'A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "The comments contained in these blogs are unacceptable and Mr Houghton has been suspended as a member of the Scottish Conservative party as a result.
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
If we have to do a deal with LAB to keep#SuperJo out then the cats can stay!
'A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "The comments contained in these blogs are unacceptable and Mr Houghton has been suspended as a member of the Scottish Conservative party as a result.
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
Unless you are a council or private landlord who ll have to repair damage / clean-up properties after the inevitable problem tenants take advantage. What if you’re in a house of multiple occupancy and you have an allergy or phobia of dogs / cats and are forced to share with an animal?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
Unless you are a council or private landlord who ll have to repair damage / clean-up properties after the inevitable problem tenants take advantage. What if you’re in a house of multiple occupancy and you have an allergy or phobia of dogs / cats and are forced to share with an animal?
I would assume reasonable reason not to would include where someone in the building has an allergy or phobia.
No idea is perfect, no doubt there would be problems to iron out, but the present situation is a bit too harsh and this seems a starting point which legislative scrutiny could sort out. I thought the same about the Dementia tax, though I doubt Nick would appreciate the comparison.
Barnesian Looking at your model, it has Bermondsey (currently Labour) going to the LibDems with 67% of the vote. Does the multiplicative swing give odd results when the LDs have a higher than average starting position ?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
It is probably, technically, already the law that blanket refusals without a good reason are illegal, and have been since the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (the OFT thought so at the time).
But if landlords are able to evict without giving a reason, no amount of banning individual silly rules will help. A landlord can refuse to rent to brown people, or women who wear trousers, or jugglers, as long as they aren't stupid enough to state that as their reason.
'A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "The comments contained in these blogs are unacceptable and Mr Houghton has been suspended as a member of the Scottish Conservative party as a result.
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
That's a good policy announcement from Labour to be fair
I wish all parties would agree to introduce a ban on Halal and Kosher slaughter. There can be no justification in a civilised society to allow these horrific practices to go on. That also includes blood sports, which are as equally detestable. Cruelty is cruelty, no matter the hand or the motivation that carries it out.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
How is it to be policed?
In the same way as any other clause of rental agreements - if the landlord attempts to prevent the tenant from having a pet without giving reasonable cause, he will be in breach in the same way as if he refused to repair a broken boiler, and the tenant could take him to court. Convesely the landlord would no longer be able to evict a tenant merely for having a pet, unless he could show that there was a reason why the pet was causing problems.
In practice what it will do is make the landlord give some thought to what he can reasonbably object to. The goldfish will always get in, a quiet house cat likewise, ten ferocious alsatians not so much. A test could be whether the neighbours would have cause to object because of noise, smell etc. if the tenant owned the place.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
Unless you are a council or private landlord who ll have to repair damage / clean-up properties after the inevitable problem tenants take advantage. What if you’re in a house of multiple occupancy and you have an allergy or phobia of dogs / cats and are forced to share with an animal?
I would assume reasonable reason not to would include where someone in the building has an allergy or phobia.
No idea is perfect, no doubt there would be problems to iron out, but the present situation is a bit too harsh and this seems a starting point which legislative scrutiny could sort out. I thought the same about the Dementia tax, though I doubt Nick would appreciate the comparison.
If I need to be rehomed by the council and there’s spare accommodation in a HMO and I have a cat allergy and an existing tenant has a cat does that mean the cats right to be in the accommodation is more important than me being to be able to live there?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Oh, and also are you going to rewrite all the leases which the owners of the flats have already signed up to?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who has no hope of buying their own property.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
I try to have a hand in aspects of Tory animal welfare policy too - it's why I spoke at both party conference fringes. Both Defra and Shadow Defra teams are actually very good on this subject, and I've previously commented on my liking for Gove when he was running it. In truth it's not the most partisan of themes, though mysteriously the LibDems lag behind at present - they've only just re-established an animal welfare group.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who has no hope of buying their own property.
So they should find a landlord who doesn't object to pets.
Can't find one, you say? Not a single one?
Well, quite. There is a REASON why those clauses are in there, it's not cussedness on the part of the landlords.
'A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "The comments contained in these blogs are unacceptable and Mr Houghton has been suspended as a member of the Scottish Conservative party as a result.
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
(for the avoidance of doubt: I do not have reason to believe these issues are more pronounced in Scotland than the rest of the UK)
Good job he wasn't a candidate at the time. I guess you have to be pretty special to hit the Islamophobia, antisemitism & homophobia jackpot.
I think you're misreading the Scottish Conservative statement. It doesn't appear that their former candidate for Aberdeen North has actually said anything Islamophobic.
A better plan for pets would be to encourage more landlords to allow pets by offering a small tax break or advantage for landlords doing so. A simple opt In registration that can be viewed by prospective tenants
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
It is probably, technically, already the law that blanket refusals without a good reason are illegal, and have been since the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (the OFT thought so at the time).
But if landlords are able to evict without giving a reason, no amount of banning individual silly rules will help. A landlord can refuse to rent to brown people, or women who wear trousers, or jugglers, as long as they aren't stupid enough to state that as their reason.
Yes. If your landlord wants you out, out you will go. If you want to prove you have the right to keep an animal against his wishes then out you will go all the more speedily.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
Unless you are a council or private landlord who ll have to repair damage / clean-up properties after the inevitable problem tenants take advantage. What if you’re in a house of multiple occupancy and you have an allergy or phobia of dogs / cats and are forced to share with an animal?
I would assume reasonable reason not to would include where someone in the building has an allergy or phobia.
No idea is perfect, no doubt there would be problems to iron out, but the present situation is a bit too harsh and this seems a starting point which legislative scrutiny could sort out. I thought the same about the Dementia tax, though I doubt Nick would appreciate the comparison.
If I need to be rehomed by the council and there’s spare accommodation in a HMO and I have a cat allergy and an existing tenant has a cat does that mean the cats right to be in the accommodation is more important than me being to be able to live there?
With housing it should be people before pets.
Just sayin.
And I'd say people before pets too. But reactions like richardnabavi's acting like this would be a licence for complete destruction and no way to say no seem way off the mark from the plan. Harder to blanket refuse seems the intent from nick, not a free for all. Why should it be the default to assume every pet would a destructive nuisance?
And as a point of information, I dont even have any pets. But while forcing them on a place no matter what is absurd, requiring a bit of justification beyond 'it's a pet' seems pretty mild.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Oh, and also are you going to rewrite all the leases which the owners of the flats have already signed up to?
I'm disappointed with Nick that he should want to perpetuate the enslavement of our animal cousins.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Generally because they can, and because banning your tenant from doing something is easier than allowing them to, when the law is on your side. Plenty of landlords would ban tenants from cooking hot food, wearing shoes, or bringing dates back for the night, in their homes, if they felt the law allowed them to do so.
We are beset as a nation by toytown landlords who think they have bought a house-shaped cash machine and appear to have no concept that they have taken on responsibility for the place in which other humans live the majority of their lives.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
It is probably, technically, already the law that blanket refusals without a good reason are illegal, and have been since the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (the OFT thought so at the time).
But if landlords are able to evict without giving a reason, no amount of banning individual silly rules will help. A landlord can refuse to rent to brown people, or women who wear trousers, or jugglers, as long as they aren't stupid enough to state that as their reason.
Yes. If your landlord wants you out, out you will go. If you want to prove you have the right to keep an animal against his wishes then out you will go all the more speedily.
Aren't Labour proposing to stop no-reason evictions as well? I assume the pet nonsense is merely the headline-grabbing bit of a much wider ranging set of proposals on changing rental agreements to be much more in favour of tenants generally.
I don't know about pets, but I believe sheep have been voting for years....how do you explain those massive majorities in some seats despite the seating MP being absolutely useless.
Seems like a bit of an own goal to give Corbyn 24 hours to come up with good answers and prove he can answer questions?
There is one question he will not be able to answer, and it's written in the 2017 manifesto in black and white. The explicit promise to honour the result of the referendum. Asking people to vote again is a pledge to erase the will of 17.4 million people, just because your party wants another go to change the result. It doesn't matter how you cut it, there is nothing Corbyn can do or say that will change that simple fact.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Generally because they can, and because banning your tenant from doing something is easier than allowing them to, when the law is on your side. Plenty of landlords would ban tenants from cooking hot food, wearing shoes, or bringing dates back for the night, in their homes, if they felt the law allowed them to do so.
We are beset as a nation by toytown landlords who think they have bought a house-shaped cash machine and appear to have no concept that they have taken on responsibility for the place in which other humans live the majority of their lives.
If landlords regard the tenancy as a cash machine and take no responsibility for the place, why would they care a toss whether the tenant keeps pets or not?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Generally because they can, and because banning your tenant from doing something is easier than allowing them to, when the law is on your side. Plenty of landlords would ban tenants from cooking hot food, wearing shoes, or bringing dates back for the night, in their homes, if they felt the law allowed them to do so.
We are beset as a nation by toytown landlords who think they have bought a house-shaped cash machine and appear to have no concept that they have taken on responsibility for the place in which other humans live the majority of their lives.
I understand your sentiments, but I suspect most landlords, particularly the smaller end of the scale just go along with the paperwork that their agent shoves under their nose.
Oh, and also are you going to rewrite all the leases which the owners of the flats have already signed up to?
That particular clause will I assume simply cease to be enforceable. Landlords increasingly do allow pets, by the way (with a clause that extra cleaning must be paid by the tenant when they leave) and they can continue to ban them if there's good reason. All this does is reverse the presumption.
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
'A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "The comments contained in these blogs are unacceptable and Mr Houghton has been suspended as a member of the Scottish Conservative party as a result.
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
(for the avoidance of doubt: I do not have reason to believe these issues are more pronounced in Scotland than the rest of the UK)
Good job he wasn't a candidate at the time. I guess you have to be pretty special to hit the Islamophobia, antisemitism & homophobia jackpot.
I think you're misreading the Scottish Conservative statement. It doesn't appear that their former candidate for Aberdeen North has actually said anything Islamophobic.
The front page of the National says he did. Now's your chance to start a crowdfunder for Mr Houghton to sue them for defamation.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
Can't leave national politics behind eh?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
It is probably, technically, already the law that blanket refusals without a good reason are illegal, and have been since the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (the OFT thought so at the time).
But if landlords are able to evict without giving a reason, no amount of banning individual silly rules will help. A landlord can refuse to rent to brown people, or women who wear trousers, or jugglers, as long as they aren't stupid enough to state that as their reason.
Yes. If your landlord wants you out, out you will go. If you want to prove you have the right to keep an animal against his wishes then out you will go all the more speedily.
Aren't Labour proposing to stop no-reason evictions as well? I assume the pet nonsense is merely the headline-grabbing bit of a much wider ranging set of proposals on changing rental agreements to be much more in favour of tenants generally.
Yes. Could be. I don't think it would do the tenants much good if so, that said.
I don't know about pets, but I believe sheep have been voting for years....how do you explain those massive majorities in some seats despite the seating MP being absolutely useless.
"Hopelessly passing your time in the grassland away Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air"
Oh, and also are you going to rewrite all the leases which the owners of the flats have already signed up to?
That particular clause will I assume simply cease to be enforceable. Landlords increasingly do allow pets, by the way (with a clause that extra cleaning must be paid by the tenant when they leave) and they can continue to ban them if there's good reason. All this does is reverse the presumption.
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
Keeping pets is cruel Nick I'm disappointed in you.
Seems like me all of those questions are easily answerable and Corbyn has answered them before. Johnson might not like the answers but Corbyn has answered them.
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
Seems like me all of those questions are easily answerable and Corbyn has answered them before. Johnson might not like the answers but Corbyn has answered them.
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
This is how they will perceive it:
God. Not this again. Who got kicked out of celebrity?
That particular clause will I assume simply cease to be enforceable. Landlords increasingly do allow pets, by the way (with a clause that extra cleaning must be paid by the tenant when they leave) and they can continue to ban them if there's good reason. All this does is reverse the presumption.
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
If landlords do increasingly allow pets, what on earth is the problem?
What's most horrifying is your assumption that the state knows better than the signatories to a contract what should be in the business arrangement.
Seems like me all of those questions are easily answerable and Corbyn has answered them before. Johnson might not like the answers but Corbyn has answered them.
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
Yes. It still leaves the question of if it's a brilliant deal, an M&S Labour Party deal, what would you support, though.
Seems like me all of those questions are easily answerable and Corbyn has answered them before. Johnson might not like the answers but Corbyn has answered them.
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
Yes. It still leaves the question of if it's a brilliant deal, an M&S Labour Party deal, what would you support, though.
Remain. Which like I said, anecdotally is what seems to matter to Remainers.
Doesn’t seem like “just Remain” is popular based on the LDs tanking.
Jeremy Corbyn stands by as pro-Palestinian activist accuses Jews of being 'immoral' in footage from 2008 that raises new questions about the Labour leader and anti-Semitism
Jeremy Corbyn stood on a stage in Trafalgar Square and listened while a speaker claimed Zionism had made Jews “immoral”, and then embraced him as he walked off. Corbyn also appeared to be present while another speaker told Palestinians to “explode in the faces” of Israelis and threatened “jihad, jihad, jihad until Palestine is free.”
Yes. Could be. I don't think it would do the tenants much good if so, that said.
There is no doubt that a Corbyn government would completely wreck the rental market. Those of us old enough to remember the last time know exactly what happens: far fewer properties on the market, those badly maintained, and real rogue landlords - the really nasty criminal sort - taking over the market because honest landlords have no way of enforcing contracts or getting their own properties back.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Generally because they can, and because banning your tenant from doing something is easier than allowing them to, when the law is on your side. Plenty of landlords would ban tenants from cooking hot food, wearing shoes, or bringing dates back for the night, in their homes, if they felt the law allowed them to do so.
We are beset as a nation by toytown landlords who think they have bought a house-shaped cash machine and appear to have no concept that they have taken on responsibility for the place in which other humans live the majority of their lives.
If landlords regard the tenancy as a cash machine and take no responsibility for the place, why would they care a toss whether the tenant keeps pets or not?
Because their instinct is to reduce the extent to which it is a person's home, rather than their cash machine, to the greatest extent possible. Some bizarre fear that in our rented home a cat might scratch the (1980s) hallway carpets, or a litter tray might somehow make the bathroom smell worse than the shoddy plumbing already does.
That the available stats show that pet owners make more reliable renters in terms of keeping the property in decent condition and paying up on time may, gradually, be changing that.
Seems like me all of those questions are easily answerable and Corbyn has answered them before. Johnson might not like the answers but Corbyn has answered them.
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
Yes. It still leaves the question of if it's a brilliant deal, an M&S Labour Party deal, what would you support, though.
Remain. Which like I said, anecdotally is what seems to matter to Remainers.
Doesn’t seem like “just Remain” is popular based on the LDs tanking.
Yes I suppose so. It's a bit bonkers though isn't it.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
Given the UK's obsession with house prices, if there's a meaningful and sustained reduction in the value of property due to this odd concept of "animalification", why do the majority of homeowners have pets?
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
Generally because they can, and because banning your tenant from doing something is easier than allowing them to, when the law is on your side. Plenty of landlords would ban tenants from cooking hot food, wearing shoes, or bringing dates back for the night, in their homes, if they felt the law allowed them to do so.
We are beset as a nation by toytown landlords who think they have bought a house-shaped cash machine and appear to have no concept that they have taken on responsibility for the place in which other humans live the majority of their lives.
If landlords regard the tenancy as a cash machine and take no responsibility for the place, why would they care a toss whether the tenant keeps pets or not?
Because it makes it harder to rent out to the next guy.
I'm struggling to see this as a particularly mad policy. Possibly because I'm struggling to muster much sympathy for private landlords (which I think is the point), but more likely because I'm braced for much, much worse.
Because their instinct is to reduce the extent to which it is a person's home, rather than their cash machine, to the greatest extent possible. Some bizarre fear that in our rented home a cat might scratch the (1980s) hallway carpets, or a litter tray might somehow make the bathroom smell worse than the shoddy plumbing already does.
That the available stats show that pet owners make more reliable renters in terms of keeping the property in decent condition and paying up on time may, gradually, be changing that.
If pet owners make more reliable renters, then the market will reward them, exactly as the insurance market rewards better drivers. Why on earth wouldn't it? Some conspiracy of landlords to act against their own interests?
The reason why not is not hard to find: simple experience.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
Given the UK's obsession with house prices, if there's a meaningful and sustained reduction in the value of property due to this odd concept of "animalification", why do the majority of homeowners have pets?
Because if their dog shits all over the carpet, it’s their carpet and they have to pay to get it cleaned or replaced.
That particular clause will I assume simply cease to be enforceable. Landlords increasingly do allow pets, by the way (with a clause that extra cleaning must be paid by the tenant when they leave) and they can continue to ban them if there's good reason. All this does is reverse the presumption.
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
If landlords do increasingly allow pets, what on earth is the problem?
What's most horrifying is your assumption that the state knows better than the signatories to a contract what should be in the business arrangement.
A landlord and tenant contract isn't "a business arrangement", particularly not in a constrained and overpriced housing market. It is, explicitly in law, a consumer contract on the tenant's side.
"Increasingly" is subjective. There are 5,210 3 and 4 bedroom homes currently available to rent in Greater London through Zoopla. 127 accept pets.
I am wondering are the Tories going to actually have any policies for this election? I don't include planting some trees and not implementing a cut in corporation tax as policies.
Jeremy Corbyn stands by as pro-Palestinian activist accuses Jews of being 'immoral' in footage from 2008 that raises new questions about the Labour leader and anti-Semitism
Jeremy Corbyn stood on a stage in Trafalgar Square and listened while a speaker claimed Zionism had made Jews “immoral”, and then embraced him as he walked off. Corbyn also appeared to be present while another speaker told Palestinians to “explode in the faces” of Israelis and threatened “jihad, jihad, jihad until Palestine is free.”
Seems like me all of those questions are easily answerable and Corbyn has answered them before. Johnson might not like the answers but Corbyn has answered them.
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
Yes. It still leaves the question of if it's a brilliant deal, an M&S Labour Party deal, what would you support, though.
Remain. Which like I said, anecdotally is what seems to matter to Remainers.
Doesn’t seem like “just Remain” is popular based on the LDs tanking.
Yes I suppose so. It's a bit bonkers though isn't it.
Do you honestly think Labour would poll better with a referendum where Labour backs Remain?
Johnson would just say Corbyn actually wants to Leave and he’d never live it down.
Seems to me Corbyn genuinely has put his own views aside on this and done the best he can in the circumstances he is in.
If he can shatter the idea Johnson will “get Brexit done” he can win. Johnson is lying - and I think most people deep down know it.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
Given the UK's obsession with house prices, if there's a meaningful and sustained reduction in the value of property due to this odd concept of "animalification", why do the majority of homeowners have pets?
People are quite fond of their own cats. Others', not so much.
I am wondering are the Tories going to actually have any policies for this election? I don't include planting some trees and not implementing a cut in corporation tax as policies.
I am wondering are the Tories going to actually have any policies for this election? I don't include planting some trees and not implementing a cut in corporation tax as policies.
Last time they had some policies at a GE it turned into an utter clusterf**k.
< Because it makes it harder to rent out to the next guy.
I'm struggling to see this as a particularly mad policy. Possibly because I'm struggling to muster much sympathy for private landlords (which I think is the point), but more likely because I'm braced for much, much worse.
Err, why might it make it harder to rent out to the next guy? I think you might have hit the answer to the problem.
But yes, your second paragraph is correct. This is part of an extremely unpleasant Labour tendency, indeed official policy, to rake up and exacerbate division, demonising landlords amongst others.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
Given the UK's obsession with house prices, if there's a meaningful and sustained reduction in the value of property due to this odd concept of "animalification", why do the majority of homeowners have pets?
People are quite fond of their own cats. Others', not so much.
I am wondering are the Tories going to actually have any policies for this election? I don't include planting some trees and not implementing a cut in corporation tax as policies.
I think you may be on to something, the dementia tax was perhaps a turning point in 2017 so I think they are reluctant to have a programme out for too long, also BJ doesnt do detail so it will need to be big issue stuff.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
Given the UK's obsession with house prices, if there's a meaningful and sustained reduction in the value of property due to this odd concept of "animalification", why do the majority of homeowners have pets?
Because if their dog shits all over the carpet, it’s their carpet and they have to pay to get it cleaned or replaced.
Do you actually think that if a dog shits all over the carpet in a rented house, the tenants just ring the landlord and say "Hi, the dog has shit on the carpet, when do you think you can send someone round?"
A rented property is a home, we don't expect a hotel with concierge service, just the same basic expectations of living our lives as people who bought before the bubble.
That's nice, it can indeed be a real pain to find a place that will accept a pet.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours. But at present many landlords routinely ban all pets - "we even ban goldfish" said one agent proudly - and a lot of standard rental agreements have it as the default. I argued when I was in Parliament that it was an unreasonable constraint on tenants which wouldn't apply the moment that the tenant bought the flat, and I'm glad to see it make it to the manifesto.
It's absolutely Grade-A raving bonkers.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
What they should have said is that tenants can keep pets so long as they are made liable for any damage caused by the pets. That would seem to be a fair compromise.
What about the long term diminution in rental value of the property if it has been animalified?
Given the UK's obsession with house prices, if there's a meaningful and sustained reduction in the value of property due to this odd concept of "animalification", why do the majority of homeowners have pets?
People are quite fond of their own cats. Others', not so much.
Full disclosure: I hate cats
Well that's it, isn't it. The fundamental point. Whether long-term paying tenants in a home they don't share with the landlord are actual humans with a right to live their lives, or guests who are constantly on notice to be on their best behaviour as if the landlord had given them his own spare room for a few nights out of charity.
Oh, and also are you going to rewrite all the leases which the owners of the flats have already signed up to?
That particular clause will I assume simply cease to be enforceable. Landlords increasingly do allow pets, by the way (with a clause that extra cleaning must be paid by the tenant when they leave) and they can continue to ban them if there's good reason. All this does is reverse the presumption.
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
The sad thing about many Lab (and Con, LD, SNP and Plaid) housing policies for many tenants, is that they are 'flag-waving' and un-nuanced, and completely ignore the situation of sharers (a large group). E.g. fixed term min contracts, min notice periods. As a permanent sharer I want to decide the following with my housemates (and working with landlord) by collective decision or vote, not dictated to by government intervention any more than a homeowner wouldn't be in their home; and not having one tenant overriding the rights and preferences of their fellow housemates (whether directly or by virtue of a legally-constrained landlord):
For example since recent legislation, varying across UK, now we can't legally: a) manage our household as housemates and decide who we can't tolerate living with or not; b) have housemates move in on trial basis; c) remove an obnoxious housemate by majority vote; d) oblige housemates to contribute to the household kitty for food/improvements/repairs (now technically illegal); e) evict an obnoxious or stealing, assault, or intolerably loud housemate without the landlord having to pay hundreds, wait months, and go to court (by which time the rest of us have suffered or moved out); or by taking injunctions ourselves (not realistic);
and, if the pet legislation is passed we can potentially add:
f) have a pet-free house for those who for allergy ethical or lifestyle reasons don't want one (depending how the Labour proposal's is interpreted)
The law for renting when applied to shared renters should be treated very differently (just as it is for lodgers).
I am wondering are the Tories going to actually have any policies for this election? I don't include planting some trees and not implementing a cut in corporation tax as policies.
I think you may be on to something, the dementia tax was perhaps a turning point in 2017 so I think they are reluctant to have a programme out for too long, also BJ doesnt do detail so it will need to be big issue stuff.
I did read somewhere that they aren't even launching their manifesto until just 2 weeks before the election and it is expected to be quite short.
'A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: "The comments contained in these blogs are unacceptable and Mr Houghton has been suspended as a member of the Scottish Conservative party as a result.
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
(for the avoidance of doubt: I do not have reason to believe these issues are more pronounced in Scotland than the rest of the UK)
Good job he wasn't a candidate at the time. I guess you have to be pretty special to hit the Islamophobia, antisemitism & homophobia jackpot.
I think you're misreading the Scottish Conservative statement. It doesn't appear that their former candidate for Aberdeen North has actually said anything Islamophobic.
The front page of the National says he did. Now's your chance to start a crowdfunder for Mr Houghton to sue them for defamation.
I guess that has to count as a source from your point of view. Will have to see if the claim is repeated in more reputable publications.
That particular clause will I assume simply cease to be enforceable. Landlords increasingly do allow pets, by the way (with a clause that extra cleaning must be paid by the tenant when they leave) and they can continue to ban them if there's good reason. All this does is reverse the presumption.
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
If landlords do increasingly allow pets, what on earth is the problem?
What's most horrifying is your assumption that the state knows better than the signatories to a contract what should be in the business arrangement.
A landlord and tenant contract isn't "a business arrangement", particularly not in a constrained and overpriced housing market. It is, explicitly in law, a consumer contract on the tenant's side.
"Increasingly" is subjective. There are 5,210 3 and 4 bedroom homes currently available to rent in Greater London through Zoopla. 127 accept pets.
'Increasingly' was Nick's word. Personally I'm surprised it's as many as 127 out of 5,210.
And I speak as a very strong cat lover. We have two cats, and I'm absolutely aware of the damage they can do. But it's our carpets, it's a rural area so they can go in and out of the cat flaps as they please, and we are very careful about where we let them in the house.
Because their instinct is to reduce the extent to which it is a person's home, rather than their cash machine, to the greatest extent possible. Some bizarre fear that in our rented home a cat might scratch the (1980s) hallway carpets, or a litter tray might somehow make the bathroom smell worse than the shoddy plumbing already does.
That the available stats show that pet owners make more reliable renters in terms of keeping the property in decent condition and paying up on time may, gradually, be changing that.
If pet owners make more reliable renters, then the market will reward them, exactly as the insurance market rewards better drivers. Why on earth wouldn't it? Some conspiracy of landlords to act against their own interests?
The reason why not is not hard to find: simple experience.
fleas once infested my sister's house that she had rented out to a cat lover... it was expensive and difficult to eradicate and the tenant had left (without telling her about the infestation) leaving her to foot the bill - its not just cat pxss that is the problem
Comments
"The party has also withdrawn its support for his candidacy in Aberdeen North.
"The Scottish Conservatives deplore all forms of Islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
It comes just a week Labour candidate Kate Ramsden quit in Aberdeenshire following a row over anti-Semitism.
She stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog in which she compared Israel to an abused child who becomes an abusive adult.
Another Scottish Labour candidate, Frances Hoole, was also been dropped over a social media post attacking her SNP opponent.'
Does Unionism have an Islamophobia and antisemitism problem?
But it seems a decent idea as stated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46031103
(for the avoidance of doubt: I do not have reason to believe these issues are more pronounced in Scotland than the rest of the UK)
Now over to Kammy in Sunderland Central
No idea is perfect, no doubt there would be problems to iron out, but the present situation is a bit too harsh and this seems a starting point which legislative scrutiny could sort out. I thought the same about the Dementia tax, though I doubt Nick would appreciate the comparison.
Looking at your model, it has Bermondsey (currently Labour) going to the LibDems with 67% of the vote. Does the multiplicative swing give odd results when the LDs have a higher than average starting position ?
But if landlords are able to evict without giving a reason, no amount of banning individual silly rules will help. A landlord can refuse to rent to brown people, or women who wear trousers, or jugglers, as long as they aren't stupid enough to state that as their reason.
I guess you have to be pretty special to hit the Islamophobia, antisemitism & homophobia jackpot.
In practice what it will do is make the landlord give some thought to what he can reasonbably object to. The goldfish will always get in, a quiet house cat likewise, ten ferocious alsatians not so much. A test could be whether the neighbours would have cause to object because of noise, smell etc. if the tenant owned the place.
Why in the name of heaven do you think landlords ban pets in the first place?
Hint: It's not something that was dreamt up in the abstract.
With housing it should be people before pets.
Just sayin.
Seems like a bit of an own goal to give Corbyn 24 hours to come up with good answers and prove he can answer questions?
Can't find one, you say? Not a single one?
Well, quite. There is a REASON why those clauses are in there, it's not cussedness on the part of the landlords.
And as a point of information, I dont even have any pets. But while forcing them on a place no matter what is absurd, requiring a bit of justification beyond 'it's a pet' seems pretty mild.
We are beset as a nation by toytown landlords who think they have bought a house-shaped cash machine and appear to have no concept that they have taken on responsibility for the place in which other humans live the majority of their lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#/media/File:Uk2022polling15average.png
Banning a tenant from doing something which they could do if they bought the flat is really difficult to justify. The landlord has the right to ensure that the tenant is not damaging the property in any way, but beyond that shouldn't have the right to dictate arbitrarily what the tenant can lawfully do. It's just a business arrangement..
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air"
Regarding what Johnson clearly feels is his “big win” on Leave vs Remain, Corbyn will say that upon negotiating a deal Labour can approve of, they will put that up against Remain and the people can decide.
Now that answer might be dreadfully unpopular - as a Remainer I don’t frankly care and my anecdotal experience confirms this - but I don’t really see why it’s unreasonable because how on Earth can Labour know until the deal they’ve negotiated exists?
The baseline is Johnson’s deal, if they can “improve” on it - and it seems to be a Customs Union and SM access/alignment and FOM - then they will. Otherwise they would put up what we have now - because they have to put up something.
In all honesty I’ve always thought it was quite sensible. Seems to me this issue is such a mess because Cameron anchored himself to Remain and a load of people said sod off in response.
It seems I’m onto a losing battle trying to argue this policy is the right one - but I’ll be interested to see how the public perceives it after tomorrow evening.
God. Not this again. Who got kicked out of celebrity?
What's most horrifying is your assumption that the state knows better than the signatories to a contract what should be in the business arrangement.
Doesn’t seem like “just Remain” is popular based on the LDs tanking.
Jeremy Corbyn stood on a stage in Trafalgar Square and listened while a speaker claimed Zionism had made Jews “immoral”, and then embraced him as he walked off. Corbyn also appeared to be present while another speaker told Palestinians to “explode in the faces” of Israelis and threatened “jihad, jihad, jihad until Palestine is free.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7698433/Jeremy-Corbyn-filmed-watching-immoral-Jews-accused-celebrating-Palestinian-deaths.html
That the available stats show that pet owners make more reliable renters in terms of keeping the property in decent condition and paying up on time may, gradually, be changing that.
I'm struggling to see this as a particularly mad policy. Possibly because I'm struggling to muster much sympathy for private landlords (which I think is the point), but more likely because I'm braced for much, much worse.
The reason why not is not hard to find: simple experience.
"Increasingly" is subjective. There are 5,210 3 and 4 bedroom homes currently available to rent in Greater London through Zoopla. 127 accept pets.
Johnson would just say Corbyn actually wants to Leave and he’d never live it down.
Seems to me Corbyn genuinely has put his own views aside on this and done the best he can in the circumstances he is in.
If he can shatter the idea Johnson will “get Brexit done” he can win. Johnson is lying - and I think most people deep down know it.
Full disclosure: I hate cats
So, QTWTAIN??
But yes, your second paragraph is correct. This is part of an extremely unpleasant Labour tendency, indeed official policy, to rake up and exacerbate division, demonising landlords amongst others.
A rented property is a home, we don't expect a hotel with concierge service, just the same basic expectations of living our lives as people who bought before the bubble.
For example since recent legislation, varying across UK, now we can't legally:
a) manage our household as housemates and decide who we can't tolerate living with or not;
b) have housemates move in on trial basis;
c) remove an obnoxious housemate by majority vote;
d) oblige housemates to contribute to the household kitty for food/improvements/repairs (now technically illegal);
e) evict an obnoxious or stealing, assault, or intolerably loud housemate without the landlord having to pay hundreds, wait months, and go to court (by which time the rest of us have suffered or moved out); or by taking injunctions ourselves (not realistic);
and, if the pet legislation is passed we can potentially add:
f) have a pet-free house for those who for allergy ethical or lifestyle reasons don't want one (depending how the Labour proposal's is interpreted)
The law for renting when applied to shared renters should be treated very differently (just as it is for lodgers).
And I speak as a very strong cat lover. We have two cats, and I'm absolutely aware of the damage they can do. But it's our carpets, it's a rural area so they can go in and out of the cat flaps as they please, and we are very careful about where we let them in the house.
Boris Johnson ditches pledge to give MPs a free vote on bringing back fox hunting
Labour pledges fox hunting crackdown
If Corbyn can do this tomorrow and get Johnson blustering all over the place, it’s going to be interesting.