[Politics] The Labour Government

[Hugo Rune]

The right wing press have gone mad over the possibility of Labour not unfreezing the Tory tax thresholds in the last 6 months of their current term today.

I’d not actually factored in this potential windfall so I don’t feel like I’m losing out. But, now inflation is well below 2%, I’m not sure how many salaries are going to shift over that bench mark at the end of 2028 and beginning of 2029 meaning people would have been worse off under Labour than they would under a Tory defrost.

A win for the Tories though as they can go into the next election with the intention of unfreezing those thresholds they originally put in place.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The Tories took 5p off as a 'temporary' measure, so I think that would be something that would/could be stopped now and justified on the basis of 'we're not putting taxes up, we're just not continuing with a temporary reduction' - and therefore fit their manifesto promises and so on. It's worth about £5bn.

I'd be surprised if they went further though.

Agreed ….you could add that the oil price is down on the year so maybe not as a hit as it would have been

 

[LamieRobertson]

The right wing press have gone mad over the possibility of Labour not unfreezing the Tory tax thresholds in the last 6 months of their current term today.

I’d not actually factored in this potential windfall so I don’t feel like I’m losing out. But, now inflation is well below 2%, I’m not sure how many salaries are going to shift over that bench mark at the end of 2028 and beginning of 2029 meaning people would have been worse off under Labour than they would under a Tory defrost.

A win for the Tories though as they can go into the next election with the intention of unfreezing those thresholds they originally put in place.

That blinking right wing press …just look at this one…..oh ……now rumours of extending ….one way of clawing back state pension increases I guess (sorry that’s sarcasm)….anyway not long now and the rumour mill can be put to bed re the budget

 

[dsr-burnley]

The Renters Rights Bill is progressing smoothly and should be law in mid 2025. A very welcome addition to the UK legislation. In summary:

Scrapping Section 21 evictions – Labour intends to abolish Section 21 as soon as possible.



Rent controls – Rents can only be increased for existing tenancies once a year, via a Section 13 notice. Increases will have to align with market rates. For new tenancies, landlords and agents will not be allowed to accept offers above the advertised price.



Decent Homes Standard: Awaab’s Law -The introduction of this to the private rental sector will require landlords to investigate and fix reported health hazards, such as damp and mould, within strict timeframes.



Most grounds for eviction will require longer notice periods - Certain grounds will require 4 months’ notice and can’t be used within the first 12 months of a tenancy, including the landlord needing to sell the property or wanting to move in themselves.



Fixed-term assured tenancies (ASTs) will be abolished - All tenancies will become periodic.



Tenants will have the right to request permission to keep a pet - The landlord cannot unreasonably refuse, but will have the right to require pet insurance.



Changes will apply to all tenancies at the same time – Labour intends for all changes to be applied to both new and existing tenancies at the same time, rather than being introduced for just new tenancies initially.

Good news and bad news for landlords, I suppose. It will certainly push some of them out of the market, which is what the government aiming for of course, but it will drive the prices up for the

Bit of a beggar for the tenants though. When a landlord sells up, he just needs to find somewhere else to put his money. The tenant is homeless.

 

[jcdenton08]

Winter fuel payment: Fears that cutting money will cost lives

Wales' older people's commissioner says people will die because of the decision.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Good news and bad news for landlords, I suppose. It will certainly push some of them out of the market, which is what the government aiming for of course, but it will drive the prices up for the

Bit of a beggar for the tenants though. When a landlord sells up, he just needs to find somewhere else to put his money. The tenant is homeless.

Had you been drinking when you wrote this? You seem to have forget the last part of the first paragraph. Bit of a beggar?

I can’t see any of this having much impact on landlords. It just forces a bit more responsibility and reasonable rent increases onto them. This isn’t much of a trigger to sell a property. The biggest change, with significant financial impact to landlords , was enacted by the Tory party a few years when they, quite rightly, phased out accounting for mortgage interest as a business expense.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Had you been drinking when you wrote this? You seem to have forget the last part of the first paragraph. Bit of a beggar?

I can’t see any of this having much impact on landlords. It just forces a bit more responsibility and reasonable rent increases onto them. This isn’t much of a trigger to sell a property. The biggest change, with significant financial impact to landlords , was enacted by the Tory party a few years when they, quite rightly, phased out accounting for mortgage interest as a business expense.

"Beggar" is a euphemism for a slightly stronger word. I don't swear much.

The point of the cumulative changes to landlord's rules, which I agree were started by the Tories, is to make being a landlord more onerous because it protects tenants' rights. It will take so much longer to eject tenants that won't pay their rent and will destroy the house. It is certain that if the government keeps loading costs and responsibilities onto landlords, making it both less profitable and more hassle, then some landlords (not all) will leave the industry, reducing the supply of houses for tenants. And therefore increased prices, as always happens when demand outstrips supply.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"Beggar" is a euphemism for a slightly stronger word. I don't swear much.

The point of the cumulative changes to landlord's rules, which I agree were started by the Tories, is to make being a landlord more onerous because it protects tenants' rights. It will take so much longer to eject tenants that won't pay their rent and will destroy the house. It is certain that if the government keeps loading costs and responsibilities onto landlords, making it both less profitable and more hassle, then some landlords (not all) will leave the industry, reducing the supply of houses for tenants. And therefore increased prices, as always happens when demand outstrips supply.

I have never heard of beggar being used instead of, I presume, bugger before. Every day is a school day.

I fully understand all the issues you raise. My point though, was this particular new law, in my reasonably knowledgable opinion, will not trigger a significant number of landlords to exit the market. What it does do, is raise long overdue standards for tennants. And this continues reform of the whole B2L sector which is needed.

Edit: Further, if these new laws prove too onerous for some landlords i.e. they do not want to raise their standards, then surely it is best they DO leave the market?

 

[The Clamp]

"Beggar" is a euphemism for a slightly stronger word. I don't swear much.

The point of the cumulative changes to landlord's rules, which I agree were started by the Tories, is to make being a landlord more onerous because it protects tenants' rights. It will take so much longer to eject tenants that won't pay their rent and will destroy the house. It is certain that if the government keeps loading costs and responsibilities onto landlords, making it both less profitable and more hassle, then some landlords (not all) will leave the industry, reducing the supply of houses for tenants. And therefore increased prices, as always happens when demand outstrips supply.

All good points and there are certainly protections that need to be in place for landlords who have nightmare tenants.

However, I’m getting a bit tired of the government not doing anything because they’re afraid of what the rich will do.

Don’t raise taxes, industry will leave the country.

Don’t protect tenants, nobody will want to be a landlord.

Don’t protect employees, nobody will hire anyone .

With respect, f*** they. Let them leave.

You shouldn’t be taking part in any of these things if you can’t abide by sensible laws.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I have never heard of beggar being used instead of, I presume, bugger before. Every day is a school day.

I fully understand all the issues you raise. My point though, was this particular new law, in my reasonably knowledgable opinion, will not trigger a significant number of landlords to exit the market. What it does do, is raise long overdue standards for tennants. And this continues reform of the whole B2L sector which is needed.

Edit: Further, if these new laws prove too onerous for some landlords i.e. they do not want to raise their standards, then surely it is best they DO leave the market?

Depends. For example, two of my next door neighbours rent their houses, relatively cheaply, and under these new laws may be forced out - the houses are 200 years old, all but, and may not be updateable to modern insulation standards. The tenant is happy with the deal, the landlord is happy with the deal, so is there really need for the government to stick its nose in? The tenant could have chosen to rent a house with more modern insulation if they felt the price was worth the improvement.

(I realise that this particular law is not so much to help tenants as to help the government's green emissions targets, which is worrying in itself - because there is no logical reason to make it a landlord-only rule. What if they come for my house which I own and tell me I must make very expensive "improvements"?)

 

[LamieRobertson]

Depends. For example, two of my next door neighbours rent their houses, relatively cheaply, and under these new laws may be forced out - the houses are 200 years old, all but, and may not be updateable to modern insulation standards. The tenant is happy with the deal, the landlord is happy with the deal, so is there really need for the government to stick its nose in? The tenant could have chosen to rent a house with more modern insulation if they felt the price was worth the improvement.

(I realise that this particular law is not so much to help tenants as to help the government's green emissions targets, which is worrying in itself - because there is no logical reason to make it a landlord-only rule. What if they come for my house which I own and tell me I must make very expensive "improvements"?)

Don’t give Mad Mili ideas!

 

[LamieRobertson]

"Beggar" is a euphemism for a slightly stronger word. I don't swear much.

The point of the cumulative changes to landlord's rules, which I agree were started by the Tories, is to make being a landlord more onerous because it protects tenants' rights. It will take so much longer to eject tenants that won't pay their rent and will destroy the house. It is certain that if the government keeps loading costs and responsibilities onto landlords, making it both less profitable and more hassle, then some landlords (not all) will leave the industry, reducing the supply of houses for tenants. And therefore increased prices, as always happens when demand outstrips supply.

I got what you meant and like you don’t swear much and have used that word instead

 

[LamieRobertson]

All good points and there are certainly protections that need to be in place for landlords who have nightmare tenants.

However, I’m getting a bit tired of the government not doing anything because they’re afraid of what the rich will do.

Don’t raise taxes, industry will leave the country.

Don’t protect tenants, nobody will want to be a landlord.

Don’t protect employees, nobody will hire anyone .

With respect, f*** they. Let them leave.

You shouldn’t be taking part in any of these things if you can’t abide by sensible laws.

An extract from a newspaper today ….you might have to move quickly with those plans for Tuscany

A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.

Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.

But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.

It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Depends. For example, two of my next door neighbours rent their houses, relatively cheaply, and under these new laws may be forced out - the houses are 200 years old, all but, and may not be updateable to modern insulation standards. The tenant is happy with the deal, the landlord is happy with the deal, so is there really need for the government to stick its nose in? The tenant could have chosen to rent a house with more modern insulation if they felt the price was worth the improvement.

(I realise that this particular law is not so much to help tenants as to help the government's green emissions targets, which is worrying in itself - because there is no logical reason to make it a landlord-only rule. What if they come for my house which I own and tell me I must make very expensive "improvements"?)

What are you talking about? The law I summarised has nothing to do with insulating houses or green targets

 

[dsr-burnley]

What are you talking about? The law I summarised has nothing to do with insulating houses or green targets

It's a general conversation about landlords, not (hopefully) rigidly restricted to the list of laws mentioned a page and a half ago.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I got what you meant and like you don’t swear much and have used that word instead

Why not use suitable alternative English language then?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Why not use suitable alternative English language then?

Seemed subtle enough for me…..shrug

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's a general conversation about landlords, not (hopefully) rigidly restricted to the list of laws mentioned a page and a half ago.

You were responding to my post. I'll ask again, have you been drinking?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Seemed subtle enough for me…..shrug

Subtle, so you admit it was not clear?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Subtle, so you admit it was not clear?

You having a bit of bad Monday ……seemingly making an issue about one word and making jibes about DSR drinking…perhaps go have a lay down