Andy Burnham’s first instruction in Downing Street met a chamber that saw the promise less as a test of will than of state capacity. No won by more than three to one, with the result carrying the hard edge of a verdict on delivery rather than sympathy for the objective.
The strongest No case argued that rough sleeping was an outcome, not an isolated problem: “you can't just fix something that's often a result of many other policies”. Another highly respected voice made the practical objection more starkly: “It requires housing, social care & mental health backup”, all of which voters here said were already under strain.
The lone Yes argument reached for precedent, asking: “During the covid panic they managed to get roiugh sleepers off the streets. If they could do it then why not now?” The reply was not really about that precedent, but about consent and dependency: one No voter said “they dont want help, just more drugs”, leaving the two sides arguing past each other over whether emergency mobilisation could become durable reform.
The less-respected No voices added a political and administrative case: Burnham had failed to meet the pledge as mayor, “as Mayor of Manchester he won't as Prime Minister”; others called for enforcement, criticised overlapping charities and questioned whether accommodation would be accepted. Taken together, the debate sat inside the wider argument over housing supply, social care and mental-health provision, with the promised homes and support treated as prerequisites rather than proof.
The room did not reject the destination so much as doubt that this government had the means, or the leverage, to reach it.
9 Opinions
During the covid panic they managed to get roiugh sleepers off the streets. If they could do it then why not now?
You can't end rough sleeping without enforcement and the government have seemed determined to legalise vagrancy
Hasn't a chance. Dropouts druggies illegal overstayers, too many charities duplicating each other but all with CEO and staff to pay. Scrap them. Ymca should take over and extend dormitories for the above .
Its hard -'housing first' is the Scandinavian model with the most success. It requires housing, social care & mental health backup. We have neither housing or care capacity. Councils already spend 70+% of their budgets on social care. Mental health services already running on fumes. I would like to see this achieved but it needs up front allocation of in demand housing & services to specific groups of people when others are already being denied. tricky
No, he didn't as Mayor of Manchester he won't as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Plus: you only can help people who want this help.
NO Simply because you can't just fix something that's often a result of many other policies. You need to treat the symptoms of say flu, not the flu itself, treating the flu is to late as you've already got it. Rough sleeping is the same.. We need to fix the causes of rough sleeping not the rough sleeping itself.
90%+ of homeless people are smackheads who would just trash any accomodation theyre given. So no.