I’m very pleased with a lot of what he has done so far.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I’m very pleased with a lot of what he has done so far.
Positive steps in his first few days in office but it is all going to be about delivery.
Reeves is announcing mandatory house building targets today.
Here comes the completely fecked planning deregulation
What would you suggest to deal with the housebuilding issue?
Disallow multi-home ownership. This alone would free up between 10-15% of demand.
Set mandatory housing targets for local authorities (labour will do this).
Build high-quality, high-density housing on vacant and derelict land within high-population areas.
Increase social housing %age requirements for new build sites.
A lot of of what Labour is suggesting goes completely against modern conventional thought on approaching the nature/biodiversity crisis.
"gaslighting"
Is this part gaslighting as well, or is there another Reddit buzzword that someone else wants to use incorrectly for dramatic effect?
Yes, he is not recognizing a Palestinian state, he will only do it if Israel agrees to it in peace talks, i,e never going to happen, recognizing a Palestanian state is what Spain, Irland, Slovenia and Norway did. You do know the difference do you?
Ok so it's largely the green belt that you are concerned with. There's nothing wrong with any of the points you raised and I don't see why points 2-4 wouldn't be included in any development plans.
It's the apparent commitment to minimise public consultation, more regularly enforcing ministerial powers of direction, and lowering compulsory purchase value which has alarm bells ringing in the public sphere of planning. There's also zero commitment in improving environmental assessment, which is already poor in England and becomes even more important when you are talking about a massive increase in building on undeveloped land.
'Most profitable parts' doesn't have the same ring to it
Yeah I do. Hardly "gaslighting" is it?
To some degree, it is, it is missleading.
There is no way this would happen. It would be seen as punishing people for investing or being successful. How would this be even managed, would you have a blanket ban on owning a second property?
Councils are increasing council tax for second owned properties to gain some more income. There should certainly be bigger charges for properties left derelict or empty for long periods of time.
Hopefully Jacob Rees-Mogg's house.
Labour has agreed to recognise a Palestinian state in their manifesto.
Not to mention the effect on the rental market.
Not sure about increasing council tax on second and subsequent properties. Won't that just be passed on to tenants?
Starmer told Abbas (and then a representative has publicly repeated it, thus putting it on official record) that he will push for a ceasefire, recognise a Palestinian state, a two party solution alongside Israel and increase financial support for the Palestinian Authority, but you come out and say that he's gaslighting folk. Hmm.
Anything positive to say about the things Labour have done in the last couple of days, or is it all terrible? Please "gaslight" me by telling me how I should feel about all of the news.
I found this - I have no in depth knowledge of planning rules so others are more qualified to comment.
https://land.tech/blog/around-300000-houses-could-be-delivered-on-the-grey-belt
Will Labour build on the green belt?
Labour will not build on genuine nature spots and will set tough conditions for releasing green belt land for house building so that building more homes and protecting nature go hand-in-hand.
Labour is committed to prioritise building on brownfield land first, but we can’t build the homes that Britain needs without also releasing some greenbelt, including poor-quality land, car parks and wastelands currently classed as green belt.
We will make improvements to existing green spaces, making them accessible to the public, with new woodland, parks and playing fields.
What is the grey belt?
The term ‘grey belt’ refers to neglected areas such as poor quality wastelands and disused car parks that are in the greenbelt. These are places that we could build one, whilst we improve and protect genuine nature spots.
Labour is not alone in recognising this distinction: the Chair of Natural England has called for green belt release to support the housing crisis, noting there is no inherent trade-off between building homes and protecting nature
Labour has also previously delivered the "five golden rules for house building", which are the following:
1. Brownfield first
Within the green belt, any brownfield land must be prioritised for development.
2. Grey belt second
Poor-quality and ugly areas of the Green Belt should be clearly prioritised over nature-rich, environmentally valuable land in the green belt. At present, beyond the existing brownfield category the system doesn’t differentiate between them. This category will be distinct to brownfield with a wider definition.
3. Affordable homes
Plans must target at least 50% affordable housing delivery when land is released.
4. Boost public services and infrastructure
Plans must boost public services and local infrastructure, like more school and nursery places, new health centres and GP appointments.
5. Improve genuine green spaces
Labour rules out building on genuine nature spots and requires plans to include improvements to existing green spaces, making them accessible to the public, with new woodland, parks and playing fields. Plans should meet high environmental standards.
Its already been passed in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 so Councils can add additional change for council tax up to 100%. I agree it could be passed onto renters if they are renting.
Second Home Council Tax Changes 2024 (hoa.org.uk)
It would have to mean something different in terms of Council Tax - the liability is derived from the tenant in a rented property so that wouldn't work.
I couldn't give a rats arse about punishing people who view themselves as successful by profiting from a housing crisis. The increase in taxation for second homes is a drop in the ocean and will have no tangible impact.
I'm just letting you know it would unpopular and a non starter. Not to mention it could drive investment away from the country.
That says furnished homes where nobody lives. so sounds like 2nd homes people use for themselves
Or if the owner had a main property elsewhere.
How many people do you think own multiple properties in the UK? What proportion?
Whereas your proposal of banning multi home ownership will have a great effect, but not the way you imagine it, but in how many loopholes to bypass the ban will be established.
Do you think it would be just that proportion that would consider it an unpopular policy?
Double that proportion and you will still only have 20% against. That's almost nothing in policy terms.
In regards to loopholes, that's for the lawyers to sort out.
Not sure but people own for various reasons, families, personal reasons, holiday homes, hotels, people/companies investing who create jobs. Where will you draw the line for a second property? How will you enforce it? What impact will it have on property prices? How would you cater if businesses and individuals invest elsewhere and jobs are lost?
I think you are overestimating the proportion of the public who would be happy for a ban on private landlords, but that is solely based on my interactions with people (who don't own second properties) who seem fairly resistant to changes such as banning section 21 evictions let alone banning landlords.
If there is data that shows otherwise it would be interesting to see.
Putting aside whether the policies being announced are good or not, I had forgotten what it's like to have a functioning government who actually have a progressive plan and put things in place to act on it. They need to follow up with progress over the next month or two though.
Would somebody please think about the poor landlords.
is The King's Speech today?
17th July.
The dream. Unfortunately the frothing from the elites and therefore the papers means I could never see this happening.
Liking what I'm hearing so far. Seemingly solid appointments in key positions, scrapping Rwanda, scrapping that stupid levelling up name, looks like lots of changes with housing and prisons.
Must be very satisfying tearing up all the dumb shit those twats did.
Must be very satisfying tearing up all the dumb shit those twats did.
This was probably the big surprise of the cabinet. It's good that she wants to maintain focus.
I've heard that it could drive investment away from the country. Because landlords are famous for doing things other than get renters to pay their mortgages for them.
I've also heard that many renters like the idea of being forced to rent in perpetuity, forever paying off their landlord's mortgage for them.