WW

@michaeljswalker It should also be said, what you're saying involves either a) massively restricting low paid migration or access to benefits or b) ripping up the needs based system and actually framing it as for low paid priced out.

Some thoughts on current housing debate - Attacking social housing due to "unproductive" tenants comes is cruel and will make it harder for YIMBYs to win consensus in the places they want to build. - The discourse on left that says increased supply doesn't matter for prices is empirically wrong, and suggests a commitment to ideology over evidence. - Cities with expanding populations need new housing for every class. If middle class professionals plus international students can't live in new high-rises, they will be competing for - and pushing up the price - of existing housing stock. - Speculative development being the only game in town won't provide enough supply as it is pro-cyclical. Oligopolistic developers will only build on mass when prices are stable or rising. - Public authorities need better funding to contribute to a mix of housing stock, especially in downturns. Status quo creates zero-sum game of chicken where private developers and council wrangle over how much "affordable" or social housing should be included, with the result often being that nothing gets built. - Our needs based social housing system, plus massive waiting lists, means millions of people struggling with housing costs will never be able to acquire social housing. Simply saying "we need more social housing, and nothing else really matters" is not providing them with a solution to their legitimate housing grievances.

@michaeljswalker Only build en-masse is an assumption which needs testing, given that it's current planning law which creates the situation with only a few large builders. Other countries have a healthy self build sector because of this and they are allowed to build.

@maxtempers I think it's driven by core and recruits and Boris Johnson Effect. The core don't want to be disinvited from their friends dinner parties and hence migration or social housing is a no go. Like BJ opening the borders out of social embarrassment

I've been fairly impressed by the "YIMBY community" on the Social Housing Question over the past couple of weeks. Not sure if it's just the algorithm or the BSKY exodus, but it does feel like a sea change compared with the discourse from even a couple of years ago.

The UK builds the smallest homes in Western Europe. @rosegrayston's response: your spare room is "over-consumption." You will live in the pod. And you will be happy. 😊

These people are crazy, and want you to live in a flat share forever and be happy. The paper they link to doesn't say overconsumption. They simply point out, clearly, that as incomes rise you don't want to live in a shit hole. x.com/rosegrayston/s…

Social housing in London is clearly a second order issue to just legalising building but it is still offensive that these people pretend not to understand basic reciprocity

Reserves aren't magic money. They're past tenant rent. When they're gone, they're bailed out. Every working Londoner for whom owning or renting a home is a pipe dream subsidises the people who don't have to. x.com/gamecounsel/st…

@shardon1980 They are clearly not less greedy in the north and missing the point. London is very expensive because housebuilding is completely flat and the prices are driven by how many people want to live there.

@weaverswinter Possibly but it’s the singular reason on my part of London why Labour lost the local elections. Every single ward in my area who has had these developments voted other than Labour. Leading to NOC where Labour had dominated for decades

I don't think enough people know that social housing is bleeding its councils dry. Rents haven't covered the costs for years. 'Generates income' the way a haemorrhage generates blood flow. x.com/DanicaPriest/s…

@eng_dad @WasOnceLoved As someone who has the mistake of previously owning a council leasehold in Southwark I can definitely agree this is both the worst of public and private all in one.

@WasOnceLoved @weaverswinter I don't think people appreciate how this has added costs to what are really basic repairs performed by already knowledgeable people in exchange for a sticker. Councils simply couldn't train everyone to make sure they can be compliant so in the end, they have no one.

@shardon1980 Guess all the property sellers and landlords in Burnley are just less profit minded and greedy!

@weaverswinter Until they remove profit as the main driver of any housing strategy . None of it will be solved. It ironic that in a housing crisis thousands of homes have been built in London that no one can afford or wants to live in. The curse of the shitty lawless new builds

@CouldNeverBeMe They're doing exactly what BTL landlords do - selling high-value stock to capture the capital gain, because rents don't cover the operating costs.

@CouldNeverBeMe HAs not doing well really. The sector's interest cover went below 100% last year for the first time since 2008 i.e. earnings aren't covering interest payments. They're coping by running down reserves, selling stock at record levels, and cutting their new build pipeline.

@CouldNeverBeMe To be clear. The solution is to allow building a shit ton more housing. Changing social tenancies alone doesn't fix the problem but is still a huge violation of basic fairness.

@CouldNeverBeMe Worth flipping the question. London landlords charge eye-watering rents and still only clear ~3%, often nothing. Nobody covers full maintenance from rent. Private landlords just have capital gains to lean on; social landlords don't.

@shardon1980 Fully agree. We could help solve this by making the councillors personally liable for the costs of temp accommodation for every new development they turn down.

@weaverswinter It’s temporary accommodation that is bleeding councils dry . You know all those payments to private landlords who build empires on slum housing.

@MaertensDanny Not true. In 4 of the last 5 years, councils have spent more on their HRAs than they took in - they're plugging the gap by drawing down reserves.

@weaverswinter Nonsense. Social housing absolutely covers its costs. What it increasingly struggles to do is fund ‘new social housing’, but we know who put the mockers on that some 40 years ago, for ‘political expediency’.

@shardon1980 In 4 of the last 5 years, councils have spent more on their HRAs than they took in - they're plugging the gap by drawing down reserves. That's the opposite of generating income for the council which is what the claim is.

@weaverswinter Lies lies and outright lies . There’s a whole seperate funding stream labelled housing revenue account where all the costs are paid for. You don’t understand the concept of not for profit hence why you think it’s a waste .

@RichardCovetous @DigitalDionysu1 @Kangaskhan6 Muting this thread thanks! Thinking you can allocate housing completely by proximity to current work (if any) is a level of nuts not worth engaging with.

@DigitalDionysu1 @Kangaskhan6 @weaverswinter Issue with that is "willingness" is actually "ability" and people sans ability also have no alternative. The scarcity is totally artificial and solvable though so prioritisation focus need not be so important. A logical priority then would be work/education place proximity.

Hilarious that these lads can't grasp the actual dystopia is someone in the top 10% of income at £50k priced out of London while social tenancies pass between generations like a landed estate. x.com/johnpmerrick/s…