I grew up in council housing built during this period. It's not exactly premium but it was built fairly well and they sold well when many of them eventually made it onto the private market many decades later. Good sized gardens and I remember the council doing necessary repairs and upgrades throughout my time there.

I'm not exactly familiar with buildings from ex-soviet eastern Europe but I'd be surprised if it was a much higher build quality.

This doesn't describe council houses I've seen in London and surroundings (e.g. Milton Keynes/Bletchley).

What I remember: - small rooms - mould - no insulation - in larger buildings gardens, if any, would be only for ground floor flats - in smaller buildings flats would be split over 3 levels, with each level being rather small - often wired entrance to the flats from outdoor gallery/balcony (in larger buildings) - low ceilings (for my liking)

My experience is from the midlands, specifically in council estates that were predominantly terraced and semi-detached houses (small blocks of 4 or so houses at a time). No flats so that might be a big distinguishing factor (as well as not being in London...). Definitely had problems but rarely because of the build quality itself, some issues with neglect in some areas.

> But the quality of what was built was worse than what the commies built in the Eastern Europe.

The rural council housing built in post-war UK was of really high quality: these houses were built for durability and community. They were solid brick or stone construction, and had large gardens to promote self-sufficiency. I grew up in one of these houses, and my parents grew enough vegetables in the enormous garden that we only needed meat and dairy from the store.

The article is an awful jumble of free-market junk, and as others have mentioned, doesn't mention Brexit or privatization as two of the main causes of economic stagnation.