Work starts on the eagerly awaited new Foxtons office on Brixton Road

[Gramsci]

Your opinion on if Brixton is desirable or not is obviously biased because you live here for so long, and know it well. The unknown is always scary, and to a lot of people (especially following the riots), Brixton, Peckham and other areas of south london have a reputation as being unsafe and undesirable. Maybe I can see that more clearly than you considering that I only moved here last year, and I will admit that this was my attitude towards the area before, and now I love it.

We live in the capital city, it's obviously going to be expensive. Like with every issue, instead of looking at the governments and the way they choose to run the country, we blame other people be it based on race, wealth or social background. The point I was originally making is that who are you or anyone else to decide who can move into a certain area or not, just because you've lived there for a certain period of time.

If someone turned around and said that their criticism of London is that its gradually becoming a playground for the poor, would it be regarded as an appropriate or reasonable comment to make? No probably not. It seems like a slightly skewed attitude to blame the well off for wanting to live in a desirable place and having the money to do so. In an ideal world it wouldn't be like that, but that's how our economy works and that isn't the fault of any group of people - hipsters/yuppies/the wealthy/the poor/blacks/whites/asians/dogs/cats/flamingos. Seems like everyone just wants someone to blame.


I think your misreading what I was trying to say - I was using hipsters as an example. People choose their religion but can still be discriminated against because of it. I don't think any form of prejudice or discrimination is justified, its just a gateway to bigger and worse things.

Governments have a role but in a globalised neo liberal world a limited one. So I think its perfectly acceptable to regard certain groups/ classes of people as my adversaries. After all this is how politics in a democratic society is supposed to work. Different classes and social groups are in conflict with each other. We are not all in it together. Democracy is supposed to be a peaceful way to manage conflict. It however has turned into centre ground management. Which is ideological whilst seeming not to be. Democracy can be seen in different ways. A liberal one of different interest groups electing representatives to oversee society. This leaves out the fact that some social groups have more social power than others. Or seeing a democratic society as an arena of potential conflict and antagonistic relations between different groups.

The present economic crisis is going to exacerbate tensions. Not sure about your age. But when I saw the recent riots in London I was not shocked. Seen it all before in the 80s. I think for some people growing up under last government its not normal. To me it is. Thatcher restructured this society radically. She was not averse to conflict or using the police when necessary. This is what I grew up with.

You are missing the class dimension. I might get on in a perfectly reasonable fashion with some of the well off people I meet on a day to day basis in Belgravia for example ( I get around a bit) . However that does not mean in the end I regard there interests as the same as mine. There is a difference between dealing with people individually and looking at society structurally - a class based society like this one.

Its wrong to say that because we live in London its "obviously going to be expensive". You are falling into the trap of thinking that the way things are is just the natural course of events. Its not. Its a product of history and politics. When I first came to London in 79 central London was not "obviously" expensive.

The same goes for the way "our economy works". Not my economy. I don't get asked about it. The recent economic crisis makes it clear how "our economy works". The City and bankers have made sure there interests are looked after at the expense of the lives of the less well off. And there is now evidence that the biggest hits are being taken by the poorest 10%. As far as I am concerned this is class issue.

The well off have always lived around Brixton area. That is my point about what is happening to London. Unlike other cities classes lived near each other. This is what is going.

I also have issues with the recent extension of discrimination to religion. Racism is different from criticising religion. And I think it should be clearly kept that way.

 

[Gramsci]

it will be interesting to see what the reductions in housing benefit does to rents / house prices. removing a floor to the market should force prices down.

In London it will not force prices down. The landlords can get tenants anyway. My friend in north London has not trouble getting tenants for the flat she rents. She will not take people on benefits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

1) In this age of globalisation a competitive tax system is key. We need to attract business to the UK. Lower corporate taxes would be a good thing as it would create jobs.

That tune has been trumpeted for 30 years now, and it's no more tuneful now than it was then. Lower corporate taxes invariably don't create new jobs in the UK because we don't actually attract the sort of corporates who manufacture goods, which minimises possible job creation to the service or banking sectors, neither of which have provided much more than enough jobs to offset the slow death of the manufacturing sector - a sector that is dying not because it's time is past, but because an ideological choice was made in the late 1970s to assist the decline of manufacturing in order to destroy trades unionism.

2) Agreed. Brown made bad decisions and much of the western world got hooked to a massive debt binge.

3) Listen to the budget. The deficit is huge. Public debt is approaching 100% of GDP. You cannot tax your way out of this kind of hole. The treasury is broke!

Public debt has approached much worse than that and survived. The deficit is eminently survivable given basic neo-Keynesian economics (and lets not get into the whole "austerity=untested and destructive vs. Keynesianism=tested and efficacious" debate!). Panicking because of the perception that there's a crisis is balm to george Osborne's soul. It puts lead in his pencil because people don't explore beyond the headlines to the fundamentals. Remember when Gideon was selling his "we'll lose our credit rating" schtick a few years ago? Anyone who looked at the fundamentals knew he was talking shit, that we'd not go Greece, Ireland or Spain's way because the fundamentals of the economy were sound. They've only started to become unsound, to give rise to a modicum of concern, in the last 3-4 quarters, and only because Osborne's economic policy has actively underminded any potential for growth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My implied point VP.

I know. I said it so you didn't have to reiterate yourself for any thickies.

 

[Libertad]

I know. I said it so you didn't have to reiterate yourself for any thickies.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Gramsci]

3) Listen to the budget. The deficit is huge. Public debt is approaching 100% of GDP. You cannot tax your way out of this kind of hole. The treasury is broke!

It needs to be remembered the Treasury is broke because it saved the Banks. Its not down to the fiction put out by Osbourne that there is a "structural deficit" of "overspending" by Gordon Brown.

Osbourne policy is that it "overspending" on welfare that is the problem. So the state need to be shrunken further. Not exactly been a great success so far.

 

[TonyH82]

That tune has been trumpeted for 30 years now, and it's no more tuneful now than it was then. Lower corporate taxes invariably don't create new jobs in the UK because we don't actually attract the sort of corporates who manufacture goods, which minimises possible job creation to the service or banking sectors, neither of which have provided much more than enough jobs to offset the slow death of the manufacturing sector - a sector that is dying not because it's time is past, but because an ideological choice was made in the late 1970s to assist the decline of manufacturing in order to destroy trades unionism.



Public debt has approached much worse than that and survived. The deficit is eminently survivable given basic neo-Keynesian economics (and lets not get into the whole "austerity=untested and destructive vs. Keynesianism=tested and efficacious" debate!). Panicking because of the perception that there's a crisis is balm to george Osborne's soul. It puts lead in his pencil because people don't explore beyond the headlines to the fundamentals. Remember when Gideon was selling his "we'll lose our credit rating" schtick a few years ago? Anyone who looked at the fundamentals knew he was talking shit, that we'd not go Greece, Ireland or Spain's way because the fundamentals of the economy were sound. They've only started to become unsound, to give rise to a modicum of concern, in the last 3-4 quarters, and only because Osborne's economic policy has actively underminded any potential for growth.

You've outlasted me! I give up on this debate about the size of the state / economic policy.

It is a shame that areas of London are getting so expensive that people are being forced to move.

It is happening to pretty much everyone in one way or another. Many of people moving to Brixton would probably have preferred to live in other locations - but due to increased prices they are having to look elsewhere.

Sadly, I don't think anyone in the coalition / the opposition have the will to make a meaningful difference. This branch of Foxtons will not be the last change to Brixton that the members of this board object to.

 

[Blagsta]

Too big to be affordable.

Gordon Brown was running large deficits during a time of good economic growth and strong tax receipts. Much of this was due to massive expansion of the state (including the welfare state).

State support should always be there. But there isn't an endless pot of money to fund everything that people want. Focusing on the essentials is key.

Affordable to who? This idea the country is skint is a lie. Check the Sunday Times Rich List. The deficit does not exist due to the welfare state. That's another lie.

 

[Blagsta]

agreed. a rapid 30% fall in residential property values would crush our banks.

but people need to realise that a house is a place to live. not an investment.

a gradual decline or long term stagnation in house prices would be fantastic news.

it will be interesting to see what the reductions in housing benefit does to rents / house prices. removing a floor to the market should force prices down.

will it bollocks, all it will do is mean that people move out of London, I've already had to

 

[Gramsci]

The long-term unemployed aren't a massive issue.

But given the finite resources that the state has, the welfare state is now too big. Universal benefits were a mistake and it is good they are being gradually rolled back.

What about "quantitative easing"? Seems to me the state has a lot of resources when needed. It was states that went to save the banking system when the "Master of the Universe" fucked up.

Quantitative easing did not help the economy it went to save the banks. The banks/ City are welfare dependent.

Several banks were effectively (and still are) nationalised.

There is also argument put forward by economists like Stiglitz that benefits should not be cut in a recession but increased. The money from benefits goes directly back into the economy. Unlike Quantitative Easing which has been hoarded by Banks.

Universal benefits are (or were) central to Beveridge ( a Liberal not a socialist) ideas:

Together with a national health service and maintenance of employment, a universal children's allowance was one of the three pillars of the welfare state set out by William Beveridge (below) in his seminal 1942 report.

The Welfare State was not set up purely as a safety net for those who fall on hard times.

 

[leanderman]

It needs to be remembered the Treasury is broke because it saved the Banks. Its not down to the fiction put out by Osbourne that there is a "structural deficit" of "overspending" by Gordon Brown.

.

I am surprised by this contention.

Quite aside from the bank bail-out, I understand that we have been overspending and have run up a major debt.

I think the bank bail-out is a cash for shares deal that may or not cost us, depending on the stock price of RBS and Lloyds at the point we sell out.

 

[Winot]

Actually I think Pickman's is right...not long for this world. Apart from anything else I would imagine his grubby trolly little keyboard is seizing up with ejaculate as I type.

When I saw his username I had a feeling he was for the chop.

 

[mxh]

I think the bank bail-out is a cash for shares deal that may or not cost us, depending on the stock price of RBS and Lloyds at the point we sell out.

I think the real plan is to inflate our way out of the debt, that is the only way we will technically not lose from the shambles of RBS.

 

[secateurz]

I think the real plan is to inflate our way out of the debt, that is the only way we will technically not lose from the shambles of RBS.

I agree...but I do believe this will take >10 years

 

[Gramsci]

I am surprised by this contention.

Quite aside from the bank bail-out, I understand that we have been overspending and have run up a major debt.

I think the bank bail-out is a cash for shares deal that may or not cost us, depending on the stock price of RBS and Lloyds at the point we sell out.

Understand from where?

And who is "we"?

The saving of RBS was only one part of the saving of the Banking system. Both here and in USA government action like Quantitative Easing, underwriting of banking with long and short term loans has been done. A raft of measures to stop the banking system seizing up completely.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You've outlasted me! I give up on this debate about the size of the state / economic policy.

I outlasted you because I have right on my side.

It is a shame that areas of London are getting so expensive that people are being forced to move.

It is happening to pretty much everyone in one way or another. Many of people moving to Brixton would probably have preferred to live in other locations - but due to increased prices they are having to look elsewhere.

It's a function of "gentrification", which itself is merely a colonisation of "working class" parts of London by the ever-expanding "middle classes". As ever, money talks loudest and common-sense comes a distant second. Even the Victorians knew better than this, which is why they developed housing for "the lower orders" at the same time as developing housing for the servant-hiring classes.

Sadly, I don't think anyone in the coalition / the opposition have the will to make a meaningful difference. This branch of Foxtons will not be the last change to Brixton that the members of this board object to.

No-one is saying it will be, just that it's a "marker" for a particular perceptual shift in how the wider public have come to see Brixton.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am surprised by this contention.

Quite aside from the bank bail-out, I understand that we have been overspending and have run up a major debt.

As I said above, what's blamed on Brown wouldn't have become debt but for the credit crucnch, which was an externally-produced and unanticipateable event.

I think the bank bail-out is a cash for shares deal that may or not cost us, depending on the stock price of RBS and Lloyds at the point we sell out.

Thing is, the "bailout" is deeper than simply the buying of an interest in a couple of banks - it's also about QE, about easy money floated to other, less car-crash, financial institutions and other "corporate welfare" packages offered to The City and big business post-crunch.

 

[leanderman]

As I said above, what's blamed on Brown wouldn't have become debt but for the credit crucnch, which was an externally-produced and unanticipateable event.



Thing is, the "bailout" is deeper than simply the buying of an interest in a couple of banks - it's also about QE, about easy money floated to other, less car-crash, financial institutions and other "corporate welfare" packages offered to The City and big business post-crunch.

Certainly it has punished savers and pensioners and filled the pockets of borrowers, such as those with mortgages.

 

[B-Town]

Changing the subject slightly, I have recently been looking at the prices in Brixton and how much they have shot up over the last couple of years... A two bed flat on Joshephine Ave has just sold for £410K with Foxtons, it doesnt even have a garden. Whilst I find these prices incredible, how long do you think they can continue to rise for - surely Brixton is close to its ceiling now?

 

[Kanda]

Changing the subject slightly, I have recently been looking at the prices in Brixton and how much they have shot up over the last couple of years... A two bed flat on Joshephine Ave has just sold for £410K with Foxtons, it doesnt even have a garden. Whilst I find these prices incredible, how long do you think they can continue to rise for - surely Brixton is close to its ceiling now?

Nope. It will reach Clapham sized amounts soon.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Changing the subject slightly, I have recently been looking at the prices in Brixton and how much they have shot up over the last couple of years... A two bed flat on Joshephine Ave has just sold for £410K with Foxtons, it doesnt even have a garden. Whilst I find these prices incredible, how long do you think they can continue to rise for - surely Brixton is close to its ceiling now?

I can't find my post (sure it's in this thread somewhere) of house prices in Elms Road in Clapham where I used to live. There were half a dozen properties that were over £2 million there.

Obviously they're not 2 bedrooms though

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Ah, here you go

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-pr...7&referrer=detailPage&columnToSort=PRICE_DESC

 

[MillwallShoes]

Ah, here you go

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-pr...7&referrer=detailPage&columnToSort=PRICE_DESC

how rich must you be to be able to afford places like that? really. rough guess at the net worth and salary of people who can afford them sort of houses? i just don't get it. london is getting so exclusive.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

how rich must you be to be able to afford places like that? really. rough guess at the net worth and salary of people who can afford them sort of houses? i just don't get it. london is getting so exclusive.

I used to live in one of them that is now just short of £1m. I think when my friends bought it, it was maybe around £300,000, but they spent a nearly a year camped in the garden whilst they refurbished it.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

2 bedroom off Clapham Common, over £600k

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-40527197.html

 

[leanderman]

As I noted here earlier this week, a two-bed garden flat in Leander Rd has just sold at £465,000, against an asking price of £445,000.

Last summer, two 4-bed houses, both very rundown, sold for 'only' £500,000 and £545,000.

Bonkers, but the mistake is to think it's only happening here.

In neighbouring districts the rises are possibly even more extreme.

 

[Gramsci]

Thing is, the "bailout" is deeper than simply the buying of an interest in a couple of banks - it's also about QE, about easy money floated to other, less car-crash, financial institutions and other "corporate welfare" packages offered to The City and big business post-crunch.

Exactly. Private Eye "In the city" Slicker did a good piece on it a while back. The corporate welfare (By US and UK) also extended to banks like Barclays.

Brown/ Darling never got any thanks for this from the City.

 

[Gramsci]

It's a function of "gentrification", which itself is merely a colonisation of "working class" parts of London by the ever-expanding "middle classes". As ever, money talks loudest and common-sense comes a distant second. Even the Victorians knew better than this, which is why they developed housing for "the lower orders" at the same time as developing housing for the servant-hiring classes.

Middle Class are made up of different elements. Brixton always had middle class in it as well. Remember seeing exhibition about 81 riots. One piece on display was about composition of Brixton at that time. It also had middle class public sector professionals - social workers etc in it. Who tended to be on the left.

Its also potentially middle class professionals like teachers who are also going to be priced out of Brixton.

Any opposition to the present Tory "reforms" of housing and the welfare state needs alliance of sections of the middle class as well as working class.

After all as Ed posted up here (on this thread I think) early post war public housing was not only meant for the poorest.

I agree about the Victorians. The present Tories think that the less well off should not be entitled to live in central London. As I go around Chelsea , for example, I see old Victorian housing built for the working classes.

 

[leanderman]

Exactly. Private Eye "In the city" Slicker did a good piece on it a while back. The corporate welfare (By US and UK) also extended to banks like Barclays.

Brown/ Darling never got any thanks for this from the City.

Barclays drew on the easy money from the Fed and BoE but was just as reliant on a huge investment from the Gulf.

The measures deemed necessary to save all of us - such as QE - are making the rich richer by inflating their assets and making those assets cheaper to fund.

I think this is a consequence of the policy rather than its main aim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Changing the subject slightly, I have recently been looking at the prices in Brixton and how much they have shot up over the last couple of years... A two bed flat on Joshephine Ave has just sold for £410K with Foxtons, it doesnt even have a garden. Whilst I find these prices incredible, how long do you think they can continue to rise for - surely Brixton is close to its ceiling now?

What people often ignore is that prices in places like Brixton tend not to rise merely as a result of popularity, but because prices in surrounding areas have risen too. They rise because of an excess of demand over supply.
Calculate the number of households in, say, Greater London, and the number of available dwellings. Now look at the disparity between households and available dwellings. With that kind of pressure on supply (estimates of excess of households over dwellings vary from as few as 50,000 to as many as 250,000, so even if we split the difference, that's 150,000 dwellings too few), little short of a major economic meltdown is going to exert downward pressure on prices. We can look forward to seeing those prices continue to edge up.