this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)

United Kingdom

4110 readers
487 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, 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.

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Pretty depressing reading.

[Edit] I had the archive link as a comment but this has gained enough traction that it's not obvious. Here it is again so you don't have to give FT any clicks https://archive.is/ypkln

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frazorth 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately the solutions are opposed by both sides, as lefties are arguing points about house building not reducing costs which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

https://archive.is/LtQFc

If we build a million McMansions, they won't sell for £500k+ due to oversupply.

"Affordable housing" is just basically building more at this point, the reason you can sell ex-council houses for over £300k is because, as the article you didn't read says, 1 in 200 are homeless due to insufficient housing.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

.5% of UK is homeless?

US official number is .25% but it doesn't account for people living in cars and other form "invisiable" homelessness, which eatimated to be much larger number than visiable

[–] frazorth 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then you should read the article.

This is the official statistics for people living in temporary accommodation whilst waiting for a house. These are families living in single room accommodation like a hotel room.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like the contents then don't support the headline.

I don't click corpo propaganda btw, let their owners pay for it themselves lol

[–] frazorth 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Which they would know, if they had read the article, right?

Edit: I shouldn't comment just to express salt at someone, so actually also, thanks OP for the no-paywall link.

[–] frazorth 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm not sure how the preferred way to present content on here is yet so I gave the original URL as the link and then commented the archive link. I sometimes see people complaining that they don't see the body, so it sounds like we have to work around some crappy clients too.

If there is a preferred way of presenting this then I will update the submission.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, stuff like this is messy. I like that we're all muddling along and figuring things out as they go. Much of this is a problem with distributed social media — but not "problem" in a bad way, but something to overcome.

Practically, I don't know if there's a better way to do it, because as you say, there's not a one size fits all solution. I just wanted to say thanks because I probably wouldn't have read the article myself if I had to get a no-paywall link myself, so the little conveniences help.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run -1 points 4 months ago

its an FT link aka UK premier neoliberal rag