Reply to the comment left by "Lindsey " at "10/06/2017 - 19:42":

Lindsey: I suspect we are closer than at first appears. There is a huge difference between adding a small amount to someone's tax and completely destroying them (e.g. by S.24). The latter is unforgivable.

I have rooted philosophical objections to the principle of retroactive legislation on things that come in large quanta. It seems arguable that a government could reduce the level of allowable costs going forward - though it makes no sense - but to apply it to property already in ownership is plain wrong morally.

I live in a listed house, and the Tories removed the VAT concession on maintenance/repairs that used to apply. That was morally wrong as it didn't just apply to new purchases, but it didn't threaten me with bankruptcy. (I'm not arguing, by the way, that maintenance of listed buildings is as important as the provision of housing.)

Dickens as a driver for property purchase! Isn't Little Dorrit a horrid warning? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

And social justice HAS been reduced in the last 7 years. I could introduce you to a couple of people who have been pauperised by PIP and UC and the vicious DWP. The tribunal system has broken down; around here it's 23+ weeks to get a hearing, during which time a lad I'm helping has zero income (except from me.) He would love to have a job but has a very low intelligence and is functionally illiterate. But you don't hear about this in the Daily Mail or the Sun.

With the Tories just about clinging on to power for now, I suppose the starting point is what they say in their manifesto about offering a better deal and more security for tenants. I think it will be hard for that to translate into something hard-edged like rent controls or mandatory 3 year tenancies, because even if a small number of Tory MPs don't approve, it won't get through. I also think this election has made Boris Johnson a lot more powerful, even if May is able to cling on to power and he doesn't choose to run for PM.

While London Mayor, Johnson appeared not unsympathetic to landlords, saying for example, that the best way to ruin a city was either to carpet bomb it or bring back rent controls.

Barwell's appointment is also mildly encouraging.

The counter-current in all this, is the perception that the youth of Britain have sent a signal in this election to all political parties that their interests need better representation. That will add pressure "to do something on housing".

As ever these days, the best outcome for landlords will be the absence of really bad news. The idea of a future government rowing back, for example, on section 24 is clearly for the birds.

Personally, I hope for a softer Brexit with a less harsh tone on immigration. I am biased of course, because 60% of my tenants are non-UK EU.

I also hope that one day politicians will accept that we need a better deal not only for good tenants, but also good landlords. It is a disgrace that it takes 42 weeks on average to evict a tenant in a contested case. No wonder landlords are becoming more choosy about their tenants and reducing their exposure to riskier tenant groups - the very groups that more rules, red-tape and regulation are ostensibly trying to protect.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "09/06/2017 - 22:29":

Mark,
You obviously want something that is probably based on an idealistic viewpoint.
So let's see if this has a logical basis.

Nick Clegg and Tim Farron are in a party called ... The Liberal "DEMOCRATS"?

So they, large parts of the establishment and even the Bank of England campaign against Brexit for a year and eventually lose a referendum.

The then Prime Minister resigned after accepting the result.
The chancellor was sacked and Boris consigned to a cupboard.

They then campaign for another year, telling everyone that will listen, that we didn't know what we were voting for, the figure on the bus was wrong, then they use the clingers on in the House of Lords to frustrate the Votes already cast.

Theresa May had to twist and turn to even get Article 50 triggered and through the House of Lords.

The Lib Dems show that they are as democratic as a shotgun blast to the face.

We were told during the referendum that ALL votes counted and that's why it was vital to vote, hence the high turnout.

The rule of a referendum is simple, whoever gets the most votes wins.
They signed up, voted on the referendum happening in a Parliament vote and then campaigned like no tomorrow and LOST!

I seem to recall the question asked was, "Should we Leave the EU"?

But no, apparently they accepted the vote, BUT not the TYPE of Brexit .....and a whole list of bullshit excuses to force another referendum.

Then in this election the idiots decided to campaign to legalise cannabis and base their campaign on a second EU referendum.

They lost that campaign, as all the parties have Brexit in their manifesto, except them.
Did they win? - no they got 11 MPs and Vince 'I can Tango' Cable.

They also wanted rent controls on Landlords, without thinking of the consequences.

Next Cannabis.
As a landlord I am sick of dealing with cannabis addiction.

They are biggest bunch of stupid twats I have ever come across in regards to being logical, I refer to both the users of the stuff and the Lib Dems.
They intend to sell the soft stuff to take the trade from the criminals.

They are beyond belief in their naivety.

I see people hooked after 2 puffs of the skunk and they think they want to buy dandelion juice and sunflower seeds from a local shop.

Public Services.
They didn't let the Tories fix the crash, so we are still having to deal with it.
Public spending should have been slashed by 1/3, instead they forced Cameron and later May to drag it out for over a decade.

What good has come from that?
Nothing but pain and knashing of teeth for 10 years.
It could have been done and dusted in 2.

But they held back what had to be done and still has to be done.

£1000 million a week is still being borrowed to support a public sector that can't be dealt with, because of people being unwilling to tell the voters the truth of the problem facing us as a nation.

We only have 35.4 million tax payers in the UK that use the public services. All the others using them DONT PAY TAX!

So the country borrows £1000 million a week on somebody's credit card, on an introductory rate that can't last forever.

But the Liberal Democrats dementia disease is spreading as it seems Corbyn has plans to ignore the fact that he lost, he didn't get as many votes as the conservatives and he says he won the election!

In which case it begs the question,why are the public asked to vote in the first place?

The Liberals are not Democrats, they may be Liberal, but no way are they democratic.

If they ran the UK a business it would be called RBS and that is still making losses 10 years later.
But they keep.saying RED ledger ink is the same as black ledger ink to themselves as well.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "10/06/2017 - 07:39":

Corbyn has the 'air' of a delusional dictator, with his Marxist Leninist views......refused to resign, preparing a queens speech just ignore reality and do what you wish....We better all hope he doesn't get to PM, if he does, he'll definitely ruin the country for the future i think.
My advise to May, go to the middle ground make it a social conservative government for 2 yrs to exhaust Corbyn, leadership challenge, then a new election in 2019/20.
I would move to the liberal 1p on basic rate of tax to pay for NHS and public services.
Build Social housing through councils allowable controlled loans
Stop any further cuts, but moblise a SWAT team of crack consultants to sweep through NHS by hospital to create a model and find the real savings, instead of allowing councils and services to just poorly manage savings by simple redundancies....its clear how poor management they are not to actually improve services without job losses.
The debit of course will rise, its a given as NHS is a money pit, and with lower tax band gone from £6,500 to £11,500, of course, the tax takes are down, only 80% of people pay 20% take, so if you've chopped so much out of the band they can't be collecting very much...hence 1p

Reply to the comment left by "Mike D" at "11/06/2017 - 20:19":

Yes, I have no problem with the 1p on tax idea, but what would Labour make of it? They wanted to just slam anyone earning over £80,000 (which would affect many of us landlords facing tax on 'fictitious profit') Not sure if the 1p idea would get through Parliament but could be worth a try - especially if certain Tories don't rebel against their own party, if the DUP are on board and, for that specific policy, the Lib Dems would feel proud of themselves for influencing the Government and then might let other stuff go through. I also think the Conservatives have to slyly steal many of Labour's ideas, compromise on them and so on in order to dilute them.

This can be spun as being humble and sorry and willing to listen blah blah blah.

At the same time, they should also send a clear message to business that they will support them in every way they can - and consult and listen before introducing stuff. This should include supporting us! (yes, I am an eternal optimist). A landlord on FB said that the 4 votes from his family went to the SNP because of s24 and the Conservative candidate then lost by 2 votes. I told Barwell this in my email on Saturday. Barwell himself will have lost landlord votes. It seems that many landlords might not have voted for another party but merely didn't vote Conservative. That could have lost them a few critical seats.

They have to work on appeasing enough people from various parties to get things through, but also have an eye to the electorate who feel betrayed by them. It's going to be a real balancing act. It's like they've presented a really bad essay with practically everything wrong in it, and now have to concentrate - which they should have done in the first place - and completely start from scratch.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "11/06/2017 - 21:27":

I think the 1p on tax is an easy sell....
Stop to Austerity, NHS funding and old person care, public service, that alone shows your listening, also be honest
We've spent 7 yrs on austerity, we've reached a limit on closure, we cut back £100Bn overspend and we have still another £58Bn to get to budget neutral.
We all need health care, 1p on basic rate for all to contribute (in a very socialist way, hence cut Corbyn off at the knees takes away main emotive items, and negates his wider Nationalisation agenda, so do we really need him in next election?)
I wrote to Gavin Barwell tonight actually....dressed it in I've been talking to Chris White, and now we've lost him!! (copied in all communications, including the 16% reduction poll on here and that i and my piers weren't voting for him as a result, maybe why he lost his seat, along with large increases in rent etc. Should give him some new thoughts on the pressures coming in PRS next 6m, and they do not need anymore bad news as we speak!!

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "11/06/2017 - 21:27":

The Tories have a problem for this weekend, but so does the UK.

There is a lack of communication that rings and sticks.
No matter what political party gets in - it's the same message.

We are spending £1000 million a week more than we pay in taxes, whether by individuals or corporate.

Nobody ever mentions it anymore.

How is that going to get fixed?

Section 24 won't fix it
The bedroom tax won't fix it
Raising corporate tax rates won't fix it

So where is the countries wealth at the moment?

I would suggest that it's tied up in our housing stock, pension funds and company stock.

The BOE also currently has £Billions of phantom money tied up in the propped up banks, money and bond markets.

The taxpayers and poor have none left, apparently, hence the popular idea of Jeremy Corbyn to tax and nationalise assets.

Would you agree to the dementia tax?

By objecting to it are you insisting on a state subsidy to pay for an inheritance that you leave behind?

Discuss.......

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "11/06/2017 - 10:45":

Luk, I agree, we're not that far apart. On S24 and any retroactive legislation, certainly, we agree. On social justice, I have to wonder, how can they get it so horribly wrong at both ends? I see tenants getting away with blue murder, supported by councils, and people perfectly able in body and mind who have never worked and never intend to. Meanwhile, as you say, people like the lad you're helping (and good for you!) are not getting the assistance they need. Ridiculous.

I wouldn't blame Dickens directly but he certainly gave me a notion of social obligation (I started reading him young). Now you come to mention it, I rather wish I'd had Little Dorritt in mind rather than my favourite Bleak House when I was wondering what to do with my pension. And quite frequently when watching rants on Facebook recently I have been uncomfortably reminded of A Tale of Two Cities.

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "11/06/2017 - 23:09":

No, I wouldn't agree to dementia tax - assets are sacred. You can mess with my P&L (although I'd rather the profit before tax didn't include fictitious sums that my mortgage company have already taken) but never my balance sheet.

I would agree to pay more NI for social care provision. Or to take out private insurance for it, if that was available.

This is tricky, if you have no money it doesn't matter
If you have a home at the bottom end of the market, sub £100k lets say, instead of your house being sold to pay the bills now, in excess of £23k then this is actually a big benefit to you, you don't have to sell your home, you get to keep a further £77k, and you don't pay for your care!!
If you have a home over £100k then you stand to loose more of your asset, but now don't have to sell till your death. I would have thought a great Socialist policy......Really shows that a lot of people vote on ideology not on common sense!!
One way or another what ever government needs more tax, we spend more than we earn as a country, and we've taken many at the bottom out of tax.....we still have a £58Bn a year overspend.
I have to say, i was never a fan of the social care anyway, one of the reasons i have property was to control my own future, so i could stay at home, get my own full/part time nurse to look after me and sell a house to fund it at the right time rather than have to be in a nasty and sometimes violent care home badly treated.....we are lucky as a group that's an option i know, but the reality is the care is bad, costly and not enough people pay anything, there are £1,000 a week after all