# What impact are the Welfare Reforms having on Brixton?



## soupdragon (Mar 20, 2012)

The govt's Welfare Reforms are about to destroy London as we know it.

They're already starting to have an impact for some people, but I don't think anyone knows what the scale might be.

It looks like all-out social cleansing.

Could any local organisations / activists give advice on what can be done in Brixton / Lambeth to defend people's homes?










http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/hb_reform_london_spatial_implications-cchpr2011.pdf

http://england.shelter.org.uk/__dat...y_for_low_income_private_renting_families.pdf


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 20, 2012)

How has City of London gone from 80% affordable to 0% affordable in 2 years? 

I'm surprised it was be 80% then, tbh.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 20, 2012)

How is 'affordable' defined here?


----------



## Kanda (Mar 20, 2012)

My flat in SW2 has been valued 20% more than when I bought it 2.5 years ago. If that's the case across the area, I'd say it's getting pretty bad!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

Kanda said:


> My flat in SW2 has been valued 20% more than when I bought it 2.5 years ago. If that's the case across the area, I'd say it's getting pretty bad!


 
Some roads are doing better than others, but prices are definitely rising.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> The govt's Welfare Reforms are about to destroy London as we know it.
> 
> They're already starting to have an impact for some people, but I don't think anyone knows what the scale might be.
> 
> It looks like all-out social cleansing.


 
Many of us in Lambeth could even make a good punt as to which neighbourhoods are currently "affordable", and which will still be "affordable" in 2016. They'll be mostly ones with higher concentrations of local authority social housing, such as Angell Town, St. Martin's, etc. Ghettoisation of the poor.



> Could any local organisations / activists give advice on what can be done in Brixton / Lambeth to defend people's homes?
> 
> http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/hb_reform_london_spatial_implications-cchpr2011.pdf
> 
> http://england.shelter.org.uk/__dat...y_for_low_income_private_renting_families.pdf


 
The problem is that beyond making sure that private landlords are held to the conditions of the ASTs they grant, there's pretty much fuck-all that their tenants can do. The landlords can deliberately price their current tenants out of their homes.


----------



## tommers (Mar 20, 2012)

I don't understand.  Can you explain what this means?  Why are the welfare reforms going to "socially cleanse" areas of london?

Is it the LHA changes?  So people won't be able to afford to top up from the HB limits to their rent?  And why does this mean rents won't decrease?  Surely less people able to afford it means less demand doesn't it?

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just confused.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 20, 2012)

Asked an estate agent in the street about Brixton prices. He said they were 15pc up this year alone.

Main reason was, he said, Lambeth's crackdown on conversions.

They used to get nine or so newly converted flats a month and now get next to none.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 20, 2012)

My school services the Coldharbour ward and we've been told to expect an influx of potentially vulnerable children whose parents will be moving in from the rest of London, most of which is still more expensive than Lambeth.


----------



## co-op (Mar 20, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Asked an estate agent in the street about Brixton prices. He said they were 15pc up this year alone.


 
Mind you, he's talking estate agent bollocks here.


----------



## co-op (Mar 20, 2012)

Here you go, 2 minutes on the internet http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/15833138?search_identifier=17a021d4b101ecad0fce3db58ea7fb3e

Sold in 2009 for £290,000, on sale now for £250,000. And "under offer" apparently - I'd be amazed if anyone's offered full price, although there are plenty of mugs out there. I reckon they'd take £240k. I could find dozens of similar properties with losses in SW9 & SW2 if I had an hour or two to spare. Thank god they're coming down at last.

Anyway even if they get £250k that's a loss of £40k - about 14% - in 30 months. Nasty for whichever poor sap paid over the odds in 2009.

Estate agents are paid to talk property up, they are also anti-social wankers who habitually lie.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 20, 2012)

co-op said:


> Here you go, 2 minutes on the internet http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/15833138?search_identifier=17a021d4b101ecad0fce3db58ea7fb3e
> 
> Sold in 2009 for £290,000, on sale now for £250,000. And "under offer" apparently - I'd be amazed if anyone's offered full price, although there are plenty of mugs out there. I reckon they'd take £240k. I could find dozens of similar properties with losses in SW9 & SW2 if I had an hour or two to spare. Thank god they're coming down at last.
> 
> ...


 
But if yuppies are so desperate to live in trendy areas, who is to blame that they're willing to pay silly money for the privilege?


----------



## co-op (Mar 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> But if yuppies are so desperate to live in trendy areas, who is to blame that they're willing to pay silly money for the privilege?


 
Well I could probably bang on for a whole evening about who's to blame but I guess my point is that estate agents giving it the large one about 'prices gone up by 15% in the last year' is just a loada shit. Whoever bought that flat above has lost over a £1000 per month on top of whatever they paid in mortgage repayments.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 20, 2012)

co-op said:


> Here you go, 2 minutes on the internet http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/15833138?search_identifier=17a021d4b101ecad0fce3db58ea7fb3e
> 
> Sold in 2009 for £290,000, on sale now for £250,000. And "under offer" apparently - I'd be amazed if anyone's offered full price, although there are plenty of mugs out there. I reckon they'd take £240k. I could find dozens of similar properties with losses in SW9 & SW2 if I had an hour or two to spare. Thank god they're coming down at last.
> 
> ...


 
I hope you are right (that it is just hype).

Certainly, it feels a bit like 2007, with people paying over the odds.


----------



## co-op (Mar 20, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I hope you are right (that it is just hype).
> 
> Certainly, it feels a bit like 2007, with people paying over the odds.


 
You might be right about people paying over the odds, which is sad for them as they might get really burnt. There's meant to be a bit of a sudden jump in buying under the £250k threshold because of the stamp duty holiday (which ends sometime in March I think) but tbh I don't have any great knowledge about the day to day reality of it, I just have the occasional look online at prices. But if you know anyone who's thinking of buying, especially first timers, I'd get them to have a good think first.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 20, 2012)

co-op said:


> Well I could probably bang on for a whole evening about who's to blame but I guess my point is that estate agents giving it the large one about 'prices gone up by 15% in the last year' is just a loada shit. Whoever bought that flat above has lost over a £1000 per month on top of whatever they paid in mortgage repayments.


 
The 15% rise is very real - I've seen some RICS surveyor valuations in Brixton go up by as much as 25% since April last year. There is not a huge amount of good stuff on the market and a lot of people are after the same places. Half decent flats are selling before the particulars have even been drawn up and lots of buyers are facing sealed bids.

I checked out the example you posted and I am fairly certain that the advertised flat is not the same one which sold in 2009 for 290K. Zoopla says 34A sold for 290K in 2009 but if you check planning records here you'll see that 34A is a 2 bed ground floor with a garden. The flat for sale on Zoopla for 250K (under offer) is a 1 bed first floor with access to a communal roof space.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 20, 2012)

Isn't 'affordable' usually related to rentals anyway?


----------



## Kanda (Mar 20, 2012)

About 3 two bed flats around my area sold for asking price very recently, as high as 390k!!


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 20, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Isn't 'affordable' usually related to rentals anyway?


 
When new builds with x number of units or more go up they're meant to be obliged to have some 'affordable' flats in there.  Quite what that means I don't know but had thought it was probably something to do with keyworkers..... split rent/mortgage type stuff.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 20, 2012)

Kanda said:


> About 3 two bed flats around my area sold for asking price very recently, as high as 390k!!


 
A friend of mine sold his house recently.  Was snapped up within a week of him putting it up for sale


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> How is 'affordable' defined here?


twice what you are able to pay


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 20, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> When new builds with x number of units or more go up they're meant to be obliged to have some 'affordable' flats in there. Quite what that means I don't know but had thought it was probably something to do with keyworkers..... split rent/mortgage type stuff.


 
I haven't quite figured out if these disgusting looking flats in Coldharbour Lane are supposed to be affordable.  Some are shared ownership, but I don't fully understand it



> Fabrik comprises of 108 homes, *65 of these which will be available to buy through shared ownership.*
> You can also find out more and follow the build progress of Fabrik at www.fabrikhomes.com
> 
> *Eligibility*
> ...


 
http://www.findaproperty.com/for-sale/property-8969148

Handy for KCH workers I suppose


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 20, 2012)

handy for interloping yups i note


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 20, 2012)

I passed them today and didn't find them nearly as objectionable as they looked in the pics.  The light was fading at that point though. 

So I'd be able to to buy _part_ of a one bedroom flat.   Great. 

12 years ago I could afford all of a two bedroom flat.  Lucky for me I did buy at that time.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 20, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I passed them today and didn't find them nearly as objectionable as they looked in the pics. The light was fading at that point though.
> 
> So I'd be able to to buy _part_ of a one bedroom flat. Great.
> 
> 12 years ago I could afford all of a two bedroom flat. Lucky for me I did buy at that time.


 
Is the "part of a 1-bed flat" the £75k price?  I couldn't quite make that out.  And if you're only paying £75k, why do you need to earn at least £26K?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 21, 2012)

Rushy said:


> The 15% rise is very real - I've seen some RICS surveyor valuations in Brixton go up by as much as 25% since April last year. There is not a huge amount of good stuff on the market and a lot of people are after the same places. Half decent flats are selling before the particulars have even been drawn up and lots of buyers are facing sealed bids ...


 
My niece has been looking at places and this is exactly what she reports. Plus there's lots of anecdotal evidence of Brixton becoming popular with 'young' people like her.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm now pissed off and blame this thread.  the % increases don't seem to be happening to my block of flats*.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 21, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I'm now pissed off and blame this thread. the % increases don't seem to be happening to my block of flats*.


 
That's 'cos nobody wants to live next door to a demolition or building site


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 21, 2012)

Look, that's a bit unfair. It's just a bit untidy.  I'll go round with a bin bag tomorrow night and do my washing up too.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 21, 2012)

remove the hoardings while you're at it so I can watch


----------



## co-op (Mar 21, 2012)

Rushy said:


> The 15% rise is very real - I've seen some RICS surveyor valuations in Brixton go up by as much as 25% since April last year. There is not a huge amount of good stuff on the market and a lot of people are after the same places. Half decent flats are selling before the particulars have even been drawn up and lots of buyers are facing sealed bids.
> 
> I checked out the example you posted and I am fairly certain that the advertised flat is not the same one which sold in 2009 for 290K. Zoopla says 34A sold for 290K in 2009 but if you check planning records here you'll see that 34A is a 2 bed ground floor with a garden. The flat for sale on Zoopla for 250K (under offer) is a 1 bed first floor with access to a communal roof space.


 
Well if you're right that would explain that example - and tbh it seemed a bit extreme (firstly most people simply can't afford to take that kind of hit in a couple of years) so I should have raised an eyebrow at it, but it was a quick search to make a point.

But I'm still going to call BS on 15% this year - or in the last year for that matter. Obviously there are people with money around who have assumed that you Cant Lose On Property and they are presumably going to be shelling out top dollar, there's the whole two-tier economy in London etc. But there's absolutely no way the market is roaring up. I can certainly find real terms price falls in Lambeth and have been able to for a year or so. And that I haven't seen since the 1990s or even the 80s if you're talking Brixton.

If all these slavvering buyers are all over the place, why are so many flats sitting in the market for over a year? Much more in many cases. I think a few people get lucky when they sell and hook a wealthy mug but there aren't enough of them around for everyone.


----------



## co-op (Mar 21, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> twice what you are able to pay


 


Yep, "affordable" is a classic bit of contemporary nuspeak. It actually means "unaffordable".


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 21, 2012)

Minnie
The reason is that while you get a mortgage on your part of the flat (25, 50% etc) you still have to pay rent on the bit you don't own. Plus there'll be a service charge for communal areas, lifts and sinking fund for repairs. Overall, it works out pretty expensive, but I guess the 'good' bit is that not all your £ is going on rent to pay someone elses mortgage

I don't know how young people manage these days (unless they have the Bank of Mum and Dad). Thank goodness I'm old! Although I do remember mortgage interest rates going up to 15% - that was a bit scary..


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 21, 2012)

sparkybird said:


> Minnie
> The reason is that while you get a mortgage on your part of the flat (25, 50% etc) you still have to pay rent on the bit you don't own. Plus there'll be a service charge for communal areas, lifts and sinking fund for repairs. Overall, it works out pretty expensive, but I guess the 'good' bit is that not all your £ is going on rent to pay someone elses mortgage
> 
> I don't know how young people manage these days (unless they have the Bank of Mum and Dad). Thank goodness I'm old! Although I do remember mortgage interest rates going up to 15% - that was a bit scary..


 
As, I see.  So really, "affordable" housing is only for people on £25k or over bearing in mind property prices in London.

I don't know these things as I know on my "wages", I'll never be able to afford to buy


----------



## Rushy (Mar 21, 2012)

co-op said:


> Well if you're right that would explain that example - and tbh it seemed a bit extreme (firstly most people simply can't afford to take that kind of hit in a couple of years) so I should have raised an eyebrow at it, but it was a quick search to make a point.
> 
> But I'm still going to call BS on 15% this year - or in the last year for that matter. Obviously there are people with money around who have assumed that you Cant Lose On Property and they are presumably going to be shelling out top dollar, there's the whole two-tier economy in London etc. But there's absolutely no way the market is roaring up. I can certainly find real terms price falls in Lambeth and have been able to for a year or so. And that I haven't seen since the 1990s or even the 80s if you're talking Brixton.
> 
> If all these slavvering buyers are all over the place, why are so many flats sitting in the market for over a year? Much more in many cases. I think a few people get lucky when they sell and hook a wealthy mug but there aren't enough of them around for everyone.


I'd be really interested to see a couple of these examples which evidence a significant sale price fall (rather than asking price) over the past 12 months. Unrealistically priced or problem properties sit around whatever the state of the market - even in 2006/7.  My old neighbour had his beautiful but unmod house (no central heating even) on and off the market for ten years. Every time he would put it on for about 20% more than it was worth. By the time it became worth that amount his expectations would change and he'd jack the price up again. Lovely old bloke who had bought it in the sixties for less than 1% of the price he was asking and totally convinced that, despite the lack of buyers, he knew the real market value of his home and that any thing less was ripping him off and cheating him out of his pension.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Mar 21, 2012)

nagapie said:


> My school services the Coldharbour ward and we've been told to expect an influx of potentially vulnerable children whose parents will be moving in from the rest of London, most of which is still more expensive than Lambeth.


 
I can see that happening - people in rented accomodation forced out of places like Westminster & Hackney, but trying to provide some continuity for their families, maybe keep the older ones in the same secondary school through their GCSE's, or stay within affordable commuting distance for work.
Lambeth & Southwark would seem like a good option at the moment, rather than moving further out and changing schools etc., as they aren't (yet) quite as badly affected by the LHA changes.

I guess that will increase demand for rented accommodation & prices will go up even more, and then the LHA limits (based on local market rents) will start to mean people on Housing Benefit can't afford to rent here either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2012)

tommers said:


> I don't understand. Can you explain what this means? Why are the welfare reforms going to "socially cleanse" areas of london?
> 
> Is it the LHA changes? So people won't be able to afford to top up from the HB limits to their rent? And why does this mean rents won't decrease? Surely less people able to afford it means less demand doesn't it?


 
Only if supply and demand are somewhere approaching balance. As it is, around here (and in most of London and indeed the Home Counties), rents won't decrease because demand for housing outstrips supply quite markedly, so rents get "bid-up" - the landlord seeks what the traffic will bear. This means that for those in private rentals as the average rents in the area rise, the rent becomes less affordable. Assured Shorthold Tenancies (the standard in private rentals) also give very little security of tenure - a maximum of 8 weeks at the landlord's notice - so that if a landlord does decide they could "do better" than their current tenant, they can get rid of them quickly.

The "social cleansing" I mention is of those parts of the population classed as "poor" who don't live in social housing. this will screw them, and there's nowhere for them to go, because the rent they can afford will be able to get them less and less.



> I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just confused.


 
It's a confusing issue, especially as it affects areas differently.


----------



## co-op (Mar 21, 2012)

Rushy said:


> I'd be really interested to see a couple of these examples which evidence a significant sale price fall (rather than asking price) over the past 12 months. Unrealistically priced or problem properties sit around whatever the state of the market - even in 2006/7.


 
Annoyingly I can't access a forum where I listed a few not that long ago as it seems to have crashed this afternoon and I don't have time to find them again - basically trawling through pages of zoopla is quite time consuming. Should stress that these are not falls in the last year (not surprising really as almost no one sells inside a year) but (real) falls on previous purchase price - or in a couple of cases properties on the market at exactly what they were bought for 2-5 years earlier. They were all fairly bottom end things, ex-council or small flats in 30s mansion blocks which might need a lot of work. Doing a really quick trawl of zoopla just now I couldn't find one that I did recall (in New Park Rd) but it's gone so maybe that corroborates what you're saying to some extent but then again I was looking at it last summer so it kind of should have by now.

It may be that there has been a bit of a bump, and maybe at the bottom end because of the stamp duty holiday and spring being when people go out and buy. I find it a bit surprising that people are doing this but nothing should surprise me really, the whole property thing is such utter bullshit.




Rushy said:


> My old neighbour had his beautiful but unmod house (no central heating even) on and off the market for ten years. Every time he would put it on for about 20% more than it was worth. By the time it became worth that amount his expectations would change and he'd jack the price up again. Lovely old bloke who had bought it in the sixties for less than 1% of the price he was asking and totally convinced that, despite the lack of buyers, he knew the real market value of his home and that any thing less was ripping him off and cheating him out of his pension.


 
Sounds like my sister! Quite a common story - there's properties on rightmove that have been on for 3+ years - I mean there's no way that person really wants to sell, they're just fishing really.


----------



## co-op (Mar 21, 2012)

Apologies for the derail btw, it's an interesting thread.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 21, 2012)

In terms of affordability, the same surprising rises are happening in rent.

Lots of Brixton people on twitter are complaining about unfair hikes.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Mar 21, 2012)

Mouseprice shows SW2 has an average 4.10% house price growth this year. It gives some examples.

(sorry I can't format it properly)



£320,000           Jan-11            £407,500       Dec-11              177 Sternhold Avenue
£187,000            Mar-10           £250,000       Oct-11              Flat 12 Hunter Court, 10 Herbert Mews
£315,000            Jan-09            £500,000       Dec-11              123 Strathleven Road
£37,500              May-97           £349,500       Nov-11            27 Goodman Crescent
£41,500               Dec-99           £145,000       Nov-11             Flat 4 29 Montrell Road
£49,950              Apr-97             £220,000      Jan-12              Flat 8 Wyatt Park Mansions Streatham Hill
£311,853 Jul-99 £1,025,000 Oct-11 39 Telford Avenue
£200,000 Nov-05 £336,500 Jan-12 35 Dumbarton Road
£66,000 Apr-98 £199,950 Oct-11 30 Crownstone Road
£145,000 Nov-98 £410,000 Oct-11 53 Salford Road


----------



## CH1 (Mar 21, 2012)

I am constantly amazed by this property thing in London.

Everywhere else in the world (US/Ireland/Spain particularly) there have been property crashes.
I reckon that housing benefit paid to landlords is what has held things up here.

Personally I reckon we could be headed for a property led dip - in with case those lucky blighters with shared ownership tenure may come off best, since only 25% or 50% of their capital investment is at risk.

As for me - I've had the letter from Greenock:  "We wrote to you to explain that the government was proposing to limit how long people can get Employment and Support Allowance.  This proposal has now been passed by parliament and your Allowance is due to end on 30th April ".

I'm going to have to get my finger out - either taking in washing, or perhaps taking in illegal Columbian immigrants like my neighbour does next door.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 21, 2012)

CH1 said:


> I am constantly amazed by this property thing in London.
> 
> Everywhere else in the world (US/Ireland/Spain particularly) there have been property crashes.
> I reckon that housing benefit paid to landlords is what has held things up here ...


 
Yes. Housing benefit is a welfare payment for the rich.

Landlords get the government to pay their mortgage, they pay next to no tax on rental income and then they find it easy to dodge capital gains tax if they ever sell.

It's a racket. I need to get in on it.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 21, 2012)

Laughing Toad said:


> Mouseprice shows SW2 has an average 4.10% house price growth this year. It gives some examples.
> 
> (sorry I can't format it properly)
> 
> ...


 
These figures are astonishing. Just the top three:

£87k gain to £407k in 12months (29%)
£63k gain to £250k in 18months (34%)
£185k gain to £500k in 35months (59%)


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 21, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Isn't 'affordable' usually related to rentals anyway?


 
The new definition of "affordable" will be that its 80% of private rental. In areas like London where private rental landlords can get high rents this could mean that people who are on benefits or who top up there low income with benefits for housing costs wont be able to live in certain area of London. The Government is introducing caps on housing benefits. It will be up to claimant to top up benefits for housing costs if there is a shortfall.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 21, 2012)

This is anecdotal but Ive seen an increase of rough sleepers in central London. Im around there a lot.The homeless tend to gravitate to West End even if they are made homeless elsewhere. I know as one told me its safer than Brixton. Not sure if this is already impact of economic crisis plus welfare "reforms". A sign of things to come. Though in run up to Olympics I notice that Westminster and Police are cracking down on street performers and the homeless who hang around.


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 21, 2012)

The Guardian has a homelessness map:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/mar/08/homelessness-map-england
The Lambeth stats for Oct-Dec 2011 is 157 households accepted as homeless (1.25 per 1000 households).
Croydon accepted 291 (1.99 / 1000 households) and is looking to move homeless people to Hull:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/18/london-homeless-forced-move-hull 

As well as become literally homeless / on the streets, the expectation is that people will start to sleep on sofas, larger families move into single rooms etc.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 22, 2012)

The housing benefit cap was no great surprise though, considering the high rents in central areas of London.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 22, 2012)

leanderman said:


> These figures are astonishing. Just the top three:
> 
> £87k gain to £407k in 12months (29%)
> £63k gain to £250k in 18months (34%)
> £185k gain to £500k in 35months (59%)


 
If a house is bought and then sold again for a lot more in a short space of time is that not quite likely to be because the owners have done it up then sold it on, more than showing a general trend?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 22, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> If a house is bought and then sold again for a lot more in a short space of time is that not quite likely to be because the owners have done it up then sold it on, more than showing a general trend?


 
£87k to £407 in 12 months?  How much doing up is involved for a house price to increase that much?


----------



## Winot (Mar 22, 2012)

D'you reckon it's possible to buy a property in Brixton by text using Brixton Pounds?  You'd get an extra 10% of the asking price and could split it with the vendor.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 22, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> £87k to £407 in 12 months? How much doing up is involved for a house price to increase that much?


 
I think it meant an increase of £87k, from £320k to £407k. Still a lot but...


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Mar 22, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> As well as become literally homeless / on the streets, the expectation is that people will start to sleep on sofas, larger families move into single rooms etc.


 
Surely the former rather than the latter - isn't there some overcrowding legislation that landlords could fall foul of, if they rent a room to an entire family, even if they were willing to?
But you could easily say you had one child not three, in order to rent a one-bedroom flat... (HB would know, but the landlord wouldn't).


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 22, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Surely the former rather than the latter


 
I think Shelter expect people to try to cope in a range of ways instead of present themselves as homeless. The latter will obviously still cause a general increase in problems and distress for people.

The council are trying to renegotiate rents with landlords, but I don't know how effective that is.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Surely the former rather than the latter - isn't there some overcrowding legislation that landlords could fall foul of, if they rent a room to an entire family, even if they were willing to?
> But you could easily say you had one child not three, in order to rent a one-bedroom flat... (HB would know, but the landlord wouldn't).


 
Also some of the people I know from abroad do this. One or a couple rent a flat or house. Then they get more of there friends living there without telling the landord. Some landlords turn a blind eye to it.


----------



## Kanda (Mar 22, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> If a house is bought and then sold again for a lot more in a short space of time is that not quite likely to be because the owners have done it up then sold it on, more than showing a general trend?


 
We've done zilch to ours and it's gone up 60k in 2 yrs apparently.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2012)

leanderman said:


> The housing benefit cap was no great surprise though, considering the high rents in central areas of London.


 
Do u mean u agree with the cap?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 22, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Do u mean u agree with the cap?


 
Not really. But nor do I like landlords getting rich on housing benefit.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 22, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> If a house is bought and then sold again for a lot more in a short space of time is that not quite likely to be because the owners have done it up then sold it on, more than showing a general trend?


 
Most of the big gains come from people buying in the depths of the financial crash or its aftermath.


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 22, 2012)

tommers said:


> I don't understand. Can you explain what this means? Why are the welfare reforms going to "socially cleanse" areas of london?
> 
> Is it the LHA changes? So people won't be able to afford to top up from the HB limits to their rent? And why does this mean rents won't decrease? Surely less people able to afford it means less demand doesn't it?
> 
> I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just confused.


 
It's worth reading a bit of the reports I linked to at the beginning – the changes are massive and complex. For example they are no longer going to link LHA to rents but to Consumer Price Index (which doesn't increase at same rate as rents).

As you can see the Cambridge report refers to "spatial segregation of low-income households" - which comes across as another way of saying "social cleansing". Lambeth welfare strategy manager recently said that in the next few years, "we may come to think and feel about Lambeth differently to how we do now" - meaning it's going to become unaffordable for many people who currently live here.

Links are here: http://www.cchpr.landecon.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/hb_reform_london_spatial_implications-cchpr2011.pdf

http://england.shelter.org.uk/__dat...y_for_low_income_private_renting_families.pdf


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 22, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think it meant an increase of £87k, from £320k to £407k. Still a lot but...


 
that's what I meant, badly written.  Sorry


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 22, 2012)

In fact, just found this presentation by the council on the impact for Lambeth:
http://www.lambethfirst.org.uk/public.getfile.cfm?type=multiplefile&fid=1638


----------



## leanderman (Mar 22, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> that's what I meant, badly written. Sorry


 
how dare you!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 22, 2012)

leanderman said:


> how dare you!


 
I meant I wrote it badly!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2012)

This is the problem with these "reforms" the devil is in the detail. I looked a bit at the Shelter link but its not good as a summary.

IMO the Labour party should be summarising this and campaigning about it. Also the media. Polly Toynbee has been really good on NHS "reforms" but housing is not something that gets a lot of press. Evening Standard bangs on about house prices etc. As Ive noticed as also happened on this thread.

This is part of the problem. Housing has become not about housing but about an investment. I have a friend who regards her house as an investment for her old age. Which is why she kept on her old flat when she bought a house. It works out in London better to buy a house and get a buy to let mortgage on her old flat. Im not moralising about this. Its the system not how individuals deal with it. Within the present system her actions are perfectly rational. Rational in an irrational system.

Back in the distant 60s there was so much social housing for rent being built that it looked like most housing would be rented. I was listening to a programme on Milton Keynes ( a New Town) it was originally built for rent to ordinary working people from London. One man remembered his parents moving there out of London for that reason. As he said that would not happen now and it was visionary- whatever the faults of Milton Keynes.

As well as housing "reforms" the planning guidelines for England ( not Wales or Scotland) are a charter for developers. The new Government set up a committee of developers to do it. This will not help matters. The outlook on housing is bleak. "Affordable" housing will increasingly be like Medicare is in US. A poor and inadequate "safety net".

There is not votes in it. The NHS reforms have caused a big headache for Tories as there is still a broad middle and working class support for it. It is a universal benefit for people. Politically if housing was provided and seen as public resource and not individual one then I dont think the Tories could get away with there housing reforms.

This sociologist puts up defence of universal welfare state:

" also one of the reasons he sides with the universalists rather than the means-tested lobby when it comes to welfare reforms. "Universal benefits allow people to experience less risks, and when they do they are mitigated," he stresses.
His research also shows that means-testing assistance for the most needy people proves the least effective. "Despite the hunch people have that if you target welfare at the poorest you're going to reduce poverty more by avoiding leakage to the middle classes, there is strong evidence that countries that target the most, such as the US, have the worst records at reducing poverty," he says....He challenges poverty campaigns in the UK to address head-on politicians' concerns around benefit dependency and the so-called something for nothing culture. "Spending on social policy is something for something," he asserts. "[It is] a social investment in the next generation – on good schools and childcare – that manages against risk by preventing people from falling into poverty. And, above all, it is a citizen's right."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/20/wider-view-welfare-state

This goes for housing as well. It should be seen as something we all benefit from. Not talked about as creating "welfare dependency". Or in terms of helping people be "aspirational". It ultimately is a collective resource. The past 30 years of creating a home owners democracy has failed.

Universalism should not be seen as creating dependency or top down State ordering of our lives but the role of the State can be to minimise unnecessary social risk. Which is outside the power of individuals to control. This can mean that individuals can have more individual freedom to fulfil there potential , not less, which will lead to better society for all.

Well that's a defence of a certain kind of State.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 22, 2012)

Interesting post. Can't see a redistribution of housing though, however desirable.

Does the existence of housing benefit not show there is a universal welfare state?

It is under assault only because of the ludicrous cost of central London rents, areas I can't afford to live in.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 23, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Interesting post. Can't see a redistribution of housing though, however desirable.
> 
> Does the existence of housing benefit not show there is a universal welfare state?
> 
> It is under assault only because of the ludicrous cost of central London rents, areas I can't afford to live in.


 
Why cannot housing policy be changed? Its a political decision.

Yes HB is one aspect of a universal welfare state. Which is why the Tories ( and LDs) are cutting it. Its however not the point I was making in my post.

Its the influx of the super rich/ bankers with bonuses that have pushed up property prices. These people dont give a shit about all the people who service there City on low wages. London has become the Butler for the rich. Rent controls could be brought in for London.

Tenancies could be strengthened as ASTs give tenants little rights. People could be paid properly for the jobs they do.

The Tories say this is all about "Fairness". (Labour party are also supporting benefits caps but say they would do it differently.) Its all part there welfare "reforms".


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Its the influx of the super rich/ bankers with bonuses that have pushed up property prices. These people dont give a shit about all the people who service there City on low wages. London has become the Butler for the rich.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 23, 2012)

Who will clean the bogs of the rich once the poor have all been shafted out of London?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 23, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who will clean the bogs of the rich once the poor have all been shafted out of London?


Rich masochists, silly.  They'll happily pay to do so.


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 23, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Who will clean the bogs of the rich once the poor have all been shafted out of London?


Humanities graduates


----------



## leanderman (Mar 23, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Why cannot housing policy be changed? Its a political decision.
> 
> Yes HB is one aspect of a universal welfare state. Which is why the Tories ( and LDs) are cutting it. Its however not the point I was making in my post.
> 
> ...


 
This I can agree with


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Not really. But nor do I like landlords getting rich on housing benefit.


 
Most of them have already done so. Bear in mind this has been going on since the abolition of the fair rents structures in the mid-1980s. that's 25 years some of these fuckers have been sucking full-cream milk from the government tit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Its the influx of the super rich/ bankers with bonuses that have pushed up property prices.


 
I'm going to have to disagree there. It's not the oligarchs and plutocrats to blame, nor even the bankers with million pound-plus bonuses who've pushed prices up, because the *volume* of housing they take up is small.
The two *prime* factors that have pushed prices up throughout the south (south-west just as much as south-east) are:
1) Undersupply of housing _per se_, and
2) the re-emergence of (albeit demographically-altered) upper middle-class who originally deserted London between-the-wars, but are now recolonising the more expensive/traditional bits, which applies financial and spatial pressures on those with less social and financial capital.



> These people dont give a shit about all the people who service there City on low wages. London has become the Butler for the rich.


 
Nah, that should read "London has *again* become the Butler for the rich".



> Rent controls could be brought in for London.


 
Yes, they could.

But they won't be.



> Tenancies could be strengthened as ASTs give tenants little rights. People could be paid properly for the jobs they do.
> 
> The Tories say this is all about "Fairness". (Labour party are also supporting benefits caps but say they would do it differently.) Its all part there welfare "reforms".


 
We all know that "fairness" is much like "freedom" in the mouth of a politician. When they use the word "fairness", they mean fairness in their exploitation of us. When they use the word "freedom", they're speaking of their freedom to exploit us.

Kill them all.


----------



## soupdragon (Mar 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> 1) Undersupply of housing _per se_


I agree - bankers aren't really directly to do with house prices, though they are in that they are symptomatic of the same overall shift in the uk economy – why the undersupply of housing? It's the project for the embourgeousification of the working class (as Owen Jones was well stating on the Today Prog on Radio 4 this morning), and getting everyone to have houses as security to borrow so they become entrepreneurs, and above all else, the inflation of credit-based asset bubbles because there's no industry anymore, there's no 'regime of accumulation' innit, just the hope that there'll always be some new market to exploit somewhere, some more flexible accumulation. And look where we are now.


> 2) the re-emergence of (albeit demographically-altered) upper middle-class who originally deserted London between-the-wars, but are now recolonising the more expensive/traditional bits, which applies financial and spatial pressures on those with less social and financial capital.


 Agreed but I figure this is only as much of an impact because of the lack of rent controls and social housing (and with ref to the discussion on the Moorlands Murder thread recently – it's because of the 'permissive society' again – if you live in the suburbs you're not AUTHENTIC, but if you live in the inner city, you ARE.)


----------



## leanderman (Mar 24, 2012)

The two *prime* factors that have pushed prices up throughout the south (south-west just as much as south-east) are:
1) Undersupply of housing _per se_, and
2) the re-emergence of (albeit demographically-altered) upper middle-class who originally deserted London between-the-wars, but are now recolonising the more expensive/traditional bits, which applies financial and spatial pressures on those with less social and financial capital.

Kill them all.[/quote]

i largely agree, but you are missing one point:

that london's population is growing. that puts pressure on housing

and i have not seen southwest prices rising in line with the southeast

there is london and the rest. two nations. excepting a few spots like Bath, Oxford


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm going to have to disagree there. It's not the oligarchs and plutocrats to blame, nor even the bankers with million pound-plus bonuses who've pushed prices up, because the *volume* of housing they take up is small.
> The two *prime* factors that have pushed prices up throughout the south (south-west just as much as south-east) are:
> 1) Undersupply of housing _per se_, and
> 2) the re-emergence of (albeit demographically-altered) upper middle-class who originally deserted London between-the-wars, but are now recolonising the more expensive/traditional bits, which applies financial and spatial pressures on those with less social and financial capital.
> ...


 
Correct that London has become Butler "again". Historically a lot of working people in London were servants of one kind or another for the rich. The large number of pubs in Mayfair, for example, were originally for the the footmen etc of the rich. The upper class had there own clubs to go to.

The upper middle class have, as u say, in the South West pushed up price of housing. Its where I originally come from. House prices down there are comparable to London leading to same problems of lack of affordable housing.

I still think the super rich who come here have pushed house prices up. I notice a lot of Chinese shopping in Bond street now as well as the Russians.But maybe its in certain areas of London. Heard someone saying when he was student in early 60s he lived with his friends near Hyde Park and the museums. As he said that wouldn't be possible now. This has a ripple effect imo in London on prices.

Im around the West End a lot so I see these super rich. Maybe its more in my face than for some.

One Hyde Park is another example. No % of affordable housing there. And most flats are owned by front companies of the super rich from abroad.

Ive also found that the Upper Middle Class have not got much of an idea of how others live. We are , in this country, living in a fragmented society. As I heard John Lanchester also say of London when discussing his new novel Capital.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 25, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> I agree - bankers aren't really directly to do with house prices, though they are in that they are symptomatic of the same overall shift in the uk economy – why the undersupply of housing? It's the project for the embourgeousification of the working class (as Owen Jones was well stating on the Today Prog on Radio 4 this morning), and getting everyone to have houses as security to borrow so they become entrepreneurs, and above all else, the inflation of credit-based asset bubbles because there's no industry anymore, there's no 'regime of accumulation' innit, just the hope that there'll always be some new market to exploit somewhere, some more flexible accumulation. And look where we are now.
> Agreed but I figure this is only as much of an impact because of the lack of rent controls and social housing (and with ref to the discussion on the Moorlands Murder thread recently – it's because of the 'permissive society' again – if you live in the suburbs you're not AUTHENTIC, but if you live in the inner city, you ARE.)


 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9708000/9708663.stm

7 minute podcast of that section of the Today programme here. Also bit from historian pointing out large scale home ownership is historically recent. And it was Keith Joseph who said he wanted the embourgeousification of the working class. Something that goes back to Butlerism in the 30s I think.

In the "authentic"  mainly working class community I was born in ( Plymouth by the fishmarket/ harbour) most of the housing was privately rented by the fishermen who worked the Trawlers. It was affordable though most lacked amenities ( there was decent wash house at end of road we used to all use and I remember the big tin bath the fisherman couple upstairs had). They liked living there and didn't want to move to the Council housing outside the area. There were no murders but a lot of drinking . As the fishermen were 3 days out at sea and 3 at home. This wasn't anything to do with permissive society. It was originally how many working class communities lived. There were also arty drop out crowd ( my background) who lived there as it was cheap then. Blame Orwell for slagging off the suburbs not the permissive society.


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The two *prime* factors that have pushed prices up throughout the south (south-west just as much as south-east) are:
> 1) Undersupply of housing _per se_,


 
I don't know that supply of housing _per se_ can be a factor in house prices because if no one (or only a very small minority) can afford to buy them then supply is irrelevant.

For just average little flats and houses in unfashionable areas to have reached the crazy kinds of prices they're at now it's not the supply and demand of houses themselves which has been crucial but the supply and demand for the credit to buy them with. As we know that credit was being thrown around with great abandon by banks and building societies all through the Great Moderation, supported by  politicians since the "wealth" being "created" by this ridiculous asset bubble made it look like the economy was booming I'd see that as much more the cause. Cheap money = expensive houses.

To some extent this explains the fact that it hasn't yet come crashing down, since with de facto zero interest rates, buyers/owners are still able to hang on in there, unlike the 90s crash when interest rates were up at 15% and mortgage holders were being strangled by the banks. But I can't see how this can keep going up, for the life of me. We still have cheap money but it's getting harder and harder to get hold of, something's got to give. Shame it's fucking up so many peoples lives in the meantime but hey that's the market.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2012)

co-op said:


> I don't know that supply of housing _per se_ can be a factor in house prices because if no one (or only a very small minority) can afford to buy them then supply is irrelevant.


 
But it's not the case that "no-one" can afford to buy, is it?
What's actually the case is that the pool of buyers is *restricted* to those that can afford (by hook or by crook) to buy or raise a mortgage in straitened economic circumstances, but that restriction still leaves a pool of buyers that exceed the stock of available housing.



> For just average little flats and houses in unfashionable areas to have reached the crazy kinds of prices they're at now it's not the supply and demand of houses themselves which has been crucial but the supply and demand for the credit to buy them with. As we know that credit was being thrown around with great abandon by banks and building societies all through the Great Moderation, supported by politicians since the "wealth" being "created" by this ridiculous asset bubble made it look like the economy was booming I'd see that as much more the cause. Cheap money = expensive houses.


 
But also limited development of any and all types of housing = expensive houses.



> To some extent this explains the fact that it hasn't yet come crashing down, since with de facto zero interest rates, buyers/owners are still able to hang on in there, unlike the 90s crash when interest rates were up at 15% and mortgage holders were being strangled by the banks. But I can't see how this can keep going up, for the life of me. We still have cheap money but it's getting harder and harder to get hold of, something's got to give. Shame it's fucking up so many peoples lives in the meantime but hey that's the market.


 
What explains the lack of a price crash is pretty simply the fact that the government *cannot* afford to formulate any policy that could have an adverse effect on the housing market. Our economy rests on the notional value of that housing. Disturb that, and the whole house of cards becomes unstable, in a way that would likely be worse than the "banking crisis" because it's effects wouldn't be mostly abstract to "the general public".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2012)

leanderman said:


> i largely agree, but you are missing one point:
> 
> that london's population is growing. that puts pressure on housing


 
Yeah, but it's *a* factor amongst other factors. Population growth alone can't account for the current situation. Mix it in with under-supply (for whatever reasons), and we more closely approximate what has happened.



> and i have not seen southwest prices rising in line with the southeast


 
I didn't say "in line", I said that the south-west has been affected by the shortage as bady as the south-east.



> there is london and the rest. two nations. excepting a few spots like Bath, Oxford


 
I'm not sure I can agree. If it were just the case of London and the occasional "hotspot", the issue would be contained to those areas. It isn't.  Go anywhere in the south-east and south-west and look at the prices of "starter homes", or of 2 bedroom flats - the prices are in general beyond what a couple both earning the median wage (£26,244 in 2011) can afford on a multiplier of 3x joint salary. And sure, there's schemes of various sorts where you can part-buy and part-rent, but let's not fool ourselves that this takes place on any great scale, or that it's a solution as opposed to a sticking plaster.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Mar 25, 2012)

co-op said:


> I don't know that supply of housing _per se_ can be a factor in house prices because if no one (or only a very small minority) can afford to buy them then supply is irrelevant.


 
Price is always a function of both supply and demand. _Always_.







If you don't even understand this, how can you expect anyone to listen to anything you say?


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2012)

Laughing Toad said:


> Price is always a function of both supply and demand. _Always_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the little tutorial.You have lovely pretty graphs and everything. Pity you didn't understand my point. Here let me try again and I'll do my best to keep it simple for you.

The supply and demand I was talking about was the supply and demand of money (i.e. credit, i.e. lending, i.e. mortgages), not the supply and demand for houses.


----------



## co-op (Mar 25, 2012)

leanderman said:


> These figures are astonishing. Just the top three:
> 
> £87k gain to £407k in 12months (29%)
> £63k gain to £250k in 18months (34%)
> £185k gain to £500k in 35months (59%)


 
Also from the same page that Laughing Toad cited.....

First one looks a bit funny (a bit like some of the increase figures, it just looks too big to me) but otherwise these seem pretty credible. I think there are some mugs buying just now who will end up paying a mortgage for years and then having to pony out capital when they want to move just like the people listed below

Previous
sale pricePrevious
sale dateRecent
sale priceRecent
sale dateChange
(%)AER
(%)Address
£215,000 Jul-07 £162,500 Nov-11 -24.4% -6.2%  Flat 4 79 Sternhold Avenue
£191,000 Jan-08 £179,000 Dec-11 -6.3% -1.6% Flat 3 128 Christchurch Road
£335,000 Jul-07 £324,000 Nov-11 -3.3% -0.8%  Ground Floor Flat 20 Holmewood Road
£149,950 Jun-07 £144,950 Dec-11 -3.3% -0.8%  Flat 31 Fairview House Upper Tulse Hill
£282,500 Apr-08 £275,250 Oct-11 -2.6% -0.7%  Flat 7 Leigh Court, 2 Bascombe Street
£242,500 Jun-07 £237,000 Dec-11 -2.3% -0.5% 29 Belvedere Place
£295,000 Feb-07 £290,000 Oct-11 -1.7% -0.4% Flat 6 130 Dalberg Road
£139,000 Dec-05 £137,000 Jan-12 -1.4% -0.2%  Flat 91 Pullman Court Streatham Hill


----------



## ymu (Mar 25, 2012)

The housing market has been moving in opposite directions, depending on whether the houses are being bought by the rich who are still getting richer or people who need somewhere to live and can't get a mortgage. But I'd be surprised if many of those big leaps weren't investors doing up somewhere tatty and selling it on for a quick profit. When we sold our (very tatty) house, we had a couple of sales fall through because the banks wouldn't lend, and then suddenly there was a stream of cash investors coming through the door. With the stock market in chaos and interest rates headed for zero, they were looking to pick up places that could quickly be improved with a bit of cash and then sold on quickly. That was early 2009, IIRC - just when house prices started to level out from the dive.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2012)

The Office for National Statistics says London's population will rise (from 7.9m in 2010) to 9m in eight years (2020) and to 10m in 2030.

It's only a prediction (and could be too high if the govt succeeds in cutting immigration) but I would be amazed if that level of demand for housing does not influence prices.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 25, 2012)

leanderman said:


> The Office for National Statistics says London's population will rise (from 7.9m in 2010) to 9m in eight years (2020) and to 10m in 2030.
> 
> It's only a prediction (and one based on the govt reducing immigration) but I would be amazed if that level of demand for housing does not influence prices.


 
How will public transport cope?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2012)

If the ONS is right, it will be like the Olympics every day ... for the rest of our lives.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 25, 2012)

leanderman said:


> If the ONS is right, it will be like the Olympics every day ... for the rest of our lives.


 
lovely

All the more reason for firms to move out of London then


----------



## leanderman (Mar 25, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> lovely
> 
> All the more reason for firms to move out of London then



and government departments


----------



## nagapie (Mar 25, 2012)

leanderman said:


> The Office for National Statistics says London's population will rise (from 7.9m in 2010) to 9m in eight years (2020) and to 10m in 2030.
> 
> It's only a prediction (and could be too high if the govt succeeds in cutting immigration) but I would be amazed if that level of demand for housing does not influence prices.


 
Articles in the newspaper today about the government limiting people's right to settle in the country from 2016 unless they are earning more than £35, 000. That should go well.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 25, 2012)

leanderman said:


> and government departments


 
Maybe everyone will follow the jobs and London will be nice and empty again, although we'll all be unemployed


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What explains the lack of a price crash is pretty simply the fact that the government *cannot* afford to formulate any policy that could have an adverse effect on the housing market. Our economy rests on the notional value of that housing. Disturb that, and the whole house of cards becomes unstable, in a way that would likely be worse than the "banking crisis" because it's effects wouldn't be mostly abstract to "the general public".


 
This is the crux of the problem. Housing is not about just about housing people. Which is what it should be about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> This is the crux of the problem. Housing is not about just about housing people. Which is what it should be about.


 
I couldn't agree more.


----------



## soupdragon (Apr 24, 2012)

Guardian: Newham council has approached a Stoke-on-Trent housing association asking them to take 500 families who have been priced out of their area by rising rents and the government's new cap on housing benefits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ly-curtis/2012/apr/24/housing-housing-benefit


----------



## Ms T (Apr 24, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> Guardian: Newham council has approached a Stoke-on-Trent housing association asking them to take 500 families who have been priced out of their area by rising rents and the government's new cap on housing benefits.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ly-curtis/2012/apr/24/housing-housing-benefit


The leader of the council was on Today this morning doing a very good job of blaming govt policy for this.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2012)

Good article here analysing all the arguments for and against. Looking at the research that has been done the article summarises:


*The government's own impact assessment and academic research makes clear that people will be forced to move because of the changes and central parts of London will to a certain extent become the preserve of the rich with more lower income people congregating in cheaper areas of the capital. "Social cleansing" is a strong term that some readers have objected to. But there is some evidence of a trend consistent with it. As the LSE academics put it:*
We conclude that the reforms will intensify the spatial concentration of disadvantage in the city, and increase the segregation of poor and better-off households within London.​​http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ly-curtis/2012/apr/24/housing-housing-benefit


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2012)

And this section of the article:

I've been recommended research by Alex Fenton of the London School of Economics who researches housing policy and poverty. This researchhe did last year on the reforms with the conclusion that most inner London boroughs would become "almost entirely unaffordable" by 2016:
We find that the changes to be introduced in 2011 will immediately reduce the proportion of London neighbourhoods affordable to LHA claimants from 75% to 51%. This falls further to 36% by 2016 as a result of the measures' longer-term effects. Our estimates of current neighbourhood affordability are strongly correlated with current observed concentrations of LHA claimants, giving credence to the predictive value of the approach. The estimates for 2016 are highly sensitive to the future relationship between CPI inflation and nominal rent inflation, emphasising that this is a key uncertainty about the long-term effects of the proposed reforms.
Most inner London boroughs are likely to become almost entirely unaffordable to low-income tenants on LHA by 2016. The large clusters of neighbourhoods in outer East, South and West London which our model finds to remain affordable in 2016 are likely to house increasing numbers of low-income tenants as a result of the reforms. The areas which remain affordable are characterised by high rates of multiple deprivation and unemployment among the existing population. We conclude that the reforms will intensify the spatial concentration of disadvantage in the city, and increase the segregation of poor and better-off households within London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ly-curtis/2012/apr/24/housing-housing-benefit​


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2012)

"Shelter’s RentWatch reports use VOA data, derived from a sample of over 500,000 rents in England, including over 60,000 in London. Our London report found that rents increased above RPI inflation, and particularly above wage inflation – for outer Londoners, rent inflation was three times as high as wage inflation."

See here for graph showing how real wages lag behind rent increases in London:

http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2012/04/when-you-are-told-your-rent-increase-is-not-a-rent-increase-that/


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2012)

"his link comes to me via Twitter with the news that Newham also approached Macclesfield. In it Tim Pinder, chief executive of Peaks & Plains Housing Trust, describes Newham's approach as a "begging letter" and writes:
With feelings of disgust, I promptly deposited the letter in our recycle bin.
Recession, or no recession, that Britain in the 21st century should have come to this, a nation unable to offer a decent, civilised, caring response to some of its most vulnerable citizens, left me feeling angry. The idea had all the hallmarks of one of those responses to the tired old clichéd injunctions to "think outside the box", presumably not by front line staff or indeed anyone dealing directly with vulnerable housing applicants

from:

​http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ly-curtis/2012/apr/24/housing-housing-benefit


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2012)

Basically the Guardian article shows that Governments argument that benefit caps will make private landlords reduce rents is not applicable to London. 

Also that a lot of private landlords will not take on Housing Benefit claimants anyway.


----------



## soupdragon (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanks Gramsci - that's a really helpful trawl through and analysis.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 25, 2012)

I don't like housing benefit going to those buy-to-let landlords who accept it.

With rents soaring in London - even though landlords' mortgage costs are not - it's no surprise the government wants to try to reduce the HB bill.


----------



## soupdragon (Apr 25, 2012)

Rent caps?


----------



## leanderman (Apr 25, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> Rent caps?



yes.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2012)

The article did state that the Guardian had contacted other boroughs in London to see if they were asking authorities outside London to take people. Lambeth said it was not doing this at the moment.

On the radio this morning a single parent ( her husband had died) was interviewed. She had received letter from Council ( Waltham Forest i think) who had offered her housing in Walsall in the Midlands. They said if she did not accept it they had discharged any duties to her. As she said all her relatives are here in London and her child likes her local school. She did not know anyone up North. She thought the local authority was doing this as it was easy way out.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 25, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> The article did state that the Guardian had contacted other boroughs in London to see if they were asking authorities outside London to take people. Lambeth said it was not doing this at the moment.
> 
> On the radio this morning a single parent ( her husband had died) was interviewed. She had received letter from Council ( Waltham Forest i think) who had offered her housing in Walsall in the Midlands. They said if she did not accept it they had discharged any duties to her. As she said all her relatives are here in London and her child likes her local school. She did not know anyone up North. She thought the local authority was doing this as it was easy way out.


 
She/he, but yes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829163


----------



## leanderman (Apr 26, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> Rent caps?



better than rent caps would be the removal of the right to put buy-to-let mortgage interest against tax

that would change everything


----------



## CH1 (Apr 26, 2012)

soupdragon said:


> Guardian: Newham council has approached a Stoke-on-Trent housing association asking them to take 500 families who have been priced out of their area by rising rents and the government's new cap on housing benefits.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ly-curtis/2012/apr/24/housing-housing-benefit


 
This "decanting" stuff has been tried before.

In the 1920s we had the philathropic concept of the "Garden City" - Letchworth, Welwyn Garden City.

In the late 1940's this idea was adopted by the LCC as "London Overspill" - Harlow, Stevenage, Basildon, Hemel Hempstead.  Large LCC estates were also built in more remote locations like Thetford (Norfolk) and Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill (Suffolk) Peterborough (Cambridgeshire) and many more. THEN factories, offices and other employment generating activities were "co-located" with the housing.  NOW no housing is being built except for profit, and employment is being cut back.

Compare Mary Beard's description of the situation in Rome.  A large feral population being kept alive by hand-outs and entertained by the state. A protected upper class in gated accommodation. All served by tradesmen largely brought in from abroad.

Thatcherism with or without an empire is not an attractive thing.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 26, 2012)

CH1 said:


> This "decanting" stuff has been tried before.


 
And in North Devon too.

Ilfracombe, Bideford and Barnstaple had large number of Merseysiders in the 90s, apparently relocated by council agreement.

Liverpool may have done better out of the deal because their exiles kept the sleepy magistrates' courts in Bideford and Barnstaple very busy indeed.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2012)

Ol Nick said:


> She/he, but yes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829163


thanks for link. On the Today prog it was anonymous at request of interviewee. So must have changed his mind.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2012)

CH1 said:


> Compare Mary Beard's description of the situation in Rome. A large feral population being kept alive by hand-outs and entertained by the state. A protected upper class in gated accommodation. All served by tradesmen largely brought in from abroad.
> 
> Thatcherism with or without an empire is not an attractive thing.


 
At least the Roman Emperors had the sense to keep the people fed and entertained.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2012)

leanderman said:


> And in North Devon too.
> 
> Ilfracombe, Bideford and Barnstaple had large number of Merseysiders in the 90s, apparently relocated by council agreement.
> 
> Liverpool may have done better out of the deal because their exiles kept the sleepy magistrates' courts in Bideford and Barnstaple very busy indeed.


 
Did they provide translation services? I come from South West and its totally different accent. 

Wouldnt be so sure the native population down there are that law abiding. Sheep would "disappear" Ha ha


----------



## leanderman (Apr 27, 2012)

Which part of the SW?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2012)

Devon. Plymouth to be exact which is a lot different from the rest of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2012)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ctly-what-they-were-supposed-to-201204245154/

"THE 2012 Olympics have been declared a resounding success as the first busload of undesirables was banished from East London.
 





Who said you could look at it?
Organisers said the event was at least four months ahead of schedule in making the east of the city as unaffordable as the west to people who are either unemployed or have a proper, actual job.

In preparation for the post-Olympic influx of six-figure bullshit consultants, Newham Council has now begun herding its substandard social housing tenants into sorting pens before despatching them to a corner of the UK more suited to their third-rate bone structure and beastly televisual inclinations.

Sebastian Coe, Lord of the Olympics, said: "The cleansing has begun, even before the first javelin has been javelled.

"I would like to award Newham Council a gold medal. They are the Fatima Whitbread of enforced gentrification."

London mayor Boris Johnson added: "We can either have a city wiped clean of low-income troglodytes or we can spend millions encircling London's hard-working neighbourhoods with 14ft high security fences.

"This will not destroy the social fabric of the east end it will just make it the sort of social fabric one could imagine sharing witty remarks with at a summer drinks party."

Meanwhile, the first consignment of untermenschen stumbled from their bus, blinking and confused, to be faced with the harsh reality of Stoke-on-Trent.

Emma Bradford, a single mother of two, said: "Fuck​


----------



## leanderman (Apr 27, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Devon. Plymouth to be exact which is a lot different from the rest of it.


 
Plymouth is positively cosmopolitan in comparison to my isolated upbringing near the source of the Tamar.

We used to make the 40-mile journey to Plymouth to experience actual shops, car parks and fast food.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Plymouth is positively cosmopolitan in comparison to my isolated upbringing near the source of the Tamar.
> 
> We used to make the 40-mile journey to Plymouth to experience actual shops, car parks and fast food.


 
And girlfriends you weren't related to?


----------



## oryx (Apr 27, 2012)

quote="CH1, post: 11117488, member: 12717"]This "decanting" stuff has been tried before.

In the 1920s we had the philathropic concept of the "Garden City" - Letchworth, Welwyn Garden City.

In the late 1940's this idea was adopted by the LCC as "London Overspill" - Harlow, Stevenage, Basildon, Hemel Hempstead. Large LCC estates were also built in more remote locations like Thetford (Norfolk) and Bury St Edmunds and Haverhill (Suffolk) Peterborough (Cambridgeshire) and many more. THEN factories, offices and other employment generating activities were "co-located" with the housing. NOW no housing is being built except for profit, and employment is being cut back.[/quote]

The other difference being that people moved to new towns, garden cities and new 'overspill estates' were moving from very overcrowded and sub-standard 'slum' housing. That's not the case now.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Plymouth is positively cosmopolitan in comparison to my isolated upbringing near the source of the Tamar.
> 
> We used to make the 40-mile journey to Plymouth to experience actual shops, car parks and fast food.


 
That really is backwoods. Yes Plymouth was always very different to rest of Devon. 

And real Pasties or Oggies.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 27, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> That really is backwoods. Yes Plymouth was always very different to rest of Devon.
> 
> And real Pasties or Oggies.


 
Yep. I never want to go back. Am traumatised by the sight of fields and pylons and bungalows.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 30, 2012)

My neighbour, who is diabetic, sent one of her kids round yesterday asking for some food. She's not on benefits, she works, hard, but is in a low paid, low status job. Living costs have risen, income hasn't.

The woman three doors down, who has a learning disability has had her benefits cut because apparently she hasn't been looking hard enough for work and she didn't go to a job interview they'd lined up because she couldn't afford the fares to get there. I accept that maybe I don't have the full story there, but she's a very poor communicator. All I know for sure is that is she's terrified about losing her home.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Apr 30, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> My neighbour, who is diabetic, sent one of her kids round yesterday asking for some food. She's not on benefits, she works, hard, but is in a low paid, low status job. Living costs have risen, income hasn't.
> 
> The woman three doors down, who has a learning disability has had her benefits cut because apparently she hasn't been looking hard enough for work and she didn't go to a job interview they'd lined up because she couldn't afford the fares to get there. I accept that maybe I don't have the full story there, but she's a very poor communicator. All I know for sure is that is she's terrified about losing her home.


 
I think there's probably a lot of people in a state of constant low-level panic about what the next few months will bring .
I've had a couple of letters from Lambeth about my Housing Benefit claim being re-assessed due to the new caps (from the end of June, not sure if that's a global date or they are re-assessing claims in stages) - they have the look of letters that are being sent to every claimant.

Mine will go down by about a tenner a week which I can absorb (my net pay has gone up by about the same amount due to the increase in personal tax allowance) so I've been lucky for the moment - it looks like I'm at the upper limit of what's (currently) deemed acceptable .
Anyone renting privately with more kids, more bedrooms or working fewer hours has probably had bad news in those letters.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 30, 2012)

VP and I just daren't plan any long term saving or spending (including holidays) until hearing for certain what's going to happen with DLA and IB. Sorry, really got to stop thinking about this.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 30, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I think there's probably a lot of people in a state of constant low-level panic about what the next few months will bring .
> I've had a couple of letters from Lambeth about my Housing Benefit claim being re-assessed due to the new caps (from the end of June, not sure if that's a global date or they are re-assessing claims in stages) - they have the look of letters that are being sent to every claimant.
> 
> Mine will go down by about a tenner a week which I can absorb (my net pay has gone up by about the same amount due to the increase in personal tax allowance) so I've been lucky for the moment - it looks like I'm at the upper limit of what's (currently) deemed acceptable .
> Anyone renting privately with more kids, more bedrooms or working fewer hours has probably had bad news in those letters.


 
I have no idea how people are coping, on HB or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2012)

leanderman said:


> I have no idea how people are coping, on HB or not.


 
You just do it, and you do it by not making any plans, by living, if not "hand to mouth", then pretty much day-by-day, and by trying to be careful while not entirely going without any form of social life whatsoever. Things are crap now, and may well get worse, because it's hard to say what the Tories will do if they end up truly at bay over their current political (mis)fortunes. They may well try to ram through "reforms" that would have otherwise come "on-stream" later. A lot could depend on how badly they get spanked on 03/05.  Me, I don't wrry about things until they happen. If I worried about the "what ifs" beyond working out tactics, I'd be knackered by the time the "what ifs" came to pass.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> My neighbour, who is diabetic, sent one of her kids round yesterday asking for some food. She's not on benefits, she works, hard, but is in a low paid, low status job. Living costs have risen, income hasn't.
> 
> The woman three doors down, who has a learning disability has had her benefits cut because apparently she hasn't been looking hard enough for work and she didn't go to a job interview they'd lined up because she couldn't afford the fares to get there. I accept that maybe I don't have the full story there, but she's a very poor communicator. All I know for sure is that is she's terrified about losing her home.


 
Thanks for this post and Ms Ordinary posts on how this is affecting people on the ground. Just been listening to report on radio about Greece where people are banding together to support each other in various ways. As they have given up on the mainstream political classes. What you say sounds like similar things could happen here. 

Its the people who are "poor communicators" etc who will go under first. The most vulnerable. Really this government is truly more vindictive than Maggies ever was.


----------



## nagapie (May 5, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for this post and Ms Ordinary posts on how this is affecting people on the ground. Just been listening to report on radio about Greece where people are banding together to support each other in various ways. As they have given up on the mainstream political classes. What you say sounds like similar things could happen here.
> 
> Its the people who are "poor communicators" etc who will go under first. The most vulnerable. Really this government is truly more vindictive than Maggies ever was.


 
Except Greece is also suffering a massive increase in voters moving far right, it's not a good situation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Its the people who are "poor communicators" etc who will go under first. The most vulnerable. Really this government is truly more vindictive than Maggies ever was.


 
And this illustrates another big difference between the recession and unemployment of Thatcher's early reign and now - back then, in most municipalities, the city councils, county councils and local authorities all pumped money into various welfare resources, especially the advice sector.
This time round, that advice sector and those alternatives and accompaniments to conventional welfare, mostly through being tied to the state through various "third sector" initiatives over the years, are going to the wall, and those who rely on them, with them.


----------

