UK Politics

3954 readers

334 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Social and Affordable Housing Renewal (questions-statements.parliament.uk)

submitted 14 hours ago by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Labour's plan to build lots more housing, especially social housing, set out in detail here. Pennycook also did a thread on BlueSky which provides a handy summary.

So, in summary (with links to relevant bits of the thread): £39bn for a 10-year plan, aiming for 300,000 homes of which 180,000 will be social housing. The £39bn includes skills training and low-interest loans for social housing providers.

They're going to reform (not abolish, unfortunately) Right to Buy, so that homes are less discounted, tenants will have to wait longer before they can buy the homes, and those in new homes will have an even longer wait - 35 years before any of those 180,000 projected new homes can be bought under right to buy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 4 points 13 hours ago (7 children)

2 steps forward and 1 step back. I'll take it at this point, even if it's imperfect

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 6 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

Doesn't go as far forward as I'd like, but I don't see a backward step here. More homes is good, more money for more homes is good, social housing is the best kind of housing, and mitigating the worst of right to buy is still a forward move, even if it's not a whole step forward. So I make that 3.5 steps forward, 0 steps back!

[–] Stizzah@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

More homes is good

There are ~600,000 unoccupied homes in UK, of which over 248,000 are long-term vacant, meaning empty for 6+ months. Why the ruling class wants more? Are we so delusional to believe that they want to bring down house prices? I think the "professional landlords" and real estate corporations just want more assets, and they will outbid who wants a home to live in and will raise the prices even further.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 2 points 6 hours ago

The population wants and needs more housing, that's been a fact for quite some time now. Adding way more supply to the market should help house prices, albeit a small amount. We're already seeing the average price start to drop in real terms.

I'd be interested to see where those 600,000 houses are and what condition they're in and if they're suitable for modern families.

load more comments (4 replies)