Squatters move into the Duke of Westminster's £30million Park Lane mansions

My heart bleeds for him...not.

The Daily Mail is not happy though:


Squatters have taken over two seven-storey houses worth a total of £30million on one of London's most exclusive streets.

The 20 freeloaders - aged between 21 and 45 - took over the townhouses at numbers 94 and 95 Park Lane after they were left empty for a few weeks.

The squatters can enjoy the luxury of taking their dogs for walks in Hyde Park, rubbing shoulders with multi-millionaires.

One of the squatters, who gave his name only as Martin, said: 'The view at sunset over Hyde Park is just magic, especially from the penthouse. I really love it here.'

The neighbours are none to happy either at having such people on their well heeled doorstep :

The emergence of squatters at such a landmark address has already caused consternation among residents.

Ian Brimhurst, a member of the Westminster Homeowners’ Association, said: 'I’m very upset. We don’t want this sort of thing blighting such a beautiful part of London.'

Surely the fact that many people are homeless, sleeping on the street or a mate's sofa , while large properties lie empty is more of a blight ?

As someone who squatted years back , and was homeless as a kid, I support this action but with one concern. There are many homeless people on the streets in London and I would like to see this group of squatters open their doors to them, to try to find people who really need a place to stay.

I'm saying this as I have a feeling that the squatters may not have been homeless or desperate in the sense that many are who sleep rough, that this is perhaps more of a statement (and nothing wrong with that in principle), and I'm sure its nice that

"The group have set up an informal art collective, spending the days playing music and creating installations and paintings, "


But that does make me wonder if it is a group of middle class kids playing homeless who could easily run back to mummy and daddy when the going gets tough, unlike many. Being homeless is not a lifestyle choice .

I hope I'm being unfair and that this includes those sleeping rough and not just people wanting to be rebellious and have a nice view while creating an installation.

Housing scandal in Edinburgh

These houses in the Canongate on the Royal Mile of Edinburgh are lying empty and have been mostly for the past 18 months.

Recently in Edinburgh the Evening News had a headline stating that there had been 400,000 bids for 2,700 homes. In Edinburgh those on the council waiting list have to bid for houses that are published online or in local paper.

However in my street there are 18 empty flats, 9 of them are council houses! These are houses that are to be knocked down for a 5 star hotel and conference centre. I have been having a FOI rough and tumble with the council finally they answered - the developer is paying the council to keep the houses empty but no one is paying the council tax because no one is liable.
FOI

Last week a Norwich council chief was sacked for clearing out old age pensioners from their homes and putting herself, her lover and her pals in.

In last weeks Sunday Herald it was reported that Mountgrange admitted there is no cash secured to build the residential part of the Caltongate scheme. It looks like as each day goes by that there won't be a development. Yet decent homes lie empty. It really is an outrage! Up until the late 70s the council used to be called Edinburgh Co-0peration now nit is a Corporation for big business.

Today the Evening News printed this -
Builders pay city to keep flats empty
Caltongate King piece
40,000 bids for council tenancies

Guest post : Lifestyles

Below is a guest post from Mod on housing.




Lifestyles? What a trendy name. You can barely pick up a newspaper without the word, lifestyle, hitting you in the face But what does lifestyle mean to the British ? A nice TV? Good holidays? Trendy clothes? Plenty of free money? Or does it come down to something a bit more basic?

Housing? Housing is a very British concern, as an island there is little room for expansion and limited land.Housing is a favourite topic of conversation at middle-class dinner parties, from boasting about the size of the new extension to griping about negative equity, the British middle classes are intimately acquainted with the topic of housing. But they are not alone, the preoccupation for shelter, warmth, companionship and food have long dominated human culture, and understandably so.We can all sympathise with someone when they lose their home from natural disaster, flooding or fire.

So, given the above, the latest proposals from the Labour government are more inextricable and perverse.Basically, they remove security of tenure from Council tenants and introduce a degree of coercion related to the occupants' income and work situation.Many Council properties may be rubbish, but when you got one, you knew what you had, as a Council tenant, that was it, you had it for life, as long as you paid the rent, etc.

Now New Labour seeks to introduce the worst forms of social engineering and coerce Council tenants to do what Council bureaucrats and the government want. The Green Paper proposals were outlined recently:

"Whitehall officials said that ministers were looking at proposals from the Chartered Institute for Housing, which represents housing officials. It has proposed fixed-term tenancies in which anyone granted a council home would have it initially for three or four years before a review. Those whose circumstances had improved would no longer be able to remain on subsidised rents. A spokesman for the institute said that no one would be evicted under its plan, but that they could face higher rents. At present, social housing rents rise each year by the retail price index plus half a per cent. Under the new plan higher-tax payers could pay nearer the market rate."

Rather than improve the number and quality of Council houses, the New Labour proposal would introduce a higher degree of intransigence, instability and worry for Council tenants.It would not improve the lives of Council tenants one iota, but this proposal would assist in creating a larger underclass, completely disenfranchised from the political process and society.So in one fell swoop the New Labour government will have managed to do what even Margaret Thatcher could not do:destroy social housing in Britain.

But there is a bigger political picture to this nasty proposal, aside from the very obvious social effects, there is a political consequence, the growth of the BNP in Britain.There are some 2.8 million Council properties affected by this proposal, which probably extends down to 4-8 million people, who would, in all probability, have mostly voted for the Labour Party.It's a fair assumption that if Council tenants are going to vote they probably, by and large, would have voted for Labour. That's not going to be the case after this proposal goes through. Council tenants will feel stressed, ever under the watchful eye of a bureaucrat and insecure. They won't be voting for the Tories in large numbers, not the Liberals, either, no, they won't.

So unless there is a miraculous conversion, a sizable chunk of those Council tenant votes would land in the lap of the BNP.New Labour will have provided the BNP with all the propaganda that it needs.So the Left must take up this issue, not only because it is socially wrong, a direct attack on the working classes, but politically it is a gift to the BNP and will only assist their growth.And in putting forward this proposal New Labour has almost guaranteed that it will lose the next election as million of Council tenants vote elsewhere.Great job, New Labour, you've done the Tories job for them. Bastards!

Consultation, Hackney Council style

At the end of last year, Hackney Council consulted tenants about rent increases. The 'choice' the Council offered them was a 5% rise, 10% rise or 12% rise. What a fabulous choice! Between rises that you can't afford, really can't afford, and really really can't afford. It's a bit like the local burglar consulting you on whether s/he should rob some of your stuff, most of your stuff, or all of your stuff.

The result of the survey? 62% responded in support of the 5% rise. Hackney Council's Cabinet then took a long, hard look at the survey results, concluded that 62% was 'just over half' (?!), and voted to increase rents by 6.7% (a figure not even included in the consultation)! Blimey, if we'd know we could go for figures not mentioned in the consultation, everyone could have written '0%' on the form.

Lucky tenants have just received a letter from Councillor Laing telling them the good news.

That is what is so marvellous about 'consultation'. It's a different beast from 'democracy' or even 'negotiation'. The consulting body seemingly feels free to ignore any result that it does not like. Trade union reps will already be familiar with this phenomenon. As are Hackney people who were 'consulted' about the Homerton becoming a foundation hospital. And Hackney residents who were 'consulted' about whether we wanted our homes taken over by an ALMO.

Seems like another small patch of forest has been sacrificed in vain.