Channel 4 tonight

Graham_Devon

We've got a good lineup tonight. If you are not a landlord that is!

8.30pm - Landlords from Hell
John Snow and undercover reporters find out what really happens to those desperate to find a home, now that the housing minister wants councils to work with private landlords.

9.00pm - The great British Property Scandal
Two million familes are on the UK housing list, but there are a million empty homes in Britain. George Clarke tries to find out why and to get some families in homes for Christmas.

The empty homes will be an interesting one. There are many that are just no habitable. However, on the flip side, there are many games being played by councils, financial and political, which mans perfectly serviceable homes stand empty.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

9.00pm - The great British Property Scandal
Two million familes are on the UK housing list, but there are a million empty homes in Britain. George Clarke tries to find out why and to get some families in homes for Christmas.

The empty homes will be an interesting one. There are many that are just no habitable. However, on the flip side, there are many games being played by councils, financial and political, which mans perfectly serviceable homes stand empty.

If it's just a makeover show where we see some family with a hard luck story crying at the end because they've got a house it'll be a waste of time watching - there's plenty of that stuff on already.

The clip I saw showed George walking down a brick strewn street wondering why the housing wasn't in use. It seemed obvious to me - the street was derelict, looked like it had been hit by the Luftwaffe, and was probably in an area where there were no jobs to support the rental or mortgage payments.

It'll be interesting to see how it's done. I bet it's not as controversial as the word 'scandal' in the title might suggest - George has never struck me as being particularly hard hitting.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The clip I saw showed George walking down a brick strewn street wondering why the housing wasn't in use. It seemed obvious to me - the street was derelict, looked like it had been hit by the Luftwaffe, and was probably in an area where there were no jobs to support the rental or mortgage payments.

I think the point will be more about how the street got that way in the first place. Streets don't get built like that.

It might be obvious now as to why it's empty. But what were the reasons for that in the first place. I bet it's political.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think the point will be more about how the street got that way in the first place. Streets don't get built like that.

It might be obvious now as to why it's empty. But what were the reasons for that in the first place. I bet it's political.

It's economics. If an area is in economic decline then it becomes less desirable - prices fall. Motivated workers move to areas where they can make a living. Left behind are unmotivated workers and benefits claimants - the area becomes less desirable and prices fall. As the area become even less desirable there's less investment in the area and shops and amenities close. The area becomes less desirable.

Eventually the bus routes are changed and even the squatters won't move in.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's economics. If an area is in economic decline then it becomes less desirable - prices fall. Motivated workers move to areas where they can make a living. Left behind are unmotivated workers and benefits claimants - the area becomes less desirable and prices fall. As the area become even less desirable there's less investment in the area and shops and amenities close. The area becomes less desirable.

Eventually the bus routes are changed and even the squatters won't move in.

We'll see.

I don't think it is.

If it was economics that forced people to not live in that street, but live in the street just 100 yards up the road, then I will stand completely corrected.

It'll be politics.

shortchanged_2

Well one of the biggest gripes with property is the lack of land to build on, yet there is all these properties lying derelict. Why can't these areas just be regenerated? Wouldn't that be a good use of funds?

Maybe not though because it would shaft the building companies, wouldn't it.

drc

It's a bit strange really. There are no jobs so these houses go unused but there are plenty of jobless who live in areas where there are jobs. Why not put the jobless (those that really don't want to work and haven't for years) in places where it is cheapest to house them and move those that do want to work into areas where there are jobs.

London for example has huge numbers of people/families where no-one works and has never worked, yet they live in the most expensive part of the UK/the world. It would be cheaper to move them to areas where there are no jobs if they don't want to work. Of course that would never happen as London has to remain artificially diverse.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We'll see.

I don't think it is.

If it was economics that forced people to not live in that street, but live in the street just 100 yards up the road, then I will stand completely corrected.

It'll be politics.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see and it depends what you mean by 'politics'. I suspect though we've just had a more 'hard hitting' exchange of views than you'll see tonight on the telly.

ruggedtoast

drc wrote: »

It's a bit strange really. There are no jobs so these houses go unused but there are plenty of jobless who live in areas where there are jobs. Why not put the jobless (those that really don't want to work and haven't for years) in places where it is cheapest to house them and move those that do want to work into areas where there are jobs.

London for example has huge numbers of people/families where no-one works and has never worked, yet they live in the most expensive part of the UK/the world. It would be cheaper to move them to areas where there are no jobs if they don't want to work. Of course that would never happen as London has to remain artificially diverse.

Exactly, and then people who do work have to travel miles to get to those places. Its all about preserving "communities" isnt it. Without any conversation as to whether they should be, or need to be.

wotsthat

drc wrote: »

It's a bit strange really. There are no jobs so these houses go unused but there are plenty of jobless who live in areas where there are jobs. Why not put the jobless (those that really don't want to work and haven't for years) in places where it is cheapest to house them and move those that do want to work into areas where there are jobs.

I think that's one of the reasons why they they end up like they are - it's social cleansing in reverse. Those wanting to work leave and those who don't or won't stay. Those staying will be more likely to have mental and physical health issues, they'll more likely to be the victims of crime or anti-social behaviour.

Flight2quality

When will we see Landlods going to hell, as mortgage costs soar and rents fall on C4?