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 .
Even more glorious is the original Corbynista thread author getting offended how many people identify with Henry ("Remain. Votes Lib Dem. Calls Corbyn supporters 'cultists'. Got a 24 hour Twitter suspension for telling Owen Jones to fuck off 3 times in the same hour").
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.
A cash buyer is typically not considered a buy to let landlord as buy to let originally referred to the mortage product rather than the landlord.
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
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.
A cash buyer is typically not considered a buy to let landlord as buy to let originally referred to the mortage product rather than the landlord.
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
I suspect the S21 changes on interest tax relief make those figures out of date. In which case I'm probably wrong and Philip is right about the number of cash purchase landlords.
It's still an utterly insane investment at current prices though.
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.
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.
A cash buyer is typically not considered a buy to let landlord as buy to let originally referred to the mortage product rather than the landlord.
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
A buy to let landlord is someone who buys a house to let it :-)
Relying on categories one or two decades out of date is not helping.
Attempting to subdivide is not really doable as a lot of people buy for cash to renovate, then take out a mortgage to recover a portion of their investment, which is perfectly normal.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
To whoever made the argument that customer service is great under privatisation:
Both train (Virgin) and bank (Natwest) issues I've lodged in last 2 weeks have had 15 working day limits on "getting to the right team"... Talking to human beings I have basically been told time and time again "these things take time, sorry for your inconvenience but there is nothing we can do" etc etc
The train issue was a cancelled train, meaning I missed a connection, so ~£40, the bank issue is an ATM that charged me for the money I wanted without giving me the money, so another £30. It really aggravated me that the ATM issue they didn't just immediately check the ATM cctv, see that the machine did not give me the money and immediately showed an out of order notice on it's screen and give me the money there and then. There has to be a full investigation to check and that takes time.
I cannot claim nationalisation would be better, but I can't vote out the people running these things, I don't really have options when it comes to trains and apparently this is the way all banks do things, so where does the goddamn market come in?
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.
A cash buyer is typically not considered a buy to let landlord as buy to let originally referred to the mortage product rather than the landlord.
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
A buy to let landlord is someone who buys a house to let it :-)
Relying on categories one or two decades out of date is not helping.
Attempting to subdivide is not really doable as a lot of people buy for cash to renovate, then take out a mortgage to recover a portion of their investment, which is perfectly normal.
Not according to the council of mortage lenders 2016 survey. They use non-BTL as their descriptor of cash buying landlords.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1914. Their grand children could be alive.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
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.
Thank goodness we're not taking any other actions that might encourage Frankfurters and Parisians to think that their cities might become the financial centres of Europe.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1914. Their grand children could be alive.
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.
A cash buyer is typically not considered a buy to let landlord as buy to let originally referred to the mortage product rather than the landlord.
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
Looking at that report, they define a BTL Landlord as "one with at least one mortgaged rental property", ie most will not be mortgaged, and that it is mid-2016 data, which is horribly out of date given the rate of change.
So even amongst BTL landlords non-mortgaged ownership seems to be the norm in this group.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
That was the last of the transatlantic trade (although now evidence of one living to 1937 is out there) I believe the last confirmed person born into slavery died in 1972 aged 110
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.
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.
A cash buyer is typically not considered a buy to let landlord as buy to let originally referred to the mortage product rather than the landlord.
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
Looking at that report, they define a BTL Landlord as "one with at least one mortgaged rental property", ie most will not be mortgaged, and that it is mid-2016 data, which is horribly out of date given the rate of change.
Their previous one was in 2004, so it may be a long wait for anything else as comprehensive becoming publicly available.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
That was the last of the transatlantic trade (although now evidence of one living to 1937 is out there) I believe the last confirmed person born into slavery died in 1972 aged 110
There are plenty of slaves across the globe in slavery today. That should be a bigger focus.
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 loss of proper. 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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1914. Their grand children could be alive.
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.
VM for you.
I've seen it and yes I did overstep the mark for which I'm sorry.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
That was the last of the transatlantic trade (although now evidence of one living to 1937 is out there) I believe the last confirmed person born into slavery died in 1972 aged 110
There are plenty of slaves across the globe in slavery today. That should be a bigger focus.
Yes, having spent some time in Mauritania I know for a fact slavery exists there today
My Greek great-grandfather was tortured to death by the Turks.
Do I apply direct to Boris for the reparations?
You can certainly apply to the Turkish government, as some of my ancestors were Huguenots I might also seek reparations from Macron for the Edict of Fontainebleu
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
Point still stands, this issue is not Romans, or Normans or Vikings. This is someones great grandfather (I knew my Great Nan well, she died at 102 when I was in my mid 20s).
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
That was the last of the transatlantic trade (although now evidence of one living to 1937 is out there) I believe the last confirmed person born into slavery died in 1972 aged 110
There are plenty of slaves across the globe in slavery today. That should be a bigger focus.
Yes, having spent some time in Mauritania I know for a fact slavery exists there today
Slavery has existed for ever and always will. Heck we usually see a prosecution or 2 in the UK every year.
Even more glorious is the original Corbynista thread author getting offended how many people identify with Henry ("Remain. Votes Lib Dem. Calls Corbyn supporters 'cultists'. Got a 24 hour Twitter suspension for telling Owen Jones to fuck off 3 times in the same hour").
My Greek great-grandfather was tortured to death by the Turks.
Do I apply direct to Boris for the reparations?
You can certainly apply to the Turkish government, as some of my ancestors were Huguenots I might also seek reparations from Macron for the Edict of Fontainebleu
We could also claim unpaid taxes from the 1450s to 1789 when the rightful king of France (the British monarch) was displaced by usurpers.
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.
I think the case for reparations for those who suffered in war and extreme injustice and their children is clear cut. Grand children, on balance I would probably support reparations, great grandchildren on balance I would probably not. Great great grandchildren and beyond I just think it gets too messy and complicated.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
The last US slave to die did so in 1935. Their grand children could be alive.
That was the last of the transatlantic trade (although now evidence of one living to 1937 is out there) I believe the last confirmed person born into slavery died in 1972 aged 110
There are plenty of slaves across the globe in slavery today. That should be a bigger focus.
Yes, having spent some time in Mauritania I know for a fact slavery exists there today
Slavery has existed for ever and always will. Heck we usually see a prosecution or 2 in the UK every year.
The sex and child trafficking industries are slavery of course
My Greek great-grandfather was tortured to death by the Turks.
Do I apply direct to Boris for the reparations?
You can certainly apply to the Turkish government, as some of my ancestors were Huguenots I might also seek reparations from Macron for the Edict of Fontainebleu
We could also claim unpaid taxes from the 1450s to 1789 when the rightful king of France (the British monarch) was displaced by usurpers.
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.
There is a TED Talk with Adam Rutherford (of Rutherford and Fry fame). And he presented an estimate of this date: the date at which everyone alive today of European descent shares genes with anyone alive at that date, as long as that person went on to have children.
My recollection of the details is sketchy but it was around 1000 years ago. We are all related to Charlemagne.
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
The LDs are facing a less severe version of the problem the CUKs had. You can't just say that you're sensible and that you're centrist and wait for the voters to run into your arms.
For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."
In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
The contrary, shows the conservatives full of energy in their 70s and the conservatives are not ageist
You would hope he had a few more friends with him when leafleting. Mind you someone took 2 pictures so he's not totally by himself unless the cameraman left for a cup of tea.
Mr McDonnell said that companies "not taking adequate steps" under a Labour government would find themselves delisted from the London Stock Exchange. He explained that this would be done by amending the corporate governance code.
How do people view the exclusion of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party from tonight’s debate?
The accepted wisdom is that this is bad for Jo Swinson and Nicola Sturgeon. I disagree. I think a lot of people will be put off by two male dinosaurs grunting at each other.
I think it's bad for JSwinson as she badly needs a shop window for a chance of a Cleggasm. I don't think it's bad for NSturgeon. She's pretty ubiquitous north of the border, and there's not much to be gained for her in addressing her points to those south of it.
Labour is putting forward one candidate of Indian heritage in the 2019 general election across its 39 safest seats. That is not going down well in the Leicester East seat, home to a large Indian community, where Keith Vaz is not seeking re-election. Politics Live reporter Greg Dawson spoke to people of Indian heritage about “strained” relations with the party they have traditionally supported.
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 .........
All of those in the last paragraph represent opportunities in the marketplace eg if you can do all your own renovation and maintenance to a professional standard. All of those allow better accommodation to be provided at a better price.
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
The LDs are facing a less severe version of the problem the CUKs had. You can't just say that you're sensible and that you're centrist and wait for the voters to run into your arms.
For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."
In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
I think it's worse than that. People pick the least worst candidate that has a chance of winning the seat and in most places (as demonstrated by 30 years of LD leaflets) it isn't the LD candidate.
So a lot of people will go into the booth and pick their least worst option from the Tory / Labour candidates.
The contrary, shows the conservatives full of energy in their 70s and the conservatives are not ageist
Someone has taught him how to use Twitter. Although he forgot the bit about hashtags.
The only thing I hate more than #hashtag #hashtag #livingmybestlife #morepointlessbollocks, is all the stupid emijos or political slogans into people's display names.
Either my (Now marginal) seat of Bassetlaw is atypical or Labour are starting their ground game late.
It's the same here. I've had one Tory and 1 Labour leaflet posted through the letterbox and yet with a postal vote I will probably have posted by the end of this week.
So Labour's election offering today is to spend millions of pounds of tax payers money paying compensation for things that happens 250 years ago as well as throwing companies off the London stock exchange if they aren't green enough... Not doubt leading to years of litigation between said companies and government wasting more millions of tax payers money.
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
The LDs are facing a less severe version of the problem the CUKs had. You can't just say that you're sensible and that you're centrist and wait for the voters to run into your arms.
For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."
In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
I think it's worse than that. People pick the least worst candidate that has a chance of winning the seat and in most places (as demonstrated by 30 years of LD leaflets) it isn't the LD candidate.
So a lot of people will go into the booth and pick their least worst option from the Tory / Labour candidates.
I actually want to do some more research and maybe write a header about this but my belief is that the LDs overestimate how much effect "lib dems can't win here" has on their overall vote share. Obviously it has some effect, but if the Cleese argument ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gv4Abt3sZU ) was correct you'd expect things like the Cleggasm or the most recent post-EU-election spike in lib dem support to be self-sustaining, and to keep snowballing after it reached critical mass. Instead it just fades away like bounces normally do.
""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.
Ashfeld Politics - loving it. Some intended irony in that video, I think.
The guy was a hugely locally popular Labour Councillor for years. Has a local FB group with 7k+ members.
He's now sending out Lib Dem style Bar Charts too:
So after a couple of days respite, the Lib Dem propaganda is again jamming up my letterbox.
Just emptied mine - I don't often but 7 pieces of tat (non from anyone else) in a seat they can't win suggests they're morons or have an unconstrained budget
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
Buy to let mortgage may be a type of mortgage, but its reasonable to use the term buy to let to cover any homes bought to be let out.
Your link says 'almost half' of landlords bought the homes that are let out with a mortgage, meaning a majority were bought for cash.
If a majority of landlords homes are bought with cash, yet cash purchases form only a third of sales and two thirds are with a mortgage then it implies quite reasonably that people buying their own home must by definition be significantly more than two thirds to make up the ratio.
Removing credit will help the majority of landlords that are buying with cash and hurt the overwhelming majority of aspiring property owners who are looking to not be tenants anymore.
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...
Epigenetics literally "doesn't" change the DNA of people. I am happy to believe that trauma-induced behaviour can be passed down, and that constraints regarding gene expression may also be, but that's different.
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.
VM for you.
I've seen it and yes I did overstep the mark for which I'm sorry.
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....
The past starts five minutes ago. Irish war of independence? 1910/20's Bengal famine? 1930s. Malay emergency? 1950s. Irish tortures? 1970s. Gulf War 2? 2010s. All those things are in living memory. If you are asking for a date-based cutoff, when would you place it?
This is why I don't believe in compensating the descendants (although you can make a case for the children of the dead).
Comments
https://twitter.com/SoozUK/status/1196063125570805761
Even more glorious is the original Corbynista thread author getting offended how many people identify with Henry ("Remain. Votes Lib Dem. Calls Corbyn supporters 'cultists'. Got a 24 hour Twitter suspension for telling Owen Jones to fuck off 3 times in the same hour").
This is a comprehensive breakdown of landlord types in the Uk from the LSE and Council of Mortgage Lenders.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/business-and-consultancy/consulting/assets/documents/The-Profile-of-UK-Private-Landlords.pdf
By number of landlords it is about half and half between buy to let and cash buyers, but btl has a higher percentage of homes and more expensive homes.
Leave it Jezza, they are not worth it....like some drunkards on a Saturday night having a punch up.
https://youtu.be/GOy7zTH2ARI?t=55
Do I apply direct to Boris for the reparations?
It's still an utterly insane investment at current prices though.
Relying on categories one or two decades out of date is not helping.
Attempting to subdivide is not really doable as a lot of people buy for cash to renovate, then take out a mortgage to recover a portion of their investment, which is perfectly normal.
Proper inheritance tax is surely a far better solution.
Both train (Virgin) and bank (Natwest) issues I've lodged in last 2 weeks have had 15 working day limits on "getting to the right team"... Talking to human beings I have basically been told time and time again "these things take time, sorry for your inconvenience but there is nothing we can do" etc etc
The train issue was a cancelled train, meaning I missed a connection, so ~£40, the bank issue is an ATM that charged me for the money I wanted without giving me the money, so another £30. It really aggravated me that the ATM issue they didn't just immediately check the ATM cctv, see that the machine did not give me the money and immediately showed an out of order notice on it's screen and give me the money there and then. There has to be a full investigation to check and that takes time.
I cannot claim nationalisation would be better, but I can't vote out the people running these things, I don't really have options when it comes to trains and apparently this is the way all banks do things, so where does the goddamn market come in?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researcher-identifies-last-american-woman-survive-african-slave-trade-180971879/
So even amongst BTL landlords non-mortgaged ownership seems to be the norm in this group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cudjoe_Lewis
Point still stands, this issue is not Romans, or Normans or Vikings. This is someones great grandfather (I knew my Great Nan well, she died at 102 when I was in my mid 20s).
My recollection of the details is sketchy but it was around 1000 years ago. We are all related to Charlemagne.
For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."
In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
Not worrying in the slightest...
Labour is putting forward one candidate of Indian heritage in the 2019 general election across its 39 safest seats. That is not going down well in the Leicester East seat, home to a large Indian community, where Keith Vaz is not seeking re-election. Politics Live reporter Greg Dawson spoke to people of Indian heritage about “strained” relations with the party they have traditionally supported.
The way we are going those benefits will be lost.
So a lot of people will go into the booth and pick their least worst option from the Tory / Labour candidates.
And the days not even half over yet!
The guy was a hugely locally popular Labour Councillor for years. Has a local FB group with 7k+ members.
He's now sending out Lib Dem style Bar Charts too:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1196763609680011266
Renting from landlords is one way this capital mismatch plays through.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/cancelling-further-cut-to-corporation-tax-rate-leaves-revenue-the-same-as-before-the-2008-crisis
Your link says 'almost half' of landlords bought the homes that are let out with a mortgage, meaning a majority were bought for cash.
If a majority of landlords homes are bought with cash, yet cash purchases form only a third of sales and two thirds are with a mortgage then it implies quite reasonably that people buying their own home must by definition be significantly more than two thirds to make up the ratio.
Removing credit will help the majority of landlords that are buying with cash and hurt the overwhelming majority of aspiring property owners who are looking to not be tenants anymore.
I appreciate that.
This is why I don't believe in compensating the descendants (although you can make a case for the children of the dead).
It's utterly nut, desperately clinging to grudges from the past.