On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
The Lib Dems would do well to manage their candidates list to ensure a suitable leader is an MP after the next election. I know just the person as it happens.
I still expect a by the fingernails majority for the Tories at the next election. But the shine will truly be off by the election after. And the Lib Dems have to be in a position to give a proper alternative if Labour still haven’t sorted themselves out but then, or at least a suitable non-Nat counterweight to a coalition/minority Labour govt.
Who do you have in mind?
Personally, I rather like Ed Davey, and he was a very good minister. I also think that the LDs need some continuity, indeed should have stuck with Tim Farron after 2017. 4 leaders in 4 years is too much, even if politics accelerated between 2016 and now, with everyone bar SNP changing leaders constantly.
Labour are going at the crap tax angle. LibDems going at the crap services angle. Davey has skin in the game - the LibDem social care act was binned by the Tories in 2015 and he personally is a carer.
As it becomes blindingly obvious that the front line NHS cuts pre-covid are so much worse and not improving, this will gain traction. Ultimately the party backed a tax increase so attacking it seems silly. Attack that it is being spent on nothing. Glad I voted for Ed.
I have been back at work a week, and it is like a different world. The NHS is on its knees, and sinking further. The contrast between outside where people are ignoring covid and inside where covid is still causing chaos is chalk and cheese.
While money may help the biggest problems in tackling the backlogs are staff shortages, skill shortages and physical capacity. I have serious doubts about whether it is fixable at all.
This is where previous annual refrains of crisis and collapse prove to be damaging - your word I and others will take seriously, but for a public told every winter that the NHS is on the edge, well, of course they are not unduly concerned as it seems like normal warnings.
I see Kier Starmer has made the tough choice and said the £12 billion should have been raise from Landlords instead. Sigh, no that won't affect supply of private rental housing at all, or rents charged. But I suppose all that matters that a hard decision was avoided and bad people would pay more tax and lets not think beyond that. After it's not as if he would actually do that.
Seems unlikely.
From the point of view of the property market, if landlords sell up, it will either be to other landlords or people buying houses to live in themselves. Short of blowing up the ex BTL homes or leaving them empty, the supply-demand balance won't change much. Most people don't want to rent a home, they'd rather buy and the key commodity is "somewhere to live" not "somewhere to rent". Not all, but most.
Also, landlords don't set rents on the basis of 'costs+return'. (Evidence: we rented Casa Romford out while we were temporarily up north.) It's pure supply-demand and 'charge as much as you can get away with'. If costs go up, the landlord will probably have to suck it up.
Which is probably fair enough. Buying a house and renting it out is a pretty good approximation to solid return for minimal effort. That's why we all find it attractive and frankly why it should be discouraged. Just imagine all that capital invested in making new stuff.
Besides, the opposition are in Opposition. Their plans don't happen, and mostly that's awful for a politician. Swerving round the sharper edges of consequences is one of the few compensations.
There must be a non-negligible risk that going after landlords leads to a fall in house prices. Now, I would t have a problem with that, indeed, I’d welcome it. But the government most certainly wouldn’t.
A few months ago, Tony Blair said that you must never say that you’d do something that you know you wouldn’t. I’m fairly sure Labour wouldn’t go after landlords as they’d know that a house price crash would be utterly catastrophic for a lot of people in this country, the economy, and public finances.
Depends on how far and how fast they fall. If it’s 50% in 48 hours, agreed. If it’s 15% over two years, I think the negative consequences would probably be quite small.
That said, I’m not sure how much equity to mortgage there is at the moment. My anecdotal impression is that with the tightening of lending it’s higher than it was, but does anyone have the figures? Because that obviously has a major bearing on the effect of a house price adjustment.
Actually, an overnight fall would be preferable. If prices fall steadily, then lenders won’t lend.
Not necessarily if they were falling slowly although I accept they might demand a larger deposit to hedge against a fall in value.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Texas will be absolutely solid for the Republicans in 2022, as it is mid-term. I don't see how Texas could seriously be in play until 2028 at the earliest.
£12 billion raised from the rental sector, will cut supply. Some may go boo hoo, less rental properties more places to buy. all very well if you have a deposit and a good credit score, but for people who need rental properties well not so good. A little slice of life from the Isle of Wight. The boom in DFL's (down from London) buying property on the Island has put fire into the local property scene. Large properties traditionally take ages to sell on the Island. But instead of 1 year plus they have been going in weeks. This has seen a flurry of people launching property onto the market at all levels. My sister who runs her own letting agency has seen incredible competition from renters for any half decent property. People are losing homes as landlords are taking the opportunity to sell and there is much less rental property around. So decline in supply will effect rents charged.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
That's what I thought. Theres enough bad leasehold flats for sale, why don't the Council just buy them.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
That's what I thought. Theres enough bad leasehold flats for sale, why don't the Council just buy them.
Especially since many of them are bad leasehold due to the actions of local councils…
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
Are they really demanding it or asking it in terms darkage disapproves of? They have no powers to demand it so presumably simply the latter....of course don't hand it over if you don't want to.
The devil will be in the detail for such deals but to make it worthwhile probably requires a premium paid by the council of 6-12 months rent for a 3 year deal, and for the council to guarantee rents.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
Are they really demanding it or asking it in terms darkage disapproves of? They have no powers to demand it so presumably simply the latter....of course don't hand it over if you don't want to.
The devil will be in the detail for such deals but to make it worthwhile probably requires a premium paid by the council of 6-12 months rent for a 3 year deal, and for the council to guarantee rents.
Given how inefficient their maintenance teams are, I still wouldn’t be interested. Not unless they also gave me a blank cheque (literally, gave me a blank, post dated cheque) that I could use to pay for the extensive dilapidations at the end.
As to Texas, the new Abortion laws are even crazier than you think. The provide a $10,000 bounty to anyone who sues anyone who has or provides assistance to have a abortion. There will soon a scrum of stories about women being sued and shamed publicly in the courts for having abortions. If you think this is going to go well with women voters I have news for you. One commentator has put it as the trick to Republican anti abortion laws was that they would be struck down by the supreme court, all the glory with no price to pay. But with a stacked Supreme court well all sorts of batshit laws will get through and soon have a very public effect.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Is that because evictions are allowed again?
Evictions may be playing a role. But I would guess that it is because private landlords are fleeing the low end of the market, doing up their properties and either selling them or getting significantly higher rents via local estate agents. So the market isn't providing for the low end of the market in the way that it used to, when there was reliable income for poor quality housing and not much in the way of regulation to worry about.
The only answer to this until wider housing supply issues are addressed is more money on new Council housing; essentially a bottomless money pit.
£12 billion raised from the rental sector, will cut supply. Some may go boo hoo, less rental properties more places to buy. all very well if you have a deposit and a good credit score, but for people who need rental properties well not so good. A little slice of life from the Isle of Wight. The boom in DFL's (down from London) buying property on the Island has put fire into the local property scene. Large properties traditionally take ages to sell on the Island. But instead of 1 year plus they have been going in weeks. This has seen a flurry of people launching property onto the market at all levels. My sister who runs her own letting agency has seen incredible competition from renters for any half decent property. People are losing homes as landlords are taking the opportunity to sell and there is much less rental property around. So decline in supply will effect rents charged.
As someone else ably pointed out, the supply of housing won't go down, because those properties still exist. If the number of rental properties reduce they must be finding their way onto the for sale market. Increasing supply will reduce house prices, meaning people with smaller savings and worse credit will cross the threshold of being able to afford.
I see Kier Starmer has made the tough choice and said the £12 billion should have been raise from Landlords instead. Sigh, no that won't affect supply of private rental housing at all, or rents charged. But I suppose all that matters that a hard decision was avoided and bad people would pay more tax and lets not think beyond that. After it's not as if he would actually do that.
Possibly it would affect the supply.
But speaking as somebody who is both a landlord and in full time employment, do you think it is better for the economy as a whole if I am (a) incentivised to reduce the amount of work I do or (b) sell my rental property?
I know which one I think it is…
But will you be able able to raise the amount from such a tax. The thing about NI and PAYE and VAT is that they are broad based and relatively simple and cheap to raise.
I’m curious as to why they didn’t put up vat with appropriate protection for the less well off. I suppose it could temporarily feed into inflation but policy makers should look at RPIX anyway
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Although more could probably be done to support older people especially with early stage dementia in their own homes.
What was it @Foxy (I think) once said - somebody who has lived in a place for years may forget whether they had lunch but not where their fridge is.
I think that is already being done and we brought my late father in law out of dementia care and looked after him at our home until he died here
We did receive good social care support, and when I said to one of the support workers how much we appreciate all they are doing for my father in law they thanked me and went on to say that actually they are more concerned about my wife and I and our 3 children, as the stress dealing with late stage dementia can have an adverse effect on the family
I thought that was very kind and it was having a dreadful effect on my wife, late stage dementia can be very distressing to witness
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
As to Texas, the new Abortion laws are even crazier than you think. The provide a $10,000 bounty to anyone who sues anyone who has or provides assistance to have a abortion. There will soon a scrum of stories about women being sued and shamed publicly in the courts for having abortions. If you think this is going to go well with women voters I have news for you. One commentator has put it as the trick to Republican anti abortion laws was that they would be struck down by the supreme court, all the glory with no price to pay. But with a stacked Supreme court well all sorts of batshit laws will get through and soon have a very public effect.
Perhaps the problem is more complicated. Crazy laws come in two specific flavours: the Texas style and the mainstream style. Laws on the subject tend to do one of two things: over emphasise the rights of expectant mothers against the unborn, (the tendency for 'demand' led abortion) or over emphasise the rights of the unborn against those of expectant mothers (near total bans).
What might an uncrazy law look like I wonder, one which decently balanced the interests of mothers, the unborn and the concerns of a pro human society? And is there one in operation?
And is Bill Clinton right when he said that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'?
As to Texas, the new Abortion laws are even crazier than you think. The provide a $10,000 bounty to anyone who sues anyone who has or provides assistance to have a abortion. There will soon a scrum of stories about women being sued and shamed publicly in the courts for having abortions. If you think this is going to go well with women voters I have news for you. One commentator has put it as the trick to Republican anti abortion laws was that they would be struck down by the supreme court, all the glory with no price to pay. But with a stacked Supreme court well all sorts of batshit laws will get through and soon have a very public effect.
I don’t think the women will be sued? As I understand it it’s the provision of *assistance* that is the offence
I see Kier Starmer has made the tough choice and said the £12 billion should have been raise from Landlords instead. Sigh, no that won't affect supply of private rental housing at all, or rents charged. But I suppose all that matters that a hard decision was avoided and bad people would pay more tax and lets not think beyond that. After it's not as if he would actually do that.
Possibly it would affect the supply.
But speaking as somebody who is both a landlord and in full time employment, do you think it is better for the economy as a whole if I am (a) incentivised to reduce the amount of work I do or (b) sell my rental property?
I know which one I think it is…
Good morning
There are no good choices when it comes to increasing taxes and apart from CGT no other tax increase approval was lower than NI in the recent poll
It has been said that rental companies should pay tax and NI and I checked it out this morning and apparently they do pay both
It is without doubt true that if taxes rise on landlords the rent to the tenant will rise
As an example a £1,200 tax increase would see the rent rise by a least £100 per month hitting already hard pressed tenants
Rent controls could be considered but that just reduces supply and again increases demand and rents
You don't pay NI on rental income if you are doing it via self assessment system which most BTL small guys will be. Don't know about "property companies".
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
Based on 2019 general election vote.
However most of the LD gains in May in the local elections in the Home Counties were from Tory 2019 voters who are also NIMBYs.
That is how the LDs made gains in Surrey and Oxfordshire and Tunbridge Wells and Chelmsford for example and the Greens also picked up seats in areas like Tonbridge.
The NIMBY vote was also a major factor in the LDs gaining Chesham and Amersham in the by election from the Tories. That result sent enough shockwaves at CCHQ to end the proposed new planning laws which would have removed local communities from getting much say on planning. The LDs go hard on a 'protect our greenbelt from development platform' every local election here
£12 billion raised from the rental sector, will cut supply. Some may go boo hoo, less rental properties more places to buy. all very well if you have a deposit and a good credit score, but for people who need rental properties well not so good. A little slice of life from the Isle of Wight. The boom in DFL's (down from London) buying property on the Island has put fire into the local property scene. Large properties traditionally take ages to sell on the Island. But instead of 1 year plus they have been going in weeks. This has seen a flurry of people launching property onto the market at all levels. My sister who runs her own letting agency has seen incredible competition from renters for any half decent property. People are losing homes as landlords are taking the opportunity to sell and there is much less rental property around. So decline in supply will effect rents charged.
As someone else ably pointed out, the supply of housing won't go down, because those properties still exist. If the number of rental properties reduce they must be finding their way onto the for sale market. Increasing supply will reduce house prices, meaning people with smaller savings and worse credit will cross the threshold of being able to afford.
Not if it’s the second hand market (or at least not directly, although it could affect the holiday let market)
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Although more could probably be done to support older people especially with early stage dementia in their own homes.
What was it @Foxy (I think) once said - somebody who has lived in a place for years may forget whether they had lunch but not where their fridge is.
One of the problems is that people all need help at about the same time. So demand for home care is enormous first thing in the morning for getting up/washing/getting dressed.
Then there is a lull, and another huge peak in demand for help getting lunch.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
To be fair more home care is probably not a bad thing but quite how practical it is remains to be seen. Most people only go into care as a last resort.
As for the rest it looks like something made up on the hoof after a few focus groups.
He really is clueless. Tax landlords and where will those taxes be recouped from ?
Taxing share dealings simply risks similar errors to the ones Brown made that doomed final salary schemes.
Some sources differ as to whether Texas is part of the "South", and culturally it is a bit of a halfway house. It's probably not particularly helpful to try to predict Texas based on the South in general.
On Starmer's bright idea. The economic theory of tax incidence tells us that the extent to which the burden of taxation falls on a factor of production depends on its (in)elasticity of supply. Land is in very inelastic supply, and property also, at least in the short term (i.e. until the stock of such properties can be significantly changed). So, the bad news for landlords is that they would have to pay most of it. But the bad news for all of us is that the property market would become even more disfunctional as the incentives to expand supply diminish even further.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
On Starmer's bright idea. The economic theory of tax incidence tells us that the extent to which the burden of taxation falls on a factor of production depends on its (in)elasticity of supply. Land is in very inelastic supply, and property also, at least in the short term (i.e. until the stock of such properties can be significantly changed). So, the bad news for landlords is that they would have to pay most of it. But the bad news for all of us is that the property market would become even more disfunctional as the incentives to expand supply diminish even further.
Will someone not think of the property building CEOs who have got used to their £100m bonuses......not worth them getting out of bed if those go back to just a few million once a year.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
On Starmer's bright idea. The economic theory of tax incidence tells us that the extent to which the burden of taxation falls on a factor of production depends on its (in)elasticity of supply. Land is in very inelastic supply, and property also, at least in the short term (i.e. until the stock of such properties can be significantly changed). So, the bad news for landlords is that they would have to pay most of it. But the bad news for all of us is that the property market would become even more disfunctional as the incentives to expand supply diminish even further.
Will someone not think of the property building CEOs who have got used to their £100m bonuses......not worth them getting out of bed if those go back to just a few million once a year.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
I see Kier Starmer has made the tough choice and said the £12 billion should have been raise from Landlords instead. Sigh, no that won't affect supply of private rental housing at all, or rents charged. But I suppose all that matters that a hard decision was avoided and bad people would pay more tax and lets not think beyond that. After it's not as if he would actually do that.
Possibly it would affect the supply.
But speaking as somebody who is both a landlord and in full time employment, do you think it is better for the economy as a whole if I am (a) incentivised to reduce the amount of work I do or (b) sell my rental property?
I know which one I think it is…
Good morning
There are no good choices when it comes to increasing taxes and apart from CGT no other tax increase approval was lower than NI in the recent poll
It has been said that rental companies should pay tax and NI and I checked it out this morning and apparently they do pay both
It is without doubt true that if taxes rise on landlords the rent to the tenant will rise
As an example a £1,200 tax increase would see the rent rise by a least £100 per month hitting already hard pressed tenants
Rent controls could be considered but that just reduces supply and again increases demand and rents
You don't pay NI on rental income if you are doing it via self assessment system which most BTL small guys will be. Don't know about "property companies".
I assume they pay capital gains tax on sales
Yes, BTL would. If you rent out a property that was your primary residency then bit more complicated (e.g. if you rent out for two years while you work abroad).
You do pay NI if it is considered a business by HMRC (which means renting more than one property and it being effectively your job and so on) if I have understood things.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
Alcohol, exercise, obesity and smoking are attainable adjustments.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
Some sources differ as to whether Texas is part of the "South", and culturally it is a bit of a halfway house. It's probably not particularly helpful to try to predict Texas based on the South in general.
Though 1 poll on the issue showed Texans favoured outlawing abortion after 6 weeks by 48% to 42%.
Very much it went on party lines, 68% of Republican voters backed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks, 63% of Democrats opposed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
So much of it comes down to a good diet at the end of the day. Like many that is not something I have had in the first half of my life, but trying to change that for the second half. I think we need to do a lot more teaching about food, diet, nutrition, health and exercise at school.
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
The Republicans craven pandering to the Trumpists and now the Qanon loonies is having an effect on the more moderate republicans. The numbers on current anti vax/mask stance show very bad numbers amongst women, hence the recent back peddling on vaccination. But not sure how their anti mask stance is going to play out as covid cases are now sky rocketing in republican counties.
The fuss already on here illustrates why Starmer is naive. He has provided a dead cat to distract attention from the government's failings, and gains nothing. And of course, since Labour is in opposition for the foreseeable future, it does not really matter what it wants to do because it is powerless to do anything.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
I really do not know but my sister's 2 year stay in nursing care with terminal cancer was paid by Wales NHS circa £78,000 but the resident in the next door but one room with dementia was not
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
You also have a second issue with voter turnout for Democrats - the reason the texas democrats fled to Washington was to avoid a set of voter restrictions (carefully aimed at Democrat areas and new arrivals to the state).
If any of those proposals became law the Democrats chance will be even lower
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
I largely agree with what you're saying, but I would add that it's only a business arrangement for the landlord. For the people in need of housing, perhaps including homeless people, morality certainly does come into it. The supply of any of the essentials of life, including shelter, cannot be totally separated from ethical considerations.
I see Kier Starmer has made the tough choice and said the £12 billion should have been raise from Landlords instead. Sigh, no that won't affect supply of private rental housing at all, or rents charged. But I suppose all that matters that a hard decision was avoided and bad people would pay more tax and lets not think beyond that. After it's not as if he would actually do that.
Possibly it would affect the supply.
But speaking as somebody who is both a landlord and in full time employment, do you think it is better for the economy as a whole if I am (a) incentivised to reduce the amount of work I do or (b) sell my rental property?
I know which one I think it is…
Good morning
There are no good choices when it comes to increasing taxes and apart from CGT no other tax increase approval was lower than NI in the recent poll
It has been said that rental companies should pay tax and NI and I checked it out this morning and apparently they do pay both
It is without doubt true that if taxes rise on landlords the rent to the tenant will rise
As an example a £1,200 tax increase would see the rent rise by a least £100 per month hitting already hard pressed tenants
Rent controls could be considered but that just reduces supply and again increases demand and rents
You don't pay NI on rental income if you are doing it via self assessment system which most BTL small guys will be. Don't know about "property companies".
I assume they pay capital gains tax on sales
Yes, BTL would. If you rent out a property that was your primary residency then bit more complicated (e.g. if you rent out for two years while you work abroad).
You do pay NI if it is considered a business by HMRC (which means renting more than one property and it being effectively your job and so on) if I have understood things.
I think that is right but the assertion that NI is not paid on rentals is not correct
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
OK, it's just that an unknown local council (who may be Labour) is being maligned for allegedly sending an email to a private landlord asking if he could consider council tenants rather than private tenants. There is no actual evidence that those words were used (or implied by the letter). Maybe they were "imprinted " on the letter by Darkage? Until we see the letter it's difficult to tell. A lot of supposition to slag off a local council that may be Labour. Perhaps Darkage has had an issue with his local council in the past? I am merely surmising in the absence of any real evidence.
£12 billion raised from the rental sector, will cut supply. Some may go boo hoo, less rental properties more places to buy. all very well if you have a deposit and a good credit score, but for people who need rental properties well not so good. A little slice of life from the Isle of Wight. The boom in DFL's (down from London) buying property on the Island has put fire into the local property scene. Large properties traditionally take ages to sell on the Island. But instead of 1 year plus they have been going in weeks. This has seen a flurry of people launching property onto the market at all levels. My sister who runs her own letting agency has seen incredible competition from renters for any half decent property. People are losing homes as landlords are taking the opportunity to sell and there is much less rental property around. So decline in supply will effect rents charged.
As someone else ably pointed out, the supply of housing won't go down, because those properties still exist. If the number of rental properties reduce they must be finding their way onto the for sale market. Increasing supply will reduce house prices, meaning people with smaller savings and worse credit will cross the threshold of being able to afford.
You have some false assumptions there (as did Stuart earlier - such as assuming that ~2 million long-term landlords set their rents just like he did on one house for a short period).
For one, Property in the Owner Occupied sector is far less densely occupied than in either Private or Social Rented sectors. That is established. From the latest English Housing survey. So fewer people will occupy the same housing once it has changed tenure.
Starmer doing stuff that will force housing out of the rental sector will reinforce any housing problem. And that's leaving aside factors such as he will reduce the pool of money available for investment, and the effect on homelessness, and the effect on housing of people who cannot get credit etc.
Starmer is a fool playing to the ignorant-gallery. If he knows what he is doing, it is incredibly cynical.
(Also I suspect that Osborne's assault on the PRS over all these years has had the low-hanging fruit.)
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
If they are just urging people to 'do the right thing' then I doubt it will work, and they need firmer incentives.
Invocation of moral principle is a necessary first step for eliciting virtuous behaviour[from business], but that alone is not a sufficient step - Jared Diamond
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
That's what I thought. Theres enough bad leasehold flats for sale, why don't the Council just buy them.
Because they don’t have the cash, and there are restrictions on the amount they are allowed to borrow ? I’m not an expert on the issue, but wasn’t it Thatcher who wrecked council housing by refusing to let them reinvest the proceeds of council house sales ? It’s never recovered.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
A lot of councils are now offering 3 year deals with maintenance built in as a quid Pro quo for the lower rental.
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
you could have just written 'vote leave'
i played a lot of football from age 10 - 18 and i remember my parents being adamant that i should never head the ball so the heading/brain damage link must have been at least suspected for a very long time
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
Alcohol, exercise, obesity and smoking are attainable adjustments.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
To a very large extent, smoking is a solved problem- we just have to wait for the effect to work up the age range 1 year per year.
As for the other factors, one of the sad things about dementia is the sense that, once they move into full on care, people often shrink to fit their new circumstances. Which makes sense in the context of those anti-risk factors. Maybe a better (and surely cheaper overall) halfway house is the sort of dementia village found in some other countries;
I see Kier Starmer has made the tough choice and said the £12 billion should have been raise from Landlords instead. Sigh, no that won't affect supply of private rental housing at all, or rents charged. But I suppose all that matters that a hard decision was avoided and bad people would pay more tax and lets not think beyond that. After it's not as if he would actually do that.
Possibly it would affect the supply.
But speaking as somebody who is both a landlord and in full time employment, do you think it is better for the economy as a whole if I am (a) incentivised to reduce the amount of work I do or (b) sell my rental property?
I know which one I think it is…
Good morning
There are no good choices when it comes to increasing taxes and apart from CGT no other tax increase approval was lower than NI in the recent poll
It has been said that rental companies should pay tax and NI and I checked it out this morning and apparently they do pay both
It is without doubt true that if taxes rise on landlords the rent to the tenant will rise
As an example a £1,200 tax increase would see the rent rise by a least £100 per month hitting already hard pressed tenants
Rent controls could be considered but that just reduces supply and again increases demand and rents
You don't pay NI on rental income if you are doing it via self assessment system which most BTL small guys will be. Don't know about "property companies".
I assume they pay capital gains tax on sales
Yes. Plus an extra 3% Stamp Duty.
There have been plenty getting out over the last few years.
Many Brexiters were wildly optimistic about how easy arrangements would be and goodwill that would be in place for solutions as it would be 'in everyone's interests' (I thought it would be hard, but not as hard as it still turned out to be), of course the SNP would equally be wildly optimistic. Maybe they'll get lucky, but given in each case there will be political benefit from the other side to be obstructive, and political benefit for the new state to blame everything on them, I wouldn't put money on solutions being quick.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
My father had both Parkinson's and prostate cancer. The medical interventions for both were "free" on the NHS. Use of the day centre for his Parkinson's and the ambulance bus service to collect him was also "free". What was not free was paying for nurses to come out to manage his multitude of medications three times a day. The chemist would deliver pre-filled blister packs for him to use, but when he would use Friday morning's allocation followed by Saturday lunchtime followed by Thursday morning, the game was up.
When he was in the nursing home, a quite substantial weekly nursing grant was available from NHS Wales, along with carer's allowance, but this was from his general immobile condition rather than care for cancer and/ or Parkinson's.
I suspect there was at one time more care available in earlier decades but I daresay abuse made it unsustainable, like in the advent of the NHS where people had a pair of free glasses or dentures for every day of the week. And don't get me started on free repeat delivered prescriptions in Wales. Returning carrier bags full of unused Tramadol to the chemist every few weeks was was a disgrace. Cancel the repeat prescription and they still came. Come to think of it if my father had sold his excess supply of Tramadol on eBay, he could have covered his care costs.
As to Texas, the new Abortion laws are even crazier than you think. The provide a $10,000 bounty to anyone who sues anyone who has or provides assistance to have a abortion. There will soon a scrum of stories about women being sued and shamed publicly in the courts for having abortions. If you think this is going to go well with women voters I have news for you. One commentator has put it as the trick to Republican anti abortion laws was that they would be struck down by the supreme court, all the glory with no price to pay. But with a stacked Supreme court well all sorts of batshit laws will get through and soon have a very public effect.
It’s a minimum of $10,000. Could be an order of magnitude more with a suitably crazy judge. And no costs can awarded against the bounty hunter if they lose, however egregiously.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
A lot of councils are now offering 3 year deals with maintenance built in as a quid Pro quo for the lower rental.
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
OK - for the avoidance of doubt, and without going in to too much detail as I don't want to name the Council involved to avoid possible problems, on looking again the wording 'do the right thing' was not in the email; I shouldn't have put it in quotation marks. So I should retract that. But it was implied by the email - certainly I did read the email as quite obnoxious. I have nothing against my local Council - they do good and bad, like all Councils.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Although more could probably be done to support older people especially with early stage dementia in their own homes.
What was it @Foxy (I think) once said - somebody who has lived in a place for years may forget whether they had lunch but not where their fridge is.
One of the problems is that people all need help at about the same time. So demand for home care is enormous first thing in the morning for getting up/washing/getting dressed.
Then there is a lull, and another huge peak in demand for help getting lunch.
And so on.
In my experience they work breakfasts / getup over say 7am -> 10:30, and then start on lunches at 11:30, so the lull is actually not very significant.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
I really do not know but my sister's 2 year stay in nursing care with terminal cancer was paid by Wales NHS circa £78,000 but the resident in the next door but one room with dementia was not
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
A lot of councils are now offering 3 year deals with maintenance built in as a quid Pro quo for the lower rental.
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
This is something Mrs C and I discuss on occasion, since we're both over 80. The over-riding problem that we see with home care is isolation. The idea of living alone and someone arriving at 6.30 or so and putting us to bed, even if we can manage the TV remote is extremely unattractive. My mother, unsafe on her own at 90 after my father died (and he wasn't much help) decided that she wanted to into a home near where my sister lived, but not with my sister, and I can fully understand her reasoning. She slowly got herself from her room into the lounge where she could talk to fellow residents, and where the staff went to and fro.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
Some sources differ as to whether Texas is part of the "South", and culturally it is a bit of a halfway house. It's probably not particularly helpful to try to predict Texas based on the South in general.
Though 1 poll on the issue showed Texans favoured outlawing abortion after 6 weeks by 48% to 42%.
Very much it went on party lines, 68% of Republican voters backed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks, 63% of Democrats opposed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks
On topic, good post Pip and I’d agree with what you are saying. There is another factor here which makes Abbott even more likely to be elected, namely signs that the Hispanic vote along the Border area is switching to the GOP a and that’s accelerated with the Border crisis. Generally, Hispanics are also quite a conservative / religious group so the recent furore over the abortion law may also help him with the demographic.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
A lot of councils are now offering 3 year deals with maintenance built in as a quid Pro quo for the lower rental.
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
OK - for the avoidance of doubt, and without going in to too much detail as I don't want to name the Council involved to avoid possible problems, on looking again the wording 'do the right thing' was not in the email; I shouldn't have put it in quotation marks. So I should retract that. But it was implied by the email - certainly I did read the email as quite obnoxious. I have nothing against my local Council - they do good and bad, like all Councils.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Although more could probably be done to support older people especially with early stage dementia in their own homes.
What was it @Foxy (I think) once said - somebody who has lived in a place for years may forget whether they had lunch but not where their fridge is.
One of the problems is that people all need help at about the same time. So demand for home care is enormous first thing in the morning for getting up/washing/getting dressed.
Then there is a lull, and another huge peak in demand for help getting lunch.
And so on.
In my experience they work breakfasts / getup over say 7am -> 10:30, and then start on lunches at 11:30, so the lull is actually not very significant.
Well, that is not my experience.
We used to pay for a carer to come (nominally) for an hour for my mother over lunchtime when she was in her own home, but just about managing.
In the end, the carer usually stayed 15 or 20 or minutes, & made the quickest lunch possible (unwrapping something and putting it in the oven) -- because there were so many other elderly people needing help to make lunch.
£12 billion raised from the rental sector, will cut supply. Some may go boo hoo, less rental properties more places to buy. all very well if you have a deposit and a good credit score, but for people who need rental properties well not so good. A little slice of life from the Isle of Wight. The boom in DFL's (down from London) buying property on the Island has put fire into the local property scene. Large properties traditionally take ages to sell on the Island. But instead of 1 year plus they have been going in weeks. This has seen a flurry of people launching property onto the market at all levels. My sister who runs her own letting agency has seen incredible competition from renters for any half decent property. People are losing homes as landlords are taking the opportunity to sell and there is much less rental property around. So decline in supply will effect rents charged.
As someone else ably pointed out, the supply of housing won't go down, because those properties still exist. If the number of rental properties reduce they must be finding their way onto the for sale market. Increasing supply will reduce house prices, meaning people with smaller savings and worse credit will cross the threshold of being able to afford.
You have some false assumptions there (as did Stuart earlier - such as assuming that ~2 million long-term landlords set their rents just like he did on one house for a short period).
For one, Property in the Owner Occupied sector is far less densely occupied than in either Private or Social Rented sectors. That is established. From the latest English Housing survey. So fewer people will occupy the same housing once it has changed tenure.
Starmer doing stuff that will force housing out of the rental sector will reinforce any housing problem. And that's leaving aside factors such as he will reduce the pool of money available for investment, and the effect on homelessness, and the effect on housing of people who cannot get credit etc.
Starmer is a fool playing to the ignorant-gallery. If he knows what he is doing, it is incredibly cynical.
(Also I suspect that Osborne's assault on the PRS over all these years has had the low-hanging fruit.)
Case not proven: correlation does not imply causation. A confounding variable is that personal wealth is likely correlated with the ability to buy and with the ability to afford more space. Plus it's cheaper in the long term to own than to rent (that's why making a profit as a landlord is even possible!), so even by virtue of owning you can afford more space. The only reason large numbers of people do not buy is because the barriers to entry are too high. A reduction in house prices would certainly help.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
I'm tempted (not by the veganism) but if it wasn't for the cynical NIMBY campaigning, then I'd be much more tempted.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
I largely agree with what you're saying, but I would add that it's only a business arrangement for the landlord. For the people in need of housing, perhaps including homeless people, morality certainly does come into it. The supply of any of the essentials of life, including shelter, cannot be totally separated from ethical considerations.
Yes, although the contract between the council and the landlord is business.
They are attempting to get better terms by making their partners feel guilty.
That’s not the way a government should behave towards its citizens
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
Many Brexiters were wildly optimistic about how easy arrangements would be and goodwill that would be in place for solutions as it would be 'in everyone's interests' (I thought it would be hard, but not as hard as it still turned out to be), of course the SNP would equally be wildly optimistic. Maybe they'll get lucky, but given in each case there will be political benefit from the other side to be obstructive, and political benefit for the new state to blame everything on them, I wouldn't put money on solutions being quick.
As I've often thought, the strongest argument against Scottish Independence will be Brexit.
The SNP/Greens are effectively saying 'Brexit was a complete disaster.....lets repeat the exact same experiment'!
On another note, Over here in Sydney the vaccine race is well and truly on. Pubs and restaurants expect to re-open in mid October for double vaccinated patrons and double vaccinated staff.
I think we need to start thinking about un-vaccinated people the same way we think about smokers in pubs/restaurants. Not just personally reckless, but a health risk to everyone else, like 2nd hand/passive smoke.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
This is something Mrs C and I discuss on occasion, since we're both over 80. The over-riding problem that we see with home care is isolation. The idea of living alone and someone arriving at 6.30 or so and putting us to bed, even if we can manage the TV remote is extremely unattractive. My mother, unsafe on her own at 90 after my father died (and he wasn't much help) decided that she wanted to into a home near where my sister lived, but not with my sister, and I can fully understand her reasoning. She slowly got herself from her room into the lounge where she could talk to fellow residents, and where the staff went to and fro.
I might feel differently closer to the time but I agree. If I can't look after myself, and a good care home was available I would prefer that to home care. Of course it is different if only bad care homes are available. It needs proper funding and good wages, not the smoke and mirrors sticking plaster we have been offered as the fix for the next decade.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
OK, it's just that an unknown local council (who may be Labour) is being maligned for allegedly sending an email to a private landlord asking if he could consider council tenants rather than private tenants. There is no actual evidence that those words were used (or implied by the letter). Maybe they were "imprinted " on the letter by Darkage? Until we see the letter it's difficult to tell. A lot of supposition to slag off a local council that may be Labour. Perhaps Darkage has had an issue with his local council in the past? I am merely surmising in the absence of any real evidence.
Possibly although I had missed the fact that it was a labour council. @darkage did include the comment in quotes though
The interesting difference is between us. I assume that a fellow poster is telling the truth until proven otherwise. You assume he is lying.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
I largely agree with what you're saying, but I would add that it's only a business arrangement for the landlord. For the people in need of housing, perhaps including homeless people, morality certainly does come into it. The supply of any of the essentials of life, including shelter, cannot be totally separated from ethical considerations.
Yes, although the contract between the council and the landlord is business.
They are attempting to get better terms by making their partners feel guilty.
That’s not the way a government should behave towards its citizens
They can play on sympathy, that's the stick, but they need to consider if the carrot makes up for that as well. The example mentions a deal, so if they've made any deal attractive enough then I'd be less concerned about a bit of emotional blackmail.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Although more could probably be done to support older people especially with early stage dementia in their own homes.
What was it @Foxy (I think) once said - somebody who has lived in a place for years may forget whether they had lunch but not where their fridge is.
One of the problems is that people all need help at about the same time. So demand for home care is enormous first thing in the morning for getting up/washing/getting dressed.
Then there is a lull, and another huge peak in demand for help getting lunch.
And so on.
In my experience they work breakfasts / getup over say 7am -> 10:30, and then start on lunches at 11:30, so the lull is actually not very significant.
As a one-time Care Home Inspector I can attest that many such are are well run, well organised enterprises, with competent managers who are well aware of such problems and, within scandalously low budgets do the best they can.
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
The more people HYUFD puts people off voting Conservative, the better as far as I am concerned. HYUFD is someone I like for his honesty, but over the last two weeks he has gone the full Donald Trump, which does him no favours.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
A lot of councils are now offering 3 year deals with maintenance built in as a quid Pro quo for the lower rental.
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
Completely agree. It’s a reasonable business proposition that could work for many people - a guaranteed return plus maintenance taken care of.
Essentially pricing in a spread over financing costs in return for taking capital risk on the value of the property. I wouldn’t see it as particularly attractive but others might have different requirements and objectives
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
This is something Mrs C and I discuss on occasion, since we're both over 80. The over-riding problem that we see with home care is isolation. The idea of living alone and someone arriving at 6.30 or so and putting us to bed, even if we can manage the TV remote is extremely unattractive. My mother, unsafe on her own at 90 after my father died (and he wasn't much help) decided that she wanted to into a home near where my sister lived, but not with my sister, and I can fully understand her reasoning. She slowly got herself from her room into the lounge where she could talk to fellow residents, and where the staff went to and fro.
To be honest my wife (81) and myself (77) try not to think too much about the next few years but we will both do everything to keep each other at home, and we are fortunate that our daughter and family and our youngest son and family live close by and they would help
However if the 'Good Lord' does not take us before we are unable to look after ourselves then we will pay whatever the law says at the time
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
Alcohol, exercise, obesity and smoking are attainable adjustments.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
To a very large extent, smoking is a solved problem- we just have to wait for the effect to work up the age range 1 year per year.
As for the other factors, one of the sad things about dementia is the sense that, once they move into full on care, people often shrink to fit their new circumstances. Which makes sense in the context of those anti-risk factors. Maybe a better (and surely cheaper overall) halfway house is the sort of dementia village found in some other countries;
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
It also tells you something about how they might manage the property.
If their argument for lending it to them in the first place is "do the right thing" then that's likely to be their attitude and excuse for any shortcomings whilst they're looking after it.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
A lot of councils are now offering 3 year deals with maintenance built in as a quid Pro quo for the lower rental.
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
more face value....
Councils run a number of obnoxious policies. Which is one reason I would not touch such an offer with a bargepole - on the precautionary principle.
One thing done routinely is to insist that tenants being evicted ignore all action until the bailiff turns up at the door, which
1 - Causes the LL to provide accommodation for extra months, with little likelihood of ever seeing the rent. 2 - Guarantees the tenant to have a much larger debt (couple of K court fees, 3-10k extra rent etc) and wrecked financies for 6-7 years due to CCJ, plus the stress of being draggeed through the courts.
They threaten to deem a tenant to be "voluntarily homeless" if they do not comply, which removes any legal rights for rehousing.
One to watch for soon is Council's attempting to use their "empty home" powers to expropriate properties which are empty because Covid restrictions have effectively made it untenable to re-rent them. I have 2-3 which are empty because they may need to be sold to resolve an estate, and we have been waiting for probate for many months due to Covid delays - and due to Covid restrictions it would take 12-18 months to evict any non-paying tenant.
Fortunately this is now gradually clearing, and I accepted an offer on one yesterday.
The other sort of thing that happens is that someone turns up at a HMO (room by room rental) and decides that each individual room is a separate property liable for Band A Council Tax.
Some sources differ as to whether Texas is part of the "South", and culturally it is a bit of a halfway house. It's probably not particularly helpful to try to predict Texas based on the South in general.
Though 1 poll on the issue showed Texans favoured outlawing abortion after 6 weeks by 48% to 42%.
Very much it went on party lines, 68% of Republican voters backed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks, 63% of Democrats opposed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
The rules are anything but clear, and as the burden of paying for the elderly has increased, councils have become expert in navigating the process to avoid paying for continuing health care. @Big_G_NorthWales is right that if you have cancer, the state pays; Alzheimer’s it doesn’t. There’s a grey area in between, which is difficult to navigate for the non expert.
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
That is a stunning piece. You can not but feel sorry for all involved. The ex-MP sounds like a very decent man and he will probably be going through turmoil for the rest of his life. The Italian family also seem just wonderful. That could be any of us. I just imagine if it was me driving the car or if it were one of my children riding the bike and I just can not imagine being able to live with it, but people do every day. My stomach just churns thinking about it.
Comments
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
The devil will be in the detail for such deals but to make it worthwhile probably requires a premium paid by the council of 6-12 months rent for a 3 year deal, and for the council to guarantee rents.
What was it @Foxy (I think) once said - somebody who has lived in a place for years may forget whether they had lunch but not where their fridge is.
The only answer to this until wider housing supply issues are addressed is more money on new Council housing; essentially a bottomless money pit.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
We did receive good social care support, and when I said to one of the support workers how much we appreciate all they are doing for my father in law they thanked me and went on to say that actually they are more concerned about my wife and I and our 3 children, as the stress dealing with late stage dementia can have an adverse effect on the family
I thought that was very kind and it was having a dreadful effect on my wife, late stage dementia can be very distressing to witness
The tighter abortion restrictions the Republicans have pushed through there are actually popular in the South, which obviously includes Texas.
For while 54% of US voters overall want abortion to stay legal, 52% of Southerners think abortion should be illegal
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-nation-s-demographic-divides-abortion-n1278210
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20200208/282097753702278
What might an uncrazy law look like I wonder, one which decently balanced the interests of mothers, the unborn and the concerns of a pro human society? And is there one in operation?
And is Bill Clinton right when he said that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'?
However most of the LD gains in May in the local elections in the Home Counties were from Tory 2019 voters who are also NIMBYs.
That is how the LDs made gains in Surrey and Oxfordshire and Tunbridge Wells and Chelmsford for example and the Greens also picked up seats in areas like Tonbridge.
The NIMBY vote was also a major factor in the LDs gaining Chesham and Amersham in the by election from the Tories. That result sent enough shockwaves at CCHQ to end the proposed new planning laws which would have removed local communities from getting much say on planning. The LDs go hard on a 'protect our greenbelt from development platform' every local election here
Then there is a lull, and another huge peak in demand for help getting lunch.
And so on.
As for the rest it looks like something made up on the hoof after a few focus groups.
He really is clueless. Tax landlords and where will those taxes be recouped from ?
Taxing share dealings simply risks similar errors to the ones Brown made that doomed final salary schemes.
Do you have any evidence of that
The economic theory of tax incidence tells us that the extent to which the burden of taxation falls on a factor of production depends on its (in)elasticity of supply. Land is in very inelastic supply, and property also, at least in the short term (i.e. until the stock of such properties can be significantly changed). So, the bad news for landlords is that they would have to pay most of it. But the bad news for all of us is that the property market would become even more disfunctional as the incentives to expand supply diminish even further.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes
high alcohol intake
high blood pressure
lack of exercise
low educational attainment
obesity
poor physical health
smoking"
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
You do pay NI if it is considered a business by HMRC (which means renting more than one property and it being effectively your job and so on) if I have understood things.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
Very much it went on party lines, 68% of Republican voters backed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks, 63% of Democrats opposed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/19/near-majority-texans-favor-outlawing-abortion-after-six-weeks-ut-tt/
The fuss already on here illustrates why Starmer is naive. He has provided a dead cat to distract attention from the government's failings, and gains nothing. And of course, since Labour is in opposition for the foreseeable future, it does not really matter what it wants to do because it is powerless to do anything.
Outline of expected proposals:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58516799
Recent polling indicates Texas voters aren’t entirely happy about the state government’s continued rightward drift, but again that might not make much of a difference by next year.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-bill-guns-elections-republicans/
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/01/texas-voting-bill-greg-abbott/
For one, Property in the Owner Occupied sector is far less densely occupied than in either Private or Social Rented sectors. That is established. From the latest English Housing survey. So fewer people will occupy the same housing once it has changed tenure.
Starmer doing stuff that will force housing out of the rental sector will reinforce any housing problem. And that's leaving aside factors such as he will reduce the pool of money available for investment, and the effect on homelessness, and the effect on housing of people who cannot get credit etc.
Starmer is a fool playing to the ignorant-gallery. If he knows what he is doing, it is incredibly cynical.
(Also I suspect that Osborne's assault on the PRS over all these years has had the low-hanging fruit.)
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
Invocation of moral principle is a necessary first step for eliciting virtuous behaviour[from business], but that alone is not a sufficient step - Jared Diamond
I’m not an expert on the issue, but wasn’t it Thatcher who wrecked council housing by refusing to let them reinvest the proceeds of council house sales ?
It’s never recovered.
THERE may be "issues" with some goods crossing the border between Scotland and England after independence, the SNP's deputy leader has admitted.
Keith Brown said Scotland would have to "adapt" to the new circumstances but insisted the right solutions can be found with "goodwill".
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19574084.snp-deputy-may-issues-goods-crossing-border-independence/
Good luck with that.....
But the phrasing of that email is appalling, and really won't help them solve their problems
i played a lot of football from age 10 - 18 and i remember my parents being adamant that i should never head the ball so the heading/brain damage link must have been at least suspected for a very long time
As for the other factors, one of the sad things about dementia is the sense that, once they move into full on care, people often shrink to fit their new circumstances. Which makes sense in the context of those anti-risk factors. Maybe a better (and surely cheaper overall) halfway house is the sort of dementia village found in some other countries;
https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/dementia-village-denmark/
There have been plenty getting out over the last few years.
When he was in the nursing home, a quite substantial weekly nursing grant was available from NHS Wales, along with carer's allowance, but this was from his general immobile condition rather than care for cancer and/ or Parkinson's.
I suspect there was at one time more care available in earlier decades but I daresay abuse made it unsustainable, like in the advent of the NHS where people had a pair of free glasses or dentures for every day of the week. And don't get me started on free repeat delivered prescriptions in Wales. Returning carrier bags full of unused Tramadol to the chemist every few weeks was was a disgrace. Cancel the repeat prescription and they still came. Come to think of it if my father had sold his excess supply of Tramadol on eBay, he could have covered his care costs.
We used to pay for a carer to come (nominally) for an hour for my mother over lunchtime when she was in her own home, but just about managing.
In the end, the carer usually stayed 15 or 20 or minutes, & made the quickest lunch possible (unwrapping something and putting it in the oven) -- because there were so many other elderly people needing help to make lunch.
They are attempting to get better terms by making their partners feel guilty.
That’s not the way a government should behave towards its citizens
The SNP/Greens are effectively saying 'Brexit was a complete disaster.....lets repeat the exact same experiment'!
On another note, Over here in Sydney the vaccine race is well and truly on. Pubs and restaurants expect to re-open in mid October for double vaccinated patrons and double vaccinated staff.
I think we need to start thinking about un-vaccinated people the same way we think about smokers in pubs/restaurants. Not just personally reckless, but a health risk to everyone else, like 2nd hand/passive smoke.
The interesting difference is between us. I assume that a fellow poster is telling the truth until proven otherwise. You assume he is lying.
Essentially pricing in a spread over financing costs in return for taking capital risk on the value of the property. I wouldn’t see it as particularly attractive but others might have different requirements and objectives
However if the 'Good Lord' does not take us before we are unable to look after ourselves then we will pay whatever the law says at the time
If their argument for lending it to them in the first place is "do the right thing" then that's likely to be their attitude and excuse for any shortcomings whilst they're looking after it.
One thing done routinely is to insist that tenants being evicted ignore all action until the bailiff turns up at the door, which
1 - Causes the LL to provide accommodation for extra months, with little likelihood of ever seeing the rent.
2 - Guarantees the tenant to have a much larger debt (couple of K court fees, 3-10k extra rent etc) and wrecked financies for 6-7 years due to CCJ, plus the stress of being draggeed through the courts.
They threaten to deem a tenant to be "voluntarily homeless" if they do not comply, which removes any legal rights for rehousing.
One to watch for soon is Council's attempting to use their "empty home" powers to expropriate properties which are empty because Covid restrictions have effectively made it untenable to re-rent them. I have 2-3 which are empty because they may need to be sold to resolve an estate, and we have been waiting for probate for many months due to Covid delays - and due to Covid restrictions it would take 12-18 months to evict any non-paying tenant.
Fortunately this is now gradually clearing, and I accepted an offer on one yesterday.
The other sort of thing that happens is that someone turns up at a HMO (room by room rental) and decides that each individual room is a separate property liable for Band A Council Tax.
https://caretobedifferent.co.uk/the-coughlan-case/
The rules are anything but clear, and as the burden of paying for the elderly has increased, councils have become expert in navigating the process to avoid paying for continuing health care.
@Big_G_NorthWales is right that if you have cancer, the state pays; Alzheimer’s it doesn’t. There’s a grey area in between, which is difficult to navigate for the non expert.