Jeremy Corbyn to effectively Confiscate Landlords Properties

Jeremy Corbyn used up all of his questions during PMQs today on housing. Not that he put forward any useful answers! I'm sure he said that 6 in 10 of properties in the PRS do not meet, or would not meet the Decent Homes Standard. Now where did that 'statistic' come from - oh yes - Shelter. Entirely tenant-reported.

Hi Johnathon,
Thanks for your extended reply.
You are not a public body providing a public service.
You are a private landlord operating for profit.

The unfortunate people "They come to me from hostels , prison, tents , sofas, back seats of cars, B&B`s etc." who have no option but to avail of your business are presumably paid for by the local authorities, ie. funded by the public taxpayer.

This extremely marginalised sector of renting tenants is a very tiny minority of the great mass of workers across society caught in the never ending rack renting spiral. The vast majority of private renting tenants are not in the unfortuante position of the people you outline. Most are hard working wage earners trapped in an ancient and archaic landlordism regime which most other civilised societies outlawed decades ago.

If the same local authorities were to spend a fraction of the public taxpayer's money wasted on the bottomess pit of the private rental market, directly providing affordable social housing homes and transitional accommodation for the unfortunate people you listed, there would be no need for private landlords at all.

There is virtually none of this two tier property apartheid in the rest of the E.U. because of democratic legislation giving life long, very affordable security of tenure, rent certainty and peace of mind to their citizens who choose to rent homes. Eviction, repossession and homelessness is virtually unheard of in most other E.U. member States.

In fact, if the great mass of amateur, fly by night speculator landlords were to get out of the racket altogether the ensuing drop in property prices back to affordability levels would solve the problems of two tier property ownership. Workers could buy affordable homes of their own, (the ones their rents currently pay for) paying their own mortgages instead of dead end rents for the rest of their lives.

There are 70 families per week currently being evicted in Ireland by banks and speculators because they have not (yet) got any relevant legislated regulation guaranteeing the right to shelter. The 1.8 million residential tenants in Ireland have had enought of this. It is only a matter of time until they, as Europeans, get the same legislated, regulated rights to housing as the rest of the European Mainland. I imagine the 20 odd million renting tenants in Britain will look for the basic same democratic right to housing when they see it everywhere else.

European regulation discourages the amateur property speculation which is still rife in Britain and Ireland. Rents tied to the cost of living index, six months notice to quit, etc. etc., discourages get rich quick opportunists from exploiting, corrupting and neutralising the citizen's right to affordable housing.

Britain and Ireland's Governments still serve the ancient Landed and Lorded Gentry's system of people farming which has kept them rich for, (in Ireland's case) 846 years when Richard de Clare Strongbow introduced the English system to Ireland.

The most worrying aspect of this ancient system of landlorism is how, as it was used to suppress, profit and 'farm' generations of British people, including the ancestors of many contributors to this site, it has become something which ordinary Brits. have taken to without any consideration of the destructive effects on their own class. They don't care about the past, the present or the future so long as there's a buck in it.

Regards,
Paul Newsome.

Reply to the comment left by "Ross McColl" at "14/09/2015 - 12:13":

well they didn't display any brains when they voted this shower in did they?

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Newsome" at "10/02/2016 - 14:29":

Hi Paul

You said ``You are not a public body providing a public service.
You are a private landlord operating for profit``

Yes you are quite right. I am not a public body. But you miss my point. I am a private landlord operating for profit and I also provide a public service. It is quite possible of course to do both. It is an arrangement which is coterminous and has multiple benefits for tenant, landlord, council and taxpayer alike

You didn't answer my question about the alternative diction you would use for the word `my` as in `my tenant.` So i guess on reflection you realise that the phrase is in fact perfectly ok in the context that the majority of people use it. Thank you for conceding that point.
.

Paul,
hello,
do you know what the ratio of homeowners to Tenants is in each EU country, and how that compares with the UK and Ireland?
Also of interest would be the ratio of Corporate Landlords to Small individual Landlords?
I have spent many years in Europe, and cannot say that I agree with your view of things.
Your point of view seems a little dated if I may say so.
Regards

I'm for the people that "work" Lots in this country seem not to understand what that is! I'll explain, It's when someone does things for around 40 hours a week and a nice man gives out money in exchange for labour at the endI I thought there were only 8 planets in our solar system? Are there 9 where a lot of people seem to live, is it the planet zonk???

Reply to the comment left by "Jack Ass" at "10/02/2016 - 22:08":

no its called planet labor in uk

planet socialism elsewhere in eu

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Newsome" at "10/02/2016 - 14:29":

Hi Paul,

You have some interesting views that are shared by many on the left. However I would class them as blinkered, slightly confused, ill-informed and potentially self defeating.

I am what you might call a "progressive socialist" and I am a Labour party member. As such I am concerned that Mr. Corbyn is leading a movement where entrenched views are popularised without consideration of the consequences.

I have a belief that Capital should be employed to better the living standards of the population. The role of government should be to legislate to encourage this.

I have followed the legislative hints from previous governments to employ the capital I have accumulated, to fulfil a demand for rental homes. This capital and my labour has been leveraged with borrowings and has provided a return that has made it a competitive use of the capital for both myself and the lender over the long term.

My long term tenants are content with their homes and the cost to themselves. If they are being subsidised then it is the State's decision that tax payer's money is best employed in this way i.e. the least is syphoned away from the productive use of the capital.

Providing housing requires capital. The questions are who is providing it, who gets the benefit and who else can profit along the way.

If you ask these questions of all the options you might find that the small landlord delivers the most beneficial use of capital.

If state confiscation of capital, either by direct transfer or taxation is the way to go then the same principles should be applied to home owners and companies.

Have think about it, with an open mind.

Paul
You say: "In fact, if the great mass of amateur, fly by night speculator landlords were to get out of the racket altogether the ensuing drop in property prices back to affordability levels would solve the problems of two tier property ownership. Workers could buy affordable homes of their own, (the ones their rents currently pay for) paying their own mortgages instead of dead end rents for the rest of their lives".

The problem of prices and of rents is one of supply and demand. There are insufficient houses in the places people want to buy and rent. Building more houses will help but a steady influx of workers from overseas (about to increase because of the increase in the living wage) puts even more pressure on prices and rents. Forcing BTL landlords to sell their houses does not create new houses. Other points to consider. It is now much harder for anyone to buy as 20 or 25% deposits are required. Even if £250,000 houses came down to £200,000 a buyer still needs savings/equity of £50,000+ in order to buy. Furthermore if there is a crash it will put many people off buying their own homes. If prices stayed stable then fewer people will want to get on the housing ladder. Many people don't want to have to deal with home ownership, repairs and decorating.

The old system of Council housing may have suited people who never had to move for a job and who did not mind staying in the same house for decades. The world has changed in the last 30 years and for many people the PRS gives them essential flexibility to move easily for their jobs or as their families grow. In your imagined Nirvana with no private landlords the market would stultify.

If I click my fingers and all my properties suddenly belong to my tenants, that has not created any more houses.

As Ian says, an increase in the supply is what is needed.