Are they now subject to tax?It just feels like something like the ISAs where the government matches your savings is a better proposition. Certainly while council housing is such a lottery. At least they are available to everyone if we want to reward saving for a house. But equally in a functioning housing market owning wouldn’t be so vital.
I haven't said any Labour government had a policy of doing that, did I?
I wasn't the one gleefully claiming that Labour would suddenly turn left-wing once elected and then they were only getting the bad stuff out of the way first. Unsurprisingly, it turned out to be a load of crap.
They've taken over an existing regional franchise contract at its expiry. It is not nationalisation, the Tories could claim nationalisation when they ran various franchises when they were handed back by the operators. The whole structure of the railway is same as it was. The same conflicting objectives. Private ownership of rolling stock. It's a good first step but nationalisation it is not.This government have nationalised rail, pumped billions into public services, reformed workers rights, and taxed wealth more traditional domestic left wing policies than most governments of the last fifty years. Purity tests over the Middle East are hardly a sensible way of judging “Labour values”
Embarrassing, Labour and their mates in the private water extortion racket
Punters got to cough up to be on this earth mate, everything you use is up for grabs,.Embarrassing, Labour and their mates in the private water extortion racket
Embarrassing, Labour and their mates in the private water extortion racket
The cosy relationship is long existingWhat’s embarrassing is you taking any old shite the Telegraph pumps out as gospel if it slags off Labour.
“Labour in favour of water meters” is a far more boring headline.
It always used to be housing benefit was paid direct to landlord social housing or privateBeen binge watching Can't Pay we will take it away the last few days.
Really interesting and raises some interesting arguments.
One thing that shocks me, is how those in social housing are able to go without paying rent for so long. Surely if they are getting paid by the government, rather than the housing benefit money go to them, it goes straight to the landlord?
I'm not clued in on all this stuff, so if it works different apologies.
Ah interesting. Makes sense.It always used to be housing benefit was paid direct to landlord social housing or private
It'll be in by the end of term then I'd guess?Yeah, what a load of shite that article is.
In fact, it's not even Labour in favour of it - the water companies are talking about introducing it and a Labour source said they were not considering it.
I do think politicians are far too easily convinced (or bought) by lobbists, they are far too lazy to do any deep research and never consider long term consequences.Yeah, what a load of shite that article is.
In fact, it's not even Labour in favour of it - the water companies are talking about introducing it and a Labour source said they were not considering it.
Been binge watching Can't Pay we will take it away the last few days.
Really interesting and raises some interesting arguments.
One thing that shocks me, is how those in social housing are able to go without paying rent for so long. Surely if they are getting paid by the government, rather than the housing benefit money go to them, it goes straight to the landlord?
I'm not clued in on all this stuff, so if it works different apologies.
The cosy relationship is long existing
Severn Trent chief proposes ‘social purpose’ water firms amid utilities crisis
Liv Garfield seeks backing from Labour for reforms as government eyes temporary renationalisation of Thames Waterwww.theguardian.com
Privatised water lobbyist Angela Smith rejoined the party under Starmer
It won't and wouldn't be any different from any of the others or at least not at this point.Just another example of a long list of Labour being totally detached from its old roots.
They deserve everything coming to them in next few years.
It won't and wouldn't be any different from any of the others or at least not at this point.
It’s changed. It now goes to the benefit claimant who should then pay to landlord. It may shock some to learn that often the temptation to hold on to the money is often too great for tenants in receipt of benefits.It always used to be housing benefit was paid direct to landlord social housing or private
Just another example of a long list of Labour being totally detached from its traditional roots.
They deserve everything coming to them in next few years.
Water companies existing is proof Labour are detached from their roots?
You guys crack me up.
Been binge watching Can't Pay we will take it away the last few days.
Really interesting and raises some interesting arguments.
One thing that shocks me, is how those in social housing are able to go without paying rent for so long. Surely if they are getting paid by the government, rather than the housing benefit money go to them, it goes straight to the landlord?
I'm not clued in on all this stuff, so if it works different apologies.
It's paid to the recipient which imo is right. The entitlement to housing benefit is not the landlord's, their private rental agreement with a tenant is theirs to enforce not the job of the government. Also, looking at it another way, it gives tenants the right to withhold rent (where they've got legitimate reasons for doing so).
Personally think there should be a cap on how many properties an individual can rent, as well as them being struck off from being able to rent if they are found of not keeping up their properties.As you describe it there, I agree. Iirc, a dimension of paying their money to recipients was to give them more responsibility handling their money. Similarly, why they paid UC monthly as opposed to weekly. Seems a trivial reason to be honest.
On the flip side, whether people like it or not, if the landlords are increasingly out of pocket, they’ll take houses off the market and this can increase prices and/or restrict access in the first place. Whether we like it or not, private landlords are needed to provide housing.
There’s a balancing act, sure. On principle, its fundamentally wrong if people are increasingly in receipt of housing benefits and not actually using the money to pay their housing bills.
Personally think there should be a cap on how many properties an individual can rent, as well as them being struck off from being able to rent if they are found of not keeping up their properties.
That’s a good point actuallyIt's paid to the recipient which imo is right. The entitlement to housing benefit is not the landlord's, their private rental agreement with a tenant is theirs to enforce not the job of the government. Also, looking at it another way, it gives tenants the right to withhold rent (where they've got legitimate reasons for doing so).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?