Block A or B?

[festive]

Consider two neighbouring blocks of flats.


Block A is well maintained, clean, and secure. The management company ensures that every tenant is properly registered, that rent is collected, and critically that the revenue is reinvested into the building. The lifts work, the corridors are bright, the grounds are cared for, and security measures operate as intended. Residents understand the value of this disciplined structure because it directly contributes to a safe, orderly, and predictable living environment. As a result, Block A attracts people who want stability, fairness, and a sense of community underpinned by clear rules and proper stewardship.


Block B, by contrast, is poorly run. The building is visibly neglected: peeling paint, broken doors, unreliable lighting, and no effective security presence. Some tenants pay nothing at all. Others should not be living there in the first place either they bypassed the formal processes, or the landlord simply stopped enforcing them altogether. Basic maintenance does not happen, and the very idea of reinvesting rental income back into the property is almost nonexistent. The environment becomes chaotic because, without standards, accountability, or enforcement, anything and anyone is allowed to drift in.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Given the wide disparity between these two living conditions, it is self-evident why most rational people would choose Block A. It provides safety, routine, and a functioning management model that respects both its tenants and its long-term sustainability.

However, within Block B, some individuals despite living in the clear dysfunction of the building may react aggressively towards anyone seeking to move to Block A. The reasons are usually a mix of insecurity, misplaced entitlement, or a refusal to acknowledge the consequences of poor management and non-compliance. Instead of recognising that Block A’s standards produce better outcomes, they resent those who choose to pursue a higher-quality environment. In extreme cases, they may even attempt to shame, intimidate, or undermine anyone planning to leave, as though improvement were a form of betrayal rather than an entirely rational decision.


Block A represents a structure that works because people support it and contribute to it. Dubai for example?

Block B represents what happens when responsibility, investment, and accountability are abandoned. EG The UK.

Discuss why you would resent anyone wanting to move to Block A?

Discuss whats wrong with Block B and why complaining about how its run is somehow deemed far right?

 

[Notch7]

Consider two neighbouring blocks of flats.


Block A is well maintained, clean, and secure. The management company ensures that every tenant is properly registered, that rent is collected, and critically that the revenue is reinvested into the building. The lifts work, the corridors are bright, the grounds are cared for, and security measures operate as intended. Residents understand the value of this disciplined structure because it directly contributes to a safe, orderly, and predictable living environment. As a result, Block A attracts people who want stability, fairness, and a sense of community underpinned by clear rules and proper stewardship.


Block B, by contrast, is poorly run. The building is visibly neglected: peeling paint, broken doors, unreliable lighting, and no effective security presence. Some tenants pay nothing at all. Others should not be living there in the first place either they bypassed the formal processes, or the landlord simply stopped enforcing them altogether. Basic maintenance does not happen, and the very idea of reinvesting rental income back into the property is almost nonexistent. The environment becomes chaotic because, without standards, accountability, or enforcement, anything and anyone is allowed to drift in.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Given the wide disparity between these two living conditions, it is self-evident why most rational people would choose Block A. It provides safety, routine, and a functioning management model that respects both its tenants and its long-term sustainability.

However, within Block B, some individuals despite living in the clear dysfunction of the building may react aggressively towards anyone seeking to move to Block A. The reasons are usually a mix of insecurity, misplaced entitlement, or a refusal to acknowledge the consequences of poor management and non-compliance. Instead of recognising that Block A’s standards produce better outcomes, they resent those who choose to pursue a higher-quality environment. In extreme cases, they may even attempt to shame, intimidate, or undermine anyone planning to leave, as though improvement were a form of betrayal rather than an entirely rational decision.


Block A represents a structure that works because people support it and contribute to it. Dubai for example?

Block B represents what happens when responsibility, investment, and accountability are abandoned. EG The UK.

Discuss why you would resent anyone wanting to move to Block A?

Discuss whats wrong with Block B and why complaining about how its run is somehow deemed far right?

Block B (the UK)

has been asset stripped by tories for 45 years

of course Festive thinks it is poor people that have destroyed the UK over that time

 

[festive]

Lets remind the idiots on this forum...

The analogy isn’t about handing out or to elicit cheap blame to whichever party someone personally dislikes. It’s about recognising that when a building or a country declines, it happens because successive managers fail to invest, maintain, and enforce standards over a long period.

Trying to pin 40–50 years of structural neglect on one political colour is simplistic to the point of being meaningless. Governments of all stripes have contributed to the problems through short-term thinking, inconsistent policy, and a complete lack of long-range stewardship and accountability. That’s the real issue.

If people want to understand why Block B is rundown, they need to look at decades of cumulative mismanagement, not just the last team they’ve decided to be angry at. The point stands: proper investment and governance matter, and when they’re missing across multiple administrations the result is inevitable decline.

 

[Notch7]

Lets remind the idiots on this forum...

The analogy isn’t about handing out or to elicit cheap blame to whichever party someone personally dislikes. It’s about recognising that when a building or a country declines, it happens because successive managers fail to invest, maintain, and enforce standards over a long period.

Trying to pin 40–50 years of structural neglect on one political colour is simplistic to the point of being meaningless. Governments of all stripes have contributed to the problems through short-term thinking, inconsistent policy, and a complete lack of long-range stewardship and accountability. That’s the real issue.

If people want to understand why Block B is rundown, they need to look at decades of cumulative mismanagement, not just the last team they’ve decided to be angry at. The point stands: proper investment and governance matter, and when they’re missing across multiple administrations the result is inevitable decline.

I am sorry, I wasnt trying to make about "cheap blame" -it would in fact be great to have a thread which recognises the failures of this country go deeper than just on eside bad other side good -it is both sides bad in reality


I do agree that multiple administrations have overseen this decline


But Festive: all those multiple administrations have been neo liberal, there have been no left wing govts in power at all in the last 45 years, so there has only been one stripe of government.


Festive, let’s not forget Conservatives have been in power for 32 of the last 45 years.

from 1979 to 1997 = 18 years
from 2010 to 2024 = 14 years

Labour 1997 to 2010 = 13 years
Labour 2024 to 2025 = 1 year

And Tony Blair continued the neo liberal privatisation Thatcherite model with NHS PFIs, introducing private finance to schools with academies and private finance of universities. Also Labour deregulated the mortgage market, and continued deregulation of the banks.



The U.K. is mostly owned by private equity - sadly this current govt are continuing with this. Labour seems to in bed with Blackrock etc which won’t help anybody.



Festive, I do fully agree that all governments have contributed to this current mess and personally I see the problem as being deeper than political parties, I think our political system needs to be changed: voting system and regulatory -part of our failure is the wealthy having the ability to get to politicians to influence policy for the advantage of business interests and not the interests of citizens (betting industry is a perfect example). Blair and Starmer are guilty of this as well as Tory govts.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Knock down both blocks and replace them with a smaller number of homes in civilised houses that people actually want to live in. Let people look after their own home, they will once they own the place and the land on which it stands.

No need for commie state intervention, just let people choose where to live, based on builders and landlords competing to attract them.

Obviously dependent upon not allowing the population to increase by 1 million plus every year, which makes building garbage profitable, as people are desperate for a roof over their heads.

We had "slum clearance" programmes in the past. We pulled down system-built housing "projects", the people were very glad when proper homes replaced them. We're now building new slums.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I'd still rather live in the UK than Dubai

 

[Notch7]

No need for commie state intervention, just let people choose where to live, based on builders and landlords competing to attract them.

do you think that works?

in 1980s the councils flogged 1.5million homes and now in 2025 the housing benefit bill is £25b a year its the 4th biggest govt spend

oh and builders dont compete to attract people, the big 6 control the new build market and release at a rate slow enough to ensure demand always outstrips supply to maintain ever increasing price rises

 

[noseall]

Consider two neighbouring blocks of flats.


Block A is well maintained, clean, and secure. The management company ensures that every tenant is properly registered, that rent is collected, and critically that the revenue is reinvested into the building. The lifts work, the corridors are bright, the grounds are cared for, and security measures operate as intended. Residents understand the value of this disciplined structure because it directly contributes to a safe, orderly, and predictable living environment. As a result, Block A attracts people who want stability, fairness, and a sense of community underpinned by clear rules and proper stewardship.


Block B, by contrast, is poorly run. The building is visibly neglected: peeling paint, broken doors, unreliable lighting, and no effective security presence. Some tenants pay nothing at all. Others should not be living there in the first place either they bypassed the formal processes, or the landlord simply stopped enforcing them altogether. Basic maintenance does not happen, and the very idea of reinvesting rental income back into the property is almost nonexistent. The environment becomes chaotic because, without standards, accountability, or enforcement, anything and anyone is allowed to drift in.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Given the wide disparity between these two living conditions, it is self-evident why most rational people would choose Block A. It provides safety, routine, and a functioning management model that respects both its tenants and its long-term sustainability.

However, within Block B, some individuals despite living in the clear dysfunction of the building may react aggressively towards anyone seeking to move to Block A. The reasons are usually a mix of insecurity, misplaced entitlement, or a refusal to acknowledge the consequences of poor management and non-compliance. Instead of recognising that Block A’s standards produce better outcomes, they resent those who choose to pursue a higher-quality environment. In extreme cases, they may even attempt to shame, intimidate, or undermine anyone planning to leave, as though improvement were a form of betrayal rather than an entirely rational decision.


Block A represents a structure that works because people support it and contribute to it. Dubai for example?

Block B represents what happens when responsibility, investment, and accountability are abandoned. EG The UK.

Discuss why you would resent anyone wanting to move to Block A?

Discuss whats wrong with Block B and why complaining about how its run is somehow deemed far right?

Give me the UK over any country (especially Dubai) any day. Take your flawed analogy and píss off to Dubai with it.

 

[Notch7]

represents a structure that works because people support it and contribute to it. Dubai for example?

have you seen how Dubai treats people?

its a place of slavery, forced labour exploitation, commercial sexual exploitation of children and adults, forced marriage

Im not sure thats a place that we should aspire to

Dubai is a monument to wealth and consumerism built by de-facto slaves.​

Prevalence of modern slavery in the UAE​

The 2023 Global Slavery Index estimates that on any given day in 2021, there were 132,000 individuals living in modern slavery in the UAE. This equates to a prevalence of 13.4 people in modern slavery for every thousand people in the country. The UAE has the second highest prevalence of people in modern slavery of 11 countries in the Arab States region, and the seventh highest prevalence out of 160 countries globally.

Forced labour​

Forced labour exploitation​

The kafala system is a set of laws and policies that delegate responsibility for migrant workers to employers, including control over their ability to reside in, work, and exit the country.4 Migrant workers cannot access legal protections or leave their employment without facing legal and financial consequences.5 The system exacerbates the employer-worker power imbalance and prevents migrant workers from reporting abuse or exploitation.6

Migrant workers face risks of forced labour particularly in the construction, domestic work, and service industries under the kafala system.7 Allegations of forced labour occurred in the construction of, and during, the Dubai Expo 2020, with indications that workers from Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Nepal, and Pakistan had their passports confiscated, wages withheld, were forced to work long hours, and lived in poor conditions.8 There is evidence that migrant domestic workers are forced to work in exploitative conditions, without rest and for limited pay,9 and face sexual abuse by their employers.10 Migrant women are promised decent work and pay in the UAE by recruitment agents, but are then “sold” and forced into domestic work.11

For the first time since 2016, the UAE government identified one person in forced labour in 2021.12 However, no further information on this case was reported. Forced begging also occurs in the UAE.13 In 2021, three Egyptian women were arrested for travelling to UAE on multiple occasions to force children to beg in Dubai.14

Forced commercial sexual exploitation of adults and children​

Women and children from Central Asia, South and Southeast and West Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe have been trafficked into forced sexual exploitation in the UAE.15 Although the government did not report official statistics of forced sexual exploitation or any other form of modern slavery, in 2021, 18 of the 23 convicted traffickers were convicted for trafficking for sexual exploitation.16

Migrant women and girls deceived by criminals promising employment opportunities are forced into sex work in the UAE. For example, in 2021, UAE courts convicted six offenders for trafficking a teenage girl. The traffickers forged a false passport for the teenager, and, on her arrival, forced her into domestic work and commercial sexual exploitation.17 They received jail sentences between six months and 10 years. Similar cases emerged among Thai men and women who were promised jobs as massage therapists in the UAE, only to be forced into sex work on arrival.18

Forced marriage​

While there are no current national estimates of the prevalence of forced and child marriage in the UAE,19 the Forced Marriage Unit in the United Kingdom registered 14 cases of British nationals who were forced into marriage in the UAE since 2018. Seven individuals were identified in 2020 alone, despite COVID-19 travel restrictions being in place.20 Unregistered forced and child marriages are also of concern.21

 

[IT Minion]

Let people look after their own home, they will once they own the place and the land on which it stands.

No need for commie state intervention, just let people choose where to live, based on builders and landlords competing to attract them.

Yeah, nothing communist about re-appropriating land from its current owners and distributing it to the masses.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Interesting that you assume that doing anything would automatically involve the state!

If the UK population declined then all the worst hovels would become empty so uneconomic to keep. Knocking them down and building something better would be the only way for the owner to get a return on their capital.

Capitalism works pretty well if the game isn't rigged, i.e. you don't let in 100,000s more people every year than the number of homes built. That's why we end up with people living in crappy boxes.

 

[IT Minion]

If the UK population declined then all the worst hovels would become empty so uneconomic to keep. Knocking them down and building something better would be the only way for the owner to get a return on their capital.

So mandatory population controls as well. Are you sure you don't want to just import the CCP?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Knock down both blocks and replace them with a smaller number of homes in civilised houses that people actually want to live in. Let people look after their own home, they will once they own the place and the land on which it stands.

No need for commie state intervention, just let people choose where to live, based on builders and landlords competing to attract them.

Obviously dependent upon not allowing the population to increase by 1 million plus every year, which makes building garbage profitable, as people are desperate for a roof over their heads.

We had "slum clearance" programmes in the past. We pulled down system-built housing "projects", the people were very glad when proper homes replaced them. We're now building new slums.

All very good, except an awful lot of people just cannot get on to that mortgage ladder .

Where are they supposed to live ?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Interesting that you assume that doing anything would automatically involve the state!

If the UK population declined then all the worst hovels would become empty so uneconomic to keep. Knocking them down and building something better would be the only way for the owner to get a return on their capital.

Capitalism works pretty well if the game isn't rigged, i.e. you don't let in 100,000s more people every year than the number of homes built. That's why we end up with people living in crappy boxes.

And that's ignoring that the big building companies sit on land to keep the prices and profits high.

What's really needed is a balance of private and council housing. I say council, not housing associations. Council housing pays for itself (even if it's over a longer time than a standard mortgage).

Nothing wrong with selling those houses either (but not at below market prices) as long as that money is reinvested into new stock

That, not replacing the sales, is where the problems of housing arise from

 

[IT Minion]

Simplistic answers are appealing but generally have complicated results. Which is often why they're not already in place.