2 steps forward and 1 step back. I'll take it at this point, even if it's imperfect
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3983 readers
106 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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!
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.
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.
the downside I see is that after 35 years, the value of the area will go up incredibly (building stable communities has the tendency of raising property prices), and the actual tenants who want to buy the homes they've raised kids in will simply not be able to afford the homes. If the wait was maybe 15 years, then they might have a chance.
At the same time I can understand that making the waiting time period short could be potentially gamed
the actual tenants who want to buy the homes they’ve raised kids in will simply not be able to afford the homes
But only they will be eligible to buy them. So, either they get to buy them or they just get to stay. Win-win?
I genuinely hope that's the case. I have some misgivings about another government coming in and stating otherwise, whilst giving some token concessions to the tenants who currently live there to clear out.
I don't think R2B's ever worked that way, it's always been tenants only!
that's reassuring, and I guess is more a reflection of my own lack of faith in current governments worldwide in general
Yes, it's fair - and indeed, good and right - to be sceptical. But we have to temper the scepticism with realism, which is the tricky bit!