Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton news, rumour and general chat - August 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
boohoo said:
But it's hard not to be envious when you are not particularly well off, working really hard and not benefiting from a low rent by having a council house.
Click to expand...

Bollocks - because all the above applies to me, and it makes me positively happy that council tenants have decent places to live.

Honestly, the hand-wringing neoliberal guff that gets voiced here is enough to make me sick sometimes (that is a general comment, not aimed at you specifically)
 
Gramsci said:
The Candy Brothers One Hyde Park development did that

It was an issue at the time. From the Evening Standard article:



This does not have to happen. I was talking to a planner who worked on the Regents Place development and British Land did put affordable housing on site.

The Candy Brothers built One Hyde Park as a secure place for the uber rich. They did not want any social housing onsite as it would put off buyers. I agree with leanderman that place like Knightsbridge should have affordable housing in large developments onsite.
Click to expand...
The principle is fine. But in reality, I would rather see 140 homes provided very nearby than 4 or 5 in the block. The ridiculous value of it makes that possible. I don't give much of a shit what the Candies wanted. But the symbolism just does not seem that important to me when we are talking about that kind of scale. I appreciate that you see it differently.
 
Gramsci said:
I was in a office in Mayfair recently. The two receptionists were complaining about there neighbour who lived in social housing. I really do not understand this especially when one works in Mayfair.

Perhaps its because I am around central London a lot the thought of being envious of someone who is maybe a little better off than me does not cross my mind.

Its what those in power want.

It really is gross the wealth I see around Mayfair.
Click to expand...

I imagine the receptionists aren't paid too much. A shame they don't seem to have an issue with the wealth flaunted in Mayfair.
However we are continuously fed the story that rich people have fairly earned their money but people in social housing are on benefits so they are getting hand out that have come out of the tax payers pocket.
 
boohoo said:
I imagine the receptionists aren't paid too much. A shame they don't seem to have an issue with the wealth flaunted in Mayfair.
However we are continuously fed the story that rich people have fairly earned their money but people in social housing are on benefits so they are getting hand out that have come out of the tax payers pocket.
Click to expand...
Both extremes alternately paint their heroes and villains in order to split the people in the middle - a large proportion of whom are in remarkably similar boats.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I don't know where you're getting your maths from, but there's no addition to the social housing market through Right-to-Buy, however you try to spin it. As I said earlier, the property isn't lost to use, but it is lost to social housing use. "Council tenants" don't gain from RtB, because if you exercise the right, you're no longer a council tenant.



The pace of social housing new-build, whether by RSLs or local authorities, is miniscule measured against demand, and any attempt to "close the gap" needs to be measured against ever-expanding need, which new-build doesn't even keep up with.



So would I.
Click to expand...

I am using your maths, which suggests hardly any decline in social housing supply in Lambeth over ten years.

Demand has increased, as the population of London soars.
 
A lot of new developments with affordable housing have separate doors for each set of dwellers, no chance of them ever meeting.

There are certainly no social benefits to affordable properties in flagship developments.
 
leanderman said:
I am using your maths, which suggests hardly any decline in social housing supply in Lambeth over ten years.

Demand has increased, as the population of London soars.
Click to expand...

My maths show that even including RSL gains, there's still a deficit of 3,000 social housing dwellings in Lambeth based on 2001 and 2011 figures for holdings, so how you arrive at "hardly any decline in social housing supply" is beyond me. 3,000 social housing units is a massive deficit to social housing supply.
 
shifting gears said:
Bollocks - because all the above applies to me, and it makes me positively happy that council tenants have decent places to live.

Honestly, the hand-wringing neoliberal guff that gets voiced here is enough to make me sick sometimes (that is a general comment, not aimed at you specifically)
Click to expand...

As I've said elsewhere, the "guff" is a result of people having had 35-ish years of being indoctrinated with the neoliberal model, so that the individualism, the self-concernedness and the fear of someone getting something for nothing has been somewhat naturalised. It's why, when you mention socialism, trade unions, social solidarity or any other thing that is rational to working class behaviour, many members of the working class will reply with "wtf?", much as the middle classes have always done. :(
 
ViolentPanda said:
As I've said elsewhere, the "guff" is a result of people having had 35-ish years of being indoctrinated with the neoliberal model, so that the individualism, the self-concernedness and the fear of someone getting something for nothing has been somewhat naturalised. It's why, when you mention socialism, trade unions, social solidarity or any other thing that is rational to working class behaviour, many members of the working class will reply with "wtf?", much as the middle classes have always done. :(
Click to expand...

When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"

I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history. :(
 
Smick said:
A lot of new developments with affordable housing have separate doors for each set of dwellers, no chance of them ever meeting.

There are certainly no social benefits to affordable properties in flagship developments.
Click to expand...

Which is why the old-fashioned socially-mixed council estates of the '50s to the '70s were the most sensible and forward -thinking piece of social engineering undertaken by govts, and why Thatcher was so hot to run "Right to Buy" and destroy not just class solidarity, but the germinating cross-class solidarities that could be found on some estates.
 
boohoo said:
When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"
Click to expand...

When I speak in language like that, it's just to "short-hand" what'd otherwise take more space to explain.

Neoliberalism - the set of ideas that Thatcher introduced that took us away from people-centred politics - what we can do for each other, and what government can do for us - and gave us market economics as the basis for everything, allied to the unshakeable belief that private sector = good, and public sector = bad. It introduced an idea that selfishness was absolutely fine (an attitude exemplified in the film "Wall Street" by the phrase ""greed is good"), and that principles like altruism - doing things simply because they were beneficial to others - were somehow the mark of a simpleton.

We've also seen trades unionism - the principle of belonging to a body that represents people in your trade - demonised because of the ideas of acting collectively (as opposed to neoliberalism's favoured idea of individualism - everyone out for themselves) that are behind unions. Thatcher was so keen to break the NUM in the '80s not just for historic reasons, but because the NUM represented, red in tooth and claw, what the trades unions stood for, and her government were happy to break the law to do so. Since then, union membership has plummeted, and part of that plummeting is down to the fact that people have been indoctrinated, by the media; at school etc, to believe that collective action is somehow wrong.

For me, that's why younger people say "what the fuck" when you mention such things - because they've been brought up to think of such ideas as alien (and of individualism as natural), just as I was brought up, a generation or two earlier, to believe that such ideas were perfectly natural for working class people to hold - ideas and institutions that glued us together, at home and in the workplace.

I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history. :(
Click to expand...

Some of us did both! :p :D
 
boohoo said:
When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"

I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history. :(
Click to expand...

this is a common problem. the trouble is that it is hard to explain the current situation vs the alternatives without using the language. it would be like trying to explain murals to people who don't know "painting" "wall" "arts council grant" or "redevelopment into luxury flats". it's possible, but you have to go to first principals and teach everyone from the beginning what the concepts actually mean!
 
Thank you ViolentPanda for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?

I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and watched this:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham
 
el-ahrairah said:
this is a common problem. the trouble is that it is hard to explain the current situation vs the alternatives without using the language. it would be like trying to explain murals to people who don't know "painting" "wall" "arts council grant" or "redevelopment into luxury flats". it's possible, but you have to go to first principals and teach everyone from the beginning what the concepts actually mean!
Click to expand...

But that is quite important. As a fan of public history, I like knowledge to be available to all even if that does mean explaining things in CAPITAL LETTERS. :)
 
ViolentPanda said:
Which is why the old-fashioned socially-mixed council estates of the '50s to the '70s were the most sensible and forward -thinking piece of social engineering undertaken by govts, and why Thatcher was so hot to run "Right to Buy" and destroy not just class solidarity, but the germinating cross-class solidarities that could be found on some estates.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The continuing push to turn council estates into places exclusively for the needy, the unemployed and the poor disgusts me. Fuck Thatcher and the money grubbing cunts continuing her legacy. .
 
SpamMisery said:
Thanks teuchter and boohoo I quote se5 for simplicity only



Now that's an argument I can understand. Although I can't shift the idea that in a way this position sort of says there will always be x number of people requiring social housing. Surely we should be aiming for the end point of nobody requiring state aid? Unlikely I know, but it's a bit like the bank saying "here's a loan but don't worry we know we won't see our money back". However, my beer befuddled mind can't assess the time limit aspect - the right to buy only lasted for a short period? I thought from what was previously posted that it existed for quite some time (if not still existed)?



That I'm not so sure about as it rewards those that have (and I realise this doesn't sound good but I struggle after a few beers to find a better turn of phrase but) made an effort to improve themselves *enters bomb shelter*



However, that, which I happily assume to be true, alleviates my above comment.



And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.

I realise I'm a bit of a noob on the right to buy discussion, but I am trying to understand :confused:
Click to expand...

Here's a simple way to think about it. Person X has lived in Brixton since their late teens, or the early 90's. They settle, have kids, and build a life here. Meanwhile, Brixton moves from cheap and 'dangerous' neighbourhood into trendy and 'edgy' ones. Person X's rent creeps up and up...past their ability as someone who works as a nurse in the public sector to afford it. Therefore according to your logic, Person X should move out of the area where their children go to school, to somewhere else...where they have no social or family ties to support them... I guess there is a weirdly twisted logic to your point of view, but it's a bit neo-liberal for me...
 
ViolentPanda said:
As I've said elsewhere, the "guff" is a result of people having had 35-ish years of being indoctrinated with the neoliberal model, so that the individualism, the self-concernedness and the fear of someone getting something for nothing has been somewhat naturalised. It's why, when you mention socialism, trade unions, social solidarity or any other thing that is rational to working class behaviour, many members of the working class will reply with "wtf?", much as the middle classes have always done. :(
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that envy predates Thatcherism.

(My w/c grandad for example - born in 1912 and left school at 14 - used to complain that when the NHS came in *some* people took advantage and ended up with multiple wigs and pairs of false teeth!)
 
boohoo said:
Thank you ViolentPanda for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the current state of play, but there was quite a strong movement demanding what was basically free childcare for all, well into the late '80s. Unfortunately, like much other activism of the time, it got kind of buried with the arrival of identity politics, where solidarities between individuals morphed from being about shared goals, such as childcare, to being about shared attributes, so you had, for example, groups of women who'd been activist with regard to childcare fracturing into "black women for childcare", "lesbians for childcare", disabled women for childcare", etc etc.

In my own (male) opinion, the reason why the subject of childcare isn't currently a hot topic is purely down to the media not representing it as a broad interest of women, regardless of what women in general might have to say, so it doesn't get debated anywhere but the internet. Universal childcare doesn't make news, and goes against what our political masters believe is best for us, so we don't get to hear about it, sadly.

I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and watched this:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham
Click to expand...

I don't think it's romanticising. The WLM, or different elements of the movement at different times, has achieved a hell of a lot. Okay, there have always been tensions in the WLM/feminism movements on the basis of "who do they represent?", and there have been many arguments that womens' lib and feminism have been bastions of white middle-class privilege at the expense of ethnic minority and/or working class people and their concerns, but that's the case with many mass movements, and you can only deal with such issues if and when they're brought to light, as many of the issues have been by feminists.
 
Winot said:
I think you'll find that envy predates Thatcherism.
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed that it doesn't. :)
What I've said is that Thatcherism and neoliberalism, or rather the normalisation or naturalisation of Thatcherite and neoliberal attitudes among a broader spread of the population than previously, means that other older principles can be difficult for younger people, not raised with those older ideas, to fathom.

(My w/c grandad for example - born in 1912 and left school at 14 - used to complain that when the NHS came in *some* people took advantage and ended up with multiple wigs and pairs of false teeth!)
Click to expand...

As did a lot of people (complain about that, that is). Interestingly (for me, anyway!), if you look at the media of the day, they pretty much led off with such claims, and made them a matter of national debate, so (as with the "Winter of Discontent"), I often wonder how many of those incidences were actually experienced, and how many were FOAF (i.e. "heard it from a Friend Of A Friend") tales. I certainly know that the Winter of Discontent I experienced was almost entirely dissimilar to the Winter of Discontent retailed by the media then and now"!
 
boohoo said:
But that is quite important. As a fan of public history, I like knowledge to be available to all even if that does mean explaining things in CAPITAL LETTERS. :)
Click to expand...

i think we do have a thread somewhere that is a glossary of political language....
 
boohoo said:
Thank you ViolentPanda for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?

I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and watched this:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham
Click to expand...

I was there! bloody cold day and quite remarkable in everyway. Are you going to the drinks tonight? shall I bring my photos? i recall women 'romanticising' about the WLM even then - 'I thought we would have changed the world by now, but I'm still stuck here with the kids' sort of thing
 
boohoo said:
Thank you ViolentPanda for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?
Click to expand...

Getting to a more equal society after thousands of years of women being viewed and treated as tradeable objects was probably never going to happen within a timespan of less than 50 years.

There are all sorts of issues which it might have been fondly imagined that feminism / the WLM would 'solve', which are still with us -even in societies where it's now the norm for women to work for pay and expect equality. (Porn, domestic violence, sexual assaults, pay gap, 'female premium' charged on goods and services, I could go on....)

Since the 1960s a lot of activism for women's rights (on pay, employment, contraception, abortion, economic independence) has been about individual rights i.e. why can't Woman A have the same rights as Man B - but in the workplace, judging on workplace performance alone is always going to favour men over women (until men can get pregnant, anyway.) It's been a much more individualistic struggle, if you like.

I personally think childcare is the next frontier for fighting sexism and needs total reform - and that is a matter for both men AND women, those who are parents AND those who don't have or even want children. It's not the fault of women (mothers or not) "failing to organise" to fight for their rights. It's a whole social blind spot about how to pay for the next generation. This is a fundamental and very knotty problem. How do you get a society to ensure all kids are properly provided for without leaving someone feeling marginalised, left out or exploited?

Plus, of course - talking about childcare risks being very boring to those who haven't got children and it doesn't draw media / public attention nearly as much as warring ideologies over porn, sex work, rape or street harrassment - which are still attracting lots of political energy (much of it wasted.)
 
friendofdorothy said:
I was there! bloody cold day and quite remarkable in everyway. Are you going to the drinks tonight? shall I bring my photos? i recall women 'romanticising' about the WLM even then - 'I thought we would have changed the world by now, but I'm still stuck here with the kids' sort of thing
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm going to come along tonight as I'm in the middle of my dissertation but I'd really love to hear all about it and see photos. How exciting!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
756
editor
editor
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
732
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
489
madolesance
M
Back
Top Bottom