‘Outstanding Victory’ For Renters As No-Fault Evictions Are Abolished | HuffPost UK


Theresa May has announced plans to end “no-fault” evictions which are one of the biggest drivers of family homelessness, as part of a major shake-up of the private rented sector.

Private landlords will no longer be able to evict tenants at the end of their rental contracts without giving a good legal reason and long notice.

The prime minister said the move should give renters “peace of mind” as they will be able to effectively benefit from open ended tenancies rather than six or 12-month contracts.

The move was welcomed by Shelter as an “outstanding victory” for England’s 11 million private renters, although Labour warned the plan would not work if landlords are allowed to get around the rules by hiking rents and pricing tenants out of their homes.

But May said the proposals would give renters “long-term certainty” after consulting on new legislation to abolish Section 21 evictions, which allow landlords to uproot tenants with as little as eight weeks’ notice when their contract comes to an end.

Under the new system, landlords will instead have to provide a concrete, evidenced reason already specified in law for ending a tenancy.

May said: “Everyone renting in the private sector has the right to feel secure in their home, settled in their community and able to plan for the future with confidence.

“But millions of responsible tenants could still be uprooted by their landlord with little notice, and often little justification.

 

Source: ‘Outstanding Victory’ For Renters As No-Fault Evictions Are Abolished | HuffPost UK

A Brexit alternative for the Cabinet today | Conservative Home


Is the below mentioned a reasonable alternative, has suggested, what are your views?

61chrissterry


The Cabinet meets this morning.  Its members will wonder whether No Deal is now inevitable.  Perhaps the EU is now so set on carving up our country in any settlement that a collapse of the talks cannot be avoided.  But there is a potential escape route.

The EU’s support for the backstop is only one of many problems in the wider negotiation.  These cluster around the Prime Minister’s Chequers scheme, which was unequivocally rejected at Salzburg last month.  As the EU sees it, Chequers, with its core proposal to harmonise goods but not services with EU regulation, would breach the four freedoms of movement of goods, services capital, and workers; threaten the unity of its internal market, and potentially undercut EU27 businesses.

Were the backstop to be reduced to the onlydifficulty in the talks, it is possible to imagine that the EU would move to resolve it.

This is what would happen were Theresa May to take up a solution that the EU itself has offered – namely a Canada-style settlement.  Donald Tusk proposed it last spring.  “It should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement,” he wrote.  “I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced – and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently – but anyway it will only be a trade agreement.  I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services.”

 

Source: A Brexit alternative for the Cabinet today | Conservative Home

The EU is heading deeper into trouble, says FREDERICK FORSYTH | Frederick Forsyth | Columnists | Comment | Express.co.uk


If I were to offer you a sequence of numbers – two, four, six, eight, 10 – and then say, “Carry on”, you would probably suggest – 12, 14, 16 and so on. That is the direction of travel. With numbers it is easy because it is logical. Human behaviour is not logical but over a period consistent behaviour can give a trend. It even works in politics and more so in economics. Let us consider the EU.

Last week our Prime Minister was treated with utter contempt by the entire collegium of the leaders of the other 27 member nations. Frankly, this was largely her own fault. If you persist in bending over you may get a kicked rear end and she certainly did.

In quite a long life watching politics I have never seen a leader of our country so determined to seek out and take the most blithering advice, nor appoint idiots specifically to give it to her. Out in the lead of this troupe of bumblers is her closest adviser Mr Olly Robbins, though as he is a diehard Remainer it may be that is what his civil service colleagues wish.

It appears that he is the principal architect of the knock-kneed Chequers plan which has consistently flown like a wingless suet pudding. Yet still she goes on with it, despite the contempt of Brussels and the EU27. But lest we are all tempted just to cut our wrists and get it all over with, let us glance at the direction of travel.

 

Source: The EU is heading deeper into trouble, says FREDERICK FORSYTH | Frederick Forsyth | Columnists | Comment | Express.co.uk

EU will suffer if it fails to negotiate a Brexit deal – EXPRESS COMMENT | Express Comment | Comment | Express.co.uk


She also had every right to expect the EU negotiators to come back with something meaningful and they have failed to do so.

Instead, they have come up with the entirely ludicrous suggestion that we hold a second referendum while at the same time muttering darkly about a hard border in Ireland. Frankly, they need a reality check.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised about the call for a second referendum.

The EU has a history of forcing second referendums on countries until they get the result they want.

 

Source: EU will suffer if it fails to negotiate a Brexit deal – EXPRESS COMMENT | Express Comment | Comment | Express.co.uk

The arguments for and against Brexit are presented with an insulting show of certainty | Conservative Home


A week ago I made some intemperate remarks about the poverty of Theresa May’s language. Today I feel impelled to protest in equally strong terms at the insulting feebleness of the debate about Brexit.

Part of the trouble is that I have just been reading some of The Federalist Papers, the magisterial series of articles in which in 1787-88 James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay made the case for the new Federal Constitution of the United States, which had just been been drawn up in Philadelphia and now needed ratifying by the 13 states.

Between 1775 and 1783 the states had won, by force of arms, their independence from Great Britain, but they were now in danger of making a complete mess of self-government, with populists running riot in the state legislatures, printing paper money and undermining property rights, while the central government was so weak that men of sense feared a collapse into anarchy.

Hamilton himself said “a torrent of angry and malignant passions” had been let loose in the “great national discussion” about the Constitution. He wanted to rise above “the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives”, which he and his fellow authors proceeded to do.

We are by no means in the same situation now as the Americans were in the 1780s. We and our friends in Europe suppose we are in a less acute crisis, nor have we ever been united under the British crown, and then in opposition to George III and a Parliament which insisted on taxing us without representation.

But the referendum campaign and its aftermath have helped to arouse, or release, a torrent of angry and malignant passions, and no Madisons and Hamiltons have managed to rise above these passions by making, in lucid, rational and historically informed terms, the constitutional case for a Federal Europe.

 

Source: The arguments for and against Brexit are presented with an insulting show of certainty | Conservative Home

Beyond Burqas: The Issues Facing British Muslim Women We Should Really Be Talking About : Global Citizen


“I’m a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the niqab — and every day I have to plan ahead. ‘Am I going to be attacked today or am I going to be abused today?’” added Shamin, from the West Midlands. “But it’s my right to be wearing it.”

Under the hashtag #MyHijabMyChoice, women have been calling to be left to make their own, personal decision about whether or not they wear a veil, without the interference of politicians.

In total, there are around  2.7 million Muslim people in the UK. While there are no official estimates of the number of women who wear veils, it’sreportedly very few. In France, for example, which has a larger Muslim population than the UK, it’s no more than a couple of thousand women.

But this debate about burqas stretches significantly further. Against a background of Brexit, which has already divided the nation, it’s become about migration, integration, and Islamophobia — with some raising concerns that it has the potential to encourage violence.

 

Source: Beyond Burqas: The Issues Facing British Muslim Women We Should Really Be Talking About : Global Citizen

May’s Brexit plan raises UKIP from the dead | Conservative Home


Theresa May Mark One buried UKIP. Theresa May Mark Two is digging it up.  That is the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from today’s Opinium poll for the Observer, which shows Labour on 40 per cent, as last month, the Conservatives on 36 per cent, down six points, and UKIP on eight per cent, up five points.  The movement from the second to the third could scarcely be clearer.

That rise in support for what many will still think of, wrongly, as Nigel Farage’s party isn’t because of rebooted support for him.  Nor will voters be enamoured with the charms of Gerald Batten, of whom most of them will never have heard.  The driver of this result is plainly the Government’s new Brexit policy.

25 per cent of those polled approve of the way that the Prime Minister is handling Brexit, down from 30 per cent last month, while 56 per cent disapprove, up from 45 per cent last month.  Her net approval rating was minus eight per cent last month; it is 24 per cent this month.  The percentage of those who believe that Brexit is one of the most important issues facing the country is at its highest ever recorded by Opinium – 51 per cent this month (it was 42 per cent last month).  Overall, 32 per cent of those surveyed supported May’s Brexit plan and 31 per cent opposed it.

The EU referendum result killed UKIP.  After all, what was the point of supporting a party which aimed to make Britain independent once the British people had voted for precisely that?  The cause of Brexit was handed overnight to the governing party, which now had an instruction from the electorate to deliver it.  During the period between the referendum and last summer’s general election, Theresa May presented herself as the woman who would fulfil that mandate for “citizens of somewhere”: “Brexit means Brexit”.

Source: May’s Brexit plan raises UKIP from the dead | Conservative Home

May’s new Brexit plan. There is an alternative – from within the Government itself. | Conservative Home


The Cabinet was reportedly presented with a Treasury assessment of the impact of four outcomes to the Brexit talks: no deal, a Canadian-type deal, the EEA…and the Government’s own new scheme.  This itself should give pause for thought to the suggestion that, other than the EEA and no deal, there is no alternative to the plan agreed at Chequers.  It is a statement of the obvious that there will be as many of the last as there are people willing to propose them.

Far more to the point, however, there was one from within the Government itself – a proposal for it to seek “Canada Plus Plus Plus”, as David Davis once referred to it.  It is well known that DexEU was working on a draft of the White Paper that would outline this idea during the run-up to the Chequers meeting.  We are told that it went through some nine iterations.  The last ones were largely cuts for length.  None of them have been made public.  Until now.

Today, ConservativeHome publishes key extracts from a full draft of this White Paper.  They are not from one of the briefer final versions, but they set before our readers the main pillars of DexEU’s approach, which we are told were unchanged in any of those nine drafts.  As we write, we don’t have the advantage of also having seen the Government’s own White Paper, apparently to be published later, and thus the capacity to make comparisons between its text and that we publish today.

However, there will clearly be substantial overlap between the two – but, on the basis of the Government document published in the aftermath of Chequers, some key differences too.  A central one is the proposed regulatory treatment of manufactured goods.  In her Mansion House speech earlier this year, the Prime Minister referred in this context to “a comprehensive system of mutual recognition”.  She also set out in her Florence speech last year a three-basket approach to regulation.

“There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.  And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies,” she said.  This was the approach agreed at the Chequers mee

 

Source: May’s new Brexit plan. There is an alternative – from within the Government itself. | Conservative Home