97

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6350172

cross-posted from: https://ibbit.at/post/74169

The Green Party has voted to put forward a motion entitled “Abolish Landlords” at its conference in Bournemouth. The policy moves towards ending landlordism through taking legal steps to reduce the number of private landlords and increase the amount of social housing.

The problem with state landlordism replacing private

However, it does fail to acknowledge the issue with state landlordism. Social housing is still a form of rental income and could be considered a hefty tax on housing. That’s because social rental payments do not currently contribute to home ownership for the social tenant.

‘Right to buy’ does provide discounted home ownership for social tenants. But the neoliberal context that the ruling class delivered it within meant that social housing was depleted and not replaced. In fact, the policy means that private landlords rent out 41% of former council homes sold under right to buy.

But the Green Party’s answer to abolish right to buy leaves low income people trapped renting from the state for life. State landlordism is only better in comparison to private landlordism. It’s still extracting money from low income people who already pay council tax. Remove it from the context of private landlordism, and it’s essentially a regressive policy – an additional high housing tax on low income people who can’t afford to buy their own home. Instead, monthly payments to the state should pay towards ownership of the house on a cost-price basis.

“A vehicle for wealth extraction”

The Green Party motion was otherwise cutting:

The Private Rental Sector has failed, it is a vehicle for wealth extraction, funnelling money from Renters to the Landlord Class. This motion makes it clear Green Party policy is to seek the effective abolition of Private Landlordism.

The motion hit the nail on the head when it comes to the nature of rent:

The Green Party believes that secure, affordable Housing is a Human Right, and that a core goal for a Green Government and Green MPs is to create a fairer housing market.

The Green Party believes the existence of Private Landlords adds no positive value to the economy or society, that the relationship between Landlord and Tenant is inherently and intrinsically extractive and exploitative. That the Private Rented Sector exists to transfer wealth from the working classes to Landlords.

The Green Party believes that the Private Sector has fundamentally failed, and is continuing to fail to provide secure and affordable housing fit for working people.

To move towards abolishing landlords, the Green Party would introduce rent controls. They would also put the tenant in charge of when the tenancy ends, introduce new taxes for landlords, and end buy to let mortgages. A further step that would encourage home ownership and significantly discourage private landlordism is that the Greens would enable tenants first Right to Buy from their private landlord. And all the rent they’ve already paid would be discounted from the price. One issue with this is that it still appeals to the market value of housing-as-an-asset, rather than popping the housing bubble altogether.

The Green motion also said that social housing should be built on a “massive scale”.

“Zacktivism”

Predictably, the Daily Mail sided with the leeching landlord class, lamenting “a bizarre assault on millions of Brits” (landlords), essentially reversing reality given rent is free money taken from the largely working class.

The Green Party conference is the first since Zack Polanski became its ‘eco populist’ leader. And with motions like the abolishment of landlords passing, bring it on. The overall housing policy just needs some fine tuning.

Featured image via Unsplash/Tierra Mallorca

By James Wright


From Canary via this RSS feed

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tetris11@feddit.uk 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm not against the number of landlords, I'm against a few landlords who own most of the properties.

A retired couple renting out their one attic isn't who I'm angry at.

Limit the number of properties that can be owned by a single entity.

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Separating units from properties I think is important to be clear about upfront. One property with hundreds of units should NOT be allowed to hide behind "Its only one building etc" exploitations.

At least that's one concern I had.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's complicated. Anytime you rent, you're spending money. When you buy, a large portion of your mortgage payment becomes equity. Although it's probably not unfair to charge a price for housing since it's a scarce non fungible resource, it is unfair to have one group of people spend money to lease, and another group transform most of that money into a valuable asset. When the second group, which is already privileged, takes money from the first so that they can convert that into even more assets that's a double injustice.

The system is fucked. You're right corporate landlords are worse than Grandma and her attic because they're purposefully exploiting the renter class. Grandma has no desire to participate in an unjust system, she just wants passive income during retirement, who wouldn't. That doesn't mean the system is anymore just.

[-] Redex68@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

This sounds like a flawed plan. The main issue is not greedy landlords, it's lack of supply. In a market economy everyone is greedy, all actors always try to maximize their profits. The reason why housing prices are so high is because the demand is too high for the given supply, not because landlords are somehow especially greedy. Rent control has never worked, and renting does offer a service for some people that they prefer to buying a house. Now I will admit the housing is a bit different than other markets as it's highly location dependent and it's easier to have at monopoly in an area if you buy a lot of properties, so perhaps there should be some crack down on land that lords with large swaths of property, but this plant to me sounds flawed.

[-] withabeard@feddit.uk 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Is demand that high? Is there a lack of supply?

Looking at some homeless charities research (potentially biased, sure). There are ~1million empty properties in England. Only a 3rd of them are needed to "solve" the housing crisis. Which would imply there are currently 600,000 (ish) properties in England empty even if we ended homelessness. (naive and overstated ... but yeah).

[edit: added some sources] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g840ydlzvo https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/ https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/about-homelessness/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/

From what I can see, people buying up properties as (monthly, not even over the lifetime of the mortgage) profitable holiday lets, people able to charge rent which is higher than the mortgage on the property. This is the fundamental problem.

Rent should be cheaper than the mortgage. The landowner should be paying something towards the property. I've often had people argue that "[landlords] don't make much money" (200quid a month), ignoring that at the end of the mortgage the landlord still owns the whole value of that appreciating asset.

I kinda see some of the argument about state letting not being perfect. But at least if someone is paying the state a nominal amount each month for the property, they have the space to save for a home of their own. If someone is paying a private landlord more than the monthly cost of the mortgage, they have no space to save.

[-] squid@feddit.uk 5 points 2 weeks ago

I disagree. my generation is the one of the few who wont own a property, while housing sits empty. this isnt a supply issue, its a monopoly issue. we have been priced out.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Get out of here with your naive understanding of neoliberal economics. House prices all over the developed world went up at the same time just after COVID. I'm supposed to believe that simultaneously, all over the world, demand for housing went WAY UP due to some magical need for houses? None of these countries had a massive population boom to justify this.

No the answer is much simpler. Before COVID the capitalist class obtained revenues from sale of goods and had to give most of that up in wages. During COVID the capitalist class stopped paying their labour en masse. The government stepped in and gave money to these workers who spent it on goods from the capitalist class. This meant that a massive amount of profit was extracted since there was no labour to pay during that time. This accumulation of profit was used to buy assets like housing and stocks which created the asset inflation we see now.

The supply demand problem isn't that more people needed houses all over the world at the same time for mysterious reasons and none were built for even more mysterious reasons. It's that capitalists needed to dump their COVID money into inflation resistant assets and bought up tons of houses that are mainly sitting vacant.

[-] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

Good for them!

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
97 points (100.0% liked)

UK leftists

758 readers
2 users here now

Description:

UK Leftist's is a community to give leftist thinker a voice to discuss UK socialism, communism, and other relevant political ideas.

please feel free to post political party media.

Rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS