Thank you, that makes sense, bassically create a fiscal drag in real terms where people arent technically being upside down on their mortgage but due to inflation and wage growth people without will be able to better afford them.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I assume you are referring to your take on the leadership pledges and your perception but this is the 2024-2029 thread and a quick glance back at the old thread shows that people on the Corbyn side of the party had long been disillusioned. I think it's better we don't let this one go the same way, so I'll specify that I am talking about in the general election campaign and more generalised run-up to the election. In 2024 has anyone been under any illusion that Starmer was aiming for 'competent Corbyn'?
I appreciate that it means for many people they'll be stuck in their own home, and that's shit if they are unable to upgrade. But the alternative is others not even getting that chance.
I'd hope that there would be some form of relief provided to existing homeowners that counters their loss of house value. I'm not sure how it could be implemented but you're absolutely correct that existing owners shouldn't be fecked over. Nobody should be (expect Tories or people who wear sunglasses indoors, obviously)
A decent Government would start a massive programme of building social housing. They would even borrow to fund it because it's a very clear and obvious investment where you are left with valuable assets at the end. It will also be a good economic boost to the building industry. The future rents from social housing also boost local Government funding.
'I can't defend those comments, so lets pretend they didn't happen'
I think they need to shift those fiscal rules soon. This is as clear a case of borrowing to invest as it's possible to see.
Ok Dobba.
Yeah but this is dumb because the extra cost just gets passed onto renters indirectly rather than the landlord in the form of increased rent.
My ideal situation would be that all landlord income has to be submitted to an independent body that ensures anything above a certain yield% is passed back onto tenants or has to be invested back into the property. This way allows some profit and doesn't demonise investment but also makes it a less one-sided dynamic and promotes responsible landlordism.
Last edited:
You're welcome.
If the property is rented out then its not classed as a second home and the council tax is the normal price for the renters. The elevated council tax only applies to empty homes. The government needs to stop going after landlords and realise the rental market is a necessity; recent anti-landlord policies are directly responsible for the insane rental market we see now.
The change I most expect to see is a rebanding of the G and H houses and a subsequent punitive tax on them because they're the easy target.
I kind of agree but isn’t that exactly what they’ve been doing for the past year +? And rowed back on multiple pledges for exactly that reason?
I don’t think they’ve been very shy to be fair in declaring the economy in the shit, even before.
It's pretty strange to specify that you're asking for examples of something no one claimed. The comment you quoted was very clear: competent Corbynism was the leadership bid, Tories are incompetent was the message after leadership was won.
How about we just ban the future sale of second or third homes? Or put in rent control where rent can't be more than 5% of a mortgage repayment on houses purchased as buy to lets?
Anyone that ever says ‘We need private landlords’ is either protecting their own interests, lacking imagination, or just plain stupid.
It’s dogma. Full on emperors new clothes stuff.
Saying “But making a new system would be so hard” is toddler behaviour. Yes it would be painful but it would benefit all. The economic reality is that we need very few private landlords and those that are necessary, should never be in the hands of people that have renters buying the house for them.
Honestly, I get it. You all like that you get to do close to nothing while a poorer person buys you a fecking building. But please stop and interrogate that sentence.
Somebody else. Buys something for you.
fecking housecats.
It’s dogma. Full on emperors new clothes stuff.
Saying “But making a new system would be so hard” is toddler behaviour. Yes it would be painful but it would benefit all. The economic reality is that we need very few private landlords and those that are necessary, should never be in the hands of people that have renters buying the house for them.
Honestly, I get it. You all like that you get to do close to nothing while a poorer person buys you a fecking building. But please stop and interrogate that sentence.
Somebody else. Buys something for you.
fecking housecats.
Voter ID rule may have stopped 400,000 taking part in UK election, poll suggests
Exclusive: 3.2% of those surveyed say they were turned away at least once, with minority ethnic people worse-affected
More than 400,000 people could have been prevented from voting in the general election because they lacked the necessary ID, with those from minority ethnic communities more than twice as likely to have experienced this, polling has suggested.
Of those surveyed by More In Common, 3.2% said they had been turned away at least once last Thursday, which if reflected across the UK would equate to more than 850,000 people. Of these, more than half said they either did not return, or came back and were still unable to vote.
Among people turned away at least once, about a third had ID that was not on the relatively narrow list of permitted documents; about a quarter said the name on their ID was different to that on the electoral register; and 12% said they were told the picture on the ID did not match their appearance.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0000-taking-part-in-uk-election-poll-suggests
This needs changing urgently.
In many ways, it’s a source of comfort that these people don’t actually exist.
I think there is definitely an argument for rent controls and putting an end to making prospective renters compete against each other to benefit landlords
What do you propose for people who don't want to own their own home and prefer to rent?
Rent controls never work. In fact, they invariably make the problem worse. This is pretty well understood in the economics literature.
Sadly, there is no way to regulate your way out of a supply/demand mismatch. You just need to roll up your sleeves and build more homes.
Or you could just do postal voting.
Hasn't it worked in NYC? Admittedly I don't know that much about it but it's been in place there for a long time and people seem to benefit from that.
The vast majority of the posts I have read have been reasonable comments on an important subject.
The way it typically works is to benefit the existing tenants who pay artificially low rents. But it creates an undesirable lock-in effect and causes much higher rents for properties not under rent control as everyone else must compete for the fewer remaining apartments.
The bigger issue is that you almost always see new building plummet as the return on capital from suppressed rental income doesn’t justify the construction costs. This obviously makes supply shortages worse and worse over time.
Fair enough, I'd certainly prefer to choose the solution that is driven by the market but I've heard about landlords in London being able to effectively auction their properties to the highest bidders due to supply and demand, and that should certainly be controlled.
1. Masses of social housing.
2. A sensible number of private rental properties. As mentioned.
Number 2 needs to be operational within a real market. Not an artificially created one. We simply don’t need house prices to double/triple/quintuple in value at pace.
If people that want to buy, can’t. And if rental costs are anywhere near mortgaged costs, the market is wrong and incorrectly shaped/legislated/regulated.
It’s an easy problem. Not a hard one.
Shut up, you sexually confused druggie.
I’m not sure how you determine market rate without some kind of “auction” whereby buyers and sellers negotiate a price.
If you advertise a property at a certain price then that should be the price that is accepted. I don't think that would be a bad form of rent control. Also limiting annual increases.
Are you of the Hayek school of economists!
Ok, I advertise my property for rent at a high price and will accept the offer from whoever offers the smallest discount. All of this is dancing round the real problem - BUILD MORE HOUSES.
I was assuming that you need to actually prove where and who you are to stand for election and therefore you couldn't have fake candidates. Looking into it, I'm not so sure and that guys X account looks very suspicious. Surely can't be true...but do we have fake Reform candidates here? Surely not?I mean his photo looks shopped as hell.
Keen to see some video footage of this guy!
"How do you think anyone could be nominated if you don’t exist ?"
This is the question for philosophers
This is the question for philosophers
"I Think... therefore I am" (Descartes)
You wouldn’t think so, but funnier things have happened.
So I go up to Mark's office and what do I find out, Mac, what do I find out? There is no Mark Matlock. The man does not exist, okay? So I decided, ohh shit, buddy, I gotta dig a little deeper. There's no Mark Matlock, you gotta be kidding me, I got boxes full of Mark! All right, so I start marching my way down to Nigel at Reform. and I knock on her door and I say, "Niiigel! Niiigel! I gotta talk to you about Mark!" And when I open the door, what do I find? There's not a single goddamn desk in that office. There is no Nigel at Reform. Mac, half the employees in this building have been made up. This office is a goddamn ghost town.
It also penalises people who move more often (young people and growing families) and benefits those that don't move (older people).
And if you completely control the market top to bottom, then you create a big value differential between selling and renting, at which point landlords just sell instead because its more financially desirable. Which shrinks the pool of rental properties further and puts them in the hands of people that can afford the deposits, while the remaining renters have fewer to choose from.
All in all, a very regressive policy.
I mean his photo looks shopped as hell.
Keen to see some video footage of this guy!
He unfortunately had pneumonia on the day of the count and couldn't attend and his website doesn't work.
NI
No intelligence.
You know as well as I do that that’s an impossibly calc without teams of people looking at the data.
But as a simple legislation to equalise the market, just pass a law that doesn’t allow a property to be rented at more than 75% of its monthly mortgage cost. If these properties are investments, force the landlords to invest in them. It’s not the tenants job to be kept under the jackboot of our fecked housing market. Nor should landlords be given halo polishes for doing so.
Large scale longstanding landlords owning mortgage fee properties can have sensible nominal fees imposed on them. If their income for a 2 bedroom flat in London drops from 2500 to 1500 overnight, they’ll sell some of them.
Do those things for a decade and you solve so much of the problem.
The elephant in the room is that this barely touches truly rich folks that have hoards of properties. I’m not protecting them, and it would take a really big idea to remedy that. But that’s our class system in full effect.
These measures may be too sharp, but they wouldn’t decimate the housing market if all of a sudden lots of people could move from renters to owners. We just transfer assets from a small number to a larger number.
Making shit better is so damn easy. Making it perfect and fair for all is impossible. But better is a cakewalk.