London has developed 'Apartheid' style properties

cells

JencParker wrote: »

Where do you get that figure and how do you define 'social homes'? The London Borough I live in owns NO social housing. There is a small amount of housing association homes but other than that 'those in need of social housing live in private rentals.

its available on the ONS website

JencParker

LOL - well I guess that narrows it down where I live!

missbiggles1

JencParker wrote: »

Where do you get that figure and how do you define 'social homes'? The London Borough I live in owns NO social housing. There is a small amount of housing association homes but other than that 'those in need of social housing live in private rentals.

That's a contradiction in terms.

However, the 2011 census did show that 24% of the homes in Greater London are, indeed, social housing.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/jun/24/london-housing-crisis-what-price-bold-policies

JencParker

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's a contradiction in terms.

However, the 2011 census did show that 24% of the homes in Greater London are, indeed, social housing.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/jun/24/london-housing-crisis-what-price-bold-policies

Only if you include Housing Association property as social housing rather than council owned. Here Housing associations are charities.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

Only if you include Housing Association property as social housing rather than council owned. Here Housing associations are charities.

you misunderstand the definitions: socialist double speak is designed for that purpose

racing_blue

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

It is wrong that I should spend all day at work and then an hour commuting on the train each way to pay council tax for these people in "affordable" housing to have their refuse collected, have street lights and anything else they want.

Because when you have street lights and your bins emptied, everything else in life is secondary.

cepheus

Generali wrote: »

Cheers ruggedtoast. There is nothing like communist workers' art to brighten up one's day.:)

Except working for rich shareholders. However, you can condition some people to do and believe almost anything as we saw last month.

cepheus

purch wrote: »

Aparteid had nothing to do with segregating Rich and Poor.

It's not something that should be trivialised to generate a nice thread title.

That's why I placed it in innverted commas, however I've just examined the definition of Apartheid and it may be a reasonable interpretation of what is happening, according to definitions 2 and 3.

apartheid
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
a·part·heid (ə-pärt′hīt′, -hāt′)
n.
1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid

From that communist rag the FT

Inequality is the new apartheid. Your life path is largely determined before birth. The ruling classes pass on their status by sending their children to exclusive schools, much like in apartheid Johannesburg.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/be6cf4d4-ca7e-11e3-8a31-00144feabdc0.html

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

That's why I placed it in innverted commas, however I've just examined the definition of Apartheid and it may be a reasonable interpretation of what is happening, according to definitions 2 and 3.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid

From that communist rag the FT



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/be6cf4d4-ca7e-11e3-8a31-00144feabdc0.html

no, your intention was to draw false parallels with heavily subsidised people living in one of the best locations is the world with a vile political regime.

if your intention was to draw parallels with heavily subsidised people living in one of the best locations in the world with e.g. school teachers, engineers and other productive people, then you would have used a different vocabulary

ruggedtoast

JencParker wrote: »

So what is your answer to building low cost homes?

They aren't low cost. They cost the same to build as all the other ones, just with massive compulsory subsidies to private builders to put them there.

Remove planning restrictions, put all this money that is being poured into the pockets of private landlords into actual council housing, and the market will find price equilibrium.