We need Zack Polanski as a mp now!
He’s made so many weird gaffes, I’m sure he’s a plant
Such as?
Hypnotits just to name one
I hope he becomes PM. He’s such a tit, it’d be hilarious.
Seems like that’s one of the major requirements to be a PM.
True, he’d be a perfect fit as a performative bullshitter quaffing on his peers farts.
why wouldn’t you tackle the problem at the source? build more houses and put a temporary hold on immigration?
Because that isn’t the source. There are 700k+ empty homes in the UK. Sure build more homes, also fill the ones we have.
Meanwhile here’s you:
Don’t believe the rich. They’re lying to you to maintain their privilege. How many millions donated to Reform to convince you that it’s immigrants, and not the rich, that’s the problem? Immigration is down, and still these problems persist, it’s isn’t the immigrants. Wealth inequality is up, it is the wealthy.
Agree with you that extreme wealth inequality is our problem and that immigrants are scapegoated to distract us. Would also like to add, I think saying immigration is down is not a solid argument. If someone’s starting position is the country is already full, pointing out the rate of immigration is slower but still ongoing would be interpreted as a negative rather than a positive.
True, but if they’re dead set on blaming immigration then they’re dead set on blaming immigration. I cannot reason them out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves in to.
I say immigration is down to highlight immigration is being scapegoated, while also providing where the blame should lie (wealth inequality).
Those 700k aren’t just sat there empty.
There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, or under renovation
No partial quotes please:
There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, under renovation, are occupied solely during the week or at the weekend, have been bought as an investment or have simply been abandoned.
Why did you chose to leave part of the sentence off. Also what’s you’re point? Some are under renovation, sure. Some are asking too high a price for sale or rent. Or, they’re second homes. Or, they’re holiday homes Or, they’re airbnbs. Or, investments. Or abandoned.
Action on empty homes has breakdowns:
Long-term empty homes
To be classed as ‘long-term empty’ a home has to be liable for council tax and to have been unfurnished and not lived in for over 6 months. This figure is increasing all the time, but as at October 2025, it was 303,143 - a rise of 14% on 2024 and over 50% up on 2016 - the year after the last national Empty Homes Programme ended.
More here: https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/facts-and-figures
Under second homes:
Some may be used as Airbnb type short lets, although many of these now pay business rates and do not appear on the Council Taxbase at all. As at October 2025, there were over 268,000 of these so-called ‘second homes’.
Am I understanding that right as a minimum of 268k in this category? As ther rest are in Holiday Let’s and
NONE of these are included in our total vacancy figure of 1,022,433 for 2025.
That’s a good source, thank you for that. I just used the top one of my search.
I don’t consider a home that is used Mon to Fri to be unoccupied.
We need to build houses. It’s the best way to get broad based growth. Lots of trades.
I don’t consider a home that is used Mon to Fri to be unoccupied.
That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes. Could you answer that please? Do you consider a house that’s abandoned as unoccupied? Stop cherry picking please.
Here’s what you’re doing, knowingly or not: Reverse Gish gallop
We need to build houses. It’s the best way to get broad based growth. Lots of trades.
Are you under the impression that I’m against building houses?
Here’s me:
Sure build more homes, also fill the ones we have.
We agree: build more homes. Do we agree to fill the ones we have?
Had you read the article though:
Even if the Government meets its target of 1.5 million homes over the course of the parliament, analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that under current government policy, increasing rents will cancel out all average wage growth until at least the end of the decade — meaning no improvement in affordability.
Removed by mod
That’s the relevant part you muppet
You’re just being silly now. Are abandoned houses unoccupied? If they are, then they’re relevant. What’s the real reason you’re cherry picking.
That makes no sense.
To you maybe, it links to a report explaining why. But, given you haven’t figured out whether abandoned houses are unoccupied…
so why didn’t he put a tax or penalty on empty homes?
putting a freeze on rent prices aka market intervention usually results in the market self correcting, so if the market is overwhelmed enough eventually the market will work around this by asking for bigger upfront payments, hidden extra payments, payments that don’t involve cash etc
I’m not against wealth taxes in general. No argument from me. According to the article, rent increases has far surpassed wage increases.
There’s a few ways of addressing that, I don’t think Greens are ONLY arguing for a rent freeze, i
What? Common sense? That’s insane, it’d never work. Who will deliver my McDonalds?
