BTL'ers are not evil are they??

TickersPlaysPop

LydiaJ very nice work in your posts.

Not to mention any names, but some on here like to post in brief sound bites, often quite disrespectfully worded, to discredit anybody that says anything about the housing market that is not in accordance with their landlord'ism. Also they will change the subject when things get a little uncomfortable for them... Example.... Switching a house price thread into an education debate.

Certain people have been very hypocritical by positively participating in this thread after trying to tell me I was talking rubbish about the very same topic only yesterday and for the past few weeks.

It is very refreshing to see that you are discussing in a balanced way.

HPI is not a simple supply/demand situation, it is not only to do with planning issues, the banks have a big part to play, including governments. But some here will misdirect debates along these lines claiming they know everything. We must question the motivations of people that post here and keep each of their vested interests in our minds when we read their posts. A quick review of historical posts soon let's you know about those on here.

It's very easy with hind sight..... But The money invested so far in landlord'ism has been too much, it's been very destructive socially, and the government should have closed the door on buy to let and created a more constructive conduit to channel the money available in potential landlords pockets into strengthening the economy.... by investing in quality growth such as business development and infrastructure. It concerns me that this problem will continue and get a lot worse.

Change is coming and ...

"houses for homes not profiteers" .... is a slogan they know will be a manifesto in the near future, and is a little uncomfortable for them to read.

Old_Git

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Does the overflow not work then?

The story has come on somewhat dramtically since you first stated a "fuse was blown".

I have never had a bath with an overflow

LydiaJ

Old_Git wrote: »

I have never had a bath with an overflow

Really???? I have never had a bath without one.

chucky

Old_Git wrote: »

no the water went under the floor when the 13 year old overflowed the bath

Don't get drawn in to discussions with the forum troll.

There is nothing wrong with your actions. You have no need to explain anything to people who don't understand the simplest things.

LydiaJ

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

LydiaJ very nice work in your posts.

...

It is very refreshing to see that you are discussing in a balanced way.

Thank you.

Graham_Devon

Old_Git wrote: »

I have never had a bath with an overflow

Damn. How old is the bathroom in this property!?

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

like drugs, no point in trying to stop the suppliers, you have to imprison and ruin the lives of users, as demand will always find a supply

so it is with renting: imprison tenants ; problem solved immediately

I'm and owner occupier..... and this thought occurred to me....

The drug is 'buy to let', landlords are the drug users, and the supplier is government policy and the banks.... so I think it is more a case of considering 'ruining' the lives of landlords.... Or at least preventing them taking more market share.

This might be an unsettling thought for some?

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

LydiaJ very nice work in your posts.

Not to mention any names, but some on here like to post in brief sound bites, often quite disrespectfully worded, to discredit anybody that says anything about the housing market that is not in accordance with their landlord'ism. Also they will change the subject when things get a little uncomfortable for them... Example.... Switching a house price thread into an education debate.

Certain people have been very hypocritical by positively participating in this thread after trying to tell me I was talking rubbish about the very same topic only yesterday and for the past few weeks.

It is very refreshing to see that you are discussing in a balanced way.

HPI is not a simple supply/demand situation, it is not only to do with planning issues, the banks have a big part to play, including governments. But some here will misdirect debates along these lines claiming they know everything. We must question the motivations of people that post here and keep each of their vested interests in our minds when we read their posts. A quick review of historical posts soon let's you know about those on here.

It's very easy with hind sight..... But The money invested so far in landlord'ism has been too much, it's been very destructive socially, and the government should have closed the door on buy to let and created a more constructive conduit to channel the money available in potential landlords pockets into strengthening the economy.... by investing in quality growth such as business development and infrastructure. It concerns me that this problem will continue and get a lot worse.

Change is coming and ...

"houses for homes not profiteers" .... is a slogan they know will be a manifesto in the near future, and is a little uncomfortable for them to read.

I've asked you several times how are you going to fill void that banning BTL would leave as nobody else is trying to enter the property rental field now. Yes it would be nice if we could build more council houses but that is never going to happen.

CLAPTON

LydiaJ wrote: »

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree that there are many areas in which we could do with less government tinkering. Especially in education, where the political compulsion to meddle with things every few years is definitely detrimental - and I say that as a teacher as well as a parent. It's bad enough where I teach, in an independent school, and much worse, of course, in state schools.

However, governments have to make decisions about some things - how much tax to levy on this, and how much on that, how much regulation to impose and so on. (Just this morning I was talking to somebody who's been living in Kenya for the last year, who says she'll never again complain about having to get her car MOT done, now that she's experienced driving in a country where many of the vehicles on the roads are really not roadworthy). The decisions that governments make about these things should be made in the light of the kind of incentives they are providing for citizens to do particular things, and not to do other things.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by parents choosing education. Unless you educate your children at home, you can't really choose education - you can only choose a school, and then fit in with how the school chooses to organise itself. For example, given a free choice, I'd want my son to do triple science for GCSE (and so would he). However, his (state) school doesn't offer it, so he can't, unless I move him to a different school. But his school is better than the local competition in various other respects, so on balance I think he's better off where he is. Less government interference in education wouldn't give me any help with that kind of problem. My friend has the exact same issue with triple science not being available at her daughter's independent school.

ETA As a teacher, I don't believe that it's true that if state schools were given the freedom that independent schools have, then they'd start producing the same results. For one thing, independent schools get a lot more money per student, resulting in much greater resources and much higher staff/student ratios. Furthermore, they can pick their students. If somebody's causing trouble, you can ask them to leave. If they've caused trouble somewhere else, you can refuse to take them. The state school system has a responsibility to educate everybody, and that's a totally different proposition.

I agree that government should provide a framework that prevents people doing harm to others.

I also think that the government need to distribute a certain amount of income

there is however no advantages in government choosing how my children should be educated or the subjects they learn or at what level.

the result of parent choosing will be better for society than the current system of choice by Gove (or Blunkett or who ever)

LydiaJ

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree that government should provide a framework that prevents people doing harm to others.

I also think that the government need to distribute a certain amount of income

there is however no advantages in government choosing how my children should be educated or the subjects they learn or at what level.

the result of parent choosing will be better for society than the current system of choice by Gove (or Blunkett or who ever)

You have not addressed my point about the impossibility of parents choosing the curriculum, whether the government interferes or not. If you want to choose the subjects your children learn and at what level, then you will need to educate them at home - which you are already free to do, either yourself or by employing a tutor.

If you send them to school, then you will have to make do with a curriculum designed by somebody else to attempt to cater to most children - either the government or the leadership team of the school will choose what subjects are possible and in what combinations, and the content of those subjects will be decided either by the government or the exam boards (or the teachers in the case of younger children).