Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
If duplication was the problem, why not say that, instead of saying that: The local government minister, Marcus Jones, said Pearce’s proposal would result in “unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords” that would deter further investment and push up rents for tenants.
Because there were further proposals that weren't regarded as necessary.

The amendment seems to be pointless fluff. Having read it I don't see what the benefits were, there was nothing noticeable that would improve tenants rights and would require landlords to change existing tenancy contracts in order to comply with legislation. Regulation for the sake of regulation is beneficial to lawyers, but I'm not really interested in making their lives better.

The Guardian's headline was deliberately misleading, which is unsurprising as their readership want to hear about the evil Tories. The Tories didn't reject a law to make landlords ensure homes are fit for human habitation, that law is already in place and has been since at least 1985 - it's like sayng I refused to buy you ice cream, when all I've done is said that the tub of Haagen Dasz you are currently eating is enough.