FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Starmer to take on councils over impossible housing targets
Starmer to take on councils over impossible housing targets
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The irony of his bat comment is his house build project will probably destroy some bat habitats aswell as field mice, owl hunting grounds and of course dogging areas. But then at that Kings/Qatar dinner he did look like The Puffin a new Batman villian. " Developers now have to purchase a BNG credit for habitats they destroy. (Biodiversity net gain - 10% incremental gain on the assessment of the habitat being used for developments). Adds about £1000-1500 to cost of a new home. Farmers are being encouraged to rewild fields, plant trees and pollinators, you get extra for watercourses; and sell BNG to developers on 30 year schemes, instead of farming the land. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing." It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months | |||
| |||
"Planning regulations and the right to appeal are there for a reason, we can't have a bunch of Socialist hotheads driving a horse and cart through them. Look how Rayner has approved the demolition of Orchard House near Marble Arch. Vandalism from a women who doesn't know architecture from acupuncture!!"  | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months" What is so disappointing is the time they had to get this right. It feels as though they got caught out with the win | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months" And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. | |||
"Falling into the same trap the Tories did in the blame game of bad out of touch too powerful civil service mandarins are stopping what we want to do for 'you'.. " To be fair they do block in the UK. They mostly blocked Tours of course, but they like to think they are the ones in control regardless of whose been elected. I read how to transform Dubai they ordered the entire civil service to stand down, but on full pay , while private sector did all the work to fix everything but importantly, they made senior civil servants accountable for the biggest decisions still. This actually worked, all the small stuff they stayed well out of didn’t give a toss, just let them do it , only the stuff that truly mattered they would challenge, but still not obstruct. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. " The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving | |||
| |||
"Planning regulations and the right to appeal are there for a reason, we can't have a bunch of Socialist hotheads driving a horse and cart through them. Look how Rayner has approved the demolition of Orchard House near Marble Arch. Vandalism from a women who doesn't know architecture from acupuncture!!" 129 art deco buildings in London. Few as grand as Orchard House. The demolition and rebuilding plans will release an estimated 40,000 tonnes of CO2. Equivalent to driving a car 99 million miles (further than the distance to the sun). I doubt Rayner asked Milliband about the environmental impact. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving" That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. " You say the 1.5 million won't be that hard? Last year 2023 about 150,000 homes where built, but Labour want to double this? Where will where workers come from. The machinery, materials etc to make this posable. If you try and scale up and business this quick you will find problems. It takes 3years to do an apprenticeship in most trades so even if twice as meany started traning it will be 3 year befor you have the workforce. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. You say the 1.5 million won't be that hard? Last year 2023 about 150,000 homes where built, but Labour want to double this? Where will where workers come from. The machinery, materials etc to make this posable. If you try and scale up and business this quick you will find problems. It takes 3years to do an apprenticeship in most trades so even if twice as meany started traning it will be 3 year befor you have the workforce. " I'm not sure if you are familiar with immigration. People won't like it but it is exactly what people say they want. We want people to come here to get us to do the things we want with skills that can't be turned around quickly due to education. We could prioritise people in the building industry under immigration rules and de-prioritise others. The vast majority of immigration in this country is legal and people are finding jobs. This is what people don't seem to understand. The rules can be changed, we don't have a conservative government, we can choose to change the rules to suit what Britain needs. The Tories made choices thatdamaged the country over 14 years and prioritised some groups (pensioners) over literally everyone else. We had a pension scheme with a country attached. Now that same group who have been protected for 14 years have any slight changes made to them everyone kicks off. Guess what, Labour are in charge and are going to ha e different priorities. They had a stonking majority and are going to use it.. That's why the NHS is going to focus on waiting lists and GP appointments so that people can get to work. I am also just noticing that on the one hand Kier Starmer is terrible cos he hasn't turned everything around, but when he announces a bold plan people say it can't be done as it will take too long to train people. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. " Sounds an interesting website though if 7% are complete and 39% in progress, what happened to the rest. The BBC point, I think, was highlighting the watering down in just 5 month since taking office. I suspect going from 95% to 100% of low carbon is expensive but if so then that was known before the election, yet they used the 100% figure. Subtle changes of words like changing from a pledge to an aim is very telling and something I would expect from the Tories. I don't share your Faith in building 1.5 million houses before the next election though I have no experience in the building sector | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Rayner is all over the place on this, she was pushed in an interview on housing numbers needed to house the immigration numbers of 2.5 million that are needed for Reeves's big growth plans, her response after saying there is a housing crisis.... "there's plenty of housing already, but not enough for people who desperately need it". Other nuggets of her political prowess, protecting wildlife wont stop building works and councils will do as I tell them. It doesn't come across as a plan, more dictator-ish. I have spoken, just do it. Every Rayner interview I see or hear, she is painfully poor. " Watched the clip. So misinformed, unreliable answers, trips her self due to her ineptitude of the subject. Nvq level 2 in sign language, she should stick to that. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. Sounds an interesting website though if 7% are complete and 39% in progress, what happened to the rest. The BBC point, I think, was highlighting the watering down in just 5 month since taking office. I suspect going from 95% to 100% of low carbon is expensive but if so then that was known before the election, yet they used the 100% figure. Subtle changes of words like changing from a pledge to an aim is very telling and something I would expect from the Tories. I don't share your Faith in building 1.5 million houses before the next election though I have no experience in the building sector" The rest shows no evidence of progress. Which tbf, only 6 months in, I would expect. We can't link to twitter here but there was a graph that put the UK in the bottom 1/4 of houses built compared to OECD rich counties. At the top was those paved over countries like Switzerland, Norway and Finland. There is no reason why other counties do it at much bigger scale than we do and we cant. The other issue is that our social housing stock has been shrinking since right to buy and councils banned from using the money from house sales to build more houses. So there will always be people who can't rent at market rates and need somewhere to live. We can either build them or pay landlords the difference. | |||
 | |||
"It seems unbelievably that we have a shortage of skilled building workers, despite massive levels of immigration and huge expansion of higher education. Guess we should have trained more sparks and chippies instead of woke warriors with PhDs in intersectional sociology. "Working from home is more of a challenge in the building industry | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. Sounds an interesting website though if 7% are complete and 39% in progress, what happened to the rest. The BBC point, I think, was highlighting the watering down in just 5 month since taking office. I suspect going from 95% to 100% of low carbon is expensive but if so then that was known before the election, yet they used the 100% figure. Subtle changes of words like changing from a pledge to an aim is very telling and something I would expect from the Tories. I don't share your Faith in building 1.5 million houses before the next election though I have no experience in the building sector The rest shows no evidence of progress. Which tbf, only 6 months in, I would expect. We can't link to twitter here but there was a graph that put the UK in the bottom 1/4 of houses built compared to OECD rich counties. At the top was those paved over countries like Switzerland, Norway and Finland. There is no reason why other counties do it at much bigger scale than we do and we cant. The other issue is that our social housing stock has been shrinking since right to buy and councils banned from using the money from house sales to build more houses. So there will always be people who can't rent at market rates and need somewhere to live. We can either build them or pay landlords the difference. " I hear what your saying that other countries do it but I still don't share your Faith in the 1.5 million homes. Hopefully I'm completely wrong but we will see in 4.5 years. I understand that your figures show more than 50% have not been started or showing any progress. Yes it's only 6 months which I agree is early but it is 1/10 of the parliament already gone | |||
| |||
"It seems unbelievably that we have a shortage of skilled building workers, despite massive levels of immigration and huge expansion of higher education. Guess we should have trained more sparks and chippies instead of woke warriors with PhDs in intersectional sociology. ""Collectively, the whole construction industry faces an impossible goal of needing to recruit over 950,000 workers by 2030 to meet all of these demands from government" | |||
"It seems unbelievably that we have a shortage of skilled building workers, despite massive levels of immigration and huge expansion of higher education. Guess we should have trained more sparks and chippies instead of woke warriors with PhDs in intersectional sociology. "‘The construction sector in England saw a 6 per cent year-on-year drop in apprenticeship starts last year, according to the latest government figures. Figures compiled by the Department for Education (DfE) state that 24,530 workers started construction, planning and the built environment apprenticeships in 2022/23.’ Construction news. 5 Feb 2024. | |||
| |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. Sounds an interesting website though if 7% are complete and 39% in progress, what happened to the rest. The BBC point, I think, was highlighting the watering down in just 5 month since taking office. I suspect going from 95% to 100% of low carbon is expensive but if so then that was known before the election, yet they used the 100% figure. Subtle changes of words like changing from a pledge to an aim is very telling and something I would expect from the Tories. I don't share your Faith in building 1.5 million houses before the next election though I have no experience in the building sector The rest shows no evidence of progress. Which tbf, only 6 months in, I would expect. We can't link to twitter here but there was a graph that put the UK in the bottom 1/4 of houses built compared to OECD rich counties. At the top was those paved over countries like Switzerland, Norway and Finland. There is no reason why other counties do it at much bigger scale than we do and we cant. The other issue is that our social housing stock has been shrinking since right to buy and councils banned from using the money from house sales to build more houses. So there will always be people who can't rent at market rates and need somewhere to live. We can either build them or pay landlords the difference. I hear what your saying that other countries do it but I still don't share your Faith in the 1.5 million homes. Hopefully I'm completely wrong but we will see in 4.5 years. I understand that your figures show more than 50% have not been started or showing any progress. Yes it's only 6 months which I agree is early but it is 1/10 of the parliament already gone" Yes 1/10 of the parliament gone but not all months are equal. They had an election then went into summer recess, then conference season. Some time was taken up with actually looking at the books and then getting the budget through in November. Everything then falls from this as people know how much money they have to meet the pledge. Rather than announcing a free £50k bonus for every brickie. It's been a bit of bad slow start which has allowed the media, who have been used to weekly scandal to fill pages, having to fill pages themselves. From January things will just start to ramp up massively as people know what they have to do, know how much they have to spend and have had a month before Xmas to get on with the planning. People are doubtful stuff can happen, other countries do it in bigger numbers than we are planning to, there is no reason we cant build houses. We built a tunnel under The channel, we locked everyone in their house for a year and half off and on. It's building a house, not putting people on Mars. | |||
"Oh feck it, let’s just not bother then. It’s just too hard." Planning starts down 31% Completions down 13% Planning applications down 9% Slower interest rate reductions due to the budget - the key driver of the housing market sales is cheap (er) borrowing. Labour shortages Planning delays Increased cost of materials post Brexit and Covid, 37% higher since 2020 BNG, CiL etc 50% requirement to build affordable units put on developers. How on earth Rayner was allowed to mislead everyone with her ridiculously high targets. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. Sounds an interesting website though if 7% are complete and 39% in progress, what happened to the rest. The BBC point, I think, was highlighting the watering down in just 5 month since taking office. I suspect going from 95% to 100% of low carbon is expensive but if so then that was known before the election, yet they used the 100% figure. Subtle changes of words like changing from a pledge to an aim is very telling and something I would expect from the Tories. I don't share your Faith in building 1.5 million houses before the next election though I have no experience in the building sector The rest shows no evidence of progress. Which tbf, only 6 months in, I would expect. We can't link to twitter here but there was a graph that put the UK in the bottom 1/4 of houses built compared to OECD rich counties. At the top was those paved over countries like Switzerland, Norway and Finland. There is no reason why other counties do it at much bigger scale than we do and we cant. The other issue is that our social housing stock has been shrinking since right to buy and councils banned from using the money from house sales to build more houses. So there will always be people who can't rent at market rates and need somewhere to live. We can either build them or pay landlords the difference. I hear what your saying that other countries do it but I still don't share your Faith in the 1.5 million homes. Hopefully I'm completely wrong but we will see in 4.5 years. I understand that your figures show more than 50% have not been started or showing any progress. Yes it's only 6 months which I agree is early but it is 1/10 of the parliament already gone Yes 1/10 of the parliament gone but not all months are equal. They had an election then went into summer recess, then conference season. Some time was taken up with actually looking at the books and then getting the budget through in November. Everything then falls from this as people know how much money they have to meet the pledge. Rather than announcing a free £50k bonus for every brickie. It's been a bit of bad slow start which has allowed the media, who have been used to weekly scandal to fill pages, having to fill pages themselves. From January things will just start to ramp up massively as people know what they have to do, know how much they have to spend and have had a month before Xmas to get on with the planning. People are doubtful stuff can happen, other countries do it in bigger numbers than we are planning to, there is no reason we cant build houses. We built a tunnel under The channel, we locked everyone in their house for a year and half off and on. It's building a house, not putting people on Mars. " To be fair it was 3 tunnels but the English only did half and that took 6 years | |||
"Oh feck it, let’s just not bother then. It’s just too hard. Planning starts down 31% Completions down 13% Planning applications down 9% Slower interest rate reductions due to the budget - the key driver of the housing market sales is cheap (er) borrowing. Labour shortages Planning delays Increased cost of materials post Brexit and Covid, 37% higher since 2020 BNG, CiL etc 50% requirement to build affordable units put on developers. How on earth Rayner was allowed to mislead everyone with her ridiculously high targets. " If the government pay for the 50% on a like for like it would help. But most of the time the 50% of social housing is smaller flats not houses. | |||
"There isnt the staff in any trades to achieve this, the good foreign labour isnt even here anymore as its too expensive for them to work and save or send money back home so theres no chance of hitting them housing numbers, weve just built 44 houses on a simple plot which has taken around a year for 50 men in various trades let alone the managment staff planning archis ect " Yes, a lot of the skilled Eastern European workers have returned home, Poland in particular is booming. | |||
"Oh feck it, let’s just not bother then. It’s just too hard. Planning starts down 31% Completions down 13% Planning applications down 9% Slower interest rate reductions due to the budget - the key driver of the housing market sales is cheap (er) borrowing. Labour shortages Planning delays Increased cost of materials post Brexit and Covid, 37% higher since 2020 BNG, CiL etc 50% requirement to build affordable units put on developers. How on earth Rayner was allowed to mislead everyone with her ridiculously high targets. " Her interview with Trevor Phillips this morning was a real car crash. | |||
"I'm afraid every time Starmer opens his mouth and to be fair his ministers too, they show their immense naivety. It is very worrying that to get their pledges moving based on arbitrary figures, they are prepared to throw due diligence under the bus. We have seen this approach in every single policy and decision made so far, and watching the left wing populists blame the last government for this governments poor decision making, is truly amazing. It was surprising a bit he has stuck to this pledge whilst at the same time watering down others that were in the manifesto. The low carbon was pledged at 100% by 2030 In the manifesto but has now dropped to 95% after 5 months. A vow to secure the highest economic growth in the G7 has now become an “aim”, with the promise to deliver it before the next election also appearing to have been dropped. What's the point in a manifesto to get elected if the details only last a few months And these quotes illustrate the issue. Keep a target and you are forcing through something as you are socialist populist who is niece and if you change it slightly then you are not keeping your manifesto promise. Can we agree what the issue is please. Is it that they are keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong, or are they not keeping to the manifesto and this is wrong. The quotes are from the BBC who pointed out how some topics in the manifesto have been watered down. A pledge has now become an aim. To me a pledge means they will definitely do it and if they don't then they agree they have failed. An aim can be brushed of as, well we tried and have made a bit of progress so all is well. The economy warnings following the budget are likely to have had an effect on this. Of course going from 100% to 95% for low carbon is another example of the goal posts moving That's fine, I think I was posting about how if they keep to it they are criticised and if they water it down/move the goalposts they are criticised. As I have pointed out before there is a website called pledge progress where they have coated all the pledges made either in the manifesto or in speeches. So far it's it showing 0 broken, 7% complete and 39% in progress. It completely independent and might be useful for people. For the record I do think it's bad that they are watering down things in the manifesto. While moving from 100 to 95% isn't the worst fudge in the world I am sure I would be on the Tories if they did the same. I think there has been some analysis I saw that to get 100% clean energy would cost loads more than 95% clean energy. Like treble the cost or something mad. So I can see why they have done it even if I wish they had just said it at manifesto stage. I am happy not to let perfect be the enemy of good but wish they had said so earlier on. I dont think house building will actually be that hard. Once it's decided then it will just have to happen as we can't keep millions of young people out of being able to buy a house. That's the bottom line and of course there is going to be resistance, even from local councils as local councils want to get re-elected on stopping housing in their area while national government want more houses for the nation. Unfortunately the nation voted for Labour to do these so now the nation is going to have to have a house built near them. Sounds an interesting website though if 7% are complete and 39% in progress, what happened to the rest. The BBC point, I think, was highlighting the watering down in just 5 month since taking office. I suspect going from 95% to 100% of low carbon is expensive but if so then that was known before the election, yet they used the 100% figure. Subtle changes of words like changing from a pledge to an aim is very telling and something I would expect from the Tories. I don't share your Faith in building 1.5 million houses before the next election though I have no experience in the building sector The rest shows no evidence of progress. Which tbf, only 6 months in, I would expect. We can't link to twitter here but there was a graph that put the UK in the bottom 1/4 of houses built compared to OECD rich counties. At the top was those paved over countries like Switzerland, Norway and Finland. There is no reason why other counties do it at much bigger scale than we do and we cant. The other issue is that our social housing stock has been shrinking since right to buy and councils banned from using the money from house sales to build more houses. So there will always be people who can't rent at market rates and need somewhere to live. We can either build them or pay landlords the difference. I hear what your saying that other countries do it but I still don't share your Faith in the 1.5 million homes. Hopefully I'm completely wrong but we will see in 4.5 years. I understand that your figures show more than 50% have not been started or showing any progress. Yes it's only 6 months which I agree is early but it is 1/10 of the parliament already gone Yes 1/10 of the parliament gone but not all months are equal. They had an election then went into summer recess, then conference season. Some time was taken up with actually looking at the books and then getting the budget through in November. Everything then falls from this as people know how much money they have to meet the pledge. Rather than announcing a free £50k bonus for every brickie. It's been a bit of bad slow start which has allowed the media, who have been used to weekly scandal to fill pages, having to fill pages themselves. From January things will just start to ramp up massively as people know what they have to do, know how much they have to spend and have had a month before Xmas to get on with the planning. People are doubtful stuff can happen, other countries do it in bigger numbers than we are planning to, there is no reason we cant build houses. We built a tunnel under The channel, we locked everyone in their house for a year and half off and on. It's building a house, not putting people on Mars. " 'A bit of a bad slow start' is certainly one way of putting it. The tunnel took 6 years and I'm not sure if that was including all the planning and design or just the physical work. Anyway January is the month then, which fortunately is very close. Hopefully things progress rapidly as you say. Even more hopefully they progress in a positive direction, which would make a nice change  | |||
| |||
| |||
"In places like Crawlwy, they are repurposing office and shop buildings for housing. Not sure how much that, is going to help the housing crisis though." Because converting empty offices and shops into apartments gives people a roof over their heads and some stability in their lives. | |||
"In places like Crawlwy, they are repurposing office and shop buildings for housing. Not sure how much that, is going to help the housing crisis though. Because converting empty offices and shops into apartments gives people a roof over their heads and some stability in their lives." Converting shops and offices into homes isn’t straightforward. Residential building standards adds huge cost and complexity that often means it would be easier to build from the ground up.. There is also a balance, too many can hollow out high streets and business areas, turning them into a sprawling mess. | |||
