Labour warned by Generation Rent of alienating core voters without a rent freeze

I don’t think that anything Labour do about rents will have any major affect on their re-election chances. Only about 23% of the under 25’s are registered to vote, where as some 70% of over 55’s are. Labour have managed to hack off most over 55’s who are now a major section of the voting demographic.

It’s also worth reviewing the numbers behind their ‘landslide victory’ in 2024. Of the eligible 100%, 40% didn’t vote, 40% voted non Labour and only 20% voted for Labour. Due to very skilled tactical voting and the splitting of the ‘right wing vote’ by reform, that 20% managed to get some 62% fo the MPs. Those figures are HMG derived.

The demographic split of the non voting 40% is less clear, but it’s generally felt that 30% of them are over 55 years old, the very section that the Labour party have managed to hack off.

Quite right Tim Rogers. Nye Jones is wasting his time.

By the time Labour’s core voters realise how much damage the RRA has done, there won’t be many left of that already rapidly shrinking number.

‘“Each month, renters up and down the country continue to send a huge chunk of their income to a landlord who they may have never met’, as they do for their mobile, Netflix, the BBC, their car leasing company, their rent gives them the use of a proprerty worth hundreds of thousands on the strength of their deposit, it sounds extrordinarilly good value on that basis.

Do their figures include the big financial institutions who are buying up and/or building property to rent out on a massive scale? Are these the faceless landlords being referred to? Renters should be very fearful as there is little personal service from these, just rents significantly above what ordinary landlords are charging. Seems to me that Generation Rent will never be happy until all rents are free

Countries around the world successfully build social housing that provides high-quality accommodation. Given the massive demand in the UK, governments and local authorities should treat this like any other business: borrowing capital backed by the future rental yields they can achieve.

Rent caps – even the indirect versions currently proposed in the UK, where increases can be challenged in court but not retrospectively applied, stifle the incentive to invest in or develop new housing. We have seen the negative effects of this in various US cities, Argentina, and Berlin. While some of these regions have attempted to mitigate the damage by exempting new builds from caps, the overall deterrent remains.

I agree that housing is a fundamental right, much like food, energy, and transport. However, like those other essentials, it should be paid for by the consumer. If the government and ‘Generation Rent’ are up in arms over rising costs, the state should provide subsidies similar to the Energy Price Guarantee. Instead, the government finds it politically useful to demonise landlords, framing the issue as a bourgeoisie vs. proletariat dynamic to justify aggressive taxation on those with assets. What remains ignored by Labour and others is a serious discussion on what constitutes a ‘fair’ limit to such taxation.

Reply to the comment left by Richard AA at 17/12/2025 – 19:53
Difficult to decide what’s fair, but maybe something like a fixed percentage of profit (not yield), say, 10%. But that would need to be maintained through an annual rent increase to reflect a landlord’s increased costs. The profit level would need to be as good as the best return from investing in, say, a managed fund. Otherwise, why invest in BTL? I accept there would be added complexities, such as capital appreciation, but maybe it’s a start.

Private money is the only way in which any housing is going to be built in this country going forward.

If the ability to make profit/ROI is capped through universal rent increase embargoes, with the free market squashed through direct state intervention then the consequences are obvious.

Even Liebour know this will only cut their nose off to spite their face.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 18/12/2025 – 10:50
Unfortunately, Labour doesn’t know anything of any value to anyone.

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 17/12/2025 – 21:15
its not about ‘fairness’. That concept does not exist in a free market economy – it’s socialist ideology.

State housing provision and the private rental market are two separate identities. They provide for two different markets. There is no reason for them to compete against each other.

The problem is when the state is unable to meet demand and act accordingly. Then the private market becomes the only alternative, because of their lack of action. This highlights an imbalance, yes but is it ‘unfair’? No. The state has simply failed to do its job properly and keep it’s own house in order.

A socialist run state will seek to bear down on the private market – use it as the scapegoat – it is the enemy, so state intervention and control dominate. Investment in the private market then stalls, money is moved away, its too toxic.

Exactly where we are now….