LondonMix

DJ- that response is so cynical. How can anything I stated suggest that I want London to become a ghetto for those above a certain income level? I said I strongly believe London should have social housing (18% of all housing in fact). I simply have suggested that there is no justification for London having more than its proportional share of the total national social housing requirement given the impact it has on private housing. Lot's of things affect the cost of private housing but supply of housing is certainly one of the most crucial factors. You are twisting these simple facts beyond all recognition simply because you have no rational argument against this that is based on facts rather than emotion. I understand your point regarding the government taking a portion of Southwark's rents. Part of what the government collects is used to subsidise councils whose rents do not cover their costs and like you've said the rest is diverted for other uses (though not housing benefit anymore). There are a host of reasons why many involved with funding decisions don't believe the model you mention can work for future social housing development. However, none of this has anything to do with the question at hand which is how much social housing belongs in London. If you want to move the discussion along to a new subject just say so and I will be happy to debate this with you.

You have a point. I certainly agree all banned rather than all allowed makes more sense. Cabs are essential as London does not have a 24 hour tube system. Private companies can shut down potentially. Still, perhpas, regulating the entire sector to ensure universal standards is better than giving black cabs perks.

Yes, maybe everyone is over reacting to the debt levels. Greece was clearly insolvent but despite the challenges facing Italy and Spain, if they like Britain had control over their currency, the situation would be very different. I share your concern that a situation like Japan is rather probable but it the current environment, continuing to borrow without making efforts to reduce the deficit would be suicidal

DJ I'm not sure if you are avoiding answering the question or if I just don't get your point. London has 12% of the population-ok. The more relevant statistic would seem to be that 18% of the nation's households are in social housing. Therefore, London's fair share would be to have 18% of its own housing stock for social housing. According to the report at the link below, London has close to 25% of its housing stock devoted to social housing. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/london/events/HEIF/HEIF2_06-08/TheRoleofSocialHousinginTheLondonEconomy/socialHousingsCurrentRoleinLondon.pdf While some might argue that housing costs in London mean that more social housing is needed here for low income and key workers, this is not borne out by the facts. According to the statistics, only about a third of those in social housing in London work including those working part-time. Social housing is not primarily for working people. As Loz says, private rents and house prices are a question of supply and demand. The more new social housing that is built on sites that could otherwise have been used for private housing, the more upward pressure will be put on private rents and house prices. Social housing (particularly for key workers) should be provided for all that need it but at a justifiable amount for each city given the impact it has on the private sector housing costs. DJ can you please justify your claim there is enough housing for everyone on the waiting list? According to Empty Homes, there are 74,000 empty homes in all of London http://emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/. There are 880,000 people / 350,000 households on the waiting list for council housing in London http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/national-housing-federation/article/nhf-social-housing-waiting-lists-rise-in-22-london-boroughs-. Again, the question isn't if we need more social housing but if we need more in London and so far no one has said anything to suggest why London should have more than its fair share of social housing. Social Housing is indeed provided by the tax payer though this is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. The history of how social housing was developed and funded historically is more complex than you state DJ. More importantly, the construction of new social housing would need to be funded by tax payers as the rents collected for social housing is not sufficient to keep up with servicing council housing's existing debt, repair needs and administration costs according to this consultation report. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1290620.pdf. Overall, the system does not have the means to fund additional social housing. It will be need to be developed by the private sector or by the tax payer. Either way, it needs to be built, but decisions on how and where need to rational given limited resources. I'm all for funds raised from the sale of council homes being earmarked for developing new council homes, but that just leaves the total unchanged rather than developing new housing.

Minicabs in the bus lane would defeat the point of a bus lane (which is to speed up public transport). It definitely can't be for all. Black cabs are highly regulated and have much higher standards than mini cabs and are part of the official transport system. All the additional rules and regulations must come with some benefits otherwise what would be the point of having black cabs at all-- the entire system could just be unregulated minicabs.

Undisputed Truth, you're right but not for the reasons you think. Spain's debt as a percentage of GDP is much LOWER than the UK's... In 2010, the UK budget deficit was HIGHER than Spain's and in 2011 it was about equal. If the UK didn't have control over its currency and wasn't taking measures to reduce the deficit it would be much more affected by the sovereign debt crisis. People are largely ignorant of how dire the UK's financial situation really is...

DJ, you are totally missing the point. The question is where new social housing should be built, not if it should be built. Saying 'Shifting them out to other cities isn't the answer as they won't find social housing there either' isn't an agrument since the housing isn't in London either and it can be built outside of London. We can add a criteria that historical links to the local area moves you up the waiting list. However, truthfully, lots of people in the private sector can't afford to live where they grew up. Its not an argument that trumps all other considerations and if people want access to housing provided by the tax payer,they need to be flexible about where it is located. We can all agree that everyone who qualifies for social housing should be housed. However, people don't have the right to demand to live anywhere they want. London, can't house everyone who wants to live here. There needs to be a limit that is determined in some objective way beyond simple demand for a nice area especially given the distorting impact it has on other elements of the housing market.

DJ- I agree. Of the 2mln of affordable housing needed though, how much of it should be in London? Do you think we need more here? I think you'd have a waiting list in London until all 2m of the national figure was available in the city. The real problem I guess is that we need to develop other cities so everyone doesn't think the only way to make it in life is to move to London.

Also, you contradict yourself: any reduction in the numbers of (controlled) social housing will not necessarily help the situation and may in fact increase rents, house prices, so that only the truly affluent can afford to stay in London and other big cities. Increasing the supply of private housing cannot ever result in an increase in prices by itself. If you are assuming that the social housing is simply destroyed rather than converted to private use, then okay but no one has suggested that. In fact, the question is only if more social housing is needed....

Nope, not worried, I already own a house here in ED. You are right, market forces would naturally create economic ghettos. I think economic ghettos are bad both for the rich and for the poor for a host of reasons . Bad for the poor as it hampers social mobility in a number of ways. I think its bad for the affluent as it can make them completely ignorant of the less fortunate which makes it easier to stereotype, resent, demonise etc. I worry about those in the middle who are being priced out of London in the same way I worry about the working poor disappearing from London. Still, people are always mindlessly clammering for more social housing without necessarily considering that 1. the demand for social housing is unlimitted and the fact that waiting-lists exist is not necessarily a good enough reason to build more social housing and 2. the unintended consequences of social housing (which is to further stratify the city economically). Just trying to see if anyone has a view on how much social housing is actually necessary without referencing that there is demand for it. Are there any other objective criteria to help us decide?

I was researching something on the EDF and came upon some old threads bemoaning the need for more council housing in London and I was wondering if this is really true. Demand for housing in London (private and council) outstrips supply. Don't get me wrong, I think the social engineering that the UK gov't does to ensure that London doesn't become a city for the 7m most affluent people in London is definitely the right thing (and leads to a better socio-economic mix than in the city centre of Paris and New York where I have also lived). My only concern is that the more of the existing housing stock that is used for social housing for the working poor and unemployed, the more expensive private sector housing gets (for example if there were only 100 homes in London and half of them were for social housing, the remaining 50 houses would go to the 50 richest people in London via market competition meaning the city would become increasingly comprised of the economic extremes). Given this dynamic, what does the forum think is the right amount of social/ council housing for London (as a % of total housing) taking into account that the greater the percentage is the fewer middle income people can afford to live here? Nationwide, I think social housing accounts for 18% of the UKs total housing stock with another 2% of people in private homes recieving housing benefit. I think London has a much higher share than that though but I can't find the stats. Should we be trying to make sure London mirrors the country in general so it doesn't become a rich bubble rather than accomodating the potential never ending demand for those who cannot afford to live in the city trying to stay here (people migrate from elsewhere in England and move into social housing in London all the time). I mean if I were unemployed or working minimum wage, I'd rather live in London than Kent for a lot of reasons so I think the demand is potenatially never ending... Clearly we need key workers but how many low wage jobs does London actually have as percentage of total employment and how much of the countries unemployed and disabled should London accomodate (its fair share proportionally rather?) given there is not unlimitted housing? Whatever this % is, I think the overall percentage should remain constant even as new properties are developed to keep up with London's growing population.