On the housing: Stratford London wrote:1,439 homes are owned by QDD, a consortium comprised of Qatari Diar and developer Delancey. These homes will be available from April 2013 and will be largely for rent. QDD also own six adjacent future development plots, with the potential to develop a further 2,000 homes. 1,379 homes are owned by Triathlon Homes, an innovative joint venture company which comprises of housing associations - East Thames Group and Southern Housing Group and developer, First Base. Triathlon Homes will manage the affordable homes at Athletes' Village which will include social rent, intermediate rent and part buy, part rent homes. Link

On the housing: Stratford London wrote:1,439 homes are owned by QDD, a consortium comprised of Qatari Diar and developer Delancey. These homes will be available from April 2013 and will be largely for rent. QDD also own six adjacent future development plots, with the potential to develop a further 2,000 homes. 1,379 homes are owned by Triathlon Homes, an innovative joint venture company which comprises of housing associations - East Thames Group and Southern Housing Group and developer, First Base. Triathlon Homes will manage the affordable homes at Athletes' Village which will include social rent, intermediate rent and part buy, part rent homes. Link

'Affordable' is a joke. A block of 72 one to three bed flats on our road, which was built where an old warehouse once stood, had to have half of the flats available as 'affordable'. When they went on sale about five years ago, the cheapest private one was on the market for £250,000. So, since the 'affordable' ones were half that price, an 'affordable' one bed flat would have been £125,000. So, on the basis of what was considered sensible, you need an income of £41,666 per annum to afford one. That, according to this, is less than a senior software engineer/developer/programmer earns and just about what a "project manager, information technology (IT)" pulls in. So the overwhelming majority are utterly screwed – even doing jobs that some on here would consider acceptable (and not the menial ones that people should aspire their way out of, because after all, those jobs don't really need doing).

'Affordable' is a joke. A block of 72 one to three bed flats on our road, which was built where an old warehouse once stood, had to have half of the flats available as 'affordable'. When they went on sale about five years ago, the cheapest private one was on the market for £250,000. So, since the 'affordable' ones were half that price, an 'affordable' one bed flat would have been £125,000. So, on the basis of what was considered sensible, you need an income of £41,666 per annum to afford one. That, according to this, is less than a senior software engineer/developer/programmer earns and just about what a "project manager, information technology (IT)" pulls in. So the overwhelming majority are utterly screwed – even doing jobs that some on here would consider acceptable (and not the menial ones that people should aspire their way out of, because after all, those jobs don't really need doing).

Housing benefit seems to artificially hold up rents. By reducing it rents ought to fall, but there will be a time lag during which unfortunate souls will be transported to other parts of the country. Indeed, one of the comments on the DM website was from a landlord (up North) saying that he showed his flat to a pair of young doctors who felt it was "a bit dear" for them. He let it to a couple on Housing Benefit. So, HB does seem to distort the market.

The only issue for London could be that the annual intake of young graduates and pent up demand will keep rents up in hitherto deprived boroughs making the whole city a no go area for low paid working class people. That in turn will mean a dearth of available staff for transport, cleaning, care homes, etc, etc, etc. That will result in big problems and costs (no doubt state funded) in remedying the siutation in a few years time when the middle classes and businessses start to moan.

A short-sighted policy. There must be a better solution.

Rents will never fall until huge numbers of houses are released onto the market. All that will happen is the accommodation previously occupied by HB benefit tenants will be taken up by non-HB benefit tenants. Government should grab unoccupied houses and flats, rent them at sensible levels and pass the remaining rent, after expenses, to the original owners. That, couple with an introduction of LVT should soon see enough housing stock released and rents come tumbling down. The downside to all of this is that property values will fall commensurately

Schapps was interviewed on 5 live today and took a call from an unemployed bloke who was on basic dole and had just been told he had to pay £15 towards his rent because the changes in benefit calculations (not just the cap, but the change from 50 to 30 percentile), meant he was having to move. He said to Schapps that he could not afford either the £15 or to move (deposits etc), but the cold ba$tard spouted off about if he couldn't afford where he was he would need to move as he was a drain on the taxpayers of Britain.

Another example of the 'new' caring Conservatives.

Mintball wrote:It's not just Newham. Well that kind of destroys Snapp's claim it was politically motivated by Newham council.

Mintball wrote:It's not just Newham. Well that kind of destroys Snapp's claim it was politically motivated by Newham council.

And why is that even remotely acceptable?



So based on one comment on the DM web site, HB puts rents up? It is the other way around. HB follows rents! Provide cheaper rentals and HB costs will fall.



The only issue?

Different methods, same results.

Biggest news on the smug tw*ts website: http://www.shapps.com/2012/04/local-mp- ... -pavement/ So what a useless c**t he must be 'he's been CAMPAIGNING to have the pavement repaired since 2009!' In the Big Society you'd have thought'd he'd have got his tools out and fixed it himself rather than wasting 3 years moaning and presumably expecting the taxpayers / socialist Co-op to pay for it. "Hypocritical bas***d" springs to mind. He is pleased a tree got cut down too - pity it wasn't the Tory (logo) tree!

Biggest news on the smug tw*ts website: http://www.shapps.com/2012/04/local-mp- ... -pavement/ So what a useless c**t he must be 'he's been CAMPAIGNING to have the pavement repaired since 2009!' In the Big Society you'd have thought'd he'd have got his tools out and fixed it himself rather than wasting 3 years moaning and presumably expecting the taxpayers / socialist Co-op to pay for it. "Hypocritical bas***d" springs to mind. He is pleased a tree got cut down too - pity it wasn't the Tory (logo) tree!

Now it's Ilford to Walsall If this sin't social engineering or even social cleansing, then I'm at a loss as to what is.

Now it's Ilford to Walsall If this sin't social engineering or even social cleansing, then I'm at a loss as to what is.