forkboy84 posted:

https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews/status/858750626058035200

Have some Peak Lib Dem

quote:

Mr Farron said: "My message on the eve of that anniversary is this, things can only get better, but this time with the Liberal Democrats.

quote:

Mr Farron told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1 that he had “resigned from the Liberal Democrat frontbench about ten years ago because I am a bit of a Eurosceptic.”

This was evidence that he was “somebody who challenges people in power”, he said.

He added: “But I’m somebody who believes that Britain is better off in the European Union and what the South West is famous for is wanting to be able to be self-governing, to be independent, to be different from those in Westminster who tell them what to do.

Pissflaps posted:

It's his campaign.

He won three elections though so he might now something about winning them.

Ratjaculation posted:

Pissflaps posted:

It's his campaign.

He won three elections though so he might now something about winning them.

HJB posted:

TACD posted:

Inspirational stuff.

Not So Fast posted:

Pissflaps this line is getting as tired as "Strong and stable government".

The fact is what won elections then doesn't win them now.

jBrereton posted:

In six months' time, I'm sure JC will have won as many elections within 2 years as Blair managed in 10.

TACD posted:

Inspirational stuff.

ronya posted:

in idealised mortgage-to-let, the bank puts up the capital. the landlord puts up the collateral. the tenant puts up the rent. It would normally make no sense for landlords to, other things equal, want to take on more risk, since they're the ones paying for the risk.

for some proportion of BTLs, i'm guessing, the landlord puts up the capital, the bank makes the gains tax-deductible, and the tenancy is a pure cost to obtain the tax-deductibility: the landlord intends to liquidate the moment the mortgage expires and then re-enter the cycle again. The collateral is actually not sufficient to cover the costs of default; any additional risk of default, therefore, does not fall on the landlord.

ronya posted:

in idealised mortgage-to-let, the bank puts up the capital. the landlord puts up the collateral. the tenant puts up the rent. It would normally make no sense for landlords to, other things equal, want to take on more risk, since they're the ones paying for the risk.

for some proportion of BTLs, i'm guessing, the landlord puts up the capital, the bank makes the gains tax-deductible, and the tenancy is a pure cost to obtain the tax-deductibility: the landlord intends to liquidate the moment the mortgage expires and then re-enter the cycle again. The collateral is actually not sufficient to cover the costs of default; any additional risk of default, therefore, does not fall on the landlord.

Seaside Loafer posted:

I've never understood the reluctance for landlords to take housing benefit people. They are basically guaranteed the rent from the council. Or used to be before rents went up and housing benefit was cut but they are still guaranteed most of it. Its just seems like a snobbery of some sort. Last time I was on housing benefit for a couple of months there was an option to have it go straight to the landlord, so why cant a landlord insist on that then they are covered?

Namtab posted:

I feel that if blairite centrism won elections then Jeremy Corbyn would not be leader of the Labour party

Seaside Loafer posted:

I've never understood the reluctance for landlords to take housing benefit people.

Jose posted:

its ok the PLP have decided Yvette cooper will be their saviour after corbyn loses trhis election

Seaside Loafer posted:

I've never understood the reluctance for landlords to take housing benefit people.

learnincurve posted:

They changed that, rent goes to the person claiming benefits and then paid on. They found that if people lost their jobs and had to claim benefits then the landlords would kick them out, this way (unless they know you well) they have no way of knowing if the rent comes from you or housing benefit.

Seaside Loafer posted:

I don't think that's true, I was on the universal credit September and November last year and I think there was a 'pay the rent straight to the landlord' option in it. I didn't choose that option because I didn't want her to know in case she kicked me out but I think its possible. It didn't cover the full rent but it was most of it. On less expensive places it probably would I guess. I don't understand the mentality, if you look on the website spareroom.co.uk practically every ad says 'No DSS'. This is stupid, if its a good person you cant loose if they are on benefits.

Pissflaps posted:

He's on of those old fashioned politicians who thinks that being able to form a government is important.

jabby posted:

Erm, what? He's specifically said that he would prefer to lose an election than win on a platform he didn't agree with. In that regard he's exactly what you accuse Corbyn supporters of being.

Demiurge4 posted:

Long term renting sucks, landlords who own lots of houses they rent out suck. If you rent a lone standing house for +3 years you should be able to force a buy on it. Landlord can't force you out early unless a court finds you criminally negligent or you commit a serious crime while renting. I'm more ambivalent on apartments.

Seaside Loafer posted:

I don't think that's true, I was on the universal credit September and November last year and I think there was a 'pay the rent straight to the landlord' option in it. I didn't choose that option because I didn't want her to know in case she kicked me out but I think its possible. It didn't cover the full rent but it was most of it. On less expensive places it probably would I guess. I don't understand the mentality, if you look on the website spareroom.co.uk practically every ad says 'No DSS'. This is stupid, if its a good person you cant loose if they are on benefits.

jBrereton posted:

If it isn't a good person you can, though.

jBrereton posted:

If it isn't a good person you can, though.

Pissflaps posted:

He formed governments based on the platform he argued for. There's no contradiction there.

Regarde Aduck posted:

And he specifically said he wouldn't want to win on a leftist platform. So why would anyone other than you, who appears to not care about the ideology of the party, want a Blairite government in power? Why do you even attempt to debate us? We at least like to think of ourselves as left wing. Blair doesn't want to be left wing. Why do you keep bringing up Blair?

Pissflaps posted:

I want a centre left labour government. That's not out of kilter with the ideology of the Labour Party.

Seaside Loafer posted:

Well thats the point of interviewing your tenants isn't it. Are you suggesting people on benefits are inherently a bunch of scumbags not worthy of having a roof over their heads?

kustomkarkommando posted:

A lot of by to let mortgage providers specifically prohibit borrowers from renting their property to people on housing benefit

jBrereton posted:

No, I'm saying that people on HB are more or less like any other tenant, but typically with less stuff to put up as collateral/less chance of successfully getting the money you are owed if it ends up in small claims court. I can understand why banks won't lend to landlords in that instance, and hence why landlords are reluctant to take them on as a result.

Demiurge4 posted:

Long term renting sucks, landlords who own lots of houses they rent out suck. If you rent a lone standing house for +3 years you should be able to force a buy on it. Landlord can't force you out early unless a court finds you criminally negligent or you commit a serious crime while renting. I'm more ambivalent on apartments.

jBrereton posted:

No, I'm saying that people on HB are more or less like any other tenant, but typically with less stuff to put up as collateral/less chance of successfully getting the money you are owed if it ends up in small claims court. I can understand why banks won't lend to landlords in that instance, and hence why landlords are reluctant to take them on as a result.

More housing being built would help this unfortunate situation.

Spangly A posted:

Fergus Wilson not being dead/in prison is an affront to the rule of law

Alchenar posted:

e: this is not Corbyn's fault, it's probably fairer to say that the voters who became disillusioned under the Blair years are not being drawn back by him, while at the same time the core who remained happy with Blair are being actively repelled. And that's how you get to a point where Labour is looking like hitting rock bottom at this election.

Pissflaps posted:

I want a centre left labour government. That's not out of kilter with the ideology of the Labour Party.

jabby posted:

Would you rather have Corbyn's Labour or the Tories?

knox_harrington posted:

Interesting article in this week's Economist on this: https://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/04/battle-builders