If you abandon social housing as a public policy as a national government, dealing with the consequences often costs a lot more
It’s almost like we need more houses built.
“£90m per month on temporary accommodation for homeless people – up by almost 40% last year”
I wonder why this has gone up such an extreme amount over a period of just a year; is it because homelessness rates in London have risen by that much, or are there other reasons for this dramatic rise?
It’s no wonder why so many councils are in serious financial straits when so much money is being spent on housing people in temporary accomodation.
Ssssh! don’t let the GB News watching BNP filth read this.
How many permanent shelters can you actually make with £90m. What a waste of money.
Imagine how many houses and flatsyou could build for 1bn annually.
Now imagine that the building is done by government owned companies and workers and they’re not cutting everything down to the bare minimum what that would do for house prices too.
Ah I guess the last point is why we’re not doing it.
So why keep them in London….
Move them somewhere cheaper.
And most of this public money will end up in private hands. We need substantial infrastructure investment to put things on track again. Costly yes, but cheaper in the long run
Homelessness is very profitable for landlords, thats £90 mln of the states money going into the bank accounts of private landlords every month.
This is precisely the point of the housing policy of this country over the last 40 years. The government didn’t move away from building social housing in order to reduce housing spend overall. Instead the move away means that the government money that is spent goes to private developers and private landlords.
And so housing policy is designed not to provide housing, but to provide profits for the people who donate large amounts of money to political parties.
9 comments
If you abandon social housing as a public policy as a national government, dealing with the consequences often costs a lot more
It’s almost like we need more houses built.
“£90m per month on temporary accommodation for homeless people – up by almost 40% last year”
I wonder why this has gone up such an extreme amount over a period of just a year; is it because homelessness rates in London have risen by that much, or are there other reasons for this dramatic rise?
It’s no wonder why so many councils are in serious financial straits when so much money is being spent on housing people in temporary accomodation.
Ssssh! don’t let the GB News watching BNP filth read this.
How many permanent shelters can you actually make with £90m. What a waste of money.
Imagine how many houses and flatsyou could build for 1bn annually.
Now imagine that the building is done by government owned companies and workers and they’re not cutting everything down to the bare minimum what that would do for house prices too.
Ah I guess the last point is why we’re not doing it.
So why keep them in London….
Move them somewhere cheaper.
And most of this public money will end up in private hands. We need substantial infrastructure investment to put things on track again. Costly yes, but cheaper in the long run
Homelessness is very profitable for landlords, thats £90 mln of the states money going into the bank accounts of private landlords every month.
This is precisely the point of the housing policy of this country over the last 40 years. The government didn’t move away from building social housing in order to reduce housing spend overall. Instead the move away means that the government money that is spent goes to private developers and private landlords.
And so housing policy is designed not to provide housing, but to provide profits for the people who donate large amounts of money to political parties.