egg

I do not understand how you think it's good for the rental market to have less houses in the rental pool. It really isn't.

The blame game doesn't alter the fact that it's happening. That said, is it not the case that what Schapps sought is different to what's been delivered?

Landlords are selling in their droves. Come remortgage time they face much higher rates. The added issue is that lenders need the landlord to demonstrate a certain level of profit to secure a BTL mortgage. As the interest rates have risen, that means that the rent has to a) be higher, but b) be achievable, to get the mortgage. Where the rent hike needed to get the mortgage is just too much, the landlord has to sell. Out there it's happening. The problem equally applies to anyone else wanting to buy on a BTL basis. However you cut it, rents have to go up to make the BTL system work, and we won't be getting a viable alternative.

What does it matter who conceived it, and who contrived the expansion? It's still a profiteering exercise.

How do you propose that "everyone" drives a compliant vehicle? I thought your are a man of the people SoG. How's the poor sod earning £25k with 3 kids gonna do that? The government aren't going to foot the bill. Your wish is an impossible reality. "Non compliant" vehicles only becomes a thing if you set parameters after people buy said vehicles. That's what's happened here. What we've had for some time is a road tax system which charges a premium for non green cars, and fuel charges made up largely of tax which impacts most on those using the most fuel. Surely you agree that there are taxes right there which hit those driving high polluting vehicles. Nothing else is needed, unless you're out to rinse people.

That'll take a fundamental shift, and legislation, to make it possible. It needs to start with someone being able to acquire building land at fair cost, and that's something I just can't see happening - it'd need some kind of compulsory purchase arrangement to buy up either agricultural, greenfield, or brownfield sites. It's a notion that'll never become reality - imagine the uproar in middle England if farmers are made to sell up on the cheap so that social housing can be built? There's no government that'd ever do that.

Absolutely we need more housing, but who's gonna build them? It won't be social landlords as they haven't got the cash. It'll only be house builders if there's punters able to borrow to buy at the price they need to make it worthwhile. Breaking the cycle on any of this is almost impossible reality. Land owner's will sell at the highest price, not the price needed to make mass development affordable.

But you're not looking at from the other end of the scale. Less landlords means less rental properties which means more demand for a reduced pool of rental housing stock. That increased demand equals higher rents for the renters. Taking landlords out of the game makes things worse for the punters, not better. Whilst I agree with the sentiment that we need to reduce prices to enable more people to buy, the majority of people who rent won't be able to reach into buying a property if prices reduce by say 10-15%, there'll still be out of each. The situation is compounded by rising interest rates.

Indeed. The hideous road tax I pay on my gas guzzler surely is the price to pay for driving a gas guzzler? And the shed loads of extra fuel duty and vat on all the fuel it consumes. Ulez is disgraceful profiteering.

It's a great move for him, and in truth I'm sure he knows that the PL is above his level.

Landlords are selling up now because profits are squeezed by interest rates and the lack of tax relief on mortgage interest. It'll only get worse if rentbis controlled. We should never have got ourselves into the position we have, but we are where we are. Significantly more social housing at fair rents is what's needed, but it's unaffordable. As things stand, as interest rates increase, so will rents. It's a mess.

It won't work because landlords won't subscribe to it if it means little or no profit. No landlords means no properties to rent.

Rent control won't work. We need private landlords. They need profit. In order to maintain profit, rents are increasing. If private landlords sell up (many are), where do rental properties come from? We've created an almighty mess from the right to buy days through to Rishi's giveaways. No easy solution sadly.

I agree. The issue is what the government can realistically do to solve the housing shortage. A massive social housing build would never be done a Tory government, and wouldn't be affordable to a labour government. Subsiding rent is not affordable. Landlords own a big chunk of housing stock and will (and do) crank up rents as interest rates rise to maintain profit. How do you say that the government "can step in and make a difference"?

I stay in Chrome browser and click to open the link in an incognito tab and that bypasses it.

Can't we just have one thread without pointless flirting please lads? A lady has passed - there's no need for any of the other nonsense.

He's a Scandinavian who's signed for Scandinavia's biggest club on a 4 year deal, gets to compete for the title and domestic cups in a league where he'll probably shine, and play champions league football. Yeah, a terrible move for the lad! Good luck to him.

Thanks for posting the interview. I like the cut of Wilcox's jib. This bit is very direct... a reality check for some of the players!

...it's an of you know, you know, thing.

He'll be going for £80mil at this rate!

Thank you, good to hear. Armstrong is better than we've seen. Played properly, and with some confidence, he could have a great season. And @stevegrant, please upgrade this fellas membership, he's got info to share.

Ditto. I'd be delighted to get back what we paid for him. The lad could be amazing, but something's off.

Have terms been agreed with their clubs though?

TBH, you have a very blinkered view and clearly regard your opinion as the only correct one. That makes debate impossible. I CBA to get into it with you, but it seems that having conflated gender and sex, you've now added sexuality to that mess of conflation.

Mouth