ChatterBank1 min ago
Milliband Is Now Showing His True Colour?
21 Answers
http://
Well well well. If this isn't a lurch to the left then I really dont know what could be.
Interfering in a market economy is exactly the thing our communist friends in the east do.
Just what does he expect to happen I wonder?
Is he going to provide public funded housing to make up the shortfall when many sell up and stop renting, like happened many years ago?
Take this-
//Landlords would only be able to terminate contracts with two months notice if a tenant fell into arrears //
So a tennat falls into arrears, which would be two months with no money then another two months (with no money) and then the eviction process off approx 3 months( with no money). Does he really think the private sector (many of whom only have one or maybe two properties) to be able to deal with this?
I fail to see how this will win Middle England, and that is who he needs to woo to win an election.
Well well well. If this isn't a lurch to the left then I really dont know what could be.
Interfering in a market economy is exactly the thing our communist friends in the east do.
Just what does he expect to happen I wonder?
Is he going to provide public funded housing to make up the shortfall when many sell up and stop renting, like happened many years ago?
Take this-
//Landlords would only be able to terminate contracts with two months notice if a tenant fell into arrears //
So a tennat falls into arrears, which would be two months with no money then another two months (with no money) and then the eviction process off approx 3 months( with no money). Does he really think the private sector (many of whom only have one or maybe two properties) to be able to deal with this?
I fail to see how this will win Middle England, and that is who he needs to woo to win an election.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
those who can afford market rents will rent from a private landlord, those who can't won't, and are effectively out in the cold. Private landlords won't rent to those who come under the banner of social housing tenants, as there is now a cap, so anyone getting housing benefit will likely not be able to rent properties, especially in the capital from a private landlord, if he/she can get a grand a week for his poky flat, then why would he/she settle for a cap of three hundred, i don't know what the rent cap is now per week, month. its one of the major problems, so private developer/landlord can charge a lot because there are lots willing to pay
what they ask - social housing is getting scarce, many of these properties that could have been renovated, refurbished, at relatively small cost, are now sold on, and not this right to buy scheme but direct from the council
not sure what Milliband can do about that, he can't actively tell the landlords what to do with their own properties, and if he does they will sell up
what they ask - social housing is getting scarce, many of these properties that could have been renovated, refurbished, at relatively small cost, are now sold on, and not this right to buy scheme but direct from the council
not sure what Milliband can do about that, he can't actively tell the landlords what to do with their own properties, and if he does they will sell up
Agreed
this is folly from someone with apparently no appreciation of commercial realities.
There are good and bad landlords but the majority of private rents are high because they represent a reasonable yield on the property value plus allowances for repairs and the various costs of bad debt.
Some landlords inflate rents due to high demand, but again that is reflecting the property value.
As ymb points out, why would any of us put our money into an enterprise that wouldn't provide a competitive yield?
If Labour think they can cap rents they need to freeze or reduce property values (not a great idea) or increase supply by building and subsidising social housing.
this is folly from someone with apparently no appreciation of commercial realities.
There are good and bad landlords but the majority of private rents are high because they represent a reasonable yield on the property value plus allowances for repairs and the various costs of bad debt.
Some landlords inflate rents due to high demand, but again that is reflecting the property value.
As ymb points out, why would any of us put our money into an enterprise that wouldn't provide a competitive yield?
If Labour think they can cap rents they need to freeze or reduce property values (not a great idea) or increase supply by building and subsidising social housing.
more private developments are going up in the capital, than social housing,
and Milliband can't dictate to landlords who they rent to - the bad thing is that these market rents governments allowed, there was no cap before on what they could charge, and the tenant claim back as housing benefit, a win win for landlord. Now that has changed, so landlords if they can't get the money they want - a market rate, then they won't rent to those who do get housing benefit, which is many
and Milliband can't dictate to landlords who they rent to - the bad thing is that these market rents governments allowed, there was no cap before on what they could charge, and the tenant claim back as housing benefit, a win win for landlord. Now that has changed, so landlords if they can't get the money they want - a market rate, then they won't rent to those who do get housing benefit, which is many
As usual this is the basic problem with your spoon fed socialist, despite socilaism being exposed as an unworkable doctrine, they still think that state interference in these sorts of areas has a place. The basic problem is that Socialist think that wealth can be created by governement policy. Oh dear!
/The basic problem is that Socialist think that wealth can be created by governement policy. Oh dear! /
the problem goes beyond so called 'socialists'. i would suggest that many politicos don't understand 'the creation of wealth' per se.
Their work experiences are 'the acquisition and allocation of budgets'; their appreciation of how the money is generated in the first place is vague to say the least.
the problem goes beyond so called 'socialists'. i would suggest that many politicos don't understand 'the creation of wealth' per se.
Their work experiences are 'the acquisition and allocation of budgets'; their appreciation of how the money is generated in the first place is vague to say the least.
zeuhl, douglas adams had it right.....
//Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job//
The desire to rule is ethically a disqualification for the position. We have recently learned what happens when we allow people who want to be wealthy to run the banks; why can't we see that people who want power are equally unfit to wield it?
//Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job//
The desire to rule is ethically a disqualification for the position. We have recently learned what happens when we allow people who want to be wealthy to run the banks; why can't we see that people who want power are equally unfit to wield it?
he might not have wanted it but he was one,
this would be how many souls plucked from obscurity, with no training, no idea how to deal with international statesmen, situations, can see it now
joe public, off to the UN for talks with Barack Obama, US military,
wotcha Barack how's it hanging, see you got some trouble there in Afghanistan(pick a place) how can i help.
hilarious
this would be how many souls plucked from obscurity, with no training, no idea how to deal with international statesmen, situations, can see it now
joe public, off to the UN for talks with Barack Obama, US military,
wotcha Barack how's it hanging, see you got some trouble there in Afghanistan(pick a place) how can i help.
hilarious
People could decline of course
£150,000 pa and a pad in Westminster might be attractive.
The form of government would have to change; more decision making by Committees guided by Civil Servants (much like Juries)
Likewise, international relations could be handled by professional Diplomats, the policies however would be set by the People's Parliament.
The downsides would be compensated for by a radical idea: the committees and final decision making chamber would actually be representative of us, the population.
Perhaps that's the scary part.
£150,000 pa and a pad in Westminster might be attractive.
The form of government would have to change; more decision making by Committees guided by Civil Servants (much like Juries)
Likewise, international relations could be handled by professional Diplomats, the policies however would be set by the People's Parliament.
The downsides would be compensated for by a radical idea: the committees and final decision making chamber would actually be representative of us, the population.
Perhaps that's the scary part.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News8 mins ago
Film, Media & TV12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.