Channel 4 tonight

homelessskilledworker

Well at least channel 4 are at last making the effort into what has been a huge cover up in the UK, a housing policy that is failing so many people.
I know a lot of people whittle on about housepricecrash.com to a lot of people annoyance on here, but if posters from that site really want to do anything to improve their lives why do they drop that site and start getting pro active with the chap that introduced the second program.

I get the feeling that HPC are not over keen on programmes like this, they would much sooner have people sad and depressed and going to their site every day for the little comfort it provides.

What I would say to so many people who are suffering as a result of the housing crisis is get out there and fight, at least channel 4 are now giving you a voice.

shortchanged_2

ukcarper wrote: »

I wasn’t particularly impressed admittedly it’s a waste, but too much glossed over and figures didn’t seem right i.e. over £200k to build 4 bed house.

I would say that probably isn't far off when you include the price of the plot of land it's built on.

Obviously it's the price of land that drives house prices and how much someone is willing to pay for that piece of land.

It's probably based on averages so to build a 4 bed house in the south east will be far more than elsewhere because the plot of land is probably £150,000+.

cotleigh

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.

This would save money, but:

The problem with doing this - apart from the outcry about "ethnic cleansing" or "social cleansing" - is that you would effectively create a whole town or city where no-one has a job.

So, you would concentrate all the lazy people, the f**kwits who are too dumb to get or keep any job, the criminals, the alcoholic layabouts, the slaggy girls who just want babies at 16, in one place.

They would then all breed with each other, creating a horrific race of ratboys and benefit slags! Aaaarrgghhhh!

Running_Horse

There was a certain amount of PC "code" being spoken.

People round here don't want 2 bed houses, they want 4 or 5 bedrooms.

cotleigh

Running_Horse wrote: »

There was a certain amount of PC "code" being spoken.

People round here don't want 2 bed houses, they want 4 or 5 bedrooms.

Presumably you mean larger, mainly Asian, families?

The chap had the solution though: just knock pairs (or even threes) of the little houses together to make bigger places...... still wayyy cheaper than knocking them all down and building new ones!

drc

cotleigh wrote: »

This would save money, but:

The problem with doing this - apart from the outcry about "ethnic cleansing" or "social cleansing" - is that you would effectively create a whole town or city where no-one has a job.

So, you would concentrate all the lazy people, the f**kwits who are too dumb to get or keep any job, the criminals, the alcoholic layabouts, the slaggy girls who just want babies at 16, in one place.

They would then all breed with each other, creating a horrific race of ratboys and benefit slags! Aaaarrgghhhh!

So, what's wrong with that? It could be marketed as an "exclusive gated community", otherwise known as an open jail (sorry, I know that is not pc ).

John_Pierpoint

shortchanged wrote: »

I would say that probably isn't far off when you include the price of the plot of land it's built on.

Obviously it's the price of land that drives house prices and how much someone is willing to pay for that piece of land.

It's probably based on averages so to build a 4 bed house is the south east will be far more than elsewhere because the plot of land is probably £150,000+.

Facts of life:

It is the selling price of houses that dictate the price of land not vice versa.
In a northern town, where the price of a terrace house id £50 K the value of the garden and the road outside is virtually nil.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/home-values/cambois/dale-street/ne24-1sb/?q=Blyth%20NE24%201SB

In the South East (certainly within the M25) the cost of the 4 bed house is probably £150K the rest is the rental return of the land capitalised over (say) 25 years.

A land owner lives in a very dangerous situation tax wise but fortunately for land owners lots of MP's are in the same boat.

shortchanged_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Facts of life:

It is the selling price of houses that dictate the price of land not vice versa.
In a northern town, where the price of a terrace house id £50 K the value of the garden and the road outside is virtually nil.

Personally I would say that is the same thing i.e if a house doesn't really change (bar extensions etc) it can still go up and down in value so essentially it is the piece of land it is sitting on that fluctuates in value.

Invicta

My thought is.
There are homeless people for whatever reason.
There are empty properties ditto.
The Government does pay for people to live in properties.
There are unemployed some of whom I am sure would take the chance of working to help make porr quality housing "liveable" and move in.
We have larger families in a position where they receive benefit so smaller properties arn't suitable but ti's not too difficult to knock through etc.
The building industry is in a slump so skilled labour is available.
In my opinion if you have worked on the building that you live in you are more likely to atke ownership of it and the immediate area and it would improve your self esteem (so maybe you are more likely to get a job?).

As someone who lost their house, job, wife and remaining relative in a single month then had to spend over 18 motnhs on people's sofas until my head got back together I can also state that not everyone are gan't work won't work scroungers who aren't worth helping.

Incidentally it took me over 10 years to get back on my feet financially which helps me be sympathetic to the overall aims of the program,

Bernard

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I thought the RBS programme on BBC2 might be good. But no, it was a pile of lazy carp. Just interview a few "financial journalists" and say "slicing and dicing" a lot. Learnt absolutely nothing.

I must admit, I disagree with this summary to an extent. It probably didn't state anything which wasn't already known, but it put a timeline to events which gave context to the key business decisions which were made, and the main characters involved.

What was clear was that RBS were clearly involved to some degree in the sub prime market, first through the company they owned via Citizens and then through ABN Ambro.

The lack of comprehensive due diligence on the ABN Ambro purchase was borderline negligent. If this were the US the shareholders would have filed a case against the management board I reckon.