Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rapid change in demographic resulting from desire for profit, perhaps, but to call it social cleansing there should be evidence of sinister intent. Desire for profit is a cornerstone value of our society, the sort of social engineering that results is a side effect, so I don't think this is splitting hairs.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> If you look at what's happening, for example, at the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem

> that hyperbolic.


You can find occasional examples of anything, but that doesn't go to prove a wider policy. There is no policy to socially cleanse London - it's just a side-effect of other policies. Which leads onto (and kind of agrees) your other comment...


> ... but my main issue is the failure to see the bigger picture. You can't talk about reducing dependency

> on state intervention and at the same time pursue policies which increase house prices, depress wages

> and see public services delivered through more complex, less accountable and more expensive mechanisms.


I agree with you on the first part, but not necessarily the second. Privatisation, done properly and in the right areas, can be a more efficient way to deliver services. Done badly and it is as much of a drain on public finances as a nationalised services done badly. If you are completely for or completely against privatisation, then you are just an ideologue.


I am a big fan of government services and a big opponent to government handing out money, generally because it doesn't work. Take housing benefit. All it does it throw fuel onto a very big bonfire and pretty much fails to achieve what it is supposed to. Far better to build more social housing and successfully accommodate a fewer number of people, than to throw a lot of money at a lot people and fail to achieve anything.

Loz Wrote:

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

If you are

> completely for or completely against

> privatisation, then you are just an ideologue.

>

> I am a big fan of government services and a big

> opponent to government handing out money,

> generally because it doesn't work. Take housing

> benefit. All it does it throw fuel onto a very

> big bonfire and pretty much fails to achieve what

> it is supposed to. Far better to build more

> social housing and successfully accommodate a

> fewer number of people, than to throw a lot of

> money at a lot people and fail to achieve

> anything.


I agree with the above completely. I am not against privatisation in all cases. I do think that the Conservatives have an extremely ideological approach to 'shrinking the state', which often is not pragmatic and does not add up to value for money.


Why re-privatise the East Coast mainline which was making a profit and bringing money into the exchequer for example? Why force councils to sell off social housing at massive discounts, only to have to rehouse people in privately owned stock, at hugely increased cost?

Loz Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you look at what's happening, for example, at

> the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem

> > that hyperbolic.

>

> You can find occasional examples of anything, but

> that doesn't go to prove a wider policy. There is

> no policy to socially cleanse London - it's just a

> side-effect of other policies. Which leads onto

> (and kind of agrees) your other comment...


The Heygate is actually a fairly good example of what's happening in many parts of inner London. I don't agree that there is a government policy to socially cleanse London, but the consequences of decisions made in Westminster are played out at a local level and this is what you get.

And while no fan of this govt I reluctantly point out that there hasn't been a Tory council for Elephant & Castle in time immemorial.


Speak to Peter John, Lab leader of Southwark council about the disgrace that is the Heygate. It's one of the reasons I want so little to do with the local party.

councils have legal obligations to house people in good quality accommodation (quite rightly). they are not allowed to borrow money to build new homes. They are forced them to sell the properties thy do have, to tennents, at huge discount. At the same time, they are having their budgets cut. Whilst this is going on, the government pursues policies which seek to bolster (if not inflate) house prices in the private sector. You then have incompetent local politicians looking to huge multinational developers for answers. The taxpayer is never going to come out of this well and neither are those desperately I need of an affordable home. These consequences are the result of policy. It doesn't mean that someone in Westminster has written a bill which explicitly calls for the poor to be displaced.

http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/


This has an ectensive list of former council employees and councillors working on the Heygate regeneration who have been either employed by Lend Lease or gained financially in some other way. I haven't verified these personally.

Then there are the flats that have been refurbished on Dog Kennel Hill...and sold off.

I suppose some people cannot or will not see the link between over-population and lack of homes. Friends of the Earth did a study some years ago and stated that this country should have a population of just 30 million. Unfortunately politicians view people as a X on the ballot paper and act accordingly.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Why re-privatise the East Coast mainline which was making a profit and bringing money into the

> exchequer for example?


DOR made about ?200m per year. Virrgin are expected to pay ?3.3bn to the treasury over the upcoming eight years of the franchise.


But the main problem was that DOR ran ECML during the "easy" phase of running a railway. There were some big costs coming up, which DOR by itself could not fund. DOR had been allowed to defer a major maintenance programme on it's rolling stock (which could be deferred no longer) and it could not afford to introduce the 65 new trains due in 2018 (replacing the current 39 and adding 50% more capacity).


So, DOR's profits would have plummeted (if not become loss-making) during the upcoming phase and it would have needed an injection of money for investment. Thus the government wanted to get ECML back into private hands to cover those investment costs plus still get money into the exchequer. Labour would have almost certainly done the same thing for the same reasons.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Doesn’t seem that simple   according to fullfact that’s a net figure   ” The £21.9 billion was a net figure. Gross additional pressures totalling £35.3 billion were identified by the Treasury, and approximately £13.4 billion of these pressures were then offset by a combination of reserve funds and other allowances. The additional pressures identified were as follows: 2024-25 public sector pay awards (£9.4bn) ”   I don’t think Labour have set expectation that changing government cures all the ills. In fact some people on here criticise them for saying exactly opposite “vote for us we’re not them but nothing will change because global issues”   I think they are too cautious across many areas. They could have been more explicit before election but such is the countries media and electorate that if they were we would now be stuck with sunak/badenoch/someone else with the 14 years of baggage of their government and infighting  the broad strokes of this government are essentially along right lines  also loving ckarkson today “ Clarkson: Your claim that I bought a farm to avoid taxes is false and irresponsible.  BBC: It’s your own claim.  Clarkson: What’s that got to do with anything?” and by loving I mean “loathing as much as I ever have”    
    • BBC and the IFS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o From BBC Verify:   Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said Reeves "may be overegging the £22bn black hole". What about the rest of the £22bn? The government published a breakdown, external of how it had got from the Treasury's £9.5bn shortfall in February to the £22bn "black hole". It said that there was another £7bn between February and the actual Budget in March, as departments found out about new spending pressures and the government spent more on the NHS and the Household Support Fund There was a final £5.6bn between then and late July, which includes almost a month when Labour was in power. That was largely caused by increases in public sector pay. It was the Labour government that accepted the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), but they said that the previous government should have budgeted for more than a 2% increase in public sector pay. Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn." It isn't this at all. When you run on an agenda of change and cleaning up politics and you put all of the eggs of despair in a basket at the door of the previous government you better hope you have a long honeymoon period to give you time to deliver the change you have promised. Look at the NHS, before the election it was all...it's broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and the implication was that Labour could fix is quickly. Then Wes Streeting (who is one of the smarter political cabinet members and is clearly able to play the long game) started talking about the need to change the NHS before the election - he talked about privatising parts of it (much to the annoyance of the left). He was being pragmatic because the only magic wand that is going to fix the NHS is massive reform - it's broken and has been for decades and throwing money at it has just papered over the cracks. Now Labour talk about the NHS needing 10 years of healing for there to be real difference and people are saying....what..... Words in opposition are easy; actions in government are a lot harder and I fear that given the structural issues caused by Covid, the energy crisis, the war in Ukraine (and now maybe a massive US/China trade war if Trump isn't bluffing) that we are heading to constant one-term governments. I don't think there was a government (and correct me if I am wrong) that survived Covid and in a lot of countries since Covid they have had regular government change (I think what is playing out in the US with them voting Trump in is reflective of the challenges all countries face). Labour massively over-egged the 14 years of hurt (who could blame them) but it is going to make things a lot tougher for them as they have set the expectation that changing government cures all the ills and as we have seen in the first 90 days of their tenure that is very much not the case. Completely agree but the big risk if Farage. If Labour don't deliver what they promised or hit "working people" then the populists win - it's happening everywhere. Dangerous, dangerous times ahead and Labour have to get it right - for all our sakes - no matter what party we support. P.S. Lammy is also one of the better Labour front-bench folks - he just is suffering from Labour's inability to think far enough ahead to realise that some posts might come back to haunt you...but in his defence did anyone really think Americans would be daft enough to vote him in again....;-)
    • My cat has been missing since Sunday evening 17th November he is British short hair male cat colour black with grey stripes. medium to large in size. He is easily identified by a large tooth missing on the top left of his mouth.  He lives in Upland Road just near the roundabout at Underhill Road. His name is Jack but he  only answers to Puss Puss please call me on 0208 299 2275 if you see him.   thank you Linda  
    • I think this could go on endlessly, so I suggest we finish it here!  But why don't you  track down the makers of the sign? Which hopefully has amused a lot of people, as well as brightening my bus journey. Tell  them that their directions to Dulwich are not only wrong, but they do not seem to know where the "real" Dulwich is 🤣 I'm sure they will be delighted 🤣  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...