Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news

[Blagsta]

What "taxpayer subsidised" properties are these?

 

[DotCommunist]

funding a system that cannot turf out or increase rent for a tenant as wealthy as Bob Crowe or Lee Jaspe

Damn you Bob! Damn you to hell! social housing should only be for the poor and needy, so better to concentrate them all in one place. For the day when we do what we all know needs to be done

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes I know what u mean VP. They go on about "Fairness".

The problem for "us" being that to "them" fairness means fairness to them, not to all.

Local authority social housing could be built with the quarter of a billion pounds the government milks from rent receipts annually, housing that would drive down the cost of Housing Benefit, because it would eliminate (or at least attenuate) bastards being able to charge £300 per week plus for a single room in "emergency accommodation. THOSE are the people being "subsidised", and yet I don't notice a lot of activity by Rushy to censure that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What "taxpayer subsidised" properties are these?

It's not as if the taxpayer even subsidised the original borrowing to construct local authority social housing, Blags. Most LA SH was constructed using money borrowed by the local authorities on the market. All the taxpayer did was, as the ultimate funder of central government, guarantee repayment (something they've never had to be called on).

I do wish people wouldn't swallow the whole right-wing spiel without bothering to know what they're talking about. They make themselves look stupid.

 

[oryx]

Westminster council estimates that 2,200 of their tenants in taxpayer subsidised properties are on incomes of over £50,000 - and about £200 are on incomes of over £100,000 - and they are not allowed to put the rent up, let alone turf them out to make way for someone in actual need.

Where did Westminster Council get this info from? This has been doing the rounds for weeks now and I'm not sure it's clear where the statistics came from (apart from a not-so-educated guess from someone with an agenda).

What do you mean when you say they are 'not allowed to put the rent up'? Have you never heard of rent increases in 'social' housing?

The scandal here isn't a few well-off people living in council or HA flats, it's people swallowing stories that give the impression most council/HA tenants are scroungers while those who aren't are 'hard-working families', 'the squeezed middle', etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where did Westminster Council get this info from? This has been doing the rounds for weeks now and I'm not sure it's clear where the statistics came from (apart from a not-so-educated guess from someone with an agenda).

What do you mean when you say they are 'not allowed to put the rent up'? Have you never heard of rent increases in 'social' housing?

I suspect Rushy means "put the rent up to a figure commensurate with their income".

Which, when you give it a moment's thought, would be another spectacularly stupid move because it would happen under the assumption that a person earning over £50,000 a year would have the disposable income to accommodate a rent rise. Most people have their income committed in one form or another, generally to raising a family.

The scandal here isn't a few well-off people living in council or HA flats, it's people swallowing stories that give the impression most council/HA tenants are scroungers while those who aren't are 'hard-working families', 'the squeezed middle', etc.

It's also of governments who, despite knowing of the housing situation and housing scarcity, allow that scarcity to continue in order to buoy the economy. These narratives wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that deliberate scarcity.

 

[oryx]

Which, when you give it a moment's thought, would be another spectacularly stupid move because it would happen under the assumption that a person earning over £50,000 a year would have the disposable income to accommodate a rent rise. Most people have their income committed in one form or another, generally to raising a family.

Also, in an area like Westminster £50k is not that much. Two people earning £25k each.

I realised he meant a rent hike in accordance with income should have said that though!

 

[leanderman]

Landlordism, which is behind London's affordability problems, is encouraged by tax breaks.

Most prominent is that mortgage interest can be put against rent.

I suspect many landlords pay no tax while their tenants buy the property for them.

And then find ways to eliminate capital gains tax on disposal.

 

[Gramsci]

These narratives wouldn't be possible if it weren't for that deliberate scarcity.

That is nub of the matter. Spot on VP.

 

[leanderman]

Is there scarcity outside the South East?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is there scarcity outside the South East?

Christ, yes.

I've got family dotted around England (and Wales), some of whom can't afford to buy, some who can, and the same problem seems to pertain in Devon, Wiltshire, Norfolk, North Staffs and East Shropshire: Low supply of social housing, low supply of "starter homes" for purchase. Developers have spent the last 10 years or so focusing on "premium" products, "luxury" apartments and houses, purely because the margins are better for them, even if they're sitting on them for a couple of years.

Even the big northern conurbations, after the wholesale bulldozing of Prescott's pathfinder idea, don't have anything like the excess of housing that they used to.

 

[leanderman]

Scarcity, tax breaks ... surely the fact so many people either want to, or need to, live in London is a factor in pushing prices/rents beyond the reach of most mortals?

 

[Rushy]

Well I dont know who u talk to but I sense that a lot of people ( and I meet a quite large cross section of people) have seen that its the bankers that are the problem not whatever group are labelled as undeserving. There has been a mood change. Blair did the "balanced rights" line whilst sucking up to rich and powerful. I dont feel that a lot of ordinary people buy it any more. There is however a grudging acceptance that "They" stay rich and powerful and there is not much u can do about it.

The welfare state was not a security blanket. After the 30s depression and war many saw the welfare state as looking after the welfare of the majority. Be it health, housing etc. Rather than laissez faire capitalism. The Welfare state was the "we are in it all together state".

Council housing post war was not meant for the worst off. It contained professionals like teachers for example.

I should have phrased what I said more carefully. Private tenants rights have been eroded over the years and rent controls have all but gone. I assume you are not against rent controls for the private sector and the return of some of the rights that private tenants have lost.? Thats what I meant when I said that developers and private rental would resist.

I'm not talking about the original purpose of the welfare state but about how people see it now and how they balance what they want it to provide with what level of taxes they want to pay. Like you - I speak to a large cross section of people. I agree that we have remarkably different impressions from those we talk to.

I totally get the anger against obscenely wealthy bankers but I think it is a bit of a distraction when arguing about what rights and benefits the general population think are reasonable. Less than 10% of UK's earning population earns over 45K (50K in London - 2006). I struggle to see that a significant proportion of that population, particularly amongst the significant number not in receipt of benefits, feel strongly about protecting council house provision/subsidy for people earning an average wage. I think the fact that AFAIK none of the three main parties propose a return to mass social housing supports the fact that they realise people in general don't agree with it. Bankers might have all the cash, but they only get one vote each like the rest of us.

I don't know what type of rent controls you propose. I'm open to suggestions of how you think they would work but in general I would be pretty cautious of them. As for rights, you say some but I am not sure which ones you would like to see returned.

 

[Rushy]

Damn you Bob! Damn you to hell! social housing should only be for the poor and needy, so better to concentrate them all in one place. For the day when we do what we all know needs to be done

I accept to an extent the argument regarding concentration of people in one place. But requiring Bob, Lee and others lucky enough to be in their position to pay a normal market rent would not affect the mix of people in an area, would it?

 

[Rushy]

From an email I received:

The property is to be sold by Informal Tender on a subject to contract basis. The disposal will be with vacant possession of the residential part and subject to the existing commercial tenancies. Offers are to be submitted by 15 September 2011.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Scarcity, tax breaks ... surely the fact so many people either want to, or need to, live in London is a factor in pushing prices/rents beyond the reach of most mortals?

It's the massive excess of demand over supply for the types of housing I mentioned, and the fact of unaffordability. Price has outstripped the pockets of people on the average/median wage and less for so long now (15 years+), and over a much greater "footprint" than just Greater London, that the whole situation is irredeemable without massive construction of social housing. The changes to Housing Benefit etc will only make the problem more urgent.

Back in the '80s, soon after the whole "bye bye social housing" thing started (around '81, but really kicking in about 1984) we started to see a massive shift to commuting from the Home Counties. By the mid '90s I had colleagues on less than the average wage commuting in from places like Thetford and Luton. An old mate recently moved to Brum and commutes to London every day. It's not just London prices, it's the same in about 80% (IMO, I don't have hard data) of the metropoli of the UK.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not talking about the original purpose of the welfare state but about how people see it now and how they balance what they want it to provide with what level of taxes they want to pay. Like you - I speak to a large cross section of people. I agree that we have remarkably different impressions from those we talk to.

I totally get the anger against obscenely wealthy bankers but I think it is a bit of a distraction when arguing about what rights and benefits the general population think are reasonable. Less than 10% of UK's earning population earns over 45K (50K in London - 2006). I struggle to see that a significant proportion of that population, particularly amongst the significant number not in receipt of benefits, feel strongly about protecting council house provision/subsidy...

Again, what subsidy? Council housing is not subsidised. It's a net contributor to the exchequer.

...for people earning an average wage. I think the fact that AFAIK none of the three main parties propose a return to mass social housing supports the fact that they realise people in general don't agree with it. Bankers might have all the cash, but they only get one vote each like the rest of us.

People earning an average wage can no longer afford to buy property to live in. In many cases they cannot afford or can barely afford private sector rentsThis, unless you have an interest in the perpetuation of a lightly-regulated private rented sector that is bent on repeating past mistakes, is why there is a need for new-build social housing.

As for your fatuous remark that bankers too only get a vote a piece, you're eliding the influence that their power and money buys them

 

[Rushy]

Again, what subsidy? Council housing is not subsidised. It's a net contributor to the exchequer.

Are you arguing that because the council does not have a mortgage on a property and rental income exceeds maintenance costs it is therefore a net contributor?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you arguing that because the council does not have a mortgage on a property and rental income exceeds maintenance costs it is therefore a net contributor?

Do you read what people write in their posts?

Note "the exchequer"?

Local authorities are required to remit to central government a portion of any "excess" (i.e. profit) on their housing revenue accounts (local authroties supposedly being required to act as "not for profit"). Now, given that local authorities were legally disbarred from new development of social housing in 1983-84, and most LA borrowing made on terms of 20-25 years (and the trend UK-wide having been to pay off sooner rather than later), around 80%+ (Shelter's figure from a couple of years ago) of that housing is owned free and clear, the excess over costs can be quite large. IIRC the Exchequer benefitted from this "surcharge" by around £200 million in FY 2009-2010.

Oh, and before you claim that the taxpayer obviously subsidised the original borrowing, they didn't. Central govt stood guarantor, but never suffered a single default between 1947 and 1984 (the years post-war that local authorities were able to borrow on the money markets for new build funding.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you read what people write in their posts?

Note "the exchequer"?

Local authorities are required to remit to central government a portion of any "excess" (i.e. profit) on their housing revenue accounts (local authroties supposedly being required to act as "not for profit"). Now, given that local authorities were legally disbarred from new development of social housing in 1983-84, and most LA borrowing made on terms of 20-25 years (and the trend UK-wide having been to pay off sooner rather than later), around 80%+ (Shelter's figure from a couple of years ago) of that housing is owned free and clear, the excess over costs can be quite large. IIRC the Exchequer benefitted from this "surcharge" by around £200 million in FY 2009-2010.

Oh, and before you claim that the taxpayer obviously subsidised the original borrowing, they didn't. Central govt stood guarantor, but never suffered a single default between 1947 and 1984 (the years post-war that local authorities were able to borrow on the money markets for new build funding.

Now, Rushy. Ask yourself how much social housing even just a £100 million per annum could build, if the development of it wasn't being deliberately suppressed for ideological and economic reasons.

 

[leanderman]

It's the massive excess of demand over supply for the types of housing I mentioned, and the fact of unaffordability. Price has outstripped the pockets of people on the average/median wage and less for so long now (15 years+), and over a much greater "footprint" than just Greater London, that the whole situation is irredeemable without massive construction of social housing. The changes to Housing Benefit etc will only make the problem more urgent.

Back in the '80s, soon after the whole "bye bye social housing" thing started (around '81, but really kicking in about 1984) we started to see a massive shift to commuting from the Home Counties. By the mid '90s I had colleagues on less than the average wage commuting in from places like Thetford and Luton. An old mate recently moved to Brum and commutes to London every day. It's not just London prices, it's the same in about 80% (IMO, I don't have hard data) of the metropoli of the UK.

I can't see a massive social housing programme happening.

I can see London increasingly becoming the preserve of the rich, and the poor, and not much in between.

 

[Rushy]

Do you read what people write in their posts?

Note "the exchequer"?

Local authorities are required to remit to central government a portion of any "excess" (i.e. profit) on their housing revenue accounts (local authroties supposedly being required to act as "not for profit"). Now, given that local authorities were legally disbarred from new development of social housing in 1983-84, and most LA borrowing made on terms of 20-25 years (and the trend UK-wide having been to pay off sooner rather than later), around 80%+ (Shelter's figure from a couple of years ago) of that housing is owned free and clear, the excess over costs can be quite large. IIRC the Exchequer benefitted from this "surcharge" by around £200 million in FY 2009-2010.

Oh, and before you claim that the taxpayer obviously subsidised the original borrowing, they didn't. Central govt stood guarantor, but never suffered a single default between 1947 and 1984 (the years post-war that local authorities were able to borrow on the money markets for new build funding.

What happens to the money that is brought in by the exchequer? It goes into the pot along with all our other sources of revenue incl. taxes and then gets redistributed. If someone is paying £75 less than market value then that person is being subsidised by the exchequer to the extent of £75/week, which needs to found from somewhere else (either in additional taxes or cut services).

The concept that the difference between market rent and rent paid represents a subsidy is not a foreign concept - just take a look at HMRC's income tax rules. If a company lets an employee live in a flat and only charges them 75% of its real market rental value then the 25% discount is defined as a subsidy to the employee. The value of that subsidy is then treated as notional pay and added to their income for the purposes of PAYE.

The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market. I have not argued that there should not be subsidies - I have questioned whether it is really so cut and dry a matter that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can't see a massive social housing programme happening.

I can see London increasingly becoming the preserve of the rich, and the poor, and not much in between.

In other words, back to the early-Victorian/Dickensian city of "mansions" and rookeries.

The "middle" being squeezed out is a direct side-effect of the residualisation of social housing, too. It means that while a previous generation of young teachers, nurse and what-have-you had secure housing for as long as they wanted or needed it, now they're "sinking or swimming" in the world of private rental or property ownership (the insecurity of which handily locks people into keeping on with jobs they hate and being to scared to protest when they get shafted by the government). I mean, who thought, 30 years ago, that anyone except students would ever need to house-share again?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What happens to the money that is brought in by the exchequer? It goes into the pot along with all our other sources of revenue incl. taxes and then gets redistributed. If someone is paying £75 less than market value then that person is being subsidised by the exchequer to the extent of £75/week, which needs to found from somewhere else (either in additional taxes or cut services).

No they're not. If someone is paying under the (generally inflated) "market rate" (and please don't try and feed me the usual bullshit about how the market only taking what is required and no more!) to their local authority, then the exchequer is not "subsidising" them in any way, shape or form, and by extension, neither is the taxpayer.

Do you agree that it is a landlord's right to set their own rent? Well, the obligation on a local authority is to cover its' costs. As long as that is done, then the local authority incurs no loss, and neither does the exchequer.

The only "loser" is the private landlord that sees potential customers getting housing at a price they can't match without cutting their own profit margin.

The concept that the difference between market rent and rent paid represents a subsidy is not a foreign concept - just take a look at HMRC's income tax rules. If a company lets an employee live in a flat and only charges them 75% of its real market rental value then the 25% discount is defined as a subsidy to the employee. The value of that subsidy is then treated as notional pay and added to their income for the purposes of PAYE.

You're talking about privately-owned property, I'm talking about local authority-owned property. They're two different things. Bluster about subsidies and "real market rental values" all you like, but until you grasp that social housing isn't the same as private housing, and that social housing rents aren't (and never have been) tied to market rents, then you're going to keep told how and why you're mistaken.

The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary...

Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?

See, this is the flaw in the coalition thinking that you're promoting. You can't relate a person's desert of social housing to their income, you have to relate it to their individual circumstances, if at all, and that way lies a bureaucratic nightmare

....being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market. I have not argued that there should not be subsidies - I have questioned whether it is really so cut and dry a matter that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority.

You can talk about Crowe being subsidised, and social housing rent as being subsidies funded by the taxpayer, but any rational analysis of the facts (rather than the reinterpretation of word meanings that you've engaged in) shows that isn't the case.

Calling a turd an apple doesn't make it taste any different.

 

[leanderman]

In other words, back to the early-Victorian/Dickensian city of "mansions" and rookeries.

The "middle" being squeezed out is a direct side-effect of the residualisation of social housing, too. It means that while a previous generation of young teachers, nurse and what-have-you had secure housing for as long as they wanted or needed it, now they're "sinking or swimming" in the world of private rental or property ownership (the insecurity of which handily locks people into keeping on with jobs they hate and being to scared to protest when they get shafted by the government). I mean, who thought, 30 years ago, that anyone except students would ever need to house-share again?

Now this, I agree with. And if you are right that Crowe is unable to cope on £100k, it applies to just about everyone. I'd hope I would be able to cope on £100k though!

 

[Rushy]

Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?

Are you being serious?

 

[Rushy]

No they're not. If someone is paying under the (generally inflated) "market rate" (and please don't try and feed me the usual bullshit about how the market only taking what is required and no more!) to their local authority, then the exchequer is not "subsidising" them in any way, shape or form, and by extension, neither is the taxpayer.

Do you agree that it is a landlord's right to set their own rent? Well, the obligation on a local authority is to cover its' costs. As long as that is done, then the local authority incurs no loss, and neither does the exchequer.

The only "loser" is the private landlord that sees potential customers getting housing at a price they can't match without cutting their own profit margin.



You're talking about privately-owned property, I'm talking about local authority-owned property. They're two different things. Bluster about subsidies and "real market rental values" all you like, but until you grasp that social housing isn't the same as private housing, and that social housing rents aren't (and never have been) tied to market rents, then you're going to keep told how and why you're mistaken.


Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?

See, this is the flaw in the coalition thinking that you're promoting. You can't relate a person's desert of social housing to their income, you have to relate it to their individual circumstances, if at all, and that way lies a bureaucratic nightmare



You can talk about Crowe being subsidised, and social housing rent as being subsidies funded by the taxpayer, but any rational analysis of the facts (rather than the reinterpretation of word meanings that you've engaged in) shows that isn't the case.

Calling a turd an apple doesn't make it taste any different.

Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that offering property below market rate is not a subsidy. If a private landlord offers discounted rent then he is subsidising the occupant. Same for a public landlord, even if the LL is choosing to subsidise the rent at the expense of another body, such as the exchequer. Subsidy does not mean different things in private and public matters. Where there is no direct cash transfer the subsidy is known as an "indirect subsidy". We all own the public property units collectively through the government - those who benefit from discounted occupation of them are being subsidised collectively by those who do not. That does not fit your definition of subsidy. We clearly disagree fundamentally on this matter. That's fine.

Secondly, none of what you say detracts from my original comment which is that it is unlikely that the matter is seen to be so cut and dry that it is impossible that anyone other than developers and landlords might not see the extension of tenant rights and subsidies as a matter of priority (as suggested by Gramsci). To suppose that is as incorrect as saying that the only people interested in increased rights and subsidies are the recipients. OK - so you are absolutely certain that you are right about the matter - but even if you 100% correct, VP is not "everyone other than developers and landlords". It is a strength to be able to recognise that your own view, even if you are convinced it is correct, is rarely the only or even the most widely held view.

 

[Crispy]

Wanky attempt at tabloidesque demonisation. He's not on a "banker's salary", and he certainly doesn't receive any of their bonuses. He's on a very good salary, I agree, but even on £100,000 a year, how would he be able to afford to rent or buy a house for himself and his family to live in, in London, on that salary?

Very easily indeed, ffs.

 

[editor]

The Bob Crowe example is an extreme one used to illustrate the point. A man on a banker's salary being subsidised by the rest of use because he is not being required to pay the same level of rent as a neighbour renting on the open market.

Council housing is not "subsidised."

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/council-housing-is-not-subsidised/798.thread

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you being serious?

Absolutely.

Why do you think that the government, especially fat Eric, are able to make noises about Housing Benefits costs in London being so high? Because private sector rents for a standard 3-bed house (which is what Crowe, his wife and 2 kids would need) would cost him £1500-2000 pcm. You might think that housing costs equal to 50%+ of your net salary is fine, but although it's become the reality for many Londoners, I don't.

Oh, and average purchase price for a 3-bed house is currently more than a standard mortgage accumulator would lend you on £100,00 per annum. You'd need to be earning at least £20,000 a year more than that.