Earl Aelfheah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism "Providing for affordable homes affects the market, but does not regulate it."

I don't get the difference. "The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society" for example, through section 106 orders, rules around the number of affordable properties within a development, impact on the local character of the area, considerations of parking, minimum building standard to ensure health and saftey. These are all part of the planning system - rules which are there to ensure that we see developments achieve the things that we as a society consider important.

As soon as people start banding around insults such as 'smug lefties' I stop taking them seriously.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the focus should be on trying to ensure that the planning system manages > the process effectively i.e. development in the > right place, good quality buildings, and > minimising disruption for residents - all pretty > basic things. > > Arguing about regulation of the property market is > a red herring. Eh? Isnt' the planning system managing the process also known as 'regulation'.?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...also, it assumes that there is capacity to > > increase the number of apples such that you may > > satiate demand and that that demand does not > > itself increase with the introduction of more > > apples. > > > > It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if > > they're all grabbed by someone who is already > > sitting on a sackful of the original ones. > > And if that was the case, I would thoroughly agree > with you. Because that is when regulation would > absolutely work and be a problem solver. But at > the moment that is not the main issue. There > primary issue at the moment is that there are just > not enough apples. With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is. Out of interest, do you support deregulation of the housing market?

I strongly believe in the power of markets and incentives. However, I am not a market fundamentalist and neither is any serious economist. The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society.

...also, it assumes that there is capacity to increase the number of apples such that you may satiate demand and that that demand does not itself increase with the introduction of more apples. It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if they're all grabbed by someone who is already sitting on a sackful of the original ones.

in your analogy, what one may choose to do, is to limit the amount of apples any one person may take... so as to prevent all the apples going to one person. Further more, you may decide to slice a number of the apples up so that everyone may at least have a small piece.

Agree with BrandNewGuy - Developers, given free reign will build 'luxury' flats over affordable homes, because it's where the profit is... not least because they can be marketed to overseas buyers. Where there are domestic restraints on supply, but huge latent demand from an international market, as with London housing, you either let the market set a high price, (which will leave UK citizens on an average income forever priced out of the Capital), or you regulate the market to ensure that London remains a diverse, characterful and vibrant city

Does anyone know what the latest are on these? There was a consultation some time ago, but I can't find anything on the Southwark Planning site and we've not heard anymore. Thanks

Mainly the forum.

Apparently I joined in 2007, although I seem to remember lurking for sometime before I actually felt compelled to comment (on a bit of obvious trolling which I really ought to have left alone - nothing changes).

Zac Goldsmith's an interesting one.

I apologise, I misread Mark88's post. Edited to add: I've removed my previous two posts as it was not my intention to upset anyone.

.

.

I hammer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If Russ Abbot stands for mayor then he would be > representing The Party with a happy atmosphere . :-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think that is your biased observation. You > seem > > to be saying that when Labour do a bad > > privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the > > Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the > > evidence for that statement? > > > > > You couldn't turn that around and accuse > Labour > > of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. > > > > I would say there is little, if no difference, > > between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory. > > > NHS, council housing, utilities have all been > > privatised, prepared for privatisation or > listed > > for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In > > fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such > a > > hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e. > post > > Thatcher/Major) there was little to no > > privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had > > changed markedly, especially though PPI. > > > > Can you list a few areas that Tories have >d? > > You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the > private sector for service delivery. Whether one > agrees with where and how they've chosen to do > this is another debate. The point is, they are > willing to accept private sector involvement or > not, depending on the case. My point was that The > Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state > should commission services, not run them (a point > you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a > position which basically says, the state should > not be involved in running services regardless of > circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely > ideological. So Loz, rather than trying to debate the merits of individual privatisations, whats your respnse to my main point?

You are right about Lloyds (my mistake), but I didn't mention Northern Rock/Bradford and bingley and as I said, it's not particularly relevant to my point. You can knock down straw men if you like, but the point that I was making is that the Tories take a dogmatically ideological position with regards privatisation, rather than a pragmatic one.

That depends what you mean by 'the left'. Basically, if you want it to mean someone who is on the extreme left, then of course, yes, by definition they will be dogmatic. But I'm talking about the mainstream parties who broadly stand on opposite sides of the political divide. If I use your logic then 'the right' are all fascists.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you list a few areas that Tories have > privatised that Labour has refused to or - even > better - reversed? They opposed sell off of Royal Mail and the con policy to force the sell off of housing assoc stock at under market rates. More recently, the sell off of publically owned shares in Lloyds and RBS (again, typically, at a loss to the taxpayer). I'm sure there are plenty of others, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that 'the left' were accused first of being dogmatically opposed to all privatisation, then of being no different in their position to privatisation than the right. I think they believe in a role for the private sector, (but also the state) in running public services. That seems to me a more rational and pragmatic premise.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that is your biased observation. You seem > to be saying that when Labour do a bad > privatisation it is a 'mistake', but when the > Tories do it it is 'dogmatism'? Where is the > evidence for that statement? > > > You couldn't turn that around and accuse Labour > of looking to Nationalise at any opportunity. > > I would say there is little, if no difference, > between Labour's view on privatisation and Tory. > NHS, council housing, utilities have all been > privatised, prepared for privatisation or listed > for privatisation by Labour and Tory alike. In > fact, it's worth noting, since the NHS is such a > hot topic, that when Blair took office (i.e. post > Thatcher/Major) there was little to no > privatisation in the NHS. Yet, by 2008 that had > changed markedly, especially though PPI. > > Can you list a few areas that Tories have > privatised that Labour has refused to or - even > better - reversed? You miss the point. Labour are willing to use the private sector for service delivery. Whether one agrees with where and how they've chosen to do this is another debate. The point is, they are willing to accept private sector involvement or not, depending on the case. My point was that The Conservatives fundamentally believe that the state should commission services, not run them (a point you already accepted). That is dogma. That is a position which basically says, the state should not be involved in running services regardless of circumstances. It is not pragmatic, it is purely ideological.

OK. I may have found the answer. Think this could be the first ever post? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,9,9#msg-9

That only take you back to 2007 and i'm pretty sure it's older than that (expect there has been some archiving). I'm wondering whether it's reached 10 yet (if not, must be soon).

Just out of interest, how old is the EDF - when's it's birthday and are there any current posters left who were here on day 1?