FlyTheNest

Tubby Isaacs wrote:---
You never apologize, you double down. There'll always be something that can be dressed up to support your view out of context.

Labour needs to hammer away at this, because it's pure Trump, and Trump is seriously unpopular in Britain.

(cJA edit)

I think you're a valuable voice here, I can trust you. I think you're right.
How can Labour hammer away at double-downed Rees-Mogg/Trump tactics?
I study the work of Dr. King, Lao Tzu, Thích Nhất Hạnh, Pema Chödrön and others but not had an epiphany yet on what to do now when swamped by liars in the UK. I'm having difficulty adapting historical examples for contemporary use.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Put it another way.

I've often got pressed on London getting huge sums for Crossrail and the like. And they are huge sums, objectively, not just in terms of "X times more than the South West" or whatever. It can be defended in terms of adding to the overall economy, which can be reinvested everywhere. But I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about relying on that, and I've said too that London needs to find a greater proportion of that money itself locally, and people have generally agreed. There's a limit to what taxes can raise, so development is going to have to play its part.

In that context, I'm not sure I see new swathes of social housing (likely low rise, post Grenfell) being built in London. There are going to be some extremely difficult decisions to make. We can protect existing tenants, stop selling council flats, but I'm not sure I see very much more than that being done.

Government built owned and rationed social housing is grotesquely distributionally unfair. A lucky few get an asset worth (in London) half a million quid at public expense. Most of the poor get nothing. The idea that demand in London could be met for such state supplied housing is crazy.

Get out of doing that altogether, build the largest number of units you can, which doesn't involve adding blocking powers for nimbies, and help the poorest by giving bing them more money.


I can well understand why the HDV is opposed by locals. For London as a whole however, it is a good idea as it provides the most units possible.

At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

I did a mock-advertisement for Mr citizen this morning, I played a Labour Housing minister explaining the new product Labour government were putting on the market.
Council homes, all over the country, all of them available for rent only - Some people like the simplicity and freedom of well-made, safe, truly affordable, securely tenured housing - These dwellings are a different housing product from privately owned housing rentals

adam wrote:At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

But I thought the market would fix everything??!?!

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:---
Friends like Hugo, wittingly or unwittingly, will always side with the predatory capitalists (#Progress).

(cJA edit)

The Bailey Building and Loan is open for business

On the local elections in May - it's more difficult to compare with last time around because UKIP were a reasonable force then but back then, with changes from what I think is the year before rather than four years before- it was

Labour 31% (+2) 2121 Councillors (+324) 82 Councils (+6)
Conservatives 29% (+4) 1364 Councillors (-246) 41 Councils (-11)
UKIP 17% (-5) 166 Councillors (+163) 0 councils (-)
Lib Dems 13% (-1) 427 Councillors (-310) 6 Councils (-2)

Can't see detailed figures for the Green Party but they had a net gain of 18 councillors to end up with 38

The elections were held on the same day at the European Parliament elections that UKIP won.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

refitman wrote:---
But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

The mayor can knock the plans about till they're acceptable. Councils have been kept going in very difficult times by property development. While I don't see the defeat of HDV as anything other than a grassroots revolt (from people who aren't even all Labour supporters- the Tories probably do fairly well among older white tenants- let alone all leftists) , I'm not entirely confident the new folk understand the shit that local government's in without this developer money.

(cJA edit)

Local government get their funding from Westminster, from government
UK government is not owned by housing developers
There is business and there is government and they're not the same
Peoples' interests and their lives are protected by elected public servants, by government
Government has the authority to do what is necessary protecting the lives and interests of every person in the UK
It was a mistake not to have returned a Labour government in 2015, Ed Miliband was a good leader
We're here now, country and people in the hands of dismayingly bad Tory leadership
I've no doubt a Labour government will honourably govern in the interests of people and country
I hope there's people and nation left when the Tories are gone

refitman wrote:

adam wrote:At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

But I thought the market would fix everything??!?!

Didn't you see my commercial?
<dejected face emoticon>

A new housing product on the UK market!
Council Homes!

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

refitman wrote:TINA?

Alternatives to some of the schemes? Sure, and the mayor can make sure that happens.

Alternatives to redeveloping low density social housing in London? Unless the government is going to find a ton more money for London councils- which hardly sits with its commitment to regions- I'm not sure there is.

(cJA bold)

Could we discuss what money is in a sovereign currency nation and how the government budget works, please?

SpinningHugo wrote:

refitman wrote: But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

This is often said but s a terrible error about how the market for homes works.

We just need more units. Full stop. People occupying the newly built ones are then not in other units. You'll get the largest increase in affordable housing by building the moat units you can regardless of the price point of those units.

Are they for Douglas Hogg?

SpinningHugo wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Put it another way.

I've often got pressed on London getting huge sums for Crossrail and the like. And they are huge sums, objectively, not just in terms of "X times more than the South West" or whatever. It can be defended in terms of adding to the overall economy, which can be reinvested everywhere. But I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about relying on that, and I've said too that London needs to find a greater proportion of that money itself locally, and people have generally agreed. There's a limit to what taxes can raise, so development is going to have to play its part.

In that context, I'm not sure I see new swathes of social housing (likely low rise, post Grenfell) being built in London. There are going to be some extremely difficult decisions to make. We can protect existing tenants, stop selling council flats, but I'm not sure I see very much more than that being done.

Government built owned and rationed social housing is grotesquely distributionally unfair. A lucky few get an asset worth (in London) half a million quid at public expense. Most of the poor get nothing. The idea that demand in London could be met for such state supplied housing is crazy.

Get out of doing that altogether, build the largest number of units you can, which doesn't involve adding blocking powers for nimbies, and help the poorest by giving bing them more money.


I can well understand why the HDV is opposed by locals. For London as a whole however, it is a good idea as it provides the most units possible.

Building on the London greenbelt is going to be necessary. Khan is opposed, and to be fair to him, he could be "doughnuted" out of office if he supported it.

HDV does seem to have crossed a line for a lot of people. Other Labour councils aren't really going out of their way to help Kober. But more of that sort of stuff is going to be needed. The right mechanism for regulating it is the mayor, not local residents in a ballot.

So I'm not worried about this scheme particularly, but I am worried more generally.

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

refitman wrote:TINA?

Alternatives to some of the schemes? Sure, and the mayor can make sure that happens.

Alternatives to redeveloping low density social housing in London? Unless the government is going to find a ton more money for London councils- which hardly sits with its commitment to regions- I'm not sure there is.

(cJA bold)

Could we discuss what money is in a sovereign currency nation and how the government budget works, please?

I'd print and borrow money for Stoke before I borrowed or printed it for London.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

citizenJA wrote:---
Could we discuss what money is in a sovereign currency nation and how the government budget works, please?

I'd print and borrow money for Stoke before I borrowed or printed it for London.

It doesn't have to be one or the other
Winners and losers occur in games
Outside of games, everyone can win without someone else losing

adam wrote:At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

Sure, but there's an opportunity cost to the council in granting planning permission to a block of affordable housing rather than one with expensive housing. I've not seen anybody say where the money is coming from for councils so that they can afford to forgo the money they get from high end developments, both up front and in the longer term from council tax.

I'd like to see the day all people have somewhere safe to live
Without a safe place to live, life is an exercise in survival
Without a stable home, people don't thrive

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

adam wrote:At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

Sure, but there's an opportunity cost to the council in granting planning permission to a block of affordable housing rather than one with expensive housing. I've not seen anybody say where the money is coming from for councils so that they can afford to forgo the money they get from high end developments, both up front and in the longer term from council tax.

More affordable housing and social housing means less money spent on housing benefit in the longer term - that's one part of the real scandal of all of this, a massive shift of housing costs as another way of redistributing wealth from the state to the private sector- this time private landlords.

Anecdote ahoy, but what was one of the poshest streets in the posh-to-start-with southern city I did most of my growing up in has seen a huge amount of development in the last ten years or so - what were large single homes have been bought, demolished and the floor plan redeveloped as half a dozen flats - sorry, apartments. My point - and this is a real question and not anything rhetorical - is that I don't entirely get why approving more lower cost housing would cause a loss compared to approving less more expensive housing.

There will always be people who'll not fit in, who'll not cooperate and they'll do themselves and others harm
Most people aren't this way

'Where's the money going to come from?'
Tory government can find it easy enough for their whatever
Government can find it for homes, health, education and national infrastructure

adam wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

adam wrote:At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

Sure, but there's an opportunity cost to the council in granting planning permission to a block of affordable housing rather than one with expensive housing. I've not seen anybody say where the money is coming from for councils so that they can afford to forgo the money they get from high end developments, both up front and in the longer term from council tax.

More affordable housing and social housing means less money spent on housing benefit in the longer term - that's one part of the real scandal of all of this, a massive shift of housing costs as another way of redistributing wealth from the state to the private sector- this time private landlords.

Anecdote ahoy, but what was one of the poshest streets in the posh-to-start-with southern city I did most of my growing up in has seen a huge amount of development in the last ten years or so - what were large single homes have been bought, demolished and the floor plan redeveloped as half a dozen flats - sorry, apartments. My point - and this is a real question and not anything rhetorical - is that I don't entirely get why approving more lower cost housing would cause a loss compared to approving less more expensive housing.

Developers build what they do because the profit is greater, and the councils claw a chunk of that back with s 106 payments. Less profit, there's a smaller payment to the council, and as things stand a hole in a budget.

Selling off social homes at a discount has been a dreadful policy, no argument there. But does it make financial sense to borrow lots for social homes now, to reduce housing benefit? Not sure it does. Literally every one bed ex council flat where I used to live costs over £300,000 (well, one is less). The difference between the council rent and housing benefit rent is about £650 a month.

So that's, in economic terms, very long term. I'm not saying there might not be other good reasons to build social housing in expensive areas, and that saving housing benefit in the long term couldn't be part of an overall case. But I don't think it's the slam dunk it's said to be.

adam wrote:The only possibly creditable thing I can think May is doing (and I pause to say that it's not creditable at all, because it will lead to us being damaged, just a bit less damaged) is waiting and waiting to jump into continued CU membership until it's too late for her party to replace her - but I can't see that anywhere in anything that she says or does. Her government seem more keen on forcing the rest of the EU to look back at December's agreement, decide that we're just not taking it seriously at all and revert to those discussions again.

The Parris piece is perfectly fine but completely fucking obvious and the quote from Robert Harris does not belong anywhere in modern discourse.

What was the quote you are referring to (from Robert Harris), please? I can make a guess (and, if I'm right, I think I agree with it) but I can't find a "quote" quote within the article.

Presumably the "barmaid's idea of a gentleman" one?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Presumably the "barmaid's idea of a gentleman" one?

Ah - if that's the case, it's not what I was thinking and it sounds a very "off" note. Although "Boris Johnson admirers'" idea of intelligent . . . . ?

It's the Right that advocates the building of State engendered "rationed* units for,as SH respectfully(as if a discrete and in pertuity categorisation rather than changeable in a blink of an eye )puts it "poorest",with particular emphasis on the disabled(repeat)

Added to the fact of course should a blink of an eye occur systematic removal/encouragement/State residualisation of any concept of contributory reciprocity beyond paying back with interest if refusing to move to non existent housing for the new "undesireables" who should be in these" units" even if they aren't there.

adam wrote:At a very basic level, you can build more cheaper homes on a given piece of land than you can build more expensive homes. If you don't focus on affordable housing then you end up with very expensive rentable values for btl landlords paid out by the state ... edited to add - and very expensive second homes, and capital rich parents buying in for the children. The idea that some abstract market idea will deliver effective housing is absurd.

Regulate the unit number, not the affordability.

I was gobsmacked that people were gobsmacked that disabled people were in high raised flats for example.In such a context makes so much sense to encourage homeowners,especially in adapted homes to move or pay for saving the State by not moving.

There are ways around such "obligations"

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... ity-rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Night night.

If would be interesting,bereft of seeming belief of immunity from the vagaries of life and consequent othering whether ones political views and general attitude,not least in use of language(believing applied to others) would change;before of course whether you would accept what you believe will never apply to you,you advocate.

HindleA wrote:If would be interesting,bereft of seeming belief of immunity from the vagaries of life and consequent othering whether ones political views and general attitude,not least in use of language(believing applied to others) would change;before of course whether you would accept what you believe will never apply to you,you advocate.

Michael Moore has some phrase about that, in reference to the Bush-era Republicans. A few of them were strangely humane on particular issues- ones where friends and relatives of theirs had experence of said issue.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 93106.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-grieve-running-out-time-customs-union-boris-johnson-michael-gove-a8193106.html

Stilll time to reverse ?

/tories-are-lying-to-the-voters-and-themselves-over-brexit-r7nc79cw5

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tori ... -r7nc79cw5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor wrote:Night night.

Goodnight, PorFavor

Michael Savage‏
@michaelsavage
Follow Follow @michaelsavage
More
So tonight, the civil service is fighting back.

Andrew Turnbull, ex-cabinet secretary, says Brexiteer attacks on officials are an echo of the “stab in the back” myth in pre-war Germany - which blamed internal saboteurs for defeat in the First World War.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shame it has to be ex-civil service and not those currently in it...

You can't make an omelette without breaking any peoples' lives, and never ever forget how important it is to entice Vampire Capitalists to rob you !

2bn-selloff-of-haringey-council-property-will-force-out-families-and-destroy-community-a3480646.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 80646.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A 'dream team' at No 10 with JRM as Chancellor?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OMFG...

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Michael Savage‏
@michaelsavage
Follow Follow @michaelsavage
More
So tonight, the civil service is fighting back.

Andrew Turnbull, ex-cabinet secretary, says Brexiteer attacks on officials are an echo of the “stab in the back” myth in pre-war Germany - which blamed internal saboteurs for defeat in the First World War.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shame it has to be ex-civil service and not those currently in it...

Jeremy Heywood had a good pop back.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Jeremy Heywood had a good pop back.

Must have missed it but good for him - he ought to be telling the PM to tell her MPs to cut it out or else.

goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

PorFavor wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Presumably the "barmaid's idea of a gentleman" one?

Ah - if that's the case, it's not what I was thinking and it sounds a very "off" note. Although "Boris Johnson admirers'" idea of intelligent . . . . ?

Yes, the barmaid comment. (I tend to find Robert Harris very good or terrible. I like most of his earlier books, including the non-fiction ones - and I haven't read the roman stuff).

frog222 wrote:You can't make an omelette without breaking any peoples' lives, and never ever forget how important it is to entice Vampire Capitalists to rob you !

2bn-selloff-of-haringey-council-property-will-force-out-families-and-destroy-community-a3480646.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 80646.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a very strong article by Aditya Chakrabortty on Thursday - In Haringey the people have taken over, not the hard left and then a long profile piece on Claire Kober today which didn't link back to the Chakrabortty piece at all - not in the article, not in the links on the page online. (Edited to add - there is now a link on the right of today's article halfway down the page - I'm sure it wasn't there earlier. ) I thought it was very very poor practice, and whilst I don't know I suspect a lot more people will read the Saturday article ...

The London council leader has resigned amid claims of sexist bullying by Momentum members. Was she just the loser in a local politics row about regeneration – or is this the future of the Labour party?

... than the Thursday one...

Council leader Claire Kober has quit. Rightwingers claim it’s a Momentum plot, but this was all about residents fighting to save their homes

[youtube]_SsccRkLLzU[/youtube]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... uroscience" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So men are dying because they don’t have women’s brains? Show me the evidence
Will Hutton

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -offenders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Private probation firms fail to cut rates of reoffending

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Universal credit system faces landmark legal challenge

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw


Universal credit system faces landmark legal challenge

Good for TP. Hope he lives long enough to see the case through.

Jeremy Carbon

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Jeremy Carbon

He of the "diesel people-carrier" ?

The R4 review of the papers shows what the LP is up against, from the Sun's crazy stuff on Momentum hoodlums, to the Guardian's VERY mixed reporting on Haringey, Kober and Momentum .

See Adam at 11.42 last night on the Haringey reporting .

Read the DWP bot response.Exactly the same guff for years.I have one signed from Esther ie.We value carers...that's why on the basis of "fairness" we will remove x ,the remedies are y,z both at more cost to the State/impossible.

HindleA wrote:Read the DWP bot response.Exactly the same guff for years.I have one signed from Esther ie.We value carers...that's why on the basis of "fairness" we will remove x ,the remedies are y,z both at more cost to the State/impossible.

I hate the bot responses, so dishonest and a waste of taxpayers' £ too ...

PTO (if I'm there first .)