FlyTheNest

A haven
It is currently Thu 18 Oct, 2018 5:59 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)


Last edited by AngryAsWell on Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:27 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Not only do you cite no evidence to support your view, there is clear evidence that you are wrong. Do you think you'll get away with it here?

For example, Clive Lewis rebelled against Corbyn on Article 50. Yet he is back. Forgiven and forgotten presumably. And a good thing too.


I think we'll just have to disagree about whether Labour's shadow team are a crack group of Labour's brightest and best.

I think it easily the worst shadow cabinet since before ww2 (and I can't really judge that era). There are plenty of able people on the Labour benches but almost none on the frontbench (if I put together an ideal team I think only Owen Smith would survive in his current role).

The Tories are equally bad of course, many of their more able also being excluded.

That's a deflection. You said Corbyn doesn't forgive and forget and presented no evidence to support the assertion.

I have presented evidence that he does forgive in the precise context we were discussing. I can't comment on the forget of course. Enough.


The evidence that he doesn't IS the shadow cabinet. Despite the predictions (but AK amongst others) that there was going to be a recall of the usual names, none have gone back. Save for Owen Smith, Seamus' little joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:27 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Not only do you cite no evidence to support your view, there is clear evidence that you are wrong. Do you think you'll get away with it here?

For example, Clive Lewis rebelled against Corbyn on Article 50. Yet he is back. Forgiven and forgotten presumably. And a good thing too.


I think we'll just have to disagree about whether Labour's shadow team are a crack group of Labour's brightest and best.

I think it easily the worst shadow cabinet since before ww2 (and I can't really judge that era). There are plenty of able people on the Labour benches but almost none on the frontbench (if I put together an ideal team I think only Owen Smith would survive in his current role).

The Tories are equally bad of course, many of their more able also being excluded.


will you please give it a rest - these wild allegations of competence....reminds me of Blackadder talking about the Blue Stone of Galvestone

'so what you are telling me Percy is that something you have never seen is slightly bluer than something else you have never seen'

How you can make comparative statements of such unalloyed nonsense is beyond me - I take it you are about 90 years of age seeing you seem to have personal experience of all Shadow Cabinets since WW2 - not PM or even senior ministers - shadow cabinets as well!

Mind you, you think Cameron was a good PM so perhaps it makes more sense


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam

We* counted 33 Tory MPs at the European Research Group Brexiter meeting convened by Rees-Mogg tonight “just a regular catch up of friends” he said including: IDS, Patel, Fabricant, Bridgen, Badenoch ...
*Ie intrepid newshound @zachjourno

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 0428189698

So, Anna is right, not more than 35 to 40 of them. May really needs to get a grip and sack the lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:40 pm 
Online
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1492
Has thanked: 4752 times
Been thanked: 2182 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)

PLUS the number of luxury flats lying empty because they were bought purely for speculation, and the several thousands which remain unsold ! In addition there is building permission for many thousands more ...

I put up a link on that which appears to have been ignored :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:43 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam

We* counted 33 Tory MPs at the European Research Group Brexiter meeting convened by Rees-Mogg tonight “just a regular catch up of friends” he said including: IDS, Patel, Fabricant, Bridgen, Badenoch ...
*Ie intrepid newshound @zachjourno

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 0428189698

So, Anna is right, not more than 35 to 40 of them. May really needs to get a grip and sack the lot.


I suppose the trouble is that they can probably muster up 48 people to trigger a leadership challenge and once that happens all bets are off

Would she survive a leadership challenge if it was launched?
Would she resign?
If she survived would it be good for her or weaken her even more?
If she didn't survive then who would get down to the final two to go to the members?

The issue is that the bulk of Tory members are pretty invisible and sit between the extremes on both sides - seem to be more members of the ERG than who vocally support Soubry

Johnson may still stand a very good chance of getting through to the final two - especially if he can keep Gove onside this time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:46 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
frog222 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)

PLUS the number of luxury flats lying empty because they were bought purely for speculation, and the several thousands which remain unsold ! In addition there is building permission for many thousands more ...

I put up a link on that which appears to have been ignored :-)


No, not ignored I did see it but think I was too down to comment - I get days like that.
It is a big worry (for london) that so many "luxury" flats are just not selling, bodes a bit of property crashing to me.
This was it I think ?
Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
Developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:47 pm 
Online
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1492
Has thanked: 4752 times
Been thanked: 2182 times
I think I saw a figure of 85 for the ERG , but not all necessarily of the rabid variety of course .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:50 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)



My understanding was (and is) that every person was to be re-housed. That is certainly what Haringey claim.

As for the land gone, well yes it will be if you build houses on it. The asset base has to come from somewhere, the developers not doing it for free.

But, as far as I can see, it is this or the status quo. I do understand why those whose homes will be demolished oppose (even thoug they'll be rehoused) and why people dislike building near them. All very disruptive. I am sure locals impacted don't want it. But, some of those houses should be demolished and replaced regardless of impact on overall numbers.

If there is another way of buidling more units, which is what needs to be done, I've not seen it. I'd support something for the good of the many, not the few. As I'e said over and over, if you want more social housing, build more units. That should be your only goal I am pretty sure an economist will have explained that to Haringey.

As I said, what I'd want is a third party assessment setting out the pros and cons with the alternatives. I don't think any of your links are that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:22 pm
Posts: 3299
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom
Has thanked: 891 times
Been thanked: 5954 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)



My understanding was (and is) that every person was to be re-housed. That is certainly what Haringey claim.

As for the land gone, well yes it will be if you build houses on it. The asset base has to come from somewhere, the developers not doing it for free.

But, as far as I can see, it is this or the status quo. I do understand why those whose homes will be demolished oppose (even thoug they'll be rehoused) and why people dislike building near them. All very disruptive. I am sure locals impacted don't want it. But, some of those houses should be demolished and replaced regardless of impact on overall numbers.

If there is another way of buidling more units, which is what needs to be done, I've not seen it. I'd support something for the good of the many, not the few. As I'e said over and over, if you want more social housing, build more units. That should be your only goal I am pretty sure an economist will have explained that to Haringey.

As I said, what I'd want is a third party assessment setting out the pros and cons with the alternatives. I don't think any of your links are that.

Your understanding may be faulty:
Quote:
The team of council leader Claire Kober has promised that every displaced tenant who wants to move back to a redeveloped estate will be able to. Yet the agreement with Lendlease is peppered with enough get-out clauses to keep Houdini happy. Housing association tenants and leaseholders won’t get that deal – and neither will those who live on Broadwater Farm and other estates to be regenerated later in the scheme.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ourt-judge


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:55 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
frog222 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)

PLUS the number of luxury flats lying empty because they were bought purely for speculation, and the several thousands which remain unsold ! In addition there is building permission for many thousands more ...

I put up a link on that which appears to have been ignored :-)



This is a common myth

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... n_2015.pdf

London empty homes are currently 1.7%: an historic low. and much lower than for other parts of the country. Also far lower than for other EU cities.

This is as you would expect. It makes no sense for "speculators" to leave properties empty when rental costs are high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:22 pm
Posts: 3299
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom
Has thanked: 891 times
Been thanked: 5954 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
frog222 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)

PLUS the number of luxury flats lying empty because they were bought purely for speculation, and the several thousands which remain unsold ! In addition there is building permission for many thousands more ...

I put up a link on that which appears to have been ignored :-)



This is a common myth

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... n_2015.pdf

London empty homes are currently 1.7%: an historic low. and much lower than for other parts of the country. Also far lower than for other EU cities.

This is as you would expect. It makes no sense for "speculators" to leave properties empty when rental costs are high.

Ahem:
Quote:
More than half of the 1,900 ultra-luxury apartments built in London last year failed to sell, raising fears that the capital will be left with dozens of “posh ghost towers”.

The swanky flats, complete with private gyms, swimming pools and cinema rooms, are lying empty as hundreds of thousands of would-be first-time buyers struggle to find an affordable home.

The total number of unsold luxury new-build homes, which are rarely advertised at less than £1m, has now hit a record high of 3,000 units, as the rich overseas investors they were built for turn their backs on the UK due to Brexit uncertainty and the hike in stamp duty on second homes.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell

I think this would indicate that we need less luxury developments, and maybe some more affordable housing*.

*As in actually affordable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)



My understanding was (and is) that every person was to be re-housed. That is certainly what Haringey claim.

As for the land gone, well yes it will be if you build houses on it. The asset base has to come from somewhere, the developers not doing it for free.

But, as far as I can see, it is this or the status quo. I do understand why those whose homes will be demolished oppose (even thoug they'll be rehoused) and why people dislike building near them. All very disruptive. I am sure locals impacted don't want it. But, some of those houses should be demolished and replaced regardless of impact on overall numbers.

If there is another way of buidling more units, which is what needs to be done, I've not seen it. I'd support something for the good of the many, not the few. As I'e said over and over, if you want more social housing, build more units. That should be your only goal I am pretty sure an economist will have explained that to Haringey.

As I said, what I'd want is a third party assessment setting out the pros and cons with the alternatives. I don't think any of your links are that.

Your understanding may be faulty:
Quote:
The team of council leader Claire Kober has promised that every displaced tenant who wants to move back to a redeveloped estate will be able to. Yet the agreement with Lendlease is peppered with enough get-out clauses to keep Houdini happy. Housing association tenants and leaseholders won’t get that deal – and neither will those who live on Broadwater Farm and other estates to be regenerated later in the scheme.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ourt-judge



You think the council should be guaranteeing thar tenants of housing associations and the private sector should be able to remain? (Ie people who are not council tenants) That isn't feasible, and shows that Chakrobarty is just shit stirring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)



My understanding was (and is) that every person was to be re-housed. That is certainly what Haringey claim.

As for the land gone, well yes it will be if you build houses on it. The asset base has to come from somewhere, the developers not doing it for free.

But, as far as I can see, it is this or the status quo. I do understand why those whose homes will be demolished oppose (even thoug they'll be rehoused) and why people dislike building near them. All very disruptive. I am sure locals impacted don't want it. But, some of those houses should be demolished and replaced regardless of impact on overall numbers.

If there is another way of buidling more units, which is what needs to be done, I've not seen it. I'd support something for the good of the many, not the few. As I'e said over and over, if you want more social housing, build more units. That should be your only goal I am pretty sure an economist will have explained that to Haringey.

As I said, what I'd want is a third party assessment setting out the pros and cons with the alternatives. I don't think any of your links are that.


Haringey have 10,000 on the waiting list already so I fail to see where they are going to house the at least 2500 who will be displaced if this scheme went ahead. The proposed properties are/were to be "affordable" houses ( no provision for social houses) so probably out of reach for those displaced.

London has an excess of top end properties that are not selling (see the Ghost towers link above) So the argument that "Units" are what matter is a bit void if those units are empty whilst homelessness grows.
I do understand your argument that giving to some (social housing at low cost) is unfair to those who don't get housed, but my feeling are we need to start somewhere and subsidising houses for workers, is to me, an essential starting point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:06 pm 
Online
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1492
Has thanked: 4752 times
Been thanked: 2182 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
frog222 wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)

PLUS the number of luxury flats lying empty because they were bought purely for speculation, and the several thousands which remain unsold ! In addition there is building permission for many thousands more ...

I put up a link on that which appears to have been ignored :-)



This is a common myth

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... n_2015.pdf

London empty homes are currently 1.7%: an historic low. and much lower than for other parts of the country. Also far lower than for other EU cities.

This is as you would expect. It makes no sense for "speculators" to leave properties empty when rental costs are high.


Of course it makes sense to leave empty if it's not a long-term investment, too much hassle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -in-london

Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
Developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
refitman wrote:
[

I think this would indicate that we need less luxury developments, and maybe some more affordable housing*.

*As in actually affordable.


If you think of housing as a stock, it should become clear that that isn't right.

Try and do it with numbers.

Say we have 1,000 homes occupier by 1,000 people, and 100 (poor) homeless. What happens if you build 100 super luxury flats (keeping the number of people static)? The richest 100 move into them (others moving up to) freeing up 100 homes for the homeless.

Which is why economist emphasise over and over that it is unit numbers that matter: nothing else. Just build as many as you can, don't worry about how many are "affordable". If the choice is build 100 super luxury flats or 50 units of affordable housing (which it may be as the profit margin on the former will be larger) building the former will free up more affordable housing than the latter.

Which is why regulation should stipulate for number, but not price. Let the builders sell at any price they like, just so long as they build X units.

That seems to be the essence of the HDV scheme, which is what economists will have advised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
frog222 wrote:

Of course it makes sense to leave empty if it's not a long-term investment, too much hassle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -in-london

Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
Developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell


The empirical eidence of occupancy rates shows that this is not worth worrying about.

It is the same conspiracy theory blaming of 'speculators' that you always see when there is a shortage (whether of bread, clothing, housing or anything else.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:12 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
It's not just the Chakrobarty piece, it's the other links I gave and the massive transfer of public assets into private hands with no guarantee of what happens if the company go bump AFTER they have demolished and before they have built. Plus the loss of all the housing that will be demolished, 1900 on just one estate, where will those people go? Not to the new builds that's for sure.

(Scrub my last sentence above, apart from the mindfulness - just re read and see I have misunderstood, though you were subtly saying you didn't have long to go)



My understanding was (and is) that every person was to be re-housed. That is certainly what Haringey claim.

As for the land gone, well yes it will be if you build houses on it. The asset base has to come from somewhere, the developers not doing it for free.

But, as far as I can see, it is this or the status quo. I do understand why those whose homes will be demolished oppose (even thoug they'll be rehoused) and why people dislike building near them. All very disruptive. I am sure locals impacted don't want it. But, some of those houses should be demolished and replaced regardless of impact on overall numbers.

If there is another way of buidling more units, which is what needs to be done, I've not seen it. I'd support something for the good of the many, not the few. As I'e said over and over, if you want more social housing, build more units. That should be your only goal I am pretty sure an economist will have explained that to Haringey.

As I said, what I'd want is a third party assessment setting out the pros and cons with the alternatives. I don't think any of your links are that.


Haringey have 10,000 on the waiting list already so I fail to see where they are going to house the at least 2500 who will be displaced if this scheme went ahead. The proposed properties are/were to be "affordable" houses ( no provision for social houses) so probably out of reach for those displaced.

London has an excess of top end properties that are not selling (see the Ghost towers link above) So the argument that "Units" are what matter is a bit void if those units are empty whilst homelessness grows.
I do understand your argument that giving to some (social housing at low cost) is unfair to those who don't get housed, but my feeling are we need to start somewhere and subsidising houses for workers, is to me, an essential starting point.



London doesn't have an excess of unoccupied properties. Occupancy rates are astonishingly high, higher than anywhere else comparable, and higher than they have ever been.

Subsidising a lucky few at the expense of everyone else is grossly unfair (and it is a few, there is no way on earth the demand for social housing in a place like Hringey can be met by the state under any government). Build as many units as you can, help the poor by giving them all, not just a lucky few, more money,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
frog222 wrote:

Of course it makes sense to leave empty if it's not a long-term investment, too much hassle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -in-london

Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
Developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell


The empirical eidence of occupancy rates shows that this is not worth worrying about.

It is the same conspiracy theory blaming of 'speculators' that you always see when there is a shortage (whether of bread, clothing, housing or anything else.)


15,000 high-end flats still on the market, sort of undermines your trickle up theory ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:25 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
Put another way, I think there is another way of telling the story of Haringey.

A lucky few are in publicly provided housing. A much larger number would like to live in equialent housing in the same area, but cannot. The lucky few are trying to block the building of more housing in the area to meet some of that demand.

If they're successful that doesn't strike me as a triumph for progressive politics.

The end goal should be: more housing units. If there is another way in which more can be built more fairly, great tell me what it is.

I'm quite prepareed to accept that lots of criticisms of the HDV can be made (lack of consultation etc). I haven't yet seen a proper objective review of it. But a large proportion of the objections seem to me to be misconceived


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:26 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
frog222 wrote:

Of course it makes sense to leave empty if it's not a long-term investment, too much hassle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -in-london

Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
Developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell


The empirical eidence of occupancy rates shows that this is not worth worrying about.

It is the same conspiracy theory blaming of 'speculators' that you always see when there is a shortage (whether of bread, clothing, housing or anything else.)


15,000 high-end flats still on the market, sort of undermines your trickle up theory ;)



In the context of a city 9,000,000 people? Where the occupancy rates are better than in any comparable city, and are at an historic high?

I don't think so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:26 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
frog222 wrote:

Of course it makes sense to leave empty if it's not a long-term investment, too much hassle.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -in-london

Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
Developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... il-to-sell


The empirical eidence of occupancy rates shows that this is not worth worrying about.

It is the same conspiracy theory blaming of 'speculators' that you always see when there is a shortage (whether of bread, clothing, housing or anything else.)


15,000 high-end flats still on the market, sort of undermines your trickle up theory ;)



Is there a limitless amount of available money for everyone to keep on trading up to free up space?

Surely any properties that should be built have to be 'affordable' in order for enough people to be able to afford them?

House prices in London seem to be stagnating so anyone trading up will be putting themselves at some risk - not all of course - but who would buy an asset that may depreciate?

The whole London property market is a bit special and I would guess that, not for the first time, Hugo's simplistic assessment bears little relation to reality

The median household income in London is probably around the £40K mark which would suggest that a median house price of <£200K would be considered 'affordable' by historical measures


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
Ha-ha-ha-ha (not normally mean but there are exceptions and she's one)
Have we had this?
LBC‏Verified account
@LBC

Katie Hopkins has been detained and had her passport confiscated in South Africa for "spreading racial hatred"

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/960891422235856898


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:34 pm 
Online
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm
Posts: 1492
Has thanked: 4752 times
Been thanked: 2182 times
She went there to protest the ethnic cleansing of white farmers .

Not going too well ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:35 pm 
Online
Prime Minister

Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 11:18 am
Posts: 10533
Has thanked: 20649 times
Been thanked: 18567 times
Night night.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
In the context of a falling house price market I think London may be heading for a problem, especially when Brexit hits that high end market hard.

Here's how much London house prices fell in November

http://www.cityam.com/278855/heres-much ... l-november

(three quote quota hit)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:40 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15252
Has thanked: 84169 times
Been thanked: 13702 times
PorFavor wrote:
Night night.
Goodnight, PorFavor


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
Put another way, I think there is another way of telling the story of Haringey.

A lucky few are in publicly provided housing. A much larger number would like to live in equialent housing in the same area, but cannot. The lucky few are trying to block the building of more housing in the area to meet some of that demand.

If they're successful that doesn't strike me as a triumph for progressive politics.

The end goal should be: more housing units. If there is another way in which more can be built more fairly, great tell me what it is.

I'm quite prepareed to accept that lots of criticisms of the HDV can be made (lack of consultation etc). I haven't yet seen a proper objective review of it. But a large proportion of the objections seem to me to be misconceived


I think the point you miss is that the scheme is not about providing "more" housing its about demolishing existing housing (that could be renovated) and replacing it with higher cost housing - in other words destroying communities of have nots, to be replace with have lots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister

Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm
Posts: 4211
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 2277 times
AngryAsWell wrote:
In the context of a falling house price market I think London may be heading for a problem, especially when Brexit hits that high end market hard.

Here's how much London house prices fell in November

http://www.cityam.com/278855/heres-much ... l-november

(three quote quota hit)



Isn't that a good thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
First Secretary of State

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 3211
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 5547 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
In the context of a falling house price market I think London may be heading for a problem, especially when Brexit hits that high end market hard.

Here's how much London house prices fell in November

http://www.cityam.com/278855/heres-much ... l-november

(three quote quota hit)



Isn't that a good thing?


in general yes but in terms of a country that derives a significant amount of 'wealth' and feeling of being wealthy fro their asset then it could have a marked effect on the future economy - on top of Brexit effects


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 9:51 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
In the context of a falling house price market I think London may be heading for a problem, especially when Brexit hits that high end market hard.

Here's how much London house prices fell in November

http://www.cityam.com/278855/heres-much ... l-november

(three quote quota hit)



Isn't that a good thing?


Any other time I would say yes, but with Brexit looming I'm not so sure that a property slump in London will do much for our economy, or investor confidence in the country overall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 10:12 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 11:22 am
Posts: 15252
Has thanked: 84169 times
Been thanked: 13702 times
Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
More
Vote Leave chair @GiselaStuart gets mugged by reality (and @IanDunt) on the Irish border.

https://twitter.com/dasvee/status/960978785972686849

Short video worth a watch


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam

Official impact assessment for the now rather interesting Customs Bill - measures the impact of leaving EU & Customs Union, with and without legislating for UK law replacement. Doesn’t model actual exit from the customs union: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 0128/IA17-

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 0913136646


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 11:04 pm 
Online
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:40 pm
Posts: 5059
Has thanked: 10357 times
Been thanked: 12373 times
Evening.

I've just been reading today's comments and I'm a bit confused about why replacing the NHS will protect our universal healthcare system from malicious right wing meddling. By this measure Trump's obsession with repealing Obamacare won't have any negative impact on any American's access to healthcare because it's not a nationalised service so is therefore immune to political decisions......Except that's clearly not the case. America's healthcare system is as political as ours is, as are all health systems of all stripes. Only political will can guarantee a successful universal healthcare system, whatever delivery system is used and it seems to me that a political party willing to underfund the NHS to destruction is unlikely to be trusted to maintain a commitment to universal healthcare full stop. Forget the NHS not being safe in Tory hands, healthcare for all is in doubt as long as they are in power.

_________________
“Find a nice, self sufficient hilltop, and fortify it.” - The Kraken Wakes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 11:09 pm 
Offline
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2014 12:11 am
Posts: 1489
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 1406 times
I've lived in Leeds for nigh on 15 years and on my way tonight from the railway station to my bus stop I saw more rough sleepers in the city centre than I've ever seen in a single night before.

I knew it was getting really bad because a friend of mine works in the Gallery (security) and because it's free to use the bathrooms he sees them coming in to get washed in the morning but I had no idea of the extent of the increase because I'm not often in the city centre at night.

But honest to god it was shocking, it's fucking freezing out there and there are dozens of people lying out in it in crappy cheap sleeping bags at best in the centre of a city that prides itself on being one of the richest cities in the country.

I didn't see anything like this last year, the odd one or two, but not the 11 I counted just on my route.

I wonder if it has anything to do with Leeds being one of the areas where Universal Credit has been forced on people for the last couple of years?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 11:26 pm 
Offline
Prime Minister
User avatar

Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 6:35 pm
Posts: 5851
Has thanked: 10499 times
Been thanked: 7246 times
Sky'sGoneOut wrote:
I've lived in Leeds for nigh on 15 years and on my way tonight from the railway station to my bus stop I saw more rough sleepers in the city centre than I've ever seen in a single night before.

I knew it was getting really bad because a friend of mine works in the Gallery (security) and because it's free to use the bathrooms he sees them coming in to get washed in the morning but I had no idea of the extent of the increase because I'm not often in the city centre at night.

But honest to god it was shocking, it's fucking freezing out there and there are dozens of people lying out in it in crappy cheap sleeping bags at best in the centre of a city that prides itself on being one of the richest cities in the country.

I didn't see anything like this last year, the odd one or two, but not the 11 I counted just on my route.

I wonder if it has anything to do with Leeds being one of the areas where Universal Credit has been forced on people for the last couple of years?


Not wanting to "Top Trumps" but Manchester is far worse, travelling back through the city centre last week and I - literally - could not count the numbers settling down in doorways for the night, so many shop doorway had one, two or three people huddling down.
We are in a shocking situation nationally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07 Feb, 2018 12:04 am 
Offline
Foreign Secretary

Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2014 12:11 am
Posts: 1489
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 1406 times
Curiously in Leeds we don't have that spice shit causing havoc like it is in Manchester.

I walked from Piccadilly to Victoria about a month ago at night to get the last train home and there were zombies. Some not moving, bent over and drooling, some staggering around making no sense.

We never had many 'Head shops' here selling the shit, just a couple, Leeds has a massive Afro-Caribbean community so we get good weed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07 Feb, 2018 1:23 am 
Offline
Speaker of the House

Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am
Posts: 2007
Has thanked: 13331 times
Been thanked: 4055 times
Interesting conversations today on housing, there are some good articles on shelter force.org about why 'trickle-down' isn't the answer to housing problems ( but might help alleviate the problem)

https://shelterforce.org/2017/11/02/tim ... p-housing/
"Building homes for extremely low-income people allows other homes to filter up to people in need—a better bet than waiting for luxury units to trickle down."

https://shelterforce.org/2016/11/04/hou ... rhoods-do/
"Housing doesn't filter, neighborhoods do"

https://shelterforce.org/2017/02/22/hou ... residents/

"Why aren't we building middle income housing"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], citizenJA, Exabot [Bot], frog222, Google [Bot], PorFavor, Willow904 and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group