bye bye, Nimrud, bye bye

[Honoured Guest]

So, the consensus on this thread seems to be that personal comfort and security of shelter are more important than the preservation of historic buildings and artefacts.

[MrGongGong]

So, the consensus on this thread seems to be that personal comfort and security of shelter are more important than the preservation of historic buildings and artefacts.

[ahinton]

So, the consensus on this thread seems to be that personal comfort and security of shelter are more important than the preservation of historic buildings and artefacts.

Is it? Is there such a consensus? - or indeed any sort of consensus? Are the two by definition mutually exclusive? - and, if so, on what grounds and by whose definition?

And, for that matter, what did you mean by the thread title?

[Honoured Guest]

And, for that matter, what did you mean by the thread title?

I imagined the recent terrible destruction of Nimrud to the musical accompaniment of Brotherhood of Man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szavq0lrFtg

[Dave2002]

All absolutely true, not least that all suchy things are sadly relative. The greatest problem in UK (since you mention it) where housing is concerned is that its cost is impossibly disproportionte to earnings; average house price £270K, average salary £27K just won't add up, will it? By the time taxes have been taken from that £27K and what's left spent on day-to-day living, there'd be very little left to fund a mortgage or pay the rent. Even assuming an average mortgage amount to be 3 × gross salary for someone on that £27K who's also fortunate enough to have sufficient funds for a deposit, the loan amount would be £91K - i.e. just under one-third of the average house price. If 3 × gross salary figure's to be accepted as a reasonable risk for a mortgage, the average house price ought not to exceed £91K. As rents are largely determined on the basis of property values, it's a wonder that most people can afford to buy or rent their homes when their values bear no practical relationship even with their gross earnings, never mind their disposable incomes.

There are many different views. On a recent R4 programme - probably You and Yours - might have been Any Answers, there was a discussion about mortgages and rents, and one person phoned in and suggested that landlords were ofen very reasonable, and had responsibilities, as indeed he claimed to have. At the point when he mentioned that he was letting out at least 8 properties I almost blew a fuse. Many people can not afford even one property for themselves to live in, rather than many properties in order to make an income.

However, I do think there is a need for responsible landlords, such as the person who phoned in, but how are they to be handled? Should there be some form of shared equity arrangements, so that investment into good quality properties can be done, and run as businesses, rather than as private property bought up by richer individuals, so that they can profit? I don't know the answer. Business taxation is different from private taxation, and if responsible companies could provide good housing at reasonable rates then maybe that would be a sensible approach. As I mentioned earlier, why not let those whose core business is property management deal with these things professionally, rather than an ad-hoc approach with lots of private owners and private landlords?

However, I must addd that there are property management companies whose services and competencies are deplorable, and the word "professional" should not be used to refer to them, though they operate perfectly legally under crazy rules.

[ahinton]

There are many different views. On a recent R4 programme - probably You and Yours - might have been Any Answers, there was a discussion about mortgages and rents, and one person phoned in and suggested that landlords were ofen very reasonable, and had responsibilities, as indeed he claimed to have. At the point when he mentioned that he was letting out at least 8 properties I almost blew a fuse. Many people can not afford even one property for themselves to live in, rather than many properties in order to make an income.

But what's so wrong about that? Someone has to own property in the rental sector and, if no one did, what would happen to people like Richard Barrett whose choice is to rent rather than to purchase?!

However, I do think there is a need for responsible landlords, such as the person who phoned in, but how are they to be handled? Should there be some form of shared equity arrangements, so that investment into good quality properties can be done, and run as businesses, rather than as private property bought up by richer individuals, so that they can profit? I don't know the answer. Business taxation is different from private taxation, and if responsible companies could provide good housing at reasonable rates then maybe that would be a sensible approach. As I mentioned earlier, why not let those whose core business is property management deal with these things professionally, rather than an ad-hoc approach with lots of private owners and private landlords?

However, I must addd that there are property management companies whose services and competencies are deplorable, and the word "professional" should not be used to refer to them, though they operate perfectly legally under crazy rules.

...which rather counters the conclusion in you previous paragraph! I do agree that renting should be done responsibly as a business / profession, but how it's best to be done I cannot say for sure; in the meantime, responsible renting can be assured only to the extent that the law provides and is adhered to, which clearly is not enough on its own.

[P. G. Tipps]

The last three things give it away (maybe he IS the Scottish Conservative?)

What a queer statement.

You are quite obviously unaware of Labour and Liberal Democrat policy on home ownership. Both support the right of people to buy their own homes, if they so wish.

Once we get away from the idea that this is always the desirable outcome for everyone then we might start to address the problem.

I don't know anyone (even the most laissez-faire Tories) who have said that 100% home ownership is the desirable outcome for everyone, and certainly not me. Home ownership is certainly not for everyone but for many (most?) folk it is a desirable aspiration, which is precisely why they buy when they get the chance.

The actual point is that 'ordinary working people' should have the freedom to purchase their own homes and fulfil their dreams, and not be moralisingly lectured to by interfering third parties obsessed with long-redundant political dogma as to what is best for them, or even worse prevented from making that house purchase.

In short, Power To The People, Mr GongGong!

[ahinton]

I don't know anyone (even the most laissez-faire Tories) who have said that 100% home ownership is the desirable outcome for everyone, and certainly not me. Home ownership is certainly not for everyone but for many (most?) folk it is a desirable aspiration, which is precisely why they buy when they get the chance.

The actual point is that 'ordinary working people' should have the freedom to purchase their own homes and fulfil their dreams, and not be moralisingly lectured to by interfering third parties obsessed with long-redundant political dogma as to what is best for them, or even worse prevented from making that house purchase.

But that's not the point; as you've already noted, what have until now been the three main UK political parties "support the right of people to buy their own homes, if they so wish", but the factor that makes what for many people is an unbridgeable gap between home ownership as a "a desirable aspiration" and "the freedom to purchase their own homes and fulfil their dreams" is not party political policies, moralising lectures or obesssions with long-redundant political dogma but the similarly unbridegable gap between their net disposable incomes and the cost of buying those homes; until and unless home prices and net earned incomes relate to one another in a meaningful and practical way, no government policy to encourage or discourage home ownership will make more than the slightest difference. It's almost as bad in France, where house prices are for the most part very much lower than those in UK but so are most people's incomes; the only positive aspect of this there is that the proportion of the cost of most homes that is the price of the land is usually much more realistically lower.

[Serial_Apologist]

The actual point is that 'ordinary working people' should have the freedom to purchase their own homes and fulfil their dreams

Dreams implanted in their heads by the ads industry to circumvent wider responsibility, stimulate envy, and keep them consuming stuff they wouldn't have considered in the first place, in order, in turn, to keep manufacturers of said product out-competing one-another to use up all the world's resources and keep the poor permanently obedient and in their place.

And people wonder what's gone wrong with "civilisation".

[MrGongGong]

purchase their own homes and fulfil their dreams

I dream of many things, buying stuff doesn't often come into them.
I do have a mortgage but really wish I didn't have, not because its too expensive, but because it makes it hard for me to move and fulfil some of my dreams

Who said people shouldn't have the right to buy houses?

The whole "homes" thing is a bit like the "hard working families" :sad face:

http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2011/327/a/1/stop_buying_shit_you_don__t_need_by_stormystranger-d4h1jyz.jpg

[ahinton]

Dreams implanted in their heads by the ads industry to circumvent wider responsibility, stimulate envy, and keep them consuming stuff they wouldn't have considered in the first place, in order, in turn, to keep manufacturers of said product out-competing one-another to use up all the world's resources and keep the poor permanently obedient and in their place.

By no means in all cases, surely? Not everyone who would like to buy his/her own house/apartment is so much at the mercy of the advertising industry or of necessity any more envious than others who might as easliy be made aware of those who boast about how they rent a better apartment than Joe Bloggs does. No, I just don't buy that argument, I'm afraid, as anything other than an admittedly present exception and, in any case, would you perceive similar problems to associate themselves likewise with the landlord industry? - after all, as I keep saying, someone has to own the homes, whether or not they actually occupy them!

[Honoured Guest]

- after all, as I keep saying, someone has to own the homes, whether or not they actually occupy them!

Public housing

Social housing

[ahinton]

I dream of many things, buying stuff doesn't often come into them.
I do have a mortgage but really wish I didn't have, not because its too expensive, but because it makes it hard for me to move and fulfil some of my dreams

Who said people shouldn't have the right to buy houses?

The whole "homes" thing is a bit like the "hard working families"

Not everyone wants to own his/her home and there are many reasons why different people prefer not to at different times - and not everyone who lives in a fancy home owns it, as is obvious from the fact of those who pay thousands, tens of thousands and even in a few cases hundreds of thousands of pounds monthly to rent theirs.

No, "the whole "homes" thing is not at all like "hard working families"; each does indeed exist, of course, but whereas we all need homes whether or not we own them, the term "hard working families" has been dragged kicking and screaming into cliché land where it's forced to serve the will of its political masters!

[ahinton]

Public housing

Social housing

Yes, I have heard of them, in case you were in any doubt. These types of housing are just as "owned" as any other and their owners have rights over it and are at the same time legally charged with certain responsibilities in respect of it purely by virtue of owning it; what on earth do suppose "local authority housing" is if it is not insured, managed and maintained by its owners, the local authority?!

[french frank]

Dreams implanted in their heads by the ads industry to circumvent wider responsibility, stimulate envy, and keep them consuming stuff they wouldn't have considered in the first place, in order, in turn, to keep manufacturers of said product out-competing one-another to use up all the world's resources and keep the poor permanently obedient and in their place.

Are 'the poor' also stupid, can't work out that they're being exploited?