London rents to be capped at £1250

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

Oh come off it ruggedtoast, do you really believe that an appraisal process leading to dismissal after 30 days would get past the watchful eyes of the public sector unions?

I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of public sector productivity with you again julie we've been down that road - your mind is completely closed so there is no point.

If you believe that an unproductive secretary sitting in an office somewhere counting down the days to retirement is more danger to the taxpayer than an unproductive bank that requires billions of pounds of public money to rescue and then still doesn't work, then fine.

I will take issue with the astounding statement quoted above, as there is no situation in UK employment law where a permanent employee can be laid off after 30 days due to a negative appraisal.

If you're a manager and are doing this in your company then you are breaking the law. Anyone falling foul of this can, and probably will, sue you for wrongful dismissal.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

No.

If I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I'd cut taxes and spending to free up cash for private sector investment. I've been clear on that since I first started posting on here a few years ago and clear that if we continued down the path we were on a few years back we'd end up where we are now.

What would you do to try to solve the current problems the UK economy faces?

Cutting government spending at the moment would lead to increased un-employment and would damage the private sector much more than the current problem of shortgage of investment funding.
In reallity companies that are not making any proft are unlikely to be investing a great deal.

It seems to me we need to broadly continue the currrent policies, QE and maintain government spending until the economy recovers.
Once the economy shows sigjnificant signs of recovery then there will need to be serious attempt to reduce government spending... of course some of that will be automatic once employment starts to increase and the increased in the tax take will start to reduce the debt burden.

julieq

You're not answering the question because you can't answer the question, lol.

You're creating a false dichotomy too. Yes, it's terrible that banks weren't better run, and it would have been lovely if there hadn't been a banking crisis, but that doesn't mean that the public sector has a right to allow inefficient practices. If the public sector is wasting even exactly the same amount as the MP's claimed on dodgy expenses, that's surely just as big as a scandal isn't it? This is OUR money being wasted.

Incidentally the appraisal system in my company doesn't lead to automatic dismissal on a negative appraisal, but it does allow entry to a managed process which can lead ultimately to dismissal on the grounds of incompetence (or a change of role). That's a radical idea which unfortunately seems yet to have made it into parts of the public sector.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

No.

If I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I'd cut taxes and spending to free up cash for private sector investment. I've been clear on that since I first started posting on here a few years ago and clear that if we continued down the path we were on a few years back we'd end up where we are now.

What would you do to try to solve the current problems the UK economy faces?

I think there are many problems. One problem that isn't discussed here often is the sheer volume of law makes it impossible to know what the law actually is. There have been over 2899 statutory instruments this year so far. So, quiz time (and no looking it up) what does SI 296 of this year seek to do?

Many of these SI's ammend primary legislation. There are hundreds or even thousands of EC regulations, directives, and what-have-yous every year.

Too much law makes it very difficult for businesses to operate. Heck, too much law means any one of us can be FCUKed over by the state because, on average, we probably break a law every single day without realising it.

For example, if you were to actually keep to the letter of the law, you would need to write a risk assessment every time someone climbed a ladder.

It's a criminal offence to keep a window box above the ground floor without bolting it to the window.

And yet, things like banks, which are critical to the survival of the country barely seem to be regulated at all. There are a lot of rules, but no action when these rules are enforced.

So, one thing I think is necessary is to review the law, and see whether the thousands of new crimes the Labour party has introduced are necessary. It would be nice to get the number of statutory instruments down to a number which a dedicated student of the law could read in under a year, for a start.

/RANT.

macaque_2

But you can offset interest payments against profits when running a business. BTL is a business, no new legislation was brought in to support members of parliament doing it.

Most people don't run BTLs as businesses, they run them as clumsy sidelines. No one has suggesting that new legislation has been brought in for MPs. MPs however have been very slow to act over abuses and excesses in the property market. That is definitely the product of self interest.

But it wasn't the norm. It wasn't even close to being the norm. It was a tiny proportion of the total.

The only reason that the full extent of property fraud has not come to light relates to the state of the market. Each time the tide goes out on house prices, another raft of borrowers are discovered to have no swimming costumes. Remember, this crash has barely started.

No, business needs a competitive currency. It helps if it's stable for strategic planning, but it needs to be competitive, not "realistic" whatever that's supposed to mean. We have low levels of manufacturing because (sorry to say) UK workers became uncompetitive on a world basis, and much of the remaining manufacturing base and associated investment has moved East.

Wrong darling. And I say that as someone who created and runs a manufacturing company.

No, the rental market determines the workable level of prices as a basic function of return on investment. It's not intrinsically bad that first time buyers struggle to get onto the ladder - they can always rent of course - it's always been like that. And this has almost nothing to do with your contention that MPs have set this up for their own benefit and will now shy away from the idea - if they want leveraged BTL, they can get them without parliamentary expenses.

Nonsense. Rents are completely out of line with other countries. When quantitative easing comes to end, you discover just how far out of line they are.

And this has come up many times. Most of the properties are in the hands of local authorities. Some are in transition due to death or other similar factors, a few are empty because their owners choose to leave them emtpy, but it's hardly a big drag on the supply and demand equation which is driven mostly by demographic factors such as increased divorce rate and rate of creation of households via migration and so on.

Apart from the 1 million properties that are empty all the time, millions of other properties lie empty for 50 weeks a year (when Vanessa and Nigel take the children to Devon)

It is paranoid rubbish to claim that the government or MPs framed legislation to feather their nests.

Ok, that made me laugh. If you had said it before the expenses scandal we culd have pretended that corporate governance within parliament was missguided rather than crooked.

The worst accusation you can throw at them is that they used the rules they were operating under to make a few quid, well so what?

Stop insulting my intelligence. The government have turned us into one of the most indebted nations on earth out of self interest. The housing bubble suited the government in terms of getting reelected and it suited the MPs in terms of building BTL empires.

The laughable thing is that they were held to account by journalists, one of the sleaziest most corrupt expense abusing professions you'll ever meet.

That may be true but it is irrelevant.

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

You're not answering the question because you can't answer the question, lol.

You're creating a false dichotomy too. Yes, it's terrible that banks weren't better run, and it would have been lovely if there hadn't been a banking crisis, but that doesn't mean that the public sector has a right to allow inefficient practices. If the public sector is wasting even exactly the same amount as the MP's claimed on dodgy expenses, that's surely just as big as a scandal isn't it? This is OUR money being wasted.

Incidentally the appraisal system in my company doesn't lead to automatic dismissal on a negative appraisal, but it does allow entry to a managed process which can lead ultimately to dismissal on the grounds of incompetence (or a change of role). That's a radical idea which unfortunately seems yet to have made it into parts of the public sector.

Your writing style is bizarre. You contradict yourself from one post to the next. I hope you mention all this time on MSE on your next very important appraisal for your important job in your important company jules!

Lol to you too (I assume you meant lots of love)

julieq

Moved back to silly sarcasm then have we Ruggedtoast? Hopefully your mates will turn up and rescue you from the trouble of actually having to engage with any of the issues you bring up.

Incidentally I can play on MSE because I'm not at work today, you may have noticed I've posted more than usual.

I most certainly haven't contradicted myself. Slightly loose language on one aspect particular issue, arguably, but the thrust of the argument which is that in the private sector incompetence can and will get you sacked eventually, and that that level of accountability should also be present in the public sector.

Because otherwise our money is being wasted.

Are you for or against our money being wasted? Why not answer?

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

Cutting government spending at the moment would lead to increased un-employment and would damage the private sector much more than the current problem of shortgage of investment funding.
In reallity companies that are not making any proft are unlikely to be investing a great deal.

It seems to me we need to broadly continue the currrent policies, QE and maintain government spending until the economy recovers.
Once the economy shows sigjnificant signs of recovery then there will need to be serious attempt to reduce government spending... of course some of that will be automatic once employment starts to increase and the increased in the tax take will start to reduce the debt burden.

It's a tough call to make as to when to tighten the reins.

I understand the points you make. My only argument on timing is that as a society we are well overdue for a period of 'cold turkey'. This would help us re-evaluate our priorities on a personal and career level. At some point in the future, for many of us, 'living within our means' may have a much smaller 'means' element to it.

The process of 'MP cold turkey' may prove to be a good thing, you never know.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think there are many problems. One problem that isn't discussed here often is the sheer volume of law makes it impossible to know what the law actually is. There have been over 2899 statutory instruments this year so far. So, quiz time (and no looking it up) what does SI 296 of this year seek to do?

Many of these SI's ammend primary legislation. There are hundreds or even thousands of EC regulations, directives, and what-have-yous every year.

Too much law makes it very difficult for businesses to operate. Heck, too much law means any one of us can be FCUKed over by the state because, on average, we probably break a law every single day without realising it.

For example, if you were to actually keep to the letter of the law, you would need to write a risk assessment every time someone climbed a ladder.

It's a criminal offence to keep a window box above the ground floor without bolting it to the window.

And yet, things like banks, which are critical to the survival of the country barely seem to be regulated at all. There are a lot of rules, but no action when these rules are enforced.

So, one thing I think is necessary is to review the law, and see whether the thousands of new crimes the Labour party has introduced are necessary. It would be nice to get the number of statutory instruments down to a number which a dedicated student of the law could read in under a year, for a start.

/RANT.

I couldn't agree more.

The lawyers don't even know the laws they are updated/added too so regularly and completely...silly, expensive and timewasting...all for people to push the letter of the law in anycase.



Generali, I agree this has taken to much time, and vehemence, but I do think this disconnect needs to be corrected. I think not having people's fmaily working for them is punitive, and silly: I imagine spouses in particular might be pretty good value for the tax payer: working to relieve the burden on their partner.

I think, fwiw, all this law making and questioning of rules just goes to shoe how lacking in honour we have developed as a nation.

kabayiri

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think there are many problems. One problem that isn't discussed here often is the sheer volume of law makes it impossible to know what the law actually is. There have been over 2899 statutory instruments this year so far. So, quiz time (and no looking it up) what does SI 296 of this year seek to do?

Absolutely right.

It was amazing the other night, having a trawl through some of the jobs on the local NHS site.

The number of 'governance' type posts was astounding. All relatively well paid; all no doubt introduced for genuine reason - to comply with the myriad regulation we have.