Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

Obviously there are many factors, but you can't ignore the impact of population increase caused by FOM meaning there are something like, maybe 2 million additional people in the UK who need somewhere to live.

The UK population grew from ~57M in 1992 to ~67M in 2023. In that time there have been ~4M additional homes built. So even absent that 2M there would still be a housing shortage.

 

[brad465]

But that doesn't benefit the local population if the economy is simply growing in proportion to the number of people living here. What really matters is GDP per capita - and there's no reason to believe that went up as a result of FOM.

Again, that would make no difference to GDP per capita (or to tax take per capita0

But presumably, when people go abroad to retire, we still have to pay their pensions, so it's not significantly reducing the numbers of retired people we need to pay for. Plus it means that those pensions will be cycled into other countries' economies, not the UK economy (Worth pointing out since you've mentioned immigrants spending money in the UK - it works both ways!)

Why do you think housing costs have risen so much? Obviously there are many factors, but you can't ignore the impact of population increase caused by FOM meaning there are something like, maybe 2 million additional people in the UK who need somewhere to live.

GDP as a metric for wellbeing is poor in many ways such I think we and the rest of the world should move on from it, but that's a whole new debate in itself. On GDP per capita, this is also poor, not just for using GDP in its calculation, but because the average is skewed by some very wealthy individuals taking the majority of value produced; anything to do with "per capita", or "average wealth/earnings" should be replaced with the respective median.

On the immigration and housing issue, the amount of power and influence the property sector has in the economy will have a huge say in both high levels of immigration (ending FOM hasn't exactly led to immigration reductions, you still have to have a government willing to cut it), and in what amount and type of housing gets built. Property developers have donated plenty to the Tory party while in Government, and with over 10% of MPs also being Landlords from both Tory and Labour (and others?), it's no surprise the whole issue is in the state it's in. If it's possible to get rid of this bribing/lobbying behaviour from outside influences and conflicts of interest, then this alone will go a long way to solving housing, immigration and practically everything else in this country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The UK population grew from ~57M in 1992 to ~67M in 2023. In that time there have been ~4M additional homes built. So even absent that 2M there would still be a housing shortage.

Sure. But not as great a housing shortage as there would have been if the UK population had 'only' grown from ~57M to - say - ~65M.

 

[Magdalia]

GDP as a metric for wellbeing is poor in many ways

GDP is not a metric for wellbeing, it is a metric for economic activity. They are not the same thing.

I think we and the rest of the world should move on from it

That won't happen, because GDP is a good metric for the economic activity on which governments can raise tax revenue. All of the biggest taxes are based on economic activity that are components of GDP: employment and self employment income for income tax, company profits for corporation tax and consumers' expenditure for value added tax.

In simple terms more GDP means more tax revenue.

 

[takno]

Sure. But not as great a housing shortage as there would have been if the UK population had 'only' grown from ~57M to - say - ~65M.

If you're suggestion of 2m is correct (I think if anything it's actually about double the real net number), then there would likely be much the same shortfall either way Housebuilding hasn't exactly been going flat-out to come up with 4m homes in 30 years, so it's reasonable to conclude that housebuilders have been building shy of the required amount in order to maximise their returns. If that's the case then in all likelihood they would have reduced the number of homes built even further to keep the maximised profits

 

[The Ham]

Does the report concentrate only on direct economic comparisons? It seems to.

I can't see how it treats the results of population increase as a result of inwards migration; an increase in demand for housing, for example. Basic economics suggest that the result of that will be an increase in house prices. Is that ignored, or is it treated as part of the net economic contribution? If the latter is the case, an increase in house prices would not be universally seen as a positive overall.

Of course, by the same token if those moving here include a larger than average number of skilled construction workers the wages (market price) in construction will reduce, making houses cheaper to build.

One of the issues with housing is the number of people who now live in a house with just one or two people, a lot of those is down to the lack of children based on the size of the population, however another factor is the number of over 65's (which is growing at a much faster rate than any other age group).

If the population was stable at 60 million and you shift from 2.9 people per house to 2.4 people per house you need an extra 4.3 million homes (those household sizes are those for 1970's and the 2020's, so show some of the issue we have to deal with on top of the fact that the population has increased).

But that doesn't benefit the local population if the economy is simply growing in proportion to the number of people living here. What really matters is GDP per capita - and there's no reason to believe that went up as a result of FOM.

One issue with a per capita value is that it counts everyone equally, those on state pensions and those earning £50,000. Arguably there should be a value for working age population, as otherwise you could have GDP per capita taking sharply but actually that almost entirely be down to having a falling working age population.

Again, that would make no difference to GDP per capita (or to tax take per capita)

See above

But presumably, when people go abroad to retire, we still have to pay their pensions, so it's not significantly reducing the numbers of retired people we need to pay for. Plus it means that those pensions will be cycled into other countries' economies, not the UK economy (Worth pointing out since you've mentioned immigrants spending money in the UK - it works both ways!)

Indeed it works both ways when it comes to spending, however someone on a low(ish) pension it's going to contribute fast less than someone on a wage, as generally few are paid more by their pension than their job.

Why do you think housing costs have risen so much? Obviously there are many factors, but you can't ignore the impact of population increase caused by FOM meaning there are something like, maybe 2 million additional people in the UK who need somewhere to live.

See the point above about the 4.7 million extra homes required just by the population staying at 60 million between 1970 and 2020.

Obviously the population over that time has changed from 56 million to 67 million which actually has made it so much worse, as that's a demand for housing rising from 19.3 million homes to 28 million homes. Currently there's 26.4 million homes (which would imply a shortfall of 1.6 million).

Whilst FOM has potentially added 2 million people, assuming they also occupy housing at a rate of 2.4 people per house, they would need about half of that shortfall (0.85 million), so there would still be a significant shortfall.

With a falling working age population it's likely that the numbers per house may well fall a bit more (especially given we're going to see the 65+ age group rising, with significant growth in those aged over 80, and they tend to be in households of 2 or less - mostly due to not having many children living at home).

If it were to (say) fall to 2.35 people per house at 64 million we'd need 550,000 extra homes. As you can see some fairly small changes in home occupancy rates could nearly wipe out 3 years of the house building target of 200,000 homes per year (not that the target was met, or even nearly met, for most of the last twenty years).

Conversely if we'd managed to maintain home occupancy at 2.5 per dwelling we could have had an extra 10% (200,000) from FOM and it not required more houses than we currently need.

As others have highlighted it's unclear how FOM has aided in the building of new homes (it was certainly the case that you would have been paying a lot for any sort of trade around the turn of the millennium and that reduced as the Eastern European countries were allowed in), so it's not always clear cut.

If we continue to see falling household sizes then ending FOM isn't going to stop there being a significant (and potentially growing) shortfall in the number of houses needed.

As such, whilst FOM is a factor, it's only one of many factors.

However I would add that saying that we need more working aged people doesn't mean that:
- it should be unlimited (there's a lot of space between no immigration and unlimited immigration)
- that FOM is what we should go back to having (although it's easy to define, so it's easier to explain to people)

 

[Typhoon]

One of the issues with housing is the number of people who now live in a house with just one or two people, a lot of those is down to the lack of children based on the size of the population, however another factor is the number of over 65's (which is growing at a much faster rate than any other age group).

This is very true. I live in an area where the majority of the properties are two bedroom bungalows. The average occupancy is certainly no more than two, most are retired. We regularly get junk mail about down-sizing into a new apartment. Looking at the most recent, a one bed apartment costs more than we would get for our current properties, on top of that there are management fees, apartments are more likely to be on the first or second floors, we would not get our own garden space, the location is not that wonderful and I don't want my life organised for me, thank you. The community has grown together, newcomers seem to fit in straight away, there are people in the wider community whose names I don't know but always speak to., we help each other out. I bet that is repeated up and down the country.

The ideal might be to build small add-on roads onto areas like ours, where the community is already established, bungalows because we don't want stairs (or stair lifts) rather than these new blocks where you are living on top of one another. That might free up some of the three bed houses out there. Instead some of the bungalows get rooms in the roof for family use so older people in houses stay where they are (sometimes not maintaining the property), and the only new completely new building went largely to second home owners.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This is very true. I live in an area where the majority of the properties are two bedroom bungalows. The average occupancy is certainly no more than two, most are retired. We regularly get junk mail about down-sizing into a new apartment. Looking at the most recent, a one bed apartment costs more than we would get for our current properties, on top of that there are management fees, apartments are more likely to be on the first or second floors, we would not get our own garden space, the location is not that wonderful and I don't want my life organised for me, thank you. The community has grown together, newcomers seem to fit in straight away, there are people in the wider community whose names I don't know but always speak to., we help each other out. I bet that is repeated up and down the country.

The ideal might be to build small add-on roads onto areas like ours, where the community is already established, bungalows because we don't want stairs (or stair lifts) rather than these new blocks where you are living on top of one another. That might free up some of the three bed houses out there. Instead some of the bungalows get rooms in the roof for family use so older people in houses stay where they are (sometimes not maintaining the property), and the only new completely new building went largely to second home owners.

That's exactly the problem for me.

Forty years ago I wanted a compact bungalow as my 'forever' home but with a garden and detached (living next to someone who played loud music through the night put me off party walls). Occasionally such an ideal would come on the market, expensive, but would be instantly sold before I could sell mine -and then very quickly rebuilt and extended with at least 4 bedrooms, so the supply dwindles down to 0. I landed up with a place rather larger than I would have been happy with. But it only has one bedroom.

And you're right about 'retirement' places. Someone nearby swapped a 3 bed bungalow for a small retirement apartment (flat) under a developer's scheme - and is paying something just into 5 figures per annum for 'services'.

 

[Magdalia]

We regularly get junk mail about down-sizing into a new apartment. Looking at the most recent, a one bed apartment costs more than we would get for our current properties, on top of that there are management fees, apartments are more likely to be on the first or second floors, we would not get our own garden space, the location is not that wonderful and I don't want my life organised for me, thank you. The community has grown together, newcomers seem to fit in straight away, there are people in the wider community whose names I don't know but always speak to., we help each other out.

I live in an apartment block for over 55s. It is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I have a second floor apartment with a balcony and a small allotment that I can see from my window. We have a community that has grown together, and nearly all of us are on first name terms. Newcomers are welcomed and most fit in straight away. We help each other out. Nobody has their life organised for them, but we do a lot of things that are organised by the residents for the residents. People participate as much or as little as they wish.

And you're right about 'retirement' places. Someone nearby swapped a 3 bed bungalow for a small retirement apartment (flat) under a developer's scheme - and is paying something just into 5 figures per annum for 'services'.

Our service charges are nowhere near that, we pay less than 3k per year, looking after the common parts of the building doesn't come for free. But we are shared ownership with a housing association, I wouldn't go in with a "for profit" private sector developer.

 

[RT4038]

Our service charges are nowhere near that, we pay less than 3k per year, looking after the common parts of the building doesn't come for free. But we are shared ownership with a housing association, I wouldn't go in with a "for profit" private sector developer.

Possibly the 5 figure 'service charges' are at places where meals are included? It is misleading to make comparisons without knowing exactly what is covered.

 

[Magdalia]

Possibly the 5 figure 'service charges' are at places where meals are included? It is misleading to make comparisons without knowing exactly what is covered.

Meals do add to service charge costs. Here we have a well equipped kitchen but it isn't used. More significant is whether care staff are "on site" continuously. That's expensive, but for some people it is essential.

 

[Typhoon]

I live in an apartment block for over 55s. It is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I have a second floor apartment with a balcony and a small allotment that I can see from my window. We have a community that has grown together, and nearly all of us are on first name terms. Newcomers are welcomed and most fit in straight away. We help each other out. Nobody has their life organised for them, but we do a lot of things that are organised by the residents for the residents. People participate as much or as little as they wish.


Our service charges are nowhere near that, we pay less than 3k per year, looking after the common parts of the building doesn't come for free. But we are shared ownership with a housing association, I wouldn't go in with a "for profit" private sector developer.

Your case shows that it can be done correctly, Unfortunately the ones whose junk mail we receive is not for that type of set up you describe mainly because they probably want to justify high service charges (not given), I have heard of case where residents' involvement in the communal gardens was a no-no because they employed contractors (even though the latter seemed totally incompetent, the latter clearly hearsay). An allotment seems most unusual. An employed person to organise events - clearly needing to justify their salary. All sorts of extras which residents are encouraged to use (bar. bistro, beauty and hairdressing salon (!))

I suppose the key statement is in your last line - we only get leaflets about 'for profit' cases, vacancies are probably easier to fill where the residents are organising what they want to do. Looking back at the leaflet delivered here - selling 'off plan'. Definitely a no-no.

Possibly the 5 figure 'service charges' are at places where meals are included? It is misleading to make comparisons without knowing exactly what is covered.

I certainly would want to avoid anything like that, I still want to get out and about, not long walks, just long enough to justify the train fare - tomorrow is looking good, I will be out much of the day. I felt good after a similar exploit last week. As we get older we need a reason to get up in the morning; one of mine is going on my short walks, another is planning them!

 

[RT4038]

Your case shows that it can be done correctly, Unfortunately the ones whose junk mail we receive is not for that type of set up you describe mainly because they probably want to justify high service charges (not given), I have heard of case where residents' involvement in the communal gardens was a no-no because they employed contractors (even though the latter seemed totally incompetent, the latter clearly hearsay). An allotment seems most unusual. An employed person to organise events - clearly needing to justify their salary. All sorts of extras which residents are encouraged to use (bar. bistro, beauty and hairdressing salon (!))

I suppose the key statement is in your last line - we only get leaflets about 'for profit' cases, vacancies are probably easier to fill where the residents are organising what they want to do. Looking back at the leaflet delivered here - selling 'off plan'. Definitely a no-no.


I certainly would want to avoid anything like that, I still want to get out and about, not long walks, just long enough to justify the train fare - tomorrow is looking good, I will be out much of the day. I felt good after a similar exploit last week. As we get older we need a reason to get up in the morning; one of mine is going on my short walks, another is planning them!

Well yes, it is going to be 'horses for courses'. Potential residents are going to have different requirements and desires, as well as different financial resources. The 'for profit' companies are going for the higher end of the market [there is more money in it] - if you can't afford it, or don't feel it is value for money, then don't move there. Of course, the higher end of the market has higher end marketing. When I say 'higher end' that is people with higher incomes, and also those who are happy to spend their reserves (could be value of current property) rather than leaving an inheritance. I would also suggest that people may have different requirements at different times of their lives - currently one might be happy to be independent and doing one's own gardening and cooking etc; life may well change later and one may want/need more things done for them.

 

[Typhoon]

Well yes, it is going to be 'horses for courses'. Potential residents are going to have different requirements and desires, as well as different financial resources. The 'for profit' companies are going for the higher end of the market [there is more money in it] - if you can't afford it, or don't feel it is value for money, then don't move there. Of course, the higher end of the market has higher end marketing. When I say 'higher end' that is people with higher incomes, and also those who are happy to spend their reserves (could be value of current property) rather than leaving an inheritance. I would also suggest that people may have different requirements at different times of their lives - currently one might be happy to be independent and doing one's own gardening and cooking etc; life may well change later and one may want/need more things done for them.

Don't disagree but, at least round here, there is a shortage of what might be called intermediate accommodation. 1 or 2 bed bungalows suitable for two people who want to remain independent and have a garden. Nothing is being built and some of what there currently is is being converted into family accommodation by building into a, sometimes enhanced, roof. When this is raised it is pointed out that we could look at Park Homes (sometimes 11 month accommodation). No thanks - I want some space outside of the dwelling.
Similarly, developers are not building basic starter homes in the required numbers.

Developers are dictating what is on offer, there is insufficient attention paid to what the desperate need is. They get away with it because some of the luxury properties they build are snapped up as second homes and others sold to those who end up struggling with mortgages. I don't know the answer, I am just hoping politicians, now or in the future, do.

 

[takno]

Don't disagree but, at least round here, there is a shortage of what might be called intermediate accommodation. 1 or 2 bed bungalows suitable for two people who want to remain independent and have a garden. Nothing is being built and some of what there currently is is being converted into family accommodation by building into a, sometimes enhanced, roof. When this is raised it is pointed out that we could look at Park Homes (sometimes 11 month accommodation). No thanks - I want some space outside of the dwelling.
Similarly, developers are not building basic starter homes in the required numbers.

Developers are dictating what is on offer, there is insufficient attention paid to what the desperate need is. They get away with it because some of the luxury properties they build are snapped up as second homes and others sold to those who end up struggling with mortgages. I don't know the answer, I am just hoping politicians, now or in the future, do.

Realistically I think the answer here is that unless we want to cover the countryside with low-density housing and create a massive transportation problem, we need all types of people to live in flats in residential blocks - bungalows just don't stack up. While a bungalow is better in terms of having a garden you can look after, a flat in a modern block with a lift tends to give accessible accommodation on a single level which you can grow old into. It's more likely to be close to public transport when you find you can't drive anymore, and if you need carers in then the whole thing can be delivered a lot more sustainably to people who are a bit more closely spaced, rather than carers having to spend half their shift driving around estates getting to the next appointment.

Ultimately you don't have to move into some kind of overpriced retirement palace to get somewhere which is more practical than rattling around a large and increasingly-difficult-to-maintain house

 

[The Ham]

Don't disagree but, at least round here, there is a shortage of what might be called intermediate accommodation. 1 or 2 bed bungalows suitable for two people who want to remain independent and have a garden. Nothing is being built and some of what there currently is is being converted into family accommodation by building into a, sometimes enhanced, roof. When this is raised it is pointed out that we could look at Park Homes (sometimes 11 month accommodation). No thanks - I want some space outside of the dwelling.
Similarly, developers are not building basic starter homes in the required numbers.

Developers are dictating what is on offer, there is insufficient attention paid to what the desperate need is. They get away with it because some of the luxury properties they build are snapped up as second homes and others sold to those who end up struggling with mortgages. I don't know the answer, I am just hoping politicians, now or in the future, do.

Councils can require certain housing mixes, although that tends to only apply to sightly larger developments and did need to be defined in policy.

Near me in a new build there's mostly town houses, but there's also a few small bungalows - so it can be done.

 

[Lost property]

Realistically I think the answer here is that unless we want to cover the countryside with low-density housing and create a massive transportation problem, we need all types of people to live in flats in residential blocks - bungalows just don't stack up. While a bungalow is better in terms of having a garden you can look after, a flat in a modern block with a lift tends to give accessible accommodation on a single level which you can grow old into. It's more likely to be close to public transport when you find you can't drive anymore, and if you need carers in then the whole thing can be delivered a lot more sustainably to people who are a bit more closely spaced, rather than carers having to spend half their shift driving around estates getting to the next appointment.

Ultimately you don't have to move into some kind of overpriced retirement palace to get somewhere which is more practical than rattling around a large and increasingly-difficult-to-mainta housein

That's a good definition. I can think of two where the locations are anything but relaxing.

One overlooks a a busy car park / bus station and main road, popular with uncontrolled speed cretins. The other, overlooks where three arterial routes meet and a one way system ensures chaos as the road markings have long since faded...and one corner floods on a regular basis.

Had a look out of interest and the service charges for these "less than des res " properties were extortionate...but, if you have a captive market, rip off Britain will always oblige.

 

[aavm]

Two things last week bothered me
- Rwanda was never going to be worth the political effort
- a report on youth knife crime victims, and that's even before fentanyl comes (a very addictive synthetic opiate ravaging the US that's not yet in Europe, yet).

So what could the Home Secretary do that would make a real difference?

The Conservatives need to regain the initiative. Is this too extreme?

Criminalise drug use (not just possession).

The council come for car drivers where I live (CPZ, parking tickets, yellow box/ bus lane / speed cameras, ...), and it works very well - not much illegal parking or driving in bus lanes
So, use mass hair follicle testing (to catch drug use), e.g. when entering the country, applying for a job, when stopped by the police, when entering/leaving clubs, when applying for welfare/passport/driving license etc.
Fine offenders, say £500 (free if help the Police), with repeat tests every 6 weeks. Fail 3 and get mandatory drug treatment for a year
Wont help the addicts, but will reduce casual use
The idea is to defund drug gangs, and so reduce the next generation of youth gang members, and so knife crime

[Hair testing, doesn't use the follicle, but uses ~ 100 body hairs, is accurate, and can detect drug use between ~ 1 week ago to ~ 3 months ago]

 

[najaB]

Criminalise drug use (not just possession).

Because that's been such a success in places that it's been tried. Just look at how well the USA's "war on drugs" has turned out.

 

[Magdalia]

we need all types of people to live in flats in residential blocks - bungalows just don't stack up.

I don't live in a flat, I live in a bungalow that stacks up.

 

[Typhoon]

Councils can require certain housing mixes, although that tends to only apply to sightly larger developments and did need to be defined in policy.

Near me in a new build there's mostly town houses, but there's also a few small bungalows - so it can be done.

Thanks, yes, it can be done. It just needs the will to do it. That's all that is required - a few bungalows (and to stop the conversions) to get people out of their large houses.

Realistically I think the answer here is that unless we want to cover the countryside with low-density housing and create a massive transportation problem, we need all types of people to live in flats in residential blocks - bungalows just don't stack up. While a bungalow is better in terms of having a garden you can look after, a flat in a modern block with a lift tends to give accessible accommodation on a single level which you can grow old into. It's more likely to be close to public transport when you find you can't drive anymore, and if you need carers in then the whole thing can be delivered a lot more sustainably to people who are a bit more closely spaced, rather than carers having to spend half their shift driving around estates getting to the next appointment.

Ultimately you don't have to move into some kind of overpriced retirement palace to get somewhere which is more practical than rattling around a large and increasingly-difficult-to-maintain house

Sounds awful. In the road that I live in (mostly late 60s and 70s, a few 80s, a couple of 90s, also a few much younger, including one with a disability), no-one has carers calling. At one time, a former resident had two or three specialist carers at a time because of her condition, privately financed. In fact, I rarely see any in the area at all. There are nurses that call but they do so irregularly (say for flu vaccinations). I don't drive but there is pretty good public transport connecting towns and centers of population not far away and I am far from alone in that; some others use the volunteer drivers, such as Age UK. I think you will find that quite a few in my age group (70's) feel similarly. Yes there may be a time when I can't live independently but what is described sounds less like living, more like existing.

 

[GusB]

Criminalise drug use (not just possession).

So, use mass hair follicle testing (to catch drug use), e.g. when entering the country, applying for a job, when stopped by the police, when entering/leaving clubs, when applying for welfare/passport/driving license etc.
Fine offenders, say £500 (free if help the Police), with repeat tests every 6 weeks. Fail 3 and get mandatory drug treatment for a year

Great idea! Let's start with the House of Commons.

 

[Busaholic]

Great idea! Let's start with the House of Commons.

And then extend it to all police officers, with mandatory DNA testing as in France where at least one mass murderer was eventually discovered.

 

[nw1]

Great idea! Let's start with the House of Commons.

And let's retroactively apply it to any MP found to have taken drugs in the past 40 years. Furthermore, let's apply a mandatory 10-year jail sentence for the offence if the perpetrator is an MP who has moralised about drugs while being an ex-user of Class A substances themselves. "They're supposed to set an example", and all that....

 

[birchesgreen]

Half the middle class will be in jail if you criminalise and mass test for drugs.

 

[Kite159]

That is a large increase of the minimum wage (to £11.44), especially as it will now include 21 + 22-year-olds. Blimey

 

[ainsworth74]

Is this too extreme?

Yes. This...

Criminalise drug use (not just possession).

The council come for car drivers where I live (CPZ, parking tickets, yellow box/ bus lane / speed cameras, ...), and it works very well - not much illegal parking or driving in bus lanes
So, use mass hair follicle testing (to catch drug use), e.g. when entering the country, applying for a job, when stopped by the police, when entering/leaving clubs, when applying for welfare/passport/driving license etc.
Fine offenders, say £500 (free if help the Police), with repeat tests every 6 weeks. Fail 3 and get mandatory drug treatment for a year
Wont help the addicts, but will reduce casual use

...is one of the most incredibly illiberal ideas I've seen suggested. People going around perfectly legitimate business constantly subjected to state mandated testing is utterly horrifying, and people thought ID cards were an affront to peoples liberties! That's quite apart from the insane costs to provide a testing service on that scale. Horrifying. Equally it quite clear that the current war on drugs policies of prohibition are utterly failing to do anything positive for public health nor crime stats. The idea that going harder would do anything to improve that situation, especially considering the mass surveillance you want to put in place to enable it is bonkers.

The idea is to defund drug gangs, and so reduce the next generation of youth gang members, and so knife crime

I would suggest you'd do better by starting with de-criminalise possession of quantities for personal use and focus on drug treatment along with legalisation of a number of drugs to cut out the market from under the drug gangs. Cannabis is an obvious one to start with but I'm far from convinced that a number of other lower level drugs need to be illegal.

We need to move the debate on from "JUST SAY NO"; it's policy failure of epic proportions that has done untold damage to our societies.

That is a large increase of the minimum wage (to £11.44), especially as it will now include 21 + 22-year-olds. Blimey

Someone has presumably gone "Oh ####, we've not done anything to really appeal to the young for 13 years, er quick lets lower the age at which the full minimum wage applies and hope that distracts them all from everything else we've done!"

 

[Richard Scott]

Realistically I think the answer here is that unless we want to cover the countryside with low-density housing and create a massive transportation problem, we need all types of people to live in flats in residential blocks - bungalows just don't stack up. While a bungalow is better in terms of having a garden you can look after, a flat in a modern block with a lift tends to give accessible accommodation on a single level which you can grow old into. It's more likely to be close to public transport when you find you can't drive anymore, and if you need carers in then the whole thing can be delivered a lot more sustainably to people who are a bit more closely spaced, rather than carers having to spend half their shift driving around estates getting to the next appointment.

Think that's what they did years ago in communist countries because they could. People don't want to live like that, idealistic politics don't translate into reality when people have a choice.

 

[takno]

Think that's what they did years ago in communist countries because they could. People don't want to live like that, idealistic politics don't translate into reality when people have a choice.

That's what they did in a lot of countries across Europe, and lots of people in countries, whether communist or otherwise, seem to get along fine with it. There are alternatives - we could for example try to do something about the regional policy that is pushing everybody to live in the South-East while large chunks of Scotland and the North progressively empty themselves out, but I don't see that happening. Imagining however that people living in detached bungalows is helping with the housing situation in any way at all though is at best heroically optimistic.

 

[Richard Scott]

That's what they did in a lot of countries across Europe, and lots of people in countries, whether communist or otherwise, seem to get along fine with it. There are alternatives - we could for example try to do something about the regional policy that is pushing everybody to live in the South-East while large chunks of Scotland and the North progressively empty themselves out, but I don't see that happening. Imagining however that people living in detached bungalows is helping with the housing situation in any way at all though is at best heroically optimistic.

A lot of people on the Continent rent and don't buy so that may make a difference. Not everyone wants to live in a bungalow so a nonsense argument and almost all new developments don't have bungalows on them.