Loving the work ethic of the new government

I think that is a very real risk Iam64. The NHS does not prioritise services other than acute care, because the immediate needs are so great. Perhaps we will rewind to the pre 1974 model.

Casdon, mr I ‘s focus was combining health and social care. His big worry was that if funding was combined, the bulk would continue to be swallowed by health

I wonder if the funding split between health and social care issue should be for the crossover elements only Iam64? Continuing Healthcare, nursing home care and integrated care (including mental health) are the obvious areas where joint funding would work so much better than the current system. I’m worried about the impact on the purely social care elements if the funding was fully combined, particularly for people with lifelong conditions, who could so easily lose out in a bigger funding pool.

The boundary between social and nursing care will be an increasing focus as it becomes more possible to care for people in their own homes.
I agree that it makes sense for provision to come from the same funding pot. My concern is if the funds all go the health, leaving social care once again with insufficient cash to meet need.

Work on combining health and social care has been ongoing within local authorities and NHS for many years. Here’s hoping that good work is utilised rather than the wheel being re-invented, again,

Dinahmo

GSM Planning delays are not just caused by housing. Many of them are for building new factories and warehouses. Also the pipeline proposed to bring water down from Scotland. Apparently there are 12 authories in its path, each one deliberating and dealing with the NIMBYs.

And we musn't forget HS2 and the planning problems with that scheme.

In addition the National Grid want to build a string of pylons from Norwich to Tilbury. There are 2 alternatives - underground which would cost 9 times as much as above ground or undersea which would 3 times as much. As you can imagine there is a lot of opposition to the pylons.

It so happens that in the 60s I worked for the Electricity Council. Even then I knew that there were undersea cables connecting the UK with France from we bought electricity.

Did I say planning delays were caused by housing? I think not.

Thanks WW - clearly not senseless

I know most of us are aware of this, but I’ve pasted this information from government for those who have expressed puzzlement

What are the consequences of not building enough homes?

Purchasing a home has become more unaffordable
The cost of a home is increasing more quickly than earnings. Data published in March 2023 shows that in 2002, the median salary in England was £20,739 and the median house price was £102,000. This equated to an affordability ratio of 4.92. In 2022, the median salary was £33,208 and the median house price was £275,000 equating to an affordability ratio of 8.28.

London was the least affordable region for buying a home in 2022, with the median home price costing 13.3 times the annual median salary. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) provides information on housing affordability in local areas across England.

More adults are living with their parents for longer
In 2002, 2.4 million young adults aged 24 to 30 years were living with their parents in the UK. Data from 2022 shows that over the last 20 years, this has increased by over 1 million to 3.4 million young adults, representing around one in four people aged between 20 and 24 years. Many young people cannot afford to buy homes in their local communities where they have grown-up, due to worsening affordability.

People are living in sub-standard and unsuitable homes
3.5 million homes in England in 2021/22, including 12% of households with dependent children, were in ‘non-decent’ condition. This can be hazardous to occupants and have negative impacts to health and wellbeing.

Non-decent homes are defined by the Decent Home Standard to be homes which do not meet the statutory minimum standard for housing, do not provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, are not in a reasonable state of repair, or do not have reasonably modern facilities and services. In 2021/22, 732,000 households in England were considered to be living in overcrowded homes. In some cases, a home which has deteriorated beyond its original lifespan is not being replaced.

Where are new homes needed?
All types of areas across England need new homes, to help local people stay in the areas where they want to live, as well as provide for people moving to an area. Urban areas are under the greatest pressure for new homes as they are where a large number of jobs and services are located.

However, rural areas also need new homes to ensure there are enough people to support the services in small villages and towns. Planning for new homes takes into account local needs and priorities and involves community consultation. For further information, please refer to Fact Sheet 2: How new homes are planned and Fact Sheet 6: The role of design and placemaking in new homes and communities.

I hope that helps.

GSM Planning delays are not just caused by housing. Many of them are for building new factories and warehouses. Also the pipeline proposed to bring water down from Scotland. Apparently there are 12 authories in its path, each one deliberating and dealing with the NIMBYs.

And we musn't forget HS2 and the planning problems with that scheme.

In addition the National Grid want to build a string of pylons from Norwich to Tilbury. There are 2 alternatives - underground which would cost 9 times as much as above ground or undersea which would 3 times as much. As you can imagine there is a lot of opposition to the pylons.

It so happens that in the 60s I worked for the Electricity Council. Even then I knew that there were undersea cables connecting the UK with France from we bought electricity.

Germanshepherdsmum

So a requirement to build 1.5m houses, with no further detail, isn’t senseless?

Not until you know the detail. It’s never sensible to make judgements without knowing the facts in full, is it?

So a requirement to build 1.5m houses, with no further detail, isn’t senseless?

If anyone is impressed by that they are senseless

GSM just because I don’t agree with your point of view, I’m not senseless.

Casdon don’t forget that new houses have been built- 2.2 million since 2010. Government can set targets but government doesn’t build them.

Germanshepherdsmum

What the manifesto says, and what Reeves has said post-election, are not leaks to the media. They are committed to building 1.5m houses, with absolutely no detail. If anyone is impressed by that they are senseless.

That is exactly what I meant Germanshepherdsmum. There is a statement in the manifesto, confirmed by Reeves, and that is all we know. No more detail has been leaked, but you have gone into a tailspin of speculation. When we know what is proposed is the time to criticise. I know you can’t help yourself, as in your eyes not one positive step has been taken by the new government, but you have absolutely no facts.

Mum, dad, and the,oldest teen are working, by the way, and always have done.

I know of quite a few homeless people in my area.
A family where the mum is sofa surfing with her 11 year old daughter, and the dad is living 5 miles away with the two boys.

They have been offered temporary accommodation in Milton Keynes.

What the manifesto says, and what Reeves has said post-election, are not leaks to the media. They are committed to building 1.5m houses, with absolutely no detail. If anyone is impressed by that they are senseless.

We will see Germanshepdsmum. There is no panic, and until the detailed plans and timescales are available we don’t know any more than we have been officially told. I hope they keep it that way too, instead of the endless leaks and half truths finding their way to the media.

You know what I mean Casdon. This is a big priority for Labour, and no matter how much they talk about planning reform the reality is that those of the 1.5m houses for which planning permission hasn’t already been applied for will take a very long time to deliver - and as I have already said here on other threads, housing for sale on the open market, or even as shared ownership, isn’t what is needed. People who are renting can’t afford to save a deposit to buy, and whilst interest rates remain at their current levels people are not keen to take on a mortgage.

There’s no panic. Even those who intensely dislike Starmer could not accuse him of being inclined to panic.

I have no idea why there is this apparent panic to build so many houses. There are huge numbers of new houses which aren’t selling, along with a lot of older houses which linger on the market. There is a need for more houses for social (lower than affordable) rent but housing associations haven’t got the money to build them and private developers don’t want them on their sites because the tenants are often problematic, not looking after their gardens, hanging washing and leaving rubbish on the balconies and generally behaving in an anti-social way. Other social tenants might not have a problem with that but people spending a lot of money to buy their homes certainly do. The only answer is social rent only ghettos, more no-go areas for the police.

I'm puzzled, seriously. Why do we need so many new houses? I don't know anyone who hasn't got a home. Admittedly I know people who are renting and would prefer to buy. But I don't know anyone who has nowhere to live. Where is everyone coming from? And if a lot of the need is caused by divorce, then why aren't smaller houses being built instead of the large ones I see near me?
Also, slightly changing the subject, why is it the fashion to build houses at angles to one another rather than the sensible straight road layout? I think this is a silly fad and mostly means that many houses have gardens that are totally overlooked or that people are left staring at a big brick wall of an adjacent house.

I’ve got reservations about joining health and social care together. The issue is less about who manages who than it is about funding. A lot of social care isn’t about health conditions, and the loss of connectivity between social care and housing, leisure services and education would be as much as a loss as the lack of connectivity with health currently, as far as service users are concerned. Most social care users live in the community, and don’t want or need their care medicalised. I’d fear community care being denuded to pay for more acute care. It’s a big dilemma.

Tho much of the problem has been that social care services are means tested, and run by local councils whose budgets have been slashed while NHS funding has increased. Integrated working can only go so far unless budgets are integrated.

As long as NHS and Social Care is funded differently (ie NHS - government- and Social Care - Local Councils - its going to be difficult to make this progress.

I agree with posters above - the issue of Social Care desperately needs addressing. It makes sense that it’s integrated within the NHS, as the two are inextricably linked.

Of course, in theory, it always has been under the umbrella of the NHS but, in practice, not so. I really hope the Labour government will make progress in this area.