MP calls for 20,000 new homes in London

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: John Cryer MP John Cryer MP

LEYTON and Wanstead MP John Cryer has called for 20,000 homes to be built in London.


The Labour member echoed calls by his party's shadow chancellor Ed Balls for the government to use the £3billion it is predicted to raise from the up-coming auction of the 4G mobile phone spectrum to fund new affordable housing in places like Waltham Forest.


He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000.


He said: “With our economy flatling over the last year and unemployment in Redbridge and Waltham Forest is too high, we need urgent action to kick-start the economy and create desperately needed new jobs.”

The government is currently considering how to handle the sale of the 4G network.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Maybe Mr Cryer should have a word with Stella Creasey and ask her to support the 300 they want to put on the former Dog Track Site for a start?
Maybe Mr Cryer should have a word with Stella Creasey and ask her to support the 300 they want to put on the former Dog Track Site for a start? Cornbeefur

5:21pm Wed 14 Nov 12

SXH says...

He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ???

His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers

i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.
He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ??? His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke. SXH

6:14pm Wed 14 Nov 12

waltham says...

cornbeefur - do you ever get anything right ?

once again there are NOT 300 affordable houses on the stow only 24.

Mr Cryer does not support L&Q on the stow and nobody would unless they were getting money out of it !!

You cannot have an RSL using tax payer money and producing nothing for the housing list in waltham forest
cornbeefur - do you ever get anything right ? once again there are NOT 300 affordable houses on the stow only 24. Mr Cryer does not support L&Q on the stow and nobody would unless they were getting money out of it !! You cannot have an RSL using tax payer money and producing nothing for the housing list in waltham forest waltham

6:24pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

waltham wrote:
cornbeefur - do you ever get anything right ?

once again there are NOT 300 affordable houses on the stow only 24.

Mr Cryer does not support L&Q on the stow and nobody would unless they were getting money out of it !!

You cannot have an RSL using tax payer money and producing nothing for the housing list in waltham forest
He is calling for 20,000. That will not make a dent in the Homeless and over crowding figures for London. If he does not support the Stow Development then he should reconsider.

Where does he propose the sites for these 20,000 homes?

The point is, that where any development is mooted, the Nimby's emerge (like around the Stow site) and try to block any development and change.

Then you get people like Mr Gage who creates living space and he is taken to court and gets a paltry £500 fine. Nimby's cannot and should not get it both ways.

20,000 homes take up a lot of space. I wonder how Mr Cryer would like a large housing project next to where he lives?

All hot air from a Labour MP whose party caused all the problems in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]waltham[/bold] wrote: cornbeefur - do you ever get anything right ? once again there are NOT 300 affordable houses on the stow only 24. Mr Cryer does not support L&Q on the stow and nobody would unless they were getting money out of it !! You cannot have an RSL using tax payer money and producing nothing for the housing list in waltham forest[/p][/quote]He is calling for 20,000. That will not make a dent in the Homeless and over crowding figures for London. If he does not support the Stow Development then he should reconsider. Where does he propose the sites for these 20,000 homes? The point is, that where any development is mooted, the Nimby's emerge (like around the Stow site) and try to block any development and change. Then you get people like Mr Gage who creates living space and he is taken to court and gets a paltry £500 fine. Nimby's cannot and should not get it both ways. 20,000 homes take up a lot of space. I wonder how Mr Cryer would like a large housing project next to where he lives? All hot air from a Labour MP whose party caused all the problems in the first place. Cornbeefur

6:27pm Wed 14 Nov 12

bishbosh says...

@ waltham...cornbeef hash is nothing more than a troll...he or she is an idiot ..while i enjoy constructive discussion on important issues on these blogs cornbeef hash wants emotional responses nothing more this could suggest that he or she is unloved or just a pest. While all are entitled to an opinion continual negativity about all the genuine hardwork that many local residents have done to combat the undemocratic injustice being handed out by the local authority is disgraceful.
@ waltham...cornbeef hash is nothing more than a troll...he or she is an idiot ..while i enjoy constructive discussion on important issues on these blogs cornbeef hash wants emotional responses nothing more this could suggest that he or she is unloved or just a pest. While all are entitled to an opinion continual negativity about all the genuine hardwork that many local residents have done to combat the undemocratic injustice being handed out by the local authority is disgraceful. bishbosh

6:44pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

bishbosh wrote:
@ waltham...cornbeef hash is nothing more than a troll...he or she is an idiot ..while i enjoy constructive discussion on important issues on these blogs cornbeef hash wants emotional responses nothing more this could suggest that he or she is unloved or just a pest. While all are entitled to an opinion continual negativity about all the genuine hardwork that many local residents have done to combat the undemocratic injustice being handed out by the local authority is disgraceful.
Sorry? Is this your opinion?

I will respect your opinions but not the verbal insults. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion.

The only hash you are referring to is the hash up of any contribution you are ungracefully attempting to make..
[quote][p][bold]bishbosh[/bold] wrote: @ waltham...cornbeef hash is nothing more than a troll...he or she is an idiot ..while i enjoy constructive discussion on important issues on these blogs cornbeef hash wants emotional responses nothing more this could suggest that he or she is unloved or just a pest. While all are entitled to an opinion continual negativity about all the genuine hardwork that many local residents have done to combat the undemocratic injustice being handed out by the local authority is disgraceful.[/p][/quote]Sorry? Is this your opinion? I will respect your opinions but not the verbal insults. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion. The only hash you are referring to is the hash up of any contribution you are ungracefully attempting to make.. Cornbeefur

7:13pm Wed 14 Nov 12

SXH says...

Cornbeefur read the stopy

New affordable housing in places like Waltham Forest.
He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000.
Cornbeefur read the stopy New affordable housing in places like Waltham Forest. He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. SXH

7:14pm Wed 14 Nov 12

SXH says...

correction "story" not stopy
correction "story" not stopy SXH

7:27pm Wed 14 Nov 12

TTMAN says...

If there are so many homeless, where are they sleeping tonight?
Programme recently about refurbishment of empty houses would help, typical example of homeless put forward was single mum living with her own mother.
If this is what they call the homeless maybe the term should be changed to the "I do not like living with other people and feel I should be given my own property"
If there are so many homeless, where are they sleeping tonight? Programme recently about refurbishment of empty houses would help, typical example of homeless put forward was single mum living with her own mother. If this is what they call the homeless maybe the term should be changed to the "I do not like living with other people and feel I should be given my own property" TTMAN

7:47pm Wed 14 Nov 12

KWyatt-Lown says...

As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/your_lo
cal_areas/10022892.N
ew_Tesco__making_ind
ependent_traders_los
e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is.

Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages.

So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you.
As anyone who may have read the exchanges after the article ; http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/your_lo cal_areas/10022892.N ew_Tesco__making_ind ependent_traders_los e_out_/ will be aware, I have been seeking a simple response from Cornbeefur to two very straightforward questions. Why he elects to hide behind his self-confessed “user name” and what, indeed, his real name is. Having been challenged by him on these same issues I was happy to provide an open and honest response. He has now spent the last seven days evading the questions himself, occasionally providing somewhat insulting and, indeed, frankly juvenile postings (I think we all might agree that “my dad’s bigger than your dad” hardly raises the bar on reasoned debate) that do little to enhance any reputation he might possibly seek to establish or maintain as a worthwhile contributor to grown-up and rational discussion within these pages. So, Cornbeefur, I ask you once again: please have the good grace to return my courtesy and answer my unambiguous questions. Thank you. KWyatt-Lown

8:06pm Wed 14 Nov 12

tonyinchingford says...

There seems only one policy these days by those in control such as Boris Johnson and now this character: BUILD HOUSES and create the SLUMS FOR THE 21st. CENTURY. They need to refer back to history and the failings of bygone generations, something they are totally ignoring.
There seems only one policy these days by those in control such as Boris Johnson and now this character: BUILD HOUSES and create the SLUMS FOR THE 21st. CENTURY. They need to refer back to history and the failings of bygone generations, something they are totally ignoring. tonyinchingford

8:08pm Wed 14 Nov 12

stickmanny says...

he craves attention which is very sad for him.

if you see his username skip to the next post no matter how sensible it may be.

short of the site closing his account this is the only way.
he craves attention which is very sad for him. if you see his username skip to the next post no matter how sensible it may be. short of the site closing his account this is the only way. stickmanny

8:15pm Wed 14 Nov 12

stickmanny says...

tonyinchingford wrote:
There seems only one policy these days by those in control such as Boris Johnson and now this character: BUILD HOUSES and create the SLUMS FOR THE 21st. CENTURY. They need to refer back to history and the failings of bygone generations, something they are totally ignoring.
agreed. its scandalous that good housing can be left to rot while crap housing is built.

we should give councils the right to 'recycle' unused property.
[quote][p][bold]tonyinchingford[/bold] wrote: There seems only one policy these days by those in control such as Boris Johnson and now this character: BUILD HOUSES and create the SLUMS FOR THE 21st. CENTURY. They need to refer back to history and the failings of bygone generations, something they are totally ignoring.[/p][/quote]agreed. its scandalous that good housing can be left to rot while crap housing is built. we should give councils the right to 'recycle' unused property. stickmanny

12:11am Thu 15 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

stickmanny wrote:
tonyinchingford wrote:
There seems only one policy these days by those in control such as Boris Johnson and now this character: BUILD HOUSES and create the SLUMS FOR THE 21st. CENTURY. They need to refer back to history and the failings of bygone generations, something they are totally ignoring.
agreed. its scandalous that good housing can be left to rot while crap housing is built.

we should give councils the right to 'recycle' unused property.
They already have the right to do that. It is called 'buying'.

There are at least 20,000 empty properties on the market in London which local authorities could buy tomorrow,
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tonyinchingford[/bold] wrote: There seems only one policy these days by those in control such as Boris Johnson and now this character: BUILD HOUSES and create the SLUMS FOR THE 21st. CENTURY. They need to refer back to history and the failings of bygone generations, something they are totally ignoring.[/p][/quote]agreed. its scandalous that good housing can be left to rot while crap housing is built. we should give councils the right to 'recycle' unused property.[/p][/quote]They already have the right to do that. It is called 'buying'. There are at least 20,000 empty properties on the market in London which local authorities could buy tomorrow, Techno3

12:14am Thu 15 Nov 12

bishbosh says...

This is just political posturing. Three years ago Boris said he wanted 50,000 affordable homes to be built in London by the end of 2011....Yeh right!!!...He is the Chair of London HCA with billions in their budget. He has trashed the Stow with less than 20% affordable and no social housing. Politicians with this sort of rhetoric are bulls..!!. Those with a little
knowledge say yes we need more housing and fall in line. NO we need proper affordable and social housing in London to solve the problems. NOT rubber stamping property developers like L and Q. Cornbeef hash please explain to all on this blog what you understand to be affordable housing in Waltham Forest.
This is just political posturing. Three years ago Boris said he wanted 50,000 affordable homes to be built in London by the end of 2011....Yeh right!!!...He is the Chair of London HCA with billions in their budget. He has trashed the Stow with less than 20% affordable and no social housing. Politicians with this sort of rhetoric are bulls..!!. Those with a little knowledge say yes we need more housing and fall in line. NO we need proper affordable and social housing in London to solve the problems. NOT rubber stamping property developers like L and Q. Cornbeef hash please explain to all on this blog what you understand to be affordable housing in Waltham Forest. bishbosh

12:42am Thu 15 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

SXH wrote:
He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ???

His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers

i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.
You can still buy run down and badly converted flats in the worse parts of Leyton, Walthamstow and leytonstone for around the 130K mark. Check out 'Right Move' You will still have a lot left between
130K and 250K (If bought in cash)

If not in cash, you can still get a Mortgage of at least 75% against a purchase price.

The strain on Society are the people who produce children and expect the Majority of Society to pay for them throughout their life and provide housing which, is of course, being scrutinised.

Why should people be able to engage in a relationship and as a consequence start a family without any roof above their head?

Winged creatures will always prepare a nest beforehand, even Feral Pigeons.

Sadly, we have fed a monster for years and will pay for years to come.

Broken families, crime, lack of housing, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect.

This is the reality.
[quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ??? His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.[/p][/quote]You can still buy run down and badly converted flats in the worse parts of Leyton, Walthamstow and leytonstone for around the 130K mark. Check out 'Right Move' You will still have a lot left between 130K and 250K (If bought in cash) If not in cash, you can still get a Mortgage of at least 75% against a purchase price. The strain on Society are the people who produce children and expect the Majority of Society to pay for them throughout their life and provide housing which, is of course, being scrutinised. Why should people be able to engage in a relationship and as a consequence start a family without any roof above their head? Winged creatures will always prepare a nest beforehand, even Feral Pigeons. Sadly, we have fed a monster for years and will pay for years to come. Broken families, crime, lack of housing, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect. This is the reality. Cornbeefur

10:28am Thu 15 Nov 12

SXH says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
SXH wrote: He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ??? His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.
You can still buy run down and badly converted flats in the worse parts of Leyton, Walthamstow and leytonstone for around the 130K mark. Check out 'Right Move' You will still have a lot left between 130K and 250K (If bought in cash) If not in cash, you can still get a Mortgage of at least 75% against a purchase price. The strain on Society are the people who produce children and expect the Majority of Society to pay for them throughout their life and provide housing which, is of course, being scrutinised. Why should people be able to engage in a relationship and as a consequence start a family without any roof above their head? Winged creatures will always prepare a nest beforehand, even Feral Pigeons. Sadly, we have fed a monster for years and will pay for years to come. Broken families, crime, lack of housing, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect. This is the reality.
Cornbeefur i know exactly whats going on in the market sells, i dont know where you get your figures from (130K and 250K (If bought in cash)
first time buyers do NOT have cash, and first time buyers look for a refurbished house loft extention the lot, they will not get that at that price,
first time buyers DO NOT have cash,
properties selling under the 250k with stamp duty free will need allot of work, so the only people buying them will be the council for more social housing or Private contractors for letting them out, so the borough will be full of LETS.

most of your comments confuse us all at times.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ??? His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.[/p][/quote]You can still buy run down and badly converted flats in the worse parts of Leyton, Walthamstow and leytonstone for around the 130K mark. Check out 'Right Move' You will still have a lot left between 130K and 250K (If bought in cash) If not in cash, you can still get a Mortgage of at least 75% against a purchase price. The strain on Society are the people who produce children and expect the Majority of Society to pay for them throughout their life and provide housing which, is of course, being scrutinised. Why should people be able to engage in a relationship and as a consequence start a family without any roof above their head? Winged creatures will always prepare a nest beforehand, even Feral Pigeons. Sadly, we have fed a monster for years and will pay for years to come. Broken families, crime, lack of housing, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect. This is the reality.[/p][/quote]Cornbeefur i know exactly whats going on in the market sells, i dont know where you get your figures from (130K and 250K (If bought in cash) first time buyers do NOT have cash, and first time buyers look for a refurbished house loft extention the lot, they will not get that at that price, first time buyers DO NOT have cash, properties selling under the 250k with stamp duty free will need allot of work, so the only people buying them will be the council for more social housing or Private contractors for letting them out, so the borough will be full of LETS. most of your comments confuse us all at times. SXH

10:49am Thu 15 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

SXH wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
SXH wrote: He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ??? His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.
You can still buy run down and badly converted flats in the worse parts of Leyton, Walthamstow and leytonstone for around the 130K mark. Check out 'Right Move' You will still have a lot left between 130K and 250K (If bought in cash) If not in cash, you can still get a Mortgage of at least 75% against a purchase price. The strain on Society are the people who produce children and expect the Majority of Society to pay for them throughout their life and provide housing which, is of course, being scrutinised. Why should people be able to engage in a relationship and as a consequence start a family without any roof above their head? Winged creatures will always prepare a nest beforehand, even Feral Pigeons. Sadly, we have fed a monster for years and will pay for years to come. Broken families, crime, lack of housing, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect. This is the reality.
Cornbeefur i know exactly whats going on in the market sells, i dont know where you get your figures from (130K and 250K (If bought in cash)
first time buyers do NOT have cash, and first time buyers look for a refurbished house loft extention the lot, they will not get that at that price,
first time buyers DO NOT have cash,
properties selling under the 250k with stamp duty free will need allot of work, so the only people buying them will be the council for more social housing or Private contractors for letting them out, so the borough will be full of LETS.

most of your comments confuse us all at times.
You cannot assume that all First Time Buyers do not have the cash?

Some may have a large deposit or receive assistance from their family.

Some may be entitled to a Home Share scheme offer.

A lot of people actually want to rent and not commit to a mortgage, especially those from abroad here to work for a few years and then return to their native land.
[quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SXH[/bold] wrote: He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. ??? His a joke only £250,000? his forcing everyone to sell thier property for that price, as agents will be now pushing people selling to reduce their price, its a buyers market, try thinking of the sellers i wonder if he would like to sell his house at that price, this is beyond a joke.[/p][/quote]You can still buy run down and badly converted flats in the worse parts of Leyton, Walthamstow and leytonstone for around the 130K mark. Check out 'Right Move' You will still have a lot left between 130K and 250K (If bought in cash) If not in cash, you can still get a Mortgage of at least 75% against a purchase price. The strain on Society are the people who produce children and expect the Majority of Society to pay for them throughout their life and provide housing which, is of course, being scrutinised. Why should people be able to engage in a relationship and as a consequence start a family without any roof above their head? Winged creatures will always prepare a nest beforehand, even Feral Pigeons. Sadly, we have fed a monster for years and will pay for years to come. Broken families, crime, lack of housing, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect. This is the reality.[/p][/quote]Cornbeefur i know exactly whats going on in the market sells, i dont know where you get your figures from (130K and 250K (If bought in cash) first time buyers do NOT have cash, and first time buyers look for a refurbished house loft extention the lot, they will not get that at that price, first time buyers DO NOT have cash, properties selling under the 250k with stamp duty free will need allot of work, so the only people buying them will be the council for more social housing or Private contractors for letting them out, so the borough will be full of LETS. most of your comments confuse us all at times.[/p][/quote]You cannot assume that all First Time Buyers do not have the cash? Some may have a large deposit or receive assistance from their family. Some may be entitled to a Home Share scheme offer. A lot of people actually want to rent and not commit to a mortgage, especially those from abroad here to work for a few years and then return to their native land. Cornbeefur

11:59am Thu 15 Nov 12

SXH says...

Cornbeefur i assume because i know first time buyers look for property up to 250k to avoid paying stamp duty, who clearly have applied for mortgage's

"A lot of people actually want to rent and not commit to a mortgage, especially those from abroad here to work for a few years and then return to their native land.”

someone still needs to buy for renting,
John Cryer He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000.

There is NO stamp duty for property under 250k, so its all rubbish
Cornbeefur i assume because i know first time buyers look for property up to 250k to avoid paying stamp duty, who clearly have applied for mortgage's "A lot of people actually want to rent and not commit to a mortgage, especially those from abroad here to work for a few years and then return to their native land.” someone still needs to buy for renting, John Cryer He also wants a stamp-duty holiday for first time buyers for the next two years for properties worth up to £250,000. There is NO stamp duty for property under 250k, so its all rubbish SXH

12:24pm Thu 15 Nov 12

SXH says...

What is Stamp Duty?It's payable on the purchase or transfer of property or land in the UK where the amount paid is above £250,000
What is Stamp Duty?It's payable on the purchase or transfer of property or land in the UK where the amount paid is above £250,000 SXH

5:24pm Thu 15 Nov 12

leyton_man says...

Sounds like a political sound byte designed to raise the MPs profile rather than do something proactive. Considering the proposed boundry changes perhaps he feels he might be over shadowed by his Walthamstow counterpart.
Either way, more affordable homes translates as residences for those unfortunate souls on benefits.
The council can't cope with the amount it has already in the area, better to improve facilities than support even more dependants.
Let's face it, there are scant few proposed affordable units in the dog track, if he wants 20,000 he'll need to bulldoze half the east end to convert it to flats.
But let's face it, more people on benefits = more labour votes.
Sounds like a political sound byte designed to raise the MPs profile rather than do something proactive. Considering the proposed boundry changes perhaps he feels he might be over shadowed by his Walthamstow counterpart. Either way, more affordable homes translates as residences for those unfortunate souls on benefits. The council can't cope with the amount it has already in the area, better to improve facilities than support even more dependants. Let's face it, there are scant few proposed affordable units in the dog track, if he wants 20,000 he'll need to bulldoze half the east end to convert it to flats. But let's face it, more people on benefits = more labour votes. leyton_man

5:34pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

leyton_man wrote:
Sounds like a political sound byte designed to raise the MPs profile rather than do something proactive. Considering the proposed boundry changes perhaps he feels he might be over shadowed by his Walthamstow counterpart.
Either way, more affordable homes translates as residences for those unfortunate souls on benefits.
The council can't cope with the amount it has already in the area, better to improve facilities than support even more dependants.
Let's face it, there are scant few proposed affordable units in the dog track, if he wants 20,000 he'll need to bulldoze half the east end to convert it to flats.
But let's face it, more people on benefits = more labour votes.
It will all come down apart from the Iconic Sign.
[quote][p][bold]leyton_man[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a political sound byte designed to raise the MPs profile rather than do something proactive. Considering the proposed boundry changes perhaps he feels he might be over shadowed by his Walthamstow counterpart. Either way, more affordable homes translates as residences for those unfortunate souls on benefits. The council can't cope with the amount it has already in the area, better to improve facilities than support even more dependants. Let's face it, there are scant few proposed affordable units in the dog track, if he wants 20,000 he'll need to bulldoze half the east end to convert it to flats. But let's face it, more people on benefits = more labour votes.[/p][/quote]It will all come down apart from the Iconic Sign. Cornbeefur

6:54pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Nairn says...

TTMAN wrote:
If there are so many homeless, where are they sleeping tonight?
Programme recently about refurbishment of empty houses would help, typical example of homeless put forward was single mum living with her own mother.
If this is what they call the homeless maybe the term should be changed to the "I do not like living with other people and feel I should be given my own property"
There are around 30 - 50 homeless people sleeping on Low Hall Sports Ground most nights, even in this weather.

You can see them early in the morning with their suitcases.

No idea where they go during the day.

Look around you and you will see where the homeless sleep in this borough.
[quote][p][bold]TTMAN[/bold] wrote: If there are so many homeless, where are they sleeping tonight? Programme recently about refurbishment of empty houses would help, typical example of homeless put forward was single mum living with her own mother. If this is what they call the homeless maybe the term should be changed to the "I do not like living with other people and feel I should be given my own property"[/p][/quote]There are around 30 - 50 homeless people sleeping on Low Hall Sports Ground most nights, even in this weather. You can see them early in the morning with their suitcases. No idea where they go during the day. Look around you and you will see where the homeless sleep in this borough. Nairn

7:22pm Thu 15 Nov 12

TTMAN says...

OK I will pay them a visit. If true I will adjust my view.
OK I will pay them a visit. If true I will adjust my view. TTMAN

8:41pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Eddd17 says...

leyton_man wrote:
Sounds like a political sound byte designed to raise the MPs profile rather than do something proactive. Considering the proposed boundry changes perhaps he feels he might be over shadowed by his Walthamstow counterpart.
Either way, more affordable homes translates as residences for those unfortunate souls on benefits.
The council can't cope with the amount it has already in the area, better to improve facilities than support even more dependants.
Let's face it, there are scant few proposed affordable units in the dog track, if he wants 20,000 he'll need to bulldoze half the east end to convert it to flats.
But let's face it, more people on benefits = more labour votes.
funny how you mention empty posturing and allude to greasy creasy in your first sentence there - the two seem to be inextricably linked!
[quote][p][bold]leyton_man[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a political sound byte designed to raise the MPs profile rather than do something proactive. Considering the proposed boundry changes perhaps he feels he might be over shadowed by his Walthamstow counterpart. Either way, more affordable homes translates as residences for those unfortunate souls on benefits. The council can't cope with the amount it has already in the area, better to improve facilities than support even more dependants. Let's face it, there are scant few proposed affordable units in the dog track, if he wants 20,000 he'll need to bulldoze half the east end to convert it to flats. But let's face it, more people on benefits = more labour votes.[/p][/quote]funny how you mention empty posturing and allude to greasy creasy in your first sentence there - the two seem to be inextricably linked! Eddd17

9:42pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

TTMAN wrote:
If there are so many homeless, where are they sleeping tonight?
Programme recently about refurbishment of empty houses would help, typical example of homeless put forward was single mum living with her own mother.
If this is what they call the homeless maybe the term should be changed to the "I do not like living with other people and feel I should be given my own property"
Maybe you should look at the amount of people who queue up for a bowl of soup at the Soup kitchen every night in the Borough or surrounding areas.

Would you really prefer to see Dogs chasing Furry Hares or people begging for food in the Borough?
[quote][p][bold]TTMAN[/bold] wrote: If there are so many homeless, where are they sleeping tonight? Programme recently about refurbishment of empty houses would help, typical example of homeless put forward was single mum living with her own mother. If this is what they call the homeless maybe the term should be changed to the "I do not like living with other people and feel I should be given my own property"[/p][/quote]Maybe you should look at the amount of people who queue up for a bowl of soup at the Soup kitchen every night in the Borough or surrounding areas. Would you really prefer to see Dogs chasing Furry Hares or people begging for food in the Borough? Cornbeefur

8:07am Fri 16 Nov 12

TTMAN says...

You are assumin y preferences without knowing anything about me. For the record I believe that dog racing as a viable business is dead. The 30 million taken for the stadium by the owners made good commercial sense, what is missing in this borough is manufacturing industry. How about turning the stadium into a science park and build viable units for technical progression. We need to import less from the far east such as Korea.
How about The Greyhound Science Park. Associate it with the UEL.
By building more housing with nowhere for people to work locally we will become a satellite borough of no consequence.
You are assumin y preferences without knowing anything about me. For the record I believe that dog racing as a viable business is dead. The 30 million taken for the stadium by the owners made good commercial sense, what is missing in this borough is manufacturing industry. How about turning the stadium into a science park and build viable units for technical progression. We need to import less from the far east such as Korea. How about The Greyhound Science Park. Associate it with the UEL. By building more housing with nowhere for people to work locally we will become a satellite borough of no consequence. TTMAN

9:24am Fri 16 Nov 12

bishbosh says...

If the greyhound track was not viable why did L and Q pay 18.1million not 30 million for a site designated assembly and leisure. The council valued it at 7 million. They were buying a viable business to trash it and spuriously convince the local authority of its lack of viability. If it was not viable how was it the family shareholders paid 9 million into their pension funds over the last six years of trading and it still showed a profit. L and Q are not interested in building anything but housing..it is a pipe dream to think they want to build something for the community. They want housing units to maintain cash flows. The council want additional council taxation. L and Q have paid lip service to the leisure provision purely to obtain a change of planning use. The only chance to prevent this is to retain the site for its original use developed with social housing, bringing jobs and affordable housing to the borough. Trashing viable business to provide housing that no one who needs it can afford only makes sense to the developer and complicite local authority. Cloud cuckoo beckons for anyone who believes this development will reduce queuing at soup kitchens, street crime, housing waiting lists,dole queues or help with the affordable and social housing delivery targets. Any financial benefit to local businesses will be temporary and unsustainable
If the greyhound track was not viable why did L and Q pay 18.1million not 30 million for a site designated assembly and leisure. The council valued it at 7 million. They were buying a viable business to trash it and spuriously convince the local authority of its lack of viability. If it was not viable how was it the family shareholders paid 9 million into their pension funds over the last six years of trading and it still showed a profit. L and Q are not interested in building anything but housing..it is a pipe dream to think they want to build something for the community. They want housing units to maintain cash flows. The council want additional council taxation. L and Q have paid lip service to the leisure provision purely to obtain a change of planning use. The only chance to prevent this is to retain the site for its original use developed with social housing, bringing jobs and affordable housing to the borough. Trashing viable business to provide housing that no one who needs it can afford only makes sense to the developer and complicite local authority. Cloud cuckoo beckons for anyone who believes this development will reduce queuing at soup kitchens, street crime, housing waiting lists,dole queues or help with the affordable and social housing delivery targets. Any financial benefit to local businesses will be temporary and unsustainable bishbosh

9:26am Fri 16 Nov 12

Helen, Walthamstow says...

TTMAN wrote:
You are assumin y preferences without knowing anything about me. For the record I believe that dog racing as a viable business is dead. The 30 million taken for the stadium by the owners made good commercial sense, what is missing in this borough is manufacturing industry. How about turning the stadium into a science park and build viable units for technical progression. We need to import less from the far east such as Korea.
How about The Greyhound Science Park. Associate it with the UEL.
By building more housing with nowhere for people to work locally we will become a satellite borough of no consequence.
TTMAN, you have introduced a thoughtful and thought-provoking idea to this discussion.

I don't believe that greyhound racing will ever return and I do believe the L&Q homes will be built, bringing in yet more people to pressure on local schools and other services and a workforce that has to travel, unless willing to settle for jobs in what seems like the only growing industry in Waltham Forest - part-time work in supermarkets.

But you have highlighted a lost opportunity which I don't believe has ever been suggested here before.

The stadium was known world-wide. How good it would have been to encourage the development of a facility of a kind that could also have gained an international reputation.

The problem is that our local authority is totally lacking in vision. Even discounting the greyhound track, all we have are massive house building projects on vacant sites in places like Blackhorse Lane. We have lost virtually all our large local industries.

The future for Waltham Forest is not rosy. Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough. They fail to see that to be healthy, a community has to be balanced.

They also lack the foresight to see that the best possible resolution for our borough would be to offer real work opportunities that would enable people to get to work without exhausting travel, that would attract more skilled people to move here and that would bring money in.
[quote][p][bold]TTMAN[/bold] wrote: You are assumin y preferences without knowing anything about me. For the record I believe that dog racing as a viable business is dead. The 30 million taken for the stadium by the owners made good commercial sense, what is missing in this borough is manufacturing industry. How about turning the stadium into a science park and build viable units for technical progression. We need to import less from the far east such as Korea. How about The Greyhound Science Park. Associate it with the UEL. By building more housing with nowhere for people to work locally we will become a satellite borough of no consequence.[/p][/quote]TTMAN, you have introduced a thoughtful and thought-provoking idea to this discussion. I don't believe that greyhound racing will ever return and I do believe the L&Q homes will be built, bringing in yet more people to pressure on local schools and other services and a workforce that has to travel, unless willing to settle for jobs in what seems like the only growing industry in Waltham Forest - part-time work in supermarkets. But you have highlighted a lost opportunity which I don't believe has ever been suggested here before. The stadium was known world-wide. How good it would have been to encourage the development of a facility of a kind that could also have gained an international reputation. The problem is that our local authority is totally lacking in vision. Even discounting the greyhound track, all we have are massive house building projects on vacant sites in places like Blackhorse Lane. We have lost virtually all our large local industries. The future for Waltham Forest is not rosy. Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough. They fail to see that to be healthy, a community has to be balanced. They also lack the foresight to see that the best possible resolution for our borough would be to offer real work opportunities that would enable people to get to work without exhausting travel, that would attract more skilled people to move here and that would bring money in. Helen, Walthamstow

10:06am Fri 16 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

The soup wagon will loom over the people who want to retain the site as a Dog track when badly sought after accommodation is required.

Nimby's need to get real, and accept that they would not have to turn up at a Soup Stall just to feed their kids.
The soup wagon will loom over the people who want to retain the site as a Dog track when badly sought after accommodation is required. Nimby's need to get real, and accept that they would not have to turn up at a Soup Stall just to feed their kids. Cornbeefur

10:39am Fri 16 Nov 12

TTMAN says...

bishbosh perhaps you can point us to a site where these figures are published.
With the number of visitors to the stadium being paltry there was no way money could have been generated at this level unless from outside revenue stream aka the internet.
bishbosh perhaps you can point us to a site where these figures are published. With the number of visitors to the stadium being paltry there was no way money could have been generated at this level unless from outside revenue stream aka the internet. TTMAN

10:45am Fri 16 Nov 12

E17_er says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
The soup wagon will loom over the people who want to retain the site as a Dog track when badly sought after accommodation is required.

Nimby's need to get real, and accept that they would not have to turn up at a Soup Stall just to feed their kids.
As predicted by bishbosh word in there direct from cloud cuckoo.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: The soup wagon will loom over the people who want to retain the site as a Dog track when badly sought after accommodation is required. Nimby's need to get real, and accept that they would not have to turn up at a Soup Stall just to feed their kids.[/p][/quote]As predicted by bishbosh word in there direct from cloud cuckoo. E17_er

12:46pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Eddd17 says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
TTMAN wrote:
You are assumin y preferences without knowing anything about me. For the record I believe that dog racing as a viable business is dead. The 30 million taken for the stadium by the owners made good commercial sense, what is missing in this borough is manufacturing industry. How about turning the stadium into a science park and build viable units for technical progression. We need to import less from the far east such as Korea.
How about The Greyhound Science Park. Associate it with the UEL.
By building more housing with nowhere for people to work locally we will become a satellite borough of no consequence.
TTMAN, you have introduced a thoughtful and thought-provoking idea to this discussion.

I don't believe that greyhound racing will ever return and I do believe the L&Q homes will be built, bringing in yet more people to pressure on local schools and other services and a workforce that has to travel, unless willing to settle for jobs in what seems like the only growing industry in Waltham Forest - part-time work in supermarkets.

But you have highlighted a lost opportunity which I don't believe has ever been suggested here before.

The stadium was known world-wide. How good it would have been to encourage the development of a facility of a kind that could also have gained an international reputation.

The problem is that our local authority is totally lacking in vision. Even discounting the greyhound track, all we have are massive house building projects on vacant sites in places like Blackhorse Lane. We have lost virtually all our large local industries.

The future for Waltham Forest is not rosy. Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough. They fail to see that to be healthy, a community has to be balanced.

They also lack the foresight to see that the best possible resolution for our borough would be to offer real work opportunities that would enable people to get to work without exhausting travel, that would attract more skilled people to move here and that would bring money in.
i agree wholeheartedly. TTMANs idea would be a far better use of the site and we do need jobs more than we need people without them and far more than we need a dogtrack that is never going to come back. main problem though is that if a housing association buys a site theyre going to build houses rather than a science park and theres not a lot anyone else can do about it.
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TTMAN[/bold] wrote: You are assumin y preferences without knowing anything about me. For the record I believe that dog racing as a viable business is dead. The 30 million taken for the stadium by the owners made good commercial sense, what is missing in this borough is manufacturing industry. How about turning the stadium into a science park and build viable units for technical progression. We need to import less from the far east such as Korea. How about The Greyhound Science Park. Associate it with the UEL. By building more housing with nowhere for people to work locally we will become a satellite borough of no consequence.[/p][/quote]TTMAN, you have introduced a thoughtful and thought-provoking idea to this discussion. I don't believe that greyhound racing will ever return and I do believe the L&Q homes will be built, bringing in yet more people to pressure on local schools and other services and a workforce that has to travel, unless willing to settle for jobs in what seems like the only growing industry in Waltham Forest - part-time work in supermarkets. But you have highlighted a lost opportunity which I don't believe has ever been suggested here before. The stadium was known world-wide. How good it would have been to encourage the development of a facility of a kind that could also have gained an international reputation. The problem is that our local authority is totally lacking in vision. Even discounting the greyhound track, all we have are massive house building projects on vacant sites in places like Blackhorse Lane. We have lost virtually all our large local industries. The future for Waltham Forest is not rosy. Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough. They fail to see that to be healthy, a community has to be balanced. They also lack the foresight to see that the best possible resolution for our borough would be to offer real work opportunities that would enable people to get to work without exhausting travel, that would attract more skilled people to move here and that would bring money in.[/p][/quote]i agree wholeheartedly. TTMANs idea would be a far better use of the site and we do need jobs more than we need people without them and far more than we need a dogtrack that is never going to come back. main problem though is that if a housing association buys a site theyre going to build houses rather than a science park and theres not a lot anyone else can do about it. Eddd17

1:19pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Helen, Walthamstow says...

I've just clicked!

20,000 new homes in London. 32 London boroughs. Evenly divided that means fewer than 750 per borough.

Is Waltham Forest Council trying to hog more than its (our) fair share?
I've just clicked! 20,000 new homes in London. 32 London boroughs. Evenly divided that means fewer than 750 per borough. Is Waltham Forest Council trying to hog more than its (our) fair share? Helen, Walthamstow

10:48pm Fri 16 Nov 12

mdj says...

' Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough...'
Helen, after years of wondering how this borough, despite being a short ride from the centre of the worlds' financial capital, located on the A406, M11, with two Tube and several Overground lines, and a lot of attractive green space also, I came to an end of excuses: my conclusion was that under-achievement IS the policy.
When you look at the calibre of our leadership it's clear that they can only remain big fish by constantly draining the pond.
Documents on the Council's own website admit that its ambitions are merely to chase the average for London on a variety of yardsticks, so even success can never exceed mediocrity. Achieving targets by the simple means of setting pathetically low ones may make career sense to an apparatchik, but not to the rest of us who have to live with the consequences.
' Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough...' Helen, after years of wondering how this borough, despite being a short ride from the centre of the worlds' financial capital, located on the A406, M11, with two Tube and several Overground lines, and a lot of attractive green space also, I came to an end of excuses: my conclusion was that under-achievement IS the policy. When you look at the calibre of our leadership it's clear that they can only remain big fish by constantly draining the pond. Documents on the Council's own website admit that its ambitions are merely to chase the average for London on a variety of yardsticks, so even success can never exceed mediocrity. Achieving targets by the simple means of setting pathetically low ones may make career sense to an apparatchik, but not to the rest of us who have to live with the consequences. mdj

11:50pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

mdj wrote:
' Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough...'
Helen, after years of wondering how this borough, despite being a short ride from the centre of the worlds' financial capital, located on the A406, M11, with two Tube and several Overground lines, and a lot of attractive green space also, I came to an end of excuses: my conclusion was that under-achievement IS the policy.
When you look at the calibre of our leadership it's clear that they can only remain big fish by constantly draining the pond.
Documents on the Council's own website admit that its ambitions are merely to chase the average for London on a variety of yardsticks, so even success can never exceed mediocrity. Achieving targets by the simple means of setting pathetically low ones may make career sense to an apparatchik, but not to the rest of us who have to live with the consequences.
Agree, because whatever happens in the Borough, everyone, almost, always votes Labour,

People are Brainwashed that the Champagne Socialists will provide Jobs, Housing,Look after the NHS, Education, Education, Education and of course how can one forget, Tony Bliar Theme Tune 'Things can only get better in 1997?'

Have things got better? No of course.

Except for him, commanding a 300K ' After Dinner Speech Fee at some International Conference, attended by like minded 'World Leaders'

Enjoy the fruits of Labour

Cranberry Tinted Chequered Labour Spectacles available in Walthamstow Village, in time for the next Council Elections.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough...' Helen, after years of wondering how this borough, despite being a short ride from the centre of the worlds' financial capital, located on the A406, M11, with two Tube and several Overground lines, and a lot of attractive green space also, I came to an end of excuses: my conclusion was that under-achievement IS the policy. When you look at the calibre of our leadership it's clear that they can only remain big fish by constantly draining the pond. Documents on the Council's own website admit that its ambitions are merely to chase the average for London on a variety of yardsticks, so even success can never exceed mediocrity. Achieving targets by the simple means of setting pathetically low ones may make career sense to an apparatchik, but not to the rest of us who have to live with the consequences.[/p][/quote]Agree, because whatever happens in the Borough, everyone, almost, always votes Labour, People are Brainwashed that the Champagne Socialists will provide Jobs, Housing,Look after the NHS, Education, Education, Education and of course how can one forget, Tony Bliar Theme Tune 'Things can only get better in 1997?' Have things got better? No of course. Except for him, commanding a 300K ' After Dinner Speech Fee at some International Conference, attended by like minded 'World Leaders' Enjoy the fruits of Labour Cranberry Tinted Chequered Labour Spectacles available in Walthamstow Village, in time for the next Council Elections. Cornbeefur

12:16pm Sat 17 Nov 12

mdj says...

Sorry, an incomplete sentence: 'years of wondering how this borough (despite its advantages) was so shabby and low-achieving..&c'

I think there's now room for valid doubt as to whether everyone recorded as voting Labour actually did so, following the High St debacle at the last election.
Sorry, an incomplete sentence: 'years of wondering how this borough (despite its advantages) was so shabby and low-achieving..&c' I think there's now room for valid doubt as to whether everyone recorded as voting Labour actually did so, following the High St debacle at the last election. mdj

10:56pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

mdj wrote:
Sorry, an incomplete sentence: 'years of wondering how this borough (despite its advantages) was so shabby and low-achieving..&
c'

I think there's now room for valid doubt as to whether everyone recorded as voting Labour actually did so, following the High St debacle at the last election.
We will never know.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Sorry, an incomplete sentence: 'years of wondering how this borough (despite its advantages) was so shabby and low-achieving..& c' I think there's now room for valid doubt as to whether everyone recorded as voting Labour actually did so, following the High St debacle at the last election.[/p][/quote]We will never know. Cornbeefur

5:31pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Hex, E11 says...

KWyatt-Lown, in case you haven't seen it:

http://downlode.org/
Miscellany/Waltham-F
orest-troll.html

Remember folks, don't feed the troll.
KWyatt-Lown, in case you haven't seen it: http://downlode.org/ Miscellany/Waltham-F orest-troll.html Remember folks, don't feed the troll. Hex, E11

6:36pm Mon 19 Nov 12

bishbosh says...

Absolutely!!
Absolutely!! bishbosh

7:32pm Mon 19 Nov 12

stickmanny says...

make a complaint against malicious posters to the editor. there is a Contact Us link at the bottom of this page.
make a complaint against malicious posters to the editor. there is a Contact Us link at the bottom of this page. stickmanny

1:12pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Bernard 87 says...

MJDs post from last Friday is spot on. The council seem to prefer to preside over a poor borough rather than attempt to improve the borough for the better. Waltham Forest is strategically based for both Central London and the Essex countryside yet the Labour administration have spent years forcing many residents out by systematically allowing areas to fall into a state of neglect. The sad thing is that so many people have left the borough that the council will forever be governed by the Labour party and will slide further and further into decline.

As for this nonsense story. John Cryer could call for 100k homes but he should remember that before 1997 London was not bursting at the seems with people like it is today. A large part of that reason is immigration which under Labour was just too high and not sustainable. Champagne socialists like Mr Cryer are more than happy to cram the poor into an even tighter space as he does not have to live there with them.

Furthermore, these social/affordable homes could have been built over the past decade but instead councils sold off every scrap of land to private developers who then went on to build shanty town developments all over the city creating an even bigger problem.
MJDs post from last Friday is spot on. The council seem to prefer to preside over a poor borough rather than attempt to improve the borough for the better. Waltham Forest is strategically based for both Central London and the Essex countryside yet the Labour administration have spent years forcing many residents out by systematically allowing areas to fall into a state of neglect. The sad thing is that so many people have left the borough that the council will forever be governed by the Labour party and will slide further and further into decline. As for this nonsense story. John Cryer could call for 100k homes but he should remember that before 1997 London was not bursting at the seems with people like it is today. A large part of that reason is immigration which under Labour was just too high and not sustainable. Champagne socialists like Mr Cryer are more than happy to cram the poor into an even tighter space as he does not have to live there with them. Furthermore, these social/affordable homes could have been built over the past decade but instead councils sold off every scrap of land to private developers who then went on to build shanty town developments all over the city creating an even bigger problem. Bernard 87

2:33pm Sat 24 Nov 12

G Sladden says...

Helen, Walthamstow wrote: 'Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough.'

Helen, I don't know if pride comes into the picture, but necessity might. How else would you retain a solid Labour majority for decades? You can only do that if your constituency contains a critical mass of chattering classes types (but as we know they tend to prefer Hampstead and Chiswick) or a significant majority of poor, inarticulate people who tend to be at the bottom of the food chain. That’s the way it is. And that is why Walthamstow will remain a dump for decades to come.
Helen, Walthamstow wrote: 'Sometimes I wonder if our leaders are proud to be in charge of a poor borough.' Helen, I don't know if pride comes into the picture, but necessity might. How else would you retain a solid Labour majority for decades? You can only do that if your constituency contains a critical mass of chattering classes types (but as we know they tend to prefer Hampstead and Chiswick) or a significant majority of poor, inarticulate people who tend to be at the bottom of the food chain. That’s the way it is. And that is why Walthamstow will remain a dump for decades to come. G Sladden

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree