The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
I was going to post something long winded about how easy it is to become an accidental landlord using the example of a relative who let out the family home for a couple of years while working in Saudi (a country they definitely would not be relocating to permanently!).
But fundamentally it doesn't matter. In this country we have property rights and the fact is of its your home you should be able to do what you like with it. Rent it out. Or don't. And if you don't want pets in it that's your right too.
I think that is unreasonable - I don`t think that this regularity is usual - but maybe I`m wrong. Thanks for your post and I`m very sad to hear of your quandary.
They arent extensive inspections tbf, just a look round, checklist and a photo of each room. Still feels a bit untrusting though.
Look at the 25 year graph here. Home ownership rates fell and fell continuously. After Help to Buy was introduced the fall in home ownership rates was halted and now home ownership rates have started to rise again. Funny that!
People struggling to buy a home are competing with buy to let landlords and others in the purchasing market. Help to buy aids those wanting to get their own home but does not aid landlords. Home builders wanting to sell a home are competing with existing homes and existing home owners [whether owner-occupiers or landlords]. Help to buy aids developers building new homes, it depresses the value of existing homes.
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
I had to rent, with a new-born child, next to a noisy train line, in a one-bed flat with crappy night storage heaters, an electric boiler that often stopped working, a roof that hilariously leaked, stuffed with the landlord's crap furniture that the agents had told us wouldn't be there, but not with the oven that they'd said would, up a steep flight of stairs that was not suitable for my wife to take our child's buggy down - but this was the *best* option available to us, and as rents were increasing strongly in the local area we effectively became trapped for the duration, until our circumstances changed and we were able to make a different choice.
So, yes, I would have loved your choices.
You could have moved and commuted.
There are always alternatives on the market.
I don’t find your Four Yorkshiremen act very convincing.
Yes, you are arguing in the abstract because you can’t deal with the complexity of reality.
It’s pretty pathetic really.
Nope - I've so far seen you admit to committing mortgage fraud (not making all information available to the valuer) and being happy to subject others to noise that you yourself were not will to subject yourself to.
The reason why I kept to the abstract was to avoid being personal but if you dislike the abstract I'm happy to point out what I see as major personality flaws.
Mr. Woolie, my sympathies, that sounds very stressful.
Surely the landlord/tenant situation just highlights that either one being a dick can cause huge problems for the other (reasonable) party?
Yeah. I dont want to risk it though in case it was the LL and complaining makes him say FU. I cant drive and my disability and health issues mean I couldn't do the lifting to move so I'd also have to fund a full moving service if I were evicted. I really am stuck here/need to stay here
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
Do you think Germany is a socially destroyed society, where almost half (used to be over half) of the population rent?
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.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
How does Help to Buy make a property 20% more expensive? New builds are in the same property market as the rest of the market and make a small percentage of the overall market. Supply and demand determines prices and we have ever more households and need more properties or prices must rise. More new builds = more supply of homes = lower prices.
Eliminating help to buy would not cause prices to drop 20% and if fewer homes got built as a result would likely send prices up not down. That's basic economics!
It boosts demand, hence boosting prices.
In the long term demand is constrained by population and and supply by quantity of houses. Births, divorces, migration they all boost demand. Help to buy does not.
If Help to Buy did not exist then where would the people using it live instead? On the streets? Or in rented accomodation?
They would be living in the same homes, having paid less, owing less, and the CEOs of the housebuilders would have been paid a typical FTSE package of 1-5 million rather than 110 million.
What evidence do you have of that? Homebuilders are earning more because more homes are being completed and sold than in the past, that is good news not bad. New build prices compete with existing homes prices and the more new homes are built the more prices fall not rise.
We could drive down the wages of the CEOs of the housebuilders quite easily by ensuring they stop building as many homes. That would constrain the supply of homes and increase the price of homes as existing homeowners would see the price of their existing homes rise! Great job!
Short of a creating a parallel universe I am not sure anything will convince you. However here is some reading if you are open to persuasion:
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
Do you think Germany is a socially destroyed society, where almost half (used to be over half) of the population rent?
Dura_Ace: "Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer."
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
Yes, you are arguing in the abstract because you can’t deal with the complexity of reality.
It’s pretty pathetic really.
Nope - I've so far seen you admit to committing mortgage fraud (not making all information available to the valuer) and being happy to subject others to noise that you yourself were not will to subject yourself to.
You what?
Be very careful what you next - you can either substantiate that (false) claim or withdraw it or I will raise this to the site editors, who have your real email address and mine.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of committing a criminal offence.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
If the LDs do gain just 3 Tory seats the Tories only need 16 gains from Labour assuming the SNP gain 5 Tory seats for a majority, a swing of just 1% from Labour on 2017 would do that
I think the LDs will gain far more from the Tories than that
The latest ICM and Deltapoll and Survation have a swing of just 3% from Tory to LD meaning just 3 LD gains from the Tories
This is an overall picture. It varies wildly by region, and the biggest swings to the LDs are in London and the SE, where there are most vulnerable seats (Richmond, Guildford, Lewes, Winchester, Wimbledon, City of London, St Albans etc). This picture was supported by the Guardian constituency poll articles at the weekend. What would be interesting would be constituency polls in places like Cheadle and Southport which could compare LD performance in local targets with the regional swing for those areas.
Look at the 25 year graph here. Home ownership rates fell and fell continuously. After Help to Buy was introduced the fall in home ownership rates was halted and now home ownership rates have started to rise again. Funny that!
People struggling to buy a home are competing with buy to let landlords and others in the purchasing market. Help to buy aids those wanting to get their own home but does not aid landlords. Home builders wanting to sell a home are competing with existing homes and existing home owners [whether owner-occupiers or landlords]. Help to buy aids developers building new homes, it depresses the value of existing homes.
Not quite - help to buy allows new house buyers to buy just new built homes. While New Built homes have usually always had a premium compared to old properties that premium is now far higher than it used to be thanks to Help to Buy.
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
I don't know as I don't read any of their crap, but there is an awful lot of it in Winchester. Put out the recycling bin this morning and about a third of it was LD leaflets and fake local papers.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
Disregarding the last sentence for a minute, this is utterly, utterly mad. Landlord/tenant is no more a master/slave relationship than shopkeeper/customer is. Now arguably there are numerous problems with the private rental market. But there is nothing wrong with the principle of such a market existing.
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
Do you think Germany is a socially destroyed society, where almost half (used to be over half) of the population rent?
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
Do you think Germany is a socially destroyed society, where almost half (used to be over half) of the population rent?
Isn't that property mostly corporately owned?
If it is, how does it pass Dura Ace’s test of the moral lapse of one citizen being in a position of power over another?
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
Disregarding the last sentence for a minute, this is utterly, utterly mad. Landlord/tenant is no more a master/slave relationship than shopkeeper/customer is.
That is obviously wrong.
Somewhere to live is one of the basic needs of human existence. Buying a thing in a shop is not.
On a continuum Landlord/Tenant is clearly closer to master/slave than shopkeeper/customer.
kyf_100 said: "But fundamentally it doesn't matter. In this country we have property rights and the fact is of its your home you should be able to do what you like with it. Rent it out. Or don't. And if you don't want pets in it that's your right too."
What an interesting thread. On one hand kyf_100 cites the primacy of property rights and Dura_Ace argues for no property rights at all.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
Disregarding the last sentence for a minute, this is utterly, utterly mad. Landlord/tenant is no more a master/slave relationship than shopkeeper/customer is.
That is obviously wrong.
Somewhere to live is one of the basic needs of human existence. Buying a thing in a shop is not.
On a continuum Landlord/Tenant is clearly close to master/slave than shopkeeper/customer.
Some goods in shops are necessities.
Renting no more makes one a slave than working for somebody else does.
The reason why the private rental market has become so contentious is because sustained ultra low interest rates has made it cheaper to buy in the short term as well as the long term.
I notice that monetary policy is not being discussed at this election.
If The Brexit Party was an unaccountable company under the direct control of one man it should go bust. What's that you say, it IS an unaccountable company under the direct control of one man?
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
Do you think Germany is a socially destroyed society, where almost half (used to be over half) of the population rent?
Isn't that property mostly corporately owned?
Does that make a difference?
It is easier to homogenise standards and for governments to enforce those if it is run mostly by corporates rather than individuals so yes it does make a big difference.
How does Help to Buy make a property 20% more expensive? New builds are in the same property market as the rest of the market and make a small percentage of the overall market. Supply and demand determines prices and we have ever more households and need more properties or prices must rise. More new builds = more supply of homes = lower prices.
Eliminating help to buy would not cause prices to drop 20% and if fewer homes got built as a result would likely send prices up not down. That's basic economics!
It boosts demand, hence boosting prices.
In the long term demand is constrained by population and and supply by quantity of houses. Births, divorces, migration they all boost demand. Help to buy does not.
If Help to Buy did not exist then where would the people using it live instead? On the streets? Or in rented accomodation?
They would be living in the same homes, having paid less, owing less, and the CEOs of the housebuilders would have been paid a typical FTSE package of 1-5 million rather than 110 million.
What evidence do you have of that? Homebuilders are earning more because more homes are being completed and sold than in the past, that is good news not bad. New build prices compete with existing homes prices and the more new homes are built the more prices fall not rise.
We could drive down the wages of the CEOs of the housebuilders quite easily by ensuring they stop building as many homes. That would constrain the supply of homes and increase the price of homes as existing homeowners would see the price of their existing homes rise! Great job!
Short of a creating a parallel universe I am not sure anything will convince you. However here is some reading if you are open to persuasion:
New home prices in this area seem to be unrelated either to the building cost or the cost of land. They do though, seem strongly related to what the maker will bear.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
Disregarding the last sentence for a minute, this is utterly, utterly mad. Landlord/tenant is no more a master/slave relationship than shopkeeper/customer is.
That is obviously wrong.
Somewhere to live is one of the basic needs of human existence. Buying a thing in a shop is not.
On a continuum Landlord/Tenant is clearly close to master/slave than shopkeeper/customer.
What a bizarre continuum to imagine up. I rented for 10 years and never felt like a slave. Childish language.
They would be living in the same homes, having paid less, owing less, and the CEOs of the housebuilders would have been paid a typical FTSE package of 1-5 million rather than 110 million.
What evidence do you have of that? Homebuilders are earning more because more homes are being completed and sold than in the past, that is good news not bad. New build prices compete with existing homes prices and the more new homes are built the more prices fall not rise.
We could drive down the wages of the CEOs of the housebuilders quite easily by ensuring they stop building as many homes. That would constrain the supply of homes and increase the price of homes as existing homeowners would see the price of their existing homes rise! Great job!
Short of a creating a parallel universe I am not sure anything will convince you. However here is some reading if you are open to persuasion:
The second link demonstrates my point. A developer tried to sell a home at a higher price, but the buyers realised they could get a better home at an alternative property. Because as I said new builds compete with existing properties. If a better cheaper home is available elsewhere in the market why wouldn't you take it? Logic dictates that if people could afford a property anyway that is better and cheaper they would always take that.
The first discredits the idea that there is a 20% premium too. It claims [and I'm sceptical about the data which isn't given] 'upto 20%' but the graph shows an average of 10%. 10% isn't good but even if that is real, which I'm sceptical about, if you spent years extra renting to save up a deposit then I bet that would cost over 10% more.
Don't forget for every year extra you spend renting instead of paying a mortgage you both have to pay more in rent AND the amount you need to save for your deposit continues to rise due to house price inflation.
PS New Builds have always had a premium over old homes precisely because they're new anyway. Is that included in the 10% average?
The reason why the private rental market has become so contentious is because sustained ultra low interest rates has made it cheaper to buy in the short term as well as the long term.
I notice that monetary policy is not being discussed at this election.
Monetary policy is one of the big drivers of division in the country. It has made the asset rich richer and workers poorer. As few people understand it, of course it doesnt get a mention and it is not in the interests of the elite to change it.
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
I don't know as I don't read any of their crap, but there is an awful lot of it in Winchester. Put out the recycling bin this morning and about a third of it was LD leaflets and fake local papers.
I am hopeful that Flick Drummond being selected for Meon Valley will cause a bit of damage to the Conservatives in Winchester. With her having moved her target nearer to Winchester she may get a bit of local media coverage which will be seen in Winchester. When she ran the local National Childbirth Trust in Winchester in the 90s (and pushed the Conservatives) she was widely reviled, not for her political views but for a personality which combined Penelope Keith and Katie Hopkins. Anyone over 50 should remember her and be driven screaming into the arms of any alternatives.
Dura_Ace: "Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer."
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
If we didn't have rental property what would people do while they saved a deposit for a home of their own? Live with their parents? Live in tents, assuming they found jobs in a city they didn't grow up in? What about people who move temporarily for work? Should they be forced to buy and sell a property every time they move across the country for another job?
The problem we have in the housing market is houses being so expensive people are effectively trapped in rented accommodation forever. Which is ironically more expensive than servicing a mortgage. This, again, is a function of house prices being too high due to a combination of planning permission restrictions and unchecked immigration. Build more houses. Supply will increase, prices will come down, more people will be able to get on the property ladder and increased supply will bring rental prices down. Its not rocket science.
Look at the 25 year graph here. Home ownership rates fell and fell continuously. After Help to Buy was introduced the fall in home ownership rates was halted and now home ownership rates have started to rise again. Funny that!
People struggling to buy a home are competing with buy to let landlords and others in the purchasing market. Help to buy aids those wanting to get their own home but does not aid landlords. Home builders wanting to sell a home are competing with existing homes and existing home owners [whether owner-occupiers or landlords]. Help to buy aids developers building new homes, it depresses the value of existing homes.
Not quite - help to buy allows new house buyers to buy just new built homes. While New Built homes have usually always had a premium compared to old properties that premium is now far higher than it used to be thanks to Help to Buy.
Even if there is a slight extra premium (as you say there was always a premium in the first place) then it is still more affordable than if you'd scrapped the scheme and got more people renting for longer and home developers building fewer homes.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
Disregarding the last sentence for a minute, this is utterly, utterly mad. Landlord/tenant is no more a master/slave relationship than shopkeeper/customer is.
That is obviously wrong.
Somewhere to live is one of the basic needs of human existence. Buying a thing in a shop is not.
On a continuum Landlord/Tenant is clearly close to master/slave than shopkeeper/customer.
What a bizarre continuum to imagine up. I rented for 10 years and never felt like a slave. Childish language.
I didn't say you were a slave, I said the relationship was closer than that of shopkeeper/customer.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
I had to rent, with a new-born child, next to a noisy train line, in a one-bed flat with crappy night storage heaters, an electric boiler that often stopped working, a roof that hilariously leaked, stuffed with the landlord's crap furniture that the agents had told us wouldn't be there, but not with the oven that they'd said would, up a steep flight of stairs that was not suitable for my wife to take our child's buggy down - but this was the *best* option available to us, and as rents were increasing strongly in the local area we effectively became trapped for the duration, until our circumstances changed and we were able to make a different choice.
So, yes, I would have loved your choices.
You could have moved and commuted.
There are always alternatives on the market.
I don’t find your Four Yorkshiremen act very convincing.
Yes. I'd done the commuting thing. Like I said, the option we chose was the best option for us.
You had a wider range of options. You made your choice, which gave you a better outcome then that available with the more constrained options that are available to private renters. Own your choice, don't play the victim.
Be very careful what you next - you can either substantiate that (false) claim or withdraw it or I will raise this to the site editors, who have your real email address and mine.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of committing a criminal offence.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
I had to rent, with a new-born child, next to a noisy train line, in a one-bed flat with crappy night storage heaters, an electric boiler that often stopped working, a roof that hilariously leaked, stuffed with the landlord's crap furniture that the agents had told us wouldn't be there, but not with the oven that they'd said would, up a steep flight of stairs that was not suitable for my wife to take our child's buggy down - but this was the *best* option available to us, and as rents were increasing strongly in the local area we effectively became trapped for the duration, until our circumstances changed and we were able to make a different choice.
So, yes, I would have loved your choices.
You could have moved and commuted.
There are always alternatives on the market.
I don’t find your Four Yorkshiremen act very convincing.
Yes. I'd done the commuting thing. Like I said, the option we chose was the best option for us.
You had a wider range of options. You made your choice, which gave you a better outcome then that available with the more constrained options that are available to private renters. Own your choice, don't play the victim.
Nope, wrong again. I’ve admitted and explained the situation to you repeatedly. You just don’t want to admit you’re wrong.
It shows a weakness in your character that is plain for all to see and fundamentally rather pathetic.
The viewing figures for these debates have been shrinking every time. Could be that we are at the point where what happens in the debates doesn’t really affect the outcome of the GE as much as politico’s think it should
wooliedyed said: "I'm not good with social or confrontational (in person, online its easy)"
I think the above is sadly true of many people and a reflection of social media in general. Maybe we should on this forum reflect on this before posting intemperate language? Just saying.
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
I don't know as I don't read any of their crap, but there is an awful lot of it in Winchester. Put out the recycling bin this morning and about a third of it was LD leaflets and fake local papers.
I am hopeful that Flick Drummond being selected for Meon Valley will cause a bit of damage to the Conservatives in Winchester. With her having moved her target nearer to Winchester she may get a bit of local media coverage which will be seen in Winchester. When she ran the local National Childbirth Trust in Winchester in the 90s (and pushed the Conservatives) she was widely reviled, not for her political views but for a personality which combined Penelope Keith and Katie Hopkins. Anyone over 50 should remember her and be driven screaming into the arms of any alternatives.
Penelope Keith as Margo in the Good Life is one my favourite ever sitcom characters, but I wouldn't like to live next door to, or even be canvassed by, a real one of her!
Butler must be mad. Announcing that we must all pay vast sums for the horrors of the 18th century (and that is what it means since we all pay taxes and have banks and businesses in our pension fund assets). But it is a bit tasteless insulting the KKK by comparing them to the Porky F'in Blunders.
I remember the time as a student my landlord took out a loan with the bank secured on the house we were renting and then the landlord defaulted on the loan and the bank repossessed the house and set an eviction date of 1 day before our final exams started.
And then our landlord implicitly threatened us with violence to extract money from us we didn't owe him.
Dura_Ace: "Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer."
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
On community size there was an interesting point, as part of an interesting article, about the size of community that could be meaningfully democratic, which they put at between 10-50 thousand people. The high-end of that range is, roughly, half a Westminster constituency.
isam said: "The viewing figures for these debates have been shrinking every time. Could be that we are at the point where what happens in the debates doesn’t really affect the outcome of the GE as much as politico’s think it should?"
I won`t watch them now. I find them so cringe-making and always unenlightening.
Conservatives propose all-life sentences for Child murderers.
Why is that not already the case?
Currently all murderers automatically get a life sentence, but the vast majority are eligible for parole after serving their minimum term, which is set by the courts.
The whole life sentence is reserved for serial killers, or murders with a sadistic or sexual motive.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
They would be living in the same homes, having paid less, owing less, and the CEOs of the housebuilders would have been paid a typical FTSE package of 1-5 million rather than 110 million.
What evidence do you have of that? Homebuilders are earning more because more homes are being completed and sold than in the past, that is good news not bad. New build prices compete with existing homes prices and the more new homes are built the more prices fall not rise.
We could drive down the wages of the CEOs of the housebuilders quite easily by ensuring they stop building as many homes. That would constrain the supply of homes and increase the price of homes as existing homeowners would see the price of their existing homes rise! Great job!
Short of a creating a parallel universe I am not sure anything will convince you. However here is some reading if you are open to persuasion:
The second link demonstrates my point. A developer tried to sell a home at a higher price, but the buyers realised they could get a better home at an alternative property. Because as I said new builds compete with existing properties. If a better cheaper home is available elsewhere in the market why wouldn't you take it? Logic dictates that if people could afford a property anyway that is better and cheaper they would always take that.
The first discredits the idea that there is a 20% premium too. It claims [and I'm sceptical about the data which isn't given] 'upto 20%' but the graph shows an average of 10%. 10% isn't good but even if that is real, which I'm sceptical about, if you spent years extra renting to save up a deposit then I bet that would cost over 10% more.
Don't forget for every year extra you spend renting instead of paying a mortgage you both have to pay more in rent AND the amount you need to save for your deposit continues to rise due to house price inflation.
House price deflation happens as well as inflation, past performance is no guarantee of future results, especially in a bubble asset.
When calculating costs of renting vs buying not many people include the asset yield on their savings if renting as well as cost of credit, cost of next move, maintenance if buying. Once those calculations are made it is generally cheaper to rent than buy in London (certainly at the middle to higher end) and has been for the last five years.
Dura_Ace: "Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer."
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
If we didn't have rental property what would people do while they saved a deposit for a home of their own? Live with their parents? Live in tents, assuming they found jobs in a city they didn't grow up in? What about people who move temporarily for work? Should they be forced to buy and sell a property every time they move across the country for another job?
The problem we have in the housing market is houses being so expensive people are effectively trapped in rented accommodation forever. Which is ironically more expensive than servicing a mortgage. This, again, is a function of house prices being too high due to a combination of planning permission restrictions and unchecked immigration. Build more houses. Supply will increase, prices will come down, more people will be able to get on the property ladder and increased supply will bring rental prices down. Its not rocket science.
We should have a private rental market. It just shouldnt be as big as it is, should be better regulated and we should remove all the government props and subsidies and let the market find a fair price, which would be significantly lower than it is now.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
I had to rent, with a new-born child, next to a noisy train line, in a one-bed flat with crappy night storage heaters, an electric boiler that often stopped working, a roof that hilariously leaked, stuffed with the landlord's crap furniture that the agents had told us wouldn't be there, but not with the oven that they'd said would, up a steep flight of stairs that was not suitable for my wife to take our child's buggy down - but this was the *best* option available to us, and as rents were increasing strongly in the local area we effectively became trapped for the duration, until our circumstances changed and we were able to make a different choice.
So, yes, I would have loved your choices.
You could have moved and commuted.
There are always alternatives on the market.
I don’t find your Four Yorkshiremen act very convincing.
Yes. I'd done the commuting thing. Like I said, the option we chose was the best option for us.
You had a wider range of options. You made your choice, which gave you a better outcome then that available with the more constrained options that are available to private renters. Own your choice, don't play the victim.
Nope, wrong again. I’ve admitted and explained the situation to you repeatedly. You just don’t want to admit you’re wrong.
It shows a weakness in your character that is plain for all to see and fundamentally rather pathetic.
Really?
I feel that your position demonstrates a fundamental lack of empathy that anyone could ever be in a worse position than you. It's absurd, but perhaps you're overreacting.
Be very careful what you next - you can either substantiate that (false) claim or withdraw it or I will raise this to the site editors, who have your real email address and mine.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of committing a criminal offence.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
In her view, they are part of "the system" and "the system" was an is institutionally racist, hence their blame.
It is the same sort of "they're all the same" that helped develop European superiority in the first place.
The viewing figures for these debates have been shrinking every time. Could be that we are at the point where what happens in the debates doesn’t really affect the outcome of the GE as much as politico’s think it should
And also, the politically engaged like those on this site are likely to jump to (often wrong) conclusions.
I remember recording the first Trump-Clinton debate and watching it without having read the comments on here. I thought they were much of a muchness. But when I came on here, the comments were largely "well he's definitely lost now".
Be very careful what you next - you can either substantiate that (false) claim or withdraw it or I will raise this to the site editors, who have your real email address and mine.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of committing a criminal offence.
Just putting it out there, it's #InternationalMensDay today.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Yup!
Year ago we lived in a flat, and wanted to sell. Put it up at the price the (first) estate agent suggested and got nothing. A year later, nothing and my wife suggested 'why don't we rent'. I told her absolutely not. We were selling (I didn't want the hassle). Switched estate agents who suggested a sale price approximately 15% lower, and told us there was a reason 'first' agent had a LOT of properties in his window. He had none.
We sold within 3 days, at the much lower price. Sure, we lost money but you know, no worth the hassle. Flat gone, no worries.
Neighbours in the other flats weren't happy as we'd just screwed them over (one guy had bought peak boom, and was now looking at a near 40% loss on his cost) but I view a home as a home.
One property. That's what I own. One property. My house. My home.
kyf_100 said: "But fundamentally it doesn't matter. In this country we have property rights and the fact is of its your home you should be able to do what you like with it. Rent it out. Or don't. And if you don't want pets in it that's your right too."
What an interesting thread. On one hand kyf_100 cites the primacy of property rights and Dura_Ace argues for no property rights at all.
The question for me is why we treat accommodation as a different class of property to anything else that can be privately owned.
If the government wants to intervene to force property owners to allow tenants to keep pets, why not intervene to allow smokers to light up in rental cars? The principle is the same. Both cause smell and damage.
If I rent out my house why should I not be allowed to attach stipulations to that rental? If I let you borrow a set of golf clubs off me it would be perfectly reasonable to stipulate you can only play golf with them, not use them as a hammer to put up a set of IKEA shelves.
That is fundamentally what property rights are about.
The second link demonstrates my point. A developer tried to sell a home at a higher price, but the buyers realised they could get a better home at an alternative property. Because as I said new builds compete with existing properties. If a better cheaper home is available elsewhere in the market why wouldn't you take it? Logic dictates that if people could afford a property anyway that is better and cheaper they would always take that.
The first discredits the idea that there is a 20% premium too. It claims [and I'm sceptical about the data which isn't given] 'upto 20%' but the graph shows an average of 10%. 10% isn't good but even if that is real, which I'm sceptical about, if you spent years extra renting to save up a deposit then I bet that would cost over 10% more.
Don't forget for every year extra you spend renting instead of paying a mortgage you both have to pay more in rent AND the amount you need to save for your deposit continues to rise due to house price inflation.
House price deflation happens as well as inflation, past performance is no guarantee of future results, especially in a bubble asset.
When calculating costs of renting vs buying not many people include the asset yield on their savings if renting as well as cost of credit, cost of next move, maintenance if buying. Once those calculations are made it is generally cheaper to rent than buy in London (certainly at the middle to higher end) and has been for the last five years.
Historically it would have been cheaper to buy.
I'm not familiar with the London market and no doubt its very different to here in the North West.
However either way long term the price of a home will be settled by demand [number of people wanting a home] and supply [number of homes available]. New builds increase supply and deflate the prices in the long term. More new builds will long term deflate prices by more.
Hence why property prices have in recent years largely stabilised and home ownership is currently rising not falling. That is good news is it not? Would anyone like to return to falling home ownership?
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
I don't know as I don't read any of their crap, but there is an awful lot of it in Winchester. Put out the recycling bin this morning and about a third of it was LD leaflets and fake local papers.
I am hopeful that Flick Drummond being selected for Meon Valley will cause a bit of damage to the Conservatives in Winchester. With her having moved her target nearer to Winchester she may get a bit of local media coverage which will be seen in Winchester. When she ran the local National Childbirth Trust in Winchester in the 90s (and pushed the Conservatives) she was widely reviled, not for her political views but for a personality which combined Penelope Keith and Katie Hopkins. Anyone over 50 should remember her and be driven screaming into the arms of any alternatives.
Penelope Keith as Margo in the Good Life is one my favourite ever sitcom characters, but I wouldn't like to live next door to, or even be canvassed by, a real one of her!
The joke in the NCT at the time was that if the Queen ever visited Winchester and met Drummond, the Queen would need to learn how to curtsey.
The viewing figures for these debates have been shrinking every time. Could be that we are at the point where what happens in the debates doesn’t really affect the outcome of the GE as much as politico’s think it should
I follow politics and I won't be watching them. And the spin that follows them is just ridiculous. Masses of heat, very little light.
Dura_Ace: "Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer."
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
If we didn't have rental property what would people do while they saved a deposit for a home of their own? Live with their parents? Live in tents, assuming they found jobs in a city they didn't grow up in? What about people who move temporarily for work? Should they be forced to buy and sell a property every time they move across the country for another job?
The problem we have in the housing market is houses being so expensive people are effectively trapped in rented accommodation forever. Which is ironically more expensive than servicing a mortgage. This, again, is a function of house prices being too high due to a combination of planning permission restrictions and unchecked immigration. Build more houses. Supply will increase, prices will come down, more people will be able to get on the property ladder and increased supply will bring rental prices down. Its not rocket science.
We should have a private rental market. It just shouldnt be as big as it is, should be better regulated and we should remove all the government props and subsidies and let the market find a fair price, which would be significantly lower than it is now.
What government props and subsidies are there to private rental market?
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Did she mention the East African slave trade and how all the oil rich countries will have to pay recompense?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
In her view, they are part of "the system" and "the system" was an is institutionally racist, hence their blame.
It is the same sort of "they're all the same" that helped develop European superiority in the first place.
And all the African and Arab traders who were involved in the slave trade, were they part of the system and equally responsible and will demands be made that they pay reparations too? Oh and will all those seized by North African raiders and turned into slaves be able to demand reparations too?
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Yup!
Year ago we lived in a flat, and wanted to sell. Put it up at the price the (first) estate agent suggested and got nothing. A year later, nothing and my wife suggested 'why don't we rent'. I told her absolutely not. We were selling (I didn't want the hassle). Switched estate agents who suggested a sale price approximately 15% lower, and told us there was a reason 'first' agent had a LOT of properties in his window. He had none.
We sold within 3 days, at the much lower price. Sure, we lost money but you know, no worth the hassle. Flat gone, no worries.
Neighbours in the other flats weren't happy as we'd just screwed them over (one guy had bought peak boom, and was now looking at a near 40% loss on his cost) but I view a home as a home.
One property. That's what I own. One property. My house. My home.
Who would have thought lowering the price would make it more likely to sell quicker...
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Did she mention the East African slave trade and how all the oil rich countries will have to pay recompense?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Sorry, but ... LOL.
And this is supposed to be a future party leader?
What about the Pyramids? I think they shoud be demolished as they are a monument to slave labour.
Mr. Albon, she might not be mad. She could just be intensely stupid.
Miss Cyclefree, no idea. Some sort of bizarre guilt fetish.
As a Yorkshireman, where do I submit my invoice for compensation for the Harrowing of the North? Or the Scottish raiding during the 12th century civil war between Empress Matilda and King Stephen?
It's demented to suggest that those who have committed no wrong should pay money to those who have suffered no wrong based on actions of their long dead ancestors.
On the political front, if I were any non-Labour strategist I'd be loudly condemning Butler's bonkers view.
The viewing figures for these debates have been shrinking every time. Could be that we are at the point where what happens in the debates doesn’t really affect the outcome of the GE as much as politico’s think it should
I’m minded to think it might have mattered, with Swinson, but if it’s Boris v. Corbyn then minds are made up and people will see what they want to see.
Contrary to the prevailing view on this site, and in line with the polls, a plurality quite likes Boris. At the same time Corbyn clearly has a fan club, and a vocal one at that.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Did she mention the East African slave trade and how all the oil rich countries will have to pay recompense?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Sorry, but ... LOL.
And this is supposed to be a future party leader?
Is she? Skybet go 50/1 against Dawn Butler as next leader, if that is what you think. Given that David Miliband is only 33/1, it is likely she is not widely "supposed to be a future party leader".
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Did she mention the East African slave trade and how all the oil rich countries will have to pay recompense?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Sorry, but ... LOL.
And this is supposed to be a future party leader?
What about the Pyramids? I think they shoud be demolished as they are a monument to slave labour.
As should be the Coliseum in Rome.
I hate to be pedantic (I dont actually ) but the pyramids were built according to current theory by paid labourers
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
If the LDs do gain just 3 Tory seats the Tories only need 16 gains from Labour assuming the SNP gain 5 Tory seats for a majority, a swing of just 1% from Labour on 2017 would do that
I think the LDs will gain far more from the Tories than that
The latest ICM and Deltapoll and Survation have a swing of just 3% from Tory to LD meaning just 3 LD gains from the Tories
This is an overall picture. It varies wildly by region, and the biggest swings to the LDs are in London and the SE, where there are most vulnerable seats (Richmond, Guildford, Lewes, Winchester, Wimbledon, City of London, St Albans etc). This picture was supported by the Guardian constituency poll articles at the weekend. What would be interesting would be constituency polls in places like Cheadle and Southport which could compare LD performance in local targets with the regional swing for those areas.
Dura_Ace: "Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer."
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
If we didn't have rental property what would people do while they saved a deposit for a home of their own? Live with their parents? Live in tents, assuming they found jobs in a city they didn't grow up in? What about people who move temporarily for work? Should they be forced to buy and sell a property every time they move across the country for another job?
The problem we have in the housing market is houses being so expensive people are effectively trapped in rented accommodation forever. Which is ironically more expensive than servicing a mortgage. This, again, is a function of house prices being too high due to a combination of planning permission restrictions and unchecked immigration. Build more houses. Supply will increase, prices will come down, more people will be able to get on the property ladder and increased supply will bring rental prices down. Its not rocket science.
We should have a private rental market. It just shouldnt be as big as it is, should be better regulated and we should remove all the government props and subsidies and let the market find a fair price, which would be significantly lower than it is now.
What government props and subsidies are there to private rental market?
Housing Benefit - £23bn in 2018-19 QE - £435bn specifically to boost asset prices Mortgage Loans - govt owned RBS and Lloyds, a big share of the buy to let market, allowed to be loss making for many years whilst still paying huge bonuses UK Asset Resolution - took on board £95bn of bad debt mortgages in 2010. Would otherwise have been distressed sales moving down the price of property. Help to Buy - as discussed
It is surprising how many are against govt handouts when it is for the less fortunate on points of economic and political principle but are quite happy with the above going to landlords.
Mr. Albon, she might not be mad. She could just be intensely stupid.
Miss Cyclefree, no idea. Some sort of bizarre guilt fetish.
As a Yorkshireman, where do I submit my invoice for compensation for the Harrowing of the North? Or the Scottish raiding during the 12th century civil war between Empress Matilda and King Stephen?
It's demented to suggest that those who have committed no wrong should pay money to those who have suffered no wrong based on actions of their long dead ancestors.
On the political front, if I were any non-Labour strategist I'd be loudly condemning Butler's bonkers view.
My great-grandfather was Shanghaied, how much can I expect?
The second link demonstrates my point. A developer tried to sell a home at a higher price, but the buyers realised they could get a better home at an alternative property. Because as I said new builds compete with existing properties. If a better cheaper home is available elsewhere in the market why wouldn't you take it? Logic dictates that if people could afford a property anyway that is better and cheaper they would always take that.
The first discredits the idea that there is a 20% premium too. It claims [and I'm sceptical about the data which isn't given] 'upto 20%' but the graph shows an average of 10%. 10% isn't good but even if that is real, which I'm sceptical about, if you spent years extra renting to save up a deposit then I bet that would cost over 10% more.
Don't forget for every year extra you spend renting instead of paying a mortgage you both have to pay more in rent AND the amount you need to save for your deposit continues to rise due to house price inflation.
House price deflation happens as well as inflation, past performance is no guarantee of future results, especially in a bubble asset.
When calculating costs of renting vs buying not many people include the asset yield on their savings if renting as well as cost of credit, cost of next move, maintenance if buying. Once those calculations are made it is generally cheaper to rent than buy in London (certainly at the middle to higher end) and has been for the last five years.
Historically it would have been cheaper to buy.
I'm not familiar with the London market and no doubt its very different to here in the North West.
However either way long term the price of a home will be settled by demand [number of people wanting a home] and supply [number of homes available]. New builds increase supply and deflate the prices in the long term. More new builds will long term deflate prices by more.
Hence why property prices have in recent years largely stabilised and home ownership is currently rising not falling. That is good news is it not? Would anyone like to return to falling home ownership?
The majority of house buyers buy with money borrowed from elsewhere - in 2018 it was about 2:1 mortgage:cash buyers. House prices are therefore strongly affected by the availability & price of credit offered to potential buyers. It’s a two-legged market that funnels money from willing lenders through willing buyers to sellers.
Demand is not just ”the number of people wanting a home”, it’s ”how much can those people borrow”. Indirectly, the banks decide how much house prices are by how willing they are to lend just as much buyers do by how much they are willing to borrow.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
I might sue....
If Boris had the wit he should ask Corbyn to condemn Ms Butler’s defamatory statement about all Tory party members during the debate tonight.
He should also ask him why he wants to copy China and Iran by putting the internet under the sole control of the state with his nationalising all internet providers policy.
All this rubbish about reparations for slavery is self-indulgent crap. There is slavery going on at the moment - in this country and in others - and that’s where our efforts should be focused not in indulging ignorant ahistorical guilt trips.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
I might sue....
If Boris had the wit he should ask Corbyn to condemn Ms Butler’s defamatory statement about all Tory party members during the debate tonight.
He should also ask him why he wants to copy China and Iran by putting the internet under the sole control of the state with his nationalising all internet providers policy.
All this rubbish about reparations for slavery is self-indulgent crap. There is slavery going on at the moment - in this country and in others - and that’s where our efforts should be focused not in indulging ignorant ahistorical guilt trips.
The viewing figures for these debates have been shrinking every time. Could be that we are at the point where what happens in the debates doesn’t really affect the outcome of the GE as much as politico’s think it should
And also, the politically engaged like those on this site are likely to jump to (often wrong) conclusions.
I remember recording the first Trump-Clinton debate and watching it without having read the comments on here. I thought they were much of a muchness. But when I came on here, the comments were largely "well he's definitely lost now".
Yes, everyone just thinks their side won. Problem is, a huge majority of voters aren’t taking any notice. I guess Mike might have a point in that most political punters are as over engaged as the commentators, so the betting on it exists in a kind of vacuum
Have the Lib Dems dropped revoking A50? Had a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate former MP Mark Williams here in Ceredigion today the only mention of Brexit is that he will protect farmers from a no deal Brexit
In Leave voting Powys maybe, in Remain voting London revoking A50 still very much LD policy
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Did she mention the East African slave trade and how all the oil rich countries will have to pay recompense?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Sorry, but ... LOL.
And this is supposed to be a future party leader?
Is she? Skybet go 50/1 against Dawn Butler as next leader, if that is what you think. Given that David Miliband is only 33/1, it is likely she is not widely "supposed to be a future party leader".
'next' leader is not 'future' leader.. I believe shes thinking of running for deputy leader as well.
She's one of the 'inner' circle, see how often shes next to Corb on the front benches
Mr. Cookie, humans are capable of huge amounts of cognitive dissonance.
I recall Mr. T posting about some young friends (20s) he had, who were drinking expensive champagne and extolling the virtues of Corbynism, as if the rich were not themselves.
Isn't it also possible to have some money and not be a completely selfish twat?
The second link demonstrates my point. A developer tried to sell a home at a higher price, but the buyers realised they could get a better home at an alternative property. Because as I said new builds compete with existing properties. If a better cheaper home is available elsewhere in the market why wouldn't you take it? Logic dictates that if people could afford a property anyway that is better and cheaper they would always take that.
Don't forget for every year extra you spend renting instead of paying a mortgage you both have to pay more in rent AND the amount you need to save for your deposit continues to rise due to house price inflation.
House price deflation happens as well as inflation, past performance is no guarantee of future results, especially in a bubble asset.
Historically it would have been cheaper to buy.
I'm not familiar with the London market and no doubt its very different to here in the North West.
However either way long term the price of a home will be settled by demand [number of people wanting a home] and supply [number of homes available]. New builds increase supply and deflate the prices in the long term. More new builds will long term deflate prices by more.
Hence why property prices have in recent years largely stabilised and home ownership is currently rising not falling. That is good news is it not? Would anyone like to return to falling home ownership?
The majority of house buyers buy with money borrowed from elsewhere - in 2018 it was about 2:1 mortgage:cash buyers. House prices are therefore strongly affected by the availability & price of credit offered to potential buyers. It’s a two-legged market that funnels money from willing lenders through willing buyers to sellers.
Demand is not just ”the number of people wanting a home”, it’s ”how much can those people borrow”. Indirectly, the banks decide how much house prices are by how willing they are to lend just as much buyers do by how much they are willing to borrow.
What is this 20% premium thing? Newbuild over older stock? Arguably it should be - and iirc it was around 7% in the noughties - given that new stock is about half the cost to heat etc, but buyers don't give a hoot about the underlying value of a thing. And quality control by Building Control etc is appallingly poor - wander around a new estate with a thermal camera this winter.
And a significant chunk of the price of a new house is spent on roads and schools and Doctors and maintaining lampposts in 20 years time, and adds little or no value to the house itself, which is what people mainly buy on.
Try getting extra money for a house with solar panels. They are more likely to reduce it.
""In a video posted to his campaign Facebook page on Sunday, Anderson told voters of his plan to evict "nuisance tenants" that have been bothering residents in the area.
"People say to me, 'but they've got to live somewhere'. That's right, so my plan would be, and again this is just my own personal opinion, is that these people who have to live somewhere, let's have them in a tent, in the middle of a field.
"Six o'clock every morning, let's have them up, let's have them in the field, picking potatoes or any other seasonal vegetables, back in the tent, cold shower, lights out, six o'clock, same again the next day. That would be my solution.""
What government props and subsidies are there to private rental market?
Housing Benefit - £23bn in 2018-19 QE - £435bn specifically to boost asset prices Mortgage Loans - govt owned RBS and Lloyds, a big share of the buy to let market, allowed to be loss making for many years whilst still paying huge bonuses UK Asset Resolution - took on board £95bn of bad debt mortgages in 2010. Would otherwise have been distressed sales moving down the price of property. Help to Buy - as discussed
It is surprising how many are against govt handouts when it is for the less fortunate on points of economic and political principle but are quite happy with the above going to landlords.
How does Help to Buy help landlords? It hurts landlords.
Help to Buy literally hurts landlords three ways, remembering of course that landlords can't use Help to Buy, they are specifically excluded.
Firstly if as you claim there is a price premium on the cost of new builds due to Help to Buy then landlords have to pay that premium just as much as first time buyers/movers do. Your own evidence suggests help to buy hurts them. Secondly if more first time buyers/movers can afford a home landlords have to compete with them, increasing their costs. Finally if more first time buyers buy a home that means fewer tenants for a landlord to let to.
As for your other examples distressed sales are fantastic for landlords. Who do you think buys distressed sales? Landlords get to get a firesale propety to add to their portfolio.
Why? Perhaps she could name which of the many banks existing now were in existence at the time when slavery was around and the money they made from it. Ditto with businesses.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
Did she mention the East African slave trade and how all the oil rich countries will have to pay recompense?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Sorry, but ... LOL.
And this is supposed to be a future party leader?
“Those guys over there did the bad thing too!” is not a good look.
We took the slave trade and turned it into an engine of destruction out of which certain parts of the country made huge profits. I walked past a beautiful country house in Shropshire last year which had been in the family ever since the C18th. It was bought with money made in the slave trade.
These monuments to cruelty are all around us, yet we choose to ignore them & pretend that we owe nothing to the people we exploited. I don’t know what form reparations ought to take, but I do believe that a moral country would make some effort to improve the lot of the descendants of those we exploited. How to do that without turning it into a rolling ball of recrimination and resentment that never really ends is the difficult part, but I believe we ought to try anyway.
Comments
But fundamentally it doesn't matter. In this country we have property rights and the fact is of its your home you should be able to do what you like with it. Rent it out. Or don't. And if you don't want pets in it that's your right too.
Look at the 25 year graph here. Home ownership rates fell and fell continuously. After Help to Buy was introduced the fall in home ownership rates was halted and now home ownership rates have started to rise again. Funny that!
People struggling to buy a home are competing with buy to let landlords and others in the purchasing market. Help to buy aids those wanting to get their own home but does not aid landlords.
Home builders wanting to sell a home are competing with existing homes and existing home owners [whether owner-occupiers or landlords]. Help to buy aids developers building new homes, it depresses the value of existing homes.
There are always alternatives on the market.
I don’t find your Four Yorkshiremen act very convincing.
Might be more a shift in emphasis than change of policy?
The reason why I kept to the abstract was to avoid being personal but if you dislike the abstract I'm happy to point out what I see as major personality flaws.
I cant drive and my disability and health issues mean I couldn't do the lifting to move so I'd also have to fund a full moving service if I were evicted. I really am stuck here/need to stay here
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/10089081/first-time-buyers-help-to-buy-pay-more-new-homes/
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-6107805/Are-developers-inflating-prices-homes-sold-Help-Buy.html
I fucking love your posts. There is a real cut-out-and-keep quality to them.
You hark for collectivism of some sort. Appeals to nature of the type that say "humans are by nature communal" are right with regard to hunter-gatherers in collectives of, say, 300 individuals or less (as typical of a tribe) when everyone knows each other, but fail (IMO) when we live cheek-by-jowel with thousands and millions of people the vast majority of which we don`t know.
That`s how it seems to me. Anyone an anthropologist?
Be very careful what you next - you can either substantiate that (false) claim or withdraw it or I will raise this to the site editors, who have your real email address and mine.
I don’t take kindly to being accused of committing a criminal offence.
Now arguably there are numerous problems with the private rental market. But there is nothing wrong with the principle of such a market existing.
Or is it ok when corporations do it?
Somewhere to live is one of the basic needs of human existence. Buying a thing in a shop is not.
On a continuum Landlord/Tenant is clearly closer to master/slave than shopkeeper/customer.
Ladbrokes, Coral, SkyBet and BetFred have the Tories at 5/4. Unibet and 888Sport have them at 2/1. And apparently available at 13/5 with Smarkets.
Labour at 4/7 with Ladbrokes, Coral, SkyBet and BetFred.
With the Smarkets price that's an 8.5% underround. (If you're happy to discount LD, PC, TBP & UKIP chances)
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats-wales
What an interesting thread. On one hand kyf_100 cites the primacy of property rights and Dura_Ace argues for no property rights at all.
Renting no more makes one a slave than working for somebody else does.
I notice that monetary policy is not being discussed at this election.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1196730982340186112?s=20
The first discredits the idea that there is a 20% premium too. It claims [and I'm sceptical about the data which isn't given] 'upto 20%' but the graph shows an average of 10%. 10% isn't good but even if that is real, which I'm sceptical about, if you spent years extra renting to save up a deposit then I bet that would cost over 10% more.
Don't forget for every year extra you spend renting instead of paying a mortgage you both have to pay more in rent AND the amount you need to save for your deposit continues to rise due to house price inflation.
PS New Builds have always had a premium over old homes precisely because they're new anyway. Is that included in the 10% average?
https://twitter.com/NJamesWorld/status/1196717500710490112
The problem we have in the housing market is houses being so expensive people are effectively trapped in rented accommodation forever. Which is ironically more expensive than servicing a mortgage. This, again, is a function of house prices being too high due to a combination of planning permission restrictions and unchecked immigration. Build more houses. Supply will increase, prices will come down, more people will be able to get on the property ladder and increased supply will bring rental prices down. Its not rocket science.
You had a wider range of options. You made your choice, which gave you a better outcome then that available with the more constrained options that are available to private renters. Own your choice, don't play the victim.
It shows a weakness in your character that is plain for all to see and fundamentally rather pathetic.
Mike Powell (Independent) - Pontypridd constituency.
He could win.
I think the above is sadly true of many people and a reflection of social media in general. Maybe we should on this forum reflect on this before posting intemperate language? Just saying.
And then our landlord implicitly threatened us with violence to extract money from us we didn't owe him.
That was awesome.
I won`t watch them now. I find them so cringe-making and always unenlightening.
The whole life sentence is reserved for serial killers, or murders with a sadistic or sexual motive.
Worth noting that her statement about supporters of Boris Johnson being like Klu Klux Klan members is potentially defamatory. It is possible to defame someone without identifying them personally if they can still be clearly identified as part of a group.
When calculating costs of renting vs buying not many people include the asset yield on their savings if renting as well as cost of credit, cost of next move, maintenance if buying. Once those calculations are made it is generally cheaper to rent than buy in London (certainly at the middle to higher end) and has been for the last five years.
Historically it would have been cheaper to buy.
I feel that your position demonstrates a fundamental lack of empathy that anyone could ever be in a worse position than you. It's absurd, but perhaps you're overreacting.
It is the same sort of "they're all the same" that helped develop European superiority in the first place.
I remember recording the first Trump-Clinton debate and watching it without having read the comments on here. I thought they were much of a muchness. But when I came on here, the comments were largely "well he's definitely lost now".
Year ago we lived in a flat, and wanted to sell. Put it up at the price the (first) estate agent suggested and got nothing. A year later, nothing and my wife suggested 'why don't we rent'. I told her absolutely not. We were selling (I didn't want the hassle). Switched estate agents who suggested a sale price approximately 15% lower, and told us there was a reason 'first' agent had a LOT of properties in his window. He had none.
We sold within 3 days, at the much lower price. Sure, we lost money but you know, no worth the hassle. Flat gone, no worries.
Neighbours in the other flats weren't happy as we'd just screwed them over (one guy had bought peak boom, and was now looking at a near 40% loss on his cost) but I view a home as a home.
One property. That's what I own. One property. My house. My home.
If the government wants to intervene to force property owners to allow tenants to keep pets, why not intervene to allow smokers to light up in rental cars? The principle is the same. Both cause smell and damage.
If I rent out my house why should I not be allowed to attach stipulations to that rental? If I let you borrow a set of golf clubs off me it would be perfectly reasonable to stipulate you can only play golf with them, not use them as a hammer to put up a set of IKEA shelves.
That is fundamentally what property rights are about.
However either way long term the price of a home will be settled by demand [number of people wanting a home] and supply [number of homes available]. New builds increase supply and deflate the prices in the long term. More new builds will long term deflate prices by more.
Hence why property prices have in recent years largely stabilised and home ownership is currently rising not falling. That is good news is it not? Would anyone like to return to falling home ownership?
Or the compensation that one lot of tribes who enslaved another lot od tribes will be paying?
Sorry, but ... LOL.
And this is supposed to be a future party leader?
As should be the Coliseum in Rome.
Miss Cyclefree, no idea. Some sort of bizarre guilt fetish.
As a Yorkshireman, where do I submit my invoice for compensation for the Harrowing of the North? Or the Scottish raiding during the 12th century civil war between Empress Matilda and King Stephen?
It's demented to suggest that those who have committed no wrong should pay money to those who have suffered no wrong based on actions of their long dead ancestors.
On the political front, if I were any non-Labour strategist I'd be loudly condemning Butler's bonkers view.
Contrary to the prevailing view on this site, and in line with the polls, a plurality quite likes Boris. At the same time Corbyn clearly has a fan club, and a vocal one at that.
QE - £435bn specifically to boost asset prices
Mortgage Loans - govt owned RBS and Lloyds, a big share of the buy to let market, allowed to be loss making for many years whilst still paying huge bonuses
UK Asset Resolution - took on board £95bn of bad debt mortgages in 2010. Would otherwise have been distressed sales moving down the price of property.
Help to Buy - as discussed
It is surprising how many are against govt handouts when it is for the less fortunate on points of economic and political principle but are quite happy with the above going to landlords.
Demand is not just ”the number of people wanting a home”, it’s ”how much can those people borrow”. Indirectly, the banks decide how much house prices are by how willing they are to lend just as much buyers do by how much they are willing to borrow.
He should also ask him why he wants to copy China and Iran by putting the internet under the sole control of the state with his nationalising all internet providers policy.
All this rubbish about reparations for slavery is self-indulgent crap. There is slavery going on at the moment - in this country and in others - and that’s where our efforts should be focused not in indulging ignorant ahistorical guilt trips.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1196740619483467777
It's a view I suppose...
I hope they were paid a fair living wage.
She's one of the 'inner' circle, see how often shes next to Corb on the front benches
And a significant chunk of the price of a new house is spent on roads and schools and Doctors and maintaining lampposts in 20 years time, and adds little or no value to the house itself, which is what people mainly buy on.
Try getting extra money for a house with solar panels. They are more likely to reduce it.
"People say to me, 'but they've got to live somewhere'. That's right, so my plan would be, and again this is just my own personal opinion, is that these people who have to live somewhere, let's have them in a tent, in the middle of a field.
"Six o'clock every morning, let's have them up, let's have them in the field, picking potatoes or any other seasonal vegetables, back in the tent, cold shower, lights out, six o'clock, same again the next day. That would be my solution.""
Do you think he would have made it onto Cameron's A-list?
(Though, under Cameron, the closest the Tories came to winning Ashfield was defeat by 11.5pp)
Help to Buy literally hurts landlords three ways, remembering of course that landlords can't use Help to Buy, they are specifically excluded.
Firstly if as you claim there is a price premium on the cost of new builds due to Help to Buy then landlords have to pay that premium just as much as first time buyers/movers do. Your own evidence suggests help to buy hurts them.
Secondly if more first time buyers/movers can afford a home landlords have to compete with them, increasing their costs.
Finally if more first time buyers buy a home that means fewer tenants for a landlord to let to.
As for your other examples distressed sales are fantastic for landlords. Who do you think buys distressed sales? Landlords get to get a firesale propety to add to their portfolio.
We took the slave trade and turned it into an engine of destruction out of which certain parts of the country made huge profits. I walked past a beautiful country house in Shropshire last year which had been in the family ever since the C18th. It was bought with money made in the slave trade.
These monuments to cruelty are all around us, yet we choose to ignore them & pretend that we owe nothing to the people we exploited. I don’t know what form reparations ought to take, but I do believe that a moral country would make some effort to improve the lot of the descendants of those we exploited. How to do that without turning it into a rolling ball of recrimination and resentment that never really ends is the difficult part, but I believe we ought to try anyway.