DJKillaQueen

Well I think you'll find the SNT describe what they are handing out as a crime prevention kits too James. Would you like me to send you the minutes of the ward panel meeting where these kits were announced? SelectaDNA is not the ONLY thing that helps prevent crime nor is it the only content that merits the title of a crime prevention kit.

Just a shame that the Lib Dem Council failed on so many others things isn't it James.....like housing repairs, contracts, call centre. I think it's a disgrace that you use a thread about a burglary to play party politics. SelectaDNA kits can easily be purchased by anyone. The best way to stop burglars is to make your home burglar proof...and that means the strongest locks, alarms and maybe even CCTV.

UV Marker pens and advice on better security of the home along with information about the SNT.

Maybe this is what finally breaks them? Electoral Boundary Changes

Ridiculous property prices though are not the result of under-occupation by home owners. The only thing that will bring property prices down is a shortage of buyers. In the past two decades, whenever that looked likely, mortgage lenders and banks simply changed the goalposts on lending to keep things bouyant. Return to some level of regulation (whatever that may be) would help return the housing sector back to normal market forces. Keen to look at the arguments presented by the links you suggest though.

Try contacting your local SNT team at [email protected] and see if they have any kits.

That's nonsense James. The Nunhead and Peckham Rye SNT have been delivering crime prevention kits over the past months to residents of their patch.

Lot's of stats of numbers and types of fines issued in the final pages of; Parking enforcement 2009-2010 Page 68 onwards gives insight to the cost versues revenue of parking management. Budget Book 2010/11

Pink's point was surely that it is a bad thing to segragate people into ghetto's determined by wealth. It happens anyway of course, but even Bevin in his post war report into proposed council house building cited that communities lacking in social and demographic diversity were a bad thing. And to be fair we've seen plenty of evidence of that since. I think Daganham is alright though :)

Well that's he said in response to Peter Tatchalls accusation that not a high enough percentage of social housing would be part of the development. There are in fact to be no council owned homes within the development. There will though be 2000 HA homes instead (replacing if I remember correctly 1100 former council homes on the site).

Well pinkhalf I can quote former council leader Nick Stanton on this to support your point. He said in regards to the redevelopment of Elephant and Castle, on 'The Politics Show' that 'an area so close to the centre of london should not be so poor'. So that tells you a lot about the housing policy and idology of the previous council of Southwark.

H...Rent control has not been bad for the dutch, Scandinavians and germans though. And nor has it been bad for all the French people I know personally, living in France either. And in my previous post I made some recommendations of what could be done to ensure the scenarios you referred to don't happen. Some of those things are already part of housing law anyway, because even under the current system, some landlords have to be forced to meet the minimum regulations. Why are you so opposed to single people having a one bedroom place? What is this this prejudice all about? People of all ages can find themselves on their own. Or are you only opposed to those in receipt of some kind of benefit having a one bedroomed place. Have you any idea just how small most council one bedroomed flats are for example? You might have a forty something contract worker for example. Soemtimes they are employed, sometimes they are not. Should they be forced to live in a single room with just a bed and wardrobe (because what else can you get in one room?). It's such an absurd suggestion to prejudice against single people in this way and especially for those that spend their entire life single (and there are many people like that). What you tend to find with council accomodation is that the highest turnover is in one bedroomed flats anyway. I don't know if the same is true in the private rented sector. But certainly in council housing the pressure points are not single bed flats. It's the dire shortage of 3 and 4 bedroom properties that are a problem. And hence the proposal to extend the exisiting legislation to force those underoccupying those kinds of properties to downsize. I don't think many people have an issue with that. When you talk of new builds you don't say whether you mean private contruction or council and HAs. I personally think we should have both. One will build to the basic standard and dimensions, the other will build to maximise profit, so you'll get two types of roperty anyway. And the previous government did at least have some incentives to partner commercial construction with HAs but they didn't build enough. It seems that building more homes is the only option you favour (along with an end to tax breaks) but that won't happen quickly enough to readjust the market. The required amount of capital investment isn't forthcoming from banks or government at the moment anyway. My view is that we need, along with new builds, other measures to slow growth in the rental market and that has to be direct regulation, whether of banking products and mortgages or rents or both.

That's a good question...tbh I think it's a bit catch22. Successive governments should not have let us get to this situation but we are where we are and I don't think there will be any pain free solution (and at the moment the most pain is going to be felt by the LTU who will lose 10% of their HB). Having said that, the voters invested in it all could only take up the opportunity on offer....so that has to come back to the products banks and mortgage lenders offered and ultimately the governments that deregulated to allow them to do so. I guess I'm swaying towards the government then :)

There's no confusion. Other countries successfully manage their housing markets far better than we do. You don't need spiralling growth to have decent housing, and something definitley has to be done in the UK - whatever that something might be. Yes security of tenure is something different to rent capping but where tenants are allowed to rent for 10 years they tend to take better care of the property they rent. On the continent long tenancies are the norm and tenants will invest their own money on minor things like redecorations leaving the bigger maintenance to the landlord. It works very well. You can also have rent capping and enforce legislation for what deems a habitable dwelling. The examples you give refer to decades ago. Have you any up to date data? I think your references are out of date. In the UK the Housing Act was ammended in 1985, 1987 and 1989 to give both landlords and tenants updated legislation regarding property, contracts and condition. It is a criminal offence to rent a property without safe and working electrics and utilities. The deterioration and poor servicing that you allude to can easily be guarded against. If a landlord can't maintain the property then they could be forced to sell, again by legislation. It can be done to ensure that as much property as possible stays on the market. Again local authorities do already have some powers over derelict property in the UK. As for building new homes....capital programmes through councils and HAs are the answer (so yes replacing the social housing lost over the past three decades). Those programmes rely on loans repaid over time unlike private sector delevopments aimed at making quick sale profit. That doesn't mean that the private sector doesn't have a role to play in the provision of new homes.....just that the absurd profitability of doing so has to be curbed.....for the greater good I'm afraid. At the end of the day it's about getting the balance right. I doubt though if any government would have the balls to touch any of the private sector with legislation - too many votes to be lost doing so - so I fully expect things to get far worse. Today some financial institution predicted a 16% rise in house prices by 2015 but I'll predict that the bulk of new purchases will be from existing buy to let landlords expanding their portfolios with yet more buy to let properties......the madness continues.

And in Europe, security of tenure is something that both social and private tenants benefit from. Yet here we have some in governemnt determined to abolish any kind of security of tenure whilst doing nothing meaningful about slowing the market. Another major mistake was the Thatcher governments policy of not allowing councils to use the money from the sale of council homes to build new homes. That's another reason why we are short of affortable accomodation. Without this restriction, the right to buy might well have been accepted as an altruistic aim of creating upward social mobility amongst poorer demographic groups, but in reality is was also a ploy to transfer as many council homes into the private sector as possible - with buyers benefitting from massive discounts off market value. Imagine being a home owner and the government telling you that your tenant has a right to buy it from you, but you must accept only half the market value. And then on top of that you can't use that money to buy another home. Councils were screwed by the right to buy scheme....and the country has lost two million unreplaced affordable homes from the process.

In an effort to bring the thread back on topic for those who wnat to have a sensible discussion..... On the radio discussion it has just been reported that private sector rents are rising by as much as 20% this year - this in spite of measures regarding HB or the lack of new mortgages being approved. There is a lady caller at the moment who is talking about two properties she owns in Holland and there the government regulates by how much the rents can be increased year on year and also rules on minimum security of tenure for tenants. I know the same happens in France. I really think that kind of regulation is the only way that can effectively get private sector rents under control.

HA HA......You really have lost the plot now H.....and no I don't think you would ever hurl the level of abuse you do at anyone face to face. You are just a sad little internet bully I'm afraid and one that is deliberatley trying to provoke me now. Sorry to diappoint you though - I'm not going to rise to it.

I don't know what's wrong with him Brendan. he sees things that aren't really there and seems to take offense at the drop of a hat with any one that disagrees with him...and then blows into some kind of teenage temper tantrum. He did exactly the same with TTT3. I just read back over the entire thread to see if there was any provocation for Huguenots hissy fit. There isn't and it's a rudeness he brings out often without provocation to other posters. I don't know how he gets away with it tbh. Anyway, it's JUST a forum.....who cares lol?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it's not, DJKQ is a nasty piece of work. Cut it out ffs. How old are you?

Well it is ignorant to not read the OP of a thread tbh. But you go to far with the insults H and you just make yourself look arrogant and nasty. That's what people say about you behind your back, because they do talk about you behind your back and not in pleasant terms i'm afriad. You might weant to think about the impression you give of yourself. Calm down if you want a sensible discussion... and btw I never claimed to be hard done by, not once, because I don't feel that I am. I have skills and a level of education and intelligence that give me a lot of opportunity in my life. But I know many people that are not so lucky because...the world does not dole out talent and opportunity in equal measure just as it doesn't rewarded effort in equal measure also. Life should not be about money, or how many houses this person has or not. It's about what we do for each other, and how we build stable and happy communities. That's what I value. I couldn't really give a toss what some jumped up IT worker (because that's all you are) on the other side of the globe thinks about me or anything. And you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who knows me to support the tirade of adjectives you use to describe me. You still haven't quantified what your comment 'facilitates a lifestyle without the responsibility and pressure of a constructive social environemnt' really means...prefering to jump on my attempts to make sense of the obvious bs it is. Who knows...maybe even you don't really know what it means...did you get it from Wiki?

Ooh are you flouncing... no outburst from me..but I do see yet another H 'in his goldfish bowl' can't accept a strong counter argument moment! facilitates a lifestyle without the responsibility and pressure of a constructive social environemnt Ok well what exactly does that mean? What lifestyle are single council tenants living that makes their environment NOT contructive? Because that's an unfounded insult too. If you work and are on a low wage you are still seeing half your take home pay go on your rent...so please enlighten me as to why securty of tenure (because that's what I think you are alluding to) is somehow a bad thing and why target single council tenants? What about those kids that never work for the inheritance that keeps THEM in a security of tenure, or kids that inherit anything of value tbh. You know, accusing someone who has made a valid argument as childish is pathetic. You really can not engage with opposing views whiout resorting to playgorund insult can you? And try calling me or anyone retarded to their face H. Grow up. The annonymity of a PC does give you the right to be a 'sanctimonious dickhead'.

And just to add H that BBC London radio are talking about this this morning and you know what...not one single expert or caller as yet has even mentioned HB let alone layed the blame at it's door. plenty of talk about buy to let schmes though.

The market in NOT distorted by HB Huguenot. You really are talking nonsense. And you tarred an entire group of people as being socially inept and without responsibility (your words not mine) because they live in council accomodation. Snobbery beyond belief. The market is overpriced because of successive tampering by the banks to create products that immunised it from the normal market forces most other sectors are subjected to - like THREE recessions for example. Are you really so stupid as to think that self certified mortgages, zero deposit buy to let schemes and increased ratio to salary limits (because wages were not keeping up with market growth) have less to do with any of it????? There are countless studies that lay the blame firmly at those doors. I sugggest you read them, especially the one that Gordon Brown ignored in 2001 warning him that buy to let schemes were artificually inflating the market). These are the dots. And caps on HB are doing nothing to alter that...as the evidence is showing. I agree that maintaining previous levels of HB isn't the answer either but what will be the answer when local authorities (as they are doing) find themselves having to resort back to the far more expensive bed and breakfast accomodation because there are not enough private sector landlords willing to rent to benefits recipients? And don't even go down the route of turfing out existing tenants to make room.....as they too will likely need HB if they don't already receive any to make up the difference between a pubilc and private sector rent. If you actually read what I write (rather than what you want to see). I make the point that adjustments are needed across all areas from mortgage regulation to HB. You on the other hand seem fixed on HB and are are completely blinkered to the other contributing facters, perhaps because ideallogical you have an issue with people in council housing (I don't know?) as the ludicrous statement you made regarding them shows. At least take that silly comment back if nothing else. Council housing is cheaper to rent because it has been regulated over the years. The level of growth in rents has mirrored the growth in salaries amongst other things (the average rent increase being around 6% each year). This is precisely what should have been happening in the private sector, but it didn't because of the kind of deregulation that created as we both agree, an over inflated market. It is the continued practise by banks and mortgage lenders to design products, no matter how risky, to keep a steady stream of buyers that has what has push prices up. The cost of HB (which incidently has always been capped at a percentage of average local rents) has simply followed in it's wake.

Is the lounge really the right place for this thread? According to an article in the press this morning 60% of 20-45 year olds think they'll never be able to afford to buy a home. Also I read something recently that 40% of all new property purchases are being paid for in cash.

I should add that I don't think there should be single people in one bedroom council flats except in extreme circumstances Think about what you are saying there. That a 40 or 50 year old should be living in one room (even if they are working and receiving no benefits)? Let's punish the single and poor with no privacy or independence, especially those that are unfortunate enough to suddenly find themselves unemployed. And given the current state of the market, the rent on one room in the private sector is more than the rent on a council flat in many cases...so bit of a false economy if you think it will save taxpayers money in benefits. Most council one bedroom flats are too small for two people to live together in anyway, which is why couples, as soon as they have a child seek to be moved. For a single person to get a council flat in the first place, they already have to be in some kind of vulnerable situation. We don't live in a fair world, so expecting everyone to have equal resources and opportunity is nonsense. They don't and thank god that some of us witness on a daily basis the difficulties of these people and can speak for them...especially when those who have absolutely no idea are so quick to suggest they should be reduced to the most miserable life they can be from the 'I'm alright Jack' brigade. it facilitates a lifestyle without the responsibility and pressure of a constructive social environemnt vital to social development. This is total nonsense. I know many people living in one bedroom council flats doing very important jobs or doing very important voluntary work. You clearly don't know anything about people in social housing do you if you tar them as some sort of socially inept breed of human? Next time you come to London, let me introduce you to the people you claim to be without repsonsibility and inept. You'll wish you'd never said such a stupid thing. I totally agree as you know that taxpayers money paying the mortgages of private landlords is a scandal. But it going to take more than capping benefits to force rent levels to change in the private sector. There is already evidence that new capping levels are reducing the amount of properties available to those on benefits to rent (which wasn't the intention). So that leaves some form of direct regulation by the government on rent levels, but how do you do that without plunging landlords with mortgages into negative equity? It's a real mess with no easy answer.