How to Get a Council House - Ch4 TV

[TheAnimus]

London had, by and large, a model that was far more comparable to the German model. Most areas in London had a mixture of council houses that were exactly the same as the privately owned ones, and council tenants would live cheek by jowl with homeowners. That was until the council owned houses were sold off. To try and airbrush that out of the debate is, frankly, bizarre.

Errr, I fail to see how that is true? As most council houses were built as estates. As the parts of Germany I've lived in had no such projects (to use the US name) I don't see the conneciton. I think of the worst parts of London near me, they are all big sink estates.

A better solution is to have a large supply of affordable accommodation, that is available to all.

You would be right if economic production was the only value we placed on people. Thankfully, it is not. And as for this rubbish about population control, like the last thread about benefits, I again ask how you would implement this.

I'm confused, are you saying that people who are working are somehow less important than those who aren't? One can not exist without the other in that situation, much like a child, it can only survive so long as resources are enough to satisfy the hosts existence to enough of a level for it to sustain the needy.

Futility? Perhaps. And we are all hypocrites to an extent; don't presume to think that I am unaware of myself. The difference between you and me is that I don't come at every topic from the position of 'how does this effect me?'. You use words like 'sustainability', as if to somehow give the impression that it's really for the wider good that you are saying what you say, much like when someone starts a sentence with 'I'm not a racist but....', but in reality your views are determined by how you, usually monetarily, are affected as an individual.

I am saying our current situation is completely unfair and unsustainable. It is easy to justify how it's not sustainable. Look at how rental demand has increased historically with population increases. The what was it, 1.3% rise in population, resulted in a 16% rise in rent for TH (inflation not withstanding) that is clearly not sustainable.

The problem is, I can't see any solution to this issue of Supply and Demand. Either we increase supply, but that is impratical in a place like TH as it is already very densely populated, or we cut demand. Or we do away with free market allocation and give the housing only to people you like. So then it comes to cutting demand.

Now for me, I'm not much affected by this, I bought my flat a few years ago. I stopped earning enough money to pay any real tax when I was taxed 67%. I can't be bothered to work hard enough, or enough in this country.

However I do have quite a few friends, who are working very hard, to have a much lower quality of life than those people who tick your boxes that I am somehow being cruel too.

[kalniel]

I agree with many of your points in reply to my post.

I don't think it's just peoples interest in their 'assets value' I think its more a case of people wanting to be a loving environmentalist!

Lol! So they would vote for a 50p increase in petrol prices then? I'm amazed - I had the impression that even when the strong environmental case for the fuel duty escalator was made that people were protesting against even 2p rises.

Why make it immigration. Why not migration.

The papers seem to make out that immigration is a great evil for the reasons I'm talking about. But migration is a problem as well - but it's jobs that cause that while I thought the argument here was against people who didn't have jobs? Maybe we need fewer people to have jobs then they'd be less migration and reduced demand on housing

As you say though, people migrate because of jobs. How can that be mitigated? Moving the jobs is one, though that would seemingly involve more heavy handed intervention, something a free market fan might not like. Helping access to jobs from further away is another, though this doesn't really solve the problem - more people being transported from further away increases the burden on transport infrastructure and comes with its own environmental concerns. More home working? Haha.

I swear I would love to say I had humanist society beliefs, however I fear that they are negatively reducing the number of responsible parents compared to the irresponsible.

This was the fear when contraception was made available as well. But I think it's an ill-founded fear. You'll find isolated cases to support the view, but not enough to be significant IMHO.

[wasabi]

I agree with many of your points in reply to my post.

Lol! So they would vote for a 50p increase in petrol prices then? I'm amazed - I had the impression that even when the strong environmental case for the fuel duty escalator was made that people were protesting against even 2p rises.

The problem is low-IQ emotive people voting without understanding. Politicos promise great environmental things and the plebs lap it up, right up to the point they find out they've just voted in the continuation of said fuel price escalator.

[opel80uk]

Errr, I fail to see how that is true? As most council houses were built as estates. As the parts of Germany I've lived in had no such projects (to use the US name) I don't see the conneciton. I think of the worst parts of London near me, they are all big sink estates.

Because as I said, most London areas had, to differing degrees, an amount of social housing available, whether it be through council owned or housing association owned. As these were in areas where there was already a high degree of homeownership, it was these types of properties that were snapped up during the right-to-buy era. Council estates, whilst I agree undesirable, were a necessity of their time.

A better solution is to have a large supply of affordable accommodation, that is available to all.

I wouldn't disagree. But as a country we place too high an importance on house prices, and given that the knock on effect (rightly or wrongly) lower house prices has on the wider publics confidence in the economy (and the Government of the day), it is not in the interests of the powers to be to encourage that.

I'm confused, are you saying that people who are working are somehow less important than those who aren't? One can not exist without the other in that situation, much like a child, it can only survive so long as resources are enough to satisfy the hosts existence to enough of a level for it to sustain the needy.

Nowhere did I even remotely imply that. I think people are important regardless of their income. I have always worked, always paid tax and never claimed benefits, and not once have I thought I was more important than someone who didn't work. There are plenty of resources available for all.

I am saying our current situation is completely unfair and unsustainable. It is easy to justify how it's not sustainable. Look at how rental demand has increased historically with population increases. The what was it, 1.3% rise in population, resulted in a 16% rise in rent for TH (inflation not withstanding) that is clearly not sustainable.

The problem is, I can't see any solution to this issue of Supply and Demand. Either we increase supply, but that is impratical in a place like TH as it is already very densely populated, or we cut demand. Or we do away with free market allocation and give the housing only to people you like. So then it comes to cutting demand.

Now for me, I'm not much affected by this, I bought my flat a few years ago. I stopped earning enough money to pay any real tax when I was taxed 67%. I can't be bothered to work hard enough, or enough in this country.

However I do have quite a few friends, who are working very hard, to have a much lower quality of life than those people who tick your boxes that I am somehow being cruel too.

The solution is obvious. Increase supply in the areas in and around London where space is available. Obviously, TH would be an impratical choice, but there are plenty of other areas where affordable housing can be built. If you build people decent enough homes, with some set aside as social housing, then that would go towards easing the crisis (although I accept you are talking about a lot of homes needed). Build a decent transport infrastructure in those areas, and people will move. Something will have to give regarding the greenbelt - and I don't for one minute buy the environment argument - it's simply nimbyism.

[Lucio]

Actually, you could argue that a better solution is to make London a less attractive place to live than worry about trying to increase housing in an area that is already very densely populated.

Make it more economical to travel into the capital, both in terms of time spent and overall cost, build more housing in areas with good transport links, or improve transport links from areas which don't have them, but do have an abundance of housing (well ok, no where in the UK has that but you know what I mean!)

Regardless though, taking a TV show which is designed to make for popular television, and taking it's "facts" as the truth is pointless, the show's researchers would have worked damned hard to find the outliers in the benefits system who are abusing the system to make for interesting television.