What can be done to tackle the UK's housing crisis which breaches UN convention?

[cruikshank]

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/28/uk-housing-crisis-in-breach-of-human-rights?CMP=share_btn_fb

From the article:

Charities say soaring housing rental costs, unhealthy conditions in homes, and rising levels of homelessness mean UK is in violation of UN commitment on homes

[Isitmebut]

Were all these charities so vocal in the 2000's as we were too accumulate 5 million needing social homes by May 2010, when we could spend many tens of billion on fat government and a little bit more funding left wing think tanks - rather than stimulate new home growth over a pee poor 115,000 a year?

Or do they wait until the money runs out.

Does anyone have any scathing reports back then, other than the one from Shelter the homeless charity that I, in totes amazeballs, wheel out in disgust?

[Isitmebut]

The best way to sort it and 'build for England' is WORK with, rather than threaten, the private sector builders and local councils - so now the political risk is out the way and neither of those providers of UK domestic homes will care if we are in the EU or not - it can only get a lot better.

It has to, government be warned, no excuses.

[cruikshank]

I agree that it has taken far too long for any mainstream attention to something that has been a problem for well over a decade and is a result of thirty years of failed housing policies from all parties. But I do feel a glimmer of hope that at least people are now talking about a crisis rather than about how rich everyone is because their houses are worth so much money.

[LumpySpacedPrincess]

The tories are planning on scrapping human rights anyway.

[cruikshank]

Yes, it's a nasty foreign notion, about on a par with paella and equality.

[LotusLight]

(Not quite true. Even without the Human Rights Act English common law has some of the best human rights on the planet right back to Magna Carta)

[cruikshank]

If that's the case (which it isn't) then there shouldn't be any issue with enshrining it in statute.

[Linguini]

It needs to be illegal to own a property and intentionally leave it uninhabited.
Some 600,000 properties in London are owned, purely for investment purposes, left as empty shells. Communities are destroyed. Lexington is a ghost town. Fitzrovia north of Oxford street used to be a residential area. All it is now is a hollow property investment zone where no one lives. Its disgusting.

[Linguini]

Not Lexington - Kensington.

[Jobless123]

"Some 600,000 properties in London are owned, purely for investment purposes, left as empty shells."

Bollocks.

It's actually 22,000.

Big fucking difference.

[Whiskwarrior]

22,000 is still a shockingly high figure when there are children who are homeless though.

[Jobless123]

Well not it isn't really. Homes are empty for various reasons. My Grandma's home was empty for about a year when she died while my parents sorted out her possessions and so on.

[Whiskwarrior]

So 22,000 homes in London are empty because all the owners have issues?

Or maybe Linguin was closer to the truth in the first place.

Homes are for living in. People are homeless.

[Jobless123]

Um, given that there are 3.3 million households in London, less than 1% being empty is pretty low.

More than 1% of the population dies each year, for example.

[Linguini]

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/11/powers-empty-houses-ignored-empty-dwelling-management

Apologies, I wrote London but meant UK.

[Linguini]

Homes are empty for a period eg when someone dies. The ethics of buying a home to intentionally leave it empty (eg large areas across London) for investment need to be addressed.

[Linguini]

m.england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/housing_facts_and_figures/subsection?section=homeless_households

"In England more than 81,000 households were found to be homeless in 2013/2014"

81,000 homeless households, 600,000 empty houses.

Obviously the issue is v complex though and any stats are highly likely to be incorrect.

[GratefulHead]

As far as I know we have the lowest rate of house building in Europe. We need a big build of affordable housing so that anyone can have a home. Our record in this is not good under either a Tory or Labour Govt.

Personally I'd like to see investment in Housing Associations who do an amazing job of providing not just housing but social support too. My local HA offers courses, floating support and skills training for anyone who wants and needs it. The courses are all free to tenants and all designed to build up skills which will make them employable or enhance the job they already have.

The floating support is designed for people who are elderly, have LD or any other issue which mKes them vulnerable.

So I'd like to see more investment to Housing Associations to help them build more homes for those who need them.

[GratefulHead]

Repeating myself there....

[Trapper]

Implying large areas in London are full of empty properties is nonsense - as anyone who lives here will tell you.
Building needs to increase rapidly. Any other policies are simply distractions.

[Linguini]

The Tory governments agenda is to push everything and everyone into the private sector and obliterate state fund.
Does not look good for housing association.

UK does indeed have the worst record for home building. Lets keep the pricetag on homes rising instead.

[Linguini]

Trapped, do you live in London? Have you been to Kensington / Fitzrovia / Regent park areas? People used to actually live in these areas but they are ghost towns. Ask any local cafe or small business that have had to close because the community has left.

Of course it doesn't effect the whole of London which is stupendously over crowded. But you cannot honestly disregard the entire issue.

[Degustibusnonestdisputandem]

The quality of new builds is generally dire, also. Tiny rooms, lack of storage, etc. countries like Germany and Sweden are streets ahead in this regard...

[Isitmebut]

I once read that the difference in the total land used for housing in Germany and the UK was around 2%, with Germany having 2% more, with the figure either being 13% versus 15%, or 15% versus 17% - excuse me, it was a long time ago.

So IMO we need;

• Bold decisions made on 'finding' more land.
  
• Less government rules/regs/planning restrictions.
  
• Government finances focused on guaranteeing/funding council/social housing.
  
• Government working with the private sector to ensure they 'build for England' at twice the current rate.
  

If a Conservative government can't improve on Labour's abysmal record on all of the above, we might as well all go home. Hmmm.

P.S. Who legislated for the amount of homes (thereby the size) on a piece of land, if memory serves wasn't it Labour/Prescott? If I'm wrong, I'll apologise to he with an alleged cocktail sausage, but not face-to-face. lol.

[GratefulHead]

Neither Labour nor Conservatives can cover themselves in glory on this issue. Both have appalling records where housing is concerned.