Sorry Nick they all left some time ago and settled in and around Doncaster.
london to export it's poor?
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Sorry Nick they all left some time ago and settled in and around Doncaster.
Scott_F
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,165
I was referring to educational attainment not merely attendance.
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
Valid point, but even with the attainment in place, there's still a chance that people will fall by the wayside. Even the best educated person can fall on hard times due to circumstances, and some are better able to cope than others.
I frequently see calls for public money to be spent educating people about what would appear to be the obvious - the dangers of smoking, drinking excessively, obesity, the addictive nature of heroin, crack or speed etc, etc.
Maybe we should spend money educating people about education. Just so they understand the point of it.
Maybe we should spend money educating people about education. Just so they understand the point of it.
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
But in order that they took any notice, we'd also have to start educating them about educating them about education. Where would it all end...
D
Deleted member 65149
Guest
I'm not for one moment suggesting that London should keep the "haves" and throw out the "have-nots". Of course there are numerous instances of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves suffering financial hardships. These people need supporting; help to get back on their feet. Those who I don't have time for are the ones who sit back and expect the rest of us to look after them. Pandering to their every whim cannot help in any way. Moving them to a cheaper location may be the kick up the backside that they need to get them going. If it doesn't work then at least it will have saved the country a bit of money!
Education is the key. Neil hit the nail on the head when he said that we need to concentrate on educating the need for education. I'm sure that the majority of benefit scroungers have parents with the same outlook on life. "Why bother" is their motto. If we can get them to realise that an education (not necessarily good qualifications) will greatly enhance their chances of being able to have some control over their lives, then that has to be a step forward.
I do a lot of volunteer work as a governor at a local primary school and it disheartens me to observe how many parents have no interest in their children's education. They're more concerned about getting a cheap holiday during term time than they are about little Johnny missing out on a few lessons. Too many can't even be bothered to spend less than an hour a year at a parent/teacher meeting. Parents need educating every bit as much as children.
Mocas is right to say that we don't want ghettos, because people are all too easily influenced by their peers. And if the only peers they have are no more inclined to learn and/or work then it results in a downward spiral for everyone. Integration has to be the right solution, but it also has to be handled very carefully. Mixed housing on new developments is normally done in blocks that can have a tendency to become mini-ghettos within an environment that the tenants find even more constrictive. They fell even more alienated and thus less receptive to encouragement and opportunities for improvement.
Education is the key. Neil hit the nail on the head when he said that we need to concentrate on educating the need for education. I'm sure that the majority of benefit scroungers have parents with the same outlook on life. "Why bother" is their motto. If we can get them to realise that an education (not necessarily good qualifications) will greatly enhance their chances of being able to have some control over their lives, then that has to be a step forward.
I do a lot of volunteer work as a governor at a local primary school and it disheartens me to observe how many parents have no interest in their children's education. They're more concerned about getting a cheap holiday during term time than they are about little Johnny missing out on a few lessons. Too many can't even be bothered to spend less than an hour a year at a parent/teacher meeting. Parents need educating every bit as much as children.
Mocas is right to say that we don't want ghettos, because people are all too easily influenced by their peers. And if the only peers they have are no more inclined to learn and/or work then it results in a downward spiral for everyone. Integration has to be the right solution, but it also has to be handled very carefully. Mixed housing on new developments is normally done in blocks that can have a tendency to become mini-ghettos within an environment that the tenants find even more constrictive. They fell even more alienated and thus less receptive to encouragement and opportunities for improvement.
Scott_F
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,165
For someone who doesn't advocate the establishment of ghettos, you are suggesting a perfect recipe for creating them.
D
Deleted member 65149
Guest
Sorry, I'll rewrite part of my last post: " ....... Moving them to lots of locations that aren't in the expensive areas of London may be the kick up the backside that they need to get them going! ....."
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
I don't really think moving them around is the answer, though - it just relocates the problem, while not addressing the need to change attitudes/behaviour.
It's probably they only short-term solution available due the much-needed benefits cap, but as mentioned previously, it is possible (and, dare I say, desirable) to provide social housing within each commnunity.
That, of course, requires longer term investment - and political will. For a start, though, it might help if councils stuck to their guns on affordable housing quotas, rather than allowing developers to buy their way out of them.
Scott_F
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,165
Despite the fact that you have already dismissed whole swathes of benefit claimants as lazy people who demand that we pander "to their every whim", I presume that you would have no objection to a few of them being moved in next to you as part of this re-location process of yours ?
D
Deleted member 65149
Guest
They're already here.
st4
Banned
I have to say reading this I am not convinced about the argument that the Ilympics are good for the area and are a detriment for the city other than the status of a few vain political bods. The Olympics haven't achieved new affordable houses but will acheive hassle for those in the city of London.
Sporting events are a waste of time. Athens nearly bankrupted themselves for the Olympic games and for what good?
Sporting events are a waste of time. Athens nearly bankrupted themselves for the Olympic games and for what good?
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
The Olympic Village will become affordable housing.
Scott_F
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,165
Affordable for who ??
Certainly not affordable for East London's poor who work for low wages and who's taxes helped pay for the Village.
st4
Banned
MOCA said:
It won't. It will become luxury/executive flats.
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
Have you seen them? They will be sold to local workers (or buy-to-let wallahs).
st4
Banned
Can you give us a link to find out this information?
I found this
House of Commons - Public Accounts Committee: Written evidence from the Olympic Park Legacy Company
I'll quote this
Neighbourhoods and homes
In October 2011, the Company submitted the Legacy Communities Scheme (LCS) planning application. This detailed application will guide the creation of five new neighbourhoods in distinct phases over the next 20 years. At the heart of the scheme is the creation of family housing, community facilities and quality open spaces.
The Park will offer up to 8,000 new homes with a further 2,800 created in the Olympic Village. Around 40% of the homes are family homes with the majority of the neighbourhoods drawing inspiration from London’s heritage of terraced and mews housing. Up to 35% will be affordable housing in line with the London Plan.
Community amenities include two primary schools, a secondary school, community spaces and health centres.
Around 12,000 people have helped shape the 5,000 page LCS application through consultation and working with stakeholders including the host boroughs and community groups. Their feedback is reflected in the plans through the focus on family housing, accessible amenities and attractive open spaces.
Planning approval for the outline masterplan is anticipated before the 2012 Games start.
The five neighbourhoods have already been named by the public following a competition the Company ran earlier this year. These neighbourhoods will be called: Chobham Manor, East Wick, Sweetwater, Marshgate Wharf and Pudding Mill.
Presumably the other 65% will not be affordable homes and will therefore be expensive housing for a privilidged few? At 65% affulent housing, this fundamentally changes the area, and the type of person that lives there? Where will this 65% who cannot afford to live in the sites they used to go?
Last edited:
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
***, I was referring to the apartment blocks that have already been built for use by athletes during the games.
What you've found is the legacy plan, ie: homes that will be built in the area over the next 20 years. It's standard practice to include a percentage of so-called affordable housing within any new development in London.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the rest of the housing isn't affordable - otherwise it would never be sold. It simply means that the affordable element is aimed at key workers on low wages, and may be offered with special support such as part-rent/part-buy deals or low-rate mortgages.
Remember it's all relative, too. The market value of houses and flats in Stratford will always be in a different league to that of properties in the west London enclaves, regeneration notwithstanding.
What you've found is the legacy plan, ie: homes that will be built in the area over the next 20 years. It's standard practice to include a percentage of so-called affordable housing within any new development in London.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the rest of the housing isn't affordable - otherwise it would never be sold. It simply means that the affordable element is aimed at key workers on low wages, and may be offered with special support such as part-rent/part-buy deals or low-rate mortgages.
Remember it's all relative, too. The market value of houses and flats in Stratford will always be in a different league to that of properties in the west London enclaves, regeneration notwithstanding.
st4
Banned
Fair play Mocas, but seeing this plan and the intended use for the "Park" which is part and parcel of this Olympics, you can see how the area will have a significant majority of expensive housing in a way I reckon it simply did not have before.
Perhaps the borough councils will pay rents for people in these new flats as they will cite spurious reasons for wanting to be there. Prviate buyers will get in there, as this will be next big thing, like Knotting Hill was a dump in the 60's and now look it, chic and very expensive.
Perhaps the borough councils will pay rents for people in these new flats as they will cite spurious reasons for wanting to be there. Prviate buyers will get in there, as this will be next big thing, like Knotting Hill was a dump in the 60's and now look it, chic and very expensive.
MOCAŠ
MB Enthusiast
You're not a local, are you.
I don't doubt that prices in Stratford and the surrounding are will creep up in response to the regeneration; if nothing else, the improved transport links will see to that. People started speculatively buying up property in the area some years ago with an eye to making a fast(ish) buck.
But given its location, it will take a long time for it to acquire any kind of cachet, and in truth it probably never will do.
Notting Hill is a different matter - being close to Holland Park and Kensington meant it was ripe to become an overflow area (in the way that Fulham was for people that were priced out of Chelsea). Yet even Notting Hill has its fair share of social housing, and the area sits cheek-by-jowl with the badlands of North Kensington.
