How many of them are actually not interested in owning a house, but are just put off by signing themselves up for n years of financial bondage? The ownership isn’t the issue. It’s the cost and commitment. For “lack of interest”, read lack of opportunity.
If, by affordable housing, you mean ex council houses, that were bought under the right to buy scheme, then generally, yes, they have been ultimately sold to BTL landlords, people looking for an investment for their hard-earned or those looking to have a long-term BTL and an asset at the end of it.
It seems a harsh judgement to say it is morally repugnant. It usually follows that broadbrush, sweeping, generalisations are flawed and there will always be a sturdy counterpoint to them. Consider those who do not want to buy, areas of dense student population and the fact that not all landlords are nasty bastards and you have a good few right there.
1 Like
I know a lot of people who don’t want to take on the maintenance of a house, rather than the cost (although the commitment is something that a lot don’t want to be tied down to). My question is what is the alternative? The countries housing stock bought and owned by the government and allocated based on location/size of family?
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
I know a lot of people who don’t want to take on the maintenance of a house, rather than the cost (although the commitment is something that a lot don’t want to be tied down to). My question is what is the alternative? The countries housing stock bought and owned by the government and allocated based on location/size of family?
The alternative is to diversify ownership, and that can be done in any number of ways. Rent controls will reduce the attractiveness of being a landlord in the first place, potentially putting places back on the market. We’ll need to build huge numbers of council houses alongside that.
What we can’t afford is a situation where private landlords are coining it in through Housing Benefit - and that’s seen as perfectly okay.
If the choice comes down between giving rent to a public, democratically controlled body or someone looking for easy personal money, I’d go with the former.
Originally posted by @KRG
Yeah Baz, that’s Soho.
Soho has 24hour booze places? Knocking shops yes but a fully fledged bar, restaurant and nightclub scene 24 hours? Like fuck, maybe an odd bar or two but not loads, I know that about London alright.
A casino you have to sign in is a great place for a piss up isn’t it…Jesus wept that is stretching it for a bevy, thats London for you or central London.
Originally posted by @Numptyboi
If, by affordable housing, you mean ex council houses, that were bought under the right to buy scheme, then generally, yes, they have been ultimately sold to BTL landlords, people looking for an investment for their hard-earned or those looking to have a long-term BTL and an asset at the end of it.
It seems a harsh judgement to say it is morally repugnant. It usually follows that broadbrush, sweeping, generalisations are flawed and there will always be a sturdy counterpoint to them. Consider those who do not want to buy, areas of dense student population and the fact that not all landlords are nasty bastards and you have a good few right there.
When you talk about sweeping generalisations, is the assumption that any cash a landlord has is “hard earned” among them? I honestly don’t think it is in a lot of cases. Was the Duke of Buckinghamshire’s fortune hard-earned? What about Richard Benyon, the richest MP in Britain, that has made his cash from the people he berates (and indirectly, the Tory policy of selling everything off).
Some of the biggest buy to let people have started to auction their portfolios out to the Chinese, so within 35 years of Thatcher telling everybody they can buy their own council houses, we’ll have taxpayers fronting housing benefit that ends up in the pockets of people in Beijing and Shanghai.
It’s easy money for people that already have money, paid for by the poor and the taxpayers.
Hard earned my arse.
Yes Barry, Bars & Clubs.
Chinatown is about 2 minutes away where there are pretty much always restaraunts open. Stop talking out your rear end for 5 minutes.
1 Like
You didn’t ask for loads? And there are tons of areas that have these kind of places. This has gone on a bizarre tangent - I’m not really sure what your point is (I doubt you do anymore).
A casino you have to sign in is a great place for a piss up isn’t it…Jesus wept that is stretching it for a bevy, thats London for you or central London.
A night out at a casino is a great time!
As I said earlier, it all depends on what your idea of a good night out is. What is yours? If you let me know I can point you somewhere that you’d enjoy in London.
Rent controls is a good idea to a degree. As mentioned previously though it’ll push Landlords to put their rents as high as possible based on the cap - and how does the valuation of places work for rent controls? Do you say for anywhere with a London postcode you can only charge £500 a month for a 1 bed, £1000 for a two bed etc etc? I’m not being facecious, I’m genuinely interested on how it would work in a practical sense.
It will put off the smaller buy to let (although their main income will come from increasing house prices), but won’t make any difference to the larger ones imho.
Originally posted by @Numptyboi
It seems a harsh judgement to say it is morally repugnant. It usually follows that broadbrush, sweeping, generalisations are flawed and there will always be a sturdy counterpoint to them. Consider those who do not want to buy, areas of dense student population and the fact that not all landlords are nasty bastards and you have a good few right there.
I’ll qualify then, in slightly less sensationalist fashion, by saying that in the vast majority of cases I find it morally repugnant.
The examples given are not going to be anything more than minority concerns. I’m not saying “STAMP OUT THE LETTING MARKET ENTIRELY!” However it should be a niche product for those that choose to use it; not the gouging of those that have no other choice.
I’d rather consider the needs of the many and the needs of those without excessive means here.
1 Like
There seem to be far more people nowadays using property as a pension as well, buying two cheap properties in the understanding that they will bring in £1400 a month in rent when they retire - instead of investing in pensions. What about these kind of people?
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
There seem to be far more people nowadays using property as a pension as well, buying two cheap properties in the understanding that they will bring in £1400 a month in rent when they retire - instead of investing in pensions. What about these kind of people?
What about people that invested in abacuses before computers were invented? Or had businesses maintaining phoneboxes before the advent of the mobile? Do we compensate all of them for investing in the wrong thing? No investment is guaranteed. Times change.
Now if we weren’t giving so much money to private landlords, maybe we’d have the dough to raise state pensions.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
A casino you have to sign in is a great place for a piss up isn’t it…Jesus wept that is stretching it for a bevy, thats London for you or central London.
A night out at a casino is a great time!
As I said earlier, it all depends on what your idea of a good night out is. What is yours? If you let me know I can point you somewhere that you’d enjoy in London.
The tangent was moving people out creates ghost towns like London already has in droves in its core, its a dead City, compare to New York, Sydney, Miami even less glamourous but equally good Edinburgh, they have a centre and core, London doesn’t end ridiculous prices don’t help it.
I actually meant more from an ethical point of view.
London is a historical conglomeration of towns though. It doesn’t have the opportunity to be a City like that. All the cities above, apart from Edinburgh which isn’t comparable in size, are ‘new’ cities, built around and out from a central focus. You will never get a City centre like that in London because of this. But that is also what makes London so unique and diverse.
My point still stands. Are we going to compensate people every time the world changes? Why are these people any more deserving than any of the other people, because they’re pensioners? We don’t compensate people when their pension funds do badly, or their endowment doesn’t cover the cost of their house. What makes this ethically any different?
Interesting comments from the meeting’s organiser:-
On Monday, one of the brothers who set up the cafe, Alan Keery, wrote in the Guardian that the protesters had been wrong to target an independent business, calling the action “unacceptable bullying”. He wrote: “Cereal Killer Cafe is not the cause of gentrification, nor can it instigate the solution.”
But Bone rejected this, saying the publicity showed it had been worthwhile: “Everyone keeps saying: ‘Wrong target, you should have done the City, you should have done parliament, you should have done Pret a Manger, Foxtons.’ It doesn’t work. You don’t get any publicity.
“We had a riot virtually every night outside 1 Commercial Street, and it doesn’t get a dicky bird. We wouldn’t have got any publicity if it hadn’t been for the cereal cafe. But I give those two brothers their credit. They’ve milked this brilliantly. They’ve run a masterful campaign. I salute them for that.”
No, I meant are they seen as morally repugnant as well.
And I agree, people should not ever be compensated for when the World changes. Life throws up shit all the time, it’s about how you deal with it that matters (see what’s happening at Redcar as an example).