Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
tomandlu

All That Is Solid: The Great Housing Disaster

Recommended Posts

Don't know much about this apart from the subject and title...

All That Is Solid: The Great Housing Disaster

Housing was at the heart of the financial collapse, and our economy is now precariously reliant on the housing market. In this groundbreaking new book, Danny Dorling argues that housing is the defining issue of our times. Tracing how we got to our current crisis and how housing has come to reflect class and wealth in Britain, All That Is Solid radically shows that the solution to our problems - rising homelessness, a generation priced out of home ownership - is not, as is widely assumed, building more homes. Inequality, he argues, is what we really need to overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculating on housing ( food and fuel ) should be illegal, governments backing the speculation with tax payers money is nothing short of corrupt.

There IS going to be a lot of bother soon-ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same author

We have an educational system that is designed to polarise people, one that creates an elite who can easily come to have little respect for the majority of the population, who think that they should earn extraordinarily more than everyone else, and defines the jobs of others as so low-skilled that it apparently justifies many living in relative poverty.

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shows that the solution to our problems - rising homelessness, a generation priced out of home ownership - is not, as is widely assumed, building more homes. Inequality, he argues, is what we really need to overcome

What he's saying is it wasn't labours fault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a man of the people really. Didn't you read this:

:lol:

Southern socialists just don't get the actual pride and work and social ethics of traditional northerners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shows that the solution to our problems - rising homelessness, a generation priced out of home ownership - is not, as is widely assumed, building more homes. Inequality, he argues, is what we really need to overcome

What he's saying is it wasn't labours fault

You should read his inaugural speech as posted in the guardian, it's well, just wow....all nicely backed up with data.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/04/education-system-polarises-people-economic-inequality

Some snippets -

It is geography that reveals just how divided we have become as a society in this country. There are places from which it appears almost impossible to succeed educationally and others where it seems very hard to fail. On any given day, a fifth of children in Britain qualify for free school meals. Just one in 100 of those children get to go to either Oxford or Cambridge University. Four private schools and one highly selective state sixth-form college send more children to Oxbridge than do 2,000 other secondary schools. The most prestigious 100 schools secure 30% of all Oxbridge places. And 84 of them are private schools.

Income inequality has now reached a new maximum and, for the first time in a century, even those just below the richest 1% are beginning to suffer, to see their disposable income drop. When you exclude the top 1%, income inequality within the rest of the population, within the 99%, is now lower than at any time since Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. Or, as put in economist-speak by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year: "Over the past two decades … inequality among the bottom 99% has fallen: the Gini coefficient for the bottom 99% was 5% lower in 2011–12, at 0.30, than in 1991."

Today in education the thinking and attitudes of a few of our elite have come to be presented as common sense. Some of the members of the 1% like to portray state schools as the problem, and they suggest that those schools are the reason why others are paid so little and why incomes have dropped. To be able to do this they sometimes suggest that there was once a golden age of state schooling when the grammar schools gave working-class children a chance. Some may believe this was true, but grammar schools were a relic of an older, even more unequal age. Some of the new top 1% would prefer to see the privatisation of all schools.

Stefan Collini, professor of English literature and intellectual history at the University of Cambridge, when commenting on the latest international education statistics last year, explained that "countries committed to high-quality comprehensives, such as Finland, yet again come out on top. A stratified and class-segregated school system is not the answer: it's the problem." There is way too much hierarchy and stratification among UK schools. Across the European mainland, children are far more used to almost all going to local state schools. That may be because almost every other European country is more economically equal than the UK.

Social mobility is lowest where local "choice" in education superficially appears to be highest. Another study last year named Trafford in Greater Manchester as having the highest level of educational social segregation. This is due to secondary moderns and grammar schools being retained there as well as private school provision being high. When confronted with the evidence that government education policy was reducing social mobility in such areas, a spokesman for the education department said it did not wish to comment on the report.

For schooling, the country to which utopians look is Finland, where 99.2% of school education is state-funded. In Finland, there is no inspection of teachers, no league tables; pupils are not set or streamed, and, as Diane Reay, professor of education at Cambridge, explains: "In four international surveys, all since 2000, Finnish comprehensive school students have scored above students in all the other participating countries in science and problem-solving skills, and came either first or second in reading and mathematics. These results were achieved despite the amount of homework assigned in Finnish schools being relatively low, and an absence of private tuition."

We have an educational system that is designed to polarise people, one that creates an elite who can easily come to have little respect for the majority of the population, who think that they should earn extraordinarily more than everyone else, and defines the jobs of others as so low-skilled that it apparently justifies many living in relative poverty.

The elite is shrinking. It really is now only 1% of the population who are maintaining their very high standard of living. The majority of graduates, even from a university like Oxford, cannot expect to fit within that 1% even if they all wished to only do the kinds of jobs that pay so much. The majority of all our young people should expect to see their standard of living fall in future, or they need to learn how to better control the richest people in our society. The 1% are disproportionately made up not of people who are most able, but of those who are most greedy and least concerned about the rights, feelings and welfare of other people.

Recently released findings from psychology suggest that many of them may be naturally inclined to be more selfish. It is not so much their fault that they find it hard to understand others' feelings. It is our fault for not controlling the greed of a few and for so long swallowing their shallow arguments as to why they deserve so much.

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finnland = small rich country with a cohesive community. I think you'd need to change th whole of UK sciety first, to achieve anythin comparable, although it's a bit chicken and egg of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read his inaugural speech as posted in the guardian, it's well, just wow....all nicely backed up with data.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/04/education-system-polarises-people-economic-inequality

Some snippets -

That's where I disagree

Eg

To be able to do this they sometimes suggest that there was once a golden age of state schooling when the grammar schools gave working-class children a chance. Some may believe this was true, but grammar schools were a relic of an older, even more unequal age. Some of the new top 1% would prefer to see the privatisation of all schools.

He gets to the above point quite logically, but then throws it all away with a bit of hearsay and unsupported opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finnland = small rich country with a cohesive community. I think you'd need to change th whole of UK sciety first, to achieve anythin comparable, although it's a bit chicken and egg of course

Indeed

His numerical Analysis seems blind to context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On any given day, a fifth of children in Britain qualify for free school meals. Just one in 100 of those children get to go to either Oxford or Cambridge University.

That's more than the average across the whole population.

Oxbridge undergraduate admissions total about 7,000 per year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10402398/Five-students-chasing-every-Oxbridge-place-next-year.html

Surely there are more than 700,000 people in the whole year group?

Did he mean 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shows that the solution to our problems - rising homelessness, a generation priced out of home ownership - is not, as is widely assumed, building more homes. Inequality, he argues, is what we really need to overcome

What he's saying is it wasn't labours fault

not entirely, but stalinist labour still aspire to a ruling class and a serf class.

corporatism does exactly the same thing, but is a bit more honest about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shows that the solution to our problems - rising homelessness, a generation priced out of home ownership - is not, as is widely assumed, building more homes. Inequality, he argues, is what we really need to overcome

What he's saying is it wasn't labours fault

He isn't saying that.

He is highlighting one of the factors leading to the problem.

The problem has many dimensions.

High housing prices, particularly for those born into lower earning, landless classes are a result of multiple factors.

There is an issue of supply - lack of building.

There is an issue of credit availability - there are multiple issues around this too - inequality in the extension of the credit for example.

There is an issue of market manipulation - price floors - government purchasing of homes, housing benefit, buy to let mortgages, tax advantage for certain individuals based upon their property ownership, building restrictions etc.

There is an issue of inequality - primarily in the ownership of land - not true ownership mind, but in the possession of freehold tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finnland = small rich country with a cohesive community. I think you'd need to change th whole of UK sciety first, to achieve anythin comparable, although it's a bit chicken and egg of course

Finland isn't particularly rich, GDP per head is similar to the UK's. They also have immigration.

See also: Finishing Schools

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finland isn't particularly rich, GDP per head is similar to the UK's. They also have immigration.

See also: Finishing Schools

Peter.

That is to be fair interesting

They also require their teachers to have a full masters degree in education, seeming intellectually well in advance of our own

And I wonder how powerful their teaching unions are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.