Cuts (Attention Seeking?)

The cuts reveal what an atomised society we have become.  The press is filled with special pleading and identity politics.  And then there is the oft repeated line: ‘We’re all in this together.’  A less ladylike person than me would reply, ‘Are we f*ck?’  But then I think ‘How dare you suggest I am in anything with anyone.’  I’m a misanthrope.  (aka a misery guts).  I walk alone. Thank you very much.

But even the temperature of my usually ice cold heart was lifted briefly when I heard Boris Johnson’s words yesterday (My usual reaction to Boris is ‘oh, isn’t he cute?  Don’t you just want to reach out and pinch his ruddy cheeks?  Or maybe not.)  He has said that he would not accept “Kosovo-style social cleansing” in London.  ‘Not on my watch.’ Naturally, I winced at the hyperbole.  And then I thought ‘Go Boris, Boris rocks, Boris is the coolest’ (I’d just taken my sleep meds). I awoke this morning to read that up to forty per cent of landlords in our nation’s capital are contemplating lowering their rents to accommodate the changes in housing benefit. Which must have meant that they were grossly overcharging their tenants in the first place. Don’t you just love the law of unintended consequences?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Cuts (Attention Seeking?)”

  1. warriet Says:

    yep, but it’s after all business where the landlord charge as much as the market will bear and the landlords will prefer less rent to no rent, simple business decision – there is after all a finite supply of to them acceptable tenants. (haven’t lived in London for a long time but as a distant observer, I think that BJ is proving to be a worthy successor to KL – why can’t the rest of the UK so sensible about choosing its CEO?)

    Like

  2. sanabituranima Says:

    “it’s after all business where the landlord charge as much as the market will bear and the landlords will prefer less rent to no rent, simple business decision”

    Shouldn’t a business(wo)man also consider whether the price s/he charges is FAIR?

    Like

  3. warriet Says:

    of course fairness should be a consideration but in reality, the private rental market generally practices capitalism in its purest form and is usually shameless in its pursuit of maximum revenue, the fairest way to reduce housing benefit would be if the state took control and asserted the maximum rent payable for each property but since such control would be the de facto nationalism of the sector, I don’t see the current regime even considering the possibility – of course there are property owners who only look for a fair rent but I’m afraid they are the exception as quite often the rent level is determined by the cost of the money they used to buy the property.

    Like

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: