Labour tackling the private rent market

[Pantone363]

guardian link

They seem to be the only party tackling what is a huge issue for a lot of voters.

Isitmebut

1. Part of the german economic miracle was the fact that under the Marshall Plan they were given money to rebuild after the second world war. The UK and many other countries borrowed money during and after the war and had many, many years of repayments.
2. The perfect elastic, perfectly transparent, perfectly fair, perfectly unregulated market with perfect information, fluidity and freedom of movement does not exist. It is as much a myth as the perfect society. Pursuing those idealistic and utopian conditions to the detriment of real lives and real people is as damaging as pursuing a utopian society.
3. I have as much problem with private landlords being forced out as they had with buy to own families being forced out by their own actions.
4. BTL to was largely cannibalistic on existing stock. It has not solved the housing crisis. There are still homeless people, there is still a shortage of housing, there are still people who desperately need affordable housing- whether to buy or rent. The BTL bubble has arguably also made british property a target for the kind of capital investment that leaves much needed housing empty, to increase in value whilst people are either homeless or in substandard or insecure housing. Many people have grown very wealthy by doing it, but that does not mean it has been beneficial for this country.
5. Market conditions, do change all the time. In many ways. Innovation, the weather, acts of god, changes in fashion, changes in human attitude...Markets appear and disappear, due to human action (whether intentional or otherwise) and for reasons that have nothing to do with humans too. The slave trade was a lucrative market for along time (and still is in many places and in various guises). However regulation and intervention changed that. No market or trade has a right to exist unfettered and without regard to the damage it causes.

Caroldecker I don't think that the german housing market is ideal- I would prefer to see more owner occupiers and more social housing. But I do think they regulate the private rental market much better than we do and offer far more protections to tenants. It's not perfect, but there are things to learn from them, even if as temporary measures.

MoustacheofRonSwanson .... With respect, this is not some head/ass scratching Oxbridge theological debating society pretending the UK is empty of citizens and we are starting from scratch - the UK housing crisis is a here and now issue and being in DENIAL of the facts, especially if to be in government - so on the NEED for BTL, what do you disagree with on my previous points below?

The problem of an adequate ‘supply’ started around 20-years ago, and as The Barker Report commissioned by Labour in 2003 (and reported in 2004) pointed out, 175,000 new homes a year in 2001 was not enough with organic population growth, recommending we needed over 200,000 new homes built a year, back then.

From 2004 to 2010, the UK’s net EU and Non EU citizen immigration figure (needing homes) was between 2 million and 3 million depending on who you listen to, Labour or UKIP lol – while Labour averaged around 115,000 new homes a year, clearly far fewer than those needed in 2001 – so the average home price rose from £73k in 1997 to *£232k in early 2008, exasperating the affordability issue of ‘demand’.

So with those totally inadequate new build figures, and a financial/economic crash biting from 2008 - restricting substantially both mortgage lending and building confidence/activities, resulting on skilled building labour leaving the trade – the EXISTING total UK housing stock is, I reiterate, totally inadequate, for social engineering experiments.

As on your point 4. above, if a government is not fulfilling its basic duty to provide homes for both its current citizens and for an undetermined number new citizens that will arrive if fully signed up to an EU 'freedom to move/work across borders' policy - where do you think we would be now if the Private Sector had not stepped in to provide rental homes to BOTH, who can not afford to buy?

?where do you think we would be now if the Private Sector had not stepped in to provide rental homes to BOTH, who can not afford to buy?

The private sector didn't provide rental homes, it didn't create them it bought them all up pushing up the prices and pushing out potential owner occupiers.

Yet again we have landlords attempting to portray themselves as beneficent ?parents selflessly stepping in to rescue the poor from homelessness.

If they are poor it's because they've got no money left after they've paid the bleedin' rent!?

keepitsimple0 .... re your "you seem to suggest that nothing should be done unless the whole system can be fixed. well, that's just much harder to do."

I am not suggesting that at all, but what I can't get my head around are those that dismiss the current UK housing FACTS and reasons we are where we are, and pretend that we can press a housing 'default' button and go back 50-odd years and adopt ANY German plan.

There are two main issues here;

The UK supply of housing is totally inadequate, and as proved in the 2000's, the demand nearly TREBLED the prices of homes, thereby increasing rental demand for those who can not afford them - and making any meaningful price correction impossible UNLESS a financial crash, when homes did fall 20% on average ON THE LACK OF TRANSACTIONS, but bounced back as soon as bank lending normalised.

The "instability problem" of tenure you mention which is more of an issue NOW, as the private sector has taken over from the state for the first time ever, can be addressed if the State gets its pooh together and builds more homes and also welcomes institutional landlords e.g. pension funds, who are looking for the secure and higher income over government bonds, that can be achieved by longer term tenancies.

So prior to the threat of cracking a housing tenure walnut with a state sledgehammer, that globally we know WILL reduce the quality and quantity of private rental homes;WHAT has been done by governments to both LISTEN TO, AND ENCOURAGE private landlords (with additional safeguards?), to offer 2-3 year fixed tenancies?

Any government that can only attack the private sector, rather than work with it, will always be an unfunded government - get used to it.

suzannecanthecan .... did a landlord ever pee in your cornflakes, as no private landlord will see themselves as the saviour of the state, they just pick up the pieces of a state unable to policy plan ahead.

When Labour raided private pensions in 1997 (that was to cost private pensions over £260 billion), many seeing the writing on the wall chose different non pension investments.

When Labour lowered the real 'millionaires' Capital Gains Tax to a tapered low of 10% (later raising it to 18%) who was that to help, the pension funds accumulating tax free or those buying 'asset' like homes?

When Labour in 2000 decided we were to become 'multicultural' prior to the 2004 EU citizens they WANTED to come here to provide growth and funding for an ever aging population/pensioners, to then oversee an average private/public builds of only an average of 115,000 homes a year in total, was housing incompetent.

The Labour lack of home builds while embracing the worlds work force, could only RAISE home prices.

The private landlord market GREW to provide a much needed service due to governments policies with not the first clue how to house everyone - so why are you so aggressive about those who compensated for that lack-of-joined-up policy-thinking-incompetence?

Do you not see the irony of the party that totally encouraged private landlords to enter the market, now demonizing them for votes, and (as global history of rent control show) risking the current supply stock in a housing supply crisis?

?
There you go again, landlords are motivated by the desire to make a profit, not to provide a service.
landlords identified a scarce resource (ie homes) and sought to take control of it If you own something which is in short supply and which other people need then you are onto a winner?.
The problem (as you say) is a lack of homes,? landlords are not addressing the problem they are CASHING IN ON IT
(I used bold caps because I can see that you enjoy them) ?

yes, I rent out a property to make money. Same reason I go to work.

Doesn't mean I don't do a quality job at both, and meet all legal and other obligations. At work I treat customers as I would like to be treated, and the rental property is one I would happily live in.

still waiting those reasoned statements as to why making profit from neccessities is immoral, suzanne - and how you live by those rules.

Yes I can see that landlords have been used by the government, lured in by the promise of a fat profit.
?
If (when) ?there's a house price crash all the small landlords will have to sell up at a loss and those with more capital will swoop in and buy up all the cheap property

repeat - still waiting reasoned statements...

aha - just realised! It's Roneik with a name change and acting less intelligent!

You seem unable to distinguish between profiting and profiteering Specialsubject

I'm an "accidental" landlord.

If I'm forced to take tenants for three years then I'd rather keep my house empty. How does that help tenants?

If there were restrictions on ownership of property other than one's principal private residence then legislation may mean that property is not allowed to stand empty.
If there are not enough homes to go round then it's not difficult to construct an argument in which it is immoral for people to hoard property.
Property is massively overvalued, the bigger the bubble the greater the explosion when it bursts ?

And the unintended consequences of that would be catastrophic - you would effectively reduce people's mobility, both geographically and In terms of employment

I also rent in a country where there is a rent cap. Landlords frequently chuck people out, live in the property for a short period and then re let at a vastly increased sum. It leads to enormous instability

I've not been specific about what those restrictions might be and therefore you can know what the consequences would be.
I'm just making a general point that people ought not to have a right to hoard property just because they can. ?

*can't know

No but you stated restrictions that may mean a property was not allowed to remain empty. If properties are not allowed to remain empty at the same time becoming a LL too onerous to contemplate then inevitably mobility will decrease.

Too onerous for individual small landlords but not necessarily for large institutional investors who would be able to purchase property outright and be large enough to cope with tighter regulation of the rental sector.

The problem is that too many people have been encouraged to become landlords as a way of funding their retirement, that going to make for a pretty sparse retirement if there is a house price correction ?

I also rent in a country where there is a rent cap. Landlords frequently chuck people out, live in the property for a short period and then re let at a vastly increased sum. It leads to enormous instability

I have lived in both systems. This certainly does sometimes happen, but not frequently. Where I lived if a tenant could show this was the case, he can sue the LL.

which is more of an issue NOW, as the private sector has taken over from the state for the first time ever, can be addressed if the State gets its pooh together and builds more homes and also welcomes institutional landlords e.g. pension funds, who are looking for the secure and higher income over government bonds, that can be achieved by longer term tenancies.

that seems like a much bigger change than offering tenure. I don't know why this monolithic idea is preferable.

Unlike others, I don't demonize landlords. They aren't the problem. Lack of housing and tenant protections are. LLs are just business people, and as such come in colours and quality.

keepitsimple0 ...... when a country in NOT building anywhere enough homes annually to provide for organic population growth, never mind knowingly adopt a policy opening up the front door for exchanges with 500 million Europeans - coming up with ways to provide those homes is not a "big change" - it is responsible governance that hopefully needs to be ahead of the curve, not 20-years behind.

As to 'just' offering tenure, it is not as simple as that, especially if a political party 2-weeks before an election, with State Control threats to banks, energy companies, building companies, tobacco companies and any large company to be taxed more, just for being 'big' - throws out yet more State Control threats to private landlords, creating huge uncertainty in the industry, especially as most can't be classed as small businesses, or easily swallow big government costs/dictates.

never mind knowingly adopt a policy opening up the front door for exchanges with 500 million Europeans

my psychic powers are telling me something.....my spirit guide is whispering that you are a UKIP supporter

suzannecanthecan .... your 'spirit guide' needs to change over its optic, as I would rather chew my right (drinking & writing) hand off, that vote UKIP.

My spider senses were tingling, hopelessly grasping for a figure to show the enormity of the 2004 change to our borders, re an open UK home provision target, and stooped to a Farage figure.

I apologize to all, and promise I'll never use another UKIP figure again.

(Fifty lashes with a soggy noodle, please)