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).
Honestly, this is an absolutely stupid use of statistics.
That’s 3% of homes vacant. Have you literally never moved houses before? Homes sitting vacant for a few months is pretty normal. That’s homes on average being unoccupied 3-4 months out of every ten years. It would be strange if 3% of homes weren’t vacant at any given point,
It would be strange if 3% of homes weren’t vacant at any given point,
You haven’t said anything different than dehaga, and well, look where that got them. Poor thing couldn’t even tell me whether they thought abandoned houses counted as unoccupied.
Further down someone provided a more detailed source, with data of long term unocupancy, which is still staggering. Add that to Airbnbs, which aren’t entirely included, as they’re taxed differently, and the outlook is pretty bleak.
If you’re interested they break it down by long-term, excepted empty homes, not yet long-term, second homes and holiday lets.
Perhaps we’re at an impasse. I see a staggering number of unoccupied homes, a staggering number of people I would like housed, and an obvious start to a solution.
Would you like to try again, perhaps without accusations of stupidity? When we poors fight only the wealthy win, and the wealthy are winning, look at wealth inequality over time.
Said no serious person. You didn’t say that with a straight face did you? Really? Come off it.
-
I make a perfectly reasonable claim (3% vacancy rate is perfectly explainable through ordinary real estate churn.)
-
You reply pretending you can dismiss a perfectly reasonable explanation with no justification, simply by blustering and pretending something reasonable isn’t.
Seriously, really. Why in God’s name wouldn’t a 3% vacancy rate be perfectly reasonable? Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave? It’s very normal for homes to sit vacant for months while they sell.
You’re completely detached from reality here buddy. If you think the 3% vacancy rate isn’t reasonable in an ordinary market.
I think you’ve just never rented or sold any kind of home or real estate before. Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
Yeah, I removed that for civility. You haven’t said anything that dehaga, hasn’t said, and look where that got them, poor thing. Honestly, go check, they tried the exact same line of argument.
Now for your acusation of bluster:
Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave? I think you’ve just never rented or sold any kind of home or real estate before. Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
You’re wrong on all counts, that’s what is called bluster. Be better.
I think we’re at an impasse, I see a staggering number of unoccupied homes, even just included long-term unoccupied. Then add holiday lets, then add holiday homes. I also see a staggering number of people I would like housed. I then see a start of a solution.
Go away until you can be the slightest bit more respectful. You complaining that anyone who disagrees with you, because of the data mind, lives at home with their parents (like that would make them wrong, that’s called an Ad Hominem), is embarrassing.
You’ve written a lot of words without making any points.
What exactly do you think a reasonable vacancy rate is, if not 3%? You’re not even trying to justify your answer.
You’ve written a lot of words without making any points.
You mean you ignored everything I have said then? Ok we’ll go point by point.
Point 1: you are disrespectful to others, and use bad faith arguments such as ad hominems. Makes sense to start here, ignoring everything someone says is fairly disrespectful.
Adjacent point: when we poors fight, only the wealthy win. The wealthy are winning, look at wealth inequality. This is mostly for anyone reading after, the point dear reader is to make the conversation toxic, and WoodScientist absolutely has. While them and I are bickering, we’re not taking about wealthy… The people with all the cookies. Their first sentence to me in this conversation: “Honestly, this is an absolutely stupid use of statistics.” Screams ‘I’m going to have a productive conversation with you.’ Look out for these people, any time anyone says anything about the wealthy there will be one.
Why do I believe you are disrespectful of others:
You have suggested, because I disagree with you, based on the evidence, I must not know anything about housing. I cannot possibly be speaking as an equal right? Here’s an example of you:
Do you have no idea how homes work? Do you think that every time a home is sold or re-rented, that the new occupants can just move in the day the old occupants leave?
Do I have no idea how homes work? You see how that isn’t attacking an argument, it’s attacking a person?
Now for ad hominems.
Your attitudes make more sense for someone who still lives with their parents and who has never done anything with real estate of any kind.
You see how this is an ad hominem? A person living with their parents could absolutely know how housing works, nothing about living with parents excludes them from that knowledge.
So, your attitude needs some work, agreed? This isn’t even an exhaustive list. But, given that, can you see why I might not be inclined to have any conversation with you, I just don’t see how it can be productive.
Can you see it, within yourself, to treat me as an equal deserving of respect? You came to me, you could have read all the conversations in this thread, you could have seen I wasn’t taking about houses recently bought and not yet moved in to.
So that’s point 1, if we can work through that, and I’m not hopeful, we can get to point 2.
-
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
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.
That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes
That’s the relevant part you muppet
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.
That makes no sense. Increasing supply will reduce prices and people buying houses are not paying rent.
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…
The source is private ownership of the means of production and shelter.
You are a fascist.
What? Common sense? That’s insane, it’d never work. Who will deliver my McDonalds?
