There’s nothing to stop local authorities building homes if they wish to. Off the top of my head, Bradford, York, Norwich/Norfolk, N. Yorkshire all do it.
I set up a working group to look into doing it as a joint venture between the town and district council where I live but a change in Cllrs after elections lead to it being canned. Ironically, it was a loss of Conservative Cllrs and an increase in Labour Cllrs that lead to its demise. There was even seed funding from the Conservative government in the pot should it have gone forward. Building to rent is more complicated than building to sell but it is possible.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 10:50 am
by Mellsblue
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.
The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.
Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.
The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.
Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.
Thank you for the insight.
Yeah, that all passes the sniff test and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.
I still think it was a worthwhile watch, but as with any media, you should take it with a pinch of salt and not as gospel.
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.
The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.
Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.
Thank you for the insight.
Yeah, that all passes the sniff test and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.
I still think it was a worthwhile watch, but as with any media, you should take it with a pinch of salt and not as gospel.
Yep, I will def watch.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
by Mellsblue
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:54 am
by Puja
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Puja
All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Puja
All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.
why on earth is that a good thing
Its a great test of sweeping away obstacles though, and cunningly cuts very few labour seats- all the Cambridge/Oxford stuff Reeves announced today is already in planning (lol).
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Puja
All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.
why on earth is that a good thing
Its a great test of sweeping away obstacles though, and cunningly cuts very few labour seats- all the Cambridge/Oxford stuff Reeves announced today is already in planning (lol).
Makes it easier for you to watch some winning rugby
Yep, they are making a lot of noise about stuff (not just this) that was already in the pipeline.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:32 pm
by Puja
Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."
I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.
Puja
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:34 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Puja wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:32 pm
Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."
I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.
Puja
It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.
Puja wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:32 pm
Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."
I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.
Puja
It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.
Okay, that context makes a fuck of a lot of difference. My apologies for sounding off without having done my research - I don't like the prick (apart from anything else, the fact that what I thought he'd done was eminently plausible and entieely on brand for him), but I have clearly unfairly maligned him here.
Apologies for the fake news; please ignore and carry on your normal lives amidst the end of days.
Puja wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:32 pm
Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."
I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.
Puja
It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.
Puja wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:32 pm
Wes Streeting declaring that NHS diversity programs are "anti-whiteness" and talks about "ideological hobby horses" that "have no place in the health service."
I knew we were planning on cozying up to Trump, but I didn't realise it was going to be quite that overt. Streeting really does seem to be a nasty bit of work.
Puja
It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:34 pm
It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.
Honestly, I like pretty much everything said there…
One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that
The headline was a bit clickbaity but the article more measured, although Streeting might well have been trying to appeal to Farage's voters with his choice of words.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2025 10:34 pm
It doesn't sound quite so bad in this article (although I don't know what the whole interview was like). Having said that, Streeting is such a centre-right bag of wind the benefit of the doubt is probably wasted on him.
Honestly, I like pretty much everything said there…
One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that
The headline was a bit clickbaity but the article more measured, although Streeting might well have been trying to appeal to Farage's voters with his choice of words.
The choice of words in this context makes sense. Telling people that we want DEI, but we don’t want people to use it to exclude others. There are extremists.
One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that
The headline was a bit clickbaity but the article more measured, although Streeting might well have been trying to appeal to Farage's voters with his choice of words.
The choice of words in this context makes sense. Telling people that we want DEI, but we don’t want people to use it to exclude others. There are extremists.
I'd like to read the interview. If he's been asked about DEI then probably fair enough. If he's brought it up then more likely he's jumping on the Trump bandwagon.
Honestly, I like pretty much everything said there…
One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that
Streeting I think has some vision and ideas and is doing stuff on the qt that is sensible.
Agreed, I like what he has to say, mostly.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:11 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Labour have learnt nothing from the failure of mainstream politicians across Europe and the failure of the Tories here.
Fighting on the ground of the far-right, using its arguments, promoting its concerns, doesn't work. It only normalises them, makes them relevant, empowers them. Labour (and, to be honest, the Tories too) should make a straightforward sensible case for a certain level of migration, suck the hysteria out of it and move on to more important issues. This advert is pure Farage-fuel.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 3:11 pm
Labour have learnt nothing from the failure of mainstream politicians across Europe and the failure of the Tories here.
Fighting on the ground of the far-right, using its arguments, promoting its concerns, doesn't work. It only normalises them, makes them relevant, empowers them. Labour (and, to be honest, the Tories too) should make a straightforward sensible case for a certain level of migration, suck the hysteria out of it and move on to more important issues. This advert is pure Farage-fuel.
I partially agree. The benefits of immigration just haven’t been made to the public at all. I’d suggest that controlled immigration in some way that’s fair and ethical aligned to better comms would take the anger out of this argument.
It’s also beholden on the government, if it wants to promote open borders like the Blair government did, to ensure that local issues don’t spiral out of control and become ‘evidence’ for extremists.
No one, except the BNP potentially, can outflank Farage on immigration.Badenoch is onto a loser here, but the Tories haven’t yet realised that moving to the right won’t make them suddenly more popular.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:24 am
by Son of Mathonwy
In their ongoing effort to ape Reform UK, Labour are (probably) breaching international law by effectively barring
citizenship forever from those who have been granted asylum after arriving illegally here.
and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.
McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
One would have to be working very hard to take offence at any of that