The "Living Wage" apparently comes into operation today !!

First topic message reminder :

Apparently the Living wage that has been described as "Not the living wage" by the ..Living Wage Foundation.. comes into operation today..

With the cuts in work support however two million families are set to lose £1600 a year.....

The introduction of the Universal Credit apparently will see in-work support fall for 2.3 million of the 3.1 million families currently on Tax credits...

It's a shame so many British people show so much Political apathy......Unlike some stuck in the middle of these statistics..I won't be affected... but I made my way down to the station to tick the Labour box....Although in fairness it has to be said mainly to get rid of the Liberal moron........

But what can you do.....My heart goes out to Wheelie who bangs his head against a brick wall trying to educate people that they are going to be screwed..

Big believer in fairness and while Labour have this Corbyn joke not sure people are going to see any !!....Especially with boundary changes a-comin....

Damn, no way should there be housing association places in Chelsea.

It's full of them.  They're everywhere.  It's why the gov't has tried to push the sale of inefficient high value assets for reinvestment where there's greater need.  I.e. why does a HA own a £2m flat that houses 1 couple when for the same price even in the same borough it could be possible to house 2 whole families.

It's part of the absurdity of social housing policy on new developments (not just legacy flats such as the ones I valued) and why councils should actively pursue taking s106 payments in lieue of accommodation provision in v high value areas.

E.g. a high value development of 30 flats in Queens Park 'should' have 10 flats handed to a housing association for 'affordable' uses (NB: they're actually just council housing). But they're worth £1-2m a pop so why get 10 there when you could spend £15-20m the other end of the Borough (Brent) in somewhere like Wembley and get 30-40 flats??

TopHat24/7 wrote:It's full of them.  They're everywhere.  It's why the gov't has tried to push the sale of inefficient high value assets for reinvestment where there's greater need.  I.e. why does a HA own a £2m flat that houses 1 couple when for the same price even in the same borough it could be possible to house 2 whole families.

It's part of the absurdity of social housing policy on new developments (not just legacy flats such as the ones I valued) and why councils should actively pursue taking s106 payments in lieue of accommodation provision in v high value areas.

E.g. a high value development of 30 flats in Queens Park 'should' have 10 flats handed to a housing association for 'affordable' uses (NB: they're actually just council housing). But they're worth £1-2m a pop so why get 10 there when you could spend £15-20m the other end of the Borough (Brent) in somewhere like Wembley and get 30-40 flats??

But what happens when these areas become 'gentrified'? Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It's full of them.  They're everywhere.  It's why the gov't has tried to push the sale of inefficient high value assets for reinvestment where there's greater need.  I.e. why does a HA own a £2m flat that houses 1 couple when for the same price even in the same borough it could be possible to house 2 whole families.

It's part of the absurdity of social housing policy on new developments (not just legacy flats such as the ones I valued) and why councils should actively pursue taking s106 payments in lieue of accommodation provision in v high value areas.

E.g. a high value development of 30 flats in Queens Park 'should' have 10 flats handed to a housing association for 'affordable' uses (NB: they're actually just council housing). But they're worth £1-2m a pop so why get 10 there when you could spend £15-20m the other end of the Borough (Brent) in somewhere like Wembley and get 30-40 flats??

But what happens when these areas become 'gentrified'? Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?

They should have the same rights as any other tenant - can't afford it, leave. No time for all this misty-eyed bullsh!t. When I got my first flat I moved from nice Kilburn/Queens Park area to an absolute dog hole of an area because that's where I could afford. UKG footing your bill shouldn't protect you from that.

Besides, 'gentrification' doesn't happen over night. Chelsea has been an exclusive area for a long time and it makes no difference to my s106 point - housing shortages are current, responding to them is therefore a current issue, not one of "yeh, but in 20-30 years these might be nice/expensive areas".

Going off topic slightly, TH's post pushed me to look at a former council estate in Kidbrooke, SE London, which is now in the hands of a private HA and Berkeleys. Once home to thousands of council tenants, the cheapest purchase is this little number.



And a bargain at only £392,500. As part of the deal with the council there was also supposed to be some 'affordable' housing, with 1 bed apartments starting from £207,000. That pretty much rules out anyone earning min wage. Seriously, can over £200k for a one bed flat ever be described as 'affordable'? Not so good for those who couldn't afford to buy either:

However, it is also important to note that some residents from the Ferrier Estate were unable to return to Kidbrooke Village because they could not afford higher rents and higher council tax payments compared to the costs of their previous homes. Interviewees also noted that overall there has been a net loss of affordable housing at Kidbrooke Village from 1,906 to 1,525

This is an excellent (if slightly biased) article on council/private HA/developer initiatives and how they affect the local communities, long but worth a read.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:But what happens when these areas become 'gentrified'? Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?

They should have the same rights as any other tenant - can't afford it, leave. No time for all this misty-eyed bullsh!t.  When I got my first flat I moved from nice Kilburn/Queens Park area to an absolute dog hole of an area because that's where I could afford.  UKG footing your bill shouldn't protect you from that.

Besides, 'gentrification' doesn't happen over night. Chelsea has been an exclusive area for a long time and it makes no difference to my s106 point - housing shortages are current, responding to them is therefore a current issue, not one of "yeh, but in 20-30 years these might be nice/expensive areas".

Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

Pr4wn wrote:So what he's saying is that the NLW is fine for people living in poorer areas, but that poor people aren't allowed anywhere near London and London should not have shops or cleaners. Or, at least, cleaners and shop workers should not be allowed to live in or near the biggest city in the country.

Hoonercat wrote:Going off topic slightly, TH's post pushed me to look at a former council estate in Kidbrooke, SE London, which is now in the hands of a private HA and Berkeleys. Once home to thousands of council tenants, the cheapest purchase is this little number.



And a bargain at only £392,500. As part of the deal with the council there was also supposed to be some 'affordable' housing, with 1 bed apartments starting from £207,000. That pretty much rules out anyone earning min wage. Seriously, can over £200k for a one bed flat ever be described as 'affordable'? Not so good for those who couldn't afford to buy either:

However, it is also important to note that some residents from the Ferrier Estate were unable to return to Kidbrooke Village because they could not afford higher rents and higher council tax payments compared to the costs of their previous homes. Interviewees also noted that overall there has been a net loss of affordable housing at Kidbrooke Village from 1,906 to 1,525

This is an excellent (if slightly biased) article on council/private HA/developer initiatives and how they affect the local communities, long but worth a read.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park

'Affordable housing' is never 'affordable' as nobody who gets it 'affords' it.

It's a natty buzzword to conceal council housing by another name. Majority of a development's AH is actually 'social rented' which what we all know and don't love as council housing - c.25% of market rent and usually paid by housing benefit. You'll then usually get a small amount of intermediate rented (c.60% of market rent), which sounds like what the gov't are trying to push for more of where there are 'council tenants' with good incomes, and then some shared ownership (part buy part rent).

Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist. If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

If I get bored later and have no needles to stick in my eyes I might read that article. But being the Guardian it will likely be as biaised, as untilligent and as poorly researched as the Daily Fail.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:But what happens when these areas become 'gentrified'? Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?

They should have the same rights as any other tenant - can't afford it, leave. No time for all this misty-eyed bullsh!t.  When I got my first flat I moved from nice Kilburn/Queens Park area to an absolute dog hole of an area because that's where I could afford.  UKG footing your bill shouldn't protect you from that.

Besides, 'gentrification' doesn't happen over night. Chelsea has been an exclusive area for a long time and it makes no difference to my s106 point - housing shortages are current, responding to them is therefore a current issue, not one of "yeh, but in 20-30 years these might be nice/expensive areas".

Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

Pr4wn wrote:So what he's saying is that the NLW is fine for people living in poorer areas, but that poor people aren't allowed anywhere near London and London should not have shops or cleaners. Or, at least, cleaners and shop workers should not be allowed to live in or near the biggest city in the country.

Get over yourself. Want to live in a nicer area or bigger house? Fooking work harder and earn more. It's a simple fact of life. What next, automotive-social segregation because minimum wagers deserve to drive BMW X5s too??!

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

Slightly different when you're including the entire capital as being free from poor people though, isn't it?

This isn't Sandbanks we're dealing with here, it's London. And it's completely unsustainable.

Scottrf wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

It's called the ignorance of champagne socialists. So caught up in their Marxist determinations to keep the supposed poor & unfortunate in their existing homes that they ignore the plight of many many more that could be helped with a more logical, fair and progressive policy.

Pr4wn wrote:Slightly different when you're including the entire capital as being free from poor people though, isn't it?

This isn't Sandbanks we're dealing with here, it's London. And it's completely unsustainable.

Entire capital? Grossly ignorant over-exaggeration.

I have a point and you know it.

A tenuous one but one all the same. It is, however, one I strongly disagree with as it sums up the petulent culture of deservedness which plagues our society & economy.

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Scottrf wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

I didn't justify it, I asked what you would with those tenants if the area you moved them to went upmarket.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Hoonercat wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

I didn't justify it, I asked what you would with those tenants if the area you moved them to went upmarket.

Move them. You know, like EVERYONE ELSE that has to deal with an ever changing market without the benefit of council protection afforded to them by virture of being under-achieving nobodies.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

It's called the ignorance of champagne socialists.  So caught up in their Marxist determinations to keep the supposed poor & unfortunate in their existing homes that they ignore the plight of many many more that could be helped with a more logical, fair and progressive policy.

Fair and progressive by dumping them in every poor area available? Good luck finding affordable child care when there's no one left to do the job.
I find it odd that you can accuse people of Marxism simply because they want to see those at the bottom of the ladder do a little better in life. While I'm not in favour of tax credits shifting the financial burden to the tax payer rather than the employer, it has clearly enabled many people to get back to work. I don't understand the apparent disdain you have for those people with your 'why should they get stuff when I can't' attitude, you come across as a spoilt brat with an inflated sense of self importance.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

I want to see those at the bottom do a little better in life. Difference is I don't want to see them do this purely by being given freebies and greater benefits/protection than the rest of us that have achieved something. You want better? GO EARN IT!

Can't or won't go get it yourself, don't go making it my problem/concern. Spoilt is thinking the world owes you something and that you deserve it by right without needing to earn it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

I didn't justify it, I asked what you would with those tenants if the area you moved them to went upmarket.

Move them. You know, like EVERYONE ELSE that has to deal with an ever changing market without the benefit of council protection afforded to them by virture of being under-achieving nobodies.

Remember to quote that to your care workers when you're old, lying in your bed and dribbling all over yourself, I'm sure it will endear them to you.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes. Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Social segregation? So Pr4wn was right then.

It's pretty obvious though?

Just as people who can't afford them don't get to own an Aston Martin, people who can't afford them shouldn't have housing in the most expensive areas. We don't have 'car association' sports cars.

I don't know how you can justify £2m social housing for 1-2 people when that same money could be spread over many more people.

Damn, crossed with Toppy.

I didn't justify it, I asked what you would with those tenants if the area you moved them to went upmarket.

Move them. You know, like EVERYONE ELSE that has to deal with an ever changing market without the benefit of council protection afforded to them by virture of being under-achieving nobodies.

Remember to quote that to your care workers when you're old, lying in your bed and dribbling all over yourself, I'm sure it will endear them to you.

The care workers I'll be paying out of my post tax income and post tax savings??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes.  Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

There are NO council tenants there anymore, they are HA tenants. But thanks for making a fool of yourself
PS the phrase OMFG - seriously, how old are you? Even my 14 year old would feel immature using that one.

The problem, as Pr4wn has alluded to, is where does this end though? Putting aside the issue of low income people being ripped out of their communities and displaced after years of living there, which I am sure will be dismissed as woolly liberal whining there is only a finite amount of space in London. If it is the case that people need to be paid an amount that makes living in the capital feasible it surely follows there must be some housing that is available at a reasonable or affordable price. The two are surely intrinsically linked. As each area becomes gentrified or more expensive what happens to those who live there, either they are allowed to stay there, in subsidised housing (heavily subsidised as the housing value increases) or they are moved out to a less well to do area.

The issue is surely that the amount of areas in the capital is finite, they don’t create new regions. Where does this end, with a capital devoid of blue collar or lower income people. I’d imagine that would be pretty difficult, because as has been said already in this thread, people serving in shops, bars restaurants and collecting rubbish etc is pretty much essential to the running of a city.

Rowley wrote:The problem, as Pr4wn has alluded to, is where does this end though? Putting aside the issue of low income people being ripped out of their communities and displaced after years of living there, which I am sure will be dismissed as woolly liberal whining there is only a finite amount of space in London. If it is the case that people need to be paid an amount that makes living in the capital feasible it surely follows there must be some housing that is available at a reasonable or affordable price. The two are surely intrinsically linked. As each area becomes gentrified or more expensive what happens to those who live there, either they are allowed to stay there, in subsidised housing (heavily subsidised as the housing value increases) or they are moved out to a less well to do area.

The issue is surely that the amount of areas in the capital is finite, they don’t create new regions. Where does this end, with a capital devoid of blue collar or lower income people. I’d imagine that would be pretty difficult, because as has been said already in this thread, people serving in shops, bars restaurants and collecting rubbish etc is pretty much essential to the running of a city.

I wouldn't agree to do a job that I couldn't afford to do because the living costs were too high in that area. If they aren't paying enough to these workers in London, remove the supply until they are willing to pay the necessary wages.

It's clear living costs are high in London, why are you against tax credits but for unnaturally low rents supplemented by public funding?

Just bus them in, or have them live in the basement like old fashioned stately homes.

There's a finite amount of people that can climb the ladder and earn more, there will always be people on the minimum wage - it is just the way things are structured.

I think anyone who works deserves a relatively comfortable life, the suggestion all they merit is enough to cover rent and £25 for food is awful.

Ent wrote:Just bus them in, or have them live in the basement like old fashioned stately homes.

There's a finite amount of people that can climb the ladder and earn more, there will always be people on the minimum wage - it is just the way things are structured.

I think anyone who works deserves a relatively comfortable life, the suggestion all they merit is enough to cover rent and £25 for food is awful.

I was merely pointing out that when he says 'enough to live on' it's not really what he means at all.

I did not say I was against Tax Credits, merely stated I would prefer people to be paid enough to not need to rely on them. As Pr4wn has said the current model is unsustainable. If wages were increased all that would happen is rents would go up, so rather than solve the problem all you would do is make more money for the property owners without actually improving the lot of those on lower income. Given this the government has to act somewhere, to either make living in the city more affordable or increase the income of the lower earners.

My own preference would be in protecting some amount of social and council housing and building more when feasible. Is easy to say this is just a different form of handout but it seems clear that the government needs to intervene somewhere and since suggesting rent caps for private properties tends to get you accused of being a pinko anti capitalist commie scumbag. The city, as with any city needs people doing blue collar, low income jobs, given they are needed I hardly think it is completely unreasonable they can live and eat whilst doing those jobs.

Rowley wrote:I did not say I was against Tax Credits, merely stated I would prefer people to be paid enough to not need to rely on them. As Pr4wn has said the current model is unsustainable. If wages were increased all that would happen is rents would go up, so rather than solve the problem all you would do is make more money for the property owners without actually improving the lot of those on lower income. Given this the government has to act somewhere, to either make living in the city more affordable or increase the income of the lower earners.

My own preference would be in protecting some amount of social and council housing and building more when feasible. Is easy to say this is just a different form of handout but it seems clear that the government needs to intervene somewhere and since suggesting rent caps for private properties tends to get you accused of being a pinko anti capitalist commie scumbag. The city, as with any city needs people doing blue collar, low income jobs, given they are needed I hardly think it is completely unreasonable they can live and eat whilst doing those jobs.

Completely agree. I'm not suggesting low paid workers should be given the earth, but they shouldn't be working full time and still struggling. I know a few people who are on minimum wage or thereabouts and they manage, but mostly through careful planning and spending. They certainly don't deserve to be labelled 'under-achieving nobodies' by cretins.

Rowley wrote:I did not say I was against Tax Credits, merely stated I would prefer people to be paid enough to not need to rely on them. As Pr4wn has said the current model is unsustainable. If wages were increased all that would happen is rents would go up, so rather than solve the problem all you would do is make more money for the property owners without actually improving the lot of those on lower income. Given this the government has to act somewhere, to either make living in the city more affordable or increase the income of the lower earners.

My own preference would be in protecting some amount of social and council housing and building more when feasible. Is easy to say this is just a different form of handout but it seems clear that the government needs to intervene somewhere and since suggesting rent caps for private properties tends to get you accused of being a pinko anti capitalist commie scumbag. The city, as with any city needs people doing blue collar, low income jobs, given they are needed I hardly think it is completely unreasonable they can live and eat whilst doing those jobs.

Fine, but living in Chelsea?!

Well no Scott, but this is the problem with any system, there are always the odd anomaly, extreme example or piece of just plain idiocy in any system, but these are the ones that garner attention and become poster boys for those with a desire to undermine the system. One dumbass example in Chelsea should no more be used as a clarion call to scrap social housing than one idiot family with 300 kids living on benefits should be used as a reason to scrap the benefits system.

Rowley wrote:Well no Scott, but this is the problem with any system, there are always the odd anomaly, extreme example or piece of just plain idiocy in any system, but these are the ones that garner attention and become poster boys for those with a desire to undermine the system. One dumbass example in Chelsea should no more be used as a clarion call to scrap social housing than one idiot family with 300 kids living on benefits should be used as a reason to scrap the benefits system.

Should be reason to scrap that person's balls though.

Scottrf wrote:

Rowley wrote:I did not say I was against Tax Credits, merely stated I would prefer people to be paid enough to not need to rely on them. As Pr4wn has said the current model is unsustainable. If wages were increased all that would happen is rents would go up, so rather than solve the problem all you would do is make more money for the property owners without actually improving the lot of those on lower income. Given this the government has to act somewhere, to either make living in the city more affordable or increase the income of the lower earners.

My own preference would be in protecting some amount of social and council housing and building more when feasible. Is easy to say this is just a different form of handout but it seems clear that the government needs to intervene somewhere and since suggesting rent caps for private properties tends to get you accused of being a pinko anti capitalist commie scumbag. The city, as with any city needs people doing blue collar, low income jobs, given they are needed I hardly think it is completely unreasonable they can live and eat whilst doing those jobs.

Fine, but living in Chelsea?!

Well at least that's one council property safe from Right To Buy. Unless Charles Gow gets to them , of course

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes.  Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

There are NO council tenants there anymore, they are HA tenants. But thanks for making a fool of yourself
PS the phrase OMFG - seriously, how old are you? Even my 14 year old would feel immature using that one.

It was an expression of exasperation, what happens when you argue with an idiot and are drawn down to their level.

Nice squirm but HA are Council tenants, it's all the same thing, just a different operator & Landlord. Hence your own initial disinterest in differentiating between them: "Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?"

The only ones it could be possible to suggest weren't 'council tenants' would be those in shared ownership properties. But the vast majority of affordable housing units are classified as 'social rented' which are all exclusively council tenants.

Rowley wrote:Well no Scott, but this is the problem with any system, there are always the odd anomaly, extreme example or piece of just plain idiocy in any system, but these are the ones that garner attention and become poster boys for those with a desire to undermine the system. One dumbass example in Chelsea should no more be used as a clarion call to scrap social housing than one idiot family with 300 kids living on benefits should be used as a reason to scrap the benefits system.

It wasn't a solitary example, I spent about 3 days walking round Chelsea, Old Brompton Road areas valuing a couple of dozen from memory.

And the point is, it's not just this ridiculousness of someone getting away with living in a multi-million pound Chelsea flat for £45 pw per room (which is defended by desperate straw-clutching liberals & socialists) it's the amount of capital locked up in such high value properties when there is a housing shortage - particularly for those 'in need' to be housed by the Council.

Think of it like a true socialist - what's more important, housing 2 people in a flat because they've been there 20-30 years, or house 10 whole families that have a current and pressing need for accommodation??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes.  Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

There are NO council tenants there anymore, they are HA tenants. But thanks for making a fool of yourself
PS the phrase OMFG - seriously, how old are you? Even my 14 year old would feel immature using that one.

It was an expression of exasperation, what happens when you argue with an idiot and are drawn down to their level.

Nice squirm but HA are Council tenants, it's all the same thing, just a different operator & Landlord. Hence your own initial disinterest in differentiating between them: "Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?"

The only ones it could be possible to suggest weren't 'council tenants' would be those in shared ownership properties.  But the vast majority of affordable housing units are classified as 'social rented' which are all exclusively council tenants.

They are tenants of a private housing association. Feel free to prove otherwise. Or maybe we should change the terminology to make you look less of a fool?

I understand that this is a hotly debated subject and passions are clearly running high, but please but out the personal remarks and stick to the debate.

Thanks.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes.  Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

There are NO council tenants there anymore, they are HA tenants. But thanks for making a fool of yourself
PS the phrase OMFG - seriously, how old are you? Even my 14 year old would feel immature using that one.

It was an expression of exasperation, what happens when you argue with an idiot and are drawn down to their level.

Nice squirm but HA are Council tenants, it's all the same thing, just a different operator & Landlord. Hence your own initial disinterest in differentiating between them: "Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?"

The only ones it could be possible to suggest weren't 'council tenants' would be those in shared ownership properties.  But the vast majority of affordable housing units are classified as 'social rented' which are all exclusively council tenants.

They are tenants of a private housing association. Feel free to prove otherwise. Or maybe we should change the terminology to make you look less of a fool?

And where do they come from? Do you think they just pop on rightmove to find a flat?? Social rented tenure properties are exclusively populated by tenants from council waiting lists. I'm sorry you apparently have no idea how it all works but it's a fact. That the housing benefit goes to a HA (known as a registered provider, formally a registered social landlord, which should be a non-profit making entity) rather than to a LA makes absolutely no difference to who the occupier is.

It's not about changing terminology, something you are guilty of if anything, I have merely used to correct definitions which you would be perfectly cognisant of if this were a market you were involved in rather than a passive observer.

As I say, you were happy to lump them all in together when making your original point, so just trying to split them now over false and ignorant semantics makes you look stupid, not me.

Pr4wn wrote:I understand that this is a hotly debated subject and passions are clearly running high, but please but out the personal remarks and stick to the debate.

Thanks.

Noted.

Last time I argued with someone this stupid (C_S) I ended up banned so will try wind my neck in a bit!

Top hat, calling someone stupid in a post acknowledging you need to take it down a bit is hardly conducive to achieving this aim is it?

Rowley wrote:Top hat, calling someone stupid in a post acknowledging you need to take it down a bit is hardly conducive to achieving this aim is it?

It was an observation, an objective assessment. I don't call you or Prawn stupid, do I?

However...........starting now!

The thing I can’t get my head round is where the process ends though. If you ring fence certain areas, such as Mayfair and Chelsea and say property prices and values are clearly too high to justify it I can kind of get that, move those living there out, turn the properties over to private ownership and allow them to realise their full market value.

Now say the people living there are moved out to an area of London which is still, relatively speaking, working class, say Bermondsey (I’m not from London, feel free not to pull me up if this is incorrect) but what happens if and when that area is gentrified and house prices and values sky rocket there, it is the same debate all over again. Eventually you run out of areas where social or supported housing can exist, it is just basic maths that this will happen, when the number of areas and amount of space in the capital is static. Surely it follows that if you are going to ring fence some areas and say social housing cannot exist there are the property prices make it preposterous it must surely follow you have to ring fence some areas where social housing cannot simply be bulldozed in the name of rapacious free marketeering unless we are genuinely happy to have a capital where blue collar workers cannot afford to live in any capacity.

Not everywhere can be in the top few most expensive areas of London at once.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes.  Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

There are NO council tenants there anymore, they are HA tenants. But thanks for making a fool of yourself
PS the phrase OMFG - seriously, how old are you? Even my 14 year old would feel immature using that one.

It was an expression of exasperation, what happens when you argue with an idiot and are drawn down to their level.

Nice squirm but HA are Council tenants, it's all the same thing, just a different operator & Landlord. Hence your own initial disinterest in differentiating between them: "Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?"

The only ones it could be possible to suggest weren't 'council tenants' would be those in shared ownership properties.  But the vast majority of affordable housing units are classified as 'social rented' which are all exclusively council tenants.

They are tenants of a private housing association. Feel free to prove otherwise. Or maybe we should change the terminology to make you look less of a fool?

And where do they come from? Do you think they just pop on rightmove to find a flat?? Social rented tenure properties are exclusively populated by tenants from council waiting lists.  I'm sorry you apparently have no idea how it all works but it's a fact.  That the housing benefit goes to a HA (known as a registered provider, formally a registered social landlord, which should be a non-profit making entity) rather than to a LA makes absolutely no difference to who the occupier is.

It's not about changing terminology, something you are guilty of if anything, I have merely used to correct definitions which you would be perfectly cognisant of if this were a market you were involved in rather than a passive observer.

As I say, you were happy to lump them all in together when making your original point, so just trying to split them now over false and ignorant semantics makes you look stupid, not me.

Two completely different conversations, one being about London in general and the other about a specific place. I'll remind you of your initial post which led to where we are now:

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

You've done nothing to show that the statement was wrong.

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Why the fook should anyone earning minimum wage get to buy a house/flat? Preposterously socialist.  If they can have that why can't I have a mansion instead of my 1 bed flat??!

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

Except I didn't, there was over 2,000 homes when council owned

Except, by definition, as per your own evidence, it is STILL 'home to thousands of council tenants' i.e. in the 1,500+ affordable housing units still being provided.

Is Maths a weak subject for you? 2,000 - 1,500 = 500 less council homes.

OMFG you must be the stupidest person since C_S to make an idiot of themelves on this board.

Keeping it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE for you.

You said the estate was "Once home to thousands of council tenants".

You then pointed out that the new estate would have 1,500 'council homes'.

Even assuming that by some miracle there were only 1 tenant/occupier per home:

1,500 > 1,000 = THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF COUNCIL TENANTS HOMED THERE.

One thousand and five hundred, minimum, to be precise.

Unless you can't read and think what you posted says there are now only 500 council homes.  Even then, it would only take 2 occupiers per home (singletons almost never get council homes) for there still to be OVER ONE THOUSAND council tenants on the estate therefore it would STILL be "home to thousands of council tenants".

There are NO council tenants there anymore, they are HA tenants. But thanks for making a fool of yourself
PS the phrase OMFG - seriously, how old are you? Even my 14 year old would feel immature using that one.

It was an expression of exasperation, what happens when you argue with an idiot and are drawn down to their level.

Nice squirm but HA are Council tenants, it's all the same thing, just a different operator & Landlord. Hence your own initial disinterest in differentiating between them: "Should the council/HA tenants be forced to up sticks and move to the next poor area?"

The only ones it could be possible to suggest weren't 'council tenants' would be those in shared ownership properties.  But the vast majority of affordable housing units are classified as 'social rented' which are all exclusively council tenants.

They are tenants of a private housing association. Feel free to prove otherwise. Or maybe we should change the terminology to make you look less of a fool?

And where do they come from? Do you think they just pop on rightmove to find a flat?? Social rented tenure properties are exclusively populated by tenants from council waiting lists.  I'm sorry you apparently have no idea how it all works but it's a fact.  That the housing benefit goes to a HA (known as a registered provider, formally a registered social landlord, which should be a non-profit making entity) rather than to a LA makes absolutely no difference to who the occupier is.

It's not about changing terminology, something you are guilty of if anything, I have merely used to correct definitions which you would be perfectly cognisant of if this were a market you were involved in rather than a passive observer.

As I say, you were happy to lump them all in together when making your original point, so just trying to split them now over false and ignorant semantics makes you look stupid, not me.

Two completely different conversations, one being about London in general and the other about a specific place. I'll remind you of your initial post which led to where we are now:

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

You've done nothing to show that the statement was wrong.

Wrong. You referred to council tenants and HA tenants interchangeably until you realised you couldn't do basic mathematics and had to try squirm your way out by choosing to change your view point and split the definition in order to (erroneously) claim the new estate would no longer contain Council tenants. Which it would. Thousands, all straight off the council waiting list.

Feel free to continue swimming in your own ignorance though, you appear happy there.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

You demonstrate an amazing ability to ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda. Did you simply choose to ignore this, which I mentioned directly after the above?

Hoonercat wrote:As part of the deal with the council there was also supposed to be some 'affordable' housing, with 1 bed apartments starting from £207,000.

Only 738 of the properties rented, the remainder shared ownership open to anyone who meets the criteria (see quote below). That's 738 properties made available to ex council tenants for rental instead of almost 2,000 properties when it was a council estate. Remind me, how exactly did I undo my own point?

homesandproperty wrote:The scheme will give priority to those who live and work in Greenwich, but will also be open to people who live and work across a swathe of south-east London. A minimum household income of about £23,000 will be required for those buying flats and £37,000 for the houses.

insidehousing wrote:Nick Russell, chair of the former Ferrier Residents’ Action Group, says: ‘The disappointment was that we thought it would be a rolling development of new homes for the Ferrier community. It turned out to be new homes mainly for other people.
Now half of the development’s six phases are either completed or under construction and 195 of the Ferrier’s former 1,900 or so households have set up home here, living in some of the village’s first 832 home.’

TopHat24/7 wrote:Wrong. You referred to council tenants and HA tenants interchangeably until you realised you couldn't do basic mathematics and had to try squirm your way out by choosing to change your view point and split the definition in order to (erroneously) claim the new estate would no longer contain Council tenants. Which it would. Thousands, all straight off the council waiting list.

Feel free to continue swimming in your own ignorance though, you appear happy there.

Let me make this as simple as possible for you. In 2011 the last 190 council tenants received repossession orders, they were the very last council tenants to live there, and since then there have been no council tenants. Not one. No matter how you try to dress it up.

Love how you switch your definition of council tenant to suit.

A council tenant is someone housed from a council waiting list.  Council tenants haven't been created for absolutely decades as it was decided long ago that LA's shouldn't be trying to be housing developers.

I haven't dug into the detail of this case, just played with the figures you've provided.

Using your grossly ignorant and laughably flexible definition of council tenants there are/will be no council tenants left.  However using your figures (which I question and am deeply suspicous of given the clear lack of understanding which you have demonstrated) of 738 'rented' units (by this I assume you mean social rented) this would still almost certainly result in the estate housing over one thousand council (i.e. council waiting list housing benefit recipient) tenants.

According to the SPD, 43% (this is v high) of the new homes would be 'affordable', a minimum of 1,900. Of these 70% should be rented (council tenants by any logical/intelligent/correct definition) which is 1,300+ either social or intermdediate rented. Remaining 30% shared ownership.

http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/downloads/file/153/kidbrooke_spd_chapter_4_jun_2008

So whichever way you cut it, there will be over one thousand council list tenants occupying the site once it's completed.