Juvenal and The Guardian are right (again); Landlords first against the wall
have landlords always been evil, or is it a societal sickness borne of New Labour?
I’m the first to call for Landlords first against the wall, as The Guardian attempted to once again this week1. But it’s a tricky one for me personally, as my family are not only Tenants but Landlords too.
After years of reflection and reading, I believe that we need both Tenants and Landlords to keep the economy moving. Yet I also can’t always separate the personal from the political, particularly as a millennial who feels obliged to be political, owing to social media holding me accountable (a good thing ofc).
So let me say this; Landlords first against the wall, even if that includes my own pa.
Have Landlords always been evil?
I suspect Landlords have always been a bit shifty.
“Landlords…reassuring the tenants They can sleep secure, when all the time the building Is poised like a house of cards.”
— Juvenal circa c. AD 100–1272
Here lies the question that even satirists have failed to solve. Can you regulate the services rendered by the Landlord? Landlords were formerly (mildly), regulated under New Labour by those wasteful Quangos Osborne thankfully rid us of. And lest us forget, social housing providers, these days often private companies, are landlords (as in, they provide housing and charge rent) too.
As is often the case, this deregulation went largely unnoticed in the general discourse, probably because it only really affected poor people. I would suggest that we were not aware of the extent of the lack of regulation (or rather, consideration for human rights) within the social housing system, for instance, until Kwajo Tweneboa got on the case.
I’m not saying that prior to social media, the public didn’t care too much about the living conditions of those in social housing, nor am I suggesting a link between George Osborne’s fetish for fiscal responsibility, and young black boys dying due to rampant deregulation.
When it comes to Landlordism in Britain, I am reminded of RH Tawney’s musings;
“The idea that the institution of private property involves the right of the owner to use it, or refrain from using it, in such a way as he may please, and that its principal significance is to supply him with an income, irrespective of any duties which he may discharge, would not have been understood by most public men of that age, and, if understood, would have been repudiated with indignation by the more reputable among them.”3
I wonder what Tawney would say about the refrain of some of today’s “Landlords”.
Tawns of course is making a marked distinction between the feudal landlord, and the current middle class one. A distinction which, I fear, the Guardian, vis a vis, this “Mr Bano” and his law degree, failed to make.
For example. My pa (the Tenant), rents a number of properties. My pa (the Landlord), looks after the main family home. Under the old system, this meant employing people to work the land, and in return, he safeguards the estate for all its tenants. He doesn’t get paid to do this. As Tawney put it so eloquently, the arrangement does not exist merely to “supply him with an income”. Besides, I wouldn’t even really consider him a Landlord. He is the custodian, not the owner, of the property and its tenants.
If only more Landlords saw this as their role, rather than the chance to make a quick buck. I mean, my pa would certainly not regulate his tenants’ thermostats.
Dragons Den: heating as a luxury add-on
It’s not just the Guardian who’s been having a pop at Landlords this week, avid viewers of Dragon’s Den have been too. I would link to the Daily Fail article about this but my principles won’t allow me.
So allow me to lend my own commentary. I do too tune into Dragon’s Den from time to time, mainly because I like to laugh when it goes horribly wrong. There’s many I adore; but the confident woman who started having a go at her Spanish suppliers, is a highlight.4
But the other week, the pitch didn’t make me laugh, quite the opposite. I mean, I thought The Dragons were meant to be about growing economies; not making already rich Landlords richer, whilst potentially freezing their Tenants in the process. It’s okay though, this chap was only really talking about students living in HMOs.
Of course there’s no financial benefit to the Tenant for such things. But young people these days are famously frugal because they have high hopes of getting on the property ladder, while most Landlords are of course famously lavish. So, perhaps it’s a good thing that such ideas will profit the Landlord further, so they can invest all that extra income in more properties-to-let, to get the economy going again. Plus it may even reverse climate change, as British students do really leave their radiators on high.
(In case you can’t pass Auntie’s strict TV licence payee vetting, here’s the jist of the pitch; apparently as a Tenant, you can only enjoy the temperature you like for two-hours max. After that the Landlord can lower the temperature, and all because one day, this guy was visiting one of his many HMOs and found that despite the tenants being out, the heating was on full blast and all the windows were open).
FBPE-er Deborah Meaden’s eyes lit up. Apparently she has a number of “holiday-let” units. (Is it just me that thinks “housing units” is a tad command and control?) But hang on, I thought she was a genius girl boss with loads of great plans to reverse climate change, where was her suggestion that perhaps Landlords offer to freeze their tenants to death, so there will be less people on the planet to heat?
Offering no girl boss mentoring, Debbie is out, while Sara Davies is out with some quick wit about how the tech is too complicated for her small lady brain. Everyone else either does not have the required “passion” for making tenants cold, or simply think the market is already saturated with enough devices attempting to rebrand heating as a luxury.
Algorithims (or as I like to call them, Lovelaces)
I clearly spend time on social media. I wouldn’t say I am an addict, but I would say that I am verging on spending too much time on it. I obviously click on a lot of videos that tell me Landlords are scum.
But, recently, I was advertised this. And because I clicked on it, I keep seeing these adverts everywhere. Turns out these computers aren’t so clever. I despise “To-Let” culture (no I’m not referring to Galsworthy) - and yes I want to burn these middle-class Landlords to the ground.
My favourite thing from “Houst” was this;
“Short-term guests are careful to take better care of properties than long-term tenants. Regular cleaning means any potential issues are quickly spotted and solved before they're able to worsen. If necessary, we can help organise maintenance at competitive prices.”
Tawney reflected 100 years ago on the sacred duty of property owners. Today, those of us lucky enough to have a place called home, are being advertised opportunities for “Effortless Property Management”.
“For what indeed should the fruits of our labour be, if there is no labour?” as pa so eloquently put it the other night.5
I have told Meta, (and my followers), that I do not wish to profiteer from my empty property on the weekends I am at the family home/ on retreat.
But I fear Mr Zuckerberg will not heed my request. And thus there is nothing left to be done but to keep clicking on the links because I am so revolted by it all. The doom-scrolling has taken on a whole new twist.
I’m not linking to the article, it is a load of rubbish according to Twitter.
Juvenal Satire III
The Acquisitive Society, by RH Tawney.
or rather, in an email to me after reading a third draft of this piece.