To ask what one or two policies you think could make the biggest difference to the U.K.?

[whatkatydid2013]

To me the big one is social housing. I feel like if we could build up a large supply of social housing at reasonable rates all over the country the benefits would be massive. It would make life affordable for many more people and lead to them being less likely to need in work benefits. The affordable rents would cover maintenance and could keep large numbers of people in stable employment doing said maintenance (as well as creating administrative roles). It would make it less challenging to staff key worker roles in more expensive areas. In the short term I appreciate it would be a massive expense but it seems like in the long term it would cost less than our current system on a going basis and it would make many people a lot more financially secure. I find it disappointing that all main parties seem so focused on home ownership in their policy statements. I know there are many important policy areas but this just always feels like one that’s very central and totally glossed over by all parties. Maybe because there isn’t a quick, easy fix?

Cracking idea that. "You want to improve your lot, well done but it will cost you your home, your job and your children's school place if there is no-where you can go locally once we've kicked you out for daring to do better for yourself". Yep you really thought that through didn't you?

But if I am going to cheat and have more, I would:

Ban greenfield development, bring disused houses out of disuse, and have sticks and carrots to bring holiday lets and second homes back into residential

Reform primary healthcare - many people don't need to see a GP but they need to see someone - the answer may be to have drop in centres attached to GP surgeries where you can just turn up and wait to be seen

Merge employee NI and income tax, increase income tax and make tax simpler - the tax take would be greater

Retain inheritance tax - you don't have to pay it, it's only because people hoard wealth instead of spending it earlier in their lives. Spend and enjoy your money and there will be no, or much less, tax to pay.

Extend a ULEZ type charge to SUVs regardless of age and type of fuel and invest in cycling and walking infrastructure rather than new roads

Strict controls on dogs and have dog exercise areas, dogs to be on short leads everywhere else

Reform jail sentences so the only people who go to jail are those who pose a danger; everyone else to be punished in other ways. At the moment we have too many people in jail who shouldn't be there, but there aren't any votes in making life better for criminals

Rejoin the EU (ducks)

This. Issues that affect the whole country for the long term should not be subject to party politics, with every party afraid to take vital steps as they know it will lose them votes. (See also kicking the can down the road on pension age ...)

I'll take banning zero hours contracts for my second one - give people a fair wage so they can actually stabilise their lives.

@Dontcallmescarface

Obviously there should be protections in place to allow a gradual shift.

But people shouldn’t be profiteering off of social housing and allowed to stay indefinitely.

Somebody mentioned upthread a couple on 80k a year having a tiny rental payment on a social house, whereas another family in the same area on lesser wages are paying the going rental for that area.

It’s a madness.

@lavender2023 sorry should have clarified I’m a huge supporter of inheritance tax - it helps to level the playing field. My DC will still inherit more than enough - the rest should be redistributed.

@SensationalSusie in London I think it was the Peabody trust, they provided cheaper rented accommodation to people who were earning a certain percentage less than the average national wage. each year you had to declare total household income. if you exceeded the wages amount you were given 12 months grace to move out. this is how council housing should work. it should be a leg up for those that need it. but it isnt.

@mummymeister - yes Peabody and a few other trusts did this. They also rented a few places out at market rate to bring in income.

They were good properties and it was a good system. Desirable places and well kept.,

Housing. More social housing (houses not flats). Large taxation on second homes and penalties on empty properties. Capping the profit you can make on a rental property. More regulation on house prices - five new towers of flats have sprung up in my area of shoebox flats marketed at 500K for a two bed when the local house prices are around £300-£400K. This inflation pushes out local residents.

The footballers’ wages are nothing to do with government policy!!

Just thought of another one (which Labour has proposed but then appeared to row back from slightly) - day one employment protection rights.

I don't see why you should be sacked on a whim in the first two years. There should be protection from day one. If someone wants to get rid of you there should be a process to follow, even if it's a cut-down process during say the first six months. No sacking people because they eg got covid on day two of their employment, for example.

Somebody mentioned upthread a couple on 80k a year having a tiny rental payment on a social house, whereas another family in the same area on lesser wages are paying the going rental for that area.

And the family paying the going rent may well be getting a good chunk of it (if not all) of it paid for by UC/HB, which in practice means the taxpayer.

The rent on my MIL's council house is £125pw. An identical house in the same road is rented out by a private landlord for £1300 a month. ie £300pw.

Some BTL landlords are effectively getting the property they own paid for by the rest of us.

I'll take banning zero hours contracts for my second one - give people a fair wage so they can actually stabilise their lives.

At one time, I would have agreed with you, but I know a few people who like the flexibility that a ZHC gives them. It means they can take time off whenever they want, providing they can afford it. Neither of them have huge outgoings, one has plenty of saving and the other has a small pension because her DH died young, so they can both afford to have a lower income for a month every now and then.

Ideally, someone would find a way of ensuring that everyone on a ZHC was on it because they wanted to be on it, not because the employer insists.

I know of someone who was socially housed when in dire need, but was never reviewed. So they stayed there throughout the completion of two degrees, when in employment and when married. Rent £300 a month, annual household income £50-60k… they got an enormous discount via right to buy and were able to buy a 300k house via this.

@SensationalSusie
This scenario would be better dealt with by stopping the right to buy rather than stopping the right to remain in the house at a fair rent . Most people who are earning decent money would probably choose to remain in the SH for a short time whilst they saved a deposit and then move out to purchase their own home which they would own outright when their mortgage was paid off.

There definitely needs to be more done around tax loopholes for those earning ridiculous amount and large corporations .

I don't think that's really true unfortunately. The difference between social rent and a mortgage is so so vast, people won't leave. It's over £1000 a month difference between my mortgage and an identical house on my road that's still council. Why would anyone give that up?

We need to have a manufacturing base, that actually generates income.

Half the jobs in the UK must be public sector. So paid for by tax. Its not sustainable.

Why are we importing so much stuff, from steel to clothing?

More than 50% of social tenants want to buy apparently. I think a big driver may be choosing where you want to live. My landlord when I was a student was an ex Right to buy tenant, he rented out the flat in camden while maintaining his family home in northamptonshire. similarly a lot of the people who bought their ex council homes in east london also moved to seaside towns in later life.

also i think it is 'aspirational'.

Cos no one wants to pay £200 for a regular dress that isn't from a designer brand. People like Shein and Primark, that should give you an indication.

they are often accidental landlords - parents died and left them a house, move in with partner or have to relocate long term to somewhere else

None of those things are "accidents", they all involve a conscious decision: to hang on to a house that was inherited or to hang on to a property they no longer live in.

The only way I can think of where someone can become a LL by "accident" is if they inherit a home that is already rented out.

@LakieLady which is why I think the recent suggestion to allow housing benefit payments to be used towards mortgages was a good one. Some people who are disabled or low earners will always need some benefits and they shouldn’t be banned from home ownership. Because it breaks the chain and funnels money to those who need it rather than as you say BTL landlords.

Number plate recognition and automatic £1000 fine for people who throw litter from their cars.

The rate of immigration means many social housing will be needed by these homeless families. Families are ime at the top of the queue.
If social housing actually made money for the council everyone would do it so it must be a drain. How to make it profitable - why don’t they stop right to buy.

Raising the minimum wage

Putting retirement age to 62 for all.

A proper public transport system where you can actually get home after a football match or concert by bus/train. Proper services on Sundays on the trains. Expanded train service so you can actually get to your local airport for the first flight of the day and can get a train home after the last flight has landed (Manchester I'm looking at you!).

Massive increase in home building, redevelopment of "brown field" sites, not just derelict industrial sites, but also all the empty shops in the High Streets and the empty floors above shops that are still open - convert them all into flats! Force councils to impose CPOs on empty properties of people who've gone into care homes, foreign investors who've never lived in them, "disputed" ownership situations from wills, etc - just get on and get them back into people living there and sort out the legalities/compensation etc later.

@whatkatydid2013
I don’t understand how upkeep of social housing costs more than upkeep of privately rented housing + a profit for landlords. For that to be true either private housing must be universally poorly maintained, social housing must only be occupied by people who wilfully destroy it or social housing must be maintained in an incredibly inefficient way.

Because social house repairs are done by the LA and if you'd ever worked for one you'd know they are inefficient. Private landlords are able to choose the cheapest labour to fix their properties. Councils can't do this.