Skip to content

Nicholas Fearn and bad logic

More than a million people are on waiting lists for social housing while only a few thousand social homes are built annually. This means a million – if not more – people left without affordable housing during the cost-of-living crisis. This, to me, is a continuing scandal.

No, it’s not a scandal, it’s obvious.

Social housing is at less than market rate. There’s a queue for something at less than market rate is there?

My word.

8 thoughts on “Nicholas Fearn and bad logic”

  1. Tim

    Is this a guy I should have seen before – an Aditya Chakrabot or other such that has been a bete noire in the past? Just wondering:

    Anyway, some good news – he ‘could be a contender’ to replace Owen Jones as the Guardian’s most moronic commentator.

    The great thing about social housing is that we can live here for the rest of our lives, and that we’ve been able to decorate the property to suit our tastes

    Tremendous – a lifetime of being subsidized by the taxpayer.

    England has 1.4 million fewer households in social housing than in 1980. Thatcher’s housing policies glorified the idea that social homeowners should aim to buy their property instead of renting it, and that owning should be the ultimate goal.

    I’d hazard Nicholas thinks sending people to Rwanda is a bad idea and would continue to call for ‘safe’ and ‘legal’ routes to facilitate the reverse colonization of the UK. I’m guessing he opposed Brexit as well.

    I think almost every article Tim points to, whether by Murphy or not speaks to the same fundamental lack of economic understanding – that things have to be paid for and that subsidies (of any type) distort markets. Sad that the likes of Spud and other lunatics have poisoned the debate with the idea the ‘Free money’ can be produced at no cost.

  2. I read a while back that tens of thousands of social houses/flats are empty for one reason or another: require repair/renovation; people don’t like the property, location, want something better.

    Privatise it, like medical care and education… and ‘government’.

  3. “Thatcher’s housing policies glorified the idea that social homeowners should aim to buy their property instead of renting it,”

    And millions of them agreed with her. Dammit, during the ’80s and ’90s Scottish voters deserted the Tories in their droves, but proportionately more of them bought their council houses than anywhere in Britain.

    (Then they all trooped out to vote for the Nats, who promptly banned it. Property for me, but not for thee…)

  4. The million number is meaningless, anyone can be on the social housing waiting list, it doesn’t mean they’re all worthy or suffering tragic cases.

    I was given social housing, and I’m grateful for it as it gave me a chance to recover from addiction and to rebuild my life. Now I’m in the next trap – I can’t afford to buy where I live, and while I could afford to rent privately I’d be mad to give up the cheap rent screw. As always something that seems oh so nice and kindly superficially creates all sorts of the wrong incentives.

  5. ‘Fatcher’ sold fewer council houses than ‘Bliar’. ‘Bliar’ built fewer houses than ‘Fatcher’.

    Oh dear………

  6. They’re on housing though – so it is, by definition ‘affordable’ housing.

    Sure, they’d like it to cost less. I’d like my mortgage to be less too.

  7. Why do housing loans create deposits?

    Why is supply of free sleeping on commons restricted? Why do landlords have a monopoly on sleeping space?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *