Labour Watch

[Admin]

As I said, the plan (for now) is to do that too. But they also want to repeal Right to Buy first, which makes sense.

I've never really had any objection to right to buy so long as another property is built in its place.

Why should people literally pay for a property and then not get to own it?

There is an argument to be made that the surplus rent can be invested back into a social housing development fund. Thereby, the rent you pay helps to provide additional housing for other people, and not just pay off your home, so that they get to benefit in the same way you did.

Also, it's not cost-effective to build and replace RTB properties on an ad-hoc basis. The vRTB pilot in the Mildands region a few years ago demonstrated this, as none of the organisations that took part were able to demonstrate one-to-one replacement. At best, it would just be used to contribute towards whatever house building programme was going to take place anyway.

Then there is the issue of stigma. A healthy social housing portfolio should be housing people from all walks of life, not just the poorest, and who are all of equal status in terms of their housing. It helps to aid community cohesion and prevents the creation of slum estates.

Finally, from an asset maintenance perspective, RTB flats pepper-potted in a block that is largely social rented is a nightmare.

But I'm prepared to compromise. I'd allow tenants of houses to "own" them after the nominal development cost is paid for. But they cannot sell it on the open market. Instead, when they die or when they wish to move on, they must sell it back to the to the local authority for zero profit. They will at least have had some years living there without having to pay rent (which will assist with pensions).

Veering off slightly (and I'm aware that we're both working in the same sort of areas), I've always felt that we need major reforms of the rental sector, particularly in terms of security of tenure for residential tenants.

Commercial tenants are (unless they willingly contract out) entitled to security of tenure for their business premises under the '54 L&T Act. It's long overdue that the same approach is taken towards people's homes.

[Dunners]

I've never really had any objection to right to buy so long as another property is built in its place.

Why should people literally pay for a property and then not get to own it?

There is an argument to be made that the surplus rent can be invested back into a social housing development fund. Thereby, the rent you pay helps to provide additional housing for other people, and not just pay off your home, so that they get to benefit in the same way you did.

Also, it's not cost-effective to build and replace RTB properties on an ad-hoc basis. The vRTB pilot in the Mildands region a few years ago demonstrated this, as none of the organisations that took part were able to demonstrate one-to-one replacement. At best, it would just be used to contribute towards whatever house building programme was going to take place anyway.

Then there is the issue of stigma. A healthy social housing portfolio should be housing people from all walks of life, not just the poorest, and who are all of equal status in terms of their housing. It helps to aid community cohesion and prevents the creation of slum estates.

Finally, from an asset maintenance perspective, RTB flats pepper-potted in a block that is largely social rented is a nightmare.

But I'm prepared to compromise. I'd allow tenants of houses to "own" them after the nominal development cost is paid for. But they cannot sell it on the open market. Instead, when they die or when they wish to move on, they must sell it back to the to the local authority for zero profit. They will at least have had some years living there without having to pay rent (which will assist with pensions).

Veering off slightly (and I'm aware that we're both working in the same sort of areas), I've always felt that we need major reforms of the rental sector, particularly in terms of security of tenure for residential tenants.

Commercial tenants are (unless they willingly contract out) entitled to security of tenure for their business premises under the '54 L&T Act. It's long overdue that the same approach is taken towards people's homes.

Agreed.

Like I said, the housing policy reform wheels were set in motion by the May government. Eventually, under Boris Johnson of all people, we saw the emergence of the Renters Reform Bill. It had some genuinely impressive stuff in it, but was worn down through the committee stages and eventually dropped by Sunak before the election.

Rayner and Pennycook are now going to try and bring it back, and include some other stuff in there, such as rent control mechanisms. There's a long way to go, but when everyone realises that the game is up and serious reform is needed, it gives some hope that some good may come of it.

[Dunners]

I like Dunnems idea about property being returned to the State upon the owners death, rather than being passed down to surviving family members.

Could we roll this out to everyone or should it only apply to the poor in ex-social housing?

Don't fret. I'm sure that, even if Labour do implement radical reform of housing, there'll still be something you can remain opposed to.

[Dunners]

I wasn't suggesting building houses one at a time as the rented stock is sold under RTB. There has to be a nationwide 5-year plan to build adequate green houses and improve the current stock.

I don't agree that the houses should not be owned outright by the tenants. They may actually be living in a property that has been "paid for" many times over or even by them in their lifetime.

Allowing the family to benefit after death from their most valuable asset is desirable in terms of making redistribution work and helps a little with inequality. It may also enable them to downsize and take out equity for their retirement.

I'm happy to have succession of tenancies. But anything more than that and I'll have you shot for such blatant display of bourgeois tendencies.

[Max B Gold]

If foreign investors can make a return out of build to rent projects, why can't local authorities / central government just cut out the middle men (and dividends) and finance the projects themselves? The returns could fund services.

Dunners has already replied on much of this but another aspect is most LA's have been stripped to the bone and beyond in terms of human resources. I work regularly with housing / estates departments for 3 london LA's and over the last 30 years, the number of surveyors, planners, architects, building surveyors, structural engineers, project managers etc has been reduced year on year with turnover of staff being a continual issue as many depart for the private sector as the pay and working conditions are unsustainable.

Even if the government decided to throw huge amounts of cash at LA's to build housing they don't have the expertise and HR to do it. When I started as a surveyor in the early 90's, working for an LA was a decent career - you tended to take a slight hit on basic salary in exchange for the pension / flexible working etc and career path. That position has totally reversed since then with the whittling away of employment benefits that came with working in the public sector.

Sadly, any form of quick fix will need to come from the private sector - at best in joint venture form with the public sector usually in the shape of the LA's providing the land / planning and the private sector putting up the finance and construction in return for profitability which in turn means poo poo development practices in the shape of high-rise tiny size accommodation we're seeing particularly in the suburbs.

Is there no other way?

[Max B Gold]

There is an argument to be made that the surplus rent can be invested back into a social housing development fund. Thereby, the rent you pay helps to provide additional housing for other people, and not just pay off your home, so that they get to benefit in the same way you did.

Also, it's not cost-effective to build and replace RTB properties on an ad-hoc basis. The vRTB pilot in the Mildands region a few years ago demonstrated this, as none of the organisations that took part were able to demonstrate one-to-one replacement. At best, it would just be used to contribute towards whatever house building programme was going to take place anyway.

Then there is the issue of stigma. A healthy social housing portfolio should be housing people from all walks of life, not just the poorest, and who are all of equal status in terms of their housing. It helps to aid community cohesion and prevents the creation of slum estates.

Finally, from an asset maintenance perspective, RTB flats pepper-potted in a block that is largely social rented is a nightmare.

But I'm prepared to compromise. I'd allow tenants of houses to "own" them after the nominal development cost is paid for. But they cannot sell it on the open market. Instead, when they die or when they wish to move on, they must sell it back to the to the local authority for zero profit. They will at least have had some years living there without having to pay rent (which will assist with pensions).

Veering off slightly (and I'm aware that we're both working in the same sort of areas), I've always felt that we need major reforms of the rental sector, particularly in terms of security of tenure for residential tenants.

Commercial tenants are (unless they willingly contract out) entitled to security of tenure for their business premises under the '54 L&T Act. It's long overdue that the same approach is taken towards people's homes.

Agreed.

Like I said, the housing policy reform wheels were set in motion by the May government. Eventually, under Boris Johnson of all people, we saw the emergence of the Renters Reform Bill. It had some genuinely impressive stuff in it, but was worn down through the committee stages and eventually dropped by Sunak before the election.

Rayner and Pennycook are now going to try and bring it back, and include some other stuff in there, such as rent control mechanisms. There's a long way to go, but when everyone realises that the game is up and serious reform is needed, it gives some hope that some good may come of it.

Are you foreseeing any opposition from the 44 Labour MPs who are Landlords?

[Dunners]

Veering off slightly (and I'm aware that we're both working in the same sort of areas), I've always felt that we need major reforms of the rental sector, particularly in terms of security of tenure for residential tenants.

Commercial tenants are (unless they willingly contract out) entitled to security of tenure for their business premises under the '54 L&T Act. It's long overdue that the same approach is taken towards people's homes.

Agreed.

Like I said, the housing policy reform wheels were set in motion by the May government. Eventually, under Boris Johnson of all people, we saw the emergence of the Renters Reform Bill. It had some genuinely impressive stuff in it, but was worn down through the committee stages and eventually dropped by Sunak before the election.

Rayner and Pennycook are now going to try and bring it back, and include some other stuff in there, such as rent control mechanisms. There's a long way to go, but when everyone realises that the game is up and serious reform is needed, it gives some hope that some good may come of it.

Are you foreseeing any opposition from the 44 Labour MPs who are Landlords?

Surprisingly, no. There will be plenty of horse trading during the committee debate stages of course, but the main opposition will come in the form of litigation against the Government from certain interests. This can seriously tie any government up and bog it down so that nothing happens.

I'll give an example.

Michael Gove, before the election, had been working on serious legislation to implement a Commonhold system of ownership across England. It was a decent piece of work. But allowing retrospective conversion of existing flats without 100% agreement (which is what would be required for it to be viable) threatened the asset values of institutional investors etc.

They threatened the government with years of legal action, including taking them to the UK Supreme Court and even the ECHR. They could argue that the new law would enable the unilateral stripping of their existing property rights, and that this in turn was a breach of human rights. Legally, even if not morally, they had a point.

So that meant, for Gove to do something good, he'd somehow have to disestablish the UK Supreme court and get the UK to exit the ECHR. Rather a big deal. In then end he fudged it and we got the Leasehold & Freehold Reform Act 2024, which is largely an empty document with placeholders suggesting that something may be inserted "in due course".

Interestingly, however, Rayner and Pennycook are hinting at a draft Commonhold Reform Bill being prepared. So it may be that they're going to give this another attempt too, along with the Renters Reform Bill.

[Admin]

If foreign investors can make a return out of build to rent projects, why can't local authorities / central government just cut out the middle men (and dividends) and finance the projects themselves? The returns could fund services.

Dunners has already replied on much of this but another aspect is most LA's have been stripped to the bone and beyond in terms of human resources. I work regularly with housing / estates departments for 3 london LA's and over the last 30 years, the number of surveyors, planners, architects, building surveyors, structural engineers, project managers etc has been reduced year on year with turnover of staff being a continual issue as many depart for the private sector as the pay and working conditions are unsustainable.

Even if the government decided to throw huge amounts of cash at LA's to build housing they don't have the expertise and HR to do it. When I started as a surveyor in the early 90's, working for an LA was a decent career - you tended to take a slight hit on basic salary in exchange for the pension / flexible working etc and career path. That position has totally reversed since then with the whittling away of employment benefits that came with working in the public sector.

Sadly, any form of quick fix will need to come from the private sector - at best in joint venture form with the public sector usually in the shape of the LA's providing the land / planning and the private sector putting up the finance and construction in return for profitability which in turn means poo poo development practices in the shape of high-rise tiny size accommodation we're seeing particularly in the suburbs.

Is there no other way?

Yes. But not quickly enough to meet the current need. Longer term yes if there's a complete reversal on how things have been done for the last 50 years.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Another £16k in free clothing identified as falsely claimed by the Prime Minister

https://www.ft.com/content/6a58f7ec-9f0 ... 5155b778a4

[Hoover Attack]

Veering off slightly (and I'm aware that we're both working in the same sort of areas), I've always felt that we need major reforms of the rental sector, particularly in terms of security of tenure for residential tenants.

Commercial tenants are (unless they willingly contract out) entitled to security of tenure for their business premises under the '54 L&T Act. It's long overdue that the same approach is taken towards people's homes.

Agreed.

Like I said, the housing policy reform wheels were set in motion by the May government. Eventually, under Boris Johnson of all people, we saw the emergence of the Renters Reform Bill. It had some genuinely impressive stuff in it, but was worn down through the committee stages and eventually dropped by Sunak before the election.

Rayner and Pennycook are now going to try and bring it back, and include some other stuff in there, such as rent control mechanisms. There's a long way to go, but when everyone realises that the game is up and serious reform is needed, it gives some hope that some good may come of it.

Are you foreseeing any opposition from the 44 Labour MPs who are Landlords?

Only 44 Labour MPs are landlords?

[Hoover Attack]

They threatened the government with years of legal action, including taking them to the UK Supreme Court and even the ECHR. They could argue that the new law would enable the unilateral stripping of their existing property rights, and that this in turn was a breach of human rights. Legally, even if not morally, they had a point.

These Institutional Investors, the likes of Black Rock and other foreign behemoth companies, have human rights?

What have we done?

[Dunners]

They threatened the government with years of legal action, including taking them to the UK Supreme Court and even the ECHR. They could argue that the new law would enable the unilateral stripping of their existing property rights, and that this in turn was a breach of human rights. Legally, even if not morally, they had a point.

These Institutional Investors, the likes of Black Rock and other foreign behemoth companies, have human rights?

What have we done?

They may fund an actual human to act as litigant.

Also, these investors include pension fund. We're all tied up in this.

[ChorizO]

So, the masses who can’t afford a home go homeless?

The people who somehow manage to afford £2,000 a month rent for life can't afford a £1,500 a month mortgage for 25 years? Bit weird.

Not at all. You still haven’t explained how tenants exist without landlords.

[ChorizO]

Landlords are not ‘making a living’.

They’re simply getting some poor sod to pay their mortgage for them. And some.

So pray tell how do people rent properties without landlords?

You’re a bit thick with all this aren’t you.

I cannot comment on how thick Hoover is, but I can on housing policy and landlordism.

There's landlords, and then there's landlords. The amateur buy-to-let crowd have emerged over the past few decades due to reckless government and financial policy. The economy was awash with surplus capital looking for ever greater returns on investment. And they were encouraged to speculate on property and rent extraction instead of, or in addition to, pensions and other longer-term investment vehicles.

This was never sustainable as a national housing policy, and it has utterly f*cked younger generations. This has wider societal and economic implications, which I wont go into here as it would take up all of my boardin' quota for today. But it is a large part of the reason why the UK economy is seriously f*cked (we've not had real-term growth for 15 years now). And is possibly facing a c50-year period of managed decline that will also hurt the "decent people trying to make a living" landlords you mention.

However, the value of their investments can go up of down. And they are now very much going down. And, just like other investor groups, they should not expect any special treatment or sympathy. They will no doubt view things from their individual perspectives, but this is about a much bigger picture. One which, I suspect, many of them will lack the cognitive and intellectual skills to grasp.

The Theresa May government were the first to accept that things would have to change, so it was her that put the current wheels in motion. But what is happening was going to be implemented no matter who won the General Election. Because it has to be done.

The long term policy is to rebalance the housing supply so that more rented accommodation is provided by institutional landlords (most will be backed by US investment funds like Black Rock). These companies will be better set up to provide (or at least report) on levels of assurance and regulatory compliance. It will aid in the stabilisation of rents and consistency of housing standards, and not expose tenants to the risks of an amateur landlord and their mortgage lender.

The Buy-to-let crowd will be nudged out through a combination of removal of tax incentives, sliding asset values, emergence of less risky/hassle investment options with decent returns, and increasing regulations through new legislation. This is also being helped by the long-overdue and welcome reversion of interest rates to normal levels.

There will be plenty of bleating by this investor-cohort's mouthpieces in certain sections of the media, of course. So expect to see loads of articles critical of government policy in the Mail, Telegraph etc (they'll not mention that it would still have happened under the Tories). There'll also be some disguised hand-wringing from The Guardian.

It will hurt. But it has to be done.

No, it ‘doesn’t have to be done’. Applying a dragnet approach to landlords does not fix a housing crisis - it adds to it.

[Dunners]

Righto.

[Hoover Attack]

So, the masses who can’t afford a home go homeless?

The people who somehow manage to afford £2,000 a month rent for life can't afford a £1,500 a month mortgage for 25 years? Bit weird.

Not at all. You still haven’t explained how tenants exist without landlords.

Arse about face.

How do landlords exist without tenants to leech off?

[Dunners]

There will always be landlords. All that is being attempted here is to reduce the proportion of housing that dependent on a cohort of amateur landlord investors. It's unstable, too difficult to regulate, too risky and has a range of detrimental second and third order economic and societal consequences.

Obviously, anyone who is one of these amateur landlords will be inclined to only see things through the lens of their own circumstances. But that's not how you're supposed to run a country.

[Max B Gold]

There will always be landlords. All that is being attempted here is to reduce the proportion of housing that dependent on a cohort of amateur landlord investors. It's unstable, too difficult to regulate, too risky and has a range of detrimental second and third order economic and societal consequences.

Obviously, anyone who is one of these amateur landlords will be inclined to only see things through the lens of their own circumstances. But that's not how you're supposed to run a country.

Sock it to them Ginge

[Hoover Attack]

There will always be landlords. All that is being attempted here is to reduce the proportion of housing that dependent on a cohort of amateur landlord investors. It's unstable, too difficult to regulate, too risky and has a range of detrimental second and third order economic and societal consequences.

Obviously, anyone who is one of these amateur landlords will be inclined to only see things through the lens of their own circumstances. But that's not how you're supposed to run a country.

Exactly.

You’re supposed to run it as these Institutions want it run. ie profits flowing to them enabling them to buy up ever more assets.

[ChorizO]

The people who somehow manage to afford £2,000 a month rent for life can't afford a £1,500 a month mortgage for 25 years? Bit weird.

Not at all. You still haven’t explained how tenants exist without landlords.

Arse about face.

How do landlords exist without tenants to leech off?

As expected, you still haven’t explained.

Pity, but then again, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the box.

[ChorizO]

Righto.

Insightful.

[Max B Gold]

There will always be landlords. All that is being attempted here is to reduce the proportion of housing that dependent on a cohort of amateur landlord investors. It's unstable, too difficult to regulate, too risky and has a range of detrimental second and third order economic and societal consequences.

Obviously, anyone who is one of these amateur landlords will be inclined to only see things through the lens of their own circumstances. But that's not how you're supposed to run a country.

Exactly.

You’re supposed to run it as these Institutions want it run. ie profits flowing to them enabling them to buy up ever more assets.

Another tinpot revolutionary seeking to kick over the trough.

For the last time. Repeat after me "there is no other way"

[faldO]

[Hoover Attack]

Not at all. You still haven’t explained how tenants exist without landlords.

Arse about face.

How do landlords exist without tenants to leech off?

As expected, you still haven’t explained.

Pity, but then again, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the box.

The property exists.

The person needing a home exists.

Why do you need a middleman extracting profit?

[Dunners]

Arse about face.

How do landlords exist without tenants to leech off?

As expected, you still haven’t explained.

Pity, but then again, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the box.

The property exists.

The person needing a home exists.

Why do you need a middleman extracting profit?

If I were Chorizo, this would be my reply:

"It depends.

Completely eliminating a middleman implies they have ownership of their home. That come with significant responsibility.

Not everybody has the financial means, mental capability or even the desire to take on that responsibility. So there should always be a rental option, whereby a middleman can take it on in return for some profit.

That middleman could take the form of the state, local authority, charitable trust, institutional investor landlord or amateur BTL landlords. They all have their place.

Out of those options, the last one can be the most flexible (yes, there are upsides too) but also the most risky. Which is why it should not have been allowed to have become the de-facto housing option for the majority of the population."