UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Jonn Elledge has written some good stuff on this question.
Short version is that, as the article tacitly acknowledges, even if you filled every empty home, you still wouldn't house everyone on the waiting list!
we have the opposite in my country. About a third of all property is vacant. If you housed everyone (and we don't have a big homeless population) we'd still have a lot of vacant properties. And more just keep going up. If you see a picture of Malta, keep in mind that the actual skyline is littered with construction cranes. And this is not in any way an exaggeration.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
The suggested policy is not good. Since the housing market needs some empty homes to function, it's actively bad!
Focusing on something that won't – indeed, can't – work, instead of things that can work, is bad policy.
Capitalism needs empty homes. People just need homes.
Even if you abolish capitalism, putting people in empty homes still won't solve the housing crisis.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
But the policy is not good, it's bad, and it would be bad regardless of whether you implement it in a capitalist society or any other one you care to name. It fails to address the underlying issue, fails to solve the problem even in the short term and also makes the problem worse in the medium to long term. That is, by every definition, a bad policy.
You know what else is the enemy of the good? The bad! This is the bad.
Yes Frank, giving as many people homes as possible is a bad idea.
Great, I'm glad we agree that we should house as many people as possible! So, obviously, you don't support this bad idea that wouldn't achieve that. Right?
The policy would fail for numerous reasons, some of which we have already discussed, more of which you can find in the article I linked, and none of which you have even attempted to refute, except to argue that your chosen policy would be less bad under a hypothetical non capitalist economic system. Which, maybe, I guess? But it still wouldn't work, under any system, because 'empty homes' are not the cause of the problem. Even a system based straight up on immediate need would require some empty homes.