@milesbemberg @postsocialismus @AydinDikerdem Being retired is the largest part, are people not allowed to retire? BTW I have a Job and I don't hide behind anonymity.
English
Stephen
214 posts
Stephen
@Stephen_F_H
University of Nottingham MSci | Process Chemist | Scientist | 🏳️🌈 Green Party Member My Blog https://t.co/U4kasKjN3x
Katılım Mart 2022
374 Takip Edilen41 Takipçiler
One week back on here and I see the YIMBYs have really accelerated their position. They want to cleanse London of ‘unproductive’ people. I’m guessing the essential jobs that keep our city going like policy wonk and telegraph columnist remain crucial though
Sebastian Milbank@SebMilbank
In some London boroughs, 2 in 5 properties are socially rented. Vast swathes of prime, inner london land is occupied by decaying, poorly managed council housing, inhabited by an economically inactive population. My latest for the @Telegraph telegraph.co.uk/money/property…
English
@KShabby16334956 Not to forget retired people which is 30% ! They worked all their lives - the headline figures mask the actual reality.
English
Imagine thinking being a carer or being disabled means you dont WANT to work
So what he's really saying is, he wants to socially cleanse London.
Zachary Evans@zacevans90
@KShabby16334956 @AydinDikerdem Googled moments ago. What a waste of public resources.
English
@FuturistPartyGB @AydinDikerdem So your solution is to cannabilise existing housing stock? And 30% of social tenents are retired so what are you actually going to do? Make them all homeless?
English
If you get up at 5 or 6 am, you will see the actual essential workers crowded into trains, buses, from outer boroughs or even further out in Kent or Essex or wherever.
Talk to a taxi driver, cleaner, hospital or construction worker, delivery driver, market trader, shop worker. Ask them where they live - it is never central London.
English
@johnpmerrick Their take annoyed me so much I'm writing a full rebuke - would you be interested in seeing a draft?
English
Incredible to see the way these lads have hitched onto social housing as the great evil of modern Britain. And an utterly dystopian picture of cities that comes from it
Sam Bowman@s8mb
Exactly right, and if you allowed these people to sell the rights to these properties, most of them would. It’s a gigantic misallocation of resources, and fixing it is the fastest way to create a lot more housing in central London for economically productive people.
English
@sallonsax I saw Sebastians article yesterday, it is awful. I am writing a rebuke too it.
English
Stephen retweetledi
The very basics, the things we rely on to build the foundations of a good life, have been taken out of our hands, sold for profit - and then sold or rented back to us at crushing rates.
The Green Party is there to inspire people with hope. And now, it's hope and a plan.
English
@nasscrave Literally well, why do we even bother to have a parliment if we have to do what mr bond market wants all the time.
English
Stephen retweetledi
Piers Morgan's communist turn is something to behold – a thorn in the side of landlords, he now thinks that tenants living in house-shares should own the value of the property!
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 And i dont have to, i don't see the problem with having some limits on what people can do with private property. A car is private property but you still need an mot doesn't mean you have to rent a car from the goverment.
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 Yes they're not the same, and yes whilst I don't think we're going to agree, you have to understand what exactly you believe private ownership to entail rather than treating it as a normatively and descriptively neutral thing
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 You still haven't justified why it cannot be privately owned other than you dont like it. On a practical basis what does it matter as long as they is enough housing and enough social housing. Your whole argument is you don't like private property.
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 And listed buildings are an extreme excursion on private property rights, justified on a heritage basis. Planning law is much the same. The reason I say this is, what do you take private ownership to mean here? What is the importance of it, and why is it justified and how?
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 Ok as i said we are not going to agree, and owning your own home with the limit of not being able to rent it out is not the same as being a social tenent.
English
@JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F_H If answer to the first question is no, then you already fundamentally change the scope of what it means to privately own something.
Also, social housing tenants do own their homes, but communally as a society. To afford them to treat their properties as their "homes" outside
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 Well if its a listed building you may own it but doesn't give you the right to do what you want with it, so a new listing which prevents former social homes to be privately rented is really not a big change to property rights.
English
@JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F_H Does private ownership here therefore entail the ownership to do as your property as one wants to? Why does that not include becoming a landlord?
These rules also exist *within* private ownership, hence planning law, building control, environmental health etc.
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F I don't think we are going to agree, we are not going to see eye to eye.
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F Ok then, so what is the distinction here between private ownership and for it to remain socially owned? You still either diminish private ownership to something wholly not considered private ownership. Why does that enter this transaction, other than people "desire" it?
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F I literally said social homes should be listed so you cannot do that, secondly if the is enough housing renting it out wouldn't be profitable anyway
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F How does giving private ownership do that? That is quite literally the current system. Once people privately own their home, should they, for example, be able to instantly rent out of their property?
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F Thats the whole point, you make it so they is no reason a government would do this because people are happy with how things are, so to stop unstainable give away you build it into the system.
English
@JENBROOK8 @Stephen_F_H @Stephen_F And there's no guarantee a government doesn't reintroduce discounts for right to buy, or that it enables private homes to be used as delipated HMOs for privateering. If you move away from the primacy of private ownership though you present a massive difficulty in reverting back
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 @pulpy_fiction Ok you go patronise some social tenents why they should never own, you still never answered my question???
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 @pulpy_fiction "People want it" is not a serious policy reason, and again, query *why* people want it.
x.com/i/status/20545…
Tino@BVBTino
@JENBROOK8 @pulpy_fiction @Stephen_F_H People obviously aspire to be homeowners in a society that has for pretty much it's entire existence reaffirmed that goal and made private property and ownership the fundamental tenet of its society. That doesn't mean we should continue reaffirming it
English
@BVBTino @JENBROOK8 @pulpy_fiction It should be an option because thats what people want, and will eventually vote for so its better to build it into the system and make it sustainable.
Now can you explain why it mustn't happen?
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 @pulpy_fiction Can you not avoid the question? You're the one who needs to justify why private ownership even needs to have a role in social housing.
English
English
@Stephen_F_H @JENBROOK8 @pulpy_fiction Ok but then *why* should private ownership be an option? Why the emphasis on *ownership*? If it is so social tenants can treat their "house" as a "home" then, again, you don't need private ownership for that. You also avoid the negative externalities that come with it
English