Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[PokerTime]

Yes the poor do EDLove. Because it's the poor that do the jobs that most people don't want to do. We are not suggesting that traditionally wealthy areas suddenly have social homes thrust upon them. But areas that have long standing poorer communities and accomodation to house them should stay.

Just on HB. Their have always been caps, set at a average of local rents. What this government has done is set a one size fits all cap, below the average, and therefore forcing the unemployed out of London. Anyone can lose their job. It's not a huge step from self sufficiency to bankruptcy. The real issue with London are the million or so workers on min wage. There is a suggested London Living wage, which acknowledges the higher costs of living and working in London, but yet is not enforced!!!! This is where social housing has an important role to play, but we are forever diminishing stock, and not replacing it.

The Heygate development is a disgraceful exercise in social cleansing. Nick Stanton, the leader of the Liberal Democrat council at the time went on the politics show and said 'A place so close to central London should not be so poor'. His solution to that was not to regenerate the local economy and to increase opportunity for those living there, but instead to demolish the entire community and move the rich in. It's exactly this kind of thinking that is destroying the social fabric of London as a melting pot of culture and community.

Someone above touched on security of tenure in private rented housing. I think this is also an important point. Rented property becomes seen as a short term step until one can buy. Turfing people out every six months so that the rent can be doubled is never going to benefit anyone but the landlord. And now the coalition want to attack the secure tennacies of social housing too! Preferring new builds from Housing Associations (where tenants have less rights) to new builds from LAs.The message is loud and clear. Tenants don't matter.

[Zebedee Tring]

What about reintroducing the old Schedule A tax which was abolished about 50 years ago? People would then be taxed on the notional rent that they would have earned if they had rented out their property. It was the abolition of this tax that was one of the main causes of rampant property inflation from the 60s onwards since it made property ownership much more desirable than, say, in Germany.

Someone will no doubt now say on this thread that this would be an invasion of their civic liberties, although not only Labour but also Conservative governments before the early 60s managed to live with it. However, it would certainly dampen property prices down a bit and make London properties more affordable for those wishing to enter the property market.

[PokerTime]

I think it's a valid suggestion Zebedee. Anything that slows the inflation down is worth considering. It's the same with Land Tax. It we tax land over labour then some argue that would lead to a fairer distribution of wealth. The problem is that all governemnts are self serving and are funded by the interests of the super wealthy. This is one of the fundamental problems with capitalist democrasy. We no longer have democrasy but plutocrasy. And shifting that power balance is an impossible task for the common person. Even if you decide you want to do something and join a main political party, you have no power to change anything. The machine is well and truly oiled.

I think this is why I argue so strongly that the poor have as much rights as the better off. We are all trapped by this tax heavy capitalist system. There is no alternative for anyone to escape to (unless they have serious money).

Veering totally off topic I know but there's a great documentary called 'The Four Horsemen' that argues that were are in the final stages of empire before collapse, and makes comparisons to other empires, like Romans and Egypt to illustrate the point. It's worth a look.

[worldwiser]

Thornton Heath seems to have a bunch of 3-4 beds under 300k. That's not a million miles away from ED. I'd love to live where I grew up. It'd take me a lifetime to afford it so I let that idea go years ago. So should you.

[????]

Democracy is what it is and not funded by the super wealthy, that's a tired old cliche and immensley patronising to the electorate. Parties don''t change much because people don't AS YET want that sort of change not becuase 'Murdoch controls the media' , 'if voting changed anything they'd abolish it' etc etc student nonsense. There have been plenty of opportunities to change the system - you could have voted for real socialist or whatever Scargills party was, you could now vote UKIP or Green, but don't hold you breathe when an election comes along, Ed M could take Labour (not funded by the mega rich incidentally) to a more alternative position, again don't hold your breathe, youth could (and some do) motivate themselves to collectively vote...the plutocracy's not stopping them

BUT most people aren't really poor, the majority still own a home (even under the yoke of a mortgage); many will inherit some wealth through property at some point; people don't want to risk this state of 'comfort' through anything vaguely radical - if you want a revolution you need mortgage rates at 14%; a 50% drop in house prices; etc etc Fook me nearly 30% unemployment in some souther european countries hasn't caused that much of a stir, so toa degree I agree with the 2nd part of your analyiss

[Loz]

There is a very good reason why the three main political parties are all squeezed into a narrow political band - that's where the votes are. It's kind of how democracy works.

[PokerTime]

Oh ????...how wrong you are. Take a look at how much an electoral compaigns cost and who funds that. Look to America for an even better model. I have friends that work for companies whose sole aim is to lobby MPs on behalf of wealthy corporations and clients. It's nothing to do with right or left, but basic economics. Plutocrasy IS at play and every major writer on the ethics of economics agrees with that view. We live in a bottom up economy...not top down. All the evidence and data supports that. That's why things like inequality and upward social mobility can be measured.

If you want to talk about electoral reform, then yes we can have a discussion on how unrepresentative the current system is of what people really vote for. It does need reform imo.

Yes, around 70% of homes are privately owned. So what? That's not this issue here. What we are talking about is a trend that will see those homes owned by a smaller percentage of the population if things go on as they do. Already, many people inheriting property have little to show for it once tax is paid and the proceeds split between children.

I agree and I disagree Loz. As a nation, party stronghold's haven't changed much in a century. Most people still tend to vote as their parents do/ did. It's estimated that as little as 300,000 floating voters actually can decide a general election. If we had a representative electoral system, we'd mostly have hung parliaments, which is actually a truer reflection of democrasy. At present, too many people are not engaged in politics, too many people just follow parents and we have a system where a party can get majority power even though less than half the population voted for them. If a party wants to control parliament and claim the mandate of the people, it should have to work far harder to engage public support than it currently does.

[tomdhu]

Ordinary folks could buy houses if Govt. discontinued tax relief on Buy-to-Let borrowing.

It's a silly subsidy that keeps on inflating the house price bubble.

Tom

[EDLove]

Hi PokerTime

To be clear, I didn't make any comment on the article I posted, it was merely an interesting read on two different views, both of which have some valid points.

However, you state: 'Yes the poor do EDLove. Because it's the poor that do the jobs that most people don't want to do. We are not suggesting that traditionally wealthy areas suddenly have social homes thrust upon them. But areas that have long standing poorer communities and accomodation to house them should stay'.

As the article was in relation to poor people living in 'expensive' areas, can you confirm which expensive areas of London currently have long-standing poorer communities? I'm genuinely interested in your view here.

Whilst I agree that it's the poor that do the jobs that most people don't want to do (to a degree), can you explain why this would necessitate that they live in these expensive areas? I have to commute to work and so do thousands of other workers, every day. The fact is, a bus across London is less than ?2, so why would a poorer person not also expect to commute?

Further to this, it could be argued that a lot of the accomodation currently inhabited by poorer people in expensive areas would be far better utilised if sold and the funds used to purchase several homes in less expensive parts of London. Of course, I am not oblivious to the arguments that this breaks up communities, but can we really reasonably expect 'community' to be fully retained when thousands of people need housing, and areas continue to evolve? Unfortunately, something may have to give.

I am playing devil's advocate here, but surely you can appreciate why many would become slightly frustrated that poorer groups are able to live in expensive central London locations whilst the 'squeezed middle' who might not qualify for social housing but are still on low/medium salaries have to work long hours in similarly hellish jobs without this perk?

In terms of the issues with housing in London, surely the focus in the long-run should not necessarily be on building more and more houses to keep up with a seemingly never-ending demand, but to encourage people to live in other parts of the UK by promoting businesses/employment elsewhere?

[the-e-dealer]

Yeah very hands off Government Style!

MissKing Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only way any kind government or legislation

> could help slow the crazy growth in house prices

> would be:

>

> 1. Build more housing in London

> 2. Stop selling all the new housing to foreign

> investors (or impose taxes that make UK property

> an unattractive international investment)

> 3. Raise interest rates

>

> I don't really agree with any kind of intervention

> further than that....

[Loz]

tomdhu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ordinary folks could buy houses if Govt.

> discontinued tax relief on Buy-to-Let borrowing.

>

> It's a silly subsidy that keeps on inflating the

> house price bubble.

But that's just an ideological problem you have at not wanting to see renting houses as a business. Every other business is entitled to deduct costs (such as interest on borrowing) from incoming revenue.

[PokerTime]

In reply EDLove....

There are areas like Notting Hill for example but Kensington and those areas have always been affluent. Having said that, areas like Chelsea have had long standing social housing (much of it now sold off).

If we look at areas that have been tranformed over say the last 30 years, then the picture becomes clearer. Take Shoreditch for example. The first ever social housing (barring things like alms houses etc) was built in Shoreditch (in 1890!). So we are talking about homes specifically built to replace slums and house the poor. It was the start of something in London that has been around for over 100 years. Southwark is one of the biggest social landlords in Europe. There is a lot of originally built social housing around Tower Bridge for example - Why? Because the east end docks employed countless lower paid workers and governments at the time wholey believed in providing affordable housing within reach of the docks for those workers.

Now we have governments arguing that poorer workers should move to the suburbs and bus in (at further expense of course). It's good town planning having been replaced with investment greed. And as always is the case with economic greed, people and quality of live don't matter. Canary Wharf is less than 30 years old...yet do we really believe the traditional working classes of those areas should be replaced with city bankers? Clearly yes, when looking at all the riverside developments. But just what does that add to the area and community? How do we measure that?

The free market does not care about anything but money/profit. That's why it has to be regulated and is regulated in many ways. When regulation is removed, you get bankers fixing and cheating Libor rates (a much bigger flame to the banking crisis than the sub prime market in the US).

At present many poorer paid workers can live in zone 2, thanks to social housing. But if you are on min wage and having to commute from Zone 4/5/6 then it costs considerably more than ?2 a day. Remember min wage is around ?250 after tax and deductions. At least half will go in rent, leaving not much for everything else, and especially hard if you have children to support too. No-one is saying the porest paid should live in Chelsea, but if we keep selling off the zone two social housing, then there will be problems.

Just to add that living in a social home is not a perk! They are small and basic properties. But I also think that the squeezed middle classes maxing out on mortgages are not in a healthy position either. I don't think they should have to pay 9x salary any more than the poor should be forced out. The whole market is rotten. Everyone is having to work too hard for something as essential as a roof over their head.

I couldn't agree more regarding creating employment elsewhere and attracting business etc. I absolutely agree that has to be the answer long term. There has been a drain to the South since the 80's. None of the industries or mass employers of the North have been replaced. It's a real gripe of mine that all government seems to care about is the SE economy. There were regional development agencies formed in 1998 to try and address this (by New labour). The coalition abolished them in 2012 to save money! They gave millionaires a tax cut but shut off funding to bodies charged specifically with economic regeneration in areas of high unemployment. That sort of thing completely highlights Camerons party for the incompetent bunch they are.

[PokerTime]

Buy-to-let is not the bulk of private rental housing anyway Loz. Only around 20% of housing up for rent is mortgaged. The buy-to-let market has also tended to target former LA homes (which is why 40% of all homes sold under right to buy are now in the hands of private landlords). So it's part of the problem imo that has lead to the erosion of social housing. It should never have been introduced as a product.

[Sophron]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you couldn't afford to do that now

> Sophron...that's the point. It's interesting that

> you cite investment. That is part of the

> problem....that housing has become an investment

> over a home. And that long time span you mention

> that comes accross as being deserving.....doesn't

> time span also make those born and bread a little

> deserving too?

>

> People of all economic backgrounds need to live in

> London to work, and London needs people of all

> economic levels to work as a city too. Southwark

> is not Kensington or Chlesea (or Marylebone) and

> never has been. ED is NOT central London. Yet when

> something is decided to be done about the poor

> design and social housing of Elephant and castle

> for example, the solution becomes one of building

> sizeable amounts of unaffordable private property

> over affordable housing. It's profiteering at it's

> worst, with no interest in community, dressed up

> as urban regeneration, but regeneration for who?

> certainly not the previous community, some of whom

> had also lived there for decades!

>

> We need a range of homes in all areas, not a

> ghettoisation of London from the centre outwards

> for the above average earner only, with the

> poorest being scattered on the fringes.

>

> There was an interesting documentary on TV this

> week about Brent council having to move larger

> families out of London because there is nowhere

> they can live under the Housing Benefit Cap. This

> has meant displacing families from Brent (hardly a

> glamourous borough) to cities like Manchester and

> Birmingham. We are not just talking about the

> pushing out of the lowest earners from London, we

> are actually seeing forced deportation of some of

> the poorest families to cities they've never even

> been too. Surely the time has come to say that the

> private market is not going to correct itself

> unless government intervenes.

Hi Pokertime, I'm not sure what you mean by deserving, but to answer your question, no I dont think that simply because somebody was borne and bred in a certain place they automatically deserve some advantage. Also I dont believe that the answer is some mass building of municiple housing (this is what created the ghettoisation around Elephant and Castle and the North Peckham estate before both were fortunately knocked down). Additionally I dont think that mass building of coucil property in East dulwich would add anything to the area. I do think that there is opportunity for government to support lower income working familys to purchase property and I would support tax breaks etc to enable this to happen. I'm clearly not a socialist so we are unlickly to agree but I certainly didn't wish to appear "deserving".

[Jeremy]

I am broadly I'm favour of keeping social housing spread throughout london. Obviously we're not going to build new blocks of council flats in Knightsbridge or the City. But we also need to avoid creating areas of predominantly council tenants. The Heygate redevelopment isa disgrace IMO.

[????]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh ????...how wrong you are. Take a look at how

> much an electoral compaigns cost and who funds

> that. Look to America for an even better model. I

> have friends that work for companies whose sole

> aim is to lobby MPs on behalf of wealthy

> corporations and clients. It's nothing to do with

> right or left, but basic economics. Plutocrasy IS

> at play and every major writer on the ethics of

> economics agrees with that view. We live in a

> bottom up economy...not top down. All the evidence

> and data supports that. That's why things like

> inequality and upward social mobility can be

> measured.

>

> If you want to talk about electoral reform, then

> yes we can have a discussion on how

> unrepresentative the current system is of what

> people really vote for. It does need reform imo.

>

> Yes, around 70% of homes are privately owned. So

> what? That's not this issue here. What we are

> talking about is a trend that will see those homes

> owned by a smaller percentage of the population if

> things go on as they do. Already, many people

> inheriting property have little to show for it

> once tax is paid and the proceeds split between

> children.

>

> I agree and I disagree Loz. As a nation, party

> stronghold's haven't changed much in a century.

> Most people still tend to vote as their parents

> do/ did. It's estimated that as little as 300,000

> floating voters actually can decide a general

> election. If we had a representative electoral

> system, we'd mostly have hung parliaments, which

> is actually a truer reflection of democrasy. At

> present, too many people are not engaged in

> politics, too many people just follow parents and

> we have a system where a party can get majority

> power even though less than half the population

> voted for them. If a party wants to control

> parliament and claim the mandate of the people, it

> should have to work far harder to engage public

> support than it currently does.

lol - IHT is currently 325K - with a fair chance it'll get indexed again soon - and then the rest is taxed at 40%...'little to show for it'......what planet are you on if splitting the proceeds on a ?1m property in say SE22 releases over 700K net to, say 2 siblings, so ?350k each= little to show for it????? A mere quibble of a sum eh?

[minder]

Just read your link EDLove. Thanks for that. Always thought Shaun Bailey was ok but now I've read this piece I've changed my mind!

By the way who decides which areas suddenly become the place everybody wants to live? The estate agents no doubt.

Why should 'poorer' people as you put it be forced out of their homes that they've lived in for years?

Agree with Pokertime about the Heygate Estate, just near the Elephant and Castle. People were moved from their homes of many years and were promised alternatives. This never happened and of course the builders moved in and created 'luxury' flats.

Are you trying to say that every working class person should be forced out of London just because the government didn't replace housing stock lost to the 'Right to Buy' policy?

[PokerTime]

But we don't live in an economy where everyone will be able to buy a home. In London, the percentage of home owner to rental is much lower than it is for the rest of the country as it is at 58%. 42% of people/housholds have to rent.

It also frustrates me that whenver people talk of social housing they only reference the large estates built in the 60's. This not the bulk of social housing. There were many programmes from 1890 onwards building all kinds of homes, most of which were well built and still stand today. Social Housing is not an evil. Poor design and town planning is.

The only way to stop the hosuing inflation is to reduce demand, and the most effective way to do that is to increase affordable stock (both rental and for sale) and mass building will do that.

Why can't the house you buy grow in value of 30% over 30 years? Every has got so used to recent annual growths of 10-18% that it's made too many greedy. That just can not go on, and any argument seeking to protect that is born out of self interest and greed - not any rational overview of housing policy and economy. We are now at the point where the government is guaranteeing loans to first time buyers...well that's how the US sub prime market began. Your suggestion of tax breaks it just one of keep the pyramid working in it's present form. That will only make things worse.

[PokerTime]

Yeah ????, like most people are inheriting properties worth ?1million. What planet are you on?

[????]

PS PokerTime - you mean there are lobbyist companies and lobbyists whose sole function is to get paid by companies to lobbY? NO?! well Fook my old boots I never knew that..you are so enlightening with your insider knowledge and stating of 'facts'....

PS Notting Hill was largely a shithole 30 years ago along with much of North 'always been affluent' Kensington, so your 'facts' are often really just personal opinion, some of which is wrong......

[????]

`I didnt say most I gave and SE22 house as an example and in a few years most of London will be like that but IHT Threshold is ?325K so you don't pay anything up to that...is ?325K just a pittance PokerTime???

[Loz]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The buy-to-let market has also tended to target former LA homes (which is

> why 40% of all homes sold under right to buy are now in the hands of private landlords). So it's

> part of the problem imo that has lead to the erosion of social housing. It should never have

> been introduced as a product.

Hmmm. Bit cart before the horse there, PT. The erosion of social housing was caused by the government selling them, not any particular type of buyer buying them.

[PokerTime]

Are you an angry person ????? There are no rights and wrongs in any debate but to reduce any sensible discussion to outdated battles between left and right is just nonsense, and seems to be something you like to do. At least you acknowledge that big business lobbies MPs..now take at look at who funds the Conservative Party for example and you can fook ya boots all over again!

And what is the deal of calling every lower demograhpic enclave a sh+t hole? Of course the poorest can't spend money on homes they rent a) because they don't have any money and b) they don't own it. But that's not what we are talking about anyway. We are talking about balanced and well adjusted economies that look atfter the interests of all (as best they can)....which is why social housing has a place as much as luxury apartments. It's about balance.

?325k is not a pitance but again, half the people living in London won't inherit anything like that, if anything at all. It's not an argument to justify anything!

[PokerTime]

I think it's started by one (as you rightly say Loz) and exacerbated by the other. The end place is still one with over half of all social housing being sold (since the 80s) and a third of all former social housing no longer being affordable (private landlords).

[EDLove]

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just read your link EDLove. Thanks for that.

> Always thought Shaun Bailey was ok but now I've

> read this piece I've changed my mind!

>

> By the way who decides which areas suddenly become

> the place everybody wants to live? The estate

> agents no doubt.

>

> Why should 'poorer' people as you put it be forced

> out of their homes that they've lived in for

> years?

>

> Agree with Pokertime about the Heygate Estate,

> just near the Elephant and Castle. People were

> moved from their homes of many years and were

> promised alternatives. This never happened and of

> course the builders moved in and created 'luxury'

> flats.

>

> Are you trying to say that every working class

> person should be forced out of London just because

> the government didn't replace housing stock lost

> to the 'Right to Buy' policy?

Hi Minder

I'm not sure what factors go into decide which places become desirable. Yes, perhaps estate agents fuel the fire. As more people come in to London, and less housing is available, it is natural that the central areas become more sought after and, therefore, more expensive. Which, unfortunately, means that more and more people (whether low or middle income) can't afford to live there. This seems to be happening to a wide section of the London population, not just 'poorer' people.

The use of the term 'poorer' people (or the poor) originated in the article and flowed from there. It doesn't sit too well with me either.

I also noted the problem with the breakdown of communities but, in light of the housing shortage, it appears that community is something that, sadly, might not be so easy to retain. I didn't say that this breakdown was something I thought was right, just that there may be more immediate priorities, namely finding people places to live (which may be made easier if expensive accomodation is sold off to fund the purchase of more properties for the same value). You're absolutely right that failing to find alternative homes is not acceptable.

I'm not sure how you jumped from some brief thoughts/queries about poorer people living in the 'expensive' parts (though the perameters of 'expensive' is still not entirely clear) of London (which is something that most low and middle earners cannot ever hope to do) to the rather extreme statement that all working class people should be forced out of London, which certainly is not my view.