Old Conservatives don't understand

Because so far you’ve dismissed the sources. Despite them being well respected industry trackers.

To prove your point the graph needs to show increases in value linked to increased rent. Not simply that bigger properties rent for more.

Your comments suggest you still don’t understand the market.

I’m assuming you disagree with this article
 
Sponsored Links
To prove your point the graph needs to show increases in value linked to increased rent. Not simply that bigger properties rent for morent.
I have never (in recent times) seen them go in opposite directions.

Maybe you have this graph
 
I see motorbiking is anxious to distract us from the fact that some owners are forced to sell assets below their value (which he approves of)

Though some owners aren't (which he approves of)

Leading to a shortage of decent social housing.
 
Leading to a shortage of decent social housing.
Because the councils can’t run a tap! So sub out the work and maintenance, which can and does get subbed out again.

Leading to a situation where it’s not worth being a landlord. So right to buy was a saviour!
 
Sponsored Links
Because the councils can’t run a tap! So sub out the work and maintenance, which can and does get subbed out again.

Leading to a situation where it’s not worth being a landlord. So right to buy was a saviour!
That's an upside down way of looking at it.

Councils did well with council houses for years and years. Until they were forced to sell and not replace.

Landlords jumped in the gap, and make healthy profits from it.

Was never private landlords being the best answer.

There is a place for private landlords, but only in addition to council housing, not in place of.
 
I see motorbiking is anxious to distract us from the fact that some owners are forced to sell assets below their value (which he approves of)

Though some owners aren't (which he approves of)

Leading to a shortage of decent social housing.
Not only trying to distract but pretending that it is difficult to make money and increase the asset value, at no direct cost. So who pays? Not those that benefit from it.
 
Because so far you’ve dismissed the sources. Despite them being well respected industry trackers
None of which say rents and property values are not linked.

But you keep on digging deeper with your strawman argument if it makes you happy.

To prove your point the graph needs to show increases in value linked to increased rent. Not simply that bigger properties rent for more

increases in rent do show increases in value for same property type.

Where there are variances, the market works to correct it.

If you were going to buy a property for renting out, you would choose one where purchase price was reasonable compared to rental income…..So would every other landlord, which leads to higher demand for properties increasing prices, meanwhile it increases supply of rentals so reduces rental prices due to competition.
 
Because the councils can’t run a tap! So sub out the work and maintenance, which can and does get subbed out again.

Leading to a situation where it’s not worth being a landlord. So right to buy was a saviour!
Councils are now brining services back in house…because it’s cheaper and more efficient

 
It wasn't the council's choice. You seemed to imply it was by saying,
They council could have stopped a long time ago, couldn’t they ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They council could have stopped a long time ago, couldn’t they ?
Depends what contracts were in place. It's also not simple to reinstate a direct works section if it has all been dismantled in the past.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top