Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Fucking Fucking Tories want to make me homeless

208 replies

BeingFluffy · 20/08/2012 22:49

Just watching some Tory cunt on Newsnight. I live in a London Borough (and have done all my life) which has a lot of ordinary people in social housing, but is very fashionable among the rich. Apparently the Housing Trust (which was set up to house local people like me in the 1960s) should stop "indulging" people like me and be forced sell off my home. Where the fuck are we supposed to go? They are born with silver spoons in their mouths and don't have the faintest fucking idea about ordinary people.

OP posts:
AGiraffeOnTheDivingBoard · 20/08/2012 23:52

More like if a house worth a considerable amount could be sold without making anyone homeless - so in North London you could easily be looking at a 4 / 5 bed at £1 million. That could be sold and two other properties could be bought in neighbouring postcode.

I agree that high private rents are a huge problem. As are high house prices. More people moving into London and too few houses. And deep pockets looking for tax havens (lots of rich French / Greeks escaping the Euro particularly ATM pushing up house prices).

Viviennemary · 20/08/2012 23:52

Well it seems like a very sensible idea to me. Lots and lots of families live in totally inadequate housing. Or have no home at all. So I can't think why they should not be helped by the selling these very expensive properties and building other homes. And that will enable more people to be housed.

omfgkillmenow · 20/08/2012 23:53

i agree with ms naughty about social cleansing. I agree that if a million pound house were to become available the sell it by all means but i just dont believe that the money will be spent on rehousing...

BeatriceBean · 20/08/2012 23:53

Not that I think its right to sell off homes that council owners are renting right from under their feet. At all. (Maybe a longterm plan with years of warning or something?)

Just pointing out that moving is something lots and lots of people that can't afford london have to do.

omfgkillmenow · 20/08/2012 23:54

a giralffe do you really believe they would just buy two @500....no they would buy 10 if they bought any at all

MsPickle · 20/08/2012 23:56

The bit of the equation that I've not seen mentioned yet is the impact that commuting costs have on take home pay/salary demands. Yes, living further out of London costs less in terms of rent/mortgage but you're then looking at £4k + commuting costs. I work in recruitment and have lots of conversations with candidates about their salary expectations that include the phrase "but when I factor in my travel costs I need x more to make it worth my while". London businesses need people to live closer to work, a big part of the money pumped into Tower Hamlets a few years ago for eg was prompted by the big city employers realising that their wage bills/accessibility to workers could be more efficient. But creating ghettos outside of "indulgent" areas you further reduce the workforce available within a rapid commute time.

I would be more excited about a policy which addresses all the properties standing empty in London and other cities!

(and more affordable childcare but that's a whole other can of worms).

omfgkillmenow · 20/08/2012 23:56

I agree with the idea in principal but I do not believe that they will build decent family homes IE 3 bedroom homes in neighbouring areas, Im sorry if that sounds pessimistic but i dont

noddyholder · 20/08/2012 23:58

I watched it that is not what he said

AGiraffeOnTheDivingBoard · 20/08/2012 23:59

OMF you're probably right - I suppose if they had a million in the council budget they'd look to see how much housing they could get rather than just two. I think the Tory guy on newsnight said "get several for one". He said if you sold a house in Parsons Green (£2 million) you could get several in White Chapel. (from memory)

It doesn't seem great and I can see why it seems like social cleansing to some. But it also doesn't seem fair one family should live in a £2 million house and 4 families stay on the waiting list.

MsPickle · 21/08/2012 00:00

(oh and I assume that in the interests of fairness they'll ensure that the schools etc are as good in the neighbouring postcode? That's the other issue in London, pressure on school places means simply moving three doors down could change where your children go to school. And if all the social housing children go to one and the children of the multi million £ homeowners go to the other? Big society? Social mobility?)

BeatriceBean · 21/08/2012 00:00

In my post-natal group in London I'm not sure how many of them had "decent 3 bedroom homes". Teachers, accountants, nurse etc all in flats (privately rented or owned). I suspect people who bought their house before 200-2005 may have done better but in more recent years its not exactly what you expect anymore. (Yes I agree its a bigger problem than just the council housing issue).

AGiraffeOnTheDivingBoard · 21/08/2012 00:01

In London though it's the schools in the deprived areas that get more ££££ per pupil - and offer bonuses to teachers and get frustrated at the middle classes then moving in to the local houses.

AGiraffeOnTheDivingBoard · 21/08/2012 00:02

Actually I only know of that in areas of Hackney. I can't speak for all of London - stupid comment sorry.

cutegorilla · 21/08/2012 00:04

Absolutely the money should be ring fenced for providing more social housing.

I think high housing costs are a symptom rather than a cause of problems. The reason why the prices are so high is because London is where the money is and where the jobs are. If everything wasn't so London centric, and employment opportunities were better spread throughout the country, then housing needs wouldn't be so high in London and the prices wouldn't be pushed so high.

msnaughty · 21/08/2012 00:04

i don't think they would use all money made to build social houses. if there were going to be 50 houses built. 10 of them would be social housing the rest part rent/part buy or they will just spend it on a load of shit like a new bridge or something

fredspurtle · 21/08/2012 00:15

why does the rest of the uk have to subsidise london renters????
plenty of unused housing stock in bradford and the like

omfgkillmenow · 21/08/2012 00:16

i agree msnaughty. Suppose you had the most aspiring student heart surgeon/cancer doctor/whatever, forced away because of high rents... if they are selling social housing off then they must fund more affordable housing and thats where I just have no confidence. Show us exactly what you are going to do with the money from these sales, show us the housing that you are going to build for our young families and people in private rent on the waiting list for social housing and then and only then will I believe you....and by the way, my rent here in Scotland for semi three bed upstairs and downstairs loo, private parking, dining room large kitchen, ample parking, excellent school with only 20-25 per class.....£333 a month...

Viviennemary · 21/08/2012 00:16

Well what about jobless people in other parts of the country that would move to London to get a job but they can't because they simply couldn't afford the rents. I think it's about time a lot of those London subsidies stopped.

omfgkillmenow · 21/08/2012 00:20

But the caveat is that all jobs here are minimum wage/tourism and mostly seasonal also. I have a 2:1 degree but its pretty useless here, in fact advice is not to put degree on job applications because you will be overqualified

MrsJohnMurphy · 21/08/2012 00:22

BeatriceBean but how many of the nurses, accountants etc would even countenance applying for social housing? I'm guessing basically none, they are just as entitled to apply as anyone else, with the caveat which actually appears on the forms (most people who apply will never be housed).

In principle selling off a house that is now randomly worth a lot of money and buying 3 others sounds sensible, if that is the way it will actually work in reality I will eat my own leg.

omfgkillmenow · 21/08/2012 00:26

It seems to me that we mostly agree in principal, but we do not believe the money will be spent to reduce the huge demand for housing and will be frittered away on red tape and __probably dildos for sex mad politicians--

omfgkillmenow · 21/08/2012 00:26

It seems to me that we mostly agree in principal, but we do not believe the money will be spent to reduce the huge demand for housing and will be frittered away on red tape and probably dildos for sex mad politicians

omfgkillmenow · 21/08/2012 00:27

It seems to me that we mostly agree in principal, but we do not believe the money will be spent to reduce the huge demand for housing and will be frittered away on red tape and probably dildos for sex mad politicians

omfgkillmenow · 21/08/2012 00:28

ooops slightly overdone that (dont report me its my birthday and my mummy gave me baileys ans im driingking it)

fredspurtle · 21/08/2012 00:29

in principle i agree with selling housing stock but only if the money raised is used to build replacement stock it doesnt need to be rented too cheaply either as those who cant afford it are undoubtedly subsidised by housing benefit even in the case of private rents, go figure