[Closed] Economic Growth?*

Stoner - Member

fred - hand on heart would you genuinely wish the olympics never happened to newham?

Yes in this form. its an almighty vanity project that is costing the whole country huge sums of money.

We could have given every resident of the area thousands and still funded grassroots sports the country over and saved money.

25+% cut in grassroots sports funding to pay for it. aparantl;y we get legacy facilities in exchange - thats gonna be very handy up here 🙄

fred - hand on heart would you genuinely wish the olympics never happened to newham? simple question.

Stoner, hand on heart; do you actually give a toss about the people of Newham? Serious question.

Answer that, and I'll answer your question.

So you keep saying. But at what cost to the taxpayers? You think the private developers will be giving them away for nowt?

Ill only say this once.

You're a graphic designer from east london. I wont tell you what colours to pick if you you dont presume to know more about my business that involves the costing, pricing and provision of social housing as part of the site.

When youve quite finished insulting my work with your armchair commentary perhaps you'd accept that someone who's actually directly involved in the delivery of social housing knows how many units, how they're funded, how they will be built, by whom, where and when probably has a better grasp of what is actually going to happen than you.

So stoner - how many actual social housing units will be built and how much taxpayer subsidy? How much has the developer put towards the social housing? How many family homes amongst the social housing?

Governments in 2008/

Iceland? Independence party (centre-right) and Social Democrat Alliance in coalition
Greece? New Democracy (centre-right)
Spain? Spanish Socialist Workers' Party
Ireland*? Fianna Fáil, left of centre.
USA? Bush, rep.

so evens then

That is totally misleading Stoner. Firstly in Iceland the Social Democrat Alliance entered in coalition with the Independence Party (which isn't "centre-right", it's right-wing) in May 2007 after decades of conservative rule, I don't know how you think they might have changed the economy in less than a year. And secondly, Fianna Fáil is as conservative as the Tory Party in the UK is. With the exception of Spain, all those examples you give had conservative governments in the lead up to the global recession.

Stoner, hand on heart; do you actually give a toss about the people of Newham?

Yes.

All of my work involves massive employment. I love the idea that projects Im working on bring prosperity to an area. I can even live with gopping architecture of some of them if I think there's going to be a revival of economic activity in a shithole.

Occasionally I get asked to do stuff in places that politically Im not happy with so turn it down, but otherwise, most of the time my work is directly linked to delivering jobs.

deficit up and unemployment up under the tories

Thats not true is it TJ - Unemployment has fallen!

2.51 million in March 2010 - 2.46 million in May 2011

TandemJeremy - Member

So stoner - how many actual social housing units will be built and how much taxpayer subsidy? How much has the developer put towards the social housing? How many family homes amongst the social housing?

Ha ha! So now you're in charge of allocating social housing in east London? Wow, you truly are a man of many talents...

So, 675 homes allocated for Social Housing. Do you know the numbers of homes demolished to make way for the Olympic site?

I live in the East End Stoner. You don't. In fact I remember you saying you never venture further east than Liverpool Street. You sit in an office in front of a screen and bits of paper with figures on them. I live in the place affected by what's going on. Which makes you an office chair commentator. And I probably have a better grasp of housing conditions etc here than you do.

I'm not just a graphic designer mate; I've worked in Youth Services, Sexual Health and Drug Outreach, and Adult Education. And I've lived here all my life, seen all the changes and transformations. So don't go insulting my knowledge of the reality of what happens here, eh?

When you coming then?

675 or 1000? Both figures quoted

Yes.

All of my work involves massive employment. I love the idea that projects Im working on bring prosperity to an area.

Ooh you little Socialist, you! 😀

Pfft. I'm sure the people of Newham will be so thrilled that you're helping to provide them with jobs in a shiny new shopping centre. I'm sure that'll be a great consolation to those recently unemployed with years of service in the public sector helping to deliver badly needed services to many vulnerable and needy people....

Forgive my cynicism. I don't see you as part of any genuine solution for true social progression, sorry.

I don't see you as part of any genuine solution for true social progression, sorry.

Occasionally I get asked to do stuff in places that politically Im not happy with so turn it down

EDIT: hold your horses TJ, you impatient little mite. Your post deserves a proper answer, and that takes time.

TJ, dont mean to be rude, but your question indicates a lack of understanding of how social housing is provided in England.

There's a handful of mechanisms for funding social housing. The gap between the market value and the affordable rate is covered by the local authority in a few different ways.

Shelter covers most of it here:
http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/housing_issues/Improving_social_housing/what_is_social_housing

The "subsidy" is the rent support that fills the commerciallity gap (which exists for social landlord not-for-profit organisations as much as anyone else)

Of the 2,800 homes that will be created from converting the athletes village in 2013, 1,379 will be held by a social housing provider, triathlon homes. They are working with the local authority to put together a number of different ways of making these properties available for discounted rents or prices. It might be as standard social rental, some are going to be based on shared equity and others somewhere in between. There's some info on their site.

There is no "developer" as the development is being made by the Olympic Delivery Authority. The involvement of the private sector is only to take over legacy parts once the games have finished with them. Triathlon is effectively one of them.

Not sure of the break down of family units right now, but the general principal is that for social units its higher numbers family units than 1 or 2 bed flats. Private apartments are more focussed on those 1 and 2 bed units.

I don't see you as part of any genuine solution for true social progression, sorry.

like I thought one post from me would make you change your very cynical, stubborn, and self-absorbed POV?

If it's any consolation, I dont submit most of these posts for your benefit (afterall, why try and turn the sea?), but for those lurkers following the thread who might have otherwise gone away with the impression that just because the subject is a little rarefied, then it automatically means that the worst of things will happen.

675 or 1000? Both figures quoted

675 social rental.

1,379 classed as affordable homes.

See http://www.triathlonhomes.com/new_homes/ownership_and_rental_options.html

That's still just a load of waffle as far as I'm concerned Stoner. I'll believe it when (if) it happens.

As for my cynicism; seen it all before with all the Docklands 'regeneration' over the last 25+ years. In that time, poverty has increased in the area, and the economic disparity has increased. Local education, especially for adults, has been steadily eroded to the extent there is hardly any Adult Education provision in Tower Hamlets. Illiteracy is on the increase, as well as such archaic diseases such as Tuberculosis. A massive decline in Council housing has seen a massive increase in the burden to local finances as billions more are paid out in benefits payments, because private rents have increased exponentially. Promises of increased opportunities for 'local' people have been largely empty; the vast majority of people who work in Canary Wharf live outside the borough.

So, forgive me if I don't trust what I see to be the same old crap spouted once more.

so all the cost is beingborne by the taxpayer none by the profitmaking builders?

usually here anyone wanting to build new housing has to provide some social housing at cost or subsidised.

My understanding is that these "social houses" are actually mainly very small flats - not suitable for families and will be very expensive to the taxpayer compared to usual ways of building.

That's still just a load of waffle as far as I'm concerned Stoner. I'll believe it when (if) it happens.

So damned without evidence? That's the weakest comeback you've ever managed to muster.

Fianna Fáil, left of centre.

My hairy arse they're left of centre. But anyway...

Maybe I'm just feeling a bit frustrated about the impact of cuts on community sports, recreation and physical activity... What 'legacy' was it we were talking about?

Pretty much spot on, TJ, if any simliar projects round here any anything to go by....

I dont submit most of these posts for your benefit

I'm sure you wouldn't want to lower yourself, for sure.

I am however offering to give you a guided tour for your benefit. Your reticence to take me up on such an offer speaks volumes.

Anyways up; enough already. Such debate is interesting, but we're getting close to a point of conflict and mutual disrespect. As do so many discussions between ourselves.Such a waste of energy.

Might be a good time to admit to the reality we aren't going to get along, Stoner. Shame, but that seems to be how it is. I think it's best to be honest, however. Saves an awful lot of hassle.

My understanding is that these "social houses" are actually mainly very small flats

Good, good. Im sure your "understanding" is bang up to date TJ.

225 one-bed homes, 710 two-bed homes, 284 three-bed homes, and 160 four-bed homes,

If you're going to use your own pre-conceptions in evidence, at least try and site some hypothetical source. Like you Mum or something.

so all the cost is beingborne by the taxpayer none by the profitmaking builders?

The olympics is a national governmental project, not a private sector one. Who do you think should bear the risk? Your pension or your state?

As it happens there's lots of risk being passed on to the private sector, but building the original olympic site isnt going to be one of them for blindingly obvious reasons.

at least try and site some hypothetical source. Like you Mum or something.

TBh it's threads like this which breed so much contempt and resentment on here. And life's too short to waste it on such negative energies.

Im feeling quite positive really. I think the olympics, the developments that come out of them and the enthusiasm for them is great.

Your posts show you as the little angry man that you are.

Night night.

As it happens there's lots of risk being passed on to the private sector

really? - that would be a first. where is the private sector taking any risk?

The olympics is a national governmental project, not a private sector one. Who do you think should bear the risk? Your pension or your state?

And life's too short to waste it on such negative energies.

You mean life's too short to waste it all enjoying yourself.....get stuck in mate.

Stoner - Member

Im feeling quite positive really. I think the olympics, the developments that come out of them and the enthusiasm for them is great.

so long term damage done to the funding of sport at grassrrots UK wide is positive? 25% cut infunding to pay for this.

enthusiasm? None evident here. its worse than an irrelevance here - its seen as a tax on Scotland for the benefit of London - again. More Scots money being poured into London

it stinks

Your posts show you as the little angry man that you are.

At least I can admit to my anger, rather than let it bubble up inside me and fester away, rotting my soul...

Stoner; I'd rather be upfront and honest with you. I don't like your online persona; I find you hypocritical, rude, supercilious, condescending, selfish and ignorant of certain issues. I'm sure you love me equally.

But in the spirit of trying to have at least the modicum of respect for you, I'd rather be honest and speak my mind than act in an insincere manner.

I've offered you the opportunity to come and see the reality for yourself, in the hope that you could go away with a somewhat more enlightened viewpoint. You've declined through your lack of response to this invitation. Ah well. One can but try.

I really dont get that post Fred - you cannot insult someone like that then claim anything you do towards them comes from respect. It is also better to not have hate than have a to deal with it by venting it i
Stoner seems to be perfectly reasonable in his views in general , even if i disagree with him and his analysis. He is not some loon whose views have no basis in reality who deserves a good flaming for his stupidity/ridiculousness [ the left have those as well]. You may not agree with his perception, as is your right, but I am less sure as to what he has done to deserve such scorn. I dont really see how comments like yours help encourage folk to join in debates tbh and I dont really understand why you are surprised he has declined your "hospitality".

Oh whell. 😐

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/economic-growth/page/3#post-2800208 ]

as in "me" and 30,000+ other people. [b]*[/b].

I'm assuming the '*' wasn't a compliment....

More [s]Scots[/s] money from elsewhere in the UK being poured into London

FIFY

You've actually made some decent arguments on here for a change TJ, don't go and ruin it now....

oh look another thread thats turned into just a couple of people arguing and starting to get personal... and OH WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!! the two most predictable people are right in there!

i would have walked away from the thread ages ago stoner and just gone out for a ride instead of responding to people trying to poke and prod you into a fight so they can then claim you've been nasty and refuse to post anymore knowing they dont have the information and first hand knowledge of the job you do.

junkyard +1 btw.

glad I went to bed after newsnight

was funny to see will self and paxo teaming up against tessa jowell to be fair she didn't stand a chance, stoner would have argued her case instead !

Stoner; I'd rather be upfront and honest with you. I don't like your online persona; I find you hypocritical, rude, supercilious, condescending, selfish and ignorant of certain issues. I'm sure you love me equally.

But all Stoner did was out argue you with facts? Your argument seemed based on the fact that you live in East London and you don't believe the facts as quoted by the people doing the development?

oh look another thread thats turned into just a couple of people arguing and starting to get personal... and OH WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!! the two most predictable people are right in there!

Fred and Stoner?

JY and TJ?

Whom? Whom?!?

jamie, we live in the fine country of ENGERLAHND! its "who, who?!" .... 'whom', lol that's not even a real word!

well in this case its elfin who's getting personal with insults aimed directly at stoner, not nice to read and in my opinion a definite case of negative use of the forum. i think stoner's done very well to keep to the facts and take the time to present information in a way that is readable to anyone entering the thread, as i said... i would've given up and gone for a ride instead of bothering replying to elfins posts, it would be a good time for stoner to roll out the hamlet towers defence and say "well now you've got personal so i'm not replying on this thread anymore".

I don't like your online persona; I find you hypocritical, rude, supercilious, condescending, selfish and ignorant of certain issues.

Priceless.

Still going eh?

Rant, rant ,rant, rant.......

This is my first post on this thread, mainly because I don't know anything about economics so I havent actually got anything relavent to say. Let that be a lesson to you all..

i would have walked away from the thread ages ago stoner

I was pleased of the opportunity to explain some bits of what I do. I love my work and proud of the positive impact of most of it. Im not ashamed of my work and dont need to justify any of it. Like most economic threads in here, ignorance is usually at the root of any insults directed at bankers, interest rates, financial derivatives, property development etc. When people dont understand things they fear and attack them. When the opportunity is there I usually like to give a little detail of what actually happens in real life. Although I do it less and less in here these days as there's those who wont be moved from their points of ignorance and its hard to be heard above the shouting.

Thanks for the nice posts that I missed after going beddy-bys.

Toys - don't let that stop you. 🙂

Public sector borrowing has increased over the year. This month more money was borrowed that the same month last year - this is the cost of the austerity package. Its what every person with any sense knew would happen. Cuts at this point of the economic cycle mean increased government spending as tax receipts fall and unemployment rises.

These cuts are nothing to do with cutting the deficit - they are about politically motivated desire to reduce the public sector.

Do you never get bored of it all, TJ?

If not, do you think you could for a while?

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/qatars-incredible-stadium-plans-for-2022-world-cup-2149447.html?action=Gallery ]On a related-ish note, this looks quite tidy (or completely mental)...[/url]

And I doubt there's even a nod in the direction of legacy issues, grassroots funding or social housing. FWIW, I think that the London Olympics does have a good shot at getting a lot of things right. It seems that a lot of the issues and mistakes from other comparable projects have been taken on board. And I hope it works out. Although the regional money for a London event is hard to swallow.

Stoner - the problem is you only see one very small part.

How many houses were demolished to provide this new housing? How many businesses?

Even by your own figures the number of affordable rented family houses is pitiful.

teh costs are enormous and far greater that building houses by the usual methods and the houses provided do not match the need.

And Elf is right - you are patronising and sneering

When people dont understand things they fear and attack them.

ignorance is usually at the root of any insults directed at bankers

If you're going to use your own pre-conceptions in evidence, at least try and site some hypothetical source. Like you Mum or something.