Britain needs more slums - Adam Smith Institute

cepheus

I have a horrible feeling some people on here might actually agree with this. I thought the headline was from the Mash or Thump to start with. Obviously designed to get noticed.

There has been a proliferation of not-houses in recent years, from houseboats to ‘beds-in-sheds.’ The reason is clear – Britain has a sore lack of proper slums. Government regulations designed to clamp down on ‘cowboy landlords’ restrict people’s ability to choose the kind of accommodation in which they want to live.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/planning-transport/britain-needs-more-slums/

Obviously it's beyond the Adam Smith's conception that the housing market might be overbought or driving itself into boom and bust. A significant interest rate rise will do wonders for affordability of more decent properties, as would taxes on unoccupied properties and unused land.

Generali

To be fair, this is an opinion piece written by a blogger who won a competition, not a piece of research commissioned or completed by the Adam Smith Institute.

And what he's calling for isn't slums, it's a relaxation of planning law to enable cheaper housing to be built. He's just used a catchy headline.

Apart from you being completely wrong I agree, this is a shocking indictment of Toryism from the hand of one of the UK's top Tory research labs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, this is an opinion piece written by a blogger who won a competition, not a piece of research commissioned or completed by the Adam Smith Institute.
.

And his central point is sound....

These regulations don’t just affect the type of squalid accommodation that they were designed to outlaw. A recent project to build ‘micro-flats’ worth up to £231,000 required the intervention of the London Mayor to exempt it from certain regulations.

The market desperately wants to provide houses people can live in at prices they can afford – but in the eyes of local authorities these houses are too small, or too tall, or the ceilings are too low, or the windows not energy efficient enough. Sweeping deregulation is the only way to provide Britain with the slums it is crying out for.

People like cepheus spend years cheering on policies like the Green Noose around cities that throttle provision of enough housing to meet our needs, or planning restrictions/green levies/community charges that add tens of thousands to the cost of each house, then complain bitterly when house prices rise.

You couldn't make it up....

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, this is an opinion piece written by a blogger who won a competition, not a piece of research commissioned or completed by the Adam Smith Institute.....

It's the "Winner of the 18-21 category of the ASI's 'Young Writer on Liberty' competition"

I'm shocked. I thought every 18-21 year old was supposed to be a radical leftist enraptured by the rise of Corbynism.:)

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

It's the "Winner of the 18-21 category of the ASI's 'Young Writer on Liberty' competition"

I'm shocked. I thought every 18-21 year old was supposed to be a radical leftist enraptured by the rise of Corbynism.:)

I match your Corbyn and I raise you a William Hague.

I still can't work out whether Mr Hague was a huge loss to the country or a Foot-esque dodge of a terrible PM.

PasturesNew

My new build house is subject to the regulation where you have to have a disabled loo. Mine's got a window in it. Roll on 10 years that'll be "bedroom 3"

cepheus

cepheus wrote: »

I have a horrible feeling some people on here might actually agree with this.

Told you :eek:

System

Not slums, but cheaper housing with less rigorous regulation.

It's obvious that housing has been deliberately pushed up in quality and degree of regulation in planning and construction to the point where it is not affordable on the lowest economic wages.

The current system suits house owners, the better off, politicians of left and right, landlords, and social engineers, but it doesn't produce affordable homes for all.
It's a simple pragmatic choice - do you want houses or not?