Brixton news, rumour and general chat - August 2014

[ViolentPanda]

It was a genuine thought and question and while not exactly the same, not unrelated.

There is certainly a view that those who buy mean others go without by raising the price to levels many cannot afford and ensuring that the only call for social housing comes from those less well-off thereby reducing the impact of the demand on politicians. London is a prime example of this.

When I met mr nags he said that he would never own a property. Unfortunately he hooked up with me and I was already a property owner and still am. Like most people I have capitulated to the idea that I need a house of my own, mostly for security in old age reasons. But this doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with the idea that property owning is part of the problem.

I think we need to differentiate owner-occupiers, from Buy-to-Let speculators. The former are people whose primary motivation is a secure roof over their heads (in which group I'd include those who own a home in one place, but work in another, and rent out their home in order to pay rent on somewhere nearer to where they work). The latter are rentier scum.

 

[ViolentPanda]

sorry, i was a bit in argumentative mode then, my apologies for being a bit politics-forum with you then.

one day i'd like to work towards all property owned in kind and no-one going without or having too much. for now we're going to have to destroy the livelihoods of the landlords and the speculators by a combination of housebuilding and redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps with some bastinado for rentiers thrown in?

 

[superfly101]

I think that that is possible, because at root a "property owner" is more often a mortgagee, and someone who is effectively paying money to a bank in order to occupy a property. The difference is that you (may) build equity.

But that was in the days of care at NHS source was free. You now have a £37,000 limit of all assets before you have to pay for your old age care as it's been shifted to Councils.

So pay the bank 2x the cost of the house via a mortgage then lose all but £37,000 on you needing residential care. 10 years ago your house would have been inherited now it will be sold to fund care. Unless you have an accountant who understands trusts. We all have them don't we?

 

[el-ahrairah]

amongst the principals of socialism, as i see it, is the idea of solidarity. part of solidarity is that you may go without in order to strengthen the demands of your class. most of us have neither house, no pension, and are unlikely to have that. the boss class have given us a set of threats generally encouraging us to compete against each other for housing so that we don't end up starving to death on the streets or dying of preventable illnesses in one of the wealthiest nations on earth. we compete to line their pockets.

so this leaves us (the working classes, and increasingly the lower middle classes too) with only two real options.

Option One: unity and refusal to compromise - voting in (or revolution but lets assume democracy) someone who will sort out the economic problems, arrange it so that there is not a competition between workers to pay hand over fist in the vaguest hope of future security because we're all in it together and a working class homeowner without independent wealth to keep them in their retirement has the same set of needs as a working class non-homeowner &c.

Option Two: we compete on their terms for limited housing. House prices go up, job security and conditions go down, rent prices go up as the vast profits made by landlords enable them to buy more houses putting the squeeze on further more people. It becomes increasingly difficult for working class (and increasingly the lower middle classes too) to get on the property ladder at all, and then once you do you are required to continue to vote against the interests of your class in order that your precarious purchase remains viable. Because now you have a house you can barely afford, you need it to retain the value it has and so can't vote against building further houses in the quantities needed or it will destroy your investment.

I think we all know which Option the electorate has chosen.

You say to me your house protects you from being left destitute by the state in later life. Your vote, your action should be doing that. Is this what your votes protect, a state that threatens people with destitution after a lifetime generating tax for them?

Pretty words.... come back to me if i can i ever afford to put my money where my mouth is.

 

[SpamMisery]

[P]art of solidarity is that you may go without in order to strengthen the demands of your class.

Strengthen the demands of your class or meet the needs of all?

 

[el-ahrairah]

Strengthen the demands of your class or meet the needs of all?

both are the same thing - socialism should be trying to meet everyone's needs or its not socialism, just another bollocks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

amongst the principals of socialism, as i see it, is the idea of solidarity. part of solidarity is that you may go without in order to strengthen the demands of your class. most of us have neither house, no pension, and are unlikely to have that. the boss class have given us a set of threats generally encouraging us to compete against each other for housing so that we don't end up starving to death on the streets or dying of preventable illnesses in one of the wealthiest nations on earth. we compete to line their pockets.

And thanks to Right-to-Buy, the solidarities experienced by council tenants on estates are also much weaker than they were 30, 20 or even 10 years ago (although thankfully there appears to be something of a resurgence at least in tenants' associations.

so this leaves us (the working classes, and increasingly the lower middle classes too) with only two real options.

Option One: unity and refusal to compromise - voting in (or revolution but lets assume democracy) someone who will sort out the economic problems, arrange it so that there is not a competition between workers to pay hand over fist in the vaguest hope of future security because we're all in it together and a working class homeowner without independent wealth to keep them in their retirement has the same set of needs as a working class non-homeowner &c.

Option Two: we compete on their terms for limited housing. House prices go up, job security and conditions go down, rent prices go up as the vast profits made by landlords enable them to buy more houses putting the squeeze on further more people. It becomes increasingly difficult for working class (and increasingly the lower middle classes too) to get on the property ladder at all, and then once you do you are required to continue to vote against the interests of your class in order that your precarious purchase remains viable. Because now you have a house you can barely afford, you need it to retain the value it has and so can't vote against building further houses in the quantities needed or it will destroy your investment.

I think we all know which Option the electorate has chosen.

That's what happens when you indoctrinate 2 generations from the cradle-onward with the cult of individualism. Even for those of us who see past it, it can be difficult to struggle against it, not least because educating yourself (or others) to the benefits of class solidarity is usually something connected to adverse experience - IMO you have to experience the grim effects of a lack of social solidarities before you can fully appreciate the absolute need for such solidarities - and some people won't ever be troubled (or so they believe) by such effects.

You say to me your house protects you from being left destitute by the state in later life. Your vote, your action should be doing that. Is this what your votes protect, a state that threatens people with destitution after a lifetime generating tax for them?

Pretty much.
It seems to me that whatever duties the masses owed the state, with regard to the Social Compact, that the state has abrogated the compact so often (with regard to minimising services, minimising the security we should be able to expect as part of our agreement to the social compact, and much else) that we no longer owe them anything except our contempt.

Pretty words.... come back to me if i can i ever afford to put my money where my mouth is.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rushy]

Impressive smash on Brixton Hill last night - ran across when I heard it as did a couple of neighbours. From what I understood from a passenger of the bus, two cars were racing at about 90mph up the hill, clipped two busses and spun out. One of the cars was well an truly buggered. I think the driver did a runner. Lots of people with smartphones stood in puddles of leaking fuel taking pictures. I don't think anyone was badly hurt.

 

[OvalhouseDB]

"Lots of people with smartphones stood in puddles of leaking fuel taking pictures."
Phones are overtaking humans in evolutionary terms.

 

[sleaterkinney]

You say to me your house protects you from being left destitute by the state in later life. Your vote, your action should be doing that. Is this what your votes protect, a state that threatens people with destitution after a lifetime generating tax for them?

Well, the idea is that when you get to retire you can sell it off, move abroad, sell it and give a bit to your kids etc, it's your money and your choice, not what the state thinks is best for you. It's pretty difficult to argue against people having that choice.

 

[editor]

"Lots of people with smartphones stood in puddles of leaking fuel taking pictures."
Phones are overtaking humans in evolutionary terms.

 

[el-ahrairah]

It's pretty difficult to argue against people having that choice.

that's true - i'd rather criticise the system that means that making this choice helps to remove the amount of choices that other people have - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a critique to be made of home-ownership at this time in history. we shouldn't have to be in this mess. owning or not owning a house should be a matter of choice for everyone, a decision they can make according to their own preferences. it shouldn't be like it is.

 

[editor]

Brixton is more and more becoming a split community.

There's the Brixton for those who are lucky enough to own their own house. They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification, the nice new shops, the lovely upmarket restaurants and bars because - for them - life is getting better every day as their assets soar in value. They're sitting pretty.

And then there's the Brixton for renters - people who are living in fear of either losing their tenancy altogether (this now includes council tenants) or having such huge price hikes thrust on them that they'll have to leave the community they've been part of for years. And some are as angry as fuck about this, and their frustration grows with the lack of support and solidarity shown by some parts of the community.

It seems that a lot of those in the former group are either unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care. In fact, some would be happier if those in Brixton council estates were made to move on so 'nice' new accommodation can be built for the better off (and, yes I have heard this directly).

And there's certainly no question that some of the posters here are fitting some of these stereotypes.

 

[elmpp]

Brixton is more and more becoming a split community.

There's the Brixton for those who are lucky enough to own their own house. They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification, the nice new shops, the lovely upmarket restaurants and bars because - for them - life is getting better every day as their assets soar in value. They're sitting pretty.

And then there's the Brixton for renters - people who are living in fear of either losing their tenancy altogether (this now includes council tenants) or having such huge price hikes thrust on them that they'll have to leave the community they've been part of for years. And some are as angry as fuck about this, and their frustration grows with the lack of support and solidarity shown by some parts of the community.

It seems that a lot of those in the former group are either unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care. In fact, some would be happier if those in Brixton council estates were made to move on so 'nice' new accommodation can be built for the better off (and, yes I have heard this directly).

And there's certainly no question that some of the posters here are fitting some of these stereotypes.

One of the most-quoted reasons for those explaining why they originally moved into Brixton was the fact that the rents were cheaper than elsewhere. How can one reasonably complain when rents rise?

 

[editor]

One of the most-quoted reasons for those explaining why they originally moved into Brixton was the fact that the rents were cheaper than elsewhere. How can one reasonably complain when rents rise?

There was a reason why the rents were cheap and people generally used to move to Brixton to become part of that cheap renting community. No need to do that now, though.

 

[sleaterkinney]

that's true - i'd rather criticise the system that means that making this choice helps to remove the amount of choices that other people have - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a critique to be made of home-ownership at this time in history. we shouldn't have to be in this mess. owning or not owning a house should be a matter of choice for everyone, a decision they can make according to their own preferences. it shouldn't be like it is.

I agree, a tax an second homes would be great, would free up a lot of housing stock.

 

[editor]

I agree, a tax an second homes would be great, would free up a lot of housing stock.

A FUCKING MASSIVE one too.

 

[el-ahrairah]

I agree, a tax an second homes would be great, would free up a lot of housing stock.

definitely, amongst other things.

 

[teuchter]

It seems that a lot of those in the former group are either unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care. In fact, some would be happier if those in Brixton council estates were made to move on so 'nice' new accommodation can be built for the better off (and, yes I have heard this directly).

And there's certainly no question that some of the posters here are fitting some of these stereotypes.

Who are they, then?

 

[editor]

Who are they, then?

Oh, shush, you silly little man. I don't do call outs.

 

[leanderman]

One of the most-quoted reasons for those explaining why they originally moved into Brixton was the fact that the rents were cheaper than elsewhere. How can one reasonably complain when rents rise?

And we want a London open to all - and then find the soaring population inflates housing costs (absent an improbable building boom).

 

[Rushy]

And we want a London open to all - and then find the soaring population inflates housing costs (absent an improbable building boom).

Some want all of London open to all - all except their bit, that is.

 

[editor]

And we want a London open to all - and then find the soaring population inflates housing costs (absent an improbable building boom).

I want a London that has generous levels of social housing in all areas, rather than the exploitative developers/buy-to-letters profiteering paradise that it's turned into.

 

[shifting gears]

I want a London that has generous levels of social housing in all areas, rather than the exploitative developers/buy-to-letters profiteering paradise that it's turned into.

Amen to that.

 

[teuchter]

Oh, shush, you silly little man. I don't do call outs.

You've already done the call-out. Too cowardly to put any names to it, though. Easier just to leave your judgemental accusation hanging there, than to actually have to back it up with anything, I suppose.

 

[editor]

You've already done the call-out. Too cowardly to put any names to it, though. Easier just to leave your judgemental accusation hanging there, than to actually have to back it up with anything, I suppose.

It was intentionally a general comment. People can make up their own minds if so inclined. Your predictable attempts to shit stir by making it personal have been noted though. Zzzzz.

 

[leanderman]

Who are they, then?

We know who we are!

 

[leanderman]

I want a London that has generous levels of social housing in all areas, rather than the exploitative developers/buy-to-letters profiteering paradise that it's turned into.

Would need legislative and tax changes to stop the speculation - unlikely with our Parliament and traditions.

Brixton has 'generous levels of social housing'. Many other areas do not.

 

[editor]

Brixton has 'generous levels of social housing'. Many other areas do not.

Those 'generous' levels are depleting fast and none is being built to replace it. I want more. Lots more.

 

[leanderman]

Those 'generous' levels are depleting fast and none is being built to replace it. I want more. Lots more.

Need figures.