Quote Originally Posted by ramAnag View Post
Not sure about ‘consensus’ or otherwise, AF.
It seems a bit personal and maybe in need of further explanation, at least as far as the ‘landlords’ one is concerned.
Would agree about the police and the NHS although the latter (probably both) need more funding imo.
Think I largely agree on 4.
Why £250k limit and why only ‘public body’ executive pay?

Put another way, I don’t understand the landlord one even though I was briefly a landlord about 12/13 years ago and had no problem at all.
Beyond that, if you’re arguing for greater support for public services (specifically the NHS and the police), people suffering from cancer having priority over those who desire a boob job and greater responsibility and pay restraint to be shown by the most wealthy…then you have my support.

P.S. Completely agree with MA about ‘harassing’ unscrupulous landlords.
Regarding the landlords one, media/pressure group efforts have resulted in the demonising of private landlords and the subsequent sniffing of a bit of electoral capital by the major parties (I think you'd refer to it as 'populism') which has resulted in a gradual (IMO over) balancing of the law in favour of tenants and further proposed tightening on the way. The impression often given is that ALL landlords are descendants of Rachman himself. I/we take that as a personal insult, but on a wider point, the driving out of private landlords (with only a single property and therefore waaaay higher gearing of risk of punitive taxation or rogue tenants that we do) serves only to increase rental costs as the pool of available properties decreases. The major parties are pushing the anti-landlord agenda either a) hoping the electorate are too dim to see the problem as it affects them or b) the major parties are too dim to see it themselves.