Could the Labour government please stop dragging its heels and expedite the appointment of its new leader in Parliament and the new Prime Minister.
Thank you, and we now return to your scheduled programme.
The new person is supposed to in in July so they have the recess to sort things out.
I suppose they will take ALL of July, just to drag it out further.
I expect His Majesty will get fed up waiting so the comings and goings to the Monarch will have to fly to Braemar (should the PM and PM to be wear kilts?).
Could the Labour government please stop dragging its heels and expedite the appointment of its new leader in Parliament and the new Prime Minister.
Thank you, and we now return to your scheduled programme.
The new person is supposed to in in July so they have the recess to sort things out.
I suppose they will take ALL of July, just to drag it out further.
And push a further round of very repressive legislation like the National Security Bill,
A thought. If population is projected to decline after 2050, is housebuilding really a good idea? Eventually we won't need those houses any more. If social housing is desired, purchase existing housing stock?
Yes; the current situation is unsustainable, unless you view 'beds in sheds' as acceptable, much of the existing housing stock is unsuitable given climate change or is poor quality and needs renewal anyway, and its cheaper (both monetarily and politically) to build new houses than either buy existing housing stock or try and get pensioners to take a haircut on their primary asset.
(and a large amount of the housing stock is either of the wrong type and/or in the wrong place).
Yes; the current situation is unsustainable, unless you view 'beds in sheds' as acceptable, much of the existing housing stock is unsuitable given climate change or is poor quality and needs renewal anyway, and its cheaper (both monetarily and politically) to build new houses than either buy existing housing stock or try and get pensioners to take a haircut on their primary asset.
(and a large amount of the housing stock is either of the wrong type and/or in the wrong place).
I’m sure some of the existing stock is in a wrong type, in the wrong place or beyond repair, but that shouldn’t stop us bringing the others back into use.
Then again, we have to remember that few dwellings last forever, so new home building is needed whatever happens to the population.
Yes; the current situation is unsustainable, unless you view 'beds in sheds' as acceptable, much of the existing housing stock is unsuitable given climate change or is poor quality and needs renewal anyway, and its cheaper (both monetarily and politically) to build new houses than either buy existing housing stock or try and get pensioners to take a haircut on their primary asset.
(and a large amount of the housing stock is either of the wrong type and/or in the wrong place).
I’m sure some of the existing stock is in a wrong type, in the wrong place or beyond repair, but that shouldn’t stop us bringing the others back into use.
The UK has some of the oldest and most cramped housing in Europe - that's even before you get to the amount of housing vs the population.
OK so maybe building more council housing would be a good opportunity to raise the quality of housing stock? And then plan to demolish some bad housing in a few decades' time?
@TurquoiseTastic , @chrisstiles
All well and good, but who will build this new generation of council houses?
I don’t think the house building firms are the slightest bit interested in building social housing, except as a price to be paid to build houses for sale.
@TurquoiseTastic , @chrisstiles
All well and good, but who will build this new generation of council houses?
I don’t think the house building firms are the slightest bit interested in building social housing, except as a price to be paid to build houses for sale.
The "housebuilding firms" are not very well named, most of their operation consists of land banking, for actual house construction they outsource and hire in building contractors to do the work, there's no reason in principle that councils / regional / central government couldn't do the same thing.
[There's a separate issue that the structure of UK construction industry consists of a few large firms which largely outsource actual construction to very small firms, which isn't good for either investment in training or building standards more generally -- and arguably contracting direct could actually fix this in the medium to longer term]
@TurquoiseTastic , @chrisstiles
All well and good, but who will build this new generation of council houses?
I don’t think the house building firms are the slightest bit interested in building social housing, except as a price to be paid to build houses for sale.
The "housebuilding firms" are not very well named, most of their operation consists of land banking, for actual house construction they outsource and hire in building contractors to do the work, there's no reason in principle that councils / regional / central government couldn't do the same thing.
There is a skills gap at government level in that councils have largely lost the cadre of staff that would have, 50 years ago, taken responsibility for the contracting. Public sector procurement is an utter crapshoot at scale and without the council housing stocks of yesteryear councils don't have the skillset to get best value in terms of housebuilding. It will take time to rebuild that capacity.
If the building companies are paid to build houses by the council then they are just doing what they are paid for. Councils being able to afford to build is another matter.
If the building companies are paid to build houses by the council then they are just doing what they are paid for. Councils being able to afford to build is another matter.
Yeah, but working out fair prices, negotiating penalty clauses, ensuring things are built to spec and of good quality, these are all things that require a great deal of skill. Money is part of the problem, a big part, but you can't just throw money at councils and expect them to be able to get value for money in a reasonably short timescale. The likely outcomes are homes that are one or more of: poorly designed, poorly built, delayed, and making some builders very rich. I've seen it happen with a mixed development of private and social housing here - a large regional builder did a terrible job, the specified heating systems were hideously expensive to run, and the homes for sale on the open market were more expensive than existing housing locally. The housing association have ended up spending a great deal to bring the social housing up to standard. More, larger scale projects with inexperienced clients means the same problems writ large.
Housing is one of, and probably the most basic human need. Why in the name of all that is, or is not, Holy, is it assumed that it is done best as a profit driven business? I recognise that land is limited, but plenty is devoted to recreational use (any golfers out there?) and I am utterly convinced that the supposed shortage of housing is manipulated by landlords and developers, not to mention those who own or are buying their own homes, to inflate the price of housing without increasing the value of it at all.
I’m not advocating concrete tower blocks, but there is any amount of brown field land suitable for housing. Some hereabouts has been developed just recently.
The question about location is rather less critical now that many can work remotely, and if government gets a grip on transport and realises that “relief roads” do nothing of the kind then that will benefit a lot more people.
The thing is, tower blocks aren't inherently bad. They became problematic when shoddily built, poorly maintained, and/or primarily occupied by people with major unmet support needs.
The thing is, tower blocks aren't inherently bad. They became problematic when shoddily built, poorly maintained, and/or primarily occupied by people with major unmet support needs.
If only. Have tower blocks ever been well built or well maintained? Ok, social housing blocks; things like The Barbican Centre are different.
@TurquoiseTastic , @chrisstiles
All well and good, but who will build this new generation of council houses?
I don’t think the house building firms are the slightest bit interested in building social housing, except as a price to be paid to build houses for sale.
The "housebuilding firms" are not very well named, most of their operation consists of land banking, for actual house construction they outsource and hire in building contractors to do the work, there's no reason in principle that councils / regional / central government couldn't do the same thing.
There is a skills gap at government level in that councils have largely lost the cadre of staff that would have, 50 years ago, taken responsibility for the contracting.
This is pretty much a constant at all levels of government that contract out/outsource services. The fundamental issue being one retaining the knowledge to contract something which an organisation no longer delivers -- and I suspect the difference was that 50 years ago councils still employed people who had - at one point - done it for real.
The way most governments do it is a mix of contracting badly and relying heavily on expensive consultants (which don't guarantee a good outcome).
The obvious answer is to insource at least some of the deliveries to rebuild the knowledge to contract well.
@chrisstiles I have spent most of my working life in the Civil Service and your post almost leaves me in tears. Why my erstwhile colleagues way above my pay grade cannot see this and say so is, to be gentle, a great shame.
Yeah, but working out fair prices, negotiating penalty clauses, ensuring things are built to spec and of good quality, these are all things that require a great deal of skill.
And this is where basically everyone that isn't a full-time builder routinely gets screwed on construction contracts. They think they've negotiated a good price, but then discover the penalty clauses for minor changes and amendments, for encountering unexpected conditions, and so on.
Yeah, but working out fair prices, negotiating penalty clauses, ensuring things are built to spec and of good quality, these are all things that require a great deal of skill.
And this is where basically everyone that isn't a full-time builder routinely gets screwed on construction contracts. They think they've negotiated a good price, but then discover the penalty clauses for minor changes and amendments, for encountering unexpected conditions, and so on.
I more meant penalty clauses for late delivery and the like - I don't think penalty clauses for minor changes would stand up in court in the UK, at least for domestic contracts - but yes, spotting landmines hidden in the small print is a job in itself.
Builders and the like issue quotes below cost but routinely increase the price using “variation orders”. Customers NEVER know exactly what they want, so the slightest change causes added expense and the builders depend on this to cover costs, let alone profit.
I lived in a tower block in a big northern city. Loved it. Roomy flat. Great views. Great sunsets. Friendly neighbours and you got to know people going up and down the lifts.
There was a caretaker for a time until they made cuts. Things began to go down hill after that but only gradually. This was 40 years ago. I'm sure if I went back to that block now I'd find it very different.
I also live in a tower block (30 floors in all, I live on the 25th). I love it too. Peace and quiet, and a fantastic view. We have a full time concierge, a cleaner (AKA Captain Pyjamas' best mate) and 24 hour fire security people (the latter is a legal requirement for high rises in France).
Wouldn't work for me; I like having some garden and stepping straight outdoors. Having to manhandle bikes through lifts and stairs would do my head in too.
We considered downsizing from a terraced house to a flat. Didn't in the end as we enjoy chatting to people as they walk past with their dogs on the way to the local park. We live in the North where people chat to strangers!
And there's the whole issue about service charges and who pays for major work on the building.
It's not just this country. My friend moved into a lovely flat with a terrific view in Heidelberg. Turns out the whole building, Which includes a supermarket, is riddled with problems which will cost millions to correct. He can't sell it because nobody would buy a flat with those sort of charges hanging over it.
I think the idea of a north-south divide on talking to strangers is just a stereotype. I’ve lived down south/east all of my life and people talk to strangers all the time. Admittedly I have spent most of my life living on council estates (where people will talk to you whether you like it or not) but you can’t walk across the council estate where I live without talking to someone. I have seen my own next door neighbour lean on a fence to watch some workman outside and advise them on what they are doing wrong.
I think the stereotype has developed because some areas have younger and more transient populations, so a greater concentration of strangers.
Interesting point, Heavenlyannie. I grew up in Manchester, and got tired of people butting in, as you might say. Now, I live in an affluent part of London, where people ignore each other, which I like. Surely, it's a class thing?
I'm not sure about that. I think it's to do with transience vs stability as @Heavenlyannie says and also to do with local culture (not north vs south, I mean the culture of a particular street or village). If the same people and families live in the same place for a long time, and if people are visibly out-and-about regularly, walking rather than driving, then the culture of stopping for a chat is more likely to take root and thrive.
Wouldn't work for me; I like having some garden and stepping straight outdoors.
Sure, but this is what you've got used to. It's clear from around the world that people can be equally happy with other arrangements
Having to manhandle bikes through lifts and stairs would do my head in too.
Having a bike locker or similar on the ground floor is an option that seems to work elsewhere.
In any case, apartments/flats don't automatically imply tower blocks, most of the time low rise blocks are going to be far more practical and pleasant. The aim is to provide good quality, affordable housing for people without giving into endless suburban sprawl
It is interesting to see the different ways commentators are dealing with the situation re Burnham. Some are being careful to not to say he will definitely be the next leader some see it as a forgone conclusion. Some ask what “the new leader” will have to do and some say Burnham outright.
Wouldn't work for me; I like having some garden and stepping straight outdoors.
Sure, but this is what you've got used to. It's clear from around the world that people can be equally happy with other arrangements
Having to manhandle bikes through lifts and stairs would do my head in too.
Having a bike locker or similar on the ground floor is an option that seems to work elsewhere.
In any case, apartments/flats don't automatically imply tower blocks, most of the time low rise blocks are going to be far more practical and pleasant. The aim is to provide good quality, affordable housing for people without giving into endless suburban sprawl
People aren't all the same. Some people may be happy with arrangements that others are not.
Wouldn't work for me; I like having some garden and stepping straight outdoors.
Sure, but this is what you've got used to. It's clear from around the world that people can be equally happy with other arrangements
Having to manhandle bikes through lifts and stairs would do my head in too.
Having a bike locker or similar on the ground floor is an option that seems to work elsewhere.
In any case, apartments/flats don't automatically imply tower blocks, most of the time low rise blocks are going to be far more practical and pleasant. The aim is to provide good quality, affordable housing for people without giving into endless suburban sprawl
People aren't all the same. Some people may be happy with arrangements that others are not.
Wouldn't work for me; I like having some garden and stepping straight outdoors.
Sure, but this is what you've got used to. It's clear from around the world that people can be equally happy with other arrangements
Having to manhandle bikes through lifts and stairs would do my head in too.
Having a bike locker or similar on the ground floor is an option that seems to work elsewhere.
In any case, apartments/flats don't automatically imply tower blocks, most of the time low rise blocks are going to be far more practical and pleasant. The aim is to provide good quality, affordable housing for people without giving into endless suburban sprawl
People aren't all the same. Some people may be happy with arrangements that others are not.
Countries other than the UK exist.
I doubt if there are many where everyone likes the same living arrangements.
Wouldn't work for me; I like having some garden and stepping straight outdoors.
Sure, but this is what you've got used to. It's clear from around the world that people can be equally happy with other arrangements
Having to manhandle bikes through lifts and stairs would do my head in too.
Having a bike locker or similar on the ground floor is an option that seems to work elsewhere.
In any case, apartments/flats don't automatically imply tower blocks, most of the time low rise blocks are going to be far more practical and pleasant. The aim is to provide good quality, affordable housing for people without giving into endless suburban sprawl
People aren't all the same. Some people may be happy with arrangements that others are not.
Countries other than the UK exist.
I doubt if there are many where everyone likes the same living arrangements.
Right - but no one is talking about getting rid of existing housing stock, so this is a bit of red herring. Similarly, there is a cultural disposition in the UK towards wanting a house - hopefully somewhere semi-rural - that's not necessarily a fixed preference.
Bikes weren't a problem. I just wheeled mine into the lift and kept it in the corridor of my flat.
I wasn't into gardening back then but grow veg now. I don't have green fingers though.
I moved from the council flat to a 'through terrace' in a deprived area which was eventually trashed and which I sold with considerable negative equity and entered married life in debt.
Access to private outdoor space via balconies is an important thing as well as communal garden and playgrounds/other recreational spaces. Banning housing management companies from preventing people from drying washing on their balconies (as does happen with some privately rented flats in the UK) would be a simple way to improve both renters' rights and green policy in one easy step.
Comments
I suppose they will take ALL of July, just to drag it out further.
I expect His Majesty will get fed up waiting so the comings and goings to the Monarch will have to fly to Braemar (should the PM and PM to be wear kilts?).
And push a further round of very repressive legislation like the National Security Bill,
(and a large amount of the housing stock is either of the wrong type and/or in the wrong place).
I’m sure some of the existing stock is in a wrong type, in the wrong place or beyond repair, but that shouldn’t stop us bringing the others back into use.
Then again, we have to remember that few dwellings last forever, so new home building is needed whatever happens to the population.
The UK has some of the oldest and most cramped housing in Europe - that's even before you get to the amount of housing vs the population.
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2022-to-2023-housing-quality-and-condition/english-housing-survey-2022-to-2023-housing-quality-and-condition
And part of the issue is that building standards are bad both currently and historically:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/11/uk-housing-building-standards-one-hyde-park
All well and good, but who will build this new generation of council houses?
I don’t think the house building firms are the slightest bit interested in building social housing, except as a price to be paid to build houses for sale.
The "housebuilding firms" are not very well named, most of their operation consists of land banking, for actual house construction they outsource and hire in building contractors to do the work, there's no reason in principle that councils / regional / central government couldn't do the same thing.
[There's a separate issue that the structure of UK construction industry consists of a few large firms which largely outsource actual construction to very small firms, which isn't good for either investment in training or building standards more generally -- and arguably contracting direct could actually fix this in the medium to longer term]
There is a skills gap at government level in that councils have largely lost the cadre of staff that would have, 50 years ago, taken responsibility for the contracting. Public sector procurement is an utter crapshoot at scale and without the council housing stocks of yesteryear councils don't have the skillset to get best value in terms of housebuilding. It will take time to rebuild that capacity.
Yeah, but working out fair prices, negotiating penalty clauses, ensuring things are built to spec and of good quality, these are all things that require a great deal of skill. Money is part of the problem, a big part, but you can't just throw money at councils and expect them to be able to get value for money in a reasonably short timescale. The likely outcomes are homes that are one or more of: poorly designed, poorly built, delayed, and making some builders very rich. I've seen it happen with a mixed development of private and social housing here - a large regional builder did a terrible job, the specified heating systems were hideously expensive to run, and the homes for sale on the open market were more expensive than existing housing locally. The housing association have ended up spending a great deal to bring the social housing up to standard. More, larger scale projects with inexperienced clients means the same problems writ large.
I’m not advocating concrete tower blocks, but there is any amount of brown field land suitable for housing. Some hereabouts has been developed just recently.
The question about location is rather less critical now that many can work remotely, and if government gets a grip on transport and realises that “relief roads” do nothing of the kind then that will benefit a lot more people.
If only. Have tower blocks ever been well built or well maintained? Ok, social housing blocks; things like The Barbican Centre are different.
This is pretty much a constant at all levels of government that contract out/outsource services. The fundamental issue being one retaining the knowledge to contract something which an organisation no longer delivers -- and I suspect the difference was that 50 years ago councils still employed people who had - at one point - done it for real.
The way most governments do it is a mix of contracting badly and relying heavily on expensive consultants (which don't guarantee a good outcome).
The obvious answer is to insource at least some of the deliveries to rebuild the knowledge to contract well.
And this is where basically everyone that isn't a full-time builder routinely gets screwed on construction contracts. They think they've negotiated a good price, but then discover the penalty clauses for minor changes and amendments, for encountering unexpected conditions, and so on.
I more meant penalty clauses for late delivery and the like - I don't think penalty clauses for minor changes would stand up in court in the UK, at least for domestic contracts - but yes, spotting landmines hidden in the small print is a job in itself.
There was a caretaker for a time until they made cuts. Things began to go down hill after that but only gradually. This was 40 years ago. I'm sure if I went back to that block now I'd find it very different.
And there's the whole issue about service charges and who pays for major work on the building.
They do here in the southwest too! Gardening at the front takes twice as long because of all the chats with passers by.
I think the stereotype has developed because some areas have younger and more transient populations, so a greater concentration of strangers.
Sure, but this is what you've got used to. It's clear from around the world that people can be equally happy with other arrangements
Having a bike locker or similar on the ground floor is an option that seems to work elsewhere.
In any case, apartments/flats don't automatically imply tower blocks, most of the time low rise blocks are going to be far more practical and pleasant. The aim is to provide good quality, affordable housing for people without giving into endless suburban sprawl
People aren't all the same. Some people may be happy with arrangements that others are not.
Countries other than the UK exist.
I doubt if there are many where everyone likes the same living arrangements.
Right - but no one is talking about getting rid of existing housing stock, so this is a bit of red herring. Similarly, there is a cultural disposition in the UK towards wanting a house - hopefully somewhere semi-rural - that's not necessarily a fixed preference.
I wasn't into gardening back then but grow veg now. I don't have green fingers though.
I moved from the council flat to a 'through terrace' in a deprived area which was eventually trashed and which I sold with considerable negative equity and entered married life in debt.
If I'd stayed put that wouldn't have happened.
I wonder what the MTBT (mean time between thefts) is?