The problem with Brexit is we didn't Brexit hard enough

[Middlelanehogger]

The EU itself was just the start.

But there are still more institutions which still influence our laws and make it impossible to actually achieve "taking back control".

If anything, we've left the trading bloc (which had economic benefits) but stayed in many of the legal institutions (which retain control over us).

So which body do we leave next - the ECHR? The ECJ? Keenly awaiting responses 😘

I wouldn't trust any UK developer to build nice apartments, they're all terrible with paper thin walls and you just end up with druggy neighbours shooting up in the stairwells. You can't look at another country and take what works there and apply it to Britain because we are a unique country.

I'll leave this with you.

What????

Regs on building standards aren't from outer space! If UK developers cannot build decent apartments and councils enforce tenancy etc rules, that is purely down to UK Govt corruption.

What works in Malmo or Amsterdam can and should work here.

Of course leaving the EU and the opt outs we had when in, makes matters worse, as seen with food standards, UK has to put up with '000s of % increase in damaging plastic chemicals than EU citizens or fast foods made with "not for human consumption" pork.

Well, you could. All you'd need would be raised minimum standards for such buildings. The problem with that is that Tory donors, landowners and landlords wouldn't like it, so it will never happen.

It was under Margaret Thatcher that minimum specifications for newbuild houses were abandoned. People like to forget that the race to the bottom started with the Tories.

Britain isn't unique. The US has very similar issues. The only difference is they don't have the same delusions of empire.

Correct @Florenz a unique lack of standards unless someone is prepared to pay a mint for it. There is no reason on earth we cannot have similar apartments but it takes will, controls, hard cash and yes rules that I think should be enforced. - and no they shouldn't only be offered to those in a catastrophic situation, that's why you end up with sink estates. If You turn it into a shit hole, you get booted out and have to take pot luck on the open market. My own view is actually quite hard on those things- and it needs policing. If I have to have 6 monthly inspections in my nice rented house then I fail to see why someone in subsidised housing doesn't have it too.

When councils started allocating tenancies based on need instead of time on the waiting list is where it all went wrong.

@Florenz I disagree. First come, first served would mean the most vulnerable miss out. That would include children, people with disabilities and veterans. Do you really want veterans in need (who currently are a priority) to miss out?

I think it would be better for society in general, yes. And that is what matters, not individual sob stories. The criteria being changed is what created the perception of council housing being undesirable and somewhere decent people didn't want to live, which created sink estates and ghettoes for the poor.

So where are poor and vulnerable people going to live then? Also many people don't share that ridiculous view of council housing. And it is both ridiculous and snobbish, and shouldn't be pandered to.

Why wouldn't there be a perception of council housing being for poor people when you make being poor one of the main criteria for getting a council house?

Council houses have been stigmatised since their inception, just as HA ones do now.
As @Crikeyalmighty said, you need enforcement of tenancy rules.

But there are very little social housing available, the waiting list in my nearest city is 11000 families on the waiting list for 3 bed houses, 2 or 3 come up for rent each week... so 150 come off that 11000 each year, the vast majority will never get an affordable home.

But how are you going to provide housing for poor people then? Should they not have a place to live? I'm all for ensuring they look after their homes, but given how many people I know who are in council housing, I can't agree with the idea that they're all feckless and antisocial. They're really not.

I am a big believer in tenancy rules - if you are lucky enough to get social rent levels then you should be looking after the place- as I said before I can't treat my private rented house any old way- it gets checked over every 6 months. It's a high end agent and that's part of the deal- I don't mind as we keep it nice.

I don't mean it has to be pristine and show home like, but if you start ripping out doors (I have seen this) filling your garden and front with assorted shit, being a nuisance neighbour , hugely overgrown gardens, massive hoarding or just a total state then you should be given notice to improve things or risk being asked to leave - and not allocated social housing again. I do realise this is tough on those who have bad mental health problems , so more support needed in those situations. I do think if some people thought there might be dire consequences, they would probably take a bit more responsibility - I'm socially minded but some peoples total lack of basic standards is horrifying -- and it's awful for their kids too to grow up in these situations

But how are you going to provide housing for poor people then?

Remember, there are enough people around who take the view "nothing to do with me, guv"

Should they not have a place to live?

Why ? They're poor. I refer you to the Tory mantra that the poor deserve to be poor. It's the corollary of the rich deserving to be rich.

This. And let’s not pretend all owner occupiers look after their homes.

The problem with your statement:

The number of poor and vulnerable (A) is too large relative to the cost of housing them via taxation via the taxpayer (B).

We have come to the end of the proverbial road.

Too many net benefit recipients vs net taxpayers.

Thats the reality in a country (UK) with flatlining national income (and productivity).

@TheThinkingGoblin within the UK's chosen economic model that's probably true.

Other economic models are available.

@TheThinkingGoblin you’re still ignoring the fact that people have to live somewhere. Unless you’re happy with huge rises in homelessness and shanty towns it needs to be addressed because the fact is that this country does not provide the economic opportunities for a significant number of people to be able to ‘bootstrap’ their way out of poverty.

There is also the argument that stable housing provides the foundation for many to be able to ‘pay their own way’.

It doesn't matter how you "rationalise" this to yourself.

We have a specific pot of money to work with based on the tax paid via national income.

And thats it. No more, no less. Our ability to "borrow" beyond that level is now kaputt. Gone. Sayonara.

So if you want housing for the poor and vulnerable, you will have to give less money to the pensioners (54% of all tax transfers go to them via pension, nhs, social care etc).

We have a specific pot of money to work with based on the tax paid via national income

That’s not how it works. Road tax doesn’t just pay directly for the upkeep of roads either.

And thats it. No more, no less. Our ability to "borrow" beyond that level is now kaputt. Gone. Sayonara

Borrowing more right now would be risky and require handling with responsibility but borrowing for investment rather than firefighting isn’t beyond the realms of possibility.

Neither of those statements are true.

So if you want housing for the poor and vulnerable, you will have to give less money to the pensioners (54% of all tax transfers go to them via pension, nhs, social care etc).

Is there any evidence available to back that up?

Unless you’re happy with huge rises in homelessness and shanty towns

I know more than one person who has no problem with that, as long as it's "foreigners", "a long way from London" and (most importantly) doesn't affect house prices.

Anyway, who needs shanty towns when you have barges ? This is the 21st century after all. We're not barbarians.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/06/housebuilders-cut-back-on-construction-as-uk-mortgage-rate-rises-spook-buyers

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1118364/Autumn_Statement_2022_Policy_Costings_.pdf

You don't work in finance or economics do you?

The UK is broke. Not just now, but also in the future due to demographics.

We will never, ever be able to borrow at close to 0% again

It was a MASSIVE own goal not to borrow for investment during the last 10 years.

That opportunity is gone.

We are now looking at rates around 5-7% due to demographics and inflation premium.

Basically we cannot finance any project at rates of 5-7%.

Its over. Now the UK will simply tread water and get a bit poorer per capita.

People on the ground have no idea what is coming because they have always assumed there was an endless pot of money.

Will be a harsh lesson for quite a few in the UK.