Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 07:28:38
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
People trat London houses like a bank and buy whole blocks they never use at times.
Its considered a dorm of banking by some its that's reliable of late.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
This is though largely a London problem. House prices are not doing this in the rest of the country. And the weak pound is helping many in manufacturing and production. I've two businesses one producing solely for export and one producing for the home market although 90% of the produce from it goes to the south of England. The export business hasn't been better in years. Expecting a good summer if it falls further. I've already employed more this year, although that was a lot to do with the expected fall in corporation tax which might not happen now, so they might not be here very long.
The shambles is London, the inequality is a London problem. Not exclusively but it's so gross in London its bound to cause problems. Hopefully London greed won't infect the nation.
On house prices, i rent out a bungalow, around 1000sq ft, with large garden, garage and workshop close to train stations and around 9 miles from city centre for £650. And that's feels expensive! I wonder at the couple in it why they don't buy somewhere at that money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 08:33:25
Jadenim wrote: I read an article recently (can't remember where unfortunately) where they'd done some studies on why societies had collapsed in the past (Roman empire, imperial Russia, etc.); inequality was a major factor.
If you concentrate all of the wealth with a few percent, it doesn't circulate and you end up with a vast majority who don't see any reward for their labour, which eventually leads to collapse. At best the masses just stop working, because it doesn't gain them anything anymore, at worst you end up with full on violent conflict (revolution or civil war).
As far as I can see, economics is sort of a shared dillusion; if everyone believes it works, it does. If people don't in large numbers, the whole thing comes down around your ears...
I agree. Something has went horribly wrong in Britain when working people, doing 40+ hours a week, can't afford to keep a roof over their heads without government help.
Knockagh wrote: Folks I know little about London politics, but it's abundantly clear that London has deep deep problems. Problems that exist all over but are massively exaggerated in London.
NI has its issues but I will take them any day over Londons issues. I'm no socialist but 2k a month for a small high rise flat? Houses for sale in the 10s of millions. It's obscene.
The more I look at the current mess in UK politics the more it looks like inequality in London is the main issue. It's just not sustainable.
2k a Month.. For 2 beds, n a old tower block.
Out in the shires North you can get a 3-4 bed house for maybe 700 a month.
2 grand would get you a rather nice property
.and for the wages many of these people work for, they could be significantly better off if they got a similar job outside of the South, but many fear taking that step, or just think there's no jobs and everywhere else is some sort of backwater wasteland.
I watched a documentary about the housing issue in London, and the real fear was apparent on the faces of those being told they were being housed outside the capital. One family were rehomed in High-Wycombe, not a bad place to live as it happens, and they fought and cried as if they were being condemned to a circle of hell. The father only had a part time job in a convenience store in London, and he was concerned he'd have to commute in! Never occurred that he could pick up an equally gak job just as easy in High-Wycombe.
London has long had the problem of foreign spivs and speculators using their dirty money to buy London property and drive up housing prices. Thanks to the weak pound, this problem is only going to get worse.
What a shambles
This is though largely a London problem. House prices are not doing this in the rest of the country. And the weak pound is helping many in manufacturing and production. I've two businesses one producing solely for export and one producing for the home market although 90% of the produce from it goes to the south of England. The export business hasn't been better in years. Expecting a good summer if it falls further. I've already employed more this year, although that was a lot to do with the expected fall in corporation tax which might not happen now, so they might not be here very long.
The shambles is London, the inequality is a London problem. Not exclusively but it's so gross in London its bound to cause problems. Hopefully London greed won't infect the nation.
On house prices, i rent out a bungalow, around 1000sq ft, with large garden, garage and workshop close to train stations and around 9 miles from city centre for £650. And that's feels expensive! I wonder at the couple in it why they don't buy somewhere at that money.
The problem is starting to go beyond London. People who sell up in London, or who have not nearly enough for a London house (but still more than the national average) are starting to snap up property in Birmingham and Manchester etc etc
This has the knock on effect of pricing out locals in those cities. So even when people are escaping London, they're causing new problems elsewhere...
I work in London, but live in Kent and commute via coach.
My rent for my flat is a remarkably cheap £775 for two bedrooms. Even with my commute of around £220 a month, it's cheaper than renting in London.
So whilst prices here aren't as insane as London (God that bubble has to burst), they're still massively inflated because it's in the commuting zone.
Yeah, I may have to go to London this year. Can't say I'm looking forward to having to pay a fiver for a Mars Bar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 09:08:47
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I work in London, but live in Kent and commute via coach.
My rent for my flat is a remarkably cheap £775 for two bedrooms. Even with my commute of around £220 a month, it's cheaper than renting in London.
So whilst prices here aren't as insane as London (God that bubble has to burst), they're still massively inflated because it's in the commuting zone.
Yeah, I may have to go to London this year. Can't say I'm looking forward to having to pay a fiver for a Mars Bar.
Yes this is the problem with London. It is particularly prevalent where there are direct links to London. So it stretches even to places you wouldn't necessarily expect simply because they are on a direct trainline to London. The problem is that the wages in these areas aren't enough to keep up with London wages so things like house prices escalate to the point where people working in the local community just can't compete and get 'forced' out of an area they may have grew up in (and still work in) simply because of the London effect.
This is also before you start thinking about the effect of second homes that the well paid Londoners can afford. It is much easier to perhaps rent/buy a small property near London and then buy a larger second weekend/holiday home somewhere else in the country because the prices are so much lower. This again forces people out of a local area because they simply can't compete (for example in Rutland).
The problem we now have is how you solve this without generating massive social problems with issues like negative equity for those that are in the outskirts of London. To start you'd need to remove the incentive of London central housing becoming a type of banking system but I doubt the Tories will ever introduce such a scheme (as many are likely to be invested in this type of 'banking' system).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 10:06:09
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I work in London, but live in Kent and commute via coach.
My rent for my flat is a remarkably cheap £775 for two bedrooms. Even with my commute of around £220 a month, it's cheaper than renting in London.
So whilst prices here aren't as insane as London (God that bubble has to burst), they're still massively inflated because it's in the commuting zone.
Yeah, I may have to go to London this year. Can't say I'm looking forward to having to pay a fiver for a Mars Bar.
Yes this is the problem with London. It is particularly prevalent where there are direct links to London. So it stretches even to places you wouldn't necessarily expect simply because they are on a direct trainline to London. The problem is that the wages in these areas aren't enough to keep up with London wages so things like house prices escalate to the point where people working in the local community just can't compete and get 'forced' out of an area they may have grew up in (and still work in) simply because of the London effect.
This is also before you start thinking about the effect of second homes that the well paid Londoners can afford. It is much easier to perhaps rent/buy a small property near London and then buy a larger second weekend/holiday home somewhere else in the country because the prices are so much lower. This again forces people out of a local area because they simply can't compete (for example in Rutland).
The problem we now have is how you solve this without generating massive social problems with issues like negative equity for those that are in the outskirts of London. To start you'd need to remove the incentive of London central housing becoming a type of banking system but I doubt the Tories will ever introduce such a scheme (as many are likely to be invested in this type of 'banking' system).
What the feth happened to the Northern powerhouse as a counter-weight to London? That scheme seems to have died on its rear...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 09:59:00
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Sounding utterly cold hearted, but we can't let the prospect of some ending up in negative equity stop up from fixing the housing market.
As someone who's watched house prices spiral wildly out of control pretty much his entire adult life, I say anyone trying to join that market is the author of their own demise.
I mean, when you know the house you're buying is wildly overcosted, why are you buying it? If you've not paid heed to the very real threat of negative equity, you've got no right to complain about it.
I dunno. When it comes to house prices and mortgages, people seem to make decisions as if they were drunk. Always the same pattern 'prices only go up, so it's worth the struggle'. As a society we seem incapable of looking at the past and the effects of previous housing crashes.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I mean, when you know the house you're buying is wildly overcosted, why are you buying it?
Decades of being told that real people own houses.
I remember back in the 1980s of a few lone voices that warned Thatcher that Britain would be in trouble 30 years down the line with her housing policy, but sadly, their voices were not heeded.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
The issue of social housing inside zones 1-3 of London is a difficult one. On one hand, you have the desire to keep families and communities low down on the social/financial scale in relative comfort. And on the other, you have reality.
That reality is that there is a limited square footage of space within Central London. And it's the brick wall which attempts to achieve the former goal consistently run up against. You hear lots of stuff about the 'evil Tory' councillors conspiring with private businessmen to sell up council owned property and roll in the cash, but it's usually rubbish for the most part. As is easily demonstrated by the fact that all the Labour and Lib Dem councils are in the exactly the same position, and many, if not most of them, opt for the same actions.
Those sitting in the central London wards are faced with an irresolvable problem which derives from a number of issues. Those issues being:-
1) Property in London is at a premium, and likely always will be. Even if there was a housing crisis, it would still cost more there than anywhere else in the country. That means acquiring large new plots is beyond the financial capability of most councils.
2) Population levels are always going up, leaving them more and more people who potentially need social housing; especially as government cuts have kicked in.
3) Many refugees who travel to the UK without knowing a huge amount about it head for Central London instinctively as the prime place for employment. Once here, they draw upon local resources using the mechanisms established for that purpose. But that naturally results in further strain on council housing resources in those central areas.
4) Building restrictions, whilst occasionally loose (always a few dodgy ones...) are generally in place to prevent too many high rises. This restricts how many stories up you can build.
5) Much council housing built from the post-war period through to the 1970's was made of poor materials which is now unfit for purpose. That means that they're mouldering away and desperately in need of replacing, but there's nowhere to move the tenants to, and no money to rebuild even if there was.
Combine it all together, and you have one almighty headache, one which there's no easy solution to. Except one. The much maligned helping hand of the private property sector. As things stand, there's a legal obligation in any one of the new luxury high rises to allocate a certain amount of it as being either for social/affordable housing. With property prices standing as high as they are, speculators/investors in the property market have a lot of money to throw around. Their only problem is the acquisition of the land itself, which the council is in possession of much of. So they usually try to make a deal with the council.
What they offer to do is take that mouldering cadaver of a 1960's concrete tower block (or a batch of them), knock 'em down, and build luxury flats for a large wad of wonga. What's more, on top of that they offer to replace the council homes lost and even build a few new ones. The catch is that they'll normally build those new homes somewhere else, usually just outside of Zone 6 (where the land is much cheaper), leaving those lovely new luxury flats free of complications. If they can'[t get the council to agree to that, they usually compress them into separate buildings partitioned off from the rest of the new builds (with a corresponding reduction in square footage for the council homes).
Oval Quarter saw 477 deteriorating council homes replaced, but with the addition of another 503 homes on the same site for private sale, all the private gardens and park space of the older homes was lost.
That leaves the council in a bind. On one hand, if they accept the offer, they get more desperately required homes than ever before for those in need, along with a cheque which can help meet running expenses on public services for a period of time.
On the other hand, they make themselves the whipping boy for anyone with a hard-on for decrying the evil nature of capitalism, and the more concrete objection that they're helping to engage in the social cleansing of London by putting all the poor people outside it.
It's really quite a no-win situation. A lot of councils prioritise getting the extra housing for those in need whilst walking a tightrope with trying to not to sell too much property . But even that's proven insufficient to meet the huge demand for social housing. The result is that under the 2011 Localism Act, councils have been allowed to offer those on the list private housing instead of council. Inevitably though, they select property outside the local borough (because it is cheaper to rent). If the would be tenant turns it down, the council has discharged its obligation. Again, this throws them open to accusations of destruction of communities, etc.
Ultimately what it comes down to, is whether the priority is to offer a larger quantity of social housing at a cheaper price, or to offer those in need a choice about where they feel like living.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/06/17 11:01:56
If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.
It's worse than that. Was watching that Adam Curtis documentary about new build homes, and a lot of them are nothing more than sacks of gak. The build quality and the materials are gak poor. Some of those house are falling to bits 20 years after being built
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: The issue of social housing inside zones 1-3 of London is a difficult one. On one hand, you have the desire to keep families and communities low down on the social/financial scale in relative comfort. And on the other, you have reality.
That reality is that there is a limited square footage of space within Central London. And it's the brick wall which attempts to achieve the former goal consistently run up against. You hear lots of stuff about the 'evil Tory' councillors conspiring with private businessmen to sell up council owned property and roll in the cash, but it's usually rubbish for the most part. As is easily demonstrated by the fact that all the Labour and Lib Dem councils are in the exactly the same position, and many, if not most of them, opt for the same actions.
Those sitting in the central London wards are faced with an irresolvable problem which derives from a number of issues. Those issues being:-
1) Property in London is at a premium, and likely always will be. Even if there was a housing crisis, it would still cost more there than anywhere else in the country. That means acquiring large new plots is beyond the financial capability of most councils.
2) Population levels are always going up, leaving them more and more people who potentially need social housing; especially as government cuts have kicked in.
3) Many refugees who travel to the UK without knowing a huge amount about it head for Central London instinctively as the prime place for employment. Once here, they draw upon local resources using the mechanisms established for that purpose. But that naturally results in further strain on council housing resources in those central areas.
4) Building restrictions, whilst occasionally loose (always a few dodgy ones...) are generally in place to prevent too many high rises. This restricts how many stories up you can build.
5) Much council housing built from the post-war period through to the 1970's was made of poor materials which is now unfit for purpose. That means that they're mouldering away and desperately in need of replacing, but there's nowhere to move the tenants to, and no money to rebuild even if there was.
Combine it all together, and you have one almighty headache, one which there's no easy solution to. Except one. The much maligned helping hand of the private property sector. As things stand, there's a legal obligation in any one of the new luxury high rises to allocate a certain amount of it as being either for social/affordable housing. With property prices standing as high as they are, speculators/investors in the property market have a lot of money to throw around. Their only problem is the acquisition of the land itself, which the council is in possession of much of. So they usually try to make a deal with the council.
What they offer to do is take that mouldering cadaver of a 1960's concrete tower block (or a batch of them), knock 'em down, and build luxury flats for a large wad of wonga. What's more, on top of that they offer to replace the council homes lost and even build a few new ones. The catch is that they'll build those new homes somewhere else, usually just outside of Zone 6 (where the land is much cheaper), leaving those lovely new luxury flats free of complications.
That leaves the council in a bind. On one hand, if they accept the offer, they get more desperately required homes than ever before for those in need, along with a cheque which can help meet running expenses on public services for a period of time.
On the other hand, they make themselves the whipping boy for anyone with a hard-on for decrying the evil nature of capitalism, and the more concrete objection that they're helping to engage in the social cleansing of London by putting all the poor people outside it.
It's really quite a no-win situation. A lot of councils prioritise getting the extra housing for those in need whilst walking a tightrope with trying to not to sell too much property . But even that's proven insufficient to meet the huge demand for social housing. The result is that under the 2011 Localism Act, councils have been allowed to offer those on the list private housing instead of council. Inevitably though, they select property outside the local borough (because it is cheaper to rent). If the would be tenant turns it down, the council has discharged its obligation. Again, this throws them open to accusations of destruction of communities, etc.
Ultimately what it comes down to, is whether the priority is to offer a larger quantity of social housing at a cheaper price, or to offer those in need a choice about where they feel like living.
Foreign spivs and speculators are not helping. London is awash with dirty money, and a lot of it is being funnelled into housing. Blocks of luxury fats, foreign owned, are sitting empty for months on end. The government could step in and fix this.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Clamp down on Buy to Let. Hit the greed of landlords with a tax, matched with rent controls.
Right now, Buy to Let is far too safe an option. All you need is your deposit, the rent will cover the mortgage repayments. And you can use a previous Buy to Let as the security.
There's pretty much no downside - especially for fans of subdividing, who can churn out absolute shoe boxes to maximise their greed.
And at any point, you can bail - turf out your tenants, sell up and cash in on the increased 'value' of the property.
Hell, you can even jack up your rent because reasons. Some poor sap is going to pay it, and that can include the tax payer.
We need rent controls. We need to stop Buy to Let being a no-brainier.
But right now, those who could introduce such things have their snouts well and truly in the troughs. So they've got a massive conflict of interest.
I can only hope Brexit wrecks the economy enough that the house price bubble permanently pops. I'd love to see the greediest in society hit the skids.
And as I've said before, there's worse to come.
Baby Boomers seem to be fans of Buy to Let. And it's sadly not long until that generation start passing away in droves. And all those properties could cause significant death taxes - which will likely need funding by the selling of the portfolio. Get enough of that situation in a short period of time, and we might see the bubble burst.
And if there's another recession, those least able to afford their mortgages have been cancelling their Mortgage PPI because of the media focus on it. So if/when we see a downturn in the economy, and people start getting laid off, that's an awful lot of arses in the breeze. And that means the risk of mass repossessions causing a further downward spiral.
And all because idiots willingly buy massively overpriced houses.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Clamp down on Buy to Let. Hit the greed of landlords with a tax, matched with rent controls.
Right now, Buy to Let is far too safe an option. All you need is your deposit, the rent will cover the mortgage repayments. And you can use a previous Buy to Let as the security.
There's pretty much no downside - especially for fans of subdividing, who can churn out absolute shoe boxes to maximise their greed.
And at any point, you can bail - turf out your tenants, sell up and cash in on the increased 'value' of the property.
Hell, you can even jack up your rent because reasons. Some poor sap is going to pay it, and that can include the tax payer.
We need rent controls. We need to stop Buy to Let being a no-brainier.
But right now, those who could introduce such things have their snouts well and truly in the troughs. So they've got a massive conflict of interest.
I can only hope Brexit wrecks the economy enough that the house price bubble permanently pops. I'd love to see the greediest in society hit the skids.
And as I've said before, there's worse to come.
Baby Boomers seem to be fans of Buy to Let. And it's sadly not long until that generation start passing away in droves. And all those properties could cause significant death taxes - which will likely need funding by the selling of the portfolio. Get enough of that situation in a short period of time, and we might see the bubble burst.
And if there's another recession, those least able to afford their mortgages have been cancelling their Mortgage PPI because of the media focus on it. So if/when we see a downturn in the economy, and people start getting laid off, that's an awful lot of arses in the breeze. And that means the risk of mass repossessions causing a further downward spiral.
And all because idiots willingly buy massively overpriced houses.
Good points
It may not be popular in some parts, but I believe a progressive land tax could help to fix the housing crisis as well.
Sadly, as you say, too many snouts in the trough.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Clamp down on Buy to Let. Hit the greed of landlords with a tax, matched with rent controls.
Right now, Buy to Let is far too safe an option. All you need is your deposit, the rent will cover the mortgage repayments. And you can use a previous Buy to Let as the security.
There's pretty much no downside - especially for fans of subdividing, who can churn out absolute shoe boxes to maximise their greed.
And at any point, you can bail - turf out your tenants, sell up and cash in on the increased 'value' of the property.
Hell, you can even jack up your rent because reasons. Some poor sap is going to pay it, and that can include the tax payer.
We need rent controls. We need to stop Buy to Let being a no-brainier.
But right now, those who could introduce such things have their snouts well and truly in the troughs. So they've got a massive conflict of interest.
I can only hope Brexit wrecks the economy enough that the house price bubble permanently pops. I'd love to see the greediest in society hit the skids.
And as I've said before, there's worse to come.
Baby Boomers seem to be fans of Buy to Let. And it's sadly not long until that generation start passing away in droves. And all those properties could cause significant death taxes - which will likely need funding by the selling of the portfolio. Get enough of that situation in a short period of time, and we might see the bubble burst.
And if there's another recession, those least able to afford their mortgages have been cancelling their Mortgage PPI because of the media focus on it. So if/when we see a downturn in the economy, and people start getting laid off, that's an awful lot of arses in the breeze. And that means the risk of mass repossessions causing a further downward spiral.
And all because idiots willingly buy massively overpriced houses.
Large increased taxation on property acquisition and inheritances combined with rent controls? Yes, because with Brexit going on and growth barely above stagnant, what we really need is to throw ourselves headfirst into a recession in the name of getting people a slightly better choice on where to live.
If you honestly regard that as a 'win' situation, all I can say is that your view of the world is exceptionally different to mine. It's using a nuke to crack a nut - you might achieve the intended goal, but Jesus, was the devastation worth it?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/17 11:16:56
'There's guaranteed to be a recession at some point anyway, so we might as well be the ones to instigate it'.
I'm sorry, but I repeat. Your view of 'win' and mine are very different. When all those people are in the street queueing for benefits because they lost their jobs due to you deliberately crashing the economy (and hard), I'm not convinced they'll be in a hurry to come thank you for your efforts.
But that's always the way with more extreme socialism I suppose. The little man doesn't actually matter to the socialist visionary, anymore than he does to the fat cat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/17 11:21:21
Ketara wrote: 'There's guaranteed to be a recession at some point anyway, so we might as well be the ones to instigate it'.
I'm sorry, but I repeat. Your view of 'win' and mine are very different. When all those people are in the street queueing for benefits because they lost their jobs due to you deliberately crashing the economy (and hard), I'm not convinced they'll be in a hurry to come thank you for your efforts.
But that's always the way with more extreme socialism I suppose. The little man doesn't actually matter to the socialist visionary, anymore than he does to the fat cat.
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
As I've said many a time, Brexit gives us the chance to take a long hard look at the deep rooted structural problems of Britain's economy and actually do something about them.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
" The British Government has still not sent papers outlining its opening position for Brexit talks to the European Union, despite negotiations beginning on Monday.
EU sources told The Independent Brussels had sent its “positioning papers” to London four days ago and while similar documents were expected in return, nothing has arrived as Theresa May’s administration struggles to get on its feet.
Brexit Secretary David Davis confirmed on Thursday that talks to pull Britain out of the EU will begin on Monday regardless, despite cabinet splits over how to approach them and Ms May’s withdrawal plans not even being cemented in a Queen’s Speech.
Chancellor Philip Hammond cancelled a speaking event in which he was expected to signal new softer Brexit proposals focusing on jobs, amid fears it might spark an internal row with other Tories demanding Ms May stick to her immigration-centred approach.
It came as the Prime Minister confirmed that a Queen’s Speech would go ahead, but only on 21 June – two days later than originally planned.
It is still unclear if she has locked in the support of the Northern Irish DUP to prop her up in the House of Commons and give her the majority she needs to pass a vote approving the agenda set out in the Queen’s Speech.
Conservatives signalled that talks with the unionists could even continue beyond the start of Brexit talks and the Queen’s Speech, as Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams warned that any deal struck could breach the Good Friday Agreement that br
On Monday this week, the EU sent to London its positioning papers, officially outlining its negotiating stance ahead of talks, and had expected similar documents to come back in good time before discussions begin.
But with the EU’s papers arriving as Ms May staved off a cabinet coup, convinced backbenchers to support her and held talks about realigning Brexit plans, nothing had been sent back to Brussels by Thursday night.
One source across the Channel said it was “unbelievable” that the UK had still not sent the “basic” papers for the start of negotiations, with just over three days left before they begin.
They added: “The talks are beginning on Monday. There are no positioning papers yet. It’s a basic thing that should happen beforehand. It doesn’t bode well.”
The Department for Exiting the EU refused to comment. But officials in both Britain and the EU have confirmed that the first round of talks that will eventually see Britain leave the EU will start on Monday 19 June.
In a joint statement issued today, officials said: “Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s Chief Negotiator and David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, agreed today to launch Article 50 negotiations.”
But it means the talks will go ahead while the different factions of the Tory party are still wrestling over how they should be conducted.
Mr Hammond and Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson are pushing for a more open approach that puts the economy and jobs ahead of immigration.
The Chancellor’s annual Mansion House speech, due on Thursday but cancelled in the wake of the Grenfell House fire, was to be a key moment setting it out.
Lib Dem Sir Vince Cable branded it “farcical” that the speech due to outline a softer Brexit had been cancelled, taking to Twitter to slam what he called the Conservatives’ “brexitshambles”.
Meanwhile, Leave-backing ministers, including International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, were reported to be ready to quit if Ms May abandoned her tough approach in the face of pressure from Mr Hammond and others.
Ms May is also yet to have her legislative agenda – including her Brexit plans – confirmed in a Queen’s Speech, with the state opening of Parliament not taking place until 21 June and a vote to enshrine the agenda in law a week later.
She is unlikely to win the vote without the support of the DUP’s MPs. Tory sources said they were confident they would gain it, as the negotiations with the Irish unionists on a “confidence and supply” deal were “progressing”, though not finalised.
Sinn Fein's Mr Adams left talks at Downing Street to tell reporters that he had informed Ms May her dealings with the DUP put her in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Adams, president of Sinn Fein, said: “We told her very directly that she was in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, and we itemised those matters in which she was in default in relation to that agreement.”"
..awesome
an administration summed up in one youtube clip.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
But..none of that has much to do with the issues of social housing in Central London particularly.
I mean, they're tangentially related I suppose, but every capital city in every (non-communist) country in the world has the issue of housing being more expensive there. The core of the problem is basic supply and demand economics. Too many people want to live there, and there isn't enough housing for it. Whilst we remain unwilling to build too high and council budgets are too restricted to undertake large scale construction on their own, there's going to be pressure on social housing.
Even the (extreme) measures described in Grotsnik's post would only partially alleviate that fact, despite the collateral damage. Income would drop along with the correlating decrease in rent, and all the properties owned by businesses would dodge around any issues on inheritance tax.
The price of property being high is only a single factor in several affecting this issue. I'm sorry, but there really is no easy fix on this one. If there was, they'd have taken it by now!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/17 11:32:15
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
But..none of that has much to do with the issues of social housing in Central London particularly.
I mean, they're tangentially related I suppose, but every capital city in every (non-communist) country in the world has the issue of housing being more expensive there. The core of the problem is basic supply and demand economics. Too many people want to live there, and there isn't enough housing for it. Whilst we remain unwilling to build too high and council budgets are too restricted to undertake large scale construction on their own, there's going to be pressure on social housing.
Even the (extreme) measures described in Grotsnik's post would only partially alleviate that fact, despite the collateral damage. Income would drop along with the correlating decrease in rent, and all the properties owned by businesses would dodge around any issues on inheritance tax.
The price of property being high is only a single factor in several affecting this issue. I'm sorry, but there really is no easy fix on this one. If there was, they'd have taken it by now!
Land tax. That's the solution. Even Churchill thought so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 11:36:05
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Churchill thought many things in his private papers. Many of them were thoroughly bad ideas.
Assuming you raise the cost of purchasing land so high that nobody wants to buy it, what then? There's still no money to rebuild the (rapidly) deteriorating council properties, heck, with the recession that will spark, they'll have even less money than they had before. Making it more expensive to buy property doesn't somehow magic up additional council housing, and given we're the capital city and the population keeps going up, we'll still need more of it. So what next? The problem still hasn't been solved.
Churchill thought many things in his private papers. Many of them were thoroughly bad ideas.
Assuming you raise the cost of purchasing land so high that nobody wants to buy it, what then? There's still no money to rebuild the (rapidly) deteriorating council properties, heck, with the recession that will spark, they'll have even less money than they had before. Making it more expensive to buy property doesn't somehow magic up additional council housing, and given we're the capital city and the population keeps going up, we'll still need more of it. So what next? The problem still hasn't been solved.
A four pronged solution is required. Yes, it won't be easy, and yes, it won't happen overnight, but I would do the following:
1.Full steam ahead with the Northern Powerhouse as a counter-weight to London and the South-East
2.Take the shackles off councils and let them build council houses like what they used to do
3. Progressive land tax
4. Crack down on these buy to let parasites amassing huge empires, which are often funded by housing benefit paid for by the tax payer.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: 'There's guaranteed to be a recession at some point anyway, so we might as well be the ones to instigate it'.
I'm sorry, but I repeat. Your view of 'win' and mine are very different. When all those people are in the street queueing for benefits because they lost their jobs due to you deliberately crashing the economy (and hard), I'm not convinced they'll be in a hurry to come thank you for your efforts.
But that's always the way with more extreme socialism I suppose. The little man doesn't actually matter to the socialist visionary, anymore than he does to the fat cat.
The blame for this sorry mess should be placed at the door of our political class, who, for more than 30+ years, put this country's future into the hands of property booms, and rogues in the city of London creating money from thin air. It was never going to last.
As I've said many a time, Brexit gives us the chance to take a long hard look at the deep rooted structural problems of Britain's economy and actually do something about them.
Pretty much this.
Every recession, we simply find ways to return to the very situation that caused the last recession.
And when it happens again, it's always those with the least that lose out, whilst the wealthy continue to exploit the situation.
It is not extreme socialism, or even socialism, to see the current way things work is ponk and deeply unfair, entirely weighted toward keeping the rich in their comforts.
To quote Call Me Dave, we can't go on like this.
At least now we have a politician leading a party against this institutional unfairness. And when May inevitably calls yet another snap election, or one is forced upon her, we could well see Labour in power.
Will it be perfect? No. I'm an optimist, not an idealist. But we've got precisely sod all to lose from a change of political pace. That of the past 30+ years has failed the country miserably. Or do you think it's reasonable that the Government pays a top-up benefit for those in work?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Simple answer to buy to let? Universal assured tenancy with long minimum lets with easy exit for tenants but very hard for landlords and universal decent housing standards. No need to introduce rent control, no need to directly attacking buy to let. Just make it so that landlords can no longer have new tenants every 12 months to keep bumping up rent massively, throw tenants out just because they want their cash out, or leave people living in modern day slums.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Combine it all together, and you have one almighty headache, one which there's no easy solution to. Except one. The much maligned helping hand of the private property sector. As things stand, there's a legal obligation in any one of the new luxury high rises to allocate a certain amount of it as being either for social/affordable housing. With property prices standing as high as they are, speculators/investors in the property market have a lot of money to throw around. Their only problem is the acquisition of the land itself, which the council is in possession of much of. So they usually try to make a deal with the council.
Unfortunately though the government changed the rules on affordable housing. Developers can now pay (legally, this isn't a type of fraud) to remove their obligations on affordable housing. With councils that are cash poor, (especially capital wise) many are taking this option and allowing developers not to build affordable housing. At least in my area, that money from one area is then being pumped into other areas that with more councillors to develop relatively superfluous things like swimming pools (noting that there was already one it was just a bit old). The area that money came from though gets nothing apart from more (non-affordable housing). It would not be a surprise if this is now happening elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: Simple answer to buy to let? Universal assured tenancy with long minimum lets with easy exit for tenants but very hard for landlords and universal decent housing standards. No need to introduce rent control, no need to directly attacking buy to let. Just make it so that landlords can no longer have new tenants every 12 months to keep bumping up rent massively, throw tenants out just because they want their cash out, or leave people living in modern day slums.
The short term agreements is also why people want to have their own home. As long as you pay the mortgage you have control of the property and don't have to worry that tomorrow you might have to worry about finding somewhere else to live in an area you don't want to (for example because it means disruption for your children etc).
However don't expect the Tories to want to implement this. Almost 50% of them are landlords anyway. You only have to look at the relatively recent vote to ensure that all owners had to make sure all rented properties were fit for human habitation. 312 Tories voted against, 0 Labour or LDs did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 12:52:00
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Unfortunately though the government changed the rules on affordable housing. Developers can now pay (legally, this isn't a type of fraud) to remove their obligations on affordable housing. With councils that are cash poor, (especially capital wise) many are taking this option and allowing developers not to build affordable housing. At least in my area, that money from one area is then being pumped into other areas that with more councillors to develop relatively superfluous things like swimming pools (noting that there was already one it was just a bit old). The area that money came from though gets nothing apart from more (non-affordable housing). It would not be a surprise if this is now happening elsewhere.
Is that new? Do you have a link for that? I swear I was reading in private eye last week how some dodgy developers were being fined for not providing social housing as a matter of course. I would have thought that if there was a legal set sum as a possibility, it would have just been easier for them to stump up then wait for the fines.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/17 12:56:06
EAT - SLEEP - FARM - REPEAT 
