Because The NHS Is Such A Shining Beacon Of Efficiency?

Oooh, where to start..?

When the NHS was conceived, it shifted the conversation on health to that of a human right: utterly reshaping our view of housing feels ever more urgent to the millions affected by the crisis. The academics Jonathan Portes and Henrietta Moore have argued that housing should be supplied by government alongside other basic public services. If shelter is a human right, why not create a national housing service to provide homes for everyone who doesn’t have one?

Do you really want the government to tell you where you should live, and in what sort of house?

The idea seems radical now, but so too was the NHS. The horror of war led to previous traditions being contested. The endurance and severity of the housing crisis is pushing more and more people to similarly radical positions and ideas. Our politicians should be far more radical, given how swiftly people are tiring of profit being put before people.

Some are trying, love.

The public mood is ripe for a complete overhaul of the housing market, as the foundations of capitalism look dangerously weak.

The socialists keep gleefully predicting the death of capitalism. And it keeps trundling on. Because enough of us can see what the inevitable consequences of socialism are…

12 comments for “Because The NHS Is Such A Shining Beacon Of Efficiency?

  1. Ed P
    October 12, 2018 at 11:17 am

    Who has decided that shelter is an ‘ooman rite? It’s obviously a human need, but right?
    The picture shows a typically well-fed and complacent-looking Guardianista – I wonder how many homeless she’s sheltering in her probably very nice flat.

    If more places are needed, the armed forces have many empty dwellings which could be released to the rental market or welfare. As these are already funded from central taxation, there would be no extra overall cost.
    But state seizure of the property of the rich? Have we just reached Venezuelan levels of socialist stupidity?

  2. James Strong
    October 12, 2018 at 11:29 am

    Rights are negative, the right not to be impeded.

    Positive ‘rights’ are no such thing, they are more accurately termed entitlements. One of the problems with this is that they impose obligations on others.

    A somewhat simple example – there is a right not to be impeded in undertaking economic activity to earn a living.

    But there is no ‘right’ to have a job, to be employed. Such a ‘right’ must impose an obligation on an employer to provide a job; and that is not acceptable.

    There is no ‘right’ to health care or shelter.

    If there were such ‘rights’ the most basic one would be the ‘right’ to food. How has it worked in places where the State has taken over that role?

  3. Errol
    October 12, 2018 at 1:55 pm

    Capitalism is unshakeable. It’s the basic reason for human endeavour. I work, I earn, I live. The problem is, socialism is a caner that eats away at those values.

    Socialism says ‘I want, so I will make someone give it to me.’ If you undermine a wall, the wall collapses. But so does the house you were trying to take. Lefties never really understand the basics of economics.

    Below me lived two utter wasters. They lived on welfare. They did nothing but breed, smoke and drink. They remain social effluent. Their whole approach to life was ‘we want a bigger house. Having more kids gets us that’. So they irresponsibly popped out three sprogs that I’m having to pay for. Oh, and yes. They got their bigger house. Five useless, expensive, destructive, pointless mouths to feed. That’s what happens when the state takes over housing. You reward laziness.

    What the author never considers is that it is government control over housing – supply, demand, price – is what has caused the housing mess in the first place. But this is the Guardian, where they’re incapable of joining the dots, mainly because they don’t like the picture it shows.

    • Bill
      October 12, 2018 at 4:10 pm

      Surely living is not dependent on neither working nor earning.
      Are you really saying that death awaits those who do not work for money?

      With you on the ” I want so other people will give it to me” disease but with that said the state does promise to ‘look after you from cradle to grave’ although it never defines ‘you’.

  4. ivan
    October 12, 2018 at 9:37 pm

    I can’t help wondering what would happen to the housing ‘shortage’ if all the illegal immigrants and their dependents as well as the economic migrants and foreign criminals were repatriated to their home countries. It would also ease the NHS problem.

    • Pcar
      October 12, 2018 at 10:45 pm


      MSM & EU would go ballistic

      Public – outside London bubble – would be holding street parties and celebrating.

      Bring it on.

      • James Strong
        October 13, 2018 at 8:05 am

        Correct on both points.

    • Bill
      October 13, 2018 at 9:12 am

      All I can say is there is no housing shortage, in these parts at least. According to local council mouthpieces the ‘phenomonen’ is one of empty houses and the physical evidence of wandering around the manor bears this out.

  5. October 13, 2018 at 2:45 pm

    There was a case for the NHS. The provision of health services paid by private resources was completely overwhelmed by the death, maiming and disablement of a substantial proportion of the population, along with the destruction of a huge amount of private property and personal wealth. Like the ‘Rationing’ of foodstuffs for seven years after the war, there was a need to distribute resources and control for criminality which could only be applied by an ‘Authority’.

    Just as Rationing was eventually relaxed and the private sector allowed to grow and flourish, so too could Health services have been: but that was not.

    Provision of housing was again a ‘state’ matter after the war when many thousands were dispossessed c/o the Luftwaffe. Families were wiped out and many a ‘returning serviceman’ found he was no longer a father and husband but a man in poverty in need of a replacement for his barracks. I lived my early life quite close to a ‘hostel’ which housed some of those ‘single’ men.

    The housing issue in the UK is distant from me but not dissimilar to Oz, where our own home-grown disaffected, metallly retarded , drug addicted, runaways etc are homeless and their opportunity for a place to live diminished by rampant and deliberate immigration of third-world ingatiates who live on ”benefits” which include the public housing largess which could be deployed to our own home-grown layabouts and distressed.

    It is a matter of priorities. Private landlords are reluctant to let yobs from any source live in and destroy their hard-earned property.

  6. Andy5759
    October 14, 2018 at 4:25 pm

    From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

  7. October 15, 2018 at 4:19 pm

    I’ve advocated for the supply of social housing to be controlled by a central agency before. The reasons being that local government seems to manage social housing badly or has decided to get out of the game completely. In my area, the local council do not own any housing stock at all, it’s all been hived off to housing associations or bought by private landlords.

    Central government can, if necessary make the appropriate changes to planning law so that social housing developments are not blocked and it can change legislation so that this new social housing cannot be sold off under right-to-buy so it stays social housing for as long as required. Central government can also release old M.O.D. housing stock if necessary, something local government cannot do.

    Also national government can set limits on the rents paid on this housing. The amount of money being paid in benefits to private landlords for sub-standard housing is a scandal in itself. That taxpayer’s money is being used to prop up property magnates’ profits to me seems ludicrous, especially when a substantial amount of that money seems to go abroad.

    There is a case for a national pool of social housing of decent quality as a strateigic resource to ease the burden on benefits as well as the homeless. Not as a ‘uman right, but as a common sense solution to the piss poor previous management and lack of investment over previous decades.

    I was advocating this as far back as 2009, before the benefits cap when Gordon Brown was pouring money down the benefits drain renting million pound plus houses. Homlessness and the housing crisis have got steadily worse since then.

    But as with the NHS, whether it would work in practice is something else. Certainly some form of limit on benefits paid on private rents needs to be in place, because the government has pushed the private rented sector to ever higher rents because landlords and letting agencies tend to maximise profits by placing rents around the housing allowance limit.

    • Pcar
      October 15, 2018 at 9:10 pm


      “social housing to be controlled by a central [Gov’t] agency”

      Really? When Gov’t agencies are useless at everything (eg DWP, MOD, NHS) give them more to mess up?

      The solution is for Gov’t to butt out of housing and allow people to rent whatever they want such as a small bedroom.

      Also HB & general rent caps result in fewer properties available.

Leave a Reply

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