Brendan

Well that?s the conundrum Laz but the victims are millions of young people unable to buy homes of their own or even have an alternative option of renting from a housing association or similar. While private landlords*profit. Essentially homes need to cost what the normal people who live in them can afford to pay for them without being bullied out of the market by exploitative parasites. *Just dissect the term and think about what we?re actually advocating.

Again that document makes the incorrect assumption that renting privately is a satisfactory situation for people to live in especially as a long term option. You still seem to assume that because one person is less well off than another they should buy the other person a second house while never having access to their own. That is a fundamental moral point and one that thankfully most people won?t agree with you on. So try to vindicate your views as you like but don't use conservatism to do it because it is contrary to the much touted business of giving people control over their own lives and historical precedence holds about as much moral weight as press ganging or the potato famine.

Pah, what would you lot know? Chicks dig silk sheets. Especially if they are colour coordinated with a silk banana hammock.

I don?t think you should necessarily limit it. Just ensure that it is only profitable in certain circumstances, stop people who are just gambling in the property market from doing it and tax it with a direct link from that taxation into housing development. If someone has a second home they should decide whether they are going to offer it for long or short term rent. Short term being any period of time up to 1 year. There is always going to be a market for this. Long term being any period from 2 ? 10 years. In the case of long term rents the landlord should have to give 12 months notice to end the agreement. Except for proper reasons such as non-payment of rent ect. Which he will be able to do with 2 months notice. This will stop every fly-by-night chancer from ?aving a punt in the property game and competing with first time buyers. It will also force those people who do provide housing to do so in a socially responsible way.

Yes, Laz. It?s not about me specifically. I?m recognising what the situation would be if I were forced to rent indefinitely. Which some seem to think is a satisfactory arrangement. And I?m recognising that it is a reality for many, many people and but for the grace of god (or an unexpected career turn or market shift) it would very easily be my reality too.

No but there have been measures (and there are in many other countries) in place to discourage it from being a primary source of housing. Most people already own their homes and have done for some years which is probably why you people are some face meltingly blind to the issue. The problem is with new, first time buyers coming into the market. They are the ones who have to compete for the same properties the buy-to-let landlords want to get their hands on and are losing out. 60 something percent of the homes in the UK are owner occupied. This is a good thing but it is dropping off steadily when it should be rising and private landlords are the ones cashing in. Private landlords aren?t companies who are providing employment or increasing choice. They are just private individuals who are profiting to the direct detriment of someone else. There is no way that it can be argued that it is better for the economy or society or in anyway just for a buy-to-let landlord to get their hands on the property and then rent it out to the potential first time buyer who effectively then has to buy him a second house.

I apologise sincerely if not wanting to raise my son in a 1 bedroom flat is complaining. Once again thanks for pointing out where the gateau trolley is. Again it is completely unreasonable for me not to expect to be moved on from my house at the behest of landlords every few years. When my eldest is 10 years old he will be lucky to have probably lived in about 4 different houses. We will also never be able to move into a larger house or put a stop to the perpetual upheaval because I have spent 10 years contributing to other people?s equity. I described this situation earlier: Man A (who earns ?25K) is forced to rent off man B (who earns ?100K) a house that costs ?250K for a period of 25 years. Many B already owns another house that cost ?500K. After 25 years man B owns 2 houses (worth a total of ?750K or the equivalent) outright one of them paid for by man A (plus any profit if prices have risen disproportionately). Man A is homeless and owns nothing but has bought a second home for man B. This is an ok arrangement in a modern society to you is it?

Ah david I think you are missing what these arseholes are arguing which is that if it doesn?t affect them it isn?t a problem and if they can profit from it, it is a good thing and if anyone doesn?t like it they are just being petulant and should move to Dartford. It basically comes down to this S: Normal people should be able to own their own homes. A: No they shouldn?t they should rent off wealthy people.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- - under > the old Rent Acts, if you had a protected tenancy > you were laughing, but if you didn't you were > stuffed, You're still stuffed. If people had a choice they wouldn't be renting under the current regulations. Once again you are under some sort of delusion that people are not being forced into this.

The production, price, import and export of food are actually quite closely watched and regulated. Regardless you seem to think that either people still have some sort of choice not to rent or that if they are forced to rent it is fine. So is this situation ok in your eyes? Man A (who earns ?25K) is forced to rent off man B (who earns ?100K) a house that costs ?250K for a period of 25 years. Many B already owns another house that cost ?500K. After 25 years man B owns 2 houses (worth a total of ?750K or the equivalent) outright one of them paid for by man A (plus any profit if prices have risen disproportionately). Man A is homeless and owns nothing but has bought a second home for man B. If it is the view of the ?right? as you say that this is a satisfactory situation then it is completely hypercritical as it flies in the face of all that shit about allowing people the opportunity to take control of their lives.

It?s just a good excuse for a harness.

Silk sheets are fucking awesome. They feel great to sleep in and are cool to the touch. Just a bugger to keep clean.

Only ever commit traffic offences in your wife?s car.

No we couldn?t. Believe me we tried. The deposits required at the moment mean that realistically only investors and the few first time buyers who have parents to bung them 30K + can get somewhere with more than one bedroom. We?ve done one to Surrey and (only because we?re lucky enough to bring in what we do) will be able to buy something in the future if mortgages become more affordable to first time buyers than they are to buy-to-let parasites. The vast majority of people aren?t as lucky as us. (The irony in this term considering what we?re been put through and how we are being exploited does not escape me). They are looking at renting for the rest of their lives if something doesn?t happen. And I will assume that everyone reading has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong so I don?t have to draw a picture explaining why that is unjust.

Once again a watered down view of how big the problem actually is. We bring in far more than double the average household income (this in itself shouldn?t be a prerequisite for home ownership anyway). We have significant savings and no debt and we have been priced out of a home which will provide a family with decent accommodation. Not just in East Dulwich (We?ve been forced to move) but pretty much anywhere realistically commutable to our jobs. So years of study, professional careers and a successful business are rewarded in this country by either raising a family in a 1 bedroom flat or by paying off someone else second home for them while they reserve the right to kick you out at 2 months notice if they decide they want to sell the place (which was a treat with a heavily pregnant wife). These situations are not isolated either I can think of 2 other families I know who have suffered similarly at the hands of landlords within the last year. And that?s the situation for people who are apparently ?successful? and work every hour god sends. My opinion is to just leave and let the bastards eat each other. They probably deserve it and there are plenty of far better countries with much nicer people who are happy to have us. But unfortunately my wife is a bit attached to her homeland and her family but even she has been finding it hard to stay positive about the place considering the contempt in which people hold one another and the consequent exploitation they allow to occur.

Essentially pal, your ?right? to own 2 houses should not supersede the right of another family to have the opportunity to have one of their own regardless of what the law says. And no, paying tithe to you as their landlord is not providing them with a home. You are just exploiting them for your own profit. And trying to validate your view by attaching it to a conservative ideology is hypocritical, rubbish because my value system is the product of conservatism and it involves common decency, personal responsibility and fair play* not taking a stance which protects the rights of you and your contemporaries to exploit other people. Perhaps next you can regale me with subjects such as, ?Rape. Why it?s sometimes ok.? or, ?Slavery. The misunderstood labour source.? *funnily enough values neither evident or even encouraged by the Conservative Party if we want to get into politics.

Take it from one of the victims. The view that the huge proliferation of rental properties are somehow occupied by transients who need somewhere to stay for a while or people who electively rent is a lie. The view that a rental agreement is a satisfactorily secure legal arrangement for a family to live under is a complete lie. The view that there are plenty of options for people who need houses is an even bigger lie (where do you think the forced rental market comes from). The facts of the matter are that landlords are exploiting young families by controlling their access to a place to live and obstructing their access to home ownership. I?m not sure how an administration that supposedly promotes people taking control of their own lives can preside over this situation. But thanks for pointing me towards the gateau trolley DaveR. Most helpful.

Dib dib dib. *salutes*

What about the issue of the increasing number of people who don?t qualify for any kind of government assistance but are nevertheless excluded from having their own homes and are forced to pay off the mortgages of a select group who have an easy route into owning 2 or more? Because that?s the reality for a significant amount of people in this country at the moment.

Dave that is completely short-sighted and out of touch. 1 in 3 properties in London are bought by investors. Nationally the amount of buy-to-let mortgages being approved overtook the amount of first time buyer ones in 2006 and the gap is still widening. Granted there are some people living in rented homes in London who do so electively (I don?t know any but I?m sure there are) the rest (not just house shares etc but increasingly young families) are doing so because they are forced to. We can?t solve this by all moving to Dartford. Buy-to-let isn?t on its own to blame for the fact that that a normal house costs 10-11 times the normal wage but it has exacerbated it considerably and it has caused a situation where some people are profiting off other peoples? suffering. (and trust me as someone whose family has been victim to this it is suffering. I?m not being overly emotive just accurate.) It?s a big fcking problem. Most landlords are just self serving idiots like most of humanity but the guy who recognises the problem and then decides to get in on the action himself is a scumbag. No two ways about it. If you class war remark was aimed at my opinions on the conservative press please just go pick up a copy of the Telegraph one day and you?ll understand what I mean.

Well there are cows here I suppose but that is where the similarity to Texas ends. My whole gaff couldn?t even fit JR?s car inside it.

Dallas references. Let?s not show our ages now.

Either way I?m very interested to hear from James Barber what the party line on the housing crisis is. I know the Labour standpoint which was, ?It doesn?t exist.? And the Conservative standpoint (if their propaganda sheets are an accurate reflection) is that people who earn less shouldn?t be able to have homes instead they should be forced to pay for the mortgages of more wealthy people?s second/third/fourth homes. As is their place in society and their duty to their landlords.

Blimey did I type that? Well it is fitting enough.

The ?let's have a review' thing is particularly annoying mostly because we all know that it means, ?We don?t want to deal with it right now and hopefully by the time the review has happened you?ll have forgotten about it.? I?m guilty of having done the exact same thing a number of times myself. Tosser that I am.