Interesting article on Labour reselection and the HDV

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by kotkas on November 9, 2017 at 16:27

Ad hominem. Moving on.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 9, 2017 at 22:44

He wasn't attacking you so it's not ad hominem. I don't think you know what that means. He was attacking the adjective you used to describe most tenant's predicament.

Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on November 9, 2017 at 23:12

Haha. I've only just seen this.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 9, 2017 at 22:41

The contracts are very clear that the council will "do their best" to accommodate tenants who desire to return. I really don't think this is good enough, it seems like a behavioural contract. Genuflect enough towards us and you'll get a nice new home, if we have one available.

Let's say they were going to turn 1000 homes into 3000 homes and that 5% of those 1000 homes were owned by leaseholders due to right-to-buy. The leaseholders will be CPO'd but presumably not able to afford to buy in the new development so they're gone. Why can we not have, at the very least, 950 homes for renting from the council under the same terms as at the moment? The developers will get 2050 homes to flog at market rates which makes them huge profits.

As the vehicle is owned 50/50 by the council, why are we not getting 1500 council rented homes and 1500 private rented homes owned by investors in Asia (don't think they'll be offered up to the pension funds of Muswell Hill)?

And that's right, none of these homes that will be available for private renting will have a landlord that pays income tax in Britain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on November 10, 2017 at 15:34

No social housing (ie same terms as at present) in the HDV plan.  It's all 'affordable'.  We all know what that means by now.

Still waiting to hear what will happen to the existing tenants while their homes are demolished and rebuilt, where will they go?  Sofa surfing somewhere in Muswell Hill?

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 9, 2017 at 15:36

OK, I'm happy for you to disagree with 5. I think that 1 is partying and distasteful at the very least considering the impact on some people's lives.

5 will play out, the fact that the verbal promises are not reflected in writing anywhere, tells me so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 9, 2017 at 21:45

Dunno, perhaps only say stuff on the radio that's actually in writing?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page