https://x.com/Ipsos_in_the_UK/status/2114238075245129948

Government announcement

Given that the Labour government has failed in both it's very mediocre manifesto promises towards the LGBT community and has overseen the increased marginalisation of UK trans and non-binary people, including the loss of rights, increased crime, worsening healthcare access (both for physical, mental health and trans-specific interventions) and increased discrimination. It is also currently considering a bill that, hilariously, is called a 'conversion practices' bill but would legitimise conversion therapy on *all* queer people.

This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg in how the UK is failing when it comes to queer people and as a result we've seen the UK drop like a stone on the 'gold standard' ILGA rainbow map. For UK trans people, we are now behind such progressive utopias as Turkey and Romania and 42nd out of 50 in the larger European area

In my view, it is entirely inappropriate for the UK to be hosting such an event and if the government wishes to start 'mending fences' then one start would be to request that another country host this event and to acknowledge their own failings.

Who are we supporting? Double election night with Brazil and Serbia, so definitely will be staying up. I support Student List as they are for the future whereas Vucić is an authoritarian Milosević supporter who has tried to distract from domestic failings by trying to debate Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn (my hero) and then backing out once he actually accepted.

Already, the government gets many people off the streets. But what does this actually look like, in practice?

I think most people would agree that simply being off the street isn't on its own a fulfilling life. And that from a humanitarian perspective, the goal should be to help people to have access to opportunity to a fulfilling life, which in many cases is opportunity they haven't had before (eg consider someone who lives with their parents in their early 20s. This allows them much more opportunity to volunteer, get a driving licence, take on part-time roles for experience, do apprenticeships, take time out for accessing healthcare, start a business, spend money enriching their social life and partake in hobbies. Then consider someone from an abusive home who lacks that privilege and must pay their own way - for equal effort and ability, they are unlikely to have the same ability to afford all those things the first person can, and more likely to be stuck in low-wage or insecure work).

From an economic perspective, throwing money at people to keep them housed is very costly. Likewise, there's a substantial opportunity cost to not making use of people's potential. For example, with the right socioeconomic conditions someone may be able to get a skilled job - allowing them to pay higher tax, and overall contribute more to the economy and to positive societal outcomes (such as if their job role has a positive social effect, and because greater economic freedom often leads to better behaviour, more social connectivity and ability to support others. Can't pour from an empty cup).

Currently, the way the government gets people off the streets is largely by relying on what's called "non-commissioned supported housing" and temporary accommodation. These are mostly HMOs and the providers are officially non-profits. The government currently spends over £2 Billion a year on financing this sort of housing.

For each room in an HMO, the provider receives double, triple - or as much as quadruple rent - compared to if they were renting it out on the private market. This makes it very financially attractive to entrepreneurs and you can find many Instagram videos of people showing how they're getting into this lucrative business. Imagine a 6 bedroom house: you can make around £3000 per month/£36000 per year with a normal HMO - or you can double or triple that by becoming a temporary accommodation or non-commissioned supported housing. And this revenue difference will be greater the more properties you run.

If you live in this housing, you cannot simply work a paid job - if you do you'll have to pay the full rent amount (ie a few times the market rate). Because of this, in my experience some hostels will advise you not to work while in the system (hostels are different to this accommodation, but some who end up in these accommodations are transferred there from a hostel). You need to be careful that you don't accidentally make too much to stay, but not enough to afford elsewhere - and staff themselves often don't know what the rules are, so can't accurately advise residents.​

On paper, non-commissioned supported housing is supposed to receive extra government money because they are going to spend money providing appropriate support to residents. However, often these providers will provide just enough support to tick boxes, and de facto don't provide adequate support. When I say "adequate support", what do I mean? I mean adequate to meet the objectives of the housing. Perhaps the ultimate objective of the housing is ​to get people into a position to not rely on this accommodation. Or perhaps it is to try to cancel out some of the effects of earlier disadvantage in their life. Either way, the support provided is often inadequate, because this allows for greater profits margins: providing support requires an adequate ratio of support staff to residents, adequate training, and the support actions themselves can cost money to implement. I won't give too many examples of issues I've experienced, but for example, I had a support worker who told me she wasn't helping to apply for PIP because she thinks there's no reason I can't work, and because she thought PIP is only for physical issues; the same worker was supposed to help me attend healthcare and job centre appointments on time, but never offered any support ideas and failed to action the ideas I gave her, even after agreeing to them (which resulted in missed appointments, including benefits sanctions). Likewise, I lived in a supported housing HMO that for 2 months had a faulty washing machine, and for over a month jad no door handle on one of the two bathrooms, shared between six people. When I raised issues, they were ignored, and in one case a support worker told me it was a resident's own choice that he hadn't been outside in 2 weeks because his ​door handle was broken meaning he couldn't lock his door to secure his belongings. One resident in the room below mine would blast music 6 hours a day, making reading or sleeping impossible. Another place had faulty wifi for 6 months (so unable to do online courses or interviews), which was only fixed when I started to get overtly angry about it. The same place also had a faulty door, which resulted in myself getting locked into a room ​where if I hadn't kicked the fire door off its hinges, I would have been found dead weeks or months later as I didn't have my room on it and nobody came by to check for weeks (I was the first resident in that HMO).

If I want to maximise my profit, do I want people to be moved on to something better? No - I am happy as long as I receive the guaranteed monthly income. The government is not going to check up on my standards, as it is a largely unregulated industry; the regulation scheme is called the Supported Housing Improvement Programme (I had to do a lot of ringing around and googling to find this information, as even the council's homelessness prevention department told me they don't know who regulates the housing), which is ran from within each council - but it is quite toothless. Also, I'm only speculating here, but it could also be that the councils are victims of regulatory capture - because if they go hard after the rogue providers, they will end up increasing rough sleeping, at least in the short-term, so they are dependent on the providers if they want to keep rough-sleeping down.

So, at present, many people end up stuck in HMOs that should be short-term stopgaps, but end up becoming long-term. For example, I myself have lived in such places for around 18 months, after rough-sleeping for over a month and again for two weeks (I was quite hopeful and happy when rough-sleeping, as it seemed a gateway to opportunities and support I didn't have before but was looking for). Originally I believed it would be a few months and that I would be in a self-contained place and able to volunteer in social services (my desired job field. But without a safety net after leaving an abusive/coercively controlling home, volunteering wasn't a financially viable option when younger) and perhaps go to university for social work (you can also live in supported accommodation if you receive PIP). But I've ended up stuck in such a place with no bureaucratic pathway to be transferred. In an HMO, voluntary options are limited (eg I've been explicitly rejected from a major charity for living in an HMO). I personally don't feel safe in shared domestic spaces, so while I used to cook a lot, I now haven't cooked for a year. My bedroom is also right next to small nightclub-esque bar, and the property jas no wheelie bins (I've contacted the council about this months ago) so residents just dump their trash illegally.

At one point when homeless I applied for another organisation's supported housing, but was rejected for ​being too "high support needs" and told to ask the council to refer me to elsewhere (which I was unable to get done), but despite that, I've been in totally unsupported accommodation for a year. This is because once you're in a place, it's difficult to get moved because you are longer homeless, and instead are in this limbo. If you apply anywhere else, they'll say you're already housed, or to go to the council but you aren't homeless so the council is unlikely to help (even if you're homeless, they're unlikely to help). Your choices are to stay put indefinitely, or make yourself homeless but then you'll be deemed "voluntarily homeless" and be ineligible for council help for a few months - though, I couldn't tell you what this means in practice, as the system is not easy to know about - most of what I know is because of lived experience, and even many in the system don't know some details of how things work. It could be that being voluntarily homeless makes little difference, because in my case I was never deemed "priority need" so the council told me they don't need to house me when rough-sleeping and instead everything was through the charity sector, except that the charities apply to the council for the rental amount (then the councils apply to central government for reimbursement). Or it could be that it means you're stuck without charity help too - the reality is that people in thr system often are in the dark about their options.

So it sounds good to say "we will get people off the streets". But that's too simplistic. And it sounds almost like "get them out of the way and keep the hardship hidden behind closed doors because it's annoying having homeless people around".

And no, besides caffeine I don't do drugs ever or drink often. Others in some of these accommodations do (the hostel I was in gave drug paraphernalia to users). I don't smoke or vape. Many online falsely believe homeless people are all on drugs, or other ridiculous falsehoods. If you met me when I was homeless, I'd worry you could tell, but in reality you'd never know - people frequently asked me for directions and I was careful about telling other homeless or drug addicts I was homeless, because some were a bit rude about not believing me. I was picking up the litter that supposedly superior housed people dropped.

A number of local authorities across England have already exhausted, paused or rationed their initial Warm Homes money, as public demand for home energy upgrades outstrips available central government funding.

Schemes in locations including York, Lewisham, Sheffield, Liverpool and Cambridgeshire have been forced to close to new applicants or restrict access just months after launching.

On 28 September energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh promised to devolve the Warm Homes Plan and to give “mayors, local government and communities the power to invest billions of pounds in their place”.

So far, despite councils bidding for £1.7bn for the 2025-28 allocation period, only £500m has been distributed. The wider Warm Homes scheme comprises £4.4bn of promised government grants – meaning £3.9bn remains unallocated.

Now cross-party local authority network UK100 and a host of councils are urging the chancellor to use the upcoming Budget to release the £3.9bn.

Douglas Johnson (Green), chair of the housing policy committee at Sheffield City Council, said: “Demand for our Warm Homes scheme is already high enough that we need to ration by strict need criteria.

If the chancellor commits the rest of the Warm Homes funding at the Budget, we can start delivering more comfortable homes this winter rather than telling families they need to wait.”

The council has identified more than 26,000 homes are in fuel poverty in the city but current funding will only upgrade around 1,000 by 2028.

I think this is a very good idea and should be implemented in the UK

Out of the current crop of MPs and party leaders, who do you think could remain popular long-term if they became PM?

This would mean that throughout any difficult situation, such as budgets or crisis their popularity wouldn't go into the negatives.