BREGZIT (GE 2019) - Labour - the average household spends £2k p/a on rail season tickets.

1131613171319132113221330

Posts

  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo, are you really happy if Infrastructure in this country 'isn't as bad as people make out'? Unfortunately the numbers being quoted are probably not even enough to get us back on level terms with many of those that will be our rivals in business let alone become the leaders. When it comes to more traditional infrastructure like rail I don't think we'll be able to get back to the level of the best as it has been left without sufficient investment for half a century and HS2 shows the costs of linking just a handful of cities with a 21st century rail line so we'd be looking at probably 10 times that to get a truly modern nationwide network (by which time HS1 and 2 would probably be behind the times). I travel by train 2 or 3 days a week and whilst long delays and cancellations are probably 'only' once a month or so it's very rare that my journey is on time. The trains are packed to the extent that I've seen people left on the platform for my journey into Bristol and in the past 18 months doing the journey regularly I've probably only had a seat on two or three occasions. I do get a seat on my other regular journey but the service is prone to cancellation and often reduced to a single carriage which is then crowded a few stops after I get on.

    Hopefully we can invest sufficiently in getting our digital infrastructure upgraded before we fall too far behind in that area as that is going to be key if we want to keep our position as a major economy (we have worse broadband connectivity in the UK than many developing nations and I believe we are even worse on mobile connectivity although that is possibly partially due to issues overcoming objections to new masts etc.). Also, like it or not, we do need to think about climate change and making our infrastructure more conducive to reducing emissions both by cleaner generation and by reducing impacts from transport whether by making home working a better option or making vehicles cleaner.

    I'm not an advocate of tax and spend in general but infrastructure is one area where investment really has to be continuous just to stay still.

    I'm not averse to some sensible targeted investment but when people make out that we spend nothing on this sort of thing it is just a bit ridiculous. Let's also put this into perspective with the near £2 trillion national debt pile that is the cumulative effect of us living beyond our annual income as a nation. In the end we need to balance investment against 'cutting our cloth' to suit the realities.

    I commute into London by train approx 3 times a week in rush hour and generally it's pretty good. I.e timely and I get a seat pretty much every time.

    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?
    FWIW, I would suggest that expereinces in London are not representative of the rest of England and that this is one of the biggest challenges the regions face; all MPs see what's going on in London but only a handful see what's happening elsewhere in, say, Bolton.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo, are you really happy if Infrastructure in this country 'isn't as bad as people make out'? Unfortunately the numbers being quoted are probably not even enough to get us back on level terms with many of those that will be our rivals in business let alone become the leaders. When it comes to more traditional infrastructure like rail I don't think we'll be able to get back to the level of the best as it has been left without sufficient investment for half a century and HS2 shows the costs of linking just a handful of cities with a 21st century rail line so we'd be looking at probably 10 times that to get a truly modern nationwide network (by which time HS1 and 2 would probably be behind the times). I travel by train 2 or 3 days a week and whilst long delays and cancellations are probably 'only' once a month or so it's very rare that my journey is on time. The trains are packed to the extent that I've seen people left on the platform for my journey into Bristol and in the past 18 months doing the journey regularly I've probably only had a seat on two or three occasions. I do get a seat on my other regular journey but the service is prone to cancellation and often reduced to a single carriage which is then crowded a few stops after I get on.

    Hopefully we can invest sufficiently in getting our digital infrastructure upgraded before we fall too far behind in that area as that is going to be key if we want to keep our position as a major economy (we have worse broadband connectivity in the UK than many developing nations and I believe we are even worse on mobile connectivity although that is possibly partially due to issues overcoming objections to new masts etc.). Also, like it or not, we do need to think about climate change and making our infrastructure more conducive to reducing emissions both by cleaner generation and by reducing impacts from transport whether by making home working a better option or making vehicles cleaner.

    I'm not an advocate of tax and spend in general but infrastructure is one area where investment really has to be continuous just to stay still.

    I'm not averse to some sensible targeted investment but when people make out that we spend nothing on this sort of thing it is just a bit ridiculous. Let's also put this into perspective with the near £2 trillion national debt pile that is the cumulative effect of us living beyond our annual income as a nation. In the end we need to balance investment against 'cutting our cloth' to suit the realities.

    I commute into London by train approx 3 times a week in rush hour and generally it's pretty good. I.e timely and I get a seat pretty much every time.

    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?
    FWIW, I would suggest that expereinces in London are not representative of the rest of England and that this is one of the biggest challenges the regions face; all MPs see what's going on in London but only a handful see what's happening elsewhere in, say, Bolton.

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo, are you really happy if Infrastructure in this country 'isn't as bad as people make out'? Unfortunately the numbers being quoted are probably not even enough to get us back on level terms with many of those that will be our rivals in business let alone become the leaders. When it comes to more traditional infrastructure like rail I don't think we'll be able to get back to the level of the best as it has been left without sufficient investment for half a century and HS2 shows the costs of linking just a handful of cities with a 21st century rail line so we'd be looking at probably 10 times that to get a truly modern nationwide network (by which time HS1 and 2 would probably be behind the times). I travel by train 2 or 3 days a week and whilst long delays and cancellations are probably 'only' once a month or so it's very rare that my journey is on time. The trains are packed to the extent that I've seen people left on the platform for my journey into Bristol and in the past 18 months doing the journey regularly I've probably only had a seat on two or three occasions. I do get a seat on my other regular journey but the service is prone to cancellation and often reduced to a single carriage which is then crowded a few stops after I get on.

    Hopefully we can invest sufficiently in getting our digital infrastructure upgraded before we fall too far behind in that area as that is going to be key if we want to keep our position as a major economy (we have worse broadband connectivity in the UK than many developing nations and I believe we are even worse on mobile connectivity although that is possibly partially due to issues overcoming objections to new masts etc.). Also, like it or not, we do need to think about climate change and making our infrastructure more conducive to reducing emissions both by cleaner generation and by reducing impacts from transport whether by making home working a better option or making vehicles cleaner.

    I'm not an advocate of tax and spend in general but infrastructure is one area where investment really has to be continuous just to stay still.

    I'm not averse to some sensible targeted investment but when people make out that we spend nothing on this sort of thing it is just a bit ridiculous. Let's also put this into perspective with the near £2 trillion national debt pile that is the cumulative effect of us living beyond our annual income as a nation. In the end we need to balance investment against 'cutting our cloth' to suit the realities.

    I commute into London by train approx 3 times a week in rush hour and generally it's pretty good. I.e timely and I get a seat pretty much every time.

    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?
    FWIW, I would suggest that expereinces in London are not representative of the rest of England and that this is one of the biggest challenges the regions face; all MPs see what's going on in London but only a handful see what's happening elsewhere in, say, Bolton.
    I've seen enough of my native North East and a few other areas of the UK over the last few years to have a non-'London bubble' view of it.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,816

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo, are you really happy if Infrastructure in this country 'isn't as bad as people make out'? Unfortunately the numbers being quoted are probably not even enough to get us back on level terms with many of those that will be our rivals in business let alone become the leaders. When it comes to more traditional infrastructure like rail I don't think we'll be able to get back to the level of the best as it has been left without sufficient investment for half a century and HS2 shows the costs of linking just a handful of cities with a 21st century rail line so we'd be looking at probably 10 times that to get a truly modern nationwide network (by which time HS1 and 2 would probably be behind the times). I travel by train 2 or 3 days a week and whilst long delays and cancellations are probably 'only' once a month or so it's very rare that my journey is on time. The trains are packed to the extent that I've seen people left on the platform for my journey into Bristol and in the past 18 months doing the journey regularly I've probably only had a seat on two or three occasions. I do get a seat on my other regular journey but the service is prone to cancellation and often reduced to a single carriage which is then crowded a few stops after I get on.

    Hopefully we can invest sufficiently in getting our digital infrastructure upgraded before we fall too far behind in that area as that is going to be key if we want to keep our position as a major economy (we have worse broadband connectivity in the UK than many developing nations and I believe we are even worse on mobile connectivity although that is possibly partially due to issues overcoming objections to new masts etc.). Also, like it or not, we do need to think about climate change and making our infrastructure more conducive to reducing emissions both by cleaner generation and by reducing impacts from transport whether by making home working a better option or making vehicles cleaner.

    I'm not an advocate of tax and spend in general but infrastructure is one area where investment really has to be continuous just to stay still.

    I'm not averse to some sensible targeted investment but when people make out that we spend nothing on this sort of thing it is just a bit ridiculous. Let's also put this into perspective with the near £2 trillion national debt pile that is the cumulative effect of us living beyond our annual income as a nation. In the end we need to balance investment against 'cutting our cloth' to suit the realities.

    I commute into London by train approx 3 times a week in rush hour and generally it's pretty good. I.e timely and I get a seat pretty much every time.

    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?
    FWIW, I would suggest that expereinces in London are not representative of the rest of England and that this is one of the biggest challenges the regions face; all MPs see what's going on in London but only a handful see what's happening elsewhere in, say, Bolton.
    I must say that it is nice to see your development since exiting the London residence.

    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 394
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50439671

    Apparently the N Irish will be paying more duty than they were led to believe.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,042
    Stevo_666 said:


    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?

    I know it's not the done thing to admit on an internet forum but I haven't got a clue to be honest. I'm not really familiar with managing national budgets - keeping the domestic ones is tough enough. I would say it should all be subject to a robust cost / benefit analysis, it might be that a larger number ends up making more sense than a medium sized number because the benefits then become far more worthwhile. From my own line of work you could spend a few million tinkering with improving junctions and temporarily easing congestion or you could spend £100 million on a new bypass to sort the issue out for a few decades - the benefit may justify the cost of option 2 as option 1 might not last long enough to be beneficial. As a lay person in other infrastructure matters it feels like we have gone for option 1 for as long as I can remember but whether that's because the numbers don't stack up in option 2 or because no-one has been prepared to commit the spending who knows?

    It's the same with things like hospitals and schools, you can spend money patching them up so they just about keep functioning or build replacements (although ultimately their performance will also be highly dependent on the people running them in either scenario).

    As I've said before, the bigger issue for me than the cost would be actually delivering anything that requires large scale construction due to the available resources whether materials, land or the skilled workforce.

  • Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?

    I know it's not the done thing to admit on an internet forum but I haven't got a clue to be honest. I'm not really familiar with managing national budgets - keeping the domestic ones is tough enough. I would say it should all be subject to a robust cost / benefit analysis, it might be that a larger number ends up making more sense than a medium sized number because the benefits then become far more worthwhile. From my own line of work you could spend a few million tinkering with improving junctions and temporarily easing congestion or you could spend £100 million on a new bypass to sort the issue out for a few decades - the benefit may justify the cost of option 2 as option 1 might not last long enough to be beneficial. As a lay person in other infrastructure matters it feels like we have gone for option 1 for as long as I can remember but whether that's because the numbers don't stack up in option 2 or because no-one has been prepared to commit the spending who knows?

    It's the same with things like hospitals and schools, you can spend money patching them up so they just about keep functioning or build replacements (although ultimately their performance will also be highly dependent on the people running them in either scenario).

    As I've said before, the bigger issue for me than the cost would be actually delivering anything that requires large scale construction due to the available resources whether materials, land or the skilled workforce.

    Thatcher famously saw running the economy as similar principle as running the domestic finances.
    Do you try and balance the family books or spend like a drunken sailor to ingratiate yourself with the kids whilst building up a colossal debt for them to inherit?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    pblakeney said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo, are you really happy if Infrastructure in this country 'isn't as bad as people make out'? Unfortunately the numbers being quoted are probably not even enough to get us back on level terms with many of those that will be our rivals in business let alone become the leaders. When it comes to more traditional infrastructure like rail I don't think we'll be able to get back to the level of the best as it has been left without sufficient investment for half a century and HS2 shows the costs of linking just a handful of cities with a 21st century rail line so we'd be looking at probably 10 times that to get a truly modern nationwide network (by which time HS1 and 2 would probably be behind the times). I travel by train 2 or 3 days a week and whilst long delays and cancellations are probably 'only' once a month or so it's very rare that my journey is on time. The trains are packed to the extent that I've seen people left on the platform for my journey into Bristol and in the past 18 months doing the journey regularly I've probably only had a seat on two or three occasions. I do get a seat on my other regular journey but the service is prone to cancellation and often reduced to a single carriage which is then crowded a few stops after I get on.

    Hopefully we can invest sufficiently in getting our digital infrastructure upgraded before we fall too far behind in that area as that is going to be key if we want to keep our position as a major economy (we have worse broadband connectivity in the UK than many developing nations and I believe we are even worse on mobile connectivity although that is possibly partially due to issues overcoming objections to new masts etc.). Also, like it or not, we do need to think about climate change and making our infrastructure more conducive to reducing emissions both by cleaner generation and by reducing impacts from transport whether by making home working a better option or making vehicles cleaner.

    I'm not an advocate of tax and spend in general but infrastructure is one area where investment really has to be continuous just to stay still.

    I'm not averse to some sensible targeted investment but when people make out that we spend nothing on this sort of thing it is just a bit ridiculous. Let's also put this into perspective with the near £2 trillion national debt pile that is the cumulative effect of us living beyond our annual income as a nation. In the end we need to balance investment against 'cutting our cloth' to suit the realities.

    I commute into London by train approx 3 times a week in rush hour and generally it's pretty good. I.e timely and I get a seat pretty much every time.

    Same question to you as Pinno - what would your budget be if you were in charge?
    FWIW, I would suggest that expereinces in London are not representative of the rest of England and that this is one of the biggest challenges the regions face; all MPs see what's going on in London but only a handful see what's happening elsewhere in, say, Bolton.
    I must say that it is nice to see your development since exiting the London residence.

    I like to think I've been quite consistent on the neglect of regional England, but obviously not.

    The world does seem to work a bit better when you're in a non-grim part of London.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,182
    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 3,846

    awavey said:

    I keep seeing people claiming the internet or access to it is like gaining access to some modern version of the great library of alexandria, do you reckon they had cyber bullies in that library ? fake news ? extremisim ? scam artists ? Shallow, if not patently irrational, opinions based on bad reasoning and sometimes no reasoning at all appear to be more prevalent than ever...


    In my opinion the internet is as transformative as the first industrial revolution, if you were around for that I imagine you would be moaning that it was a waste of time as people were playing silly tunes on their steam whistles


    I get very frustrated when pupils claim "I couldn't find out about [x]"... when I was at school, if you wanted to find a fact or information, you either asked someone you knew, or looked it up in a book, if you could find a relevant book... the local library only really did novels and basic stuff, so a traipse into Bristol Central Library (if you could, and it was open), work out how to use bibliographies and indexes, etc.) Basically, not that different from when writing had been invented, a few thousand years ago: ask someone, or look it up in a repository of written 'knowledge'.

    Pretty much the same when I did my BA thingy.

    But the transformation when I did my MA thingy, with whole-text search, and most academic journals being available online was, like, "whoa!" (to use a technical term).

    All we have to do is to learn how to use all that 'knowledge accessibility' now... some way to go, I'll admit. But having pretty much everything that's ever been written down available via a few clicks for those who can be bothered and have the skills to find it and interpret it is kinda big.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,182
    Stevo_666 said:

    More evasive, rightie bollox

    I did not propose what that cap on rent would be. Despite this, you have immediately said no. A knee jerk response without consideration?
    If landlords in Ilford charging £900 per month for a one bedroom whatever, cannot afford repair, insurance and maintenance on say... £750 a month, then they shouldn't be landlords. But these limitations on rent would save councils and the benefit system, millions.

    https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowledge/articles/2019/09/average-rent-in-london-guide-for-buy-to-let-landlords/

    It is a curious omission. The government spends an astonishing £22 billion a year on housing benefit. That dwarfs spending on the police, on overseas aid and the budgets of many entire government departments. Spending on this one benefit has doubled since the early 2000s

    Institute of fiscal studies.There's more:

    ...spending on this scale could itself be exacerbating some of those problems, potentially pushing up rents and acting as a transfer to landlords.

    In the long run, the solution to these issues can’t come from the housing benefit system itself. The trade-offs are inescapable. It will come from fixing the underlying problems — high rents, high house prices, inadequate social housing. The doubling in the housing benefit bill is merely the very expensive canary in the coalmine.


    You said in a previous post that you wanted me to explain how I was going to fund this infrastructure program. I give you some detail of how it may not simply be down to 'chucking money' at it and yet you say my points should be more concise.

    The whole concept of enablers vs legislators has gone wooosh over your head.

    Anyway, the Tories are pledging £Xbn public expenditure...

    Quite amusing really seen as we have no idea what position Britain post Brexit will be, whether we leave with a deal and whether we leave without. Ultimately, we have no real idea of the full financial impact and yet the austerity drum bashing Tories are going to spend, spend, spend.
    Either those very clever Tories know something we don't. or they are simply vying for votes.

    Now don't chuck the argument that Labour are proposing even more - I don't give flying farq what Labour are proposing, i'm just critical of the Tory proposals.
    Surely, you cannot think that a) those spending promises will actually be carried out to the full and b) they are sustainable in a future that has a high degree of uncertainty.

    Neoliberalism:
    It's quite clear:

    Neoliberalism is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.

    Gives what 'game' away?
    I am as centre as centre could be. I think we need to start having more centre ground government rather than this interminable swing from Left to Right and back again.

    I do no know what the full motive of the ERG is.
    We still don't know what is in that report regarding possible Russian interference in British elections.
    Boris said one thing in NI (when he was pi$$ed) and his cabinet minister said another. (Regarding customs checks after Brexit).
    This antithesis of austerity spending proposals made by the Tories is as shallow as a puddle made by a gnat - and, as I have mentioned, in the face of future financial uncertainty. ?


    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • Stevo_666 said:

    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    What would you do..sell the property?

    To someone who would either live in it, or presumably rent it out.

    Or would all these properties lie empty?
  • Stevo_666 said:

    If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    This government introduced the energy price cap.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    More evasive, rightie bollox

    I did not propose what that cap on rent would be. Despite this, you have immediately said no. A knee jerk response without consideration?
    If landlords in Ilford charging £900 per month for a one bedroom whatever, cannot afford repair, insurance and maintenance on say... £750 a month, then they shouldn't be landlords. But these limitations on rent would save councils and the benefit system, millions.

    https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowledge/articles/2019/09/average-rent-in-london-guide-for-buy-to-let-landlords/

    It is a curious omission. The government spends an astonishing £22 billion a year on housing benefit. That dwarfs spending on the police, on overseas aid and the budgets of many entire government departments. Spending on this one benefit has doubled since the early 2000s

    Institute of fiscal studies.There's more:

    ...spending on this scale could itself be exacerbating some of those problems, potentially pushing up rents and acting as a transfer to landlords.

    In the long run, the solution to these issues can’t come from the housing benefit system itself. The trade-offs are inescapable. It will come from fixing the underlying problems — high rents, high house prices, inadequate social housing. The doubling in the housing benefit bill is merely the very expensive canary in the coalmine.


    You said in a previous post that you wanted me to explain how I was going to fund this infrastructure program. I give you some detail of how it may not simply be down to 'chucking money' at it and yet you say my points should be more concise.

    The whole concept of enablers vs legislators has gone wooosh over your head.

    Anyway, the Tories are pledging £Xbn public expenditure...

    Quite amusing really seen as we have no idea what position Britain post Brexit will be, whether we leave with a deal and whether we leave without. Ultimately, we have no real idea of the full financial impact and yet the austerity drum bashing Tories are going to spend, spend, spend.
    Either those very clever Tories know something we don't. or they are simply vying for votes.

    Now don't chuck the argument that Labour are proposing even more - I don't give flying farq what Labour are proposing, i'm just critical of the Tory proposals.
    Surely, you cannot think that a) those spending promises will actually be carried out to the full and b) they are sustainable in a future that has a high degree of uncertainty.

    Neoliberalism:
    It's quite clear:

    Neoliberalism is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, free trade, austerity, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.

    Gives what 'game' away?
    I am as centre as centre could be. I think we need to start having more centre ground government rather than this interminable swing from Left to Right and back again.

    I do no know what the full motive of the ERG is.
    We still don't know what is in that report regarding possible Russian interference in British elections.
    Boris said one thing in NI (when he was pi$$ed) and his cabinet minister said another. (Regarding customs checks after Brexit).
    This antithesis of austerity spending proposals made by the Tories is as shallow as a puddle made by a gnat - and, as I have mentioned, in the face of future financial uncertainty. ?


    You didnt propose what the cap would be but the principle still stands.

    To save you avoiding answering yet another question (like the previous one about how much you would spend), the answer is exit the rental market. Simple.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    Jeremy.89 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    What would you do..sell the property?

    To someone who would either live in it, or presumably rent it out.

    Or would all these properties lie empty?
    Answer above. However renters cant always afford to or want to buy...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,783 Lives Here
    Jeremy.89 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    What would you do..sell the property?

    To someone who would either live in it, or presumably rent it out.

    Or would all these properties lie empty?
    Which account were you previously?
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 394
    edited 19 November
    Jeremy.89 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    What would you do..sell the property?

    To someone who would either live in it, or presumably rent it out.

    Or would all these properties lie empty?
    That's not easy to answer. If rent control were sufficiently low, it may drive many private investors out of the market, leaving a glut of properties vacant. Theoretically, that may lower their value and make them affordable to people who couldn't afford them before. The thing is, for that to be really meaningful, that takes a BIG drop in value and there are a lot of other consequences to that, some undesirable.

    Also, there's another factor to consider on the rent control question. For the first time (to my knowledge) private rented accommodation is being institutionalised. If you aren't aware of the huge swell of new developments for renting only, you just need to look up "PRS" and "BTR" to get an idea. The institutions have now found a workable model of investing long term into private rented accommodation. They build mainly large blocks of apartments (although some housing estates are also happening) with a lot of communal facilities and rigorous management - more in line with how office buildings have been managed for many years. They are happy for people to stay longer term although they're still handcuffed by the current tenancy legislation and they're working this model for the long term, not short term gain. They will manage and maintain these properties professionally because it is in their interest to do so and, unlike many private landlords, they have planned for the costs of doing so.

    This is the single biggest change to the rented sector in my lifetime at least.

    However, rent control could screw this completely. These institutional Landlords however have the leverage to persuade Governments of any flavour that rent control is not a good idea if it impacts sufficiently negatively on their investment models.

    I don't see it happening, at least not to the extent that many would like.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,182
    edited 19 November
    Stevo_666 said:

    You didnt propose what the cap would be but the principle still stands.

    To save you avoiding answering yet another question (like the previous one about how much you would spend), the answer is exit the rental market. Simple.

    I gave you an off the cuff example but within the context of what I was saying about local council control, it would be tailored to local requirements and demands.
    The principle: we can agree to disagree.You have not answered the question on rental caps with any degree of evidence.
    Unlike my reference to the the IFS report.

    I have quoted from the Houses of Parliament debates, the Institute of Fiscal studies - of which the Times originally published and yet here you are, avoiding. Again.
    I deliberately avoided left wing press which you would have disregarded anyway.

    Please refer to the Tory spending plans.
    Refer also to the Housing Benefit costs.
    Please refer to the cut backs in acute service facilities in the NHS.

    Also, on the news last night was the burgeoning care home costs/pressures. Is that going to be left to 'market forces'?

    Why is your beloved Tory party not addressing any of these problems publicly or otherwise?
    There seems to be an avoidance (from all parties) of facing the issues of the ageing population, dwindling pension pots, staffing our NHS post Brexit etc.

    However, the Tories are in government and they are likely to be in government post GE, so the ball is in your court (or their court) but you blow the Tory trumpet and therefore, you have to stand by your convictions.

    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 394
    pinno said:


    There seems to be an avoidance (from all parties) of facing the issues of the ageing population, dwindling pension pots, staffing our NHS post Brexit etc.

    To be fair, that's easy to answer. There is no solution that is saleable to the masses. Anyone announcing the type of policies required to actually deal with this will not get elected.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267

    Jeremy.89 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    What would you do..sell the property?

    To someone who would either live in it, or presumably rent it out.

    Or would all these properties lie empty?
    Which account were you previously?
    Maybe his previous username had an '88' in it?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    longshot said:

    pinno said:


    There seems to be an avoidance (from all parties) of facing the issues of the ageing population, dwindling pension pots, staffing our NHS post Brexit etc.

    To be fair, that's easy to answer. There is no solution that is saleable to the masses. Anyone announcing the type of policies required to actually deal with this will not get elected.

    They are already increasing council tax to fund social care. I'm sure that will increase over time.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,246
    longshot said:

    pinno said:


    There seems to be an avoidance (from all parties) of facing the issues of the ageing population, dwindling pension pots, staffing our NHS post Brexit etc.

    To be fair, that's easy to answer. There is no solution that is saleable to the masses. Anyone announcing the type of policies required to actually deal with this will not get elected.

    In fact one small attempt at the previous GE was named a Death Tax and probably contributed to the state in which we now find ourselves.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    edited 19 November
    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    You didnt propose what the cap would be but the principle still stands.

    To save you avoiding answering yet another question (like the previous one about how much you would spend), the answer is exit the rental market. Simple.
    I gave you an off the cuff example but within the context of what I was saying about local council control, it would be tailored to local requirements and demands.
    The principle: we can agree to disagree.You have not answered the question on rental caps with any degree of evidence.
    Unlike my reference to the the IFS report.

    I have quoted from the Houses of Parliament debates, the Institute of Fiscal studies - of which the Times originally published and yet here you are, avoiding. Again.
    I deliberately avoided left wing press which you would have disregarded anyway.

    Please refer to the Tory spending plans.
    Refer also to the Housing Benefit costs.
    Please refer to the cut backs in acute service facilities in the NHS.

    Also, on the news last night was the burgeoning care home costs/pressures. Is that going to be left to 'market forces'?

    Why is your beloved Tory party not addressing any of these problems publicly or otherwise?
    There seems to be an avoidance (from all parties) of facing the issues of the ageing population, dwindling pension pots, staffing our NHS post Brexit etc.

    However, the Tories are in government and they are likely to be in government post GE, so the ball is in your court (or their court) but you blow the Tory trumpet and therefore, you have to stand by your convictions.



    See answer above adult social care. Maybe you don't need to fund this sort of thing where you because of the preferential treatment North of the border?

    Cutbacks in the NHS? Going up all the time.
    https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

    Rent control - basic economics. Luckily we're not stupid enough to do that so we can't sit here and recount the problems it would cause. If it was that good an idea it would be everywhere. But it's not. But I hope for your sake they don't impose rent controls as you might have to sell one of your fleet of prestige German cars ;)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,246
    Errm. I think you'll find that we have tried rent control quite a bit in this country.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales

    https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06747

    And more famously, so has NYC.

    The main argument against them I can see is that they would discourage landlords from improving or keeping properties in a good state of repair.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    rjsterry said:

    Errm. I think you'll find that we have tried rent control quite a bit in this country.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales

    https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06747

    And more famously, so has NYC.

    The main argument against them I can see is that they would discourage landlords from improving or keeping properties in a good state of repair.

    Still in a massive minority overall.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,246
    14 of the 36 OECD have some form of rent control, so slightly less than half rather than a tiny minority.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,267
    rjsterry said:

    14 of the 36 OECD have some form of rent control, so slightly less than half rather than a tiny minority.

    Good try. What percentage of properties in the rental sector overall?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,246
    Worldwide? Neither of us have any idea.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,246
    edited 19 November
    Lots of interesting stuff here including international perspective.

    https://research.rla.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/LSE-International-Evidence-on-Rent-Control-Report-2018-Final.pdf

    General consensus is that it stifles investment, which in the end restricts supply. From the point of view of a tenant, that's almost as bad as restricted supply and inflated rents.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Jeremy.89 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinno said:

    Stevo_666 said:


    'I'm alright Jack' when it comes to enjoying public services? That's a new one ;)

    No - your attitude is 'i'm alright Jack'.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Rent caps will tend to drive landlords out of the market and reduce rental property supply. Law of unintended consequences etc.

    You have no evidence for that. Landlords can still charge under a rent cap, just not too much. With interest rates so low (and that looks permanent), investment opportunities are hard to find other than gambling on Stock.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - I'm not property development/social housing export but I'm sure there's more to it than just chucking money at the problem.
    Planning issues, space in cities. Fyi Sadiq has failed to get anywhere near his house building targets as London Mayor.

    Who said to chuck money at the problem? Maybe it requires changes in legislation, different building rules, better tenancy agreements like we have in Scotland.
    Stevo_666 said:

    - Don't know enough about the Beeching proposal to comment at this stage. Just seen it mentioned.

    That's a total cop out. You don't miss anything on this thread. If you think it's paltry, then you are conceding that it's Tory proposal that's flawed. If you think it's a silly idea, then you are critical of the your beloved Tory party.
    (It's quite acceptable to have doubts about certain proposals in the Tory manifesto.)
    Stevo_666 said:

    - £10k for a season ticket; if you 're going to commute from somewhere like Yorkshire to London then yes it gets expensive. Shock horror. See my comment above about living somewhere sensible in relation to where you work. That's what I did...

    Okay, over £5k for a season ticket from Brighton to London. It's hardly far.
    And, we've had this argument before: WE CAN'T ALL LIVE IN THE SOUTH EAST. Some of us don't want to live in the South East.
    There it is again; the 'i'm alright Jack' statement: "That's what I did..."
    Stevo_666 said:

    Also you haven't answered my question about how much this will cost - so third time of asking (and I'll make it easier for you by giving you some pretend discretion): how much would you spend on all of this?

    As mentioned previously, it could be assisted by changes in legislation.

    Don't forget, it was Thatcher who centralised local councils into regional councils and councils under successive Tory parties were then transformed into enablers instead of legislators.
    You don't need to know the details about that but suffice to say it means that councils are restricted by Government policy and are not as free to taylor local policy according to local needs and requirements.
    What's good and what will work for one area, may not work for another.
    That goes for planning laws, rental and tenancy arrangements, refuse budgets, park and recreation services etc.
    They are free (just about) to set council tax rates but not a lot else.
    So many local services are contracted out costing huge sums. I know a man who runs a landscaping business and Buckinghamshire CC tendered a contract out to maintain all their roundabouts, which he applied for. Previous contractor charged £250 per roundabout. Well, that was the average cost.
    He put his bid in with a covering CV/expertise/experience and calculated a cost which averaged £80 per roundabout.
    He was told to 'sharpen his pencil' and eventually agreed £170 per roundabout because (and on the QT) "If we don't spend our budget...".
    He got the contract. But theoretically, Bucks CC could have saved £170 per roundabout.
    66% less.

    I mean ffs, these practices are repeated ad nauseum throughout the country.
    I know from my own personal experience (running a recycling organisation), how the mechanics of budget spend in councils work. Initially, I was outraged at some of the costs and practices. I was also privy to at least 6 other councils, having liaised various issues and the conclusion I came to: public spending and the nature of public spending allocation is both irregular, unfair and unsustainable.

    So, as I say, it's not about chucking money at the problem.

    The Tories constantly push the contraction of state mantra on the one hand but on the other, don't allow councils autonomy.
    They are burdened by the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalism.

    TL:DR.

    What did I say above about throwing out so many issues that people haven't got time to address them all. I know you have time on your hands, but try to keep it concise.

    Let's just take one example here. You say I have no evidence that rent capping would tend to drive landlords out of the rental market. I don't need evidence, it is self evident and economic common sense that if the returns go down, supply goes down. If you were a landlord who needed to make money on properties to live - and some leftie politician (and that's what it would be) told you that you could only charge an amount of rent that meant you were making a loss on your rental proprties after the usual ingerest, maintenance expenses etc and that was not likely to change - what would you do? I know what I would do.

    As for the 'I'm alright Jack' business - maybe I am but that's not the point. Stop chucking lazy leftie insults around and using that leftie phrase 'neo-liberal' - gives the game away a bit...

    And do you really think beaurocracy would be less under Labour? Really? :D
    What would you do..sell the property?

    To someone who would either live in it, or presumably rent it out.

    Or would all these properties lie empty?
    Which account were you previously?
    Jez mon...

    I couldn't be doing with the faff of sorting it properly.
Sign In or Register to comment.