Rachel Reeves and David Lammy have been sacked by Andy Burnham as the Prime Minister begins appointing his Cabinet.

You either decide to provide social housing which gives people lifetime, affordable homes, or you allow landlords to make profits from renting to others, and reap the tax, David49. Both options have significant consequences, nobody would deny that. What is very clear though, is that something has to be done, the present housing situation is untenable for renters - and it’s not all because insufficient properties have already been built.

Councils buying up private rentals.

That needs a lot of funding. Not only do the properties have to be bought and many will need renovating but there is a lot of tax lost that landlords would have paid.
Income tax on Landlords and CGT on sale

And there is a difference between a 'proper' contract and a secure one, as the MN thread showed. I can only imagine the stress of being told I had short notice to move out of my house to make room for a niece who couldn't cope with sharing as a student, and if that happened when I had children at school and both my husband and I worked nearby it would be even worse. From what I remember the tenant had paid the rent on time for years, too.

Primrose53

Doodledog

Casdon

There is a solution to landlords pulling out of the rental market. It’s down to councils having sufficient money to invest in buying additional properties to add to their portfolios. Where I live the council has added to its stock by developing new properties, buying "turnkey" off-the-shelf homes from developers, repurchasing former council houses, and the council is planning a significant building programme. Provided the government provides earmarked funding to councils, that is a better solution for tenants.

Yes, that's one way to ensure that those who don't want to operate under the new rights can pull out, and tenants will get properly regulated contracts and reasonable (rather than 'market') rents. That seems like a good deal all round.

Reasonable social rents will also cut the amount of money spent on shoring up low wages so private rents are affordable.

Tenants already have to have proper contracts, deposits in protected accounts etc.

Yes, but private rents are not pegged at an affordable level, whereas council rents are. That’s why the majority of long term private renters have their names on the local council waiting list.

Provided the government provides earmarked funding to councils, that is a better solution for tenants

I wont be holding my breath.

Din't care all as bad as each other! Self serving the lot of them

Doodledog

Casdon

There is a solution to landlords pulling out of the rental market. It’s down to councils having sufficient money to invest in buying additional properties to add to their portfolios. Where I live the council has added to its stock by developing new properties, buying "turnkey" off-the-shelf homes from developers, repurchasing former council houses, and the council is planning a significant building programme. Provided the government provides earmarked funding to councils, that is a better solution for tenants.

Yes, that's one way to ensure that those who don't want to operate under the new rights can pull out, and tenants will get properly regulated contracts and reasonable (rather than 'market') rents. That seems like a good deal all round.

Reasonable social rents will also cut the amount of money spent on shoring up low wages so private rents are affordable.

Tenants already have to have proper contracts, deposits in protected accounts etc.

Primrose53

Never had a female Labour PM though.

I expect it will come one day: in the meantime, it's getting the job done that comes first.

I can't say I'd be very happy in the Conservatives to have Braverman and look at the ghastly Liz Truss. In my opinion Thatcher was absolutely ghastly, all the stuff about "there is no such thing as society" was toxic, and selling off social housing we see the consequences now.

....but I would think that as a leftie, wouldn't I.

I quite liked Yvette Cooper for the job but it wasn't to be, the time came and went.

Primrose53

Never had a female Labour PM though.

I’m not sure what the relevance of this point is? Unless Luz Truss is someone to be proud of ?

Casdon

There is a solution to landlords pulling out of the rental market. It’s down to councils having sufficient money to invest in buying additional properties to add to their portfolios. Where I live the council has added to its stock by developing new properties, buying "turnkey" off-the-shelf homes from developers, repurchasing former council houses, and the council is planning a significant building programme. Provided the government provides earmarked funding to councils, that is a better solution for tenants.

Yes, that's one way to ensure that those who don't want to operate under the new rights can pull out, and tenants will get properly regulated contracts and reasonable (rather than 'market') rents. That seems like a good deal all round.

Reasonable social rents will also cut the amount of money spent on shoring up low wages so private rents are affordable.

Never had a female Labour PM though.

Sorry, you’re right Graphite, I had read it was 50/50, but there are 15 women. It’s a bigger Cabinet than average, too.

I’m counting 15 women and 13 men:

members.parliament.uk/government/cabinet

I was just going to check! Top news.

It’s the first time ever that women make up 50% of the Cabinet, there are 14 men and 14 women, and regardless of our politics, surely that is something to applaud.

Now that is interesting
Thoughts ....AB's commitment to regionalism... what was his business background..

BTW, WithNobsOnIt there actually are women in the cabinet too. (we women are still inching our way, it's a little bit of the jigsaw).

This is a departure I wasn’t expecting. Anas Sarwar to leave his role as Labour leader in Scotland and assume a ministerial role.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce970y1n7plo

Never liked David Lammy.
Full of himself. But didn't seem to have genuine bone in his body.

All Prime Minsters surround themselves with Yes men, sycophants and the like.

Its a game called Politics.

Sunshinegirls

Louise Haigh, a convicted fraudster, is being stripped of responsibility for tackling public sector fraud in her new Cabinet role.

Ms Haigh, the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was appointed to Andy Burnham’s top team on Monday.

She admitted admitting to misleading police a decade ago.

As the minister in charge of the Cabinet Office, she inherited responsibility for the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA) – the Government’s centre of expertise on scams involving public money.

Within hours of her taking office, that brief was handed to Pat McFadden, the Work and Pensions Secretary, instead.

It is unclear when the decision was made to shift responsibility for the PSFA. The Daily Telegraph today

They could hardly leave her in charge of Fraud could they? 🤣🤣🤣

There is a solution to landlords pulling out of the rental market. It’s down to councils having sufficient money to invest in buying additional properties to add to their portfolios. Where I live the council has added to its stock by developing new properties, buying "turnkey" off-the-shelf homes from developers, repurchasing former council houses, and the council is planning a significant building programme. Provided the government provides earmarked funding to councils, that is a better solution for tenants.

Oreo

Doodledog

So what has she done so badly that makes you think that? I think she got a lot done in the time she was last in the cabinet. She got the Workers' Rights Bill and the Renters Rights Act through, which will make a huge difference to 'ordinary people'.

Am not so sure that the Renters Rights Acts helps all renters, it’s been said that making life more problematic for landlords means fewer rentals on an already stretched rentals market.
Some policies which sound good on their own have knock on effects, like the extra NI put onto employers at the same time as increasing the minimum wage has meant fewer jobs going for those who need it.

Correct Oreo.

I know a couple of people who work in different Estate Agents and they say Landlords are selling their rental properties so there will be a shortage of rental properties. We are seriously considering selling ours. I read the same thing on many Landlords sites.

Ah, I remember the Mumsnet thread, and yes, I think the landlord there was unreasonable, as, IIRC did the vast majority on the MN poll.

She had a long-standing tenant family with children at school and jobs in the area, and her niece wanted to move in because she didn't like her student halls, so the landlady was willing to evict the family. I think that is awful, and if legislation can prevent that I would support it.

No, to the recarpet bit. I meant to copy and paste that bit.

No.

A poster had lifted a thread form Mumsnet.
The lady op of it, wanted her daughter[or maybe neice] to use the house while at uni.
But the existing tenant was a good tenant.

fancythat

^those who were doing things decently in the first place would, IMO, have nothing to worry about^

But a landlord cannot ask a tenant to leave if they have been a good tenant?
We had a discussion on this a while back, and if I remember correctly, you, and two or three other posters thought that was perfectly ok? If I remember correctly.
I do call that, something to worry about. Presonally. [Not that we personally, are renting a house out.]

I don't remember the previous conversation in detail (was someone saying that they recarpeted every time the tenant changed?) but my POV is that if a landlord wants to sell then it's fine to ask a tenant to move, but (assuming no fault on the part of the tenant) if they want to evict someone to increase the rent, or to let it to someone else, that is different.

To the tenant, it is a home, and they might have all sorts of connections to the area. Also, moving is expensive and disruptive, so IMO tenants should be protected against having to do so regularly.

Is your opinion on NI 'obvious to all', Oreo? It's not obvious to me, and in any case, there has to be a balance between giving people decent rights and possibly limiting job opportunities. IMO, someone running between, say, working 16 hours a week in a shop to 10 hours cleaning to 12 hours in a pub should absolutely have the tight to sick pay and a state pension, but when all of the jobs were below the threshold no NI was paid on any of them, and the employee had no rights. Whether the possibility of losing one of those jobs would be worth it if they got workers' rights is debatable, and would, I think, vary from person to person. A pension is important, and things like sick pay and protection against unfair dismissal are too.

I am very aware that good intentions don't necessarily mean good outcomes, incidentally - I'm sure all of us are.