Shameless - it's social cleansing of the poor and working poor and the result will be broken up social networks and families and children being taken away from their friends and moved as places that they don't know as well as having their schooling interrupted. The root cause is lack of affordable and social housing and I am sick of this and previous governments not doing anything about that issue.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has said he will not accept "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of the capital due to a government cap on housing benefits. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11643440
Perhaps they could build some nice places in the country where they could all live, like a holiday camp without the holiday? keep the poor away from areas where the rich want to live, take their possessions away and give them a limited diet to keep them placated?, and perhaps make them work for their meager payment of food? Thats never been done before surely?
Perhaps they could build some nice places in the country where they could all live, like a holiday camp without the holiday? keep the poor away from areas where the rich want to live, take their possessions away and give them a limited diet to keep them placated?, and perhaps make them work for their meager payment of food? Thats never been done before surely?
And every so often they would become empty, so they could move more in.
To my mind, this is just the reality of our globalised world, and how things are in 'Planet London'.
It's a hugely international city - folk from all over the world clamour to live and work there. So, in the light of such demand, the price of housing, both for purchase and for lease, is inevitably going to sky-rocket.
I was reading this weekend that the average London house price is expected to climb to half a million pounds by 2020, from 350,000 now.
This is going to effect multiple income brackets - indeed, a family member of mine moved away from London up to Doncaster when they had a child, simply because the cost of anything more than a one-bedroom flat was unworkable. And he works in the City!
So, the question to me is more whether we can continue, or even if it's right, to insulate certain groups from the realities of our changing world. I think that if we're talking about elderly folk, or disabled folk, rooted in those communties, special dispensation should always be granted. But, if you're a housing benefit recipient, should you be a protected group shielded from the financial headwinds that are very real for everyone else?
London Mayor Boris Johnson has said he will not accept "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of the capital due to a government cap on housing benefits. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11643440
Boris seems to have gone pretty quiet about the issue since that soundbite a few years ago.
And it works. Regulated rents mean that landlords focus on the quality of the tenant rather than how much they pay. There are incentives for private investment in new houses (Houses under 30 years old are exempt) In the long Regulated rents reduce prices for first time house buyers, the banks liabilities in property and reduces the housing benefit bill everyones a winner except a few greedy landlords.
If coalition introduced regulated rental prices now, this would not need to happen.
How would that help?
If the rent levels do actually reflect the 'going market rate', then the only reason they are high is because demand is high. The only counterbalance would be a shift in supply to bring that price down again. If that's not happening, there must be reasons why, assuming that London quite literally is not 'full up'.
So, the right policy response is to loosen up the supply side of the market. Which (IMHO, at best) would be to build more social housing. This is where the bottleneck is.
Rent controls would just choke off supply further.
If the rent levels do actually reflect the 'going market rate', then the only reason they are high is because demand is high. The only counterbalance would be a shift in supply to bring that price down again. If that's not happening, there must be reasons why, assuming that London quite literally is not 'full up'.
So, the right policy response is to loosen up the supply side of the market. Which (IMHO, at best) would be to build more social housing. This is where the bottleneck is.
Rent controls would just choke off supply further.
Regards,
Cypher
How do they choke off the supply further, Houses don't dissappear you know.
And it works. Regulated rents mean that landlords focus on the quality of the tenant rather than how much they pay. There are incentives for private investment in new houses (Houses under 30 years old are exempt) In the long Regulated rents reduce prices for first time house buyers, the banks liabilities in property and reduces the housing benefit bill everyones a winner except a few greedy landlords.
LOL. I have lived in America, judging by that answer its clear you have not.
Belligerence
Posts: 40,613
Comments
Social cleansing;)
Shameless - it's social cleansing of the poor and working poor and the result will be broken up social networks and families and children being taken away from their friends and moved as places that they don't know as well as having their schooling interrupted. The root cause is lack of affordable and social housing and I am sick of this and previous governments not doing anything about that issue.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has said he will not accept "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of the capital due to a government cap on housing benefits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11643440
And every so often they would become empty, so they could move more in.
The resultant gentrification of those London neighbourhoods will have a gerrymandering effect and guess which party ultimately benefits?
Need a rent cap introduced.
Only its not the Government doing it, its a Labour council
and anyway of its like any of the previous schemes on this it will not happen,
It's a hugely international city - folk from all over the world clamour to live and work there. So, in the light of such demand, the price of housing, both for purchase and for lease, is inevitably going to sky-rocket.
I was reading this weekend that the average London house price is expected to climb to half a million pounds by 2020, from 350,000 now.
This is going to effect multiple income brackets - indeed, a family member of mine moved away from London up to Doncaster when they had a child, simply because the cost of anything more than a one-bedroom flat was unworkable. And he works in the City!
So, the question to me is more whether we can continue, or even if it's right, to insulate certain groups from the realities of our changing world. I think that if we're talking about elderly folk, or disabled folk, rooted in those communties, special dispensation should always be granted. But, if you're a housing benefit recipient, should you be a protected group shielded from the financial headwinds that are very real for everyone else?
Regards,
Cypher
Its the goverment who have caused this
No its not. If the labour council had managed their housing stock they wouldn't be in the situation they now are.
If the Labour Government 1997-2010 didn't have such a dismal house building record there would now be more homes for these people to live in
If coalition introduced regulated rental prices now, this would not need to happen.
What is this new found desire for regulated rents several people have started calling for. Don't recall it being demanded under Labour's watch
And anyway regulated rents just hide where the subsidy is coming from. the real and only sustainable answer is to build more homes
There were regulated rents up until the 1980's guess who got rid of them. The US still has regulated rental prices in states like New York.
You mean the housing stock every council has been forced to sell
......... and ?
And it works. Regulated rents mean that landlords focus on the quality of the tenant rather than how much they pay. There are incentives for private investment in new houses (Houses under 30 years old are exempt) In the long Regulated rents reduce prices for first time house buyers, the banks liabilities in property and reduces the housing benefit bill everyones a winner except a few greedy landlords.
How would that help?
If the rent levels do actually reflect the 'going market rate', then the only reason they are high is because demand is high. The only counterbalance would be a shift in supply to bring that price down again. If that's not happening, there must be reasons why, assuming that London quite literally is not 'full up'.
So, the right policy response is to loosen up the supply side of the market. Which (IMHO, at best) would be to build more social housing. This is where the bottleneck is.
Rent controls would just choke off supply further.
Regards,
Cypher
How do they choke off the supply further, Houses don't dissappear you know.
LOL. I have lived in America, judging by that answer its clear you have not.