Discussion
98elise said:
Even more interesting is that I don't normaly raise the rents in my BTL's for good tenants. Obviosly at the moment I'm free to but I don't as I would rather keep long term tenants
If Labour bring in % caps then I'll need to bring my rents up to market rates before the caps take effect. If I don't then I'm shooting myself in the foot for any future rises.
Some of my tenants are going to see large rises, then year on year rises.
A good point I hadn't considered, it gets more and more laughable by the minute!If Labour bring in % caps then I'll need to bring my rents up to market rates before the caps take effect. If I don't then I'm shooting myself in the foot for any future rises.
Some of my tenants are going to see large rises, then year on year rises.
98elise said:
Even more interesting is that I don't normaly raise the rents in my BTL's for good tenants. Obviosly at the moment I'm free to but I don't as I would rather keep long term tenants
If Labour bring in % caps then I'll need to bring my rents up to market rates before the caps take effect. If I don't then I'm shooting myself in the foot for any future rises.
Some of my tenants are going to see large rises, then year on year rises.
Same here, 2 of my tenants will instantly see £150 a month increase and plenty others at least 50-100. The rental market is not the problem here, its basic supply and demand, cure the problems pushing up demand rather than fIf Labour bring in % caps then I'll need to bring my rents up to market rates before the caps take effect. If I don't then I'm shooting myself in the foot for any future rises.
Some of my tenants are going to see large rises, then year on year rises.
king around with the supply.3 year tenancies my arse. He must think that landlords get bored of tenants and just bin them off as they please, when the reality is only heavy rent arrears and scumbags who do not take care of the property will ever see a section 21, its far too lengthy and costly to get rid of tenants by choice, your hand is always forced.
If a tenant wants to stay 5,10,15 years etc then presently there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
He is out of touch with the rental market, obviously hates landlords and the rich and I would vote for my grans 3 legged dog before I would vote labour.
What a bunch of clowns.
Edited by dazwalsh on Sunday 26th April 09:25
johnxjsc1985 said:
I can see Miliband's thought process now, if someone wants to try and make some money any money hit them and hit them hard.
You've got it.If you're willing to put yourself out and stay in bed all day, he'll be there for you with cold hard cash so you can treat your bedsores, feed your bullmastiff, and renew your Sky subscription on time.
He is attacking anyone who he thinks may vote ~Conservative and the Conservatives are still trying to show Labour voters they are nice people really.
Its time to take the gloves off otherwise it will be too late.
Lets call a spade a spade and and stop trying to be all things to all people.
If they want to attract back the Ukip voters they know what they have to do.
Going into this election it has been obvious it was going to be close yet they seem to have been caught out and have done nothing (so far) to make an impact.
Whoever is running the Conservative campaign they need a reality check
Its time to take the gloves off otherwise it will be too late.
Lets call a spade a spade and and stop trying to be all things to all people.
If they want to attract back the Ukip voters they know what they have to do.
Going into this election it has been obvious it was going to be close yet they seem to have been caught out and have done nothing (so far) to make an impact.
Whoever is running the Conservative campaign they need a reality check
Cobnapint said:
I think they are hoping the voting population are intelligent enough to recognise that the present improving situation is enough to get them back in, and are giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves.
Trouble is, with approx 40% of them, the penny hasn't dropped yet.
I think a lot of people remember who they see on their TV screen - not sure if it's just my perception but the Tories just don't seem to be out there enough.Trouble is, with approx 40% of them, the penny hasn't dropped yet.
I don't think you win elections by sitting still and assuming people won't vote for the other guys - you convince them to vote for you.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Cobnapint said:
I think they are hoping the voting population are intelligent enough to recognise that the present improving situation is enough to get them back in, and are giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves.
Trouble is, with approx 40% of them, the penny hasn't dropped yet.
I think a lot of people remember who they see on their TV screen - not sure if it's just my perception but the Tories just don't seem to be out there enough.Trouble is, with approx 40% of them, the penny hasn't dropped yet.
I don't think you win elections by sitting still and assuming people won't vote for the other guys - you convince them to vote for you.
Why does Milipede keep on referring to the `rich' and `working' people?
With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
dazwalsh said:
<snip>
3 year tenancies my arse. He must think that landlords get bored of tenants and just bin them off as they please, when the reality is only heavy rent arrears and scumbags who do not take care of the property will ever see a section 21, its far too lengthy and costly to get rid of tenants by choice, your hand is always forced.
If a tenant wants to stay 5,10,15 years etc then presently there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
He is out of touch with the rental market, obviously hates landlords and the rich and I would vote for my grans 3 legged dog before I would vote labour.
What a bunch of clowns.
they are not out of touch with the rental market , there are plenty of landlords / agents who do arbitrarily end tenancies , enforce 'renewal fees' on ASTs despite the flexibily both ways going to a stat periodic tenancy brings once you have that 6 / 12 months etc experience ... 3 year tenancies my arse. He must think that landlords get bored of tenants and just bin them off as they please, when the reality is only heavy rent arrears and scumbags who do not take care of the property will ever see a section 21, its far too lengthy and costly to get rid of tenants by choice, your hand is always forced.
If a tenant wants to stay 5,10,15 years etc then presently there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
He is out of touch with the rental market, obviously hates landlords and the rich and I would vote for my grans 3 legged dog before I would vote labour.
What a bunch of clowns.
Edited by dazwalsh on Sunday 26th April 09:25
as for getting rid of tenants in certain sectors of renting the mere threat of the end of a AST will get people looking to move as they know no better or are afraid of te ACCJ and the costs the landlord will impose on them for 'eviction'
Pan Pan Pan said:
Why does Milipede keep on referring to the `rich' and `working' people?
With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
I think the issue becoming clear as more policies are revealed is that he is a follower of Marxist principles.With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
This is an extract from Wikipedia which is certainly consistent with that theory...
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism – a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
loafer123 said:
I think the issue becoming clear as more policies are revealed is that he is a follower of Marxist principles.
This is an extract from Wikipedia which is certainly consistent with that theory...
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism – a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
He is his fathers son.This is an extract from Wikipedia which is certainly consistent with that theory...
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism – a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Gawd help us.
loafer123 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Why does Milipede keep on referring to the `rich' and `working' people?
With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
I think the issue becoming clear as more policies are revealed is that he is a follower of Marxist principles.With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
This is an extract from Wikipedia which is certainly consistent with that theory...
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism – a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others is the reality. and the for last sentence, the reality is more like `from each who is prepared to work, to each (rich or poor) who does not'
Pan Pan Pan said:
Why does Milipede keep on referring to the `rich' and `working' people?
With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
He's playing both ends against the middle hoping no-one will notice until he's got his foot in the door. On the face of it he pretends to appeal to everybody (remember the 'one nation' bWith the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
ks?) but wants those he loathes to pay for everything (the 'rich'), yet he lives in £2m mansion. Did he ever have a proper job before becoming an MP? The more often he spouts this s
t and the more media coverage he gets over the other parties, the more folk seem to lap it up. He still won't say how he'll balance the books. Loathesome cock.Edited by P5Nij on Sunday 26th April 12:37
P5Nij said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Why does Milipede keep on referring to the `rich' and `working' people?
With the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
He's playing both ends against the middle hoping no-one will notice until he's got his foot in the door. On the face of it he pretends to appeal to everybody (remember the 'one nation' bWith the exception of what can only be a small number of the idle rich, and the millions of the idle poor, everyone in between, from the CEO of a large corporation, to the bloke sweeping out the yard is a `working' person.
I am a working person and I am most definitely not rich, but Millipede certainly does not represent my interests. So who the hell is he referring to when he talks about `working' people?
Also he keeps on saying if his government gets in, he will reduce the deficit (whilst borrowing and spending even more money!) but he never says by how much.
This being the case he could legitimately claim to have reduced the deficit during the next Parliament if he does so by only 50p, His claim that he will reduce the deficit is therefore virtually meaningless.
ks?) but wants those he loathes to pay for everything (the 'rich'), yet he lives in £2m mansion. Did he ever have a proper job before becoming an MP? Loathesome cock.he can always extract cash from, the poor saps in the middle who hold the ridiculous notion of working and paying taxes Just like labour always do.
Pan Pan Pan said:
The problem is that the rich will generally be able to outsmart Milipede,
Funny you should say that. My daughters (both at different fee payig London schools) mentioned this weekend that some of their mates have mentioned overheard serious parental discussions about exiting the UK if Labour gets in. Greg66 said:
Funny you should say that. My daughters (both at different fee payig London schools) mentioned this weekend that some of their mates have mentioned overheard serious parental discussions about exiting the UK if Labour gets in.
plenty of people on here having the same conversation.Do we really want to live in a Country that sneers at anyone with aspirations to do better for themselves and their families because that is what is going to happen if Miliband gets in. These people are not rich they want a better life and are prepared to work hard trying to achieve it.
Did anyone see the the tw*t on Marr today? He's clearly been trained to adopt a new sneering smirk whilst being interviewed and raise his voice at the end of sentences.
He constantly interrupted Andrew Marr and wouldn't let him complete his questions by talking over him.
What a rude, cocky, imbecile.
He constantly interrupted Andrew Marr and wouldn't let him complete his questions by talking over him.
What a rude, cocky, imbecile.
Cobnapint said:
Did anyone see the the tw*t on Marr today? He's clearly been trained to adopt a new sneering smirk whilst being interviewed and raise his voice at the end of sentences.
He constantly interrupted Andrew Marr and wouldn't let him complete his questions by talking over him.
What a rude, cocky, imbecile.
while not disagreeing, it makes a change from the rude tHe constantly interrupted Andrew Marr and wouldn't let him complete his questions by talking over him.
What a rude, cocky, imbecile.
t of an interviewer doing that.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff