Labour plans to protect non property owning class from exploitation.

[chem1st]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20996278

 

But Mr Miliband will tell the annual conference of the Fabian Society, a left-wing think-tank: "We cannot have two nations divided between those who own their own homes and those who rent.

 

"Most people who rent have responsible landlords and rental agencies. But there are too many rogue landlords and agencies either providing accommodation which is unfit or ripping off their tenants.

 

"And too many families face the doubt of a two-month notice period before being evicted.

 

"Imagine being a parent with kids settled in a local school and your family settled in your home for two, three, four years, facing that sort of uncertainty."

 

He will say the private rented sector is now bigger than the social rented sector for the first time in almost 50 years.

 

In total, 3.6 million households - including one million which have children - privately rent.

 

"Often in accommodation deemed below standard," he will say.

 

BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins says that inside Labour they are hoping that this speech will help them move on from their time in office.

 

Mr Miliband will say that "One Nation Labour" has "learnt the lessons" of the financial crisis.

 

"It begins from the truth that New Labour did not do enough to bring about structural change in our economy to make it work for the many, not just the few.

 

As the amount of people forced into the private rented sector grows, and the new class of property less peoples expands rapidly, along with the boom in wealthy land and property owners, greater inequalities in our society are coming apparent.

 

3.6 million people are essentially being forced to subsidise already wealthy property owners or speculative parasitic mortgage debt junkie spivs (buy to letters) and in turn the banks.

 

Instead of being able to build or access some property for themselves. With little security of tenure, depressed incomes and spending power due to high rents, these people are finding it tough. Unable to save, or start a family, these peoples must spend all their money buying their landlords houses or subsiding the silver spoon brigade's lavish lifestyles.

 

It no longer matters how hard children try at school, or how hard they work. Their life is determined by the property they inherit, and if there ain't any for you to inherit, you best get used to being poor, because social mobility went out of the window with jobs for life, job security and wages high enough to pay the rent on a slave box.

 

The are now more private rented houses than council houses. We have gone back 50 years. The coming generations are screwed. The burden of rent is literally destroying out society.

 

It is destroying trade, business, relationships and even putting off working couples from having kids - because, get this, they can't chuffing afford it! And it ain't because wages are too low, it is because the rent is too darn high!

[tinfoilhat]

You had lie in today ??

[chem1st]

You had lie in today ??

 

Been darn near the Wicker checking out some squats/empty properties.

[Green Web]

Been darn near the Wicker checking out some squats/empty properties.

 

Find anything interesting?

[WeX]

From what I have heard, its a good idea and about time. All the current government has to do though is nick the idea like Brown did to the cons ideas back in 2008

[maxmaximus]

"We cannot have two nations divided between those who own their own homes and those who rent.

 

:wow:It’s a pity he didn’t open his mouth when his party cause the problem.

[WeX]

:wow:It’s a pity he didn’t open his mouth when his party cause the problem.

 

very true but moving on with real common sense policies is a start.

[Penistone999]

 

 

 

3.6 million people are essentially being forced to subsidise already wealthy property owners or speculative parasitic mortgage debt junkie spivs (buy to letters) and in turn the banks.

.

 

 

 

It is destroying trade, business, relationships and even putting off working couples from having kids - because, get this, they can't chuffing afford it! And it ain't because wages are too low, it is because the rent is too darn high!

 

Not all buy to let landlords are wealthy , far from it . Granted some have a portfolio of properties, as i do ,and its a business ,but some just buy one property to let because its a nest egg for their kids futures or a second income on top of their pensions when they retire . I have recently bought another property to take my protfolio into double figures ,but im by no means wealthy, comfortable yes, but not how you see us private landlords, sitting in massive houses counting our money ,while we rob poor people with our rents.

 

You claim rents are too high..... maybe in your opinion they are ,but in the real world private landlords dont make a massive amount of profit one the mortgage is paid on the rental property.

[maxmaximus]

Not all buy to let landlords are wealthy , far from it . Granted some have a portfolio of properties, as i do ,and its a business ,but some just buy one property to let because its a nest egg for their kids futures or a second income on top of their pensions when they retire . I have recently bought another property to take my protfolio into double figures ,but im by no means wealthy, comfortable yes, but not how you see us private landlords, sitting in massive houses counting our money ,while we rob poor people with our rents.

 

You claim rents are too high..... maybe in your opinion they are ,but in the real world private landlords dont make a massive amount of profit one the mortgage is paid on the rental property.

You make a profit and get the mortgage paid, and benefit from any increase in property prices.

Whilst the poor tenant pays your mortgage and profits and doesn’t benefit from any increase in property price.

Ban buy to let and get banks lending to the people that need an home and your tenants will be much better off because now they just pay the mortgage and not your profits and they benefit from any price increases.

[epiphany]

"One Nation Labour". Makes me cringe. More talismanic bull****.

 

I think a lot of it is relative. Rent is high if you're single and want a place of your own rather than house share. It's your sense of entitlement and how hard you're willing to work for something that truly determines its attainability. You can, however, find a good deal as a couple.

 

Case in point - we recently found a 4 bed, 2 bath house for £625 per month. It's a very nice place in a good area. Is that really that expensive, considering two minimum wage incomes would bring in £1,500 per month? Obviously this is just one case. But when we were looking around, there were plenty of affordable houses. My partner has children, she is a student and I'm self employed on a low income, so in theory it shouldn't have been this easy to find an affordable home. But we did.

 

Chem1st, I share many of your sentiments about land reform and one thing that should stop is government directly subsidising land owners, but I don't necessarily think rental price is the real problem at the moment. It may be soon, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about that aspect of the economy. I can only go on what I've observed over the past 10 years of my renting in Sheffield. I think banking reform is the priority. Only when the banking system is fit for purpose as a public utility will investment start to flow to the right areas and shape the economy in the public interest.