I intend to write a piece for submission to PB on building policy and over-regulation (think Building Safety Act) from the perspective of a construction lawyer. Posting for accountability mainly. I’ll try not to make it boring.
This does appear to be mostly a British problem, people are getting pissed up at airports or drinking their duty free on board.
Airlines have started to launch civil cases against disruptive passengers, the cost of a diversion will be several thousand pounds, and into the tens of thousands if they have to put up passengers overnight.
Bet they all vote Reform as well
And tie flags to lamposts. There is no end to their evil.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
Also I've got to say I wonder how much struggle the people were leaving the plane at Sofia, it's not a place where I would want to argue with the police, I've seen how they operate and it's fists first ask questions a lot later..
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Also- supply and demand. As long as there aren't really enough homes in places that people might reasonably want to live, the owners of those homes hold all the cards.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
That’s some pathetic snowflake whataboutery from Trump supporters.
There’s some epic gaslighting from the leftist commentariat in the US, seemingly unaware that their extremist rhetoric is leading to actual violence and threats of violence.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
That’s some pathetic snowflake whataboutery from Trump supporters.
There’s some epic gaslighting from the leftist commentariat in the US, seemingly unaware that their extremist rhetoric is leading to actual violence and threats of violence.
In the great American tradition. Who are the true American patriots, hmm?
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
That’s some pathetic snowflake whataboutery from Trump supporters.
There’s some epic gaslighting from the leftist commentariat in the US, seemingly unaware that their extremist rhetoric is leading to actual violence and threats of violence.
What, like a mob attacking Congress threastening to lynch the Vice President?
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
Oh I think in this case it would be easy. The timeline goes
Offer (tentatively accepted) on rental References given Offer removed.
That reference would become part of the requirements in the court case via a Subject Access Request..
I suspect any renter would be able to pick up the pattern and then use it against all the landlords involved.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Don’t you?
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time trying to disentangle victimisation claims as a union rep, I have to say that comes across as rather naive.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Also why would a tenant provide the landlord's phone number, just put in the email address.
Reality is the only people who will be able to run a blacklist is a lettings firm and I suspect their charges would be way more than the risk of a tenant arguing over a rental increase.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Also why would a tenant provide the landlord's phone number, just put in the email address.
Reality is the only people who will be able to run a blacklist is a lettings firm and I suspect their charges would be way more than the risk of a tenant arguing over a rental increase.
Not providing a phone number is in itself often an immediate red flag in asking for a reference.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Don’t you?
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time trying to disentangle victimisation claims as a union rep, I have to say that comes across as rather naive.
HR departments have all the time in the world between eating their packets of crisps to call each other. Landlords, in my experience, are too lazy to do anything between their day job and everything else. I guess letting agents might call each other but seems like an unnecessary legal liability to me.
Raising an objection to a rent increase in line with the law isn’t a refusal to pay rent.
This does appear to be mostly a British problem, people are getting pissed up at airports or drinking their duty free on board.
Airlines have started to launch civil cases against disruptive passengers, the cost of a diversion will be several thousand pounds, and into the tens of thousands if they have to put up passengers overnight.
There is a lot in America as well and this increase in disruptive passengers on flights, as well as reports of worse driving and more mental health issues, that makes me believe Covid has messed up people's brains. It's not just one thing, it's the range of things getting worse. Sure, it could be coincidence or smartphones or the dreaded algorithms but my money, or at least a tentative fiver, is on Covid.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Also why would a tenant provide the landlord's phone number, just put in the email address.
Reality is the only people who will be able to run a blacklist is a lettings firm and I suspect their charges would be way more than the risk of a tenant arguing over a rental increase.
Not providing a phone number is in itself often an immediate red flag in asking for a reference.
I never had the phone number of any landlord I ever had
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Also- supply and demand. As long as there aren't really enough homes in places that people might reasonably want to live, the owners of those homes hold all the cards.
They did, but the tenants have been given a strong card here (too strong a card imo as a tenant and advocate for further tenants rights) alongside the end of the dreaded section 21 evictions (good decision here, promised for many years but undelivered by the Tories).
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Don’t you?
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time trying to disentangle victimisation claims as a union rep, I have to say that comes across as rather naive.
It’s trivially easy for a tenant to win such a battle up here in Scotland. It’s almost always ignorance of their rights or physical fear of the landlord that prevents it, not the process itself.
I think rent freezes are crazy for obvious reasons but the main reforms are perfectly sensible - small hassle to landlords, massive benefits to tenants = increase in total welfare. My sense is it’s only complete arseholes would make a fuss about it, and so they are.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
It is kind of irrelevant anyway. Once the new laws come in any tenants who don't want a rent increase can appeal at a cost of £47. Importantly the rent increase can't happen before the appeal is heard and doesn't get backdated to the intended increase date. If enough tenants appeal, and of course they will, the system will quickly backlog and £47 will be all the extra that those tenants have to pay for many months if not a couple of years until their rent appeal gets sorted.
Followed by all those tenants being put on a landlords blacklist and finding that they cannot get housing.
How would a blacklist work?
Landlord asks for references from previous landlord.
Previous landlord says, ‘refused to pay rent increase.’
Tenant is declined.
Not difficult to see how that could work.
Would be trivial to ban victimisation due to a tenant exercising their statutory rights, as is the case in employment law.
Good luck proving it. As indeed is the case in employment law.
It would be simple if there’s emails. Even asking the question would probably be enough on a balance of probabilities. I don’t expect every landlord to phone each other.
Don’t you?
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time trying to disentangle victimisation claims as a union rep, I have to say that comes across as rather naive.
HR departments have all the time in the world between eating their packets of crisps to call each other. Landlords, in my experience, are too lazy to do anything between their day job and everything else. I guess letting agents might call each other but seems like an unnecessary legal liability to me.
Raising an objection to a rent increase in line with the law isn’t a refusal to pay rent.
I said 'refused to pay rent increase.' Not 'refused to pay rent.'
And your experience sounds pretty narrow. You would I think be unpleasantly surprised at how vindictive people can be.
Oliver Kamm @OliverKamm · 56m This is a sure way of reducing the supply of private-sector rental accommodation and deterring landlords from repairing & refurbishing their properties
Landlords are not sympathetic characters, but this doesn't seem like it would provide much assistance.
Build more houses.
Everything else is bollocks.
No, it’s not. If all those new houses are hoovered up by our minted landlord class (or faceless overseas corporations) then you’ve just ended up with more lifelong Labour voters.
The Conservatives really need to get this into their heads. Our housing stock has increased significantly over the last 30 years - but the number being rented has grown faster. They are distinct problems.
No, basic economics shows they are intimately related.
The lack of sufficient new housing where people want to live has meant, together with falling real interest rates for much of that time, that house price growth has been very high. This has meant that landlords have been tempted into the sector for capital growth, not rental yields, rather than more productive investments, reducing owner occupation.
So the private rental sector has increased and owner occupation has fallen, from 71% in 2003 to 63% today. Exactly as you'd expect from undergraduate level economics.
If the government credibly committed to allowing enough houses to be built (and we have about 8 million fewer than France, with a slightly larger population), you'd remove the capital growth incentive on landlords to own. Owner occupation would rise back to the levels in the early 2000s.
Building more houses, not making life more difficult for landlords, is absolutely the main solution to increasing owner occupation.
Notice that Labour never talk about their (anyway inadequate) 1.5 million homes target for this Parliament? Another spectacular failure from a shambles of a government with a gigantic majority.
In fairness to Starmer (why am I doing that exactly) politics is a lot more volatile than it was 40 or 50 years ago with a lot less tribal loyalty. Staying popular these days is almost impossible. Anyone who is the leader is going to be a target for the majority of our population.
Also, Starmer is in a multiparty context whereas Nixon was in a 2-party system.
Totally agree. With at least 5 parties with half reasonable support anyone who wins the election will soon be in trouble. I think this started in the coalition years.
Oliver Kamm @OliverKamm · 56m This is a sure way of reducing the supply of private-sector rental accommodation and deterring landlords from repairing & refurbishing their properties
Landlords are not sympathetic characters, but this doesn't seem like it would provide much assistance.
Build more houses.
Everything else is bollocks.
No, it’s not. If all those new houses are hoovered up by our minted landlord class (or faceless overseas corporations) then you’ve just ended up with more lifelong Labour voters.
The Conservatives really need to get this into their heads. Our housing stock has increased significantly over the last 30 years - but the number being rented has grown faster. They are distinct problems.
No, basic economics shows they are intimately related.
The lack of sufficient new housing where people want to live has meant, together with falling real interest rates for much of that time, that house price growth has been very high. This has meant that landlords have been tempted into the sector for capital growth, not rental yields, rather than more productive investments, reducing owner occupation.
So the private rental sector has increased and owner occupation has fallen, from 71% in 2003 to 63% today. Exactly as you'd expect from undergraduate level economics.
If the government credibly committed to allowing enough houses to be built (and we have about 8 million fewer than France, with a slightly larger population), you'd remove the capital growth incentive on landlords to own. Owner occupation would rise back to the levels in the early 2000s.
Building more houses, not making life more difficult for landlords, is absolutely the main solution to increasing owner occupation.
Notice that Labour never talk about their (anyway inadequate) 1.5 million homes target for this Parliament? Another spectacular failure from a shambles of a government with a gigantic majority.
There's quite a detailed analysis of poverty and rent related poverty in the Commons Library. One point jumps out. Persistent poverty (defined as living in relative low income for at least three of the last four years) for those in private rented accommodation jumps from 14% (before housing costs ) to 27% (after housing costs). So there are a lot of persistent poor in private rented accommodation.
Depending on how you look at it, landlords are social workers (by providing the accommodation) or rip-off merchants by hoovering up housing benefit. Will building more private homes solve the issue if they can't afford the mortgage on them? Should there be more affordable / social housing or even council housing.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
That’s some pathetic snowflake whataboutery from Trump supporters.
As noted in the X comments, the Jeffries comment relates specifically to the redistricting battle, as made very clear by the clip. No case to answer.
Kimmel is out of order here, though.
It’s a poor taste joke. I feel for Melania, she’s been thrust into the public eye through no fault of her own and has to put up with a bad joke being made about her. I can only hope that the $28 million she earned from the film “Melania”, which hasn’t even grossed $17 million making the whole thing look like a massive bribe from Amazon, helps get her through this difficult time.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
That’s some pathetic snowflake whataboutery from Trump supporters.
There’s some epic gaslighting from the leftist commentariat in the US, seemingly unaware that their extremist rhetoric is leading to actual violence and threats of violence.
If only the left would use more temperate language! Look, for example, at how Trump on 6 Jan 2021, managed to convey valid political points without encouraging violence. That’s an example we can all learn from.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
Comments
Kimmel is out of order here, though.
Offer (tentatively accepted) on rental
References given
Offer removed.
That reference would become part of the requirements in the court case via a Subject Access Request..
I suspect any renter would be able to pick up the pattern and then use it against all the landlords involved.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time trying to disentangle victimisation claims as a union rep, I have to say that comes across as rather naive.
Reality is the only people who will be able to run a blacklist is a lettings firm and I suspect their charges would be way more than the risk of a tenant arguing over a rental increase.
Raising an objection to a rent increase in line with the law isn’t a refusal to pay rent.
NEW THREAD
I think rent freezes are crazy for obvious reasons but the main reforms are perfectly sensible - small hassle to landlords, massive benefits to tenants = increase in total welfare. My sense is it’s only complete arseholes would make a fuss about it, and so they are.
And your experience sounds pretty narrow. You would I think be unpleasantly surprised at how vindictive people can be.
The lack of sufficient new housing where people want to live has meant, together with falling real interest rates for much of that time, that house price growth has been very high. This has meant that landlords have been tempted into the sector for capital growth, not rental yields, rather than more productive investments, reducing owner occupation.
So the private rental sector has increased and owner occupation has fallen, from 71% in 2003 to 63% today. Exactly as you'd expect from undergraduate level economics.
If the government credibly committed to allowing enough houses to be built (and we have about 8 million fewer than France, with a slightly larger population), you'd remove the capital growth incentive on landlords to own. Owner occupation would rise back to the levels in the early 2000s.
Building more houses, not making life more difficult for landlords, is absolutely the main solution to increasing owner occupation.
Notice that Labour never talk about their (anyway inadequate) 1.5 million homes target for this Parliament? Another spectacular failure from a shambles of a government with a gigantic majority.
Depending on how you look at it, landlords are social workers (by providing the accommodation) or rip-off merchants by hoovering up housing benefit. Will building more private homes solve the issue if they can't afford the mortgage on them? Should there be more affordable / social housing or even council housing.
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!