""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.""
I thought the Tories didn't like Gypsies, Travellers and so on? Shouldn't be encouraging them!
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
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.
By your own figures a third of properties are bought by cash buyers.
If the availability of credit disappears then what happens? Prices go down a bit and the cash buyers [landlords] get cheaper homes. Those struggling to get on the property ladder are not aided by shifting the balance in favour of cash buyers!
Personally I would like to get back on the property ladder but I can't buy a property for cash. If credit gets harder then landlords who buy for cash can get properties for cheaper in order to let them out increasing their profit margins. How is that good?
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
Save them at this election? That wouldn't be saving them for the long term though.....every day they lurch further to the batshit left.
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
They can only Revoke if they get a majority. If that happens there won't be any 'Leave voting' areas left.
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.
I don’t disagree. Is allowing their descendants to live in England on an equal footing a form of repayment?
I don’t see the exploitation of EU immigrants as much different. The same arguments are used to justify it. I’m sure slavery boosted a country’s GDP while widening the gap between rich and poor too
A lot of people claim freedom to live and work wherever they like is some kind of right, and that the people in the host country aren’t any More entitled to the fruits of said country than others. How does that work when it’s white Europeans raping and pillaging the land of Aborigines, Native Americans, Asians and Africans?
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
What's she done?
Unpicking cables good groundwork. Shes overreached and made it a cult of personality when the personality isn't popular. She appears to be living up to the negative predictions of a Swinson leadership posited a year or so ago
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?
Or is it ok when corporations do it?
German tenants have proper rights (including, usually, to keep pets) and I would expect property owned by German banks and pensions to be managed more professionally than by the bunch of greedy amateurs and chancers together with their crooked agents that we suffer here in the UK
Still, if Labour want to go on about reparations for past wrongs committed by the British establishment I look forward to their policy of paying reparations to us Catholics, with a special bonus for Irish Catholics, for all the wrongs done over three centuries - seizure of property without compensation, torture and execution, denial of the vote, denial of the right to make a living, denial of the right to practise their religion freely, famine etc etc......
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
Save them at this election? That wouldn't be saving them for the long term though.....every day they lurch further to the batshit left.
Yes but they could have been buried by Christmas. They now look at least likely to hold at about 200 seats thanks to Jo 'go back to your constituencies and prepare shrines to me' Swinson handing them votes
""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.""
That'll probably go down pretty well.
Of course the twatteri will be agast, but it'll play well frankly.
Still, if Labour want to go on about reparations for past wrongs committed by the British establishment I look forward to their policy of paying reparations to us Catholics, with a special bonus for Irish Catholics, for all the wrongs done over three centuries - seizure of property without compensation, torture and execution, denial of the vote, denial of the right to make a living, denial of the right to practise their religion freely, famine etc etc......
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
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.
You are right re help to buy - it is anti tenants/potential buyers but pro builders not pro landlords. My mistake on that one, was thinking about it from a tenants perspective.
If the loans that were unsustainable without government intervention had been called in, the big change would have seen prices cheaper leading to fewer renters, also the moral hazard of seeing big landlords go into bankruptcy would have changed the mindset of you cant lose buying houses.
Some of the UKAR portfolio are landlords with portfolios of hundreds of rented properties that are uneconomic and loss making. They have been in a zombie state for a decade or so, the landlords are often not allowed to sell parts of the portfolio without selling it all, which they do not want to do as it would crash the local market, and no-one is interested in buying the oversized unprofitable portfolios at market rates.
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.
or Totnes.....
My problem with Totnes is that I do not think a local poll would tell us much because Wollaston is not a good guide to whether the LDs are doing better in target seats than in the region as a whole. A better indicator may be one of the other SW targets like St Ives. I know we disagree on Wollaston's chances, but think we can probably agree that Totnes is atypical of both the region and LD targets.
Still, if Labour want to go on about reparations for past wrongs committed by the British establishment I look forward to their policy of paying reparations to us Catholics, with a special bonus for Irish Catholics, for all the wrongs done over three centuries - seizure of property without compensation, torture and execution, denial of the vote, denial of the right to make a living, denial of the right to practise their religion freely, famine etc etc......
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
On a similar theme, can we trace the ancestors of those who had their assets stripped after the Norman invasion?
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.
or Totnes.....
My problem with Totnes is that I do not think a local poll would tell us much because Wollaston is not a good guide to whether the LDs are doing better in target seats than in the region as a whole. A better indicator may be one of the other SW targets like St Ives. I know we disagree on Wollaston's chances, but think we can probably agree that Totnes is atypical of both the region and LD targets.
North Devon or North Cornwall is where the battle is. St. Ives likely lost by the Tories, Totnes likely lost by Wollaston.
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.
We provide a huge amount of foreign and development aid to countries where the slave trade existed is one answer to your question.
Personally I think that providing aid to those who need it now - not to those who are merely descendants of those who suffered in the past - and trying to stop present day slavery is far more moral and useful. And an intelligent response to our knowledge about the suffering in the past. Breast-beating about what happened in the past while doing nothing to help those suffering now is the worst type of narcissistic self-indulgence.
Teaching people about our history is the way to deal with the existence of houses built by slave owners.
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.
OK, but where do you draw the line? This focuses on events circa 1600's - 1834.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual? 2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
""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.""
Will these 'nuisance tenants' be able to leave these forced-labour camps, or will there be armed guards and watchtowers and stuff?
Still, if Labour want to go on about reparations for past wrongs committed by the British establishment I look forward to their policy of paying reparations to us Catholics, with a special bonus for Irish Catholics, for all the wrongs done over three centuries - seizure of property without compensation, torture and execution, denial of the vote, denial of the right to make a living, denial of the right to practise their religion freely, famine etc etc......
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
On a similar theme, can we trace the ancestors of those who had their assets stripped after the Norman invasion?
The educational practices of the English in Wales....... the Welsh Not, for example ........ require compensating for! And what happened to the Welsh royal silver?
I'm still thinking a lot about efficiency of vote share. Labour and LDs can afford to take some votes off of each other as long as they are in specific locations: if LDs in the North tactically vote Labour and Labour voters in the South tactically vote LD, their vote shares could be well below the 40% ceiling the Tories look like they have, but still prevent a Tory majority.
Still, if Labour want to go on about reparations for past wrongs committed by the British establishment I look forward to their policy of paying reparations to us Catholics, with a special bonus for Irish Catholics, for all the wrongs done over three centuries - seizure of property without compensation, torture and execution, denial of the vote, denial of the right to make a living, denial of the right to practise their religion freely, famine etc etc......
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
I'd like to see the Catholics repay the descendants of those who had to pay the Pope to pardon their 'sins' first.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours.
That's interesting, Nick, but that wording looks to me likely to cause a decade and millions of pounds to be spent on legal action? Does anyone know what it actually means? How is that enforcible, given the absolute right of Ts to exclude LLs from access by changing the locks and under Common Law?
Interested in the assertion that pet tenancies are declining. Until recently it had increased 25% in 5 years.
Presumably this is another artefact of the Tenant Fees Act, which took away most of the inexpensive risk management tools?
What will happen is that some properties will leave the market, tenant selection will become even more risk averse, and for the remainder it will become proceduralised as has happened with Build-to-Letters in that eg Legal and General charge a £350 fee and a £50 rental per pet per month, as they have done since they started.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
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.
A line has to be drawn, otherwise we all become prisoners of the acts of our ancestors. As Hartley said, 'the past is a foreign country'. Holding today's population responsible for the acts of their many times great grandparents is no different to holding us responsible for the actions of the current crop of foreign despots.
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.
OK, but where do you draw the line? This focuses on events circa 1600's - 1834.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual? 2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
John gonna get ya
Interestingly the Companies Act already lists as part of every company director's legal duty to 'Promote the success of the company' a requirement to have regard to 'the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment'.
That's not quite the same as this, but I do find it interesting that in theory the law already requires companies to be eco-concious but it is the practice/enforcement that doesn't match. In some ways McDonnell is being radical by promising to make reality match the letter of the law already.
You are right re help to buy - it is anti tenants/potential buyers but pro builders not pro landlords. My mistake on that one, was thinking about it from a tenants perspective.
If the loans that were unsustainable without government intervention had been called in, the big change would have seen prices cheaper leading to fewer renters, also the moral hazard of seeing big landlords go into bankruptcy would have changed the mindset of you cant lose buying houses.
Some of the UKAR portfolio are landlords with portfolios of hundreds of rented properties that are uneconomic and loss making. They have been in a zombie state for a decade or so, the landlords are often not allowed to sell parts of the portfolio without selling it all, which they do not want to do as it would crash the local market, and no-one is interested in buying the oversized unprofitable portfolios at market rates.
It is pro-tenants/potential buyers by lowering the deposit they require to get on the property ladder. How would increasing the deposit tenants/potential buyers require help them - and if they can get that increased deposit why do they not just buy an existing home rather than a new home?
The gainers from help to buy are those that use it: those buying and those selling.
The losers from help to buy are those not using it: landlords and existing home owners who see more houses constructed devaluing relatively the value of their home.
Nearly twice as many new homes are being built now than in 2013.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
John gonna get ya
Depending on how much financial clout those companies have that could see HMG (aka the tax payer) getting caught up in litigation for years?
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
“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.
I don’t disagree. Is allowing their descendants to live in England on an equal footing a form of repayment?
I don’t see the exploitation of EU immigrants as much different. The same arguments are used to justify it. I’m sure slavery boosted a country’s GDP while widening the gap between rich and poor too
A lot of people claim freedom to live and work wherever they like is some kind of right, and that the people in the host country aren’t any More entitled to the fruits of said country than others. How does that work when it’s white Europeans raping and pillaging the land of Aborigines, Native Americans, Asians and Africans?
(I should probably add that said country house was not in my family. Just realised that was ambiguous...)
IIRC Ta-Nehisi Coates has written about reparations from a US perspective, but I suspect whatever form an honest UK response took would have to be different from in the US, for (hopefully) obvious reasons. I don’t really know what form they ought to take - we can’t just throw a bag of money over the wall at a random group of dark-skinned people and say ”there you go, now please go away”. True reparations requires real engagement. “Truth and Reconciliation” style engagement maybe.
Anyway, I acknowledge that my thoughts on this are not entirely coherent. But I think that honest engagement with the issues raised by the idea of reparations is important & we should be thinking about it as a nation.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
That would be one way to ensure Frankfurt and Paris become the financial centres of Europe.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
John gonna get ya
I though Labour policy was to either Remain or at least stay in the single market? We diverge in some ways but EU capital market regulations wouldn’t allow that.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
John gonna get ya
Depending on how much financial clout those companies have that could see HMG (aka the tax payer) getting caught up in litigation for years?
How many of the 'targetted' firms will have shares held by pension funds, savings vehicles, insurance companies, overseas firms and individuals? It must be McDonnell's help for commercial lawyers programme. Perhaps the old fool might explain what 'adequate' means and over what sort of timescale.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
That would be one way to ensure Frankfurt and Paris become the financial centres of Europe.
Well - they didn't mention this to the CBI yesterday. Utter insanity.
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.
By your own figures a third of properties are bought by cash buyers.
If the availability of credit disappears then what happens? Prices go down a bit and the cash buyers [landlords] get cheaper homes. Those struggling to get on the property ladder are not aided by shifting the balance in favour of cash buyers!
Personally I would like to get back on the property ladder but I can't buy a property for cash. If credit gets harder then landlords who buy for cash can get properties for cheaper in order to let them out increasing their profit margins. How is that good?
I didn’t say it was good or bad. I said that you can’t ignore the price & availability of credit when you look at the housing market. It’s like only looking at two legs of a three-legged stool.
I'm still thinking a lot about efficiency of vote share. Labour and LDs can afford to take some votes off of each other as long as they are in specific locations: if LDs in the North tactically vote Labour and Labour voters in the South tactically vote LD, their vote shares could be well below the 40% ceiling the Tories look like they have, but still prevent a Tory majority.
Who knows but I think people are still assuming this election will play out like 2017 and at some point there will be a Labour/Jezza surge.
My own view is that people have pretty much made up their mind about this election already and a drop in support for Labour from low 30s back to 20s as happened in the 1983 campaign is just as likely as any further significant rise in Labour support before the end of the campaign.
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.
A line has to be drawn, otherwise we all become prisoners of the acts of our ancestors. As Hartley said, 'the past is a foreign country'. Holding today's population responsible for the acts of their many times great grandparents is no different to holding us responsible for the actions of the current crop of foreign despots.
One worry with the Ashfield candidate's plan to relocate 'nuisance tenants' to forced-labour camps is who decides whether the tenant is a nuisance or not. Will it be the landlord? If so, I can foresee malicious landlords informing on tenants who've had the temerity to complain about a faulty boiler. There's a potential can of worms here. Boris needs to assure the renters of Ashfield that, to them, habeas corpus will still apply.
You are right re help to buy - it is anti tenants/potential buyers but pro builders not pro landlords. My mistake on that one, was thinking about it from a tenants perspective.
If the loans that were unsustainable without government intervention had been called in, the big change would have seen prices cheaper leading to fewer renters, also the moral hazard of seeing big landlords go into bankruptcy would have changed the mindset of you cant lose buying houses.
Some of the UKAR portfolio are landlords with portfolios of hundreds of rented properties that are uneconomic and loss making. They have been in a zombie state for a decade or so, the landlords are often not allowed to sell parts of the portfolio without selling it all, which they do not want to do as it would crash the local market, and no-one is interested in buying the oversized unprofitable portfolios at market rates.
It is pro-tenants/potential buyers by lowering the deposit they require to get on the property ladder. How would increasing the deposit tenants/potential buyers require help them - and if they can get that increased deposit why do they not just buy an existing home rather than a new home?
The gainers from help to buy are those that use it: those buying and those selling.
The losers from help to buy are those not using it: landlords and existing home owners who see more houses constructed devaluing relatively the value of their home.
Nearly twice as many new homes are being built now than in 2013.
"Allowing" people to be saddled with extra debt is not helping them. Excluding them for a portion of the housing stock if they refuse to take on the extra debt is not helping them. CEOs of a traditional housebuilder, doing nothing innovative or special, earning £100m because of govt subsidies is a national disgrace not to mention waste of money.
We are not going to agree. In my world credit availability is the biggest driver of house prices. In yours it is supply and demand.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
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.
You are being mean here. All @Casino_Royale did was to own a property and rent it out to somebody who wanted to rent it. Both parties benefited. It's not rational to force him to make decisions that would make him poorer without there being some overriding need. I assume he was not a Rachman and treated his tenants reasonably, so I'm not convinced of the "overriding need" clause applying.
I think it was William Burroughs who said that all the problems in the world can be traced back to somebody interfering in somebody else's business. The older I get, the more I think he had a point...
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
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.
A line has to be drawn, otherwise we all become prisoners of the acts of our ancestors. As Hartley said, 'the past is a foreign country'. Holding today's population responsible for the acts of their many times great grandparents is no different to holding us responsible for the actions of the current crop of foreign despots.
Doesn't this tie in with the discussions over inheritance tax, though? Ancestor rights are apparently inviolable, but responsibilities are a big no-no?
Personally I'd concentrate on not making things worse in the present, before worrying about righting the wrongs of the past. There's the treatment of the Chagos Islanders, for example. If we manage to deal with that properly in the next few years then we might forestall calls for reparations from the Corbyn3000 politico-bot at the 2197 general election, "one more heave comrades!"
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
John gonna get ya
All private property is theft....they aren't even pretending now. If they get elected it will be full on Marxist stuff. We really need the Lib Dems to step up and be the sensible voice of the centre left.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
Lol ! Most of the pubic wouldn’t even know what delist entails and most could care less .
OK, but where do you draw the line? This focuses on events circa 1600's - 1834.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual? 2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally / literally impacted generations of people, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents, and the trauma from their grandparents on them.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
Lol ! Most of the pubic wouldn’t even know what delist entails and most could care less .
How many trillions of capital flight will it take before they finally do take notice?
One worry with the Ashfield candidate's plan to relocate 'nuisance tenants' to forced-labour camps is who decides whether the tenant is a nuisance or not. Will it be the landlord? If so, I can foresee malicious landlords informing on tenants who've had the temerity to complain about a faulty boiler. There's a potential can of worms here. Boris needs to assure the renters of Ashfield that, to them, habeas corpus will still apply.
Its already the case that many tenants daren’t complain about anything, for fear that the landlord will simply S21 them and get another tenant in.
Teaching people about our history is the way to deal with the existence of houses built by slave owners.
That would be a good start, I agree.
I note in passing that the education of both of my children completely ignored such things in favour of teaching them about Tudor monarchy several times over.
OK, but where do you draw the line? This focuses on events circa 1600's - 1834.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual? 2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
What's she done?
Unpicking cables good groundwork. Shes overreached and made it a cult of personality when the personality isn't popular. She appears to be living up to the negative predictions of a Swinson leadership posited a year or so ago
Certainly it was notable that most PB LibDems, myself included, voted for Davey.
My problem with Totnes is that I do not think a local poll would tell us much because Wollaston is not a good guide to whether the LDs are doing better in target seats than in the region as a whole. A better indicator may be one of the other SW targets like St Ives. I know we disagree on Wollaston's chances, but think we can probably agree that Totnes is atypical of both the region and LD targets.
North Devon or North Cornwall is where the battle is. St. Ives likely lost by the Tories, Totnes likely lost by Wollaston.
That sounds like good progress for the Lib Dems, Mr Mark. The other day, IIRC, you were telling us that Totnes was a dead cert for the Tories.
Teaching people about our history is the way to deal with the existence of houses built by slave owners.
That would be a good start, I agree.
I note in passing that the education of both of my children completely ignored such things in favour of teaching them about Tudor monarchy several times over.
That's been the case since the 70's if not before.
By the time children are of an age when you can explain the it in a way they can comprehend the horror, most are doing options and no longer do history.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
Lol ! Most of the pubic wouldn’t even know what delist entails and most could care less .
How many trillions of capital flight will it take before they finally do take notice?
These sorts of things really don’t resonate . The city moaning about Labour anyway just let’s them continue the us and them mantra .
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
Nope - it's Labour targeting the wavering green voters.
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.
By your own figures a third of properties are bought by cash buyers.
If the availability of credit disappears then what happens? Prices go down a bit and the cash buyers [landlords] get cheaper homes. Those struggling to get on the property ladder are not aided by shifting the balance in favour of cash buyers!
Personally I would like to get back on the property ladder but I can't buy a property for cash. If credit gets harder then landlords who buy for cash can get properties for cheaper in order to let them out increasing their profit margins. How is that good?
I didn’t say it was good or bad. I said that you can’t ignore the price & availability of credit when you look at the housing market. It’s like only looking at two legs of a three-legged stool.
But if you remove the availability of credit then that doesn't remove demand it just changes it. A potential buyer who is relying upon credit will still need a home if they can't get credit. All that will happen if credit is unavailable is that potential buyer will be forced to rent instead and the one third who can afford to buy with cash will buy the home instead and let to the potential buyer and make a profit that way. Long term demand is still the same, you just have more demand for rental rather than home ownership.
To extend the metaphor removing a leg from a stool hurts those who need the stool. Those who can cope on their own two feet without the stool [cash buyers] cope fine.
Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate
What's she done?
Unpicking cables good groundwork. Shes overreached and made it a cult of personality when the personality isn't popular. She appears to be living up to the negative predictions of a Swinson leadership posited a year or so ago
Certainly it was notable that most PB LibDems, myself included, voted for Davey.
The LDs have fallen into the same trap as Theresa May in thinking the election would be entirely about Brexit. They needed to develop other distinctive policies. Skills wallets and planting a few trees aren't going to cut it.
You are right re help to buy - it is anti tenants/potential buyers but pro builders not pro landlords. My mistake on that one, was thinking about it from a tenants perspective.
If the loans that were unsustainable without government intervention had been called in, the big change would have seen prices cheaper leading to fewer renters, also the moral hazard of seeing big landlords go into bankruptcy would have changed the mindset of you cant lose buying houses.
Some of the UKAR portfolio are landlords with portfolios of hundreds of rented properties that are uneconomic and loss making. They have been in a zombie state for a decade or so, the landlords are often not allowed to sell parts of the portfolio without selling it all, which they do not want to do as it would crash the local market, and no-one is interested in buying the oversized unprofitable portfolios at market rates.
It is pro-tenants/potential buyers by lowering the deposit they require to get on the property ladder. How would increasing the deposit tenants/potential buyers require help them - and if they can get that increased deposit why do they not just buy an existing home rather than a new home?
The gainers from help to buy are those that use it: those buying and those selling.
The losers from help to buy are those not using it: landlords and existing home owners who see more houses constructed devaluing relatively the value of their home.
Nearly twice as many new homes are being built now than in 2013.
"Allowing" people to be saddled with extra debt is not helping them. Excluding them for a portion of the housing stock if they refuse to take on the extra debt is not helping them. CEOs of a traditional housebuilder, doing nothing innovative or special, earning £100m because of govt subsidies is a national disgrace not to mention waste of money.
We are not going to agree. In my world credit availability is the biggest driver of house prices. In yours it is supply and demand.
People don't have to take on extra debt if they don't want it. They can purchase a non-new build, why don't they?
Traditional housebuilders are doing something special, they are increasing the housing stock. More companies can join in and do that too, again supply and demand.
Credit is a driver of house prices but if you restrict credit then who gains? Cash purchasers or those who needed credit that is now restricted? You forget to account for the fact a third of the market are cash purchasers and these include especially buy to let landlords.
Isn't "Get Brexit Done" free money? Even if they are planning to avoid stock phrases (who can forget the Maybot's "strong and stable"?), just force of habit will let at least one slip out.
Isn't "Get Brexit Done" free money? Even if they are planning to avoid stock phrases (who can forget the Maybot's "strong and stable"?), just force of habit will let at least one slip out.
Yes it probably is. Also 'Scotland' and 'Wales' look good on the short-odds bets.
You are right re help to buy - it is anti tenants/potential buyers but pro builders not pro landlords. My mistake on that one, was thinking about it from a tenants perspective.
If the loans that were unsustainable without government intervention had been called in, the big change would have seen prices cheaper leading to fewer renters, also the moral hazard of seeing big landlords go into bankruptcy would have changed the mindset of you cant lose buying houses.
Some of the UKAR portfolio are landlords with portfolios of hundreds of rented properties that are uneconomic and loss making. They have been in a zombie state for a decade or so, the landlords are often not allowed to sell parts of the portfolio without selling it all, which they do not want to do as it would crash the local market, and no-one is interested in buying the oversized unprofitable portfolios at market rates.
It is pro-tenants/potential buyers by lowering the deposit they require to get on the property ladder. How would increasing the deposit tenants/potential buyers require help them - and if they can get that increased deposit why do they not just buy an existing home rather than a new home?
The gainers from help to buy are those that use it: those buying and those selling.
The losers from help to buy are those not using it: landlords and existing home owners who see more houses constructed devaluing relatively the value of their home.
Nearly twice as many new homes are being built now than in 2013.
"Allowing" people to be saddled with extra debt is not helping them. Excluding them for a portion of the housing stock if they refuse to take on the extra debt is not helping them. CEOs of a traditional housebuilder, doing nothing innovative or special, earning £100m because of govt subsidies is a national disgrace not to mention waste of money.
We are not going to agree. In my world credit availability is the biggest driver of house prices. In yours it is supply and demand.
People don't have to take on extra debt if they don't want it. They can purchase a non-new build, why don't they?
Traditional housebuilders are doing something special, they are increasing the housing stock. More companies can join in and do that too, again supply and demand.
Credit is a driver of house prices but if you restrict credit then who gains? Cash purchasers or those who needed credit that is now restricted? You forget to account for the fact a third of the market are cash purchasers and these include especially buy to let landlords.
I would be very surprised if your typical buy to let landlord was a cash buyer.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Start with the premise that reparations for the holocaust is accepted practice and go from there.
For instance, outside of the generic stuff we should be doing for inequality, known decedents of slave owners should give some of their money to a fund that gives money to known decedents of slaves. This kind of mixes in with inheritance and tax there and stuff, but when slavery was ended slave owners were compensated for their loss of property when slaves were never compensated for their free labour. That money for some was inherited, built upon, and created multigenerational wealth and privilege. It is obviously complex, obviously personal, and some people will obviously think it is unfair on them. But we know intergenerational wealth has benefits, and one group of people benefited from the slave labour of another group of people, and the group who benefited from the labour were the ones who got given a cash buy out at the end.
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
Nope - it's Labour targeting the wavering green voters.
If the carbon neutral target moves from 2030 I can see a lot of Greens willing to vote tactically come back to the Greens. The speech from Gardiner made lots of Greens I know who were willing to back Lab in their seat due to the GND think twice. But they are also waiting to see what is in the final Lab manifesto.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Start with the premise that reparations for the holocaust is accepted practice and go from there.
For instance, outside of the generic stuff we should be doing for inequality, known decedents of slave owners should give some of their money to a fund that gives money to known decedents of slaves
If they're both, do they get to give money to themselves?
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
John gonna get ya
All private property is theft....they aren't even pretending now. If they get elected it will be full on Marxist stuff. We really need the Lib Dems to step up and be the sensible voice of the centre left.
La propriété, c'est le vol! is Proudhon not Marx. ie in the anarchist gradualism tradition not M-L communism.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Start with the premise that reparations for the holocaust is accepted practice and go from there.
For instance, outside of the generic stuff we should be doing for inequality, known decedents of slave owners should give some of their money to a fund that gives money to known decedents of slaves
If they're both, do they get to give money to themselves?
I mean, the decedents of slave owners who also happened to be decedents of slaves didn't tend to inherit the wealth. Look at the Cumberbatch family.
People don't have to take on extra debt if they don't want it. They can purchase a non-new build, why don't they?
Traditional housebuilders are doing something special, they are increasing the housing stock. More companies can join in and do that too, again supply and demand.
Credit is a driver of house prices but if you restrict credit then who gains? Cash purchasers or those who needed credit that is now restricted? You forget to account for the fact a third of the market are cash purchasers and these include especially buy to let landlords.
I would be very surprised if your typical buy to let landlord was a cash buyer.
Why? A third of purchases are for cash. Apart from those downsizing, or those who have paid off their mortgage and are now moving like-for-like who do you think is buying for cash?
Yes buy to let mortgages exist, but a lot of people who have money from other means whether businesses, lottery or whatever see buying to let to be a good investment for their cash.
The question isn't whether your typical buy to let landlord was a cash buyer anyway, the question is whether your typical cash buyer is or isn't a buy to let landlord. Which is more likely a cash buyer: someone independently wealthy buying to let - or a first time buyer getting on the property ladder?
Still, if Labour want to go on about reparations for past wrongs committed by the British establishment I look forward to their policy of paying reparations to us Catholics, with a special bonus for Irish Catholics, for all the wrongs done over three centuries - seizure of property without compensation, torture and execution, denial of the vote, denial of the right to make a living, denial of the right to practise their religion freely, famine etc etc......
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
On a similar theme, can we trace the ancestors of those who had their assets stripped after the Norman invasion?
We can probably assume that all people of European descent around today have the same ancestors 1000 or so years ago.
OK, but where do you draw the line? This focuses on events circa 1600's - 1834.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual? 2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally / literally impacted generations of people, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents, and the trauma from their grandparents on them.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
The story the thread is based on is a speech made a couple of months ago that has surfaced today because ... your guess is as good as mine. Maybe there's an election on.
There's bit of a difference between tracing that family X, lived in house Y, in town Z in Poland in 1940, still within living memory, and something inexact happened to someone untraceable in an unknown place two hundred years ago (or longer).
It's not to deny any of these things were awful, and yes we should acknowledge, and most importantly learn, but dragging the past up in the way that has been allegedly suggested by one party in this election, sticking a price tag on it, and saying "here's you bill", is going to enhance our communal happiness and well being how?
OK, but where do you draw the line? This focuses on events circa 1600's - 1834.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual? 2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Start with the premise that reparations for the holocaust is accepted practice and go from there.
For instance, outside of the generic stuff we should be doing for inequality, known decedents of slave owners should give some of their money to a fund that gives money to known decedents of slaves
If they're both, do they get to give money to themselves?
I mean, the decedents of slave owners who also happened to be decedents of slaves didn't tend to inherit the wealth. Look at the Cumberbatch family.
It was by no means unknown for children of slave-owners or overseers to be free and accepted by their (almost invariably) fathers. Are there any records of 'owners' wives or daughters becoming pregnant by 'handsome young West Africans'?
The Coral debate market about whether all male party leaders would wear their party colour ties was an unbelievable steal from times gone past
Interesting traditionally in America all politicians regardless of party tended to wear red ties in the debate. Any other colour was viewed as less patriotic.
Symbolism being that with a blue suit, red tie and white shirt they would have the red, white and blue of the flag.
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.
You are due no reparations for being a Yorkshireman.
If you're lucky enough to be a Yorkshireman, you're lucky enough.*
People don't have to take on extra debt if they don't want it. They can purchase a non-new build, why don't they?
Traditional housebuilders are doing something special, they are increasing the housing stock. More companies can join in and do that too, again supply and demand.
Credit is a driver of house prices but if you restrict credit then who gains? Cash purchasers or those who needed credit that is now restricted? You forget to account for the fact a third of the market are cash purchasers and these include especially buy to let landlords.
I would be very surprised if your typical buy to let landlord was a cash buyer.
Why? A third of purchases are for cash. Apart from those downsizing, or those who have paid off their mortgage and are now moving like-for-like who do you think is buying for cash?
Yes buy to let mortgages exist, but a lot of people who have money from other means whether businesses, lottery or whatever see buying to let to be a good investment for their cash.
The question isn't whether your typical buy to let landlord was a cash buyer anyway, the question is whether your typical cash buyer is or isn't a buy to let landlord. Which is more likely a cash buyer: someone independently wealthy buying to let - or a first time buyer getting on the property ladder?
I suspect it's neither - 90% plus of the people purchasing a property will be people moving.
It may just be me but I really don't see any upside in owning a BTL property at the moment.
Well said. Whatever our race, all of us will have ancestors that suffered (and benefitted) from heinous incidents in the past. We can and should learn from those, but we are not responsible for them.
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
I mean, I haven't read the story this thread is based on, but there is evidence that trauma literally changes the DNA of people, so when you have something like the slave trade or colonialism which was quite recent generationally, you can see the trauma on people from their grandparents.
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
You make a good case there, but still not convinced! Even if the moral side was there, the practical case for how you might do it is inevitably divisive and just dont think it would make the world a better place.
Start with the premise that reparations for the holocaust is accepted practice and go from there.
For instance, outside of the generic stuff we should be doing for inequality, known decedents of slave owners should give some of their money to a fund that gives money to known decedents of slaves. This kind of mixes in with inheritance and tax there and stuff, but when slavery was ended slave owners were compensated for their loss of property when slaves were never compensated for their free labour. That money for some was inherited, built upon, and created multigenerational wealth and privilege. It is obviously complex, obviously personal, and some people will obviously think it is unfair on them. But we know intergenerational wealth has benefits, and one group of people benefited from the slave labour of another group of people, and the group who benefited from the labour were the ones who got given a cash buy out at the end.
What if the slave owner descendent is destitute and the slave descended person is wondering which of his three Ferraris to take out for a spin today? What if they are in both groups?
This is just fraught with difficulty and plain wrong in concept.
eek said: "It may just be me but I really don't see any upside in owning a BTL property at the moment."
I agree, and have thought that for many years. Trouble is people seem attached to property ahead of, say, a share certificate in a property company or REIT.
Tangible property = illiquid, significant known and unknown maintainance costs, prohibitive stamp duty, CGT, legal fees, survey, problem tenants, rental agencies, insurance .........
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
Labour doing their best to lose another 40 seats this morning.....
Nope - it's Labour targeting the wavering green voters.
If the carbon neutral target moves from 2030 I can see a lot of Greens willing to vote tactically come back to the Greens. The speech from Gardiner made lots of Greens I know who were willing to back Lab in their seat due to the GND think twice. But they are also waiting to see what is in the final Lab manifesto.
It's worth noting we are talking about John's comment and not the Green Party Manifesto - this comment has once again done it's job.
I await with interest the Labour party's plans to recompense descendants of the victims of the 1190 York massacre at Clifford's Tower.
I think the Labour Party should recompense Iraq for the UK invasion it oversaw.
It seems reasonable that the financial penalty should be footed by the Labour Party itself -- or maybe those who voted for Blair.
A slightly larger bill for Nick Palmer might be in order -- as he voted for it in Parliament and defended it endlessly here on pb.com (although he is one of many who has changed his tune).
This has just appeared on the local Facebook page: 'A friend of mine has given up his time to move out to Africa to help save the endangered Vultures. He has given his time and money to this cause. As an ongoing effort to raise money for Vulpro there will be a spiritualist evening 22 November. All animal and ghost lovers welcome!!!'
Comments
If the availability of credit disappears then what happens? Prices go down a bit and the cash buyers [landlords] get cheaper homes. Those struggling to get on the property ladder are not aided by shifting the balance in favour of cash buyers!
Personally I would like to get back on the property ladder but I can't buy a property for cash. If credit gets harder then landlords who buy for cash can get properties for cheaper in order to let them out increasing their profit margins. How is that good?
I don’t see the exploitation of EU immigrants as much different. The same arguments are used to justify it. I’m sure slavery boosted a country’s GDP while widening the gap between rich and poor too
A lot of people claim freedom to live and work wherever they like is some kind of right, and that the people in the host country aren’t any More entitled to the fruits of said country than others. How does that work when it’s white Europeans raping and pillaging the land of Aborigines, Native Americans, Asians and Africans?
I am sure some of Corbyn’s Sinn Fein friends will be able to fill him on the details re Ireland and I am very willing to provide details of the many and varied ways in which Catholics on the mainland were ill treated by the British from the time of Henry VIII onwards, long before Britain got involved in the slave trade.
I mean, these historical wrongs should be compensated in the right order, no?
Or are Catholics the wrong type of victims in Dawn Butler’s mind (assuming she has one)?
Of course the twatteri will be agast, but it'll play well frankly.
If the loans that were unsustainable without government intervention had been called in, the big change would have seen prices cheaper leading to fewer renters, also the moral hazard of seeing big landlords go into bankruptcy would have changed the mindset of you cant lose buying houses.
Some of the UKAR portfolio are landlords with portfolios of hundreds of rented properties that are uneconomic and loss making. They have been in a zombie state for a decade or so, the landlords are often not allowed to sell parts of the portfolio without selling it all, which they do not want to do as it would crash the local market, and no-one is interested in buying the oversized unprofitable portfolios at market rates.
Personally I think that providing aid to those who need it now - not to those who are merely descendants of those who suffered in the past - and trying to stop present day slavery is far more moral and useful. And an intelligent response to our knowledge about the suffering in the past. Breast-beating about what happened in the past while doing nothing to help those suffering now is the worst type of narcissistic self-indulgence.
Teaching people about our history is the way to deal with the existence of houses built by slave owners.
1) What's that got to do with me as an individual?
2) What about other periods in history and other nations? Can we counter sue the Danes/Norwegians for all that Viking pillaging? Or the French for 1066? Except they weren't really French of course, which is another question. Or what about the Italians? All that wealth carted off to Italy for 400 years during the Roman occupation which you can still see the evidence of. How about Wales having all of England back please, that was taken by force?
There was terrible suffering during the slave trade of course,and judged through a 21st C prism it was 100% wrong, indeed many saw it as 100% wrong at the time and good for them, for they were right. We should do our bit too to acknowledge that slavery did happen and not airbrush it out of history but to say that we, now, should be financially liable is plain bat shit bonkers. It would open up pandora's box.
Good luck selling that on the doorsteps right now outside of deepest rich, hand wringing, metropolitania.
And what happened to the Welsh royal silver?
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1196504797886795776
Specifically the likelihood of:
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1196506381366550528
I'm still thinking a lot about efficiency of vote share. Labour and LDs can afford to take some votes off of each other as long as they are in specific locations: if LDs in the North tactically vote Labour and Labour voters in the South tactically vote LD, their vote shares could be well below the 40% ceiling the Tories look like they have, but still prevent a Tory majority.
I actually wrote that bit of the manifesto. I know Sue Hayman, the Shadow S of S well and made a bunch of suggestions for animal welfare which have made it into the policy: https://labour.org.uk/issues/animal-welfare-manifesto/
The proposal is to shift the default to "allow if no reasonable reason not to". Obviously if someone wants to keep 8 fierce dogs in a 1-room flat, the landlord can reasonably object that they're likely to disturb the neighbours.
That's interesting, Nick, but that wording looks to me likely to cause a decade and millions of pounds to be spent on legal action? Does anyone know what it actually means? How is that enforcible, given the absolute right of Ts to exclude LLs from access by changing the locks and under Common Law?
Interested in the assertion that pet tenancies are declining. Until recently it had increased 25% in 5 years.
Presumably this is another artefact of the Tenant Fees Act, which took away most of the inexpensive risk management tools?
What will happen is that some properties will leave the market, tenant selection will become even more risk averse, and for the remainder it will become proceduralised as has happened with Build-to-Letters in that eg Legal and General charge a £350 fee and a £50 rental per pet per month, as they have done since they started.
John gonna get ya
ps one quibble, dont think it will have any traction in metropolitania either.
That's not quite the same as this, but I do find it interesting that in theory the law already requires companies to be eco-concious but it is the practice/enforcement that doesn't match. In some ways McDonnell is being radical by promising to make reality match the letter of the law already.
The gainers from help to buy are those that use it: those buying and those selling.
The losers from help to buy are those not using it: landlords and existing home owners who see more houses constructed devaluing relatively the value of their home.
Nearly twice as many new homes are being built now than in 2013.
What the actual f??
NEW: John McDonnell says a Labour govt would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions
IIRC Ta-Nehisi Coates has written about reparations from a US perspective, but I suspect whatever form an honest UK response took would have to be different from in the US, for (hopefully) obvious reasons. I don’t really know what form they ought to take - we can’t just throw a bag of money over the wall at a random group of dark-skinned people and say ”there you go, now please go away”. True reparations requires real engagement. “Truth and Reconciliation” style engagement maybe.
Anyway, I acknowledge that my thoughts on this are not entirely coherent. But I think that honest engagement with the issues raised by the idea of reparations is important & we should be thinking about it as a nation.
My own view is that people have pretty much made up their mind about this election already and a drop in support for Labour from low 30s back to 20s as happened in the 1983 campaign is just as likely as any further significant rise in Labour support before the end of the campaign.
We are not going to agree. In my world credit availability is the biggest driver of house prices. In yours it is supply and demand.
'Green Industrial Revolution' @ 4.0
'Chlorinated Chicken' @ 4.0
'Zero Hours Contracts' @ 3.0
I think it was William Burroughs who said that all the problems in the world can be traced back to somebody interfering in somebody else's business. The older I get, the more I think he had a point...
Personally I'd concentrate on not making things worse in the present, before worrying about righting the wrongs of the past. There's the treatment of the Chagos Islanders, for example. If we manage to deal with that properly in the next few years then we might forestall calls for reparations from the Corbyn3000 politico-bot at the 2197 general election, "one more heave comrades!"
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190326-what-is-epigenetics
So historically recent and brutal traumas, from slavery, the holocaust, colonialism and genocides have more impact than the historical traumas of Roman conquest etc. From an economic sense we can also literally point to individuals / institutions which benefited from these recent things.
Just because past things that were bad but we can't right those wrongs anymore, doesn't mean recent crimes aren't. I assume most people here accept the idea of families of holocaust survivors getting back items their families owned that were stolen by the Nazis. From there it is just a case of saying what is recent enough, what links are provable, who is still feeling the impacts.
I note in passing that the education of both of my children completely ignored such things in favour of teaching them about Tudor monarchy several times over.
Certainly it was notable that most PB LibDems, myself included, voted for Davey.
By the time children are of an age when you can explain the it in a way they can comprehend the horror, most are doing options and no longer do history.
To extend the metaphor removing a leg from a stool hurts those who need the stool. Those who can cope on their own two feet without the stool [cash buyers] cope fine.
Traditional housebuilders are doing something special, they are increasing the housing stock. More companies can join in and do that too, again supply and demand.
Credit is a driver of house prices but if you restrict credit then who gains? Cash purchasers or those who needed credit that is now restricted? You forget to account for the fact a third of the market are cash purchasers and these include especially buy to let landlords.
For instance, outside of the generic stuff we should be doing for inequality, known decedents of slave owners should give some of their money to a fund that gives money to known decedents of slaves. This kind of mixes in with inheritance and tax there and stuff, but when slavery was ended slave owners were compensated for their loss of property when slaves were never compensated for their free labour. That money for some was inherited, built upon, and created multigenerational wealth and privilege. It is obviously complex, obviously personal, and some people will obviously think it is unfair on them. But we know intergenerational wealth has benefits, and one group of people benefited from the slave labour of another group of people, and the group who benefited from the labour were the ones who got given a cash buy out at the end.
"Certainly it was notable that most PB LibDems, myself included, voted for Davey."
I`m not a LibDem member - but would have voted for Davey. Orange booker.
Yes buy to let mortgages exist, but a lot of people who have money from other means whether businesses, lottery or whatever see buying to let to be a good investment for their cash.
The question isn't whether your typical buy to let landlord was a cash buyer anyway, the question is whether your typical cash buyer is or isn't a buy to let landlord. Which is more likely a cash buyer: someone independently wealthy buying to let - or a first time buyer getting on the property ladder?
There's bit of a difference between tracing that family X, lived in house Y, in town Z in Poland in 1940, still within living memory, and something inexact happened to someone untraceable in an unknown place two hundred years ago (or longer).
It's not to deny any of these things were awful, and yes we should acknowledge, and most importantly learn, but dragging the past up in the way that has been allegedly suggested by one party in this election, sticking a price tag on it, and saying "here's you bill", is going to enhance our communal happiness and well being how?
Are there any records of 'owners' wives or daughters becoming pregnant by 'handsome young West Africans'?
Symbolism being that with a blue suit, red tie and white shirt they would have the red, white and blue of the flag.
If you're lucky enough to be a Yorkshireman, you're lucky enough.*
*hat tip to the Irish.
It may just be me but I really don't see any upside in owning a BTL property at the moment.
This is just fraught with difficulty and plain wrong in concept.
How much lower can he fall?
I agree, and have thought that for many years. Trouble is people seem attached to property ahead of, say, a share certificate in a property company or REIT.
Tangible property = illiquid, significant known and unknown maintainance costs, prohibitive stamp duty, CGT, legal fees, survey, problem tenants, rental agencies, insurance .........
The Royalists caused dreadful suffering to the honest Puritans of Colchester during the Civil War.
It seems reasonable that the financial penalty should be footed by the Labour Party itself -- or maybe those who voted for Blair.
A slightly larger bill for Nick Palmer might be in order -- as he voted for it in Parliament and defended it endlessly here on pb.com (although he is one of many who has changed his tune).
I opposed the invasion, so I don't have to pay !
'A friend of mine has given up his time to move out to Africa to help save the endangered Vultures. He has given his time and money to this cause. As an ongoing effort to raise money for Vulpro there will be a spiritualist evening 22 November. All animal and ghost lovers welcome!!!'
Er........