Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:25 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:48 am

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:42 am The idea that by agreeing pay deals for public service workers is somehow the cause of a winter fuel allowance cut is the kind of dumb reductive reasoning that means we get sh*t politics.

How are public sector pay deals paid for? By making cuts or raising taxes.

Having an economy not crippled by strikes may help pay for it too.

Well at least we can be sure now what the unions want, they will get. And if there is any doubt they will be back for more, and more.
And the money will come from borrowing, cuts or taxation.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:28 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:05 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:59 am

When it comes to hypocrisy they are

I just don’t get people. I have not and will not defend some of the Tory actions, they paid the price for these. that is not bias. And I’ve said much of what Labour have done is within the rules, that is not bias. In fact that is positive towards Labour! Is it not?

But the hypocrisy of Labour who took the moral high ground, a holier than you approach big time and at every opportunity to be caught out the way they have by in many cases doing the same is shameful. Gifts, cronyism, cover ups! And then to offer up pitiful excuses.

Those who think I’m showing bias need to look at the popularity polls, the world’s media, even the left wing media. I’ve never known a new Government in such a mess so soon after an election. If Starmer had an ounce of integrity he would resign. The guy is a laughing stock, the guy is out of his depth. The guy is out of touch. Bias, not at all. Five years of Starmer is a worry.

Five minutes of Boris was a bigger worry.

The only thing Boris had in his favour was being a better choice than Corbyn. Who if memory serves got more votes than Starmer. Who is thus far proving to be worse than both. Politics is in a real poor state.

Worse than Boris Calm down, it'll be alright.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:28 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:05 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:59 am

When it comes to hypocrisy they are

I just don’t get people. I have not and will not defend some of the Tory actions, they paid the price for these. that is not bias. And I’ve said much of what Labour have done is within the rules, that is not bias. In fact that is positive towards Labour! Is it not?

But the hypocrisy of Labour who took the moral high ground, a holier than you approach big time and at every opportunity to be caught out the way they have by in many cases doing the same is shameful. Gifts, cronyism, cover ups! And then to offer up pitiful excuses.

Those who think I’m showing bias need to look at the popularity polls, the world’s media, even the left wing media. I’ve never known a new Government in such a mess so soon after an election. If Starmer had an ounce of integrity he would resign. The guy is a laughing stock, the guy is out of his depth. The guy is out of touch. Bias, not at all. Five years of Starmer is a worry.

Five minutes of Boris was a bigger worry.

The only thing Boris had in his favour was being a better choice than Corbyn. Who if memory serves got more votes than Starmer. Who is thus far proving to be worse than both. Politics is in a real poor state.

Your Boardin’ is in a real poor state.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:32 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:25 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:48 am
How are public sector pay deals paid for? By making cuts or raising taxes.

Having an economy not crippled by strikes may help pay for it too.

Well at least we can be sure now what the unions want, they will get. And if there is any doubt they will be back for more, and more.
And the money will come from borrowing, cuts or taxation.

Yeah, Starmer is in the pocket of his Union Baron Paymasters.

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:36 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:28 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:05 pm

Five minutes of Boris was a bigger worry.

The only thing Boris had in his favour was being a better choice than Corbyn. Who if memory serves got more votes than Starmer. Who is thus far proving to be worse than both. Politics is in a real poor state.

Worse than Boris Calm down, it'll be alright.

To be honest, the only thing that Starmer has in his favour is that he's a better choice than any Tory. That's a pretty low bar, mind. Even for all his hypocrisy, he's still (marginally) better than the Tories. It only looks worse because you expect the Tories to be right <unts, and it's taking some getting used to realising that this particular brand of Labour are almost, but not quite, as bad as the blue Tories.

Better choice than the Tories is just about right. But let’s face it, the Tories became a shambles towards the end of their long time in charge,They had an unfortunate run of issues to deal with. Their time was up and they knew it. Starmer didn’t have much to do,

But given their justified criticism of some Tory actions, it beggars belief they would do some of the utterly stupid things they have. No need at all. All the narrative is about this rather than their plans going forward. Negative press rather than positive press. Starmer now looks like an utter idiot and sausagegate caps it off.

He had a clear run and is screwing it up.

Someone is proper fuming they wasted their vote on Reform.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:09 pm

ChorizO wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:01 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:32 pm

That's good. So it might be better than I thought it was going to be.

Of course once the Red Tory funders and landlords in Parliament water it down it will not be worth having or won't go far enough to protect tenants.

And what about the rights of landlords - decent people trying to make a living.

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.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:45 pm Better choice than the Tories is just about right. But let’s face it, the Tories became a shambles towards the end of their long time in charge,They had an unfortunate run of issues to deal with. Their time was up and they knew it. Starmer didn’t have much to do,

But given their justified criticism of some Tory actions, it beggars belief they would do some of the utterly stupid things they have. No need at all. All the narrative is about this rather than their plans going forward. Negative press rather than positive press. Starmer now looks like an utter idiot and sausagegate caps it off.

He had a clear run and is screwing it up.

Is the same Dohnut of old? If so, your absence has not cooled your nonsense.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 1:26 pm

ChorizO wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:01 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:32 pm

That's good. So it might be better than I thought it was going to be.

Of course once the Red Tory funders and landlords in Parliament water it down it will not be worth having or won't go far enough to protect tenants.

And what about the rights of landlords - decent people trying to make a living.

Landlordism is a scourge on society and needs to be eliminated. Making a passive living of the backs of workers because of property rights isn't making a living.

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

Heartless chap aren’t you.

ChorizO wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:30 am

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:09 pm

ChorizO wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:01 pm

And what about the rights of landlords - decent people trying to make a living.

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.

Why can't you?

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:45 am 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.

I'm guessing there's just no other way? Allowing foreign investors in to snuffle up our housing stock is the only solution?

ChorizO wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:32 am
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.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:45 am However, the value of their investments can go up of down. And they are now very much going down.

Is that happening?

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:54 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:45 am 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.

I'm guessing there's just no other way? Allowing foreign investors in to snuffle up our housing stock is the only solution?

No.

Foreign investors are actually not that interested in our existing stock (it's pretty rubbish). Instead, they want larger-scale new developments that are built through a Build-to-Rent programme. So it adds to the overall housing supply, instead of just carving up what is already there. But Rayner and Pennycook do want to nudge out the amateur BTL crowd too.

The plan from Rayner and Pennycook is to combine this with a state-funded housing supply too. They also want to introduce legislation that will give renters more rights. However, we'll need to wait and see what is in the next budget, and what the proposed Bills eventually look like if and when they come into law (which I predict will not be before 2026). Political interreference and alternative Treasury priorities may overrule them.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:03 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:45 am However, the value of their investments can go up of down. And they are now very much going down.

Is that happening?

Yes. Slowly. But it is happening.

And the value of their investments is not just measured by the property value, but also by their returns.

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.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:43 am 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.

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.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:47 am

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:43 am 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.

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?

When I win the £107m Euro millions tonight I'm going to set up a housing trust to provide affordable properties where paying the rent means that people will be owners after 20 years.

Every time a former council house comes on the market I will outbid all buyers to acquire it and add it to the Trust.

In this way I will thwart the plans of a local lottery winner who currently snaps them up for his own property portfolio. He won £74m but my £107m will outmuscle him.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:43 am 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.

Sorry Spike, there's no other way. Thought you'd know that by now?

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:36 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:47 am

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:43 am 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.

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).

StillSpike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:43 am 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.

PS - Forgot to add - many LA's have spent the last 15 years selling off developable land in order to plug budget shortfalls elsewhere. Much of this land is still banked away by developers happy to gain capital value in sites alone.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:14 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:36 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:47 am

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).

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 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?