@WhightChris@kps18xx@PolitlcsUK More social housing could reduce pressure on the market but converting rentals into homes for buyers doesnt magically increase the total number of homes
@WhightChris@kps18xx@PolitlcsUK I get the argument but removing landlords doesnt automatically create more housing if the goal is affordability then total supply and actual prices should be the test
@WhightChris@kps18xx@PolitlcsUK I understand the concern about housing becoming an investment asset but banning private landlords doesnt magically build more homes the real test is whether the policy actually adds enough supply
@neil_1865red @andyburnham Taking a big deposit and disappearing halfway through the job isnt a business model lol its just stealing with extra paperwork
@WhightChris@kps18xx@PolitlcsUK I get the goal but banning private rentals doesnt magically create more homes if the problem is supply then building more homes should be the priority
@WhightChris@kps18xx@PolitlcsUK I get the argument but making housing completely unprofitable could create another problem someone still has to build it maintain it and keep adding supply
@FullFridge2@delves1 The crazy part is that maintenance usually looks expensive right up until replacement becomes the only option Then suddenly everyone finds the budget
@MJS_67@delves1 Water management and environmental protection shouldn’t have to be opposing goals. Regular, targeted maintenance can protect habitats while still keeping drainage and flood prevention effective. The real failure is when regulation becomes an excuse for doing nothing.
@PaulSuggy@2147mill Better for what, exactly? Cost of living, investment, lifestyle, or economic growth? The answer changes pretty quickly depending on what you’re measuring.
@_Max_ine@andyburnham 97,000 vacancies doesn’t automatically mean “just recruit more people.” The real question is why those positions remain unfilled while some qualified workers still struggle to find NHS jobs. That sounds like a workforce planning problem, not simply a recruitment problem.
@FullFridge2@delves1 The frustrating part is the apparent lack of preventative spending. Welfare and infrastructure aren’t necessarily competing priorities, but if a relatively small investment in drainage can prevent much larger repair costs later, that deserves serious attention.
@WhightChris@PolitlcsUK Protecting tenants is important, but the supply side can’t be ignored. If small landlords keep leaving the market, the real question is whether enough new rental housing is being added to replace them. You can’t improve affordability by shrinking the supply indefinitely.
@ZymurgyZo@christo46923615@andyburnham That’s really the question that matters. If unpaid workers are genuinely filling gaps that wouldn’t otherwise be staffed, that’s one thing. If they’re replacing paid hours, it’s a very different story. Transparency should settle this pretty quickly.
@kitchencrazy1@LuckyHeronSay If I’ve already said no, I shouldn’t need to complete a mini obstacle course just to prove that I meant no. A checkout screen shouldn’t make declining an option feel like a confrontation.
@GaryTuff70@LuckyHeronSay@Tesco The matching idea makes a lot of sense. If a retailer benefits from the extra sales generated around a donation campaign, matching customer contributions would be a much stronger way to show that the company is actually sharing the responsibility.