1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Upstairs At The Department Store (restaurant)

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by ringo, Apr 4, 2018.

  1. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    It's not "spittle flecked invective" - grow up, for fuck's sake - but I make no apology at being angry with greedy developers and their partners who are raking in fat profits while destroying communities and creating a housing crisis in London.

    It's notable that you haven't a harsh word to say about them is this thread, but plenty of time for childish personal attacks on me. And that would appear to sum up your attitude, like the topic isn't important and it's all a bit of a laugh.
     
  2. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    This is my problem with posts here.

    Told not to criticize Squires as they are just hired hands. The system isn't there fault. And they are doing charitable works.

    Then the discussion possibly slips into can't blame property developers either.

    I have real problem with this line of argument.
     
    editor likes this.
  3. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    The same handful of people seem to think having a pop at me is the main priority here, rather than criticising the profiteering firms who are causing real misery to poorer communities and depriving Londoners of affordable homes.

    I fancy that rather speaks volumes about the kind of people they are. :(
     
    wurlycurly likes this.
  4. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Looks like some posters here agree that property developers who leave property empty , as at LJ, should have it confiscated by the government.

    If you are saying that it's not property developers fault, but they work within limits set by government, would you support this measure?

    Myself I can't see any property developers support this if a government brought it in as a law. They are likely to heavily lobby government to stop this being brought in.
     
  5. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    Martin Wolf does not believe in nationalisation.
    He believe it leads to inefficiency and poor service.
    I don't necessarily agree - French Railways SNCF always seemed pretty good to me - and cheaper than here lately.

    The nationalisation issue and the public housing issue seems to be similar to me. Under post-Thatcher economics (including Blair/Brown) it is taken as an article of faith that public sector debt has to be reduced - and private sector debt is irrelevant.

    Funnily enough I am old enough to remember that the LCC and Liverpool Council both had large bonds on the stock market originally issued in the 1920s to finance the building of municipal housing. Why can't we do this now?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
    Gramsci likes this.
  6. tripadvisah

    tripadvisah Banned Banned

    no. thats not the issue. You’re telling me what my priorities should be? And then saying that this says a lot about the kind of people we are?


    What people are having a pop at is all the overblown (and misdirected) dialog that these people are to blame for depriving lower income families out their homes in london.


    You are very selective in what you read and replay from peoples posts. And then follow up with veiled and sometimes not so veiled insults about ‘the people’ rather than the arguments.


    If we are to have a discusion, then my view as stated above and also what may or may not be the view of some others is that it is the government’s role to provide social housing for the people who need them. Because labour AND conservative governments have failed to do so they put in place vague policies around developers having to provide a proportion of affordable housing. Which clearly doesn’t work. And that is not the fault of squire etc, they are running their business, doing some of that and also taking on contracts that they need to do to survive. I very much doubt there are meetings in boardrooms where they are saying ‘who gives a fuck about poor Londoners’. It is not their role to ensure this stuff happens. If the current system is attempting to put some of the onus on developers then I think we all agree it isn’t working. and that has fuck all to do with a restaurant. the patrons of whom are very unlikely to be ‘super rich’ (another misdirection, suspect most just have ‘some disposable income’)

    I cannot easily influence current policy, but I would pay an extra penny a pound in income tax if the government ACTUALLY ringfenced it for social provision and made a real difference. but I don’t trust the fuckers. And I wouldn’t trust labour eiher.

    And saying, as was said above, if they’re not part of the solution theyre part of the problem does not hold that well. Just because a phrase is catchy doesn’t mean it is true. I believe it was a phrase coined to get people thinking about sustainability in the 90s. If you don’t work in or donate to a food bank, are you an intrinsic part of the problem that means people can’t afford to eat? No. not imo anyway, you may disagree. That’s ok.

    Saying ‘these people consort with greedy offshore developers who are only interested in lining their pockets are you ok with that?’ is not an argument it’s a linguistic fallacy, it’s utterly deceptive and it shuts down sensible and reasoned debate. It’s also inflammatory.

    here is an exceptionally good way of having reasoned debate which we might all learn something from.

    3F174AB4-1E9E-4795-A393-B0D736E43A7D.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2018
    alcopop likes this.
  7. alcopop

    alcopop Well-Known Member

    I don’t have a problem with Squires at all.
    Why would I?
     
  8. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    In boardrooms these things are said. Not in public. It slips out occasionally.

    Architect blasts 'free-riding' central London council tenants saying they should be moved

    I don't think extra money is needed. Millions were spent on the banks to prop them up with quantitative easing. John McDonnell has previously called for a People's Quantitative easing instead. Which can be used to build housing.

    I think I have made my position clear previously. To reiterate. I don't like living in a society that has turned the clock back to the days of when the Tate family were building libraries. Back to the days philanthropy.

    I also think that just blaming government for not building affordable housing isn't enough. Developers and big architectural firms have done quite nicely with how the housing and regeneration sector works. I really don't think they would be happy at the thought of a government interfering in the housing market. Like I said this wouldn't put architects like Squires out if business. It may mean they might have to live more modestly.

    Take affordable housing on large developments. These policies are in place. Developers argue tooth and nail against them. The Mayor Khan has only got 35% affordable in practice. That is if his new system works.

    What is needed is more economic interference in the "free market". It's imo naive to think that government could just build mass social housing without this really annoying the private sector. It's direct competition. It's also breaking the neo liberal consensus. It's why Thatcher was right , in terms of her own class, to start to get rid of social housing. This has led to the situation today where property developers call the shots. It would not have turned out like this if social housing hadn't been attacked and marginalised over the years. In late 70s 40% of population lived in social housing. What I'm saying is that in housing one cannot draw strict distinction between private and public housing.
     
    editor likes this.

Share This Page