General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
It's not the silliest idea ever, though I'm not very fond of the "build houses just to rent" business model.
The site they mention in Reading is very close to the centre of town (minus 4 lanes of dual carriageway). It'll be interesting to see what they put up (and how many cars they expect residents to own)
More homes being built should be celebrated, regardless of whether they're intended for the rental market or not.
More rental homes means cheaper rent, means less profitable buy-to-let, means cheaper homes.
means cheaper rent
Have you met big corporations? Just because that aught to be e how it works, doesn't mean it will
Fun fact: John Lewis isn't a typical corporation, it's a partnership, and its employees are the partners. When they do well, they don't pay dividends, they pay percentage bonuses across the entire workforce.
Gives me hope that they might be trying to do the right thing. Obviously they might just be attempting to make more profit, but John Lewis has very good customer service indeed in my admittedly very limited experience.
It's simple supply and demand. Even if John Lewis decides to charge high rent on these specific homes, the additional supply will reduce demand across the market, which means landlords will have to ask for less rent if they want to be able to fill their properties.
The more homes there are on the market, the lower rent/home prices will be.
Free markets aren't the answer to all the world's problems, but they can be part of the solution - as long as they're properly regulated.
Can’t wait for the day that even the middle class can’t afford to own a home, Tarquin can live in the John Lewis slum and look down on those in the ALDI gutter.
The real issue is going to be that there won't be a middle class. Everything about our tax and benefits system is designed to bring about the destruction of the middle class.
Could be good could be bad. We do need more homes, some people genuinely don't want the responsibility of owning a home and John Lewis is a relatively ethically run company (I think it's owned by the employees).
Maybe they should just sell the homes instead, but if they were to rent them out at an affordable rate that also could be quite good.
Corporations getting involved in the lease market is not a good thing. This is exactly why the US and Canada has so much of an issues with housing. I actually find this sad not good.
This sounds like dystopian hell. Corporate owned housing...
John Lewis isn’t a corporation, it’s an employee-owned partnership and has pretty good ethics. And decent rental accommodation is very much needed in this country.