Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

A Pivotal Moment In Housing - When The Tories Take Our Home

When it comes to London though, which is the primary crisis in housing, it's farcical. Essentially moving people away from London where there are jobs in more plentiful supply because people can't afford to live there, to around the UK where in a lot of cases, there are a lot less jobs available (and higher unemployment levels).

Completely the wrong way of 'tackling the problem'. The solutions include: rent caps (rather than ever increasing rent going to private landlords), more social housing and social rents (as opposed to 'affordable'), controls on buy-to-let, and right-to-buy. But that doesn't fit in with the 'small state', 'private is best' ideology.

I'd say it's no longer a London problem alone, but one that pervades most of the south of the UK. Where two of my siblings live on the Kent coast, prices are about 80-85% of mean London-wide prices.Where my parents live in north Norfolk, they're around 75% of mean London-wide prices. In both cases the areas are already partly dormitories for people working in London. All the above is due to the whole "more of the same" "private is best" bullshit, and things will only get worse, because we both know that more social housing at social rents, and private sector rent caps will never happen.
 
I'd say it's no longer a London problem alone, but one that pervades most of the south of the UK. Where two of my siblings live on the Kent coast, prices are about 80-85% of mean London-wide prices.Where my parents live in north Norfolk, they're around 75% of mean London-wide prices. In both cases the areas are already partly dormitories for people working in London. All the above is due to the whole "more of the same" "private is best" bullshit, and things will only get worse, because we both know that more social housing at social rents, and private sector rent caps will never happen.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit, with regard not just to housing, but the whole welfare system. I see things changing quite a bit in the future, and not in a way that a lot of people will like. I was thinking earlier about starting a thread, and after I give a bit more thought to what I want to ask and say, I will.
 
And rioting with fewer police numbers to quell those riots, and non-availability of military personnel to substitute for them even if the Brass permitted that.
The Tories are betting on riots turning inward on communities, but if nothing else, the 2011 riots should have made clear that rioters are mobile.

I can see the formation of a 'riot police' unit, a la the CRS if that happens. The government will not tolerate riots.
 
I can see the formation of a 'riot police' unit, a la the CRS if that happens. The government will not tolerate riots.

The government have caught themselves between a rock and a hard place. They've cut police and military numbers, using the argument of "austerity". Reversing those cuts to - effectively - defend privilege would wind up even their most slavish supporters at the Telegraph, Express and Mail titles (Murdoch's titles are a different story), and in the broadcast media.
So while the government may not rhetorically tolerate riot, they have little choice to accept any riotous consequences over the next 2-3 years (minimum), because they've drained off any money that could have funded such a squad of losers, sexual inadequates and steroid-abusers.
 
I can see the formation of a 'riot police' unit, a la the CRS if that happens. The government will not tolerate riots.
No government would tolerate riots, surely? But it does seem to me that this government is pushing sections of the populace ever closer to a point where they (in some cases literally) have nothing left to lose. Quite a few of those (the disabled, single parents) are not likely to be the rioting kind, but other groups, such as students, unemployed young people, are classic riot material.

And I do wonder whether, without some pretty significant increases in manpower, whether there are actually enough police to be able to staff a riot unit at the same time as maintaining a reasonable, if basic, general policing service.

I may well be being unduly cynical, but I wonder if the government is relying rather more on statements like "We Will Not Tolerate Rioting" than an effective show of force to deter people from doing so. And even the nastiest recent riots haven't, it seems to me, been a patch on the much worse rioting we saw in the Poll Tax riots and the earlier ones in Brixton, St Pauls, and Toxteth.
 
Second reading in the Lords today.

Our last chance to restrain the housing bill is with the Lords | Bob Kerslake
Gruniad said:
Our last chance to restrain the housing bill is with the Lords

The government’s new legislation on housing and planning will have profound implications for the future of housing in this country and should be of serious concern to everybody. Unless amended, it risks bringing about the end of social housing as we have known it since the second world war and embarking on a huge new sales programme when the financial numbers to deliver it patently don’t add up.

During the election there was a cross party consensus on the urgent need to build more housing. Completions last year, at 125,000, were half the numbers needed to keep pace with what the country needs. In London, the situation has reached crisis proportions, with prices to buy or rent moving out of reach for ordinary Londoners.

The housing and planning bill, which receives its second reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday, was the perfect opportunity for new government to tackle this issue head on.

While there are some welcome measures to tackle rogue landlords and speed up compulsory purchase, the overall effect of the bill will be to promote one form of tenure, home ownership at the expense of another, affordable rented housing. Desperately needed new social housing for rent seems to be being written out of the script.

Following the voluntary deal between the communities secretary Greg Clark and the National Housing Federation, housing associations will now have greater flexibility to decide which homes they offer to their tenants under right to buy. Local authorities however will still be picking up the bill for the right-to-buy discounts, forcing them to sell off their higher value properties as they become vacant in order to fund this. Shelter has calculated that this will cost them £1.2bn a year (pdf) and require the sale of some 113,000 council homes.

The government’s intent is that these sales will be replaced one for one but this will be very difficult if not impossible to achieve. High value council homes are invariably in high value areas: the very areas where land for new build is hardest to find. In places such as Camden and Westminster, this is likely to require the sale of more than half of their stock, making genuinely mixed communities a thing of the past.

Even with the forced sale of these properties, independent research commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Housing has found that the receipts generated will not come near to covering the cost of the discounts and replacement. London sales are calculated to provide more than half the funding, so this problem will be even more acute if the capital, as currently proposed, retains more of its receipts in order to deliver two new houses for every one sold. We will therefore start the new policy knowing that the sums do not add up.

To further boost home ownership the government plans to introduce starter homes that will enable first time buyers to purchase at 20% below market price. This was originally proposed as a welcome additional source of new supply on land not currently identified for housing. It will now be deemed “affordable”, although you would need an income of £77,000 in London to buy one, and largely replace social rented housing in new schemes. The communities secretary will be given extensive powers to direct local authorities to build starter homes whether or not they believe it is right for their areas.

If local authorities are big losers from the bill, then so are social tenants. There will be fewer transfer opportunities to move into bigger properties as they become vacant these are also typically the higher value properties and grant funding for new social rented housing will largely end in three years time. If household income exceeds £40,000 in London or £30,000 outside the capital, social tenants will be expected to pay at or near market rents providing little or no incentive to advance their career. If they are new council tenants, the local authority will be required to be give them a fixed term tenancy of between two and five years instead of a permanent one.

The message all this gives about the future of social housing couldn’t be clearer.

There are wider economic consequences of the government’s approach. To have any chance of delivering the level of housing this country needs we need to build more housing of all types sale, market rent, social rent and get all parties housebuilders, developers, housing associations and local authorities to raise their game. A reliance solely on building for sale will leave us much more vulnerable to another market downturn, just when the economic forecasts are beginning to look less favourable.

Much of the vital detail for how this bill will work in practice will be in regulations that have still be published, despite the bill having completed its passage through the House of Commons. To make the government’s proposals anywhere near fit for purpose, peers from all sides of the Lords are going to have their work cut out scrutinising the detail and seeking to amend and improve the bill in the weeks and months ahead.
 
No government would tolerate riots, surely? But it does seem to me that this government is pushing sections of the populace ever closer to a point where they (in some cases literally) have nothing left to lose. Quite a few of those (the disabled, single parents) are not likely to be the rioting kind, but other groups, such as students, unemployed young people, are classic riot material.

And I do wonder whether, without some pretty significant increases in manpower, whether there are actually enough police to be able to staff a riot unit at the same time as maintaining a reasonable, if basic, general policing service.

I may well be being unduly cynical, but I wonder if the government is relying rather more on statements like "We Will Not Tolerate Rioting" than an effective show of force to deter people from doing so. And even the nastiest recent riots haven't, it seems to me, been a patch on the much worse rioting we saw in the Poll Tax riots and the earlier ones in Brixton, St Pauls, and Toxteth.
if you push people into a corner sooner or later they will riot: and my prediction is we'll see severe rioting this summer. i am more confident in this than in my assertion that leicester would be struggling in the premier league by this point in the season.
 
if you push people into a corner sooner or later they will riot: and my prediction is we'll see severe rioting this summer. i am more confident in this than in my assertion that leicester would be struggling in the premier league by this point in the season.
I know nothing of the prowess of Leicester's footballers, but a hot summer and increased austerity is likely to be a toxic combination...
 
People are leaving London to move to Cambridge (for a better quality of life) and simply dispersing many residents in Cambridge, who are already coping with massive wage inequality, further and further out into the fens. The figures involved (average wages vs average housing costs) are in no way negotiable by a bit more hard work or saving and we have a 2-tier thing going on here - young, transient tech-workers, happily paying eye-watering amounts for the bedsits which have mushroomed everywhere in Cambridge...and the rest of us who are not earning a Microsoft salary. We will be seeing shanty towns, illegal mooring, vehicular accommodation, living in garages and lock-ups since there is no other option - people are not going to just curl up on the pavements.
 
People are leaving London to move to Cambridge (for a better quality of life) and simply dispersing many residents in Cambridge, who are already coping with massive wage inequality, further and further out into the fens. The figures involved (average wages vs average housing costs) are in no way negotiable by a bit more hard work or saving and we have a 2-tier thing going on here - young, transient tech-workers, happily paying eye-watering amounts for the bedsits which have mushroomed everywhere in Cambridge...and the rest of us who are not earning a Microsoft salary. We will be seeing shanty towns, illegal mooring, vehicular accommodation, living in garages and lock-ups since there is no other option - people are not going to just curl up on the pavements.

From what's happening to my cousins and their kids in Norfolk, this is a problem everywhere in East Anglia. Even with the high volume of new-build being thrown up, there's still fuck-all that average-waged, average-skilled people can afford, so East Anglia is becoming ever more a dormitory for London and Cambridge "professionals". :(
 
No government would tolerate riots, surely? But it does seem to me that this government is pushing sections of the populace ever closer to a point where they (in some cases literally) have nothing left to lose. Quite a few of those (the disabled, single parents) are not likely to be the rioting kind, but other groups, such as students, unemployed young people, are classic riot material.

And I do wonder whether, without some pretty significant increases in manpower, whether there are actually enough police to be able to staff a riot unit at the same time as maintaining a reasonable, if basic, general policing service.

I may well be being unduly cynical, but I wonder if the government is relying rather more on statements like "We Will Not Tolerate Rioting" than an effective show of force to deter people from doing so. And even the nastiest recent riots haven't, it seems to me, been a patch on the much worse rioting we saw in the Poll Tax riots and the earlier ones in Brixton, St Pauls, and Toxteth.

When there are not sufficient bodies to quell a riot, technology will be used. It's a while since a rioter has been shot in Britain, it may be coming back.
 
From what's happening to my cousins and their kids in Norfolk, this is a problem everywhere in East Anglia. Even with the high volume of new-build being thrown up, there's still fuck-all that average-waged, average-skilled people can afford, so East Anglia is becoming ever more a dormitory for London and Cambridge "professionals". :(

whats slightly odd, or perhaps next on the refugees from London list, is that the silly price plague has got to Warwick-Leamington Spa (though you can buy a 3 bed semi-detached with garden and garage in Warwick for £200k), but no further - 20 miles along the M42 prices in Redditch, Bromsgrove etc.. are £50k lower despite being nice places to live with good links, good schools etc.. (and being a lot further from Coventry..:thumbs:).

does anyone have a rough idea of how many homes Greater London is actually short of, and what kind of growth rate that number needs to keep up with population growth?
 
In this, as in so many other areas, the Government has chosen to rely on a "push" approach, rather than a "pull" one.

From welfare to housing, what they have done is to set out to make (or at least not do anything when it happens anyway) the prevailing state of affairs untenable, on the premise that, eventually, people will be unable to do anything but make the changes the government wants (relocate, get off benefits, accept worse employment conditions, etc).

So they're happy to force people who cannot resist (eg social housing tenants) to relocate to some far-flung corner, presumably in the expectation that they will somehow miraculously generate infrastructure around themselves once there, in the same way that they force people on benefits to miraculously generate jobs into which they can flee from the endless beasting of the DWP.

It's always been like this with Tories (red and blue). Norman Tebbit and his "get on your bike" statements were just another example of how Tory governments expect workforces to be ultra-mobile and prepared to go to any lengths to snap up such crumbs as fall (or is it "trickle down"?) from the rich man's table, regardless of the personal consequences to themselves or their families, the societal breakdowns that can result, or the psychological harms done by all of this.

Excellent post.
 
When there are not sufficient bodies to quell a riot, technology will be used. It's a while since a rioter has been shot in Britain, it may be coming back.
yeah right. Containment and let it run itself out then nick everyone and hammer them with some stiff sentences was the 2011 tactic
 
whats slightly odd, or perhaps next on the refugees from London list, is that the silly price plague has got to Warwick-Leamington Spa (though you can buy a 3 bed semi-detached with garden and garage in Warwick for £200k), but no further - 20 miles along the M42 prices in Redditch, Bromsgrove etc.. are £50k lower despite being nice places to live with good links, good schools etc.. (and being a lot further from Coventry..:thumbs:).

does anyone have a rough idea of how many homes Greater London is actually short of, and what kind of growth rate that number needs to keep up with population growth?


I think in East Yorkshire, there are now boom areas, Beverley is one, new shopping developments, lots of expensive new build.
 
does anyone have a rough idea of how many homes Greater London is actually short of, and what kind of growth rate that number needs to keep up with population growth?

If you're going by council housing list figures alone, then somewhere between 250,000-400,000 homes. If you're talking about providing pressure relief for key-workers who're being over-stretched, on top of that, and providing some room for "expansion", then anything from half a million to a million.
And that's a spread of different home types and sizes, not the developers' favourite of 2 or 3 bedrooms.
 
yeah right. Containment and let it run itself out then nick everyone and hammer them with some stiff sentences was the 2011 tactic

There were more coppers in 2011. It also depends on the severity of the situation.

Twenty years ago, they could have recruited a riot squad from ex-squaddies, we all had extensive riot experience. Now, those with the experience are old fuckers like me. :D
 
If you're going by council housing list figures alone, then somewhere between 250,000-400,000 homes. If you're talking about providing pressure relief for key-workers who're being over-stretched, on top of that, and providing some room for "expansion", then anything from half a million to a million.
And that's a spread of different home types and sizes, not the developers' favourite of 2 or 3 bedrooms.

any idea what proportion of that million(ish) could be provided within the current greater London area without building endless high rise blocks?

i suppose what i'm getting at is how big in area London has to be to house all the people who live in London, and at what rate it would expand - and at what distance from, say, London Bridge, we say that the building has to stop in order to prevent the whole of the south east becoming a housing estate for London?
 
This is an interesting thread.

I can see where the government is going, and I can see why.

What I can't see is how the Conservatives can do this, and expect to be re-elected. The problem is that they have done this, and have been re-elected.

Why?
 
This is an interesting thread.

I can see where the government is going, and I can see why.

What I can't see is how the Conservatives can do this, and expect to be re-elected. The problem is that they have done this, and have been re-elected.

Why?
the system is rigged- I may despise ukip but four mill voted and the only representation they got was from an incumbent tory defector. Labour had nothing to offer but eds menhir of pledges and a slower, more gently narrative. Labour collapsed in scotland and while not vital those seat were by no means unimportant to gaining a majority. The alacrity with which eng lab expanded its membership with Corbyn in charge mirrors this, in the manner that by this point anyone offering an anti austerity, anti mainstream political message is going to be listened to. And supported. You can get your 'reccession over' headlines into a tame press as much as you like but if theres one lie people won't swallow its being told they are doing fine when they are very far from it fiscally
 
any idea what proportion of that million(ish) could be provided within the current greater London area without building endless high rise blocks?

i suppose what i'm getting at is how big in area London has to be to house all the people who live in London, and at what rate it would expand - and at what distance from, say, London Bridge, we say that the building has to stop in order to prevent the whole of the south east becoming a housing estate for London?

Through developing low-to-mid rise (3-10 storeys), we could probably get a third to a half of that sorted. We've got this daft situation in London where for the last 40 years "the market" has dictated that individual houses and small low-rise developments are the way to go, because that's where the money is. Go to most German cities, and everything is still reversed. Houses are a relative rarity compared to low and medium rise apartment blocks, and hence the cities are smaller, and yet more densely-populated than British cities, with fewer of the social problems you might assume would accompany such density.
 
On the domestic front Team Corbyn can make a massive impact, but when the time comes, Crosby and Co will pour out the old history, IRA, Iran, etc.
 
On the domestic front Team Corbyn can make a massive impact, but when the time comes, Crosby and Co will pour out the old history, IRA, Iran, etc.
I expect appeals to jingoism from that quarter yes. The question is will it work? This falklands nonsense (again) and jeremy was in the same room as a doodgy cunt stuff. Will it fly? Coulsons questionable access to the corridors of power (or perhaps just the ears) goes wearily accepted. 'Thats just how those bastards do business etc.' and even after he was dragged into the light over hacking etc the turd is still floating back up to the top. What Corbyn is offering (and I don't buy labour socialism) is not just a swapping of one greedy manager for another of similar stripe. I'm not suprised the membership has eexploded to great pre-tony heights. Even if you aren't with jeremy's old school labourism and so on it must be refreshing for people who grew up on a solid new lab diet. (myself, tail end of thatch then major)
 
Through developing low-to-mid rise (3-10 storeys), we could probably get a third to a half of that sorted. We've got this daft situation in London where for the last 40 years "the market" has dictated that individual houses and small low-rise developments are the way to go, because that's where the money is. Go to most German cities, and everything is still reversed. Houses are a relative rarity compared to low and medium rise apartment blocks, and hence the cities are smaller, and yet more densely-populated than British cities, with fewer of the social problems you might assume would accompany such density.

Yes, but for that to work, you would have to engender the social discipline that the Germans have.
 
On the domestic front Team Corbyn can make a massive impact, but when the time comes, Crosby and Co will pour out the old history, IRA, Iran, etc.

And rightly so. Corbyn is a dangerous fucking idiot. An utter and absolute clown.

Oh yes, we build the next generation of nuclear tipped subs, at vast expense, but drop the nuclear tips. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 
<snip> does anyone have a rough idea of how many homes Greater London is actually short of, and what kind of growth rate that number needs to keep up with population growth?
It's not a question of absolute numbers - plenty of expensive housing has been built and is still being built in Greater London, but there's next to none which is affordable on anything like ordinary earnings.
 
Back
Top Bottom