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?
Because humans don't generally behave in real life the way textbooks of rational economics predicts that they should. There's a thriving field in both academic and popular books giving examples of this by the bucketload.
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?
Because humans don't generally behave in real life the way textbooks of rational economics predicts that they should. There's a thriving field in both academic and popular books giving examples of this by the bucketload.
< 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.
If there is damage to a property, by a pet or some other cause, then the landlord can claim on the deposit to put right the damage.
I know that a minority of tenants can be difficult. They're probably the ones that would keep a pet even if told not to, so I don't see why preventing tenants who aren't unreasonable from keeping pets actually helps a landlord at all.
But as someone said earlier, most landlords are just following standard advice from agents who are behind most of the indignities faced by tenants - that's why tenants could do with having the assistance of the government on their side.
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.
And if your mortgage lender told you to get rid of them, and the government said "yeah that's fair enough, they have a stake in the value of the property if you default, after all"?
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.
If Boris gets a majority he passes his deal and Brexit is done, simple
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.
And if your mortgage lender told you to get rid of them, and the government said "yeah that's fair enough, they have a stake in the value of the property if you default, after all"?
Mortgage lenders have interest in the bricks and mortar. Not the fixtures and fittings such as carpets which pets have a habit of damaging in some way.
Unless you are suggesting the mortgage companies would be concerned about a cat knocking a wall down or something. Which ordinarily you have to tell your mortgage provider about if you decide to make alterations.
< 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.
So, in fairness:
- There is clearly something badly wrong with the way the UK housing market works at the moment; and - None of the other parties seem to have much of a clue how to resolve it*.
The Labour party plan to fix this will inevitably be wrong. But I'm usually as much of a free market liberal as the next guy, and even I can see that the way rental contracts are currently setup is stacked far too far in favour of the landlord. Nudging the scales back the other way a bit might well be good for everyone. Sticking a thumb on the tenant side would, I agree, be suboptimal.
*(other than the quietly brilliant Tory sleeper plan of exercising just enough downwards pressure on London prices to keep the market flat for the next decade or two and allow inflation to do the rest)
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.
If Boris gets a majority he passes his deal and Brexit is done, simple
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.
I agree to an extent. I think it needs a nuanced approach with a very careful balance. (Something I'd suggest is inhibited by FPTP binaryism).
There should be basic safety standards for all homes (including the same owner-occupiers) where it affects others.. But ideally, Labour - or any Gov - should ensure that people have the capacity to earn [or receive housing payments] at levels sufficient to afford their accommodation, then they could choose whether they wanted space, sharing, luxury, or not - rather than the Council deciding for them.
So, if one wants to ensure people are not taken advantage of, fix the market, fix wages, and then people can decide. Then gov can intervene with gross violations (which they should), or unfair contracts, but not micromanage.
As a renter, if I want to rent out a box room and save money, or in my case share a room, it should be my choice, not the gov to say how I should live just because I'm poor. No gov would dare tell a homeowner what standard kitchen-top they should have! Yet the Council tell my landlord. And I have to pay for it through my rent.
Also, if one wants to give tenants choice, don't force long tenancies, encourage some of them by positive means, but allow a mixed market. For instance the proposals to force minimum terms completely ignore those who want to sublet a room, or those who want to trial a housemate.
Fixing the market is the issue - rather then trying to just fix prices. That goes to the heart of property and the practice of property ownership being commoditised, that's what inflates prices - it's pretty fundamental, it dictates every turn of the lives of most of us, from our schools, jobs, where we live, how much we work, what we do and our health.
No-one wants to tackle the heart of that thorny subject. Very hard.
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 ?
@PaulM Both the additive and multiplicative models can give odd results.
The additive can give negative shares if the previous share is less than the swing. The multiplicative can give shares greater than 100% if it is a big swing on top of a big previous share. I use a blend as you know.
However I realise that there is a flaw in my tactical model as I have Lab voting tactically for the LDs if the Labour vote is less than the LDs but this should only happen where the Tories are in the lead. It's happening in Bermondsey which is wrong. It is a bug! I'll sort it in the morning. It won't affect the number of Tory seats but might affect the split between Lab and LD seats. It will certainly affect the shares in Bermondsey.
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 sincerely hope if that comes to pass it doesn't apply to sharers! That would inflict even worst oppression on some - in the name of protecting others...
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 ?
@PaulM Both the additive and multiplicative models can give odd results.
The additive can give negative shares if the previous share is less than the swing. The multiplicative can give shares greater than 100% if it is a big swing on top of a big previous share. I use a blend as you know.
However I realise that there is a flaw in my tactical model as I have Lab voting tactically for the LDs if the Labour vote is less than the LDs but this should only happen where the Tories are in the lead. It's happening in Bermondsey which is wrong. It is a bug! I'll sort it in the morning. It won't affect the number of Tory seats but might affect the split between Lab and LD seats. It will certainly affect the shares in Bermondsey.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I've fixed the bug. It doesn't affect the seat totals but it does affect the shares in some constituencies. In Bermondsey it is now Con/Lab/LD 9/41/47. Still a LD gain but not a silly share. The problem wasn't the multiplicative model but the faulty tactical voting logic.
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
< 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.
If there is damage to a property, by a pet or some other cause, then the landlord can claim on the deposit to put right the damage.
I know that a minority of tenants can be difficult. They're probably the ones that would keep a pet even if told not to, so I don't see why preventing tenants who aren't unreasonable from keeping pets actually helps a landlord at all.
But as someone said earlier, most landlords are just following standard advice from agents who are behind most of the indignities faced by tenants - that's why tenants could do with having the assistance of the government on their side.
Perhaps true for commercial letting agencies, but not in reality for small personable landlords, or shared co-ops; having (as a tenant in a co-op) had to prepare rooms after tenants moved out - without notice and leaving their deposit to cover the last month, it's not so easy to get anything back.
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 ?
@PaulM Both the additive and multiplicative models can give odd results.
The additive can give negative shares if the previous share is less than the swing. The multiplicative can give shares greater than 100% if it is a big swing on top of a big previous share. I use a blend as you know.
However I realise that there is a flaw in my tactical model as I have Lab voting tactically for the LDs if the Labour vote is less than the LDs but this should only happen where the Tories are in the lead. It's happening in Bermondsey which is wrong. It is a bug! I'll sort it in the morning. It won't affect the number of Tory seats but might affect the split between Lab and LD seats. It will certainly affect the shares in Bermondsey.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Such an irony if LD win back Bermondsey and Old Southwark - the Bermondsey seat (as mostly was) was won by the Liberal's Simon Hughes from nowhere, from the clutches of Lab (after Bob Mellish retired). A dirty campaign ensued in 1983 when the new Lab candidate, one local resident - Australian-born Peter Tatchell, was homophobically and xenophobically attacked by the media (and then following the reports was physically attacked and had his house attacked). Ironic, because Simon Hughes won for the Libs on the back of the dirty campaign (some of his supporters wearing 'I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell' badges) decades later Simon Hughes revealed he himself was bisexual.
I'm not persuaded that this is a big thing tbh. Obviously with no movement in the polls, we all need to be persuaded that is a "big thing". It's like a Sky Sports commentator in a football game at 2-0 saying "the next five minutes are ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL". Probably not.
I expect a 1-1 draw or maybe a 2-1 win to Boris in the ITV debate. I expect the impact on the polls to be less than a rounding error.
Something sensational could happen. But it probably won't. A devastating knockout by Corbyn with Johnson bleeding on the floor in both the first and the second round is probably worth +2% to Labour. And this is on the dreamland end of the Labour spectrum....
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.
Get Brexit Done not enough for you?
I suppose he meant an actual implementable policy...
Ruth would have advised her not to answer any of STV's questions without a hefty payment in advance.
Aren’t you supposed to be canny, not catty ?
That ship sailed long ago.....mind you, you'd think they'd be careful casting nasturtiums what with the money Russia Today Program host, ex-leader and accused attempted rapist Salmond has been raking in...
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 ?
@PaulM Both the additive and multiplicative models can give odd results.
The additive can give negative shares if the previous share is less than the swing. The multiplicative can give shares greater than 100% if it is a big swing on top of a big previous share. I use a blend as you know.
However I realise that there is a flaw in my tactical model as I have Lab voting tactically for the LDs if the Labour vote is less than the LDs but this should only happen where the Tories are in the lead. It's happening in Bermondsey which is wrong. It is a bug! I'll sort it in the morning. It won't affect the number of Tory seats but might affect the split between Lab and LD seats. It will certainly affect the shares in Bermondsey.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I've fixed the bug. It doesn't affect the seat totals but it does affect the shares in some constituencies. In Bermondsey it is now Con/Lab/LD 9/41/47. Still a LD gain but not a silly share. The problem wasn't the multiplicative model but the faulty tactical voting logic.
Thanks Barnesian. Does beg another question on the model though. You "have Lab voting tactically for the LDs if the Labour vote is less than the LDs", but the determination is made AFTER accounting for the swing. In the event that Labour led the Lib Dems last time, is it reasonable to assume that the Labour voters would realise that the potential swing to the Lib Dems had put the LibDems in a better position and hence vote tactically ? I'm not so sure. Southport is perhaps an example of this in your model. Really appreciate the work you are putting into this, and I believe you are highlighting opportunities in the spreads seats market (Sell Con buy Lab)
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?
Question 3 is one Corbyn should be asking of Boris.
Or at least some form of it. As it stands it is silly because what kinds of access to which markets are we talking about? Johnson should know what kinds of access he himself wants. It's in Johnson's interest for "put Corbyn on the spot" to be the theme of the entire debate (because his own government is such a crock), but he's not going to be able to keep the spotlight entirely away from himself and his side for a whole hour. Also it looks highly aggressive and as if Johnson is trying to seize the mic from Julie Etchingham. Why doesn't he go the whole hog and play the role of the audience as well?
Edit: hasn't Johnson got the number of Tory candidates wrong? He says 635. I thought it was 631, i.e. for every constituency in GB minus Lindsay Hoyle's in Chorley.
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?
Question 3 is one Corbyn should be asking of Boris.
Or at least some form of it. As it stands it is silly because what kinds of access to which markets are we talking about? Johnson should know what kinds of access he himself wants. It's in Johnson's interest for "put Corbyn on the spot" to be the theme of the entire debate (because his own government is such a crock), but he's not going to be able to keep the spotlight entirely away from himself and his side for a whole hour. Also it looks highly aggressive and as if Johnson is trying to seize the mic from Julie Etchingham. Why doesn't he go the whole hog and play the role of the audience as well?
Edit: hasn't Johnson got the number of Tory candidates wrong? He says 635. I thought it was 631, i.e. for every constituency in GB minus Lindsay Hoyle's in Chorley.
OK I forgot the 4 Conservatives standing in NI. Take them into account and Johnson's figure is correct.
Looking at the front pages, Prince Andrew's PR strategy is going about as well as it did for Harry and Meghan a couple of months ago. Andrew's association with Epstein looks like it could be close to terminal, as backers can't distance themselves from him fast enough.
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?
Question 3 is one Corbyn should be asking of Boris.
Or at least some form of it. As it stands it is silly because what kinds of access to which markets are we talking about? Johnson should know what kinds of access he himself wants. It's in Johnson's interest for "put Corbyn on the spot" to be the theme of the entire debate (because his own government is such a crock), but he's not going to be able to keep the spotlight entirely away from himself and his side for a whole hour. Also it looks highly aggressive and as if Johnson is trying to seize the mic from Julie Etchingham. Why doesn't he go the whole hog and play the role of the audience as well?
Edit: hasn't Johnson got the number of Tory candidates wrong? He says 635. I thought it was 631, i.e. for every constituency in GB minus Lindsay Hoyle's in Chorley.
OK I forgot the 4 Conservatives standing in NI. Take them into account and Johnson's figure is correct.
There is no official Conservative candidate in Aberdeen North.
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.
The issue is that pets damage the property (in small ways) and can make it smell. Extra costs for the landlord
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.
The basic principle is the landlord owns the property and can rent it out on whatever terms they like
'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 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.
You still planning to facilitate them forming the next government?
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.
Great opportunity to accumulate a decent estate though
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.
Dog and cat pee bleached carpets
Tenant deposits likely won’t cover the cost of replacement. This is a credit risk for landlords (they won’t bother to sue in most cases). And there will be extended voids as you repair / replacev
Comments
I know that a minority of tenants can be difficult. They're probably the ones that would keep a pet even if told not to, so I don't see why preventing tenants who aren't unreasonable from keeping pets actually helps a landlord at all.
But as someone said earlier, most landlords are just following standard advice from agents who are behind most of the indignities faced by tenants - that's why tenants could do with having the assistance of the government on their side.
Unless you are suggesting the mortgage companies would be concerned about a cat knocking a wall down or something. Which ordinarily you have to tell your mortgage provider about if you decide to make alterations.
- There is clearly something badly wrong with the way the UK housing market works at the moment; and
- None of the other parties seem to have much of a clue how to resolve it*.
The Labour party plan to fix this will inevitably be wrong. But I'm usually as much of a free market liberal as the next guy, and even I can see that the way rental contracts are currently setup is stacked far too far in favour of the landlord. Nudging the scales back the other way a bit might well be good for everyone. Sticking a thumb on the tenant side would, I agree, be suboptimal.
*(other than the quietly brilliant Tory sleeper plan of exercising just enough downwards pressure on London prices to keep the market flat for the next decade or two and allow inflation to do the rest)
Lol.
There should be basic safety standards for all homes (including the same owner-occupiers) where it affects others.. But ideally, Labour - or any Gov - should ensure that people have the capacity to earn [or receive housing payments] at levels sufficient to afford their accommodation, then they could choose whether they wanted space, sharing, luxury, or not - rather than the Council deciding for them.
So, if one wants to ensure people are not taken advantage of, fix the market, fix wages, and then people can decide. Then gov can intervene with gross violations (which they should), or unfair contracts, but not micromanage.
As a renter, if I want to rent out a box room and save money, or in my case share a room, it should be my choice, not the gov to say how I should live just because I'm poor. No gov would dare tell a homeowner what standard kitchen-top they should have! Yet the Council tell my landlord. And I have to pay for it through my rent.
Also, if one wants to give tenants choice, don't force long tenancies, encourage some of them by positive means, but allow a mixed market. For instance the proposals to force minimum terms completely ignore those who want to sublet a room, or those who want to trial a housemate.
Fixing the market is the issue - rather then trying to just fix prices.
That goes to the heart of property and the practice of property ownership being commoditised, that's what inflates prices - it's pretty fundamental, it dictates every turn of the lives of most of us, from our schools, jobs, where we live, how much we work, what we do and our health.
No-one wants to tackle the heart of that thorny subject. Very hard.
The additive can give negative shares if the previous share is less than the swing. The multiplicative can give shares greater than 100% if it is a big swing on top of a big previous share. I use a blend as you know.
However I realise that there is a flaw in my tactical model as I have Lab voting tactically for the LDs if the Labour vote is less than the LDs but this should only happen where the Tories are in the lead. It's happening in Bermondsey which is wrong. It is a bug! I'll sort it in the morning. It won't affect the number of Tory seats but might affect the split between Lab and LD seats. It will certainly affect the shares in Bermondsey.
Thanks for pointing it out.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yIHH_ZtcH9w9JF5e8WwYD6QuhOhlVwCO_GboafT6kfc/edit?usp=sharing
If there is damage to a property, by a pet or some other cause, then the landlord can claim on the deposit to put right the damage.I know that a minority of tenants can be difficult. They're probably the ones that would keep a pet even if told not to, so I don't see why preventing tenants who aren't unreasonable from keeping pets actually helps a landlord at all.
But as someone said earlier, most landlords are just following standard advice from agents who are behind most of the indignities faced by tenants - that's why tenants could do with having the assistance of the government on their side.
Perhaps true for commercial letting agencies, but not in reality for small personable landlords, or shared co-ops; having (as a tenant in a co-op) had to prepare rooms after tenants moved out - without notice and leaving their deposit to cover the last month, it's not so easy to get anything back.
I expect a 1-1 draw or maybe a 2-1 win to Boris in the ITV debate. I expect the impact on the polls to be less than a rounding error.
Something sensational could happen. But it probably won't. A devastating knockout by Corbyn with Johnson bleeding on the floor in both the first and the second round is probably worth +2% to Labour. And this is on the dreamland end of the Labour spectrum....
https://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/default/files/elections_SOPNNOP_raywick.pdf
Really appreciate the work you are putting into this, and I believe you are highlighting opportunities in the spreads seats market (Sell Con buy Lab)
Edit: hasn't Johnson got the number of Tory candidates wrong? He says 635. I thought it was 631, i.e. for every constituency in GB minus Lindsay Hoyle's in Chorley.
Tenant deposits likely won’t cover the cost of replacement. This is a credit risk for landlords (they won’t bother to sue in most cases). And there will be extended voids as you repair / replacev