Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[EM2]

We can only vote in line with our own interests. I will be doing so. Let others vote for their own interests - if they can be bothered.

That is, quite frankly, rubbish. You can very easily vote for the greater good, if you want to.

 

[DarloRich]

That is, quite frankly, rubbish. You can very easily vote for the greater good, if you want to.

but lots of people don't - they vote on what is in it for me.

 

[Barn]

Labour have ruled out VAT tax rises, NI rises and Income Tax rises for those earning under £80,000.

Which is conveniently just a little bit higher than an MP's salary.

Presumably, earning £74,000 and living in London, they don't feel rich. People earning £10,000 over that in London don't feel particularly rich either.

 

[EM2]

but lots of people don't - they vote on what is in it for me.

Just because they don't, that doesn't mean that they can't.

 

[DarloRich]

Just because they don't, that doesn't mean that they can't.

Corbyn doesn't seem to have had much success with that approach does he?

People will only vote for the greater good when it helps them. That is what Blair did: using the people who do vote to improve the chances of those further down the chain.

 

[meridian2]

People will only vote for the greater good when it helps them.

Nothing wrong with that. I'd like to walk crime free streets devoid of beggars and homeless people. To achieve that freedom means voting against my immediate interests, which would probably be better served by voting Conservative, and for my longer term interests and those of my offspring, which means voting for a more socially aware political party - thus far Labour every time. Neither vote is completely altruistic, although philanthropy is part of the mix, because riding in an armour plated Hummer to a gated community isn't my idea of a good life.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is, quite frankly, rubbish. You can very easily vote for the greater good, if you want to.

You can indeed if you want to.

Most don't, which is why we don't have a socialist government and instead have a vulture-like Tory government spreading its dark wings across existing Tory voters and the centre ground, feeding on the nice bits Labour turn their nose up at.

The idea that Labour are going to mobilise the entire disengaged underclass of the UK to vote for them while sodding the middle ground is laughable beyond belief. Their manifesto is crap, undeliverable and alienates too many people. The manifesto suggests I, a homeowner and landlord, who achieved that through hard work and not a single penny of help or inheritance, should be legislated against. We know Labour don't particularly like or respect burgeoning and sharp-elbowed "middle class" homeowners and they consistently refer to politics of envy. No thanks.

DarloRich has it exactly right. I don't mind for a second voting Labour in principle - I'm an ABC (Anyone But Conservative). But I've got to have two things. One, a manifesto which doesn't suggest I'm part of the problem with society's structure. And two, a leader who can lead, and not a guy who would struggle to have the authority to park cars at a fête. I'd have voted for Blair first time around.

PS: My original post had a typo - I meant "we can only be expected to..."

PPS: On the subject of class, if one insists that "working class" is a thing then I am, by birth demographic, a hardcore Labour voter. Mother from staunch Methodist stock from Newcastle, a secretary, dinnerlady and pharmacy worker. Father from Derry, Catholic, a republican, a strong moral conservative, a train driver, union rep and a socialist. I went to state school, didn't go to uni, floated around, did warehouse work, in fact anything that was going, then worked on the railway. Then invested in myself. Got a promotion. Then became a civil servant.

In fact I can tell you when I *started* not being a de facto Labour voter. It's when I bought a flat and then another one. That's it. Suddenly I'm the problem.

 

[ninja-lewis]

Green Party have submitted a formal complaint to the BBC after they received virtually no mention of winning 40 seats in the local elections, while the BBC covered UKIP in detail after they won just 1 seat.

Rather dishonest of the Green Party to claim they won 40 seats when the Green Party of England and Wales only won 21, a gain of just 1 seat (in Wales). The other 19 green seats belong to the Scottish Green Party, which is fully independent of the English and Welsh party.

Even aggregating the two entirely separate entities, a gain of 6 and 40 seats is hardly comparable to UKIP losing 145 seats, which is the significant political story.

 

[EM2]

The manifesto suggests I, a homeowner and landlord, who achieved that through hard work and not a single penny of help or inheritance, should be legislated against. We know Labour don't particularly like or respect burgeoning and sharp-elbowed "middle class" homeowners and they consistently refer to politics of envy. No thanks.

Legislated against how? By ensuring that you're registered?

In fact I can tell you when I *started* not being a de facto Labour voter. It's when I bought a flat and then another one. That's it. Suddenly I'm the problem.

When has that ever been suggested by the Labour Party? I know many homeowners and a few buy-to-let landlords who are also ABCs, mostly Lib Dem admittedly but certainly more than a few are Labour voters.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Green Party have submitted a formal complaint to the BBC after they received virtually no mention of winning 40 seats in the local elections, while the BBC covered UKIP in detail after they won just 1 seat.

Given that the BBC spent a whole year in the run up to the referendum giving Farage and UKIP virtually wall-to-wall coverage with hardly a mention for any other point of view, is it really all that surprising that they have just done this?

 

[AlterEgo]

Legislated against how? By ensuring that you're registered?

When has that ever been suggested by the Labour Party? I know many homeowners and a few buy-to-let landlords who are also ABCs, mostly Lib Dem admittedly but certainly more than a few are Labour voters.

You're required to buy the licence from, guess who, the council, at up to £750 a time! How much will registration cost exactly (and guess who will ultimately pay it...)? What will I have to do to comply? Why don't Labour go after the crap landlords who rent dangerous properties to several families at a time rather than trying to control the whole market? What plans do Labour have to reduce the cost of my mortgages? How can I be assured that repeated mumbling of "rent controls" won't become the reality within five years? Etc etc

 

[Yew]

Define the 'centre ground' as it seems to me that these days what is referred top as 'the centre' is rather further to the right than one would expect. Often involving neoclassical eoconomic policies, and nonsensical worship of the 'free market' as some sort of omniscient god. Rather than a reasonable blend of government investment, to stimulate growth. And public ownership of infrastructure, where realistic competition is basically impossible due to to the fact that it is infrastructure.

 

[AlterEgo]

Define the 'centre ground' as it seems to me that these days what is referred top as 'the centre' is rather further to the right than one would expect. Often involving neoclassical eoconomic policies, and nonsensical worship of the 'free market' as some sort of omniscient god. Rather than a reasonable blend of government investment, to stimulate growth. And public ownership of infrastructure, where realistic competition is basically impossible due to to the fact that it is infrastructure.

The centre ground has shifted significantly since Brexit to become more accepting/tolerant of authoritarianism and what you might call "the right wing". But that's still where the bulk of active voters are, I think.

 

[EM2]

Why don't Labour go after the crap landlords who rent dangerous properties to several families at a time rather than trying to control the whole market?

They do do that, and I know this because I rented from a private landlord in a borough that has a licencing system.
EDIT to add - with licencing, the council know who the reputable landlords are so can direct their energies to the others. Without licencing, all landlords have to be checked all the time.

What plans do Labour have to reduce the cost of my mortgages? How can I be assured that repeated mumbling of "rent controls" won't become the reality within five years? Etc etc

Why should anyone reduce the cost of your mortgages? It was your decision to take them out, and decided that you could afford them.
What other suggestions do you have to rebalance the rental market?

 

[Yew]

You're required to buy the licence from, guess who, the council, at up to £750 a time! How much will registration cost exactly (and guess who will ultimately pay it...)? What will I have to do to comply? Why don't Labour go after the crap landlords who rent dangerous properties to several families at a time rather than trying to control the whole market? What plans do Labour have to reduce the cost of my mortgages? How can I be assured that repeated mumbling of "rent controls" won't become the reality within five years? Etc etc

We certainly need more regulation, the rights of tenants are quite frankly farcical when compared to our European neighbours. Equally I do feel that any measures need to be sure to shield small operations from too much bureaucracy, as in my experience, smaller landlords are usually much better to deal with

Either way with the current view that above inflation house price rises are 'good', and the seeming inability of the government to build houses in any significant numbers. I expect this issue will be increasingly on the agenda, as fewer and fewer people are able to afford a house. At least those wealthy folks in the country won't have their view spoiled!

 

[Yew]

The centre ground has shifted significantly since Brexit to become more accepting/tolerant of authoritarianism and what you might call "the right wing". But that's still where the bulk of active voters are, I think.

I was specifically referring to economic issues. However there is unfortunately an increasing level of tolerance towards more totalitarian leadership, probably related to Mrs May pushing for the more and more investigatory powers since she was in the home office.


Thought of the Day: If Theresa May is so strong and stable. Why is she asking us to strengthen her hand

 

[AlterEgo]

They do do that, and I know this because I rented from a private landlord in a borough that has a licencing system.
EDIT to add - with licencing, the council know who the reputable landlords are so can direct their energies to the others. Without licencing, all landlords have to be checked all the time.

Why should anyone reduce the cost of your mortgages? It was your decision to take them out, and decided that you could afford them.
What other suggestions do you have to rebalance the rental market?

It's incumbent on any political party, like Labour, who SAY they'd like to encourage home ownership by building a million homes in their manifesto, to make sure mortgages are affordable!

Or are the other half a million homes not owned by councils just for rich landlords?

I can afford my mortgages quite nicely thanks. If I have to pay, let's say, up to £750 to get a licence I otherwise wouldn't need because of crap landlords, will I get that money back through a cheaper mortgage or through putting up my tenant's rent? Which do you think is more acceptable?

How about Labour just promise to pursue and legislate against only BAD landlords instead of making the vast majority of honest and responsible landlords pay for a licence they didn't need yesterday, hm? Why not just pass it on to the tenant directly? After all, this is to benefit tenants and not me, isn't it?

 

[EM2]

I can afford my mortgages quite nicely thanks.

So why should your mortgages be reduced then?

If I have to pay, let's say, up to £750 to get a licence I otherwise wouldn't need because of crap landlords, will I get that money back through a cheaper mortgage or through putting up my tenant's rent? Which do you think is more acceptable?

Why should you get it back? You could just suck it up and pay it, like my landlord did. Because it'd be for the greater good.

How about Labour just promise to pursue and legislate against only BAD landlords instead of making the vast majority of honest and responsible landlords pay for a licence they didn't need yesterday, hm? Why not just pass it on to the tenant directly? After all, this is to benefit tenants and not me, isn't it?

And how do you know who is a bad landlord without inspecting every property? If there are twenty rented properties in a street and no licencing, the council need to inspect them all.
If there is a licencing system, and eighteen of those landlords are licenced, the council only need to inspect two.
You can carry on without licencing, but that needs more staff to administer and puts up your council tax.

 

[AlterEgo]

So why should your mortgages be reduced then?

Why should you get it back? You could just suck it up and pay it, like my landlord did. Because it'd be for the greater good.

Hahahaha. It's a business and my pension you dafty. I ensure I get it back, the same way I get an increase in my mortgage back - by increasing rent. Nobody wants to increase rent, so it's a good idea to make mortgages affordable, or to stop daft ideas like compulsory landlord licensing.

If your landlord didn't put up your rent, they must be doing very well off you...

And how do you know who is a bad landlord without inspecting every property? If there are twenty rented properties in a street and no licencing, the council need to inspect them all.

No, the council doesn't need to inspect any. My property doesn't get inspected by the council.

You can carry on without licencing, but that needs more staff to administer and puts up your council tax.

Would it put up my council tax by £750 on my Band A property? No, probably not, it would be shared by everyone - including my tenant, for whom the licensing scheme is designed to protect...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You can indeed if you want to.
Their manifesto is crap, undeliverable and alienates too many people. The manifesto suggests I, a homeowner and landlord, who achieved that through hard work and not a single penny of help or inheritance, should be legislated against. We know Labour don't particularly like or respect burgeoning and sharp-elbowed "middle class" homeowners and they consistently refer to politics of envy. No thanks.

The Labour manifesto has not yet been written, and I believe won't be written until later on this week, after input from their members' consultation process has been considered. Do you bychance have access to a time machine?

 

[AlterEgo]

The Labour manifesto has not yet been written, and I believe won't be written until later on this week, after input from their members' consultation process has been considered. Do you bychance have access to a time machine?

One can assume it's not going to be much different from their ten pledges linked to upthread. If it is then Labour will have some explaining to do!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Hahahaha. It's a business and my pension you dafty. I ensure I get it back, the same way I get an increase in my mortgage back - by increasing rent. Nobody wants to increase rent, so it's a good idea to make mortgages affordable, or to stop daft ideas like compulsory landlord licensing.

I'm a landlord myself, and I don't see anything daft in principle about landlord licensing. Being a landlord implies taking some responsibility for the standard, quality, and safety of what for your tenants is their home. A bad landlord can easily make the lives of his/her tenants a complete misery (I realise the reverse is also true), so it doesn't seem bad in principle that there should be some requirement to demonstrate you understand the responsibilities involved before you become a landlord, and, associated with that, a means to prevent people who have proven that they are not prepared to rent responsibly and ethically from continuing to be landlords. After all, some kind of registration/licensing/compulsory training is routinely accepted in many other industries as a way to ensure that good standards are upheld.

Of course, that's not to say that there are good ways and bad ways of running a registration scheme. You certainly don't want a scheme that's too expensive/bureaucratic/hard to understand. But that's all besides the point really. Until all the parties' manifestos are published, all we can do is speculate about what might or might not be in them as far as landlords are concerned.

No, the council doesn't need to inspect any. My property doesn't get inspected by the council.

Would you have the same view about - say - restaurants? That there is no need for the council to ever inspect any?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm a landlord myself, and I don't see anything daft in principle about landlord licensing. Being a landlord implies taking some responsibility for the standard, quality, and safety of what for your tenants is their home. A bad landlord can easily make the lives of his/her tenants a complete misery (I realise the reverse is also true), so it doesn't seem bad in principle that there should be some requirement to demonstrate you understand the responsibilities involved before you become a landlord, and, associated with that, a means to prevent people who have proven that they are not prepared to rent responsibly and ethically from continuing to be landlords. After all, some kind of registration/licensing/compulsory training is routinely accepted in many other industries as a way to ensure that good standards are upheld.

Of course, that's not to say that there are good ways and bad ways of running a registration scheme. You certainly don't want a scheme that's too expensive/bureaucratic/hard to understand. But that's all besides the point really. Until all the parties' manifestos are published, all we can do is speculate about what might or might not be in them as far as landlords are concerned.



Would you have the same view about - say - restaurants? That there is no need for the council to ever inspect any?

I don't have anything in principle against allowing the local authority (or regulator, or whatever empowered agency) inside my property to check it's kosher.

What I do object to is the suggestion that this is compulsory and that I have to pay for it. In some areas this is £750. I'd rather not put rent up. The reason I am a landlord is partly because I don't foresee my pension options as providing a decent standard of living thanks to the Tories. Now Labour would like to penalise me.

It sucks. EM2, as he has admitted elsewhere, does not want the responsibility or risk involved with home ownership. There is nothing wrong with this approach and in fact life would be great for me if more people saw renting as a lifestyle choice. However, to suggest that I, the risk- and responsibility-taker, should fork out *all* the money for a scheme to provide he, the risk- and responsibility-light tenant his security and to suck it up for "the greater good", is backwards and improper. This is Labour's pledge - against me, someone they no doubt see as an apparently monied and privileged landlord. I am neither monied nor privileged and my sole rental property is to provide retirement security. I think I am responsible in doing so as it'll make me less dependent on the state, so I'd rather not be milked for going about things "the right way".

Currently my area doesn't inspect properties and doesn't have a licensing scheme.

Fortunately there's no chance of Labour getting anywhere near No10 within the next 5-10 years so I'm not overly concerned.

Fundamental to this debate is the understanding that while people may agree publicly in principle about policies and the definition of the greater good, that is not often borne out at the ballot box. I feel that's a critical point Labour don't address.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't foresee my pension options as providing a decent standard of living thanks to the Tories. Now Labour would like to penalise me.

While the Tories are to blame for many things, I'm not sure that's one of them. Gordon Brown's abolition of advance corporation tax in 1997 left pension funds unable to claim tax credits on dividends paid to them. Over the intervening years that move has had an impact equal to £100bn+ according to some sources (including the Office for Budget Responsibility).

That fateful decision alone, coupled with the structural problem of an ageing population, is arguably a bigger cause of the current pension woes than anything the Tories have done.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What I do object to is the suggestion that this is compulsory and that I have to pay for it. In some areas this is £750. I'd rather not put rent up.

A quick bit of googling suggests that the gas engineer who checks my boiler has to pay £360 to register with GasSafe for a year. Presumably that cost is passed on to and shared between his customers, including you and me. Do you object to that? If so, why? If not, why do you think landlords should be treated differently from gas engineers? (I do though agree that £750 a year would be very steep, and not reasonable, given that renting one house after paying the mortgage interest doesn't really make a huge amount of money).

It sucks. EM2, as he has admitted elsewhere, does not want the responsibility or risk involved with home ownership. There is nothing wrong with this approach and in fact life would be great for me if more people saw renting as a lifestyle choice.

It's possible that maybe if landlords were registered and standards were therefore more consistent, and if tenants had better guarantees of long term tenancies, then perhaps more people would see renting as a good lifestyle choice. (I don't know the details, but I seem to recall reading that something similar has happened with the payday loan industry, where new regulations have lead to the reputation of the industry improving, resulting in more people being willing to take payday loans).

 

[AlterEgo]

A quick bit of googling suggests that the gas engineer who checks my boiler has to pay £360 to register with GasSafe for a year. Presumably that cost is passed on to and shared between his customers, including you and me. Do you object to that? If so, why? If not, why do you think landlords should be treated differently from gas engineers? (I do though agree that £750 a year would be very steep, and not reasonable, given that renting one house after paying the mortgage interest doesn't really make a huge amount of money).

Has it crossed your mind that maybe if landlords were registered and standards were therefore higher, and if tenants had better guarantees of long term tenancies, then perhaps more people would see renting as a good lifestyle choice. (I don't know the details, but I seem to recall reading that something similar has happened with the payday loan industry, where new regulations have lead to the reputation of the industry improving, resulting in more people being willing to take payday loans).

I don't object to the cost being passed on in principle but I would prefer to avoid having to increase my rent. As a sole letter with one property I would have little choice to do so, whereas corporations who let out vast swathes of housing would be able to absorb those costs much better. Observe, therefore, how this policy doesn't stick it to the super rich but squeezes aspirational middle classes who are potential swing voters. To borrow some Trump-speak: Dumb!

The suggestion from a previous poster that I would simply have to suck it up is backward, because it comes from a school of thought that I am somehow unfairly "ahead" and the gap between renters and owners should be made narrower, even if the owner became so quite legitimately and responsibly, having once been a renter himself, and discharges all their duties and responsibilities as a landlord. It's this kind of politics of jealousy, a fixation on the asset or property owner, with which I fundamentally disagree. It's this kind of politics I see and hear from Labour all the time.

I don't foresee the current appetite to own your own home receding. I think most people now view it as the most secure form of housing and I think it's the aspiration of most people to own their own place. That's why it's such a big political issue and has been for as long as I can recall. I think most people are canny enough to realise that if they own a place then they will (hopefully!) have paid off the mortgage by the time they have retired, leaving them with permanent security, not at the whim of a landlord, not paying out hundreds a month on rent (a few hundred quid...that's a week in the sun every month!), and may leave an inheritance to their family. Alternatively, a property owner might be forced to sell their house to pay for social care instead of letting the council pay it for them. I'm afraid most people will see home ownership as the ideal for the above reasons.

Want me to pay for a landlord licence? No thanks, unless you're going to give me a sweetener in return, like legislating to provide landlords extra security and a quicker eviction of tenants who break the contract (by not paying for example). After all, I, a good and responsible landlord, am being penalised via the licence for the mendacious actions of a few, so why not turn that on its head?

 

[DarloRich]

I have to agree with AlterEgo - a landlord of the small variety will simply pass any increased costs he incurs onto his tenant. Surely that is obvious.............

That does nothing to help the person who is already trapped in the rental loop and simply increases their rent and reduces their ability to save for that almost mythical deposit.

The inference of the idea is correct but it isnt a case of sticking it to the rich man more a case of making the lives of people you are trying to help better AND teeing off the people you need to attract if you want to win. PLUS it does nothing to alleviate the housing crisis we face in this country.

 

[Cowley]

Regarding this discussion around being a landlord. Is it the case that the current government are changing the rules as to mortgage interest being claimable against tax over the next few years?
This could have serious repercussions for landlords and therefore tenants in the long run.
This has been interesting reading.

 

[meridian2]

Having been a landlord myself, the reality is most small landlords take housing stock out of the first time buyer market because they have sufficient funds to do so, and government have made it easier for them than FTBs to buy houses. This is clearly no way to run a country's housing stock. My parents rented from private landlords most of their lives, and from the council in their retirement, and landlords typically owned a few streets of housing. This was a negative in terms of housing condition, but rents were low and there was some flexibility in ability to pay, though my parents were scrupulous in always having the rent whatever else was lacking. Clearly this was not the case everywhere and Rachmann-ism was a danger where there was high demand.

Modern landlords typically own many fewer houses, a substantial proportion have one or two houses with buy to let mortgages, so a tenant's rent is directly effected by mortgage rates and local conditions. I believe that's an untenable situation for many reasons.

 

[DarloRich]

Having been a landlord myself, the reality is most small landlords take housing stock out of the first time buyer market because they have sufficient funds to do so, and government have made it easier for them than FTBs to buy houses. This is clearly no way to run a country's housing stock. My parents rented from private landlords most of their lives, and from the council in their retirement, and landlords typically owned a few streets of housing. This was a negative in terms of housing condition, but rents were low and there was some flexibility in ability to pay, though my parents were scrupulous in always having the rent whatever else was lacking. Clearly this was not the case everywhere and Rachmann-ism was a danger where there was high demand.

Modern landlords typically own many fewer houses, a substantial proportion have one or two houses with buy to let mortgages, so a tenant's rent is directly effected by mortgage rates and local conditions. I believe that's an untenable situation for many reasons.

The solution for me is to return to building large numbers of good quality social housing estates which can then be occupied under right to buy terms with the obvious statement that any RTB funds be reinvested in more housing stock.