That was the exact argument that the guy from policy exchange made this morning
"People in social housing are poor and therefore they don't want to live in nice places, because the supermarkets in nice places are too expensive for them. They should all fuck off to the slums where they build Aldis and Lidls"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:27, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

God forbid we have someone who doesn't own an Aga
living in Kensington, what?

/The problem is that in a remarkably rare occurance, I can see both sides of the argument with this one. However, since it's a right-wing think tank proposing it I'm going to have to hate it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:30, Reply)

There is no point in a housing scheme paying huge rents for people to live in very expensive areas
it's a waste and will actually prevent other scroungers getting a free house. the lefties should love it.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:31, Reply)

They aren't paying rents though are they you retard.
The whole point of this is that the houses are owned by the government, which is why they are proposing selling them and making a profit.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, Reply)

That, and social cleansing.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:35, Reply)

Are you saying that you would ratehr leeave a family out on the street in the pissing rain
than move a family to more reasonable and appropriate accomodation thus freeing up some capital? Seems a bit cruel for a hand ringer like yourself
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:36, Reply)

because, like many other things, it really is as simple as that.
no, really.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

Of course not. the point I'm making is that the priciple is sound
Impementaion is unfortunately another issue
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

No, the principle is not sound.
The idea has some merit, but is not without problems.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:41, Reply)

Hey, in my book Mr. Belding is well sound

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:48, Reply)

I don't think I'd go as far as to say the principle is sound
The principle is the problem, really. As in, not thought through. The "hard aspects" ie the pure financial transation itself, is eminently sensible. But the reality is that the associated costs (both social and financial) would probably be huge.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:50, Reply)

Those aren't the only 2 options though.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:40, Reply)

Hence why we should bring back workhouses

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:47, Reply)

I don't think that's what they are talking about.
This isn't councils paying private landlords to house tenants.

This is about council-owned properties. They don't cost high rents regardless of where they are, because the councils own them. This is about selling property that might be worth shitloads because of its location and using the money to build or buy more property in cheaper areas.

Like many of these ideas, it has some merit, but some really fucking stupid aspects, too.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:34, Reply)

As Chompy argued, in principle selling 1 house in street A to build 4 in Street B is a good idea
it's just that Street A is in a nice area, but Street B is 50 miles away and in the fucking horrendous place and anyone living there will be forever condemned to a shit life with no prospects because although they are happy to build a million flats on Street B, they aren't willing to provide enough schools, hospitals or general transport infrastructure to support Street B.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

Fuck 'em, they should be happy they aren't left out on the street

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:38, Reply)

Plus street A no longer has any element of social structure or variation
as everybody living on it is a fucking stockbroker.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

street A will have a mixture of middle class people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds
is what you meant to say
( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:43, Reply)

Sorry, yeah.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:45, Reply)

See Al, right here is a sensible and well thought out response
very different to your mung bean spitting tirade of frothy middle class guilt.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:37, Reply)

I don't really see the stupid aspects
mainly because i don't really believe there is a pure reason why two identical properties in the same town can have a 50% price difference.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:39, Reply)

Location innit
If you are going to get stabbed everyday outside one house then it will be less attractive to a buyer.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:40, Reply)

It's not a matter of faith as to whether or not houses have a price difference
it simply "is".
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:41, Reply)

Too many estate agents are non-believers, that's all.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:42, Reply)

No pure reason except for the fact that it's demonstrably true in almost every single town in the UK?

The "fucking stupid" aspects are the ones Al mentions above. You can't achieve what you're talking about by moving someone around the corner, it would be miles away. Different schools, no social mix any more, etc, etc. It would work if you were selling a property that was valuable to build something literally round the corner in the same area, but we tried that 50 years ago. Sell housing stock to build inner-city high rises. they definitely worked absolutely brilliantly and there's been no problems at all assoicated with that, wouldn't you agree?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:44, Reply)

I know it's true, but I think it's a big load of bollocks. My current flat and my old flat have a £20,000 difference.
And they're identical and too close to even smoke a fag between the two.

My assumptions on how it would work if it was managed well would be something like this.
Sell houses on street A as they're empty in expensive streets. Do them up a little sell them for a profit
Spend that building new houses on vacant land or derelict sites B.
Now the council has a larger stock of housing but with the same overall value. Keep doing that with the assumption that selling at a profit to build more stock is the way you'll do it.
Eventually you have a large financial incentive to increase the house values of sites B, so refurbishing a school or playground in a bad area, subsidising bus routes street cleaning and policing in those areas starts making more economic sense.

But that means it'll have to be run correctly for years...
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:58, Reply)

Which we can't do. Because our political system has no incentive for longtermism.
And that still doesn't change the fact that it's retrospective - you're moving families from nice areas to shit areas with the promise that the area will get better in X years time.

moving people from a good area to a bad one will also most likely decrease the chances of stuff like the children doing well at school, thus perpetuating those family through multiple generations of poverty etc etc
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:02, Reply)

You're not moving people, you're waiting for the current occupiers to either die
or move out. And replacing them with new council tennants who are currently on a waiting list or in hostels or something.
If it was an eviction or relocation style thing I'd be dead against it.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:04, Reply)

It will turn into one, though.
Because there will be pressure for the results to be seen more quickly.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:06, Reply)

That is the thing.
Over 20 to 30 years you could change the face of the social housing in a council by proper property managment and smart manipulation of the market.
However they won't, because a council doesn't think on those timescales.
It's ridiculous as well because lets face it any councils property portfolio is probably their biggest asset if they were more flexible with it, they could make more money.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:10, Reply)

Also aga's are shit

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:33, Reply)

and the first sentence was looking so promising...

( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:31, Reply)

Hello Swipe,
were you at some sort of festival this weekend?
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:32, Reply)

aye, i went to V
just for the day though. i am not someone who likes tents, which will not surprise you.

really fucked off, whilst i am whining - was meant to be in new york, got told a couple of weeks ago i couldn't go because of urgent work thing. fair enough, that's life. except that work thing settled late fri afternoon. so i missed NY. humph.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:33, Reply)

I heard it was because that they were hot, sweaty and cramped with too many people inside them
and this reminded you too much of your vagina.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:34, Reply)

yeah, there are too many cocks in tents
oh.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:38, Reply)

You looked very happy. And your hair seems to have returned to a normal colour.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:41, Reply)

it was a lovely sunny day
ha, it had neon pink gel in it for the hen-do pics. perhaps this was not immediately apparent.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:42, Reply)

That's a shame. New York is a great place to go to.
I really, really like American Pale Ales.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:36, Reply)

Sounds reasonable
These people want a weatherspoons not an itlian deli, they want bus shelters they can piss in not scultures of local heros, they want to be able to loot Sports Direct not Fortnum and Mason.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 13:30, Reply)