London SE1 community website

Developers have approached the council to buy another block of flats

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 3 of 7
Tuesday 15 October 2013 9.25am
So it's all down to Zones now? working class people who have paid and are still paying tax, should they be moved without consideration because it's a Zonal problem? I have worked since the age of 15, my husbands worked since the age of 14, my family (who no longer live in the right Zone!) all paid tax. I had to retire due to medical problems 4 years ago at 66...and I still pay tax/council tax...if people need housing rather than living on the street/underneath the arches...I willingly pay.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 9.25am
Floodplain,
I do believe you are misguided in your Thatcherite tendencies. To encourage the council in any attempt to raise revenues rather than keep a critical eye on them will end up with them selling everything. The proper way to raise revenue is through taxation, equitable taxation, not selling off assets. In the end with no further assets to sell the council would implode.

As to your remark that the "working tax payer" would never in a million years qualify for a council home let alone be able to live in zone one bewilders me. Do you really believe that council tenants do not work, do not pay tax and that only the relatively well heeled are able to live in the zone?

Please tell me when means testing was one of the hurdles one had to jump to get a council home. I know I am naive but I always thought need was the qualifer.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 12.48pm
Council Housing allocation policy has been perverted away from its original purpose at the end of WWII - namely to provide homes for working people.

This manipulation has been undertaken without anyone asking the British people how they would like council housing to be allocated.

If we had say a national referendum on how councnl allocation should be made, you might be surprised at some of the results. I'll take a guess that people would prefer a Balance of working residents, local people - not just exclusively those with chronic need.

Allow me to refer to Ken Livingstone's comments on Council House allocation at the London Evening Standard's housing debate earler this year.

Ken said that when he grew up on his council estate, there were many middle-class residents. That in fact to have a council house in the 50s-70s meant you were living in the most spacious and modern accommodation - far better than the average private house. It was a place of aspiration. This delicate Balance was then distorted by the way housing was allocated - in particular in the last twenty years.

GLA evidence (collected under Boris, not under Ken) shows that the majority of social housing tenants are in fact out of work and claming benefits. This needs to change.

Council Housing allocation has been used as a political and social instrument by many (but thankfully not all) labour and liberal councils to ensure that Welfare-dependent voters are siloed in large numbers in order to maintain the political status quo.

This social engineering has been undertaken both at high-level within the Council socialist-liberal 'nomenclatura' but also informally by housing officers who wield enormous power with absolutely no accountability. And then they collect their very generous public sector pensions after clocking off at 4pm every day.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 12.57pm
didn't want to step back in here but aren't southwark saying that the intention is to build extra council housing on the site (as well as the commercial building)? Therefore presumably rehousing those who have to move from the lower flats and giving a net gain of affordable units? If that was the case would people still object? If you did I suspect the objections are based more on self interest than anything else. You are perfectly entitled to that but its a slightly different argument....
Tuesday 15 October 2013 1.27pm
Floodplain wrote:
Council Housing allocation has been used as a political and social instrument by many (but thankfully not all) labour and liberal councils to ensure that Welfare-dependent voters are siloed in large numbers in order to maintain the political status quo.

You've left the use of Council Housing allocation as a political and social instrument by Tory governments out of your list, Flood.

'Selling' council houses to tenants at below market price (a Thatcher-era policy continued and expanded by the current government) without allowing the stock to be replaced automatically increases the proportion of poor people in council housing (since the poorest cannot access the funding necessary to take advantage of the give away). It creates a Tory 'client class' of mortgaged scroungers (sorry, beneficiaries) of the give away.

Deliberately reducing the amount of council stock (by not allowing new property to be built and by encouraging the transfer to of property to TMOs and Social Housing providers) while keeping the requirement on councils to house those in greatest need is a tailor-made policy to force the sort of outcomes you decry, since the remaining properties will only be allocated to the neediest.

Do you really believe that the Tories are incapable of using council housing for social and political aims?
Tuesday 15 October 2013 5.06pm
Ken said that when he grew up on his council estate, there were many middle-class residents. That in fact to have a council house in the 50s-70s meant you were living in the most spacious and modern accommodation - far better than the average private house. It was a place of aspiration. This delicate Balance was then distorted by the way housing was allocated - in particular in the last twenty years.

I've heard Ken talk of this on numerous occassions,you've missed the bit out where everyone had a job

GLA evidence (collected under Boris, not under Ken) shows that the majority of social housing tenants are in fact out of work and claming benefits. This needs to change

You've made this point before,but before you never put "out of work and claiming benefits" you simply put "claiming benefits" until you were put straight on the majority being working claimants,do you have a link for this?

It is unclear now as it was before whether you mean all social housing (so the sick.unemployed etc live in private housing at greater cost to us all) or you mean zone 1,I suspect you mean the latter,i'd like to know the stats for zone 1 social tennants,any chance of that as well?

I asked you a number of questions regarding this before but you ignored them all,i'll just try this one today....at what stage of unemployment will a person/family have to vacate a property? (that's family BTW kids, schools etc)
Tuesday 15 October 2013 6.33pm
Shaggy. No. Clearly you haven't read the posts.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 6.38pm
You'll like this one Bunhouse; Richard Livingstone has twitted that 'it is clear nothing will happen without consultation'. His mate Fiona Colley says so. Mmmm before or after they have voted on it in their cabinet meeting. How dare they treat us like idiots.
Tuesday 15 October 2013 7.08pm
Karen I wrote:
How dare they treat us like idiots.
Hmm... let's see now

because that's the only way they will operate? (see also the scandal around the Camberwell Green Orchard)
Tuesday 15 October 2013 7.14pm
I know Pros; it was a stupid question.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 3 of 7

To post a message, please log in or register..
February at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions