politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mike Nattrass’s breakaway party could win 5% or more of the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mike Nattrass’s breakaway party could win 5% or more of the Euro votes putting it in fifth place
So far, however, the pollsters have yet to catch up with the possible impact of the party formed by the ex-Ukip deputy leader, Mike Nattrass, which will appear at or near the top, of every ballot paper in England under the name “An Independence from Europe – UK Independence Now“. This is a form of words that many voters will find confusing.
Comments
-
"The Nattrass party is not a spoiler like the infamous Literal Democrats in 1994 but a serious attempt by its founder, who has been an MEP since 2004, to win seats following his own de-selection last year"
hmmm
first!0 -
-
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10799314/Fifth-of-crimes-ignored-by-police-watchdog-warns.html
"In an interim report, based on 13 forces, inspectors found “significant under-recording of crime”, including for sexual offences, violence and burglary, and warned 20 per cent of offences may be going unrecorded."
"Inspectors also found that 13 per cent of out-of-court penalties, including cautions and on-the-spot fines, were inappropriate because of the criminal’s offending history and they should have been taken to court."
0 -
Ballot order should be randomised to stop this kind of shenanigan.0
-
“I would just look like an opportunist,” said the man who stood in Itchen, Test and Avon in the 1994 European parliamentary elections, the Eastleigh by-election in the same year, Salisbury in the 1997 general election, Bexhill and Battle in 2001, South Thanet in 2005, the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election in 2006 and Buckingham in 2010.TGOHF said:0 -
@DPJHodges: If you rent, you'd better pray Labour isn't ahead in the polls next March.0
-
Morning all and after all the hype and boasting about UKIP, Faragasm v Cleggasm 2010, it would be supremely funny if the winner on 25th May when the votes are counted is OGH and his 10/1 on Tories getting most votes.
Frit Farage bottled it yesterday no matter what he says. Would be ironic if the prick which bursts his bubble has come from within his own party as a result of his ego overstretching itself.
I feel sorry for the decent kippers on here like Sean F, Mike K and others who are clearly decent chaps that they are associated with this endless stream of racist, sexist, homophobic rants coming from leading Kippers. These fine PBers are welcome back in the Tory Party when they realise why UKIP will not realise their aspirations.0 -
When will journalists and others realise that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. The signatories of the former just happen to include the 28 members of the latter. We could leave the latter and still be signatories of the former.TGOHF said:0 -
On topic, yes, they should be including them in the polls. Indeed, they should be including all the parties which are standing in a majority (say, two-thirds) of the constituencies.
I'm not sure about Mike's contention that the Lib Dems will beat the Greens. While the Lib Dems have been polling quite well for the European elections, the similarity between their figures for Westminster and Europe (both around 10%) gives me cause for concern.
It *may* be that the LDs have sunk so far that they're now propped up solely by their core vote which is itself more keen to vote and as such the lower turnout offsets defections to minor parties that PR and the "protest election" nature of the Euros encourages. But I doubt it: IIRC, the Lib Dems only took about 14% last time, which was about ten points lower than their score in the locals on the same day and comfortably below their Westminster VI at the time. I think they'll do well to hit 8% this time round, which should put them roughly level pegging with the Greens, though both should be ahead of AIFE.0 -
From time to time we have all had to deal with so called spoiler parties. Last time out the Tories had to deal with the new centre-right party created by Dame Diana Rigg's ex husband. UKIP just needs to grow a pair and get on with it.0
-
"...could win 5% or more..."?
When i read the title of the thread, I thought it was going to be a serious article based on an opinion poll or specific research, but instead it is a completely spurious theory based on the fact that the Lit Dem candidate in Devon got 5% of the votes in 1994 (in fact it was substantially less than 5%). Unlike some people, I prefer to adhere to the theory that the VMOOND is *not* in fact stupid. And by "VM" I mean substantially more than the 95% implied by the article.
(Acronym: VMOOND = Ast Ajority F Rdinary Ormal Ecent (people) ).0 -
How far into the Miliband term before they see the light, you reckon?Easterross said:These fine PBers are welcome back in the Tory Party when they realise why UKIP will not realise their aspirations.
0 -
It does seem ridiculous and unfair that this trick is allowed. I would also have rules in place to ensure that passing off is not allowed - clearly the Literal Democrats is an attempt to game the system, a simple panel could be employed to ban such practices.RobD said:Ballot order should be randomised to stop this kind of shenanigan.
0 -
If Ed Miliband has a new policy on housing I wonder what Shelter is saying about the subject?
They have just issued a "landmark" report with KPMG looking at the fundamentals of the problem with solutions.
See http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/NewsReleases/Pages/Fix-our-housing-shortage-or-see-house-prices-quadruple-in-just-twenty-years.aspx
0 -
He may be taking on slum landlords and crook agents (although such people often find ways around such legislation), but he is also hoovering up lots of hard-working people who have one or two buy-to-let properties.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.0 -
I was in Grantham yesterday and noticed a few leaflets in some of the shops from the former UKIP Lincolnshire county councillor Chris Pain who was thrown out after making racist comments. He is another standing under the Independence from Europe banner.0
-
Well it looks like Labour have found another policy.
Titter.
It is both astonishing and depressing that (a) the party that can come up with this tosh was in power until relatively recently so they really should not be so divorced from reality and (b) they look increasingly likely to be back in power again in 2015. Swingback just isn't happening despite the economic news and the clock is ticking.0 -
Would you do this so that each ballot paper could have a different order, or so that there was one order that was determined randomly that was replicated over all the ballot papers in each constituency?RobD said:Ballot order should be randomised to stop this kind of shenanigan.
The former is better from the point of view of ensuring that ballot order does not influence the result, but it makes it a lot harder for the ballot papers to be counted.
0 -
Oh and Mike is of course wrong. This is indeed a spoiler attempt. If it were just about Natrass keeping his seat then he would not have tried to confuse people by using the UKIP colour scheme and the copycat wording.0
-
Key points from the Shelter/KPMG report:
It calls on politicians to commit to an integrated range of key measures, including:
Giving planning authorities the power to create ‘New Homes Zones’ that would drive forward the development of new homes. Combined with infrastructure, this would be led by local authorities, the private sector and local communities, and self-financed by sharing in the rising value of the land.
Unlocking stalled sites to speed up development and stop land being left dormant, by charging council tax on the homes that should have been built after a reasonable period for construction has passed.
Introducing a new National Housing Investment Bank to provide low cost, long term loans for housing providers, as part of a programme of innovative ways to finance affordable house building.
Helping small builders to get back into the house building market by using government guarantees to improve access to finance.
Fully integrating new homes with local infrastructure and putting housing at the very centre of City Deals, to make sure towns and cities have the power to build the homes their communities need
0 -
Rest assured Easterross, no matter what happens with UKIP, we will not be returning to the Tory party as long as Cameron and his slimy ilk are running it. And your sanctimonious rubbish is not going to change that.Easterross said:Morning all and after all the hype and boasting about UKIP, Faragasm v Cleggasm 2010, it would be supremely funny if the winner on 25th May when the votes are counted is OGH and his 10/1 on Tories getting most votes.
Frit Farage bottled it yesterday no matter what he says. Would be ironic if the prick which bursts his bubble has come from within his own party as a result of his ego overstretching itself.
I feel sorry for the decent kippers on here like Sean F, Mike K and others who are clearly decent chaps that they are associated with this endless stream of racist, sexist, homophobic rants coming from leading Kippers. These fine PBers are welcome back in the Tory Party when they realise why UKIP will not realise their aspirations.
PS. No one from your party has any right to talk about homophobia in other parties as long as Councillor Ken Gregory remains a member of your party.
0 -
I see that the Sage of Twickenham is still getting hate Mail, over partial privatisation. What ever happened to applications by ballot, or wider BG share issues? Sometimes a simpler approach works. Sometime politicians think they do better, and then hide when the flak rises.0
-
What, in the proposals, is targeted at either?BobaFett said:
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
Or are all landlords "slum landlords" and all letting agents crooks?0 -
I doubt this party will get 1% of the vote. By all means poll for it, but the usual reaction will be "who?".0
-
Because I'm tired, for a brief moment I thought you meant randomising the candidates and parties. So you could have Miliband standing for the Conservatives, or Cameron for UKIP.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you do this so that each ballot paper could have a different order, or so that there was one order that was determined randomly that was replicated over all the ballot papers in each constituency?RobD said:Ballot order should be randomised to stop this kind of shenanigan.
The former is better from the point of view of ensuring that ballot order does not influence the result, but it makes it a lot harder for the ballot papers to be counted.
Which would at least be entertaining.0 -
JosiasJessop said:
Because I'm tired, for a brief moment I thought you meant randomising the candidates and parties. So you could have Miliband standing for the Conservatives, or Cameron for UKIP.OblitusSumMe said:
Would you do this so that each ballot paper could have a different order, or so that there was one order that was determined randomly that was replicated over all the ballot papers in each constituency?RobD said:Ballot order should be randomised to stop this kind of shenanigan.
The former is better from the point of view of ensuring that ballot order does not influence the result, but it makes it a lot harder for the ballot papers to be counted.
Which would at least be entertaining.
One idea we came up with during a drinking session a few years ago was that you should have three columns randomising the name, party and 3 key policies of each candidate. Your vote would only count if you matched the three correctly for your chosen candidate.
Totally impractical of course but it does have the benefit of ensuring voters knew at least a little something about who they were electing.
0 -
Off-topic:
RIP Ayrton Senna, twenty years ago today. I remember watching the race, and the feeling of rising horror as I realised that what seemed to be a minor shunt was serious. Trusting in the Prof, without really realising that some things were even beyond him.
RIP also Roland Ratzenberger, who died the day before.
And Barrichello was lucky not to make it three that weekend.
I'll raise a glass to their memory this evening.0 -
@CarlottaVance
Not all landlords
This is from 2011
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/05/slum-landlords-tenants-in-squalor
If you want, I will find you the latest ones showing "landlords" creating "flats" inside factories?
Or even better, do your own research instead.0 -
A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.0 -
Indeed. Agreed.Richard_Tyndall said:Oh and Mike is of course wrong. This is indeed a spoiler attempt. If it were just about Natrass keeping his seat then he would not have tried to confuse people by using the UKIP colour scheme and the copycat wording.
0 -
Nope. Decent landlords have nothing to fear from the package at all.JosiasJessop said:
He may be taking on slum landlords and crook agents (although such people often find ways around such legislation), but he is also hoovering up lots of hard-working people who have one or two buy-to-let properties.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
0 -
It's not a problem that it's Marxist. It's just bloody stupid and harms the poor at the expense of the middle class.BobaFett said:A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
But I'm sure it will be popular with the voting public.
0 -
Like they adopted the "energy price freeze in 15 months" policy ? Oh wait what ? they didn't ?BobaFett said:A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
Is St Boba the patron of lost causes ?
0 -
Some interesting ideas there. The 'pay council tax' would be painful for developers, but nowhere near as mad as Miliband's land grab idea. And as I've said about Miliband's plan, if it was to go ahead then the planning process needs to become faster and more responsive. At the moment it's treacle.Verulamius said:Key points from the Shelter/KPMG report:
It calls on politicians to commit to an integrated range of key measures, including:
Giving planning authorities the power to create ‘New Homes Zones’ that would drive forward the development of new homes. Combined with infrastructure, this would be led by local authorities, the private sector and local communities, and self-financed by sharing in the rising value of the land.
Unlocking stalled sites to speed up development and stop land being left dormant, by charging council tax on the homes that should have been built after a reasonable period for construction has passed.
Introducing a new National Housing Investment Bank to provide low cost, long term loans for housing providers, as part of a programme of innovative ways to finance affordable house building.
Helping small builders to get back into the house building market by using government guarantees to improve access to finance.
Fully integrating new homes with local infrastructure and putting housing at the very centre of City Deals, to make sure towns and cities have the power to build the homes their communities need
Most of all, it's communities we need to build, not houses. The last point goes slightly towards that, but not far enough.
Developers also need to be forced to keep to their Section 106 agreements in a timely and accurate manner. Don't allow developers to start a new development until all S106 milestones on current developments have been fulfilled, as long as there are no external dependencies.0 -
The Sun have another go at Helmer
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx0 -
0
-
Morning all.
I like this fellow Nattrass. Looks if he might be able to place an apostrophe.
If it weren't for George's unparalleled success on the economy, Nattrass would definitely be getting my vote.0 -
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.BobaFett said:
Nope. Decent landlords have nothing to fear from the package at all.JosiasJessop said:
He may be taking on slum landlords and crook agents (although such people often find ways around such legislation), but he is also hoovering up lots of hard-working people who have one or two buy-to-let properties.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.0 -
The rental market has been shambolic for years and is in dire need of regulation. Your forecasts of disaster will not be realised, as few PB forecasts of disaster are. My staff are landed with gigantic fees every time their landlord chucks them out on a whim. This should help and decent landlords (of which you are clearly one) have nothing to worry about.antifrank said:
It's not a problem that it's Marxist. It's just bloody stupid and harms the poor at the expense of the middle class.BobaFett said:A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
But I'm sure it will be popular with the voting public.
It will be very entertaining to watch the usual suspects gnash on here - usually, as you have recognised, that's the sign of a good policy.
0 -
0
-
Seems Salmond was in the US not to meet Obama but ...... Rupert Murdoch
pic.twitter.com/V8DRmizfl0
0 -
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.TGOHF said:The Sun have another go at Helmer
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx0 -
Of course they do. See many of the arguments last night.BobaFett said:
Nope. Decent landlords have nothing to fear from the package at all.JosiasJessop said:
He may be taking on slum landlords and crook agents (although such people often find ways around such legislation), but he is also hoovering up lots of hard-working people who have one or two buy-to-let properties.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.0 -
So tell me what problem(s) is the policy trying to fix? Can they be fixed by applying current legislation? What side effects may the policy have?BobaFett said:
The rental market has been shambolic for years and is in dire need of regulation. Your forecasts of disaster will not be realised, as few PB forecasts of disaster are. My staff are landed with gigantic fees every time their landlord chucks them out on a whim. This should help and decent landlords (of which you are clearly one) have nothing to worry about.antifrank said:
It's not a problem that it's Marxist. It's just bloody stupid and harms the poor at the expense of the middle class.BobaFett said:A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
But I'm sure it will be popular with the voting public.
It will be very entertaining to watch the usual suspects gnash on here - usually, as you have recognised, that's the sign of a good policy.
It's very entertaining to watch the usual suspects on here slurping up Miliband's dribblings and proclaiming them as good without applying any mental effort.0 -
Ah, another person who thinks that trying to play the man is an effective way of arguing on an anonymous message board. I know nothing about you except that you're an anonymous coward making use of an asymmetry of information.Smarmeron said:@antifrank
Is your property portfolio doing well these days?
As it happens, these proposals would have absolutely no effect on me. I chose to sell my spare London flat last year rather than continue renting it out because I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of renting out, even though it might well have been financially the better option for me. That's a real life example of the way that property owners think.
My other properties are fortunately beyond the reach of Ed Miliband's ambition.
Now, try engaging with the argument.0 -
My dear Bobafret.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
The slums are owned by councils and housing associations. Often through no fault of their own mind.
Ed's proposals don't even address this sector of the housing market.
It is the successful shop owner who bought a flat in a stucco sea-front conversion in Worthing for his ailing mother-in-law who then sadly passed away who will be hit. The students who took over the tenancy will be out on their butts. Just one more worry for them while struggling with tuition fee loans.
Ed really doesn't think his policies through, does he?
0 -
This policy would encourage more of this, as pressures on housing for the poor increase and the unscrupulous become more ready to exploit them.Smarmeron said:@antifrank
Worse than this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-271239660 -
It's a vote-winning policy that will harm the poor. It's Labour's equivalent of the squeeze on benefits.BobaFett said:
The rental market has been shambolic for years and is in dire need of regulation. Your forecasts of disaster will not be realised, as few PB forecasts of disaster are. My staff are landed with gigantic fees every time their landlord chucks them out on a whim. This should help and decent landlords (of which you are clearly one) have nothing to worry about.antifrank said:
It's not a problem that it's Marxist. It's just bloody stupid and harms the poor at the expense of the middle class.BobaFett said:A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
But I'm sure it will be popular with the voting public.
It will be very entertaining to watch the usual suspects gnash on here - usually, as you have recognised, that's the sign of a good policy.0 -
You seriously think these people are currently obeying the regulations?Smarmeron said:@antifrank
Worse than this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27123966
But will suddenly obey Miliband's new ones?0 -
As already explained, landlords will still be able to evict tenants by saying that they want to refurbish the property. So being evicted "on a whim" could still happen. We will need to see the details. But the real issue is what sort of control on rent will be imposed. If rents are lower than the market value, supply is likely to dry up or rental properties will not be properly cared for. We know this because when similar rent controls were imposed in the 1960's this is what happened.BobaFett said:
Nope. Decent landlords have nothing to fear from the package at all.JosiasJessop said:
He may be taking on slum landlords and crook agents (although such people often find ways around such legislation), but he is also hoovering up lots of hard-working people who have one or two buy-to-let properties.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
If rents are at market value, what is the point of the proposals? The best way of increasing the choices for renters is to increase the supply. Let's see what Labour have to say on that aspect.
0 -
I believe most of those examples are illegal at the moment, so it's an enforcement issue. How do you think this law will stop landlords who are already breaking the law?Smarmeron said:@antifrank
Worse than this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27123966
And as people explained yesterday, it is very likely that this change will reduce the amount of rental properties. As there will probably not be a decrease in demand, this may lead to more of the above abuses.0 -
I'm glad you have realised it's not a spoiler. I've no idea who Mike Natress is, or what he's done - save from a 30 second look at his website, it looks like he's committed to the anti-EU cause and has been for many years.
That means, to me at least, that it's not someone trying to take UKIP votes, but someone who wants to be in the EU Parliament.
All power to his elbow.0 -
You ask a simple question and someone gets upset.
When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
I would hazard a guess at very few, but you are all experts, and therefore can state categorically that there is no problem. no hunger, no poverty, only the idle shiftless people trying to wrest the last case of champagne from your grasp.
Try and broaden your minds a little.0 -
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...Richard_Tyndall said:
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.TGOHF said:The Sun have another go at Helmer
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....0 -
How will Miliband's proposals help?Smarmeron said:When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
0 -
Why should a landlord be forced to rent to someone if they don't want to?BobaFett said:
The rental market has been shambolic for years and is in dire need of regulation. Your forecasts of disaster will not be realised, as few PB forecasts of disaster are. My staff are landed with gigantic fees every time their landlord chucks them out on a whim. This should help and decent landlords (of which you are clearly one) have nothing to worry about.antifrank said:
It's not a problem that it's Marxist. It's just bloody stupid and harms the poor at the expense of the middle class.BobaFett said:A simple prognosis for Ed's Help to Rent programme:
1. The Tories/PB Tories declare it Marxist.
2. The PB Tories forecast the end of the rental market as we know it.
3. The government/PB Tories spend four months fighting the case of landlords.
4. The government adopts the package.
But I'm sure it will be popular with the voting public.
It will be very entertaining to watch the usual suspects gnash on here - usually, as you have recognised, that's the sign of a good policy.
That seems to be the primary complaint that you have.0 -
If you care to actually read my responses, you can see that I've asked what problems this is meant to be solving.Smarmeron said:You ask a simple question and someone gets upset.
When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
I would hazard a guess at very few, but you are all experts, and therefore can state categorically that there is no problem. no hunger, no poverty, only the idle shiftless people trying to wrest the last case of champagne from your grasp.
Try and broaden your minds a little.
So instead of a vague appeal to emotion, why not say precisely what problems it is meant to be solving, and perhaps we can make progress.0 -
I have set out clearly why I believe this policy would be counter-productive. Your only contribution was to question my motives for doing so without engaging with the argument.Smarmeron said:You ask a simple question and someone gets upset.
When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
I would hazard a guess at very few, but you are all experts, and therefore can state categorically that there is no problem. no hunger, no poverty, only the idle shiftless people trying to wrest the last case of champagne from your grasp.
Try and broaden your minds a little.
I'm not standing for election so even were I a raving hypocrite on the subject it would be completely irrelevant. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.
Odious vermin of all political parties seem to think that referring to my personal life is somehow going to add to political discussion. They shouldn't be surprised if in turn they then get invited to crawl back under the rock from whence they came.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
As mentioned downthread, the FTT is not something in accordance with the single market. It's just one more reason we should leave (yes, leaving would not end the FTT, but it would stop us being members of a club with supposedly equal treatment, with billions of pounds in entry fees yet a willingness by the club to try and damage our financial services industry).0 -
SmarmySmarmeron said:You ask a simple question and someone gets upset.
When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
I would hazard a guess at very few, but you are all experts, and therefore can state categorically that there is no problem. no hunger, no poverty, only the idle shiftless people trying to wrest the last case of champagne from your grasp.
Try and broaden your minds a little.
You posted an article which complained about a family having to live in a yacht on the Thames. It even has its own power supply and the interior decoration of wooden doors on the ceiling is the kind of post-modern ironic chic which gets featured in the World of Interiors.
None of this "idle shiftless people wresting the last case of champagne from our grasp". Some of us hard working Tories can't afford a sailing dinghy let alone a sixty foot yacht which sleeps 32.
Please show some restraint.
0 -
@JosiasJessop
Yes, they are all illegal, and enforcement would be a good idea, fortunately for those landlords that don't wish to obey the law have seen enforcement cut in the name of austerity. Plus all those cleaners and minions that serve the great London money machine can at least get to work for a pittance, so not many of the rich and powerfull are going to look too hard.
0 -
Smarmeron: I grew up in a flat that was subject to rent controls. I can tell you exactly what the consequences were: the original landlord was a gent but in the end retired and sold. The new landlord was a bastard who did all he could to try and evict us through harassment and letting the property to fall into serious disrepair. Ultimately it was declared unfit for human habitation under the 1952 Housing Act and the local council forced the landlord to make the necessary repairs. What this meant was that the flat was full of damp, dry rot; there was no central heating and the landlord had, through negligence, blocked up the chimney flue when doing some work on the flat upstairs so that we risked being killed by the fumes from the gas fire.Smarmeron said:You ask a simple question and someone gets upset.
When was the last time anyone here was on their beam end and had to practically beg for accommodation?
I would hazard a guess at very few, but you are all experts, and therefore can state categorically that there is no problem. no hunger, no poverty, only the idle shiftless people trying to wrest the last case of champagne from your grasp.
Try and broaden your minds a little.
So I have no love for slum landlords and a lot of gratitude to the council which helped us. And it is one reason why I determined never to rent, if I could possibly avoid it.
But imposing controls which create a disincentive for good landlords to keep the property in good repair because they are prevented from getting a good return on their investment is not going to resolve these sorts of problems.
0 -
There are provisions for students and others who may need shorter-term tenancies than three years.AveryLP said:
My dear Bobafret.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
The slums are owned by councils and housing associations. Often through no fault of their own mind.
Ed's proposals don't even address this sector of the housing market.
It is the successful shop owner who bought a flat in a stucco sea-front conversion in Worthing for his ailing mother-in-law who then sadly passed away who will be hit. The students who took over the tenancy will be out on their butts. Just one more worry for them while struggling with tuition fee loans.
Ed really doesn't think his policies through, does he?
I will need to read it in more detail beyond a skim but it is superficially attractive (superficially as in on first reading, I'm not awake enough to notice flaws).
It is of course an administrative rather than market-based solution which in principle I would disagree with, but then I am a Tory.
And someone mentioned rent levels and they would look to RICS for appropriate guidance - they might go up, down or stay the same.
press.labour.org.uk/post/84352297129/ed-miliband-launches-election-campaign-with-rents0 -
@antifrank
" They shouldn't be surprised if in turn they then get invited to crawl back under the rock from whence they came. "
OK. How much will you charge for this rock, and do I need to pay a non returnable deposit?0 -
What is so annoying about it is that there is a great service that can be done by investigative journalism rooting out corruption and unacceptable behaviour both in UKIP and other parties but it strikes me that a lot of what is going on at the moment is just lazy journalism - which is one reason why I think it is having so little effect so far.CarlottaVance said:
I must confess I was distinctly underwhelmed by Crick's efforts on C4 last night - and I usually have a lot of time for Crick. So an elderly gent with odd views has given UKIP money? I dare say elderly gents with odd views have given money to Con, Lab and Lib D too...Richard_Tyndall said:
Good stuff. That should be worth another percentage point or so for him. The Sun really are doing him a lot of good here.TGOHF said:The Sun have another go at Helmer
@Sun_Politics: The Sun Says today... More of Mr Helmer's considered thoughts on homosexuality pic.twitter.com/DQPKqDFIvx
I'd be more worried about someone like Souter funding a potential 'front' for YESNP to possibly circumvent electoral commission rules.....0 -
So we don't need this new law, but improved enforcement. Good. I'm glad we're agreed.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
Yes, they are all illegal, and enforcement would be a good idea, fortunately for those landlords that don't wish to obey the law have seen enforcement cut in the name of austerity. Plus all those cleaners and minions that serve the great London money machine can at least get to work for a pittance, so not many of the rich and powerfull are going to look too hard.
And BTW, there were plenty of examples of this before 2008. It hasn't just sprung up in the last few years.0 -
Of course you are right.Richard_Tyndall said:Oh and Mike is of course wrong. This is indeed a spoiler attempt. If it were just about Natrass keeping his seat then he would not have tried to confuse people by using the UKIP colour scheme and the copycat wording.
It's a cheap trick by a bitter ex. OGH really is blind when it comes to ukip, it horrible to witness.
But If this fellow does achieve a decent result, the bigger picture is that us kippers should be pleased. The total of this jokers vote added to the real ukip score would be the true reflection of how fed up people are with the EU and the establishment0 -
THE UK’s housing crisis is no secret, and political solutions are offered two a penny. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s plan to limit rents is perhaps the one thing that can be relied upon to make the situation worse for Britain’s renters.
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398915439/miliband-s-swipe-landlords-no-comfort-uk-renters0 -
No Mr. Jessop.
Those laws were introduced to stop people being exploited, what Ed is arguing for is that their scope needs to be increased, and hopefully better enforced.
The counter argument is to do away with all the laws, and have a race to the most profitable bottom.
0 -
UKIP are part of the establishment. You have MEPs with their snouts in the trough, and who are proud of it.isam said:
Of course you are right.Richard_Tyndall said:Oh and Mike is of course wrong. This is indeed a spoiler attempt. If it were just about Natrass keeping his seat then he would not have tried to confuse people by using the UKIP colour scheme and the copycat wording.
It's a cheap trick by a bitter ex. OGH really is blind when it comes to ukip, it horrible to witness.
But If this fellow does achieve a decent result, the bigger picture is that us kippers should be pleased. The total of this jokers vote added to the real ukip score would be the true reflection of how fed up people are with the EU and the establishment0 -
In response to Richard Nabavi from the previous thread, I think Labour will probably propose some sort of wealth tax and/or CGT on the sale of houses.0
-
Agreed and as an aside I think he was treated pretty poorly by UKIP who used the excuse that he failed some new interview system they had put in place and therefore he was deselected. It was dubious indeed.isam said:
Of course you are right.Richard_Tyndall said:Oh and Mike is of course wrong. This is indeed a spoiler attempt. If it were just about Natrass keeping his seat then he would not have tried to confuse people by using the UKIP colour scheme and the copycat wording.
It's a cheap trick by a bitter ex. OGH really is blind when it comes to ukip, it horrible to witness.
But If this fellow does achieve a decent result, the bigger picture is that us kippers should be pleased. The total of this jokers vote added to the real ukip score would be the true reflection of how fed up people are with the EU and the establishment
That said I am concerned by him collecting to his cause former UKIP members who have been kicked out for racism or homophobia. It rather undermines his position.
0 -
What colour is the sky in your world?JosiasJessop said:
UKIP are part of the establishment. You have MEPs with their snouts in the trough, and who are proud of it.isam said:
Of course you are right.Richard_Tyndall said:Oh and Mike is of course wrong. This is indeed a spoiler attempt. If it were just about Natrass keeping his seat then he would not have tried to confuse people by using the UKIP colour scheme and the copycat wording.
It's a cheap trick by a bitter ex. OGH really is blind when it comes to ukip, it horrible to witness.
But If this fellow does achieve a decent result, the bigger picture is that us kippers should be pleased. The total of this jokers vote added to the real ukip score would be the true reflection of how fed up people are with the EU and the establishment
So you would disagree with more or less everyone and say that the rise in the ukip vote is down to the public liking the establishment and voting for a party it considers part of it?
0 -
The counter argument to a 'bad law' is not 'no law'.......Smarmeron said:
The counter argument is to do away with all the laws, and have a race to the most profitable bottom.
Perhaps you, or Bobawhat can explain how Miliband's proposal will increase supply of rental property, thus driving down prices?
Rather than the opposite effect?
0 -
Again, I ask what problem(s) the new laws are meant to solve. We've already agreed that it won't restrain the rogue landlords as they are already breaking existing laws, and these problems could be tackled using better enforcement of existing laws.Smarmeron said:No Mr. Jessop.
Those laws were introduced to stop people being exploited, what Ed is arguing for is that their scope needs to be increased, and hopefully better enforced.
The counter argument is to do away with all the laws, and have a race to the most profitable bottom.
So what problem(s) are they meant to solve?0 -
I note that, after accusing people on here of having no experience in this area, you choose to ignore my real life experience. No matter.Smarmeron said:No Mr. Jessop.
Those laws were introduced to stop people being exploited, what Ed is arguing for is that their scope needs to be increased, and hopefully better enforced.
The counter argument is to do away with all the laws, and have a race to the most profitable bottom.
The alternative is not "no laws". The alternative is to have well targeted, well thought out laws that deal with the real problem and don't make it worse. We will need to see the detail of what Labour propose but previous experience of rent controls in this country, let alone elsewhere, strongly suggests that there will be unintended and harmful consequences, which will harm the very people Labour want to help.
0 -
Instead of Milibland coming up with some pointless scheme, yet again England should look north to see how to solve the problem.
Scotland introduced a compulsory registration scheme for all private landlords a decade ago. Each landlord has to register with each local authority in which they rent property. Prior to registering them, the local authority carries out checks including PNC and can refuse registration. The cost is around £60 per property every 3 years.
The Local Authority has the right to carry out random inspections and all Landlords have to issue tenants with a pack at the commencement of the lease. It is an offence for the landlord to charge the tenant for various expenses e.g. cost of preparing the lease. There is a statutory standard of wind and watertight condition and basic standard of habitation. Every landlord has to provide an EPC certificate which sets out how good the property is at heat retention and energy use, following a statutory scale. They can only be prepared by a regulated person, usually a chartered surveyor and cost around £120.
I had a new tenant move in yesterday and had to provide all of the above. As for rogue landlords, well in the past year, several have been given an opportunity to assess the provision of Her Majesty's services having been sent to jail for breaching the aforementioned regulations.0 -
Miss Vance, Red Ed does seem to love the state controlling things. Rents, prices, one wonders what the next question will be, but we can be relatively confident "State control" will be the answer.
I read the other day a disturbing suggestion, a repeated one (which I don't think is particularly party political in nature) that some want de jure marriage to occur without a ceremony.
Basically, if two people live together for X years and then split up, they would have to divide assets as if they were married. It's completely ****ing insane to have the state effectively force marriage on people and then give someone property rights over another for no good reason.0 -
There is no question that the boom in buy to let has applied rocket fuel to the housing market and taken most properties out of the reach of first time buyers. Allowing BTL landlords access to subsided funding was a mistake, now corrected. The solution must lie in supply but this takes some time. The solution of rent control has been shown not to work so many times it is incredible it is being wheeled out again.0
-
Quite, so, Miss Cyclefree. You are Ammianus Marcellinus* reborn and I claim quintus denarii.
*He was a historian in the 4th century AD who attacked Julian the Apostate, of whom he was usually a supporter, for proposing state-determined commodity prices which, AMmianus said, were well-known to cause shortages of supply and more harm than good.0 -
@ Cyclefree
I apologize for missing your post, I shall now go back and re read it. (Vanilla is like that at times)
0 -
One potential point to think about:
Many in the media could get behind Miliband's energy madness because they are not energy companies. I wonder how many in the media, on left and right, have property portfolios?0 -
Thathcherite paper opposes regulation shock.CarlottaVance said:THE UK’s housing crisis is no secret, and political solutions are offered two a penny. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s plan to limit rents is perhaps the one thing that can be relied upon to make the situation worse for Britain’s renters.
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398915439/miliband-s-swipe-landlords-no-comfort-uk-renters
In other news, Pope unearthed as Catholic, PB Tories found to screech.0 -
A well functioning market is determined by liquidity, competition and absence of over-regulation.TOPPING said:
There are provisions for students and others who may need shorter-term tenancies than three years.AveryLP said:
My dear Bobafret.BobaFett said:@TGOHF
Ed Miliband taking on slum landlords and crook agents is a disaster for Ed Miliband?
LOL.
The slums are owned by councils and housing associations. Often through no fault of their own mind.
Ed's proposals don't even address this sector of the housing market.
It is the successful shop owner who bought a flat in a stucco sea-front conversion in Worthing for his ailing mother-in-law who then sadly passed away who will be hit. The students who took over the tenancy will be out on their butts. Just one more worry for them while struggling with tuition fee loans.
Ed really doesn't think his policies through, does he?
I will need to read it in more detail beyond a skim but it is superficially attractive (superficially as in on first reading, I'm not awake enough to notice flaws).
It is of course an administrative rather than market-based solution which in principle I would disagree with, but then I am a Tory.
And someone mentioned rent levels and they would look to RICS for appropriate guidance - they might go up, down or stay the same.
press.labour.org.uk/post/84352297129/ed-miliband-launches-election-campaign-with-rents
Nothing wrong with three year rental contracts provided they are entered into freely by both parties. Nothing wrong with fixed rents or pre-agreed review dates and adjustment formulae. Such forward fixes are widely available as an option in the mortgage market.
But forcing parties into fixed terms, imposing rent controls and limiting agency fees is curtailing freedom and reducing flexibility and choice. It has also proven in the past to generate economic side effects which distort the markets and negate the original policy intentions.
The UK is not North Korea nor are we still living in the 1970s.
0 -
Mr. Jessop, reminds me of the recent floods. Somerset levels got less coverage than the Thames Valley. (For that matter, in 2007 Yorkshire got no coverage once Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were hit. I still recall Alagiah[sp] grinning when covering the floods in Yorkshire).0
-
Typical Labour Tories - soaking the rich!
The analysis also discloses that by 2014/15 the top 1 per cent of earners will pay 27.4 per cent of Britain’s tax bill, compared to 21.4 per cent a decade ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10799278/Higher-rate-payers-shoulder-two-thirds-of-Britains-tax-burden.html0 -
@Cyclefree
There should be no suggestion that a fair rent should not be charged, and if it were so I would oppose it.
What any law should do though is to stop your "b*stard" landlord from exploiting people for so long.0 -
Your usual level of engagement with the argument....how are rent controls going to increase supply of rental properties?BobaFett said:
In other news, Pope unearthed as Catholic, PB Tories found to screech.CarlottaVance said:THE UK’s housing crisis is no secret, and political solutions are offered two a penny. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s plan to limit rents is perhaps the one thing that can be relied upon to make the situation worse for Britain’s renters.
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398915439/miliband-s-swipe-landlords-no-comfort-uk-renters
Answer came there none......
0 -
It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.antifrank said:
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
0 -
@CarlottaVance
"The analysis also discloses that by 2014/15 the top 1 per cent of earners will pay 27.4 per cent of Britain’s tax bill, compared to 21.4 per cent a decade ago"
Got any figures for how much their overall wealth has increased in that time?
....Or indeed, have you any idea just how much of the countries wealth they own?
(graphs and sheets available on request)
0 -
Not even Krugman believes in rent control......
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html0 -
Another Labour poster who doesn't understand basic economics.NickPalmer said:It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.antifrank said:
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one payingf a bit more. Some landlords doo if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.0 -
That sounds interesting, thanks. Is there any legal restriction on notice periods, as Miliband is proposing?Easterross said:Instead of Milibland coming up with some pointless scheme, yet again England should look north to see how to solve the problem.
Scotland introduced a compulsory registration scheme for all private landlords a decade ago. Each landlord has to register with each local authority in which they rent property. Prior to registering them, the local authority carries out checks including PNC and can refuse registration. The cost is around £60 per property every 3 years.
The Local Authority has the right to carry out random inspections and all Landlords have to issue tenants with a pack at the commencement of the lease. It is an offence for the landlord to charge the tenant for various expenses e.g. cost of preparing the lease. There is a statutory standard of wind and watertight condition and basic standard of habitation. Every landlord has to provide an EPC certificate which sets out how good the property is at heat retention and energy use, following a statutory scale. They can only be prepared by a regulated person, usually a chartered surveyor and cost around £120.
I had a new tenant move in yesterday and had to provide all of the above. As for rogue landlords, well in the past year, several have been given an opportunity to assess the provision of Her Majesty's services having been sent to jail for breaching the aforementioned regulations.
When we rented two properties in the Southampton area, we had firemen come round shortly after we moved in to the properties. In each case he came around and checked fire compliance; in the second house he suggested a couple of things which the landlady immediately implemented.
It was a great idea. Sadly we've never had the same here in Cambridgeshire.0 -
This package is not designed to do that. Labour have already published proposals for increasing supply, such as use it or lose it.CarlottaVance said:
Your usual level of engagement with the argument....how are rent controls going to increase supply of rental properties?BobaFett said:
In other news, Pope unearthed as Catholic, PB Tories found to screech.CarlottaVance said:THE UK’s housing crisis is no secret, and political solutions are offered two a penny. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s plan to limit rents is perhaps the one thing that can be relied upon to make the situation worse for Britain’s renters.
Like any price ceiling, Labour’s pledge will reduce available supply, as rents are capped below their market level. Economists call such policies rent controls, and they are a rare area of academic consensus.
A 2012 poll of influential economists found that 95 per cent believed they had a negative impact where applied locally, in cities like New York and San Francisco. Miliband is proposing to roll out that failure at the national level.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398915439/miliband-s-swipe-landlords-no-comfort-uk-renters
Answer came there none......
The PB Tories, of course, also oppose that. Just like Nimby Tories in rural areas with plenty of land oppose pretty much any proposal to build new houses anywhere near them.0 -
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.NickPalmer said:It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.antifrank said:
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
The PB Tories have declared it so.0 -
This policy will help nice middle class young voters who want to buy, at the expense of poor voters who need to rent. I would have thought Labour's priorities should have been the reverse.BobaFett said:
You are wrong Nick. This is in fact Apocalypse Now, Venezuelan style.NickPalmer said:It's hard to read intent, but the effect seems to me to be "passing off", and it's wrong that the Electoral Commission allowed it. It's also wrong that having "A" at the front affects your position on the ballot paper. This will lead to the nonsense you get in phone directories - "AAA Conservationist Party", etc.
I've been involved both as a landlord and a renter for much of my adult life.antifrank said:
Many "decent" landlords will decide not to bother letting properties and simply sell them instead. That's great for would-be buyers, not so great for those who want to or must rent who now have proportionately greater competition for the remaining rental properties.
The people who should fear this package most are the poor. Their property options are likely to get considerably worse.
1. The agent fee issue is simply a transparency matter - the agent will charge the landlord and it will be reflected in the published rent. It means that you don't get suckered into signing up for rent X and suddenly get hit with fee Y.
2. The 3-year rule will tilt the balance in favour of tenants, but it's currently heavily the other way. As a reasonable landlord, if I got a decent tenant I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to hoof him out so I could get another one paying a bit more. Some landlords do if the market is rising rapidly, and it's sensible to block that off.
3. The proposal to limit rent rises in line with RIBA recommendations doesn't sound scary to me.
I don't think it will suddenly transform the world, but it'll be quite helpful to tenants and not a problem for respectable landlords. Will it make the sharks move out of the sector altogether? Not clear, and if they do that's not a bad thing - the flats will not disappear, and will be bought by someone else. Will the shark sell to a buyer rather than a rental firm? He'll sell to whoever offers most, but the rental firm is more likely to be interested.
The PB Tories have declared it so.0
