CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"just a boring old fart"
Join the club.
Although you can't join the exclusive club me, SRD, Uberuce and Baldcyclist are in unless - apparently - you agree to put your jackboot on the throat of some poor tenant (who has more rights than you, by the way)
p.s. I Agree entirely regarding your earlier 'respect' points which were well made.
Apologiesif any typos, doing this from my phone as capitalist pigdog employer not keen on anarchist threads via firewall.
;-)
I find Marxism a useful framework for analysis, especialLy with added Gramsci. It is beyond doubt that we need to consider the material basis of political problems to order to fully understand them.
Despite that, I find it profoundly unhelpful for resolving 'real world problems' .
What do you propose - expropriate all privately held land? Only that held 'unjustly'? Only that which is used to generate revenues for private individuals?
Yes, anarchism (of various flavours) has attractions, but I have become too pragmatic in my old age to consider that we could transform society to that extent without harming many, and is don't think the benefits would necessarily outweigh the costs.
I would like to see more cooperative and social housing though - seems to me to be both achievable and beneficial goal.
Interesting stuff, chdot. The more recent influx of Poles have generally ended up in either the social rented sector - or more likely - the PRS, as tenants.
I've come across a fair few of those occupying former Council houses, since bought by their tenants (at huge discounts) - and now rented out. Quite a few of those landlords have not been Registered (as required) and it is generally in those cases where issues of disrepair and general poor standards are most prevalent.
However, the most systematic (almost industrial scale) exploitation of tenants and abuse of power lies with a few of the 'weel kent' faces of Edinburgh landlordism who despite being properly Registered appear to operate with callous disregard of the toothless regulatory. system.
Those are the ones for which Bax's lamp-posts may be best suited ... come the revolution (and I don't mean EBC's own brand bike stuff)
I'm happier that our flat is being rented out for a reasonably affordable-even-for-postgrad-students-who-have-been-the-sole-tenant-type-to-date monthly rate rather than have it increment the volume of single-bedroom properties being offered/sold for what look (to me) like extremely daft (compared to what we paid in 2000) and unaffordable (compared to what we could have paid in 2000) prices for such small dwellings. We've only been renting it out for 3½ years so perhaps that "sooner or later" hasn't kicked in properly yet.
"what I meant was I took risks when I was younger because I thought I was immortal"
There's a bit of that, there's also a bit of taking fewer uncalculated risks the more experience you have. Being what it is, experience tends to grow the older you get. It can take a "****, that was close" adrenalin spike moment to make you rein in some of the less considered manoeuvures.
As for landlords, in respect of social housing, should we be hanging The State from the lampposts as well? I suppose by definition it is first against The Wall when The Revolution comes. However: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
"What do you propose - expropriate all privately held land? Only that held 'unjustly'? Only that which is used to generate revenues for private individuals?"
Start with a 'sophisticated' (ie one that seems fairish to most people and is harder to spin as 'unfair') land (use) tax.
I'm sure there are elements of the SNP (and presumably the Greens) working on this - no doubt based on the work of Andy Wightman.
I'm also sure that there are people working to counter this 'threat' to their ownership/livelihood.
Option 1 ALL land owned by the state/people. Probably 'sensible' - but unlikely to be popular enough with 'most' people to be a serious possibility.
Restrict 'foreign ownership' - popular cry in rural areas (and certainly normal in some other countries), but perhaps would not have a big impact on housing, which is (predominantly) an urban issue.
Certainly there needs to be a better 'valuation' of the value of Planning Permission - and/or LAs having better lawyers than developers!
Perhaps a system where PP is granted and work has to start (properly - not just 'digging a trench') within a year. If not, a rising scale 'non-use' tax.
Ban on sale of land with recently acquired PP (remove 'speculation inflation').
Etc.
A lot could be done, but there are 'vested interests' - not least 'everyone' who has some sort of pension that involves (directly or indirectly) the 'stock market'.
The fact that your pension has bits taken out of it every year as 'management fees' to pay high salaries and bonuses is of course completely irrelevant...
"It can take a "****, that was close" adrenalin spike moment to make you rein in some of the less considered manoeuvres."
That too.
Though increasingly (on here) there seems to be an element of "considered manoeuvres" having to be reconsidered due to expectations of worse driving!(?)
@chdot I would more than support all those proposals, as long as investment was made/support provided for community and social housing.
just saw this on twitter http://www.scotsman.com/news/lesley-riddoch-unfair-fight-in-survival-battle-1-3398692
"Many people say permission is given for four or more homes but not for one, thwarting folk who just want to build on ground beside their own home for parents or a small business. "
where my parents live in rural newfoundland (but close enough to commute to nearest city), there's a lot of this 'one-off' building. Often by folk who've worked in the Alberta oilfields and then come home and built a place. Effects can be pretty grim. Definitely promotes sprawl/traffic congestion. but does mean that underpopulated communities having money injected in to them, and some young families returning. .
Just spotted that there is a sub-editors job going in the world's only English language socialist daily, you have until 9th may to apply.
Now has gardening and sudoku as well as telly and football. Several unflattering photos of Michael gove today. Seems to be quite supportive of the Labour Party. Stuart Moir giving a talk tomorrow in Bathgate on the masque of anarchy and the peter loo riots. Astonishingly to me there is a CPB branch/member/retired special branch officer in Suffolk
Small para on Froome winning Tour de Romandie
Hitler had a half brother Alois who lived in Liverpool!!
solidarity is the nap in the 2.35 at Bath, don't back that it is the heart ruling the head but let's not go there that is the white paper thread
All this for £1
As (amongst many other things) a landlord, I find the preceding discussion interesting, amusing, perhaps disturbing.
I can't help but compare moaning about landlords to moaning about employers. In each case somebody has something (a house or a job) that someone else doesn't have, but can get (in exchange for money or labour) and benefits from (having somewhere to live is worth more than the cost of rent, and having a job pays you more than the value of your free time).
--
Our tenants pay us rent at the going rate (we literally looked at what all the other flats in the street were renting out for, perhaps an overly literal interpretation of going rate since the interiors will vary wildly, but I digress).
It must have been a good deal, since it's not empty.
Assuming there were no costs whatsoever associated with renting out the flat, but sadly unable to avoid tax, the money our tenants pay is worth just 3.45% of the capital cost of the flat (per annum). Obviously it's less with all the servicing, insurance, blah blah.
Why don't we just sell it and put the money in the stock market with a much higher real return? Good question! (In fact, I don't understand how people can actually make money from buy to let in the first place, but that's another story, our flat isn't BTL)
Thing is, our tenants could do one of two things: rent the flat from us or pay mortgage interest to a bank (interest-only repayments). In either case they can additionally save up the capital cost of the property and either repay the bank, or buy the flat from us, as the case may be.
Same capital cost either way, except any difference between rent and interest rates - currently mortgages a bit cheaper, what with the historic super low BoE rate and all, but if they go up 5%, the tenants will be laughing.
Much of the rent they pay us is frittered away on income tax, whereas a significant proportion of mortgage interest to the banks is probably tax sheltered via extremely cunning accountancy practices, but ultimately ends up in the pockets of the owners of the bank (largely HM government these days, anyway).
I can understand that people prefer to own, after all, I do. The extra value of being your own master and liable for all your own decoration and roof repairs is what makes renting cheaper than owning, after all.
Why is private capital, which someone has worked hard to accumulate, somehow tainted in comparison with private capital provided from a bank (ironically enough, re-lending multiples of the savings of individuals who don't buy houses in person)?
Interesting discussion. Much more interesting than celeb cyclists and their odd "until no cyclist commits a crime, all cyclists are fair game for dangerous driving" sound bites.
@ Dave "In fact, I don't understand how people can actually make money from buy to let in the first place"
I think the problem with (some) BtL was that it was 'sold' as a good investment deal when the housing market looked like it was going to rise for ever. Those seduced by the promise of reward piled in without properly considering the real cost of being a (responsible) landlord. Their plan was to get a tenant in whose rent covered the mortgage cost and then sit back and watch the property value soar. Win ... win.
2 problems: the housing market crash saw the promised property values stall, or fall back; the longer they were tied into the market the more the non-profitable hassles like carrying out repairs, dealing with tenant conflicts etc. ate into the profit margins.
So, yes, I suppose if you are doing it right in terms of responsible letting then BtL may not be the windfall it was portrayed as.
but if they go up 5%, the tenants will be laughing
time to raise the rents, dave !
capital city, capital prices
you can't go wrong with bricks and mortar
thatcher has a lot to answer for..
even churchill balked at landlordism
@Nelly Having said that, perhaps they can afford it as their suicide rate is 50% higher than the UK. Which brings us neatly back to the question - If they are so happy, why are so many of them offing themselves??
Apparently: "Compared to other European countries Scots are the third most likely to take their own lives." Also: "the suicide rate among Scottish men is 73% higher than in England and Wales. The Scottish female suicide rate was almost double the rate south of the border." And finally, "those living in Shetland are more than twice as likely to take their own lives as those living in the Western Isles. Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Highland had the second highest suicide rate by area behind Shetland." (Source: STV, 2012)
So pot, kettle on that one. Probably Sweden or Norway vying with Finland for top spot? Something to do with the long dark nights in winter? SAD?
@Insto, In his defence, it's such a reflexive view that we shouldn't really be surprised at anyone saying it. We should be maybe a little surprised that someone who allegedly sees life through the prism of the privilege bestowed by private school should feel that respect needs to be earned. Surely the correct caricature is that the privately educated feel entitled to everyone else's respect?
Aye, he was just coming out with a motorist cliché. Also let's not forget the chap is a sporting legend. Probably his coach drummed it into him that he needed to earn respect through achievement, and he has. He's simply pointing out that, in comparison to various scofflaws, he has already earned his respect. He's an Olympic gold medallist and he doesn't need to prove anything, no siree.
This is my take on private versus state school education:
The standard of education you receive from one or t'other is roughly the same (if we don't count the minority of poorly performing or deprived area state schools). The difference is in who you get to hang out with.
Hang out with a bunch of future prime ministers and you'll likely become the same. Hang out with a bunch of toffs who are all going to set up (or take over Daddy's) business and you'll likely do the same. Hang out with a bunch of kids learning how to fill out the dole forms...
PS. I was state school educated and I don't think I would've done any better/worse at a private school.
You also get the opportunity to study Latin, which is not to be sniffed at.
Self-confidence is a key determinant of "success" (in whatever way you want to define it) and to my mind is one of the advantages of a private education; but you can get it from lots of other places as well. If the press/chattering classes/internet messageboard people didn't keep banging on about the unfair advantage and privilege people got from a private education, maybe the kids in the state schools would be less likely to start from a position of lower self-confidence?
Problem is when kids from private schools hit uni and find out that 'self-confidence' doesn't necessarily translate into better marks than the rest of their cohort.
"you also get the opportunity to study Latin, which is not to be sniffed at"
I did Latin Standard Grade at my bog-standard state school in the early nineties.
"So pot, kettle on that one. Probably Sweden or Norway vying with Finland for top spot? Something to do with the long dark nights in winter? SAD?"
Indeed, I am cogniscent of the Shetland / Glasgow suicide rate however as the poster I responded to was talking UK Economy / Pensions I thought it wise not to make it apples / pears.
What your quote does demonstrate is that if you distill them enough you can do many different things with stats - depending on your outlook.
I did Latin Standard Grade at my bog-standard state school in the early nineties
I dropped it after first year at Liberton, felt like it was going on too long - Almost ad infinitum
On the whole land, home ownership, landlordism issue.
Interesting stats on home owndership further upthread, may take a few folk by surprise. Note that most of the former Socialist countries have high home ownership. With a few exceptions (eg, Bulgaria) this was not the case under Socialism. What happened in many countries in 1990/91 was a lot of former state property was "restored" to pre-WW2 owners or their descendents: not without controversy, as you may imagine. Families finding themselves suddenly with orivate landlords of their apartment, raising the rent. Also a lot of social housing was pretty much given by the state to people who lived in it: privatisation of state assets for very little. A bit similar to the Thatcherite sale of council homes, but on a much bigger scale.
Also note that in the Balkans for instance, most people own their homes outright, there is no mortgage in the majority of cases. Taking out a huge debt secured on your home is very much an Anglo-Saxon model of "ownership".
Scotland is one of the most unequal countries in Europe regarding land ownership. We only recently abolished the last remnants of feudal tenure, for goodness' sake. It's a huge issue and it's not going to go away.
Scottish Green Party policy is to introduce a Land Value Tax, thus taxing large landowners, corporations who "land bank" for speculative developments, etc. No idea if SNP are discussing this, but Scottish Labour are apparently interested.
Of course the other thing Thatcher did was to abolish rent controls. Suddenly in the 1980s tenants paid "market" rents instead of regulated ones, were easier to evict, etc... This led to the buy-to-let speculation, and lots of invstment in large property holdings to rent out.
I did Latin Standard Grade at my bog-standard state school in the early nineties
I dropped it after first year at Liberton, felt like it was going on too long - Almost ad infinitum
Aye, I only did one year of Latin at my state school (early 1980s), then dropped it to do German. I should have stuck to Latin, I was better at that.
"This is my take on private versus state school education:"
Ok, here's mine, since I did both...
I went to state Primary school, and did 2 years of state Secondary.
I was a slow starter, behind most at early primary, mostly caught up by end of primary.
By secondary I was one of those middle of the road kids, not clever but far from stupid. A bit of cajoling, and a wee bit of pushing was certainly required for best results it's fair to say.
It seems to me on reflection that those 'middle of the road' kids are the ones who are failed by the state system (based on my experience of 1 state high school).
There is only so much time a teacher has to give, and that is spent either on controlling nutters, or working with the 'bright' kids.
There was also a distinct lack of ambition at that school for those 'average' pupils, as I mentioned earlier I was told I could leave school at 16, go work at NEC and everything would be hunky dory for me. When deciding on 'O' Grade subjects, I was put in general, or general / foundation classes, and limited to the number I was allowed to take.
That was Deans High school sometime in the late 80s, it may be transformed now for all I know.
Contrast that with the small Private school I went to from 3rd year (St Serfs, now merged with Clifton Hall). Sat an entrance exam, low and behold I wasn't stupid after all, based on that exam I was told I could take whatever subjects I wanted and the expectation was that I would pass them. They also hinted that they had "got me just in time".
The real difference was there were no nutters in the class so I was able to get the time and cajoling that I required. I'm no rocket scientist, but I managed to reach 'my' potential at that school. That just would never have happened at that time at Deans. Another example of the work that was put in for me at that school was Maths where I was still a little behind at that time, I got 26% in my 'O' garde pre-limb and after some coaching, and extra classes I got 83% in the exam. I incidentally now have an engineering degree, that would never have happened at Deans where my expectations were set at factory worker level.
In my opinion it *is* the quality of education that is *different, not who you rub shoulders with. Most of my classmates parents ran small businesses (fruit and veg shops, double glazing companies etc), or were farmers, that sort of thing.
Of course the other way to 'buy' your offspring's education is paying the premium to buy yourself a house in a good catchment area. Is that any worse than paying money to the school directly?
*Not that the teachers are 'better', just that they can do their job more effectively.
Good things about learning Latin cf modern language:
1) Only have to translate one-way
2) Don't have to speak it
3) Access to interesting history
4) Access to interesting culture
5) Useful if you wish to become a RC priest. Probably a requirement to become Pope.
"Of course the other way to 'buy' your offspring's education is paying the premium to buy yourself a house in a good catchment area. Is that any worse than paying money to the school directly?"
Exactly.
We bought before we even knew we could have a child - and as luck would have it are in the Sciennes PS catchment (then in a few years a newly built Gillespies HS).
all of which was a stroke of luck as I am deeply opposed to private education, whereas my wife only wants whats best for our son.
@Nelly Indeed, I am cogniscent of the Shetland / Glasgow suicide rate however as the poster I responded to was talking UK Economy / Pensions I thought it wise not to make it apples / pears.
Well I'm sure there will be many different factors affecting suicide rates. Hours of daylight and economics being just two.
Here's the world rankings.
Lots of Eastern European countries well up the table. Depending on who you talk to, Finland can be 'The West' or 'The East' (border with Russia). Definitely 'The North', which it shares with Scotland. One surprise was to see in 'The West' that Belgium is so high in the table. UK in the middle, but Scottish rate somewhere 'twixt Finland and France.
Interesting that countries in 'The South' have lower rates. Sunshine makes you happy? Living in extended families (very common around Mediterranean)? Healthy diet? Lower alcohol consumption? Or just under-reporting of suicide due to social stigma attached?
@crowriver "Interesting that countries in 'The South' have lower rates. Sunshine makes you happy? Living in extended families (very common around Mediterranean)? Healthy diet? Lower alcohol consumption?"
Think you are on to something there, I guess we are all unconsciously 'happier' when not hosing it down !
Of course, once I make my millions off the back of hardworking families (as a slum landlord), I will be looking forward to a retirement getting sozzled daily in Provence.
Link broken, chdot.
ADMIN EDIT
Ta
Missed http://
Problem is when kids from private schools hit uni and find out that 'self-confidence' doesn't necessarily translate into better marks than the rest of their cohort.
This is true, but ultimately do they need the marks to maintain their self-belief? Or do they scrape a 2.1 and their blithe self-confidence enables them to prosper in job interviews etc?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts