Poor people being priced out

[veggifriedbreakfast]

I live in East London and need to move, I currently rent a 2 bedroom flat. But, looking around now, for a 2 bedroom the minimal is £1400 a month up to £2000 for a 2 bed!!!

It seems to me that what is happening is that actually poor people are being priced out of London. I lived in Stratford and had to move out of there due to the market going up and now where I am again it's happening. How can people on lesser incomes afford this? I am now looking to having to uproot ds again and move even further out because of this. Aibu in thinking that this is a part of forcing the poorer people out of London?

We are not usually near the bottom for outcome, and when we are, its down to lack of funding, not efficiency.

Efficiency is what right wing dullards claim every time, whilst trumpeting free markets.

But free markets aren't efficient either, because you have to assume perfect competition in order to achieve efficiency, and it doesn't exist.

Want to see the free market in action?

Go look at the US model, bottom in outcome, efficiency and everything else but top in cost.

Its funny that that Kings Fund agrees with the commonwealth fund on efficiency and you can't show a study going against this, but claim picking and choosing.

It’s been happening in London for years areas that were once a mix of working and middle class now are now very much middle class and the areas that were predominantly working class no longer can those on an average wage afford to live there

But now it is impacting the middle classes it’s an issue

I am not sure it is fair to call people dullards. I don't think those on the left are dullards (although they are certainly often wrong).

if we go back to the original post it is interesting that she is facing a rent rise in East London and we found places much closer into London like Queen's Park with similar or lower rents actually so perhaps areas just go up and down and we have inner London prices and rents dropping a bit at present (although I am certainly not saying they are cheap).

But it is that of a dullard, its a soundbite which is hidden behind and used to make implications which aren't accurate, yet its made repeatedly.

It isn't an adequate or specific critique or a solution.

We are not usually near the bottom for outcome, and when we are, its down to lack of funding, not efficiency.

Your own report (a US think tank) you stated put is in 10th for outcome, the last report done in 2014 also put is near bottom. So yes we do usually come near the bottom for outcome and avoidable deaths.

Automatically jumping to using the US model as a backup is more akin to your political leanings rather than me being a right wing dullard.

There is a lesson to be had with the NHS, nobody wants to copy the American system and despite our parochial illusion that it is the envy of the world – nobody wants to copy the British system either. That’s why nobody has copied us.

So yes, you do pick and choose which sources to use.

" for outcome and avoidable deaths. "

For outcomes of certain things. For long term conditions we are often near the top. The preventable deaths points can be traced back to lack of funding, it wasn't as high prior to 2010.

The US model is the free market model, all other models have significant levels of government intervention and significant higher spends as a % of GDP. So using them as an example of the free market isn't accurate, nor are they as efficient as the NHS, so your argument about efficiency is inaccurate.

You are selective about where our ratings come lowest.

The US model is the free market model

No! No! No! This is untrue.

Every single politician in an actual position to change the US model (even St. Obama) has ultimately yielded to the health care, insurance and big pharma lobbies and it is decidedly non-competitive.

Ah but the free market is the US one, resources are allocated by who can afford to pay for them.

Its not perfectly competitive but of course, that's the problem with free marketeers thinking, that's what they assume will be the outcome.

Oligopoly and Monopolies don't mean that it isn't a free market, just imperfectly competitive.

Oligopoly and Monopolies don't mean that it isn't a free market, just imperfectly competitive.

A monopoly is the opposite of a free market. You have an eccentric definition of free markets that is political rather than economic.

No a monopoly is imperfect competition but can exist in a free market. A free market is one where the government does not intervene, and the prices are determined by supply and demand.

My economics is just fine, I think you are confusing a perfectly competitive market with a free market.

Are you suggesting that the government does not intervene in the US healthcare market? Congress has actively bolstered non-competitive arrangements.

We agree that perfectly competitive markets don't exist, but it doesn't follow that socialised or nationalised ones are superior.

No but the US is the nearest there is to a free market.

Socialised health markets seem to have far better outcomes than the US one.

You can not compare the US market to the UK. The US is a vast continent, the UK is a very small over populated island. The population increase in the past 50 years has been unimaginable.

!The population increase in the past 50 years has been unimaginable"

UK population 1951 was 52.8 million

UK population in 2018 is 65.64 million an increase of about 250,000 a year. ( on average)

In 1930 it was 45.8 million

In 1980 it was 56.1 million, an increase of about 200,000 a year.

Not that much difference, and all utterly on trend.

problem is infrastructure has not kept pace. I recall the early 2000s and the Surrey traffic levels then - before escaping the area 10 years later the difference was huge. as another example, even when dead we have to queue longer because no new crematoria.

London at least gets massive investment in extra transport. elsewhere we just get cuts.

In 1930 it was 45.8 million

In 2018 population is 65.64 million

So in 88 years there is another 20 million people in the UK. Presumably they all need housing, the NHS, education, healthcare, etc.

It took centuries to reach 45 million.

The can read and interpret statistics anyway you like. I was brought up to let my eyes be my guide.

Not necessarily related to poor people but I’m sure that record number of 30s & 40 yr olds are leaving London for other cities, sure I read this last yr. Obviously anecdotal but 4 of my neighbours have left & traditionally they would of moved slightly further out or to the home counties. Only one couple is moving to Kent as their jobs are very London specific. The other 3 have gone to Bristol, Manchester & Edinburgh. They had v. good budgets but they just don’t want to pay London prices & have found that their salaries are not that less when compared to other costs.

Council tax can be relatively low in some London boroughs due to factors such business rates (as mentioned by a PP), earnings from parking penalties and population density. In Westminster and Kensington, as well as the expensive houses, there are streets and streets of houses converted into flats, all paying the highest bands. (most of them won't have any outside space and many could be pretty small).

Compare this to country places where it could be high-band house, drive a few more miles for another high-band house. Then of course on the costs side, on a very simple note, even the rubbish trucks have further to drive. Before we even get into more elderly populations, social services needs etc etc.

Meanwhile up North.

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/this-social-cleansing-poor-anger-14843366

"The transfer of Hundreds of social homes to the private rental market has sparked anger and a protest in Merseyside.

The move by two housing associations, which will affect 200 properties across Wirral, St Helens and Warrington, has been described as 'social cleansing of the poor' and could mean even more families in the North West struggling to get permanent accommodation.

The homes - currently run by Wirral-based Magenta Living and Torus Group, based in St Helens and Warrington - are set to be transferred to Bamboo Lettings,a joint venture between the two housing associations.

It's thought that will mean an average 50% hike on rental prices for residents

The move means dozens more families could be priced out of the homes, and a protest against the controversial plans will take place in Wirral next week.

Campaigner Ruth Molyneux, of Facebook group Save Our Social Housing, said: "It's disgusting. This is social cleansing of the poor.

"Some 2,000 people are currently on the priority housing list in Wirral. Every one of them has a story about why they are waiting for a decent home. There's a massive shortage here, so to lose these homes is devastating.

"It means even less chance of these people being given somewhere suitable to live. They probably won't even qualify under the new criteria for private rents.

According to Magenta, Bamboo Lettings was established in August 2016 following the Government announcement of a 1% rent reduction to housing association rents over a four-year period - meaning housing associations needed to make significant savings.

Over the coming months, as the homes, which are dotted around the three areas, become vacant, they will be transferred from social sector to private let fees.

Ms Molyneux added: "This type of thing is happening across the country but there are other housing associations that have chosen not to go down this road.

"They are doing it to raise money to build more houses, but not promising those will be for the social sector, and could be another five years down the line anyway."

It's also feared applicants may need a guarantor and their tenancy could be forfeited if they lose their job.

Ms Molyneux hopes hundreds of people will attend next week's protest, set to take place outside Magenta Living's offices on Hamilton Street in Birkenhead on July 6.

She added: "We are calling on Magenta to do the right thing and return these properties to the social sector.

A spokeswoman for Magenta said: "Bamboo’s purpose is to let a small number of properties at market rent – 100 from Magenta Living’s 13,000 homes and 100 from Torus’ 22,000 homes – 200 in total from a combined 35,000 portfolio.

"Properties from both associations are ‘leased’ to Bamboo on a five-year basis, after which they return to each housing association as they are still ‘owned’ by Magenta Living and Torus respectively. The surplus generated from Bamboo will be re-invested to support social housing activities including the development of new-build social rent homes."

Torus was also contacted for comment."

What is happening in this country with regard to social housing truly disgusts me.

I dread to think what it will be like in 10 years time