This could prove very scary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    This could prove very scary

    i know the topic has been simmering amongst a section of the Labour Party but if they were to succeed in gaining a majority at a general election , all hell could be let loose in the Private Rental Sector.

    ”Labour could give tenants who rent private homes the right to buy them at a cut-price rate, the Shadow Chancellor has revealed.

    John McDonnell outlined the party’s incendiary plans to ‘tackle the burgeoning buy-to-let market’ in a bombshell interview last night.

    The dramatic policy is designed to clamp down on middle-class families who buy a second property as a nest egg for their retirement.

    The suggestion from the Shadow Chancellor – applying Margaret Thatcher’s iconic right for council tenants to buy their homes to those who rent properties from millions of private landlords – offers a chilling insight into the consequences of a Labour victory in any snap election.”

    #2
    All things being equal the great public of England (specifically) is not dumb enough to vote a Fascist-Marxist government of McDonnel's sort into power. But a congruence of unfortunate events could propel us into that position. Chilling indeed. There will be very few winners of such an outcome, least of all our uncomprehending and gullible youth.

    Comment


      #3
      Labour party report here;

      https://landforthemany.uk/preface/

      In the unlikely event of it happening, there are few of my tenants that are willing and able to buy.
      Depending on the definition of 'reasonable' and 'cut-price rate', I'd be happy to sell off a few.
      It would also take a long time to come into force, during which I'd take measures to mitigate.
      And rents would increase considerably.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by boletus View Post
        Labour party report here;
        https://landforthemany.uk/preface/
        Devised by and brought to you by arch hypocrite George Monbiot

        In an interview with the Times in 2006, the environmental activist chatted about leaving his four-bedroomed Oxford home, for a rambling farmhouse in half an acre of unspoilt Welsh countryside:
        Monbiot is planning to move to deepest Wales, appropriately enough, to a “place that has very little pollution”, though he worries that leaving behind his “ecological disaster” of a home means “someone else will be wrecking the planet”. He and Angharad, 29, his television producer wife, have spent £280,000 on a four-bedroom wreck, with half an acre of land in Machynlleth in mid-Wales. Their aim is to spend a year and £100,000 making it incomparably green.

        Comment


          #5
          The only benefit to a tenant of any right to buy is the significantly reduced price of the property, which moves it into the tenant's price range.

          Obviously not all tenants will be able to afford to buy, but knock £80 - 100k off a property value and it's enough for some people.

          And anyone who can afford it would be daft not to, wait the 5 years or so, and sell it to release that discount as profit.
          Which is how so many of the properties end up with BTL landlords owning them over time.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            #6
            Guess that's even less of an incentive to take a tenant long term, isn't it? Let someone stay on for ten years, and you have to sell your property to him for buttons.

            These lefties really should decide what they want in terms of housing policy.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by JK0 View Post
              Guess that's even less of an incentive to take a tenant long term, isn't it? Let someone stay on for ten years, and you have to sell your property to him for buttons.

              These lefties really should decide what they want in terms of housing policy.
              You kind of assume you will have a choice as to your decision to take a long term tenant JK0?

              But left, right, anyway, I don't know what that means. They are fascists certainly. Someone said that the only real differece between fascists of the "right" and so called "left" is that the former want a forced nationalistic take-over by - well nationalists, and the lefties want a takeover by their choice set of outsiders or a bizarre philosophy. However the key to the operation of both is the underpinning of their forced choices (such as deprivation of property which is a key part of the fascist agenda) by violence, which is the only way it can be done. Politics of the jackboot.

              Comment


                #8
                This might work in London but I would highly suspect a massive amount of tenants especially DSS would not actually be able to buy anything. If a rule like this comes in expect may landlords to immediately evict any working tenants who do qualify

                Comment


                  #9
                  If the starts trying to take control of the property of private individuals and companies (property and shares) it would encounter a number of legal issues, starting with those shares and properties belonged to non-UK citizens (who might be supported by their own legal system), corporations (who's property many shares are) and the UK legal system.

                  It's a nightmare enforcing a compulsory purchase (which is at market rate) to build something useful, like a road. The idea of forcing the sale of thousands of properties (before landlords could repossess from everyone) is a bit unrealistic.

                  The current Labour leadership (excluding Tom Watson) are like the people who used to run Student Unions when the enemy was "Thatch".
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Just wondering, as an inexperienced private landlord: Could the letting contracts be tweaked from the outset to rule out any enforced sale down the line?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by andy d View Post
                      Just wondering, as an inexperienced private landlord: Could the letting contracts be tweaked from the outset to rule out any enforced sale down the line?
                      I have an idea of a way of discouraging this, but I'm not going to mention it here in case Corbyn is reading.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The last time this was proposed "seriously", the idea was that the discount would be subsidised by the state, so the tenant would get the benefit and the landlord wouldn't be out of pocket (other than having no further income).

                        So the landlord would buy another property, and nothing would be gained (other than the state is out of pocket for the discount) - compensated for by some SDLT.

                        The additional cost to the landlord would have to buy a slightly cheaper property, and the whole rental market remains the same size with slightly worse properties each iteration.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          The last time this was proposed "seriously", the idea was that the discount would be subsidised by the state, so the tenant would get the benefit and the landlord wouldn't be out of pocket (other than having no further income).

                          So the landlord would buy another property, and nothing would be gained (other than the state is out of pocket for the discount) - compensated for by some SDLT.

                          The additional cost to the landlord would have to buy a slightly cheaper property, and the whole rental market remains the same size with slightly worse properties each iteration.
                          Hmm. Do you seriously think Corbyn is planning to pay the 'top-up'?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by andy d View Post
                            Just wondering, as an inexperienced private landlord: Could the letting contracts be tweaked from the outset to rule out any enforced sale down the line?
                            The entire underpinning of landlord and tenant law as currently imagined is that contracts between people are irrelevant, and big brother has to rewrite them -- because big brother knows best it thinks, even when all parties to a contract know that big brother is a blithering fool (and where both parties know that big brother is damaging them both).

                            So unlikely.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                              The entire underpinning of landlord and tenant law as currently imagined is that contracts between people are irrelevant, and big brother has to rewrite them -- because big brother knows best it thinks, even when all parties to a contract know that big brother is a blithering fool (and where both parties know that big brother is damaging them both).
                              Or, put another way, the law passed by the monarch in parliament is supreme and cannot be varied by other agreements between the people.

                              That's the entire underpinning of all law, not just landlord and tenant law.
                              Although, I can't dispute that it's not always useful or sensible.

                              On the reverse side, the power inbalance between landlord and tenant is a problem for contractual agreements otherwise.
                              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X