Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gutter Boy]

[/QUOTE]

Very different things. Rent caps one hundred years ago were based on the concept of council houses. It was a very different world.

What you're now implying is that a landlord can perhaps receive £1200 a month rent on a 2 bedder and it is capped. Typically letting agent fees are 10-15% and it's a risky game not using these guys. Say the landlord has a £150k loan and is paying £750 a month on an interest only mortgage. So the landlord has to also pay tax on £14k rental income less deductions. That £14k is on top of his/her salary and likely in the 40% tax bracket. So that's another £500 a month coming out of the £1200.

That rent has to be at £1400 before a theoretical break even is reached. It's probably more like £1600 in real terms because landlords pay leasehold fees like ground rent and maintenance. They also have running costs for repairs etc.

So for landlords the rental cap needs to be around £1800 to give them an incentive to even be involved. Even then, you're probably better off investing your money elsewhere. Nobody wants tenants paying £1800 "dead money" for a 2 bedder on top of their monthly bills. They want them owning houses.

Rental caps will make things worse in my opinion. It has to be a joined up strategy, not a blunt object.

The point of rent caps is to make renting unprofitable for the private sector, so it reverts to the public sector. The 1920s one is what freed up much of the housing stock to enable the creation of council housing. The point now would be to engineer a similar thing, to stop it being an attractive investment

 

[richie_spur]

Prison Reformed him.

 

[glasgowspur]

Exactly

 

[monkeybarry]

Painted roundabouts and shouted at hotels. It's how I saved our country kids.

*Are

 

[Glenda's Legs]

So Rayner has had to resign.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So Rayner has had to resign.

Deputy PM is a nothing role, designed to keep John Prescott (and later Nick Clegg) away from anything serious. If she stays as deputy leader (which she's directly elected to by the party), she keeps the same power

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Deputy PM is a nothing role, designed to keep John Prescott (and later Nick Clegg) away from anything serious. If she stays as deputy leader (which she's directly elected to by the party), she keeps the same power

She has resigned as deputy leader of the Labour Party as well and as housing minister.

The role of housing minister was not a nothing role, she was in charge of delivering one of Labour's key pledges and of a huge budget.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

So Rachel Reeves has stated that "serious economists" do not believe that the UK is heading for an IMF bailout.

This is a reference to economists writing in The Telegraph that increasing national debt caused by excessive public spending, particularly on welfare and increasing debt yields may eventually force the government to seek a bailout from the IMF.

Of course, even if some economists are providing such a stark warning, it would pay to get public borrowing under control and revisit the welfare cuts they backed out earlier in the year.

 

[Grays_1890]

So Rayner has had to resign.

Right decision, became untenable.

 

[johnola]

She’ll be back eventually hopefully having learned some important lessons.

She is too relevant to too many people. It might not be this Parliament or the next though. Perhaps after reform have blown in and blown up.

Nobody has ever confused a politician with the second coming of Christ.

 

[Rorschach]

She’ll be back eventually hopefully having learned some important lessons.

She is too relevant to too many people. It might not be this Parliament or the next though. Perhaps after reform have blown in and blown up.

Nobody has ever confused a politician with the second coming of Christ.

Except for MAGA folk

 

[Gutter Boy]

She’ll be back eventually hopefully having learned some important lessons.

She is too relevant to too many people. It might not be this Parliament or the next though. Perhaps after reform have blown in and blown up.

Nobody has ever confused a politician with the second coming of Christ.

Yeah, 9 months on the benches and she'll be back in cabinet as social security minister or something 2nd tier like that

 

[Gutter Boy]

The issue for Stamer is that the party members will likely now elect Long-Bailey or someone similarly Corbynista as the new deputy

 

[Muttley]

The point of rent caps is to make renting unprofitable for the private sector, so it reverts to the public sector. The 1920s one is what freed up much of the housing stock to enable the creation of council housing. The point now would be to engineer a similar thing, to stop it being an attractive investment
[/QUOTE]

What you say is already happening without rental caps. That was my whole point above.

AI - "There were approximately 1.6 million local authority-owned social homes in England as of March 31, 2024, with the total social housing stock across England being about 4.5 million units, the latter owned by both local authorities and private registered providers."

When you break the market down you would be penalising the pure public sector whilst allowing the private sectors to continuing to rent uncapped. When you consider there is the hybrid model where councils guarantee rents to privates. No private would enter this scheme if they had to work at a loss because of a capped rent.

Therefore, there is a huge percentage of rental properties coming back onto the market driving house prices down. It's definitely a buyers market at the moment. The bit that isn't happening is that properties are coming back into state owned from what I can see.

Do we want council houses prevalent again? Now there's a question.

 

[Gutter Boy]

What you say is already happening without rental caps. That was my whole point above.

AI - "There were approximately 1.6 million local authority-owned social homes in England as of March 31, 2024, with the total social housing stock across England being about 4.5 million units, the latter owned by both local authorities and private registered providers."

When you break the market down you would be penalising the pure public sector whilst allowing the private sectors to continuing to rent uncapped. When you consider there is the hybrid model where councils guarantee rents to privates. No private would enter this scheme if they had to work at a loss because of a capped rent.

Therefore, there is a huge percentage of rental properties coming back onto the market driving house prices down. It's definitely a buyers market at the moment. The bit that isn't happening is that properties are coming back into state owned from what I can see.

Do we want council houses prevalent again? Now there's a question.

I mean applying rent caps to all sectors - private too. Annual rents can't exceed 6% of the independently assessed value of the property, or whatever.

I think ideally you'd want 1/3 houses owned outright, 1/3 mortgaged, 1/3 council houses.

I dont blame anyone who has done it, its been pretty much government policy, but i dont think people should be able to profit from a basic human need like someone else's home

 

[Gutter Boy]

Big demotion for Lammy then, whilst Cooper goes up a job

 

[Seedy Ron]

whilst Cooper goes up a job

Must've impressed Kier with her bunting

 

[Baleforce]

Big demotion for Lammy then, whilst Cooper goes up a job

I’m surprised, thought he was doing an impressive job myself.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

I mean applying rent caps to all sectors - private too. Annual rents can't exceed 6% of the independently assessed value of the property, or whatever.

I think ideally you'd want 1/3 houses owned outright, 1/3 mortgaged, 1/3 council houses.

I dont blame anyone who has done it, its been pretty much government policy, but i dont think people should be able to profit from a basic human need like someone else's home

Rent isn't about the value of the property though as the value of the property is ultimately what people are willing to pay for it or how much a bank values it as security for a loan. Lots of rental properties are in areas that are less desirable and so values are depressed but the maintenance of the property doesnt reduce and from my experience the maintenance costs for a rental property as a landlord are far higher than the maintenance costs of your own home.

For example:
- You have to get an annual gas safety check done.
- You have to have fire extinguishers and blankets and annual smoke alarm tests
- new safety regulations came in for rental properties that said hand rails had to be fitted to all stair cases so I had to get them fitted for cost of about £650
- Tenant complained about damp so had damp surveyor go out at cost of £300 for report. Turns out it was condensation caused by tenant taping over the trickle vents in all the windows and theyd also fired expandable foam into all the air bricks as they didn't want to use the central heating in winter and were trying to get of any draft.
- Cost me £500 to have the air bricks unblocked. They then disputed their bond not being returned and the tribunal ruled that I could only deduct the £500 repair cost from the bond and not the £300 survey fee...I was like HOW? If they hadn't done that I wouldnt have had to get the damp surveyor in the first place?
- Another tenant moved out and left a cracked window and claimed it cracked in the frost. Again tribunal said I couldnt deduct from bond.
So rent has to account for the maintenance of the property not the market value.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

I’m surprised, thought he was doing an impressive job myself.

Yeah international relations and trade probably the only area where you could look and say the government are doing a competent and times impressive job! What message does that send?