Oooh, look. Half a million more people claiming housing benefit under coalition.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Never said that it is always the case. Simply pointing out that it sometimes doesn't work and that council/govt led brute force social engineering possibly isn't the best way forward.
....and are you saying that this approach doesn't provide a certain sub section of society with easy access to cars and houses that can be broken into?

That's exactly what I am saying because the idea that that is the case is simply ridiculous .My street is a council street everyone on that street rents from the council and as far as I know everyone works ,there are nicely decorated houses with big tellies and 4x4's on the drive ,I myself have a 25 grand van on my drive ,I'll tell you now we are as much at risk of burglary as anyone in a private estate .The attitude that council tenants and private home owners should not mix belongs in dark ages

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What's wrong with that?lol, social housing alongside 'normal' new builds........if the experience in Woolwich is anything to go by, that approach simply provides a certion sub section of society with easy access to cars and houses that can be broken into.

What's wrong with that, you not been paying attention or something, thought you were keen on the market deciding, seems like you're only keen on it if it's being manipulated.

It doesn't matter what the experience is, it's the law, funny how you seem happy for some to break the law but not others

Pointless debate really because no politician will ever get involved in building enough houses to resolve the issue because that would cause our ridiculously inflated house bubble to explode and they don't want the electoral backlash from that. Far easier to pass the problem on to the next lot who will do the same and at some point they will have to do something either build and bubble explodes or home ownership becomes the preserve of the wealthy.

[nomadking]

You could double the amount of housing overnight and there still would be homeless and a demand for more housing. There are the various invasions and everybody here would each want their own large house.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What's wrong with that, you not been paying attention or something, thought you were keen on the market deciding, seems like you're only keen on it if it's being manipulated.

It doesn't matter what the experience is, it's the law, funny how you seem happy for some to break the law but not others

What? I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I'm not being difficult, or trying to score points, I really have no idea.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

That's exactly what I am saying because the idea that that is the case is simply ridiculous .My street is a council street everyone on that street rents from the council and as far as I know everyone works ,there are nicely decorated houses with big tellies and 4x4's on the drive ,I myself have a 25 grand van on my drive ,I'll tell you now we are as much at risk of burglary as anyone in a private estate .

You would be .
Your description has nothing in common with what I'm describing in Woolwich.
My god, you really are that obtuse, I'll spell it out for you:
In Woolwich, developers were forced to build social housing next door to the luxury flats and houses that they wanted to build as a condition of getting planning approval. Woolwich is a toilet, with a 'challenging' mix of people living there. The more 'challenging' ones were obviously housed in the social housing new builds and since they were confronted with 'wealth inequality' decided to 'redistribute' some of that unequal wealth that they could see across the road.(and still are/do). This obviously doesn't apply to your, seemingly comfortable, social housing area but it is of real concern to (off the top of my head, I'll recount a story) a female who moved from Devon, to teach in a school in SE London, rent a flat in Woolwich online and then was confronted with the reality of living across the road from certain sub sections of society (who would look at your 25k van with interest as well).



(and I'd question why you are in a council house if you're in that comfortable financial situation )

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Pointless debate really because no politician will ever get involved in building enough houses to resolve the issue because that would cause our ridiculously inflated house bubble to explode and they don't want the electoral backlash from that. Far easier to pass the problem on to the next lot who will do the same and at some point they will have to do something either build and bubble explodes or home ownership becomes the preserve of the wealthy.

So nice and steady housebuilding does it?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What? I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I'm not being difficult, or trying to score points, I really have no idea.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

You would be .
Your description has nothing in common with what I'm describing in Woolwich.
My god, you really are that obtuse, I'll spell it out for you:
In Woolwich, developers were forced to build social housing next door to the luxury flats and houses that they wanted to build as a condition of getting planning approval. Woolwich is a toilet, with a 'challenging' mix of people living there. The more 'challenging' ones were obviously housed in the social housing new builds and since they were confronted with 'wealth inequality' decided to 'redistribute' some of that unequal wealth that they could see across the road.(and still are/do). This obviously doesn't apply to your, seemingly comfortable, social housing area but it is of real concern to (off the top of my head, I'll recount a story) a female who moved from Devon, to teach in a school in SE London, rent a flat in Woolwich online and then was confronted with the reality of living across the road from certain sub sections of society (who would look at your 25k van with interest as well).



(and I'd question why you are in a council house if you're in that comfortable financial situation )

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

So nice and steady housebuilding does it?

Come on you're a smart guy, it's not that complicated, if a house builder is demanding a minimum of 20% profit before they'll build a house they are artificially inflating the price of the houses they do eventually build as they're not building as many and you were saying that you think it's ok for westminster council to break the law by not enforcing housebuilders legal obligations to provide a certain percentage of social housing because they might end up being occupied by a neer-do-well, completely ignoring the fact it's more likely to be occupied by someone like a very good friend of both of ours.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You would be .
Your description has nothing in common with what I'm describing in Woolwich.
My god, you really are that obtuse, I'll spell it out for you:
In Woolwich, developers were forced to build social housing next door to the luxury flats and houses that they wanted to build as a condition of getting planning approval. Woolwich is a toilet, with a 'challenging' mix of people living there. The more 'challenging' ones were obviously housed in the social housing new builds and since they were confronted with 'wealth inequality' decided to 'redistribute' some of that unequal wealth that they could see across the road.(and still are/do). This obviously doesn't apply to your, seemingly comfortable, social housing area but it is of real concern to (off the top of my head, I'll recount a story) a female who moved from Devon, to teach in a school in SE London, rent a flat in Woolwich online and then was confronted with the reality of living across the road from certain sub sections of society (who would look at your 25k van with interest as well).

You've taken one issue in a small part of the country and applied it to the rest of the country .Before house builders where forced to build social and private housing together there was that problem and there will continue to be that problem ,I live on what used to be the roughest estate in Newcastle ,it still has it's problem tenants as every area has, who no doubt would walk the 1/4 mile across the fields to the new mixed estate being built by the river to rob people they perceive as being rich,in short segregating social classes will not stop burglaries and problem tenants ,all it does is perpetuate an outdated class system

and I'd question why you are in a council house if you're in that comfortable financial situation )

Why,
I rather think you are making a very large assumption and it's betraying your rather pompous attitude towards social housing tenants

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Come on you're a smart guy, it's not that complicated, if a house builder is demanding a minimum of 20% profit before they'll build a house they are artificially inflating the price of the houses they do eventually build as they're not building as many and you were saying that you think it's ok for westminster council to break the law by not enforcing housebuilders legal obligations to provide a certain percentage of social housing because they might end up being occupied by a neer-do-well, completely ignoring the fact it's more likely to be occupied by someone like a very good friend of both of ours.

Ah, got it. Ta
Damn right developers want a minimum of 20% profit as (iirc) once they sell the property they are liable to capital gains tax at 28 or 29%.
Factor that onto build costs, land costs, wages , commercial loan costs (both servicing the loan & setting it up) and then the uncertainty of future house sales prices and you would want 20% as well!

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

You've taken one issue in a small part of the country and applied it to the rest of the country .

No, I'm simply giving Woolwich as an example of what can go wrong. I haven't (iirc) extrapolated that to the rest of the country.

Why,
I rather think you are making a very large assumption and it's betraying your rather pompous attitude towards social housing tenants

No, I'm simply asking why, if you can afford a more expensive vehicle than I can, you are living in a council house and I'm not? Surely you should be in a private dwelling, freeing up council housing for those less fortunate/well off than yourself?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No, I'm simply giving Woolwich as an example of what can go wrong. I haven't (iirc) extrapolated that to the rest of the country.

Woolwich didn't go wrong **** bags will be **** bags regardless of who they live next to .Segregating people depending on social status does not stop or alter crime in any way

No, I'm simply asking why, if you can afford a more expensive vehicle than I can, you are living in a council house and I'm not? Surely you should be in a private dwelling, freeing up council housing for those less fortunate/well off than yourself?

Your making assumptions again.Who said the van was mine? ,it's a lease van I use for work.Even if the van was mine why should I be forced to live in a private dwelling with no security and sub standard quality or even worse attempt to take out a mortgage at my age in a financial climate virtually guaranteed to fail again before it's paid .
I have never had a desire to have a mortgage and never will given the worry and stress it causes people

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by martyh

Woolwich didn't go wrong **** bags will be **** bags regardless of who they live next to .Segregating people depending on social status does not stop or alter crime in any way

We'll have to agree to disagree

Your making assumptions again.Who said the van was mine? ,it's a lease van I use for work.Even if the van was mine why should I be forced to live in a private dwelling with no security and sub standard quality or even worse attempt to take out a mortgage at my age in a financial climate virtually guaranteed to fail again before it's paid .
I have never had a desire to have a mortgage and never will given the worry and stress it causes people

imo, if a person can afford to rent privately or have a mortgage then they should because that frees up council housing which can be allocated to those in real need.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

We'll have to agree to disagree
.

I think we will

imo, if a person can afford to rent privately or have a mortgage then they should because that frees up council housing which can be allocated to those in real need

council rents are based on local private rents so in reality there is no real difference between living in private rent or council rent ,the main difference imo is the standard will be higher in council rental properties .At the end of the day I have as much right to live in a council house as anyone else ,more in a lot of cases

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

At the end of the day I have as much right to live in a council house as anyone else ,more in a lot of cases

After you've sold your 25 grand van on the drive

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by martyh

At the end of the day I have as much right to live in a council house as anyone else ,more in a lot of cases

Does that mean that I have a right to a council house?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Does that mean that I have a right to a council house?

yep ,assuming you are a British citizen

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

yep ,assuming you are a British citizen

Cool. I might ask for one then.
I can use it as a holiday home.