PokerTime

That's kind of the problem isn't it. The harmless hanging of a flag for say national pride at a football tournament (which I have done too) has become mixed with the doing the same out of nationalistic racist fervour. We can't know either way for seeing a flag alone.

I think 20 years ago, as now, people just wanted to get onto the property ladder, or to get a home. No-one ever knows how things will turn out.

????...ah so you think all working class people are white, drive vans, are die hard footy supporters, drape flags outside their windows and vote UKIP? it's all become crystal clear so thanks.....

I agree with Louisa too. It's about impression and that's where the harm is done.

'We (and 'we' haven't all filled in the gaps BTW) aren't sitting members of parliament for the 'Labour'(ha ha ha) Party' But you filled in gaps in claiming the Labour party is sneering at the working class because of one photo sent by one MP! And you felt so certain in your assumption you felt the need to start a thread in a local forum for it.

Name calling says more about you ???? than it does me. If you can't cope with anyone disagreeing with you then you shouldn't post at all perhaps? We all know what kind of person was being portrayed by that photo (rightly or wrongly as we don't know the person living there). The white van, die hard racist football fan, who thinks inmmigration is to blame for all our woes and supports the EDL with a fervour? I know of thiese kinds of people from experience, I grew up amongst them. They don't represent the general views of the working class, they don't speak for me or my family. So the only pompous ass is you in thinking anyone who disgarees with you must be sneering too? It's a bit like your constant tiresome regection of opposing views on economics being the rantings of the left as well. Otta is right, and there's hardly a press furore this morning either is there?

(sorry hit the wrong button and this went as a private message to you ???? - was meant to be here) ???? Wrote: > Same metropolitan sneering from you then Not at all. I am working class through and through, as are all of my family and their friends etc, and none of them support the EDL, UKIP or hang the flag of St. George from their windows. They are in fact the traditional labour voters that some claim are all turning away from the Labour Party. I just resent your assumption that working class people are all the same, and they should stay the same forever.

I agree Loz that Labour's move away from the core vlaues it was formed under has alienated many longer standing traditional voters. But how else were they to get elected after 16 years of a Tory Government that took us towards a more free market economy, from which enough people benefitted at the time? As we all know, UKIP and the BNP never were, and never will be the answer. And I don't know what it will take either for all parties to represent the needs of all the people again.

I have no doubt it will be all over the press but it's hardly Grodon Brown being caught on tape calling a woman bigotted is it. The working class thankfully doesn't only include the likes of die hard football fans. And the majority of working class people don't hang flags of St.George outside their homes either, So what kind of englishman does? UKIP? EDL? Not sure Labour had those votes anymore anyway.

It's one tweet by one MP. Unfortunate yes, but hardly a mandate for a Labour view of 'the white working class', whatever that actually means btw.

Yeah I get fed up of hearing leftie thrown at anyone who argues for a fairer distribution of income. Capitalism doesn't have to be this way. It CAN be fairer. I think the article is pretty spot on in some of the observations it makes (especially regarding property and housing). There has been a lot of heads buried in sand over the last 40 years. But blaming the baby boomer generation doesn't sit right with me. Most of them only did what they were told. They went to work, paid into pensions and retired. They were promised something for that. Successive government policy has played a far bigger role in putting us in the mess we are in, by not finding alternatives for declining sources of mass employment, by not preventing the devaluation of labour (wages). It's too easy to look at one generation, with on one hand, the politics of envy (yes the system worked perfectly for them), and on the other, to blame them for living longer. Are they responsible for the ?28 billion we are spending each year to subsidise the wages of millions of people in full time work because their enployers don't pay enough for them to live on? Understandable if we are talking about a small business that is genuinely struggling, but more often than not we are talking about the min wage jobs offered by the big multi-nationals. Wealth has shifted away from labour (wages) and into capital assets and investments. If we are ever going to rebalance the economy that has to change. National wealth needs to come back into people's pockets. And a capitalist system can deliver that just as easily as what we have now.

Hmmm.... 'I'm not proposing to lower council tax - merely pointing out that other councils are providing similar services or even more services for significantly less money.' This is too general a statement, without knowing anything about the quality and productivity of those services, and without knowing anything about the demand on those services. Every borough is different, and has different expenses, needs and challenges. You can't possibly know anything of the above from the figures alone. And I agree with James. Your understanding of local authority finance, and revenue accounts is flawed. I'm inclined to agree with Bawdynan. Perhaps experience as a local councillor would be a better place to start?

Simon Hughes is the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and he has challenged every stage of the process, all of which is well documented. To force an independent inquiry is very hard when everything has been done according to the letter of the law. The only outcome to hope for is a moral one which pursuades Local Authorities in future, to put established communities and THEIR rights to decent affordable housing first, within the community they already live in, over profit for private property developers. What frustrates me most is that any attempt to examine what kind of building is taking place is usually met with the stock answer of more homes are being built now than etc etc. We all know how small a percentage of those new homes are affordable. Both Tessa and Harriet are Labour MPs though and the line I would take with them would be in trying to shape policy of a future Labour govrnment, in changing central policy, which at the moment makes it pretty much impossible for local authorities to build new homes for rental. rahrahrah, I am working on a project which starts shooting early next year and have spent the past year researching all aspects of housing, and the myth of urban regeneration through schemes like the Heygate forms part of that debate. Anything I can do to help put the petition out there, I will.

It was flagged up at the time Too Good. New Labour were still in power and Nick Stanton, the then council leader was grilled on the Politics Show over it.

Councils go to great lengths to keep the details of property deals secret, making all kinds of claims, and that developers would not want to do business if details were made public. It's another way of saying that developers know that they are morally shafting communities, why else would they want secrecy on details. In regards to the Heygate, the following links give some background to that battle.... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/southwark-in-tribunal-fight-to-keep-15bn-heygate-estate-deal-secret-8808759.html http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1672/decision_on_heygate_viability_assessment_tribunal http://35percent.org/ The last link, that gets into the nitty gritty of value and profit is particularly difficult reading. Lend lease have actively promoted the development to Asia and China, to bring in those off plan sales. Regeneration is supposed to be an improvement of an area for the typicla kind of community that lives there. There is nothing about the Heygate development that fits that remit. How is selling a third of properties off plan to foreign landlords (who will charge premium rent) regeneration? Lend lease exist purely for profit. And whilst ?194 million is cited as their expected profit, they will probably make considerably more, whilst taking as long as they can to cough up the full ?50 million for the land. The point is though, that recent government, and especially conservative gorvernment, don't care about these kinds of deals as they are ideologically opposed to local authorities having property for rent. That's why they've made it easier than ever for local authorities to sell off land, whilst starving them of funds and restricting the amount they can borrow as capital loans. They've made the discounts for right to buy bigger than ever, even though that policy alone has decimated available affordable housing stock (by some 30%) and worse than that, 40% of all council homes bought under RtoB are now in the hands of private landlords, charging commercial rents. At the same time, conservatives are attacking secure tenancies, and both the coalition and the previous Labour government, favoured private public partnerships with Housing Associations (where tenants have less rights and where higher rents can be charged). The issue here is simple. Either our politicians believe that need should come before profit, or they don't. Right now, whilst much of the debate centres around need, no-one in government is listening enough to do anything meaningful about it. The labour party have said they'll bring in some form of rent control, but that won't have anything like the impact needed to alleviate the current problems.

Motorbikes - Try Honda Ryders. A small family business that might just be able to take him on for experience.

The tram was never really a goer rahrah. There was never any money in place for it, unlike crossrail for example. The problem with many decisions on these kinds of projects, is the cost vs benefit to London economy. And that's as true for cycle lanes as anything else. Perhaps a better question would be why South transport infrastructure never seems to be as important as West, East and South West? It can't all be logistical.

You might want to forward the petition to Southwark Group of Tenants Organisation (SGTO) too. They are a vibrant campaign group for housing and the interests of residents and tenants in Southwark. And they have a borough wide mailing list which feeds into other campaign groups. SGTO have questioned many aspects of the Heygate development at all stages. And other campaign groups have brought action, all to no avail. At the end of the day Southwark haven't broken any law, which is why an investigation into the process, rules, and their failings is the only way to go now.

Unvelievable indeed Otta. Basically they are being allowed to acquire prime land, central to London, formerly holding council housing, for ridiculously low cost. Shoreditch is another place where council property is being cleared for sale to luxury property developers. And Shoreditch is significant, as it was home to the first ever Local Authority housing. For the developers, the intention is simply profit. For the LAs selling this land, the intention is to absolve themselves of regeneration and maintenance costs. For the tenants and communities dispersed further out, it's social cleansing. Government does play a role in this, because it's government that lays down the rules for sell offs. If you have a government that thinks poor people shouldn't live in centralish London, this is what you get. Similarly, if you have a government that continues the sell off of council homes (as New Labour did) whilst not building enough new homes, this is what you get. The reason why I made the point about LAs hiring specialist contract negotiators is exactly because of the imbalance of experience between multi-national developer, and the local council and it's workers. In my experience, councils are full of staff in positions they are not qualified to do well. And when they do a poor job, they are simply rotated to another department. It's impossible to fire anyone. The statesmen article is spot on in that it's the process that at fault, the way these things are done. It's that process that needs to be investigated (rather than the individuals involved). Personel change (especially councillors and council staff), but mechanisms don't. Huge areas of recently developed land are already ghost towns. Homes that are seemingly never occupied. No children playing on the pavements below. They were never designed for families or communities, but foreign investors, and high flying professionals. If that's what we want London to be, then keep going as we are.

I'll forward your petition to some local housing campaign groups rahrah. I could write an essay on the Heygate debacle. There are many problems in both process, legislation, and the experience of the people doing the bidding that have led to the end result. But understanding how all of that came together is something that needs to be investigated. One thing I would say is this. I have long argued that it would be worth local authorities employing specialists in contract negotiation (in whatever field is needed). Lend Lease is a multinational company, expert in negotating the best deals for them and their investors. The Heygate development had cross party support, but somewhere along the way, the council lost control over the deal. A change of governement did bring about a change of rules, which also hampered the council's ability to shape the deal done. It's what happens when the ability of Local Authorities to borrow for Capital Projects is taken away and Private Public Partnership is pushed. Whilst we continue to have a mantra that home building and regeneration should be funded by private developers with sweetener deals in return for % of affordable housing, there is going to be a repeat of the Heygate elsewhere. Hackney is another borough that has lost social housing to private developer profiteering, under the myth of regeneration. It is also worth pointing out though that some of those prominent councillors in office at the time the process of sale started, and some of whom now work for Lend Lease, also had the opinion that poor people shouldn't live so close to the center of London. So I would question the commitment to affordable housing of those people too.

London's housing crisis is not in the shortage of luxury flats, it's in the shortage of affordable accomodation, be that rental OR purchase. The only way to address that through property building is to build according to need. Given that property developers are only interested in maximised profit, they can't be relied upon to fill that need and that's why you get public/ private partnership schemes to incentivise. The problem is that the ratio of affordable property to top end market isn't reflective of true need. The Heygate is a perfect example of that. The original deal which included 1000+ affordable rents has ended with just 79 affordable rents. Housing Associations are the only true builders of affordable housing. And government likes HAs over local authorities because tenants have less rights and protections under HAs, but they are not able to build enough.

The Heygate Scandal is a disgrace. Councillors who have been involved from the start (and those councillors are cross party) will tell you that the colaition changed the rules giving them no option but to follow through. I don't accept that. And it's a process that has been repeated in Hackney too. There's something fundamentally wrong with the people we elect when it comes to their competance regarding regeneration and housing. That said, I broadly agree with the sentiment above. We need housing, and we need AFFORDABLE housing. The view of a few people at the top of a car park isn't really a valid objection to that need.

Have a look at that emc. You will need to set up a google account that only you can access so that your daughter can't unlock the parental control.

'The truth is that those who claim they can only afford the cheapest, nastiest food are almost always prioritising other things.' Phones are a poor example as contract deals including the handset are the cheapest way to have a phone now. Many people no longer have landlines because of the comparative high cost. Or are you suggesting the poor should not have a phone at all, and be completely cut off from any kind of communication? The problem with the Rye Lane Iceland is the size of the premises. The Lordship Lane one is bigger. Yes shops come and go as market forces change and Rye Lane is not that far away, really it isn't. But equally, the assumption that gentrification means the the poorest should be stripped of all local amenities is wrong.

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately, these properties have been left to > stagnate by Southwark Council over the years and > now major works are now required. Like central government policy has had nothing to do with that! To the OP... As a leaseholder there are some aspects of internal works that would not apply to you, like renewal of bathrooms, kitchens, electrical wiring and central heating. Anything connected to buildings maintenance and communal areas will apply to you, like roofs, windows and doors, landings, stairways etc. All local authority property is now subject to decent homes standards, which is why suddenly over the past decade there has been a push to replace windows, doors etc. The cost of such works, and sevice charges has to be factored into any purchase price. There is a reason why ex-local authority property (in communal blocks of flats) are some of the cheapest options on the market after all.