post election blues

[miga]

Rapid change in demographic resulting from desire for profit, perhaps, but to call it social cleansing there should be evidence of sinister intent. Desire for profit is a cornerstone value of our society, the sort of social engineering that results is a side effect, so I don't think this is splitting hairs.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you look at what's happening, for example, at the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem

> that hyperbolic.

You can find occasional examples of anything, but that doesn't go to prove a wider policy. There is no policy to socially cleanse London - it's just a side-effect of other policies. Which leads onto (and kind of agrees) your other comment...

> ... but my main issue is the failure to see the bigger picture. You can't talk about reducing dependency

> on state intervention and at the same time pursue policies which increase house prices, depress wages

> and see public services delivered through more complex, less accountable and more expensive mechanisms.

I agree with you on the first part, but not necessarily the second. Privatisation, done properly and in the right areas, can be a more efficient way to deliver services. Done badly and it is as much of a drain on public finances as a nationalised services done badly. If you are completely for or completely against privatisation, then you are just an ideologue.

I am a big fan of government services and a big opponent to government handing out money, generally because it doesn't work. Take housing benefit. All it does it throw fuel onto a very big bonfire and pretty much fails to achieve what it is supposed to. Far better to build more social housing and successfully accommodate a fewer number of people, than to throw a lot of money at a lot people and fail to achieve anything.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

If you are

> completely for or completely against

> privatisation, then you are just an ideologue.

>

> I am a big fan of government services and a big

> opponent to government handing out money,

> generally because it doesn't work. Take housing

> benefit. All it does it throw fuel onto a very

> big bonfire and pretty much fails to achieve what

> it is supposed to. Far better to build more

> social housing and successfully accommodate a

> fewer number of people, than to throw a lot of

> money at a lot people and fail to achieve

> anything.

I agree with the above completely. I am not against privatisation in all cases. I do think that the Conservatives have an extremely ideological approach to 'shrinking the state', which often is not pragmatic and does not add up to value for money.

Why re-privatise the East Coast mainline which was making a profit and bringing money into the exchequer for example? Why force councils to sell off social housing at massive discounts, only to have to rehouse people in privately owned stock, at hugely increased cost?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you look at what's happening, for example, at

> the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem

> > that hyperbolic.

>

> You can find occasional examples of anything, but

> that doesn't go to prove a wider policy. There is

> no policy to socially cleanse London - it's just a

> side-effect of other policies. Which leads onto

> (and kind of agrees) your other comment...

The Heygate is actually a fairly good example of what's happening in many parts of inner London. I don't agree that there is a government policy to socially cleanse London, but the consequences of decisions made in Westminster are played out at a local level and this is what you get.

[david_carnell]

And while no fan of this govt I reluctantly point out that there hasn't been a Tory council for Elephant & Castle in time immemorial.

Speak to Peter John, Lab leader of Southwark council about the disgrace that is the Heygate. It's one of the reasons I want so little to do with the local party.

[miga]

Didn't some council employees at the time who sold Heygate for a song wind up with cushy jobs with the developer they sold the land to? Heygate seems more like a case of corruption and greed at the local level than a sinister central government policy.

[Earl Aelfheah]

councils have legal obligations to house people in good quality accommodation (quite rightly). they are not allowed to borrow money to build new homes. They are forced them to sell the properties thy do have, to tennents, at huge discount. At the same time, they are having their budgets cut. Whilst this is going on, the government pursues policies which seek to bolster (if not inflate) house prices in the private sector. You then have incompetent local politicians looking to huge multinational developers for answers. The taxpayer is never going to come out of this well and neither are those desperately I need of an affordable home. These consequences are the result of policy. It doesn't mean that someone in Westminster has written a bill which explicitly calls for the poor to be displaced.

[miga]

http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/

This has an ectensive list of former council employees and councillors working on the Heygate regeneration who have been either employed by Lend Lease or gained financially in some other way. I haven't verified these personally.

[Otta]

I think the most disgusting thing about E&C is the money they paid to home owners that had bought their flats on the estates.

[Otta]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't some council employees at the time who sold

> Heygate for a song wind up with cushy jobs with

> the developer they sold the land to?

Yep

[miga]

Such filthy business.

[uncleglen]

Then there are the flats that have been refurbished on Dog Kennel Hill...and sold off.

I suppose some people cannot or will not see the link between over-population and lack of homes. Friends of the Earth did a study some years ago and stated that this country should have a population of just 30 million. Unfortunately politicians view people as a X on the ballot paper and act accordingly.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why re-privatise the East Coast mainline which was making a profit and bringing money into the

> exchequer for example?

DOR made about ?200m per year. Virrgin are expected to pay ?3.3bn to the treasury over the upcoming eight years of the franchise.

But the main problem was that DOR ran ECML during the "easy" phase of running a railway. There were some big costs coming up, which DOR by itself could not fund. DOR had been allowed to defer a major maintenance programme on it's rolling stock (which could be deferred no longer) and it could not afford to introduce the 65 new trains due in 2018 (replacing the current 39 and adding 50% more capacity).

So, DOR's profits would have plummeted (if not become loss-making) during the upcoming phase and it would have needed an injection of money for investment. Thus the government wanted to get ECML back into private hands to cover those investment costs plus still get money into the exchequer. Labour would have almost certainly done the same thing for the same reasons.

[Jeremy]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Friends of the Earth did a study some years ago

> and stated that this country should have a

> population of just 30 million.

Really? Any link to this? Sounds like a load of old rhubarb to me.