news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

more starmer

 

[mattiloy]

11 hours ago, steviewevie said:

not sure that greenbelt housebuilding is going to be popular...but we need housing, and not all of the greenbelt is beautiful countryside.

 

I think on its own its a shit policy.

He should sell it in with reference to the right to roam plans, the last really good policy left on the presumable Labour manifesto (probably to be axed then).

And guarantees for more green space in towns. Making it mandatory for builders to put in hedgehog highways and swift bricks. Rewilding and restoring river systems.

But the man is an idiot and has surrounded himself with idiots in order to seize a party of idiots with an iron grip, so that he can become the PM of a country of idiots. So he won’t.

Whats lacking in all of Labour’s policy, is a lack of a holistic concept. Its whack a mole stuff that appeals mainly to idiots.

[mattiloy]

Ban artificial grass, stop subsidising sheep farmers.

There are loads of easy policies, fiscally neutral or beneficial, that you could do immediately to the benefit of the environment to offset the landgrab that this policy implies.

Its the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down

[mattiloy]

The other thing is that the green belt is not even that big.

Why rob towns and cities of their lungs when there is plenty space besides?

New towns, better infrastructure to commuter towns, transitioning to a world of remote working. All of this surely better than ever more urban sprawl.

Or even a rejigging of the green belt. Copenhagen has a very appealing finger plan that allows the city to continue to grow outwards along 5 fingers, with green space between each.

[steviewevie]

32 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

I think on its own its a shit policy.

He should sell it in with reference to the right to roam plans, the last really good policy left on the presumable Labour manifesto (probably to be axed then).

And guarantees for more green space in towns. Making it mandatory for builders to put in hedgehog highways and swift bricks. Rewilding and restoring river systems.

But the man is an idiot and has surrounded himself with idiots in order to seize a party of idiots with an iron grip, so that he can become the PM of a country of idiots. So he won’t.

Whats lacking in all of Labour’s policy, is a lack of a holistic concept. Its whack a mole stuff that appeals mainly to idiots.

he really isn't an idiot.

Greenbelt was devised to prevent urban sprawl, or stop towns and cities merging, but it doesn't fit to how people work and commute now. We need houses, no one under the age of 40 can afford one unless they're rich or have rich parents. I guess we could build new cities outside the greenbelt on the actual green bits.

And as for hedgehogs

Edited May 17, 2023 by steviewevie

[Guest]

It’s weird that Corbynite lefties don’t want the young to be able to own their own home, it’s like they actively dislike the working class and would rather they don’t enjoy the security of owning their home.

Fortunately we have a Labour leader that gets it and will put policies in place that will help people get on the property ladder. We should build in some aspects of the green belt, take what Starmer said today about either building on a parking lot or playing field. He will give local authorities the power to decide where these new builds will go rather than it be in the hands of the developers. 

[Rufus Gwertigan]

33 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The other thing is that the green belt is not even that big.

Why rob towns and cities of their lungs when there is plenty space besides?

New towns, better infrastructure to commuter towns, transitioning to a world of remote working. All of this surely better than ever more urban sprawl.

Or even a rejigging of the green belt. Copenhagen has a very appealing finger plan that allows the city to continue to grow outwards along 5 fingers, with green space between each.

Copenhagen has adopted the 15 minute city model. According to conspiracy nuts it must be a dreadful place to live just like Oxford is going to be.

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

[pink_triangle]

11 hours ago, Ozanne said:

It’s weird that Corbynite lefties don’t want the young to be able to own their own home, it’s like they actively dislike the working class and would rather they don’t enjoy the security of owning their home.

Fortunately we have a Labour leader that gets it and will put policies in place that will help people get on the property ladder. We should build in some aspects of the green belt, take what Starmer said today about either building on a parking lot or playing field. He will give local authorities the power to decide where these new builds will go rather than it be in the hands of the developers. 

As I have said it’s great building new houses in theory,but this can’t happen in isolation. Where did the kids go to school, where do the new residents access a gp, how can the roads cope with more people coming in and out.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

As I have said it’s great building new houses in theory,but this can’t happen in isolation. Where did the kids go to school, where do the new residents access a gp, how can the roads cope with more people coming in and out.

this is for local authorities to sort out, right?

[steviewevie]

[fraybentos1]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

this is for local authorities to sort out, right?

Local authorities have no money and Labour are saying they won’t put up council tax 

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

this is for local authorities to sort out, right?

With what money?

[lost]

Yep is it 200k houses a year we are currently building? on my commute I seem to be hitting at least 3 sets of temporary traffic light whilst they connect a new estate to the existing road infrastructure probably adding 20 minutes to my drive. None of these estates appear to have anything except housing.

The other issue is I don't even know if there is the appetite in the voter population for affordable housing. If you have two identical houses one affordable at say £90k and one market rate at £250k obviously nobody is going to be stupid enough to pay an extra £160k for the same thing. The market rate of the £250k house immediately becomes £90k. Aside from the issues with getting a mortgage when you have negative equity people generally treat their houses as part of their pension and there is going to be a massive shock if that is no longer the case. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

With what money?

With all the money from the money tree.

I mean it's down to councils to decide where they build these houses...if going to be a strain on local amenities then maybe will build them elsewhere. I mean...this is all going to cost though...new towns etc...and so yes, new schools, new GPs, new things...paid for by taxes and borrowing after our growth goes through the roof when we rejoin the eu.

[steviewevie]

Just now, lost said:

Yep is it 200k houses a year we are currently building? on my commute I seem to be hitting at least 3 sets of temporary traffic light whilst they connect a new estate to the existing road infrastructure probably adding 20 minutes to my drive. None of these estates appear to have anything except housing.

The other issue is I don't even know if there is the appetite in the voter population for affordable housing. If you have two identical houses one affordable at say £90k and one market rate at £250k obviously nobody is going to be stupid enough to pay an extra £160k for the same thing. The market rate of the £250k house immediately becomes £90k. Aside from the issues with getting a mortgage when you have negative equity people generally treat their houses as part of their pension and there is going to be a massive shock if that is no longer the case. 

demand and supply...more houses, more supply, lower prices.

[steviewevie]

we can't carry on with housing market as it is...it's fucked...I mean people my age are ok...rode these housing bubbles, paid off mortgages...fucking brilliant! But younger people are totally screwed...100% mortgages until they're 120...or sky high rents from those same older generation who have done very nicely out of this housing thing and are doing the buy to let thing thank you very much. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by steviewevie

[fraybentos1]

49 minutes ago, lost said:

people generally treat their houses as part of their pension and there is going to be a massive shock if that is no longer the case. 

That’s part of the problem right there, boomers thinking they’re savvy investors watching their house 5x in 30 years having done fuck all to it. 
 

My parents sold their house in a posh glasgow suburb last year after buying in the early/ mid 90s. 87k to 440, it’s insane. No extension, no major work done. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

Local authorities have no money and Labour are saying they won’t put up council tax 

Most local authority money comes from a central govt grant.

[mattiloy]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

we can't carry on with housing market as it is...it's fucked...I mean people my age are ok...rode these housing bubbles, paid off mortgages...fucking brilliant! But younger people are totally screwed...100% mortgages until they're 120...or sky high rents from those same older generation who have done very nicely out of this housing thing and are doing the buy to let thing thank you very much. 

You are correct. But Labour policy demonstrates a total lack of understanding of complex problems and disappoints. This is no different.

There is a broader conversation to be had about the green belt, about land use, about access to green space, about what form that green space takes, but there is scarcely any reference to that. Its simply to build on it with a meaningless platitude ’where it doesnt effect the beauty of the countryside’ as the only caveat.

Its classic Labour at the moment. People cant get a gp appointment, do you a) take on the challenge of resolving the complex structural issues in the nhs, or b) allow people to self refer against the better advice of medical professionals everywhere.

Fine if its all just politicking, make soundbites and get some headlines on a very salient but ultimately dumb policy and appeal to the simplistic nature of the masses. But if this is going to be how they actual govern, its going to be shit.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

You are correct. But Labour policy demonstrates a total lack of understanding of complex problems and disappoints. This is no different.

There is a broader conversation to be had about the green belt, about land use, about access to green space, about what form that green space takes, but there is scarcely any reference to that. Its simply to build on it with a meaningless platitude ’where it doesnt effect the beauty of the countryside’ as the only caveat.

Its classic Labour at the moment. People cant get a gp appointment, do you a) take on the challenge of resolving the complex structural issues in the nhs, or b) allow people to self refer against the better advice of medical professionals everywhere.

Fine if its all just politicking, make soundbites and get some headlines on a very salient but ultimately dumb policy and appeal to the simplistic nature of the masses. But if this is going to be how they actual govern, its going to be shit.

nah...it's a good policy.

Vote Labour.

[cellar]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Its classic Labour at the moment. People cant get a gp appointment, do you a) take on the challenge of resolving the complex structural issues in the nhs, or b) allow people to self refer against the better advice of medical professionals everywhere.

Fine if its all just politicking, make soundbites and get some headlines on a very salient but ultimately dumb policy and appeal to the simplistic nature of the masses. But if this is going to be how they actual govern, its going to be shit.

This is really the depressing problem with Labour. Writing off everything they're doing as "trying to win an election" is just not enough comfort.

But they will be in government, so I guess we'll get to see how it turns out.

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, cellar said:

This is really the depressing problem with Labour. Writing off everything they're doing as "trying to win an election" is just not enough comfort.

But they will be in government, so I guess we'll get to see how it turns out.

famous last words.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

As I have said it’s great building new houses in theory,but this can’t happen in isolation. Where did the kids go to school, where do the new residents access a gp, how can the roads cope with more people coming in and out.

Yes that is a problem but I have confidence that Labour will sort out their issues too. For example they have a plan for people to see a family Dr etc.

We need to build more houses, without increasing the supply we won’t even start to address the problems and yes that does mean building on parts of the green belt.

All in all the announcements made by Starmer this week are quite exciting and show he gets the problems. I think he’ll turn out to be a good PM.