'Sons and daughters' housing policy in Tower Hamladesh?

[Treacle Toes]

Fine. But why is it smashing to protect these East End families and preserve their communities but it was perfectly fine, 20 years ago, to destroy the previous East End families ?

It strikes me that many of you dont object to white working class people being forced out of an area ?

Have you ever lived in Tower Hamlets yourself?
White poeple were not the only ones to leave.
White people are not the only native families in Tower Hamlets and haven't been for a very long time. I am not white, 36 and was born and brought up in Tower Hamlets for example.

We moved. For no other reason than at the time it wasn't a great place to live and that had nothing to do with the immigrant population.
It was run down and didn't have a lot going for it, FACT!

Lots of people moved away for that reason and that reason alone. Some left because they could afford to. Others left because they were racist and didn't want to live next door to immigrants.

A lot of immigrant population was dumped there and left to rot.

 

[cesare]

I'm glad someone other than me does realise that then.

I've made a couple of very long posts (for me!) explaining that, and in the context of the history of the East End.

It changes, it's always changing, it always has changed. Get over it in other words (not you, btw).

 

[Treacle Toes]

I've made a couple of very long posts (for me!) explaining that, and in the context of the history of the East End.

Sorry if I missed that then.

It changes, it's always changing, it always has changed. Get over it in other words (not you, btw).

That is a very important point right there.

 

[Stoat Boy]

So why all the fuss about immigrant families taking priority then? Lots of us natives think like you have posted above, and we are not all white.

Well the 'fuss' is that every time the BNP win another council seat or similar then one of the reasons why they do so is because of diss-satisifaction over the change in social housing policy 20 or so years ago. It did lead to white communities being broken apart.

Now thats fine in itself and I can see why, without agreeing with, the reasons why it happend.

But to now reverse that legislation because non-white communities are under threat, for different reasons, plays right into the hands of the BNP.

Of course you can all sneer and look down your noses at those who do vote BNP but if you cannot see that housing policy decisions such as the ones under discussion do not play a part in why the BNP has done relatively well over the last couple of decades then you are part of the problem rather than being any part of the solution to stopping them.

 

[cesare]

Fine. But why is it smashing to protect these East End families and preserve their communities but it was perfectly fine, 20 years ago, to destroy the previous East End families ?

It wasn't fine 20 years ago. That's the whole point.

It was an appalling policy. Who has said any differently?

It strikes me that many of you dont object to white working class people being forced out of an area, as happened with this change of housing policy but when the same thing happens to non-white people, as is happening now, you are all suddenly in favour of giving them protection because economic circumstances have changed ?

Who has said this?

 

[Dravinian]

So why all the fuss about immigrant families taking priority then? Lots of us natives think like you have posted above, and we are not all white.

Wasn't really fuss, until I got jumped on. Just wondered if it was going to be...erm retroactive so to speak.

 

[Stoat Boy]

I've made a couple of very long posts (for me!) explaining that, and in the context of the history of the East End.

It changes, it's always changing, it always has changed. Get over it in other words (not you, btw).

Thats right.

And now its changing in that lots of rich people are moving in and driving up the price of everything.

From what I understand its people like you who having are difficulty in understanding this change.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Stoat boy, any comments with regard post 61?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Who has said this?

The Daily Mail.

 

[Treacle Toes]

From what I understand its people like you who having are difficulty in understanding this change.

Why do you say that?

 

[Stoat Boy]

Have you ever lived in Tower Hamlets yourself?
White poeple were not the only ones to leave.
White people are not the only native families in Tower Hamlets and haven't been for a very long time. I am not white, 36 and was born and brought up in Tower Hamlets for example.

We moved. For no other reason than at the time it wasn't a great place to live and that had nothing to do with the immigrant population.
It was run down and didn't have a lot going for it, FACT!

Lots of people moved away for that reason and that reason alone. Some left because they could afford to. Others left because they were racist and didn't want to live next door to immigrants.

A lot of immigrant population was dumped there and left to rot.

Well since you asked so nicely.

No, I am not from Tower Hamlets. Being a good South London boy I view the whole of the East end as a plague pit

But that still does not alter the fact that there was a deliberate change of housing policy which meant that the demographics of the area were deliberately changed and which led to a largely white flight out of the area.

My point is that this change in housing policy is one of the reasons why the BNP have gained the support they have. And that this sudden change of heart, which is meant to benefit the majority non-white population of the borough now living in social housing, will play right into the BNP's hands who campagin on the basis of a perception that the state promotes the needs of non-whites above those of whites.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Why do you say that?

As I understand it this new proposed policy is meant to keep communities together in Tower Hamlets. Its had to be bought in because the area concerned has become a lot more fashionable, and therefore expensive, which means that people currently living there are less likely to be able to afford to buy their own homes and they are expressing disquiet at this.

Which is fine but given the constant almost parot like claims about how the area is always changing I find it strange that they cannot accept that what is currently happening to the area is just part of lifes rich tapestry.

I

 

[cesare]

Thats right.

And now its changing in that lots of rich people are moving in and driving up the price of everything.

From what I understand its people like you who having are difficulty in understanding this change.

There's definitely an issue with the City/financial institutions moving eastwards - by way of examples; Canary Wharf and Spitalfields. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

That links to what I was saying about the ridiculous and over-exaggerated boundaries of 'boroughs' and 'constituencies' when the issue is a geographical one that encompasses Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham.

 

[cesare]

Did you read that study that I linked to, Stoat Boy?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Well since you asked so nicely.

No, I am not from Tower Hamlets. Being a good South London boy I view the whole of the East end as a plague pit

Many natives thought like that, so they left.

But that still does not alter the fact that there was a deliberate change of housing policy which meant that the demographics of the area were deliberately changed and which led to a largely white flight out of the area.

I accept the point about an unfair housing policy but really, I grew up in Tower Hamlets and most of us couldn't wait to leave, it was run down and nasty. The immigrants that were housed there because of such policies didn't exactly get a great deal.

My point is that this change in housing policy is one of the reasons why the BNP have gained the support they have. And that this sudden change of heart, which is meant to benefit the majority non-white population of the borough now living in social housing, will play right into the BNP's hands who campagin on the basis of a perception that the state promotes the needs of non-whites above those of whites.

Yeah but the point that those BNP supporters are missing is very important. Lots of that non-white population are now native, whether they like it or not.

 

[Stoat Boy]

There's definitely an issue with the City/financial institutions moving eastwards - by way of examples; Canary Wharf and Spitalfields. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

That links to what I was saying about the ridiculous and over-exaggerated boundaries of 'boroughs' and 'constituencies' when the issue is a geographical one that encompasses Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham.

But why is it an 'issue' ? If we have already set the precedent that communites have to adapt or die, which was the case 20 years ago, why is it suddenly different now ?

 

[Treacle Toes]

As I understand it this new proposed policy is meant to keep communities together in Tower Hamlets. Its had to be bought in because the area concerned has become a lot more fashionable, and therefore expensive, which means that people currently living there are less likely to be able to afford to buy their own homes and they are expressing disquiet at this.

Of course they are, they are being pushed/priced/bought out by developers and trendy folk with money.

Which is fine but given the constant almost parot like claims about how the area is always changing I find it strange that they cannot accept that what is currently happening to the area is just part of lifes rich tapestry.

I

For me the difference is because the area is not being taken over by folk who need it, it is being taken over by people who can afford to live there. There is a difference IMO.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Of course they are, they are being pushed/priced/bought out by developers and trendy folk with money.

But it was fine for white people to be pushed out 20 years ago by the 'needs' of immigrants ?

 

[cesare]

But why is it an 'issue' ? If we have already set the precedent that communites have to adapt or die, which was the case 20 years ago, why is it suddenly different now ?

Maybe I should have said 'factor' rather than 'issue'. The City's moving East and affecting prices, it has been for some time. The current economic downturn might slow that up for a while as it did in the earlyish 80s when developers were resorting to giving away porsches as incentives to people to buy property in the newly developed but empty Canary Wharf area.

It might slow down but it won't stop. All that happens is that the 'East End' moves further east as London expands.

 

[scifisam]

As the immigrant population of Tower Hamlets is now a long standing one, won't they be seen as 'East End families' too?

I'm not sure anyone's disputing that.

@Cesare: you really think the sons and daughters policy is 'appalling'? I bet you don't have kids, then.

If it enables kids to stay near their parents, if they choose to, then that means that any Grandchildren will have the support of their grandparents, and, when the grandparents get older, they'll have support too. Those really are quite important for individuals and the community as a whole.

If it does mean that kids from the East End get priority over asylum seekers with six kids, then it would be appalling. But, come on - you know that, in reality, this policy would just get you a few extra housing needs points.

 

[Treacle Toes]

But it was fine for white people to be pushed out 20 years ago by the 'needs' of immigrants ?

Two points.......Not only white people were pushed out and having grew up there I can tell and have done many times already on the thread, that lots of people left because they could, wanted to or because they didn't want to live next door to immigrants.

Second point... lots of the newcomers to the area now don't 'need' the area, they 'want' it, there is a difference.

 

[cesare]

@Cesare: you really think the sons and daughters policy is 'appalling'? I bet you don't have kids, then.

You have fundamentally and completely misunderstood what I have posted. The 'truly appalling' policy that I referred to was that of the Liberals/Libdems in the mid 80s through 90s that resulted in censure from the CRE - and even then wasn't acted upon for a further 5 years or so.

It's what happened then that was so divisive to white AND immigrant families.

I'd never, ever, support a policy that was applied IN THAT WAY again, ever. IN THAT WAY. The way that they applied it THEN. With the results of that policy THEN.

I DO support a policy that's applied in an even handed way NOW. If they do what they say and introduce a policy that will do that. My interest is about how they propose to do this so that it treats people even handedly and transparently and is not divisive for the sake of garnering votes.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Second point... lots of the newcomers to the area now don't 'need' the area, they 'want' it, there is a difference.

So ? How does that make any difference ?

We are constantly told that London is so successful because it is constantly changing, for all sorts of reasons. And people who moan about immigrants come to London are told that they just have to accept this change and stop moaning.

Fine. I dont have a problem with it. This immigration has benefited me in many many ways and long may it continue.

But all of a sudden it seems that many of those who had previously been so keen on this notion of London being in a constant ebb and flow want to take action to deliberately engineer how London is. To stop this change happening.

Why ? If it did not matter that communities where changed 20 years ago why is it suddenly so important to protect those communities that replaced them now ?

 

[Treacle Toes]

So ? How does that make any difference ?

We are constantly told that London is so successful because it is constantly changing, for all sorts of reasons. And people who moan about immigrants come to London are told that they just have to accept this change and stop moaning.

Fine. I dont have a problem with it. This immigration has benefited me in many many ways and long may it continue.

But all of a sudden it seems that many of those who had previously been so keen on this notion of London being in a constant ebb and flow want to take action to deliberately engineer how London is. To stop this change happening.

Why ? If it did not matter that communities where changed 20 years ago why is it suddenly so important to protect those communities that replaced them now ?

My concern is over the priority given to the 'rich' over the 'poor', ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'd absolutely hate London to become like Paris or Rome where the poor are relegated to the furthermost regions of the city and forgotten about.

 

[Stoat Boy]

My concern is over the priority given to the 'rich' over the 'poor', ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

But ethnicity did have something to do with the policy of 20 years ago. And there in lies the problem.

The perception will be that the rules then were changed to help non-whites and that the rules will be changed back again now to help non-whites. And I cannot see how anybody could not see that.

And why should wealth matter ? London is a trading city. Its why we all live here. And if wealth dictates that certain areas change then surely its for the common good ? If you accept that London is constantly going through change then why should wealth not be a factor ?

 

[scifisam]

You have fundamentally and completely misunderstood what I have posted. The 'truly appalling' policy that I referred to was that of the Liberals/Libdems in the mid 80s through 90s that resulted in censure from the CRE - and even then wasn't acted upon for a further 5 years or so.

It's what happened then that was so divisive to white AND immigrant families.

I'd never, ever, support a policy that was applied IN THAT WAY again, ever. IN THAT WAY. The way that they applied it THEN. With the results of that policy THEN.

I DO support a policy that's applied in an even handed way NOW. If they do what they say and introduce a policy that will do that. My interest is about how they propose to do this so that it treats people even handedly and transparently and is not divisive for the sake of garnering votes.

Fine. That wasn't clear to me before.

@Rutita - it's definitely true about some people moving from here because they don't want to be neighbours with immigrants. Some people who lived in my old town in Essex told me outright this was why they'd moved, and the reason I've got my flat in Tower Hamlets now is because the previous tenant didn't want to live next to immigrants (though most of my nearest neighbours happen to be white).

 

[Treacle Toes]

The perception will be that the rules then were changed to help non-whites and that the rules will be changed back again now to help non-whites. And I cannot see how anybody could not see that.

Only if parties like the BNP and their supporters willfully ignore the fact that is not true.

And why should wealth matter ? London is a trading city. Its why we all live here. And if wealth dictates that certain areas change then surely its for the common good ? If you accept that London is constantly going through change then why should wealth not be a factor ?

Maybe I don't worship wealth over the needs and feelings of people.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Fine. That wasn't clear to me before.

@Rutita - it's definitely true about some people moving from here because they don't want to be neighbours with immigrants. Some people who lived in my old town in Essex told me outright this was why they'd moved, and the reason I've got my flat in Tower Hamlets now is because the previous tenant didn't want to live next to immigrants (though most of my nearest neighbours happen to be white).

Are you quite sure Sam? Only some would have us believe that only brown skins remain.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

I'd support a sons and daughters policy in Hackney - I really worry that my daughter who is 15 now will not be able to afford to rent or buy in hackney should she choose to and she was born in hackney/schooled in tower hamlets even though I'm not 'native' (who is native to Britain anyway - how long does a person have to be here/their family here before they are 'original'?)

 

[Stoat Boy]

Maybe I don't worship wealth over the needs and feelings of people.

Perhaps not but at least mine is more honest because your position strikes me as not caring about the needs or feelings of people 20 years ago who were told that they could not have their kids living near them but all of a sudden caring very much now.

Say what you want about the 'Greed is good' school of thought, it does have more consistency to it than those of you who seem to value some peoples feelings above others.