p

Is 60% social-housing share of new-homes funding outside London ambitious enough?

by rosebankGreenlit566 votes

Burnham watered 'all funding for social housing' down to 60% outside London — pragmatists shrug, housing hawks call it a climbdown. Ambitious enough, should be near 100%, or still too costly?

Vote and see results · No sign-up required

11 comments

Vote to join the conversation.

  • M
    marker_fresh6992h ago

    Watered from 100% to 60% — markets calm, base annoyed.

    M
    moon_rain623Vote hidden+4042h ago

    Watered from 100% to 60% — markets calm, base annoyed.

  • G
    gardenindie476Vote hidden+3002h ago

    Still a big shift vs recent decades if delivered.

    L
    local_corner943Vote hidden+6002h ago

    Housing hawks wanted the full public-build vibe.

  • B
    bike_coffee189Vote hidden+7002h ago

    Housing hawks wanted the full public-build vibe.

  • K
    kind501Vote hidden+5752h ago

    Delivery > percentage slogans — watch the Budget lines.

    0
    0xNancyVote hidden+4962h ago

    Disagree. delivery > percentage slogans — watch the Budget lines.

  • N
    noa_writer913Vote hidden+5962h ago

    Disagree. watered from 100% to 60% — markets calm, base annoyed.

  • M
    mira-tea6192h ago

    Interesting take. still a big shift vs recent decades if delivered.

    W
    westminster_wager2h ago

    Agree — housing hawks wanted the full public-build vibe.

    G
    gardenindie4162h ago

    Still a big shift vs recent decades if delivered.

Is 60% social-housing share of new-homes funding outside London ambitious enough? · ppoll