for housing and thus an alternative to increasing supply (not under government control).
Charles has often made the point that the EU, not by malice, more by accident, favours large businesses and MNCs. A single regulatory area is obviously more aligned to their interests and they'll be lobbying hard to preserve that.
So it's not a racket designed to help the German Mittelstand?
No, thats the Euro which gives Germany an artificially depressed currency and its main trading partners an artificially inflated currency.
The only real solution to the housing crises is to increase supply, either through more private construction or social or both. For social we need more billions in government spending to make a difference and for the private sector, we need to lower the cost of entry into the market.
That will prove unpopular as it would require most planning restrictions to be lifted, So that instead of big builders agreeing with the council to build 600 houses on one large site over 5 years, anyone could say I've bought an acre here and want to put 1,4 or 6 houses on it. Thousands of small builders could buy plots of land to develop on their own. big builders would no longer need to hold large land banks to ensure future supply and doing so would become a drain as it would be easy to assemble sites.
Of course it would face fierce resistance by all the Nimbies on here decrying overloaded local services etc and they should be built first etc. The reality is the never have and never will. population has to rise first before someone will build an extra school or shopping centre etc. Such lines about infrastructure are just ways to cloak their desire to stop building in their area.
The truth is simple in areas where people can restrict building prices rise faster than in areas where builders can build easily. Once people move to area they try to change the rules of an area to prevent more people moving there.
There is evidence to show that is areas of high home ownership, planning restrictions are tighter, fewer homes get built and prices are higher than those with high rental rates,
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
Stopping immigration (under government control) and/or increasing emigration would reduce demand for housing and thus an alternative to increasing supply (not under government control).
I don't really agree. Yes, we certainly need more housing, but the housing price boom is far more a financial phenomenon than solely a question of supply and demand.
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
The other option would be to break the stranglehold of local politics over housing. The nimbies can complain to their MP, the MP complains to the relevant ministry, and the relevant ministry say thank you for your letter, we take your opinion very seriously, and the builder builds the house.
I've said before on here that the govt should take advantage of an unelectable opposition to take a look at the too-difficult list, the things that need addressing but are politically unpopular.
I'd say planning reform should be top of that list.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
As another Remainer, I agree. Unfortunately a number of prominent, and influential, Leavers seem, up to now, to fit Robbie Burns description of the Scottish ruling class in at the begiining of the 18th C." Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.”
And yes I know todays lot were dragging us out of a Union, not into one!
The 94% and 90% retention rates for Con and Lab quoted in the thread are misleading - they come only after applying the certainty to vote filter.
The more meaningful retention rates found by MORI were taken from all of those who say they voted in the general election, regardless of their current declared certainty to vote, are as follows (Mori Table 6): Con 84%, Lab 74%, LD 46%, UKIP 53%. For YouGov's most recent poll, the comparative retention rates were: Con 72%, Lab 60%, LD 47%, UKIP 58%.
Lab had higher retention rates than Con throughout the last parliament whereas the opposite is now the case. The LD figure is nothing exceptional for them - their centrist supporters are historically quite promiscuous and swap around a lot more than parties at either end of the spectrum.
A lot of 2015 Labour voters are still for now in the red camp but are biding their time while the leadership issue is still (perceived to be) in the balance. Corbyn's personal ratings even among current Labour voters are so low that, barring a big upset, more Labour voters will give up on the party in the event that he is seen to have secured his hold for the long term. The Con lead is going to go up, not down, after the Labour leadership is settled.
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Wouldn't that just lead to a massive shortage of available rental properties, so huge hikes in rent?
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
A room tax would help.
Basically, you have an allowance for two reception rooms, one kitchen, one utility room, one toilet, one bath/shower room and one bedroom per resident occupant. Every extra room in the house is taxed at £500 per year for the first, £1000 per year for the next four per room, £2,000 per year for the next five per room and £5,000 per year per room for spare room 11 and over. All rooms in second or more houses are deemed to be additional rooms in main residence and taxed accordingly (if rented out then occupants count as additional residents in main home reducing tax by one room per tenant)
A room is deemed as a room when house bulit so knocking through walls dosent give you a reduction with exemption if one of the rooms knocked through is 36 sq feet or less.
Would apply to all including pensioners, diabled people get allowance of one extra room with total exemption if house has had to be structurally modified due to severe disability
This would cause a huge wave of downsizing and letting out of spare rooms to lodgers, making far more efficient use of the housing stock and solving the housing crisis.
I tak eit you live in a shoebox and have envy syndrome
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
All this talk of 'opportunity' suggests there is some aspect of being an EU member that is inhibiting our trade with the rest of the world?
Why is this filed in the Education section of the BBC News website?
As usual, middle class renters get very worked up about this. Making being a landlord more difficult would be great for them, reducing house prices and making it easier for them to buy. Reducing the number of properties available to rent would be worse for poorer tenants, tending to drive up their rents. But this is all about subsidising the middle classes.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Wouldn't that just lead to a massive shortage of available rental properties, so huge hikes in rent?
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
Higher rents for some - but the market will not bear 90% hikes in rents so landlords would take the hit or sell, and of course unlikely to put up rents for housing benefit tenants as, as far as I can see locally, they're almost always priced exactly at the limit of housing benefit anyway.
And those who are currently in private rentals could buy the houses that rentiers are currently rinsing them with.
A property owning democracy is better for the future of this country.
Yes re housing benefit. The government should have an escalator reducing housing benefit by 2% per year. In most cases rents would follow.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
It's an overblown story quibbling about accounting technicalities? The public is not going to get het up about where central staff sleep.
And none of the other parties will press the issue given that they all know that the electoral expense rules are shot through with holes and none of their campaigns would stand up to detailed scrutiny. There is an unwritten understanding that only the most blatant transgressions get challenged. Plus the voters don't like a rerun for legal reasons (cf Winchester).
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
Spoken like a true lying cheating Tory, is it any wonder they are reviled.
You mean like campaigning in local constituencies, then declaring the helicopter expense as 'National Expenditure', Nicola?
Next you will be trying to tell me you are Scottish
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
We were discussing this last night. Brexit does not address the issues and challenges of globalisation in any meaningful way, other than providing some controls over immigration.
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
The only real solution to the housing crises is to increase supply, either through more private construction or social or both. For social we need more billions in government spending to make a difference and for the private sector, we need to lower the cost of entry into the market.
That will prove unpopular as it would require most planning restrictions to be lifted, So that instead of big builders agreeing with the council to build 600 houses on one large site over 5 years, anyone could say I've bought an acre here and want to put 1,4 or 6 houses on it. Thousands of small builders could buy plots of land to develop on their own. big builders would no longer need to hold large land banks to ensure future supply and doing so would become a drain as it would be easy to assemble sites.
Of course it would face fierce resistance by all the Nimbies on here decrying overloaded local services etc and they should be built first etc. The reality is the never have and never will. population has to rise first before someone will build an extra school or shopping centre etc. Such lines about infrastructure are just ways to cloak their desire to stop building in their area.
The truth is simple in areas where people can restrict building prices rise faster than in areas where builders can build easily. Once people move to area they try to change the rules of an area to prevent more people moving there.
There is evidence to show that is areas of high home ownership, planning restrictions are tighter, fewer homes get built and prices are higher than those with high rental rates,
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
Stopping immigration (under government control) and/or increasing emigration would reduce demand for housing and thus an alternative to increasing supply (not under government control).
How about encouraging people to take multiple spouses?
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
As another Remainer, I agree. Unfortunately a number of prominent, and influential, Leavers seem, up to now, to fit Robbie Burns description of the Scottish ruling class in at the begiining of the 18th C." Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.”
And yes I know todays lot were dragging us out of a Union, not into one!
The likes of Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson do not inspire confidence in Brexit leading to a new concern among the Tories for those globalisation has left behind. But it is early days. One of my big arguments with Corbyn Labour is that it is essentially leaving Brexit to the Tories, which I don't think is a very good idea - to say the least.
The reason buy to let has become so contentious is the fact that interest rates have cynically been kept low. Right now it looks like a licence to print money.
Not just that, but it's the *only* way to get a half decent return on an investment right now, without huge risk.
Plus the tax regime with mortgage interest being deductible - which was always a nonsense which even the Tories, slowly, are unwinding - and the benefit regime making unaffordable rents affordable via government subsidy.
Abolish housing benefit
Even if that is the long run answer (and not having any sort of benefit would be a drastic destination) the problem is the transitional pain. It's a bit like the bedroom tax - however much it might make sense for people under-occupying property to move to smaller housing, just taking away the money and waiting for things to take their course is way too crude and does more damage than benefit. How on earth you transition from the current situation is hard to say. I suspect the government is trying (or just hoping) the market trends gradually downwards so taking the pressure off the benefit bill.
A lot of fair points about why buy to let is popular, especially with respect to pensions. My main concern is that if the bubble bursts and these people lose their shirts, I don't want to hear any complaints.
IMHO that is not an if, it is a when, and we will get a cacaphony of self righteous whining when it happens. Oh dear. What a shame. How sad.
The only long term solution to the housing shortage is to build far more properties (which in turn would reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord). Time to start using the third dimension much more.
Taxing second and further properties at 90% of rental value p/a would free up housing stock for those who need it...
Property gives people a stake in society; it also improves the character of neighbourhoods. Both of which are great things.
In this case, we need both short and long-term solutions.
Wouldn't that just lead to a massive shortage of available rental properties, so huge hikes in rent?
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
A room tax would help.
Basically, you have an allowance for two reception rooms, one kitchen, one utility room, one toilet, one bath/shower room and one bedroom per resident occupant. Every extra room in the house is taxed at £500 per year for the first, £1000 per year for the next four per room, £2,000 per year for the next five per room and £5,000 per year per room for spare room 11 and over. All rooms in second or more houses are deemed to be additional rooms in main residence and taxed accordingly (if rented out then occupants count as additional residents in main home reducing tax by one room per tenant)
A room is deemed as a room when house bulit so knocking through walls dosent give you a reduction with exemption if one of the rooms knocked through is 36 sq feet or less.
Would apply to all including pensioners, diabled people get allowance of one extra room with total exemption if house has had to be structurally modified due to severe disability
This would cause a huge wave of downsizing and letting out of spare rooms to lodgers, making far more efficient use of the housing stock and solving the housing crisis.
I'd come at the problem from the other end. Tax over occupancy, at a rate of £2000 per person per month.
The labour market, especially at the lower end in London, is exacerbated by the willingness of people, mainly immigrants, to live in overcrowded accommodation - six to a room in bunk beds - in order to make it profitable to work a minimum wage job. Stopping this practice would raise wages for everyone and make housing more affordable.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
We were discussing this last night. Brexit does not address the issues and challenges of globalisation in any meaningful way, other than providing some controls over immigration.
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
I was also discussing this with a mate last night - he has pals in the augmented and virtual reality biz. He's seen how extraordinary it is. Along with drones, AI and driverless cars etc etc, we're facing another tech revolution.
Is the lumbering, bureaucratic EU best-placed to handle this, and respond? No. We are Better Off Out.
My daughter works for an insurance company. They're piloting call handling bots to deal with routine matters.
Good header DH. Short of a snap election we cannot know the answer though. Under Jezza I expect a GE to have Labour about 20%, but probably 150 seats, but dropping further after that.
I really cant see an election before the constituency changes and after that they will want to complete brexit first so looks like 2020 to me.
We must not overlook the possibility, Mr Bedfordshire, that 20 to 30 Tory MPs will become disqualified for their despicable behaviour in the 2015 general election. Then Mrs May will lose her majority and this Conservative government will fall. Her hand will be forced.
But everything seems to have gone very quiet on this issue. Has anybody heard what is happening?
It's an overblown story quibbling about accounting technicalities? The public is not going to get het up about where central staff sleep.
And none of the other parties will press the issue given that they all know that the electoral expense rules are shot through with holes and none of their campaigns would stand up to detailed scrutiny. There is an unwritten understanding that only the most blatant transgressions get challenged. Plus the voters don't like a rerun for legal reasons (cf Winchester).
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
Spoken like a true lying cheating Tory, is it any wonder they are reviled.
You mean like campaigning in local constituencies, then declaring the helicopter expense as 'National Expenditure', Nicola?
Next you will be trying to tell me you are Scottish
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
We were discussing this last night. Brexit does not address the issues and challenges of globalisation in any meaningful way, other than providing some controls over immigration.
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
I was also discussing this with a mate last night - he has pals in the augmented and virtual reality biz. He's seen how extraordinary it is. Along with drones, AI and driverless cars etc etc, we're facing another tech revolution.
Is the lumbering, bureaucratic EU best-placed to handle this, and respond? No. We are Better Off Out.
My daughter works for an insurance company. They're piloting call handling bots to deal with routine matters.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
We were discussing this last night. Brexit does not address the issues and challenges of globalisation in any meaningful way, other than providing some controls over immigration.
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
I was also discussing this with a mate last night - he has pals in the augmented and virtual reality biz. He's seen how extraordinary it is. Along with drones, AI and driverless cars etc etc, we're facing another tech revolution.
Is the lumbering, bureaucratic EU best-placed to handle this, and respond? No. We are Better Off Out.
It is not about whether "the EU can respond" - but about why our being in the EU makes it more difficult for us to respond? You have to point to something we could do outside the EU that we can't do already.
BTL landlords = scroungers leeching off the tax payers.
The worst of it is that because capital is not assessed for tax credits or child benefit) some of these parasite landlords get benefits too (tax credit and child benefit).
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do landlords get housing benefit, such as the cases that their tenants may have mental illness or are vulnerable in some way. The risk of getting direct payment is that in the event of a problem with the eligibility or overpayment the landlord is at risk or having to repay.
In the overwhelming vast cases, housing benefit is paid to tenants, not landlords.
ALL BTL landlords with tenants receiving housing benefit get housing benefit.
It is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money to the Landlord on behalf of the government.
Isnt that a bit like saying that BTL landlords get a person's salary?
"it is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money from his salary to the Landlord"
Indeed, they use their higher buying power to outbid the young professional and buy it, then the young professional has to rent and pay over his salary to the landlord. The rent is higher than the mortgage to pay the landlords profit and when the mortgage is paid of the landlord has the asset and the tenant who originally wanted to buy the place has nothing.
I fully believe that lots of Londoners are upset and just want to ignore the vote. It would be electoral suicide, though. The PCP will kill off May with efficiency to make Labour MPs weep with envy, and the Conservatives would be consumed by civil war.
I also agree, and have said similar before, that a lot of opinion-formers (media types) are likely to be very pro-EU, skewing coverage (prefixing good news with 'despite' and bad news with 'because' when referring to the vote).
Yes. Though there's been a slight change in tone from the FT, Economist, in the last week or so. Think they've realised that they have quite a few LEAVE readers, and they were starting to alienate them, badly
Charles has often made the point that the EU, not by malice, more by accident, favours large businesses and MNCs. A single regulatory area is obviously more aligned to their interests and they'll be lobbying hard to preserve that.
In terms of the economy, if people take off their partisan blinkers (on both sides), the PMI numbers have been sliding since late 2013. We're in trouble; the only argument now is 'how much'.
The economy will still grow in the third quarter, probably by 0.6%.
Its just about the most detestable things about modern life , menu after men press one for this then 4 for that, then queue to speak to a human. Try ringing HSBC.. Every time I ring them they are experiencing high volumes of calls and a 25 min wait.. They just don't employ enough staff.
The reason buy to let has become so contentious is the fact that interest rates have cynically been kept low. Right now it looks like a licence to print money.
Not just that, but it's the *only* way to get a half decent return on an investment right now, without huge risk.
Plus the tax regime with mortgage interest being deductible - which was always a nonsense which even the Tories, slowly, are unwinding - and the benefit regime making unaffordable rents affordable via government subsidy.
Abolish housing benefit
Even if that is the long run answer (and not having any sort of benefit would be a drastic destination) the problem is the transitional pain. It's a bit like the bedroom tax - however much it might make sense for people under-occupying property to move to smaller housing, just taking away the money and waiting for things to take their course is way too crude and does more damage than benefit. How on earth you transition from the current situation is hard to say. I suspect the government is trying (or just hoping) the market trends gradually downwards so taking the pressure off the benefit bill.
Hardly anyone complained about the 'Bedroom Tax' when Labour introduced it and hardly anyone is complaining about it now. It was a political campaign to a political end. Capping Housing Benefit and gradually reducing that cap is a sensible and practical solution.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
All this talk of 'opportunity' suggests there is some aspect of being an EU member that is inhibiting our trade with the rest of the world?
Yes being in the EU means that we sit behind a big trade wall call the CET or Common External Tariff, which is augmented by extra barriers in some products, mostly food.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
We were discussing this last night. Brexit does not address the issues and challenges of globalisation in any meaningful way, other than providing some controls over immigration.
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
Absolutely right. The opportunities that so many have relied on are just not going to be there in the future, whether we are in the EU or not. Those that remain - the trades, for example - will be far less well paid because more people will be doing them. Niche expertise and personal popularity is what will pay decent money in the future. The rest will be largely commoditised. In my area, we are even beginning to see the appearance if invention on demand!
All this will create huge issues. And the haves need to understand that if they do not compromise on their wealth the have nots will end up swallowing them. A future based on 5%/95% is not sustainable.
Its just about the most detestable things about modern life , menu after men press one for this then 4 for that, then queue to speak to a human. Try ringing HSBC.. Every time I ring them they are experiencing high volumes of calls and a 25 min wait.. They just don't employ enough staff.
I always take advantage of time zones to call the bank at 5am, preferably on a Sunday. Only way to get through to the buggers without spending half an hour in a queue!
BTL landlords = scroungers leeching off the tax payers.
The worst of it is that because capital is not assessed for tax credits or child benefit) some of these parasite landlords get benefits too (tax credit and child benefit).
Only in the most exceptional circumstances do landlords get housing benefit, such as the cases that their tenants may have mental illness or are vulnerable in some way. The risk of getting direct payment is that in the event of a problem with the eligibility or overpayment the landlord is at risk or having to repay.
In the overwhelming vast cases, housing benefit is paid to tenants, not landlords.
ALL BTL landlords with tenants receiving housing benefit get housing benefit.
It is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money to the Landlord on behalf of the government.
Isnt that a bit like saying that BTL landlords get a person's salary?
"it is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money from his salary to the Landlord"
Indeed, they use their higher buying power to outbid the young professional and buy it, then the young professional has to rent and pay over his salary to the landlord. The rent is higher than the mortgage to pay the landlords profit and when the mortgage is paid of the landlord has the asset and the tenant who originally wanted to buy the place has nothing.
Pure evil.
If it’s evil, why is renting so popular in other countries. AFAIK it was also very common before WWII, and indeed, regarded as the norm. Like anything else, if exploitation is involved it’s wrong, but a lot more rented property might be a good thing, especially for a workforce which isn’t committed to a “smae place for life” system. Yes, I realise there are problems with schools etc.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
We were discussing this last night. Brexit does not address the issues and challenges of globalisation in any meaningful way, other than providing some controls over immigration.
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
I was also discussing this with a mate last night - he has pals in the augmented and virtual reality biz. He's seen how extraordinary it is. Along with drones, AI and driverless cars etc etc, we're facing another tech revolution.
Is the lumbering, bureaucratic EU best-placed to handle this, and respond? No. We are Better Off Out.
It is not about whether "the EU can respond" - but about why our being in the EU makes it more difficult for us to respond? You have to point to something we could do outside the EU that we can't do already.
Grow faster.
I haven't seen many assessments that aren't pointing to precisely the opposite.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
All this talk of 'opportunity' suggests there is some aspect of being an EU member that is inhibiting our trade with the rest of the world?
Yes being in the EU means that we sit behind a big trade wall call the CET or Common External Tariff, which is augmented by extra barriers in some products, mostly food.
So being in the EU prevents us from importing things that are critical for our economy at a cheap enough price? That's not a credible argument.
Its just about the most detestable things about modern life , menu after men press one for this then 4 for that, then queue to speak to a human. Try ringing HSBC.. Every time I ring them they are experiencing high volumes of calls and a 25 min wait.. They just don't employ enough staff.
HSBC are just the WORST
Hour long waits with Cust Service. I nearly switched banks just cause of that
I'm surprised an international author & Primrose Hill resident like yourself doesn't use their Premier service.......
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Obviously it's too early to tell. Take any major political or historic event, did we know the implications after two months? No
Hour long waits with Cust Service. I nearly switched banks just cause of that
Put the phone on speaker. Turn down their crappy musak. Get on with something else.
Only way to cope.
There’s a story in todays Mirror about someone walking into one of HSBC’s branches and pretending to be Gloria Hunniford. The bank believed her and gave her access to Hunnifords account. Took ages to sort it out. Meanwhile in order to become a signatory on a club account which tuns over about £5k p.a. I have to go 20 miles to a “business branch” and present myself in person, with photo ID and utility bills.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
All this talk of 'opportunity' suggests there is some aspect of being an EU member that is inhibiting our trade with the rest of the world?
Yes being in the EU means that we sit behind a big trade wall call the CET or Common External Tariff, which is augmented by extra barriers in some products, mostly food.
So being in the EU prevents us from importing things that are critical for our economy at a cheap enough price? That's not a credible argument.
I've said before, if we confine the EU discussion purely to economic performance, it's a no brainer to stay in. People are extremely inconsistent on this point. There is no reason to disbelieve the forecasts that Brexit has an economic cost.
That Larry Elliot article on the dog that didn't bark, Brexit Armageddon, is particularly interesting because he is unusually astute for a lefty, especially when it comes to Europe.
He was rightly skeptical of euro entry, for instance, unlike 98% of Guardian writers and editors. And the FT.
I still believe it's too soon to tell, and maybe impossible to tell, what Brexit will do. It's far too profound and complicated, and will trigger forces and changes which are inherently imponderable. As I've said before, it's like having a baby. It alters your life, for good or bad, in ways you would never have guessed.
Problem for REMAINERS is that they didn't want kids.
Like most of the seismic changes we've lived through in our lifetimes, there will be winners and losers. I just can't get excited about it now. The difficulty and complexity is in executing the dismount.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
Could not agree more. Now we're leaving let's make the most of the opportunity. And let's genuinely focus on the people who have been left behind by globalisation. Taking their Leave votes and the forgetting them again would be truly unforgiveable. If Leave does lead to a fundamental rethink I'll be very happy to have been on the losing side.
All this talk of 'opportunity' suggests there is some aspect of being an EU member that is inhibiting our trade with the rest of the world?
Yes being in the EU means that we sit behind a big trade wall call the CET or Common External Tariff, which is augmented by extra barriers in some products, mostly food.
So being in the EU prevents us from importing things that are critical for our economy at a cheap enough price? That's not a credible argument.
It invites retaliatory tariffs from nations we'd like to export to.
Comments
However as the houses are cheaper the middle class people have more disposable income to spend so spend it meaning more and better employment opportunities for the poorer tenants who end up with that income instead of it being sat in a miserly landlords deposit account.
A good slew of that disposable middle class income will be spent on keeping their house well maintained, whereas the miserly landlord does the minimum lowering the quality of the housing stock.
Shafting parasite landlords is good news for everyone except the parasites. The regulatory regime needs to make it virtually impossible for amateur landlords, other than those who rent out a single place short term while they live abroad etc. while privatsing all (council) housing associations, enabling them to sack all the hangers on, become more efficient and borrow on the open market to build dedicated rental properties with 5-10 year leases that are actually an attractive proposition vs buying.
Best for all parties to let sleeping dogs lie on that one other than where the breaches are both blatent and result-changing. My guess would be that the public is much more concerned about breaches of law that involve the security of ballots cast e.g. vote-harvesting or intimidation.
We were told all the same crap awaited us if we didn't join the ERM and later if we didn't join the Euro.
The remain campaign really had nothing to offer so just repeated lies that were discredited in September 1992. September 1992 will be perhaps be looked on as when leaving the EU became inevitable.
The real proble, is not landlords but a shortage of property. The solution to that is oblivious though politically fraught:build more homes.
So that's one policy so far in 13 years. Tell you what, I'll give you another: Sure Start. It's still hardly the common ownership of the means of distribution and production.
When I voted remain I did so on a judgement that the economic risks of leaving outweighed the political risks of staying. However, I thought that both sides' claims were grossly overblown and I expect there to be marginal rather than fundamental differences in both spheres as a result of whatever out new status is.
What bothers me even more is that everyone made exactly the same mistake in the Scottish referendum, which had disastrous consequences far beyond the impact of the actual result. Why has nothing changed since Talleyrand commented in exasperation of the Bourbons, 'they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing?'
Different boxes at the end of the day I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/37085511
Public ownership of utilities, like electricity, gas, water and drainage, is a somewhat socialist approach, but there are more countries with municipal ownership than with nationalised utilities. In Europe, I think only Ireland still has a state-owned electricity system.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/19/why-banker-bashers-now-love-the-city-and-other-mad-u-turns/
We can argue it's grown to large etc, but these people are not evil parasites.
As to the problems of renters, there is nothing that government can't make worse.
My sister runs her own letting agency, in a poor part of the country and so deals with a lot housing benefit claims. Boy is it all fucked up.
It was better when housing benefit was paid direct to Landlords, because then there were no arrears. The problem is 30% are chronically unorganised and can't manage their money well. now tenants often spend their rent money on other things. So arrears increase and fewer landlords want to deal with housing benefit.
Now of course local councils are using landlords as a source for free rent. Local authorities are now telling people they won't rehouse them until they have been evicted, despite government saying they have a duty once the notice for eviction has been served for non payment. So it has to go to court, which takes months. So once a landlord has lost 5/6 months rent, they will never rent to someone on housing benefit again.
I imagine the difficulty for people on housing benefit finding rentals in richer parts of the country is more difficult as landlords have plenty of tenants to chose from.
I don't agree much with @AlastairMeeks but he's completely right that the only way the property market gets sorted is by building more homes. That or massive emigration. Tinkering around the edges only exacerbates the problem.
This pulling up the ladder attitude frustrates me no end.
Taxing second and rental properties at 90% of rental value would free up housing stock for those who need it - either as rentals or as those listed to be sold. It would also provide a fund for building the new tall tower blocks that you seem to love.
Me; I'd build a few new garden cities. Far better quality of life; especially for those blessed with children.
And those who are currently in private rentals could buy the houses that rentiers are currently rinsing them with.
A property owning democracy is better for the future of this country.
Rental properties give you steady income when it goes well but with a big downside when it goes badly, so it seems like an obvious place to pool risk, so the unlucky bets get covered by the lucky ones. The normal way to do that is to have a company that makes lots of bets, and people with capital to spare buy shares in the company instead.
Since the landlords mostly seem to get the actual management done by lettings agency anyway, it's not really obvious what value they're adding. It's also not a particularly helpful way to get a competitive market, because if your landlord is a dick you may decide not to rent your next house from them or recommend them to your friends, but you weren't going to do that anyway because they only have a few houses. You'd be much better with say 3 to 5 big housing agencies that have brands to worry about if they screw their tenants.
Is there some kind of weird tax incentive that's pushing the market into this ridiculous shape, or is it just tradition?
Apparently the “norm” is for people to rent out their own homes and use the take from that to at least assist with the costs ....... £2k per month for a single person in a “flatlet”.
I would have certainly achieved higher yields from buy-to-let, but despite my IFA's pleading, its never appealed, not sure why.
Developed socialism, under Brezhnev, involved abolishing Khrushchev's 105 sovnarkhozy and returning economic planning to the centre where it had been under Stalin. This did of course cause terrible economic and environmental damage and indirectly caused the collapse of the USSR, but it was a very Socialist approach.
If money is tight or needs quick access, a safe but low return investment would be best. If you're in for the long haul, riding out rough patches because, eventually, the market will pay more than a bank, just leave your cash where it is.
Plus, the referendum was on a knife edge and everyone knew it was happening. Just crossing your fingers and then wetting yourself isn't the most dignified approach.
Elliot's interesting in that part of his motivation was to shake things up. I can identify with that. To make the most of Brexit, the UK has to wake up and do some serious navel gazing - not just Labour, but all of us. If all we do is move 6" outside the EU and call it a day, it will be an opportunity lost.
I fully believe that lots of Londoners are upset and just want to ignore the vote. It would be electoral suicide, though. The PCP will kill off May with efficiency to make Labour MPs weep with envy, and the Conservatives would be consumed by civil war.
I also agree, and have said similar before, that a lot of opinion-formers (media types) are likely to be very pro-EU, skewing coverage (prefixing good news with 'despite' and bad news with 'because' when referring to the vote).
That will prove unpopular as it would require most planning restrictions to be lifted, So that instead of big builders agreeing with the council to build 600 houses on one large site over 5 years, anyone could say I've bought an acre here and want to put 1,4 or 6 houses on it. Thousands of small builders could buy plots of land to develop on their own. big builders would no longer need to hold large land banks to ensure future supply and doing so would become a drain as it would be easy to assemble sites.
Of course it would face fierce resistance by all the Nimbies on here decrying overloaded local services etc and they should be built first etc. The reality is the never have and never will. population has to rise first before someone will build an extra school or shopping centre etc.
Such lines about infrastructure are just ways to cloak their desire to stop building in their area.
The truth is simple in areas where people can restrict building prices rise faster than in areas where builders can build easily. Once people move to area they try to change the rules of an area to prevent more people moving there.
There is evidence to show that is areas of high home ownership, planning restrictions are tighter, fewer homes get built and prices are higher than those with high rental rates,
Until the Nimbies strangle hold over local politics is broken in this country, then nothing will be solved.
https://twitter.com/mcdonnelljp/status/766939442485481472
There's no need to worry about housing. We voted Leave, remember?
Shortly there will be a Brexit, in which the country will decrease its population...
"it is just that in most cases the tenant has to deliver the money from his salary to the Landlord"
In terms of the economy, if people take off their partisan blinkers (on both sides), the PMI numbers have been sliding since late 2013. We're in trouble; the only argument now is 'how much'.
Basically, you have an allowance for two reception rooms, one kitchen, one utility room, one toilet, one bath/shower room and one bedroom per resident occupant. Every extra room in the house is taxed at £500 per year for the first, £1000 per year for the next four per room, £2,000 per year for the next five per room and £5,000 per year per room for spare room 11 and over. All rooms in second or more houses are deemed to be additional rooms in main residence and taxed accordingly (if rented out then occupants count as additional residents in main home reducing tax by one room per tenant)
A room is deemed as a room when house bulit so knocking through walls dosent give you a reduction with exemption if one of the rooms knocked through is 36 sq feet or less.
Would apply to all including pensioners, diabled people get allowance of one extra room with total exemption if house has had to be structurally modified due to severe disability
This would cause a huge wave of downsizing and letting out of spare rooms to lodgers, making far more efficient use of the housing stock and solving the housing crisis.
I'd say planning reform should be top of that list.
And yes I know todays lot were dragging us out of a Union, not into one!
The more meaningful retention rates found by MORI were taken from all of those who say they voted in the general election, regardless of their current declared certainty to vote, are as follows (Mori Table 6): Con 84%, Lab 74%, LD 46%, UKIP 53%. For YouGov's most recent poll, the comparative retention rates were: Con 72%, Lab 60%, LD 47%, UKIP 58%.
Lab had higher retention rates than Con throughout the last parliament whereas the opposite is now the case. The LD figure is nothing exceptional for them - their centrist supporters are historically quite promiscuous and swap around a lot more than parties at either end of the spectrum.
A lot of 2015 Labour voters are still for now in the red camp but are biding their time while the leadership issue is still (perceived to be) in the balance. Corbyn's personal ratings even among current Labour voters are so low that, barring a big upset, more Labour voters will give up on the party in the event that he is seen to have secured his hold for the long term. The Con lead is going to go up, not down, after the Labour leadership is settled.
Yes re housing benefit. The government should have an escalator reducing housing benefit by 2% per year. In most cases rents would follow.
Let he who is without sin.......
http://order-order.com/2016/05/23/snp-chopper-not-declared-properly/
We're also at risk of fighting the last war; we're already starting to see the onset of a new wave of automation that has the potential to push many more people outside the margins of employability.
The labour market, especially at the lower end in London, is exacerbated by the willingness of people, mainly immigrants, to live in overcrowded accommodation - six to a room in bunk beds - in order to make it profitable to work a minimum wage job. Stopping this practice would raise wages for everyone and make housing more affordable.
Probably colluding with MI5 or some such.
Pure evil.
Just chill.
I thought we had them already.
REPLY
Its just about the most detestable things about modern life , menu after men press one for this then 4 for that, then queue to speak to a human. Try ringing HSBC.. Every time I ring them they are experiencing high volumes of calls and a 25 min wait.. They just don't employ enough staff.
All this will create huge issues. And the haves need to understand that if they do not compromise on their wealth the have nots will end up swallowing them. A future based on 5%/95% is not sustainable.
Yes, I realise there are problems with schools etc.
Put the phone on speaker. Turn down their crappy musak. Get on with something else.
Only way to cope.
It will all be over by Christmas.
Meanwhile in order to become a signatory on a club account which tuns over about £5k p.a. I have to go 20 miles to a “business branch” and present myself in person, with photo ID and utility bills.