I’ve read @nearlylegal’s defence of Labour policy, which apparently he advised on. It’s odd. If you admit that who takes a haircut can be negotiated between government, tenants and landlords, why announce something now which presumes the renter pays the entire cost?

The assumption seems to be that it only becomes “unrealistic” to repay those debts if we are in lockdown for over a year. The criticism of the policy is that it’s already “unrealistic” if we want to avoid awful consequences - having heavily indebted renters in midst of recession.

The author makes a straw man of critics of the policy - suggesting they just want to announce a mass cancellation of rent. That’s not what we’re annoyed about. We are annoyed that the policy as announced puts *entire* burden on renters to pay for the crisis.

Full blogpost here -> https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2020/05/a-five-point-plan/

Perhaps @ThangamMP and @Keir_Starmer have hastily announced a policy on the basis of shaky advice? Or did they assume an extra £100 a month paid by renters over 2 years would be no big deal? Either would be worrying!