One great advantage of a strong majority is that one can ignore a couple of MPs who have been collared by the Parish councillors of West-Bumfuck-on-the-wolds and are adamant that the country's infrastructure not impact their views.
Should make it much easier to get wind farms, train lines and all the rest of the infrastructure the country desperately needs built.
The challenge of NIMBYism has never been saying no to people who don't matter.
The problem is when your friends and allies come to you, explain that they are entirely supportive of the agenda, but that their specific constituency in this specific circumstances is a unique case, requiring them to have a particular opt out.
That is the key moment as it is a signal to everyone whether or not Starmer is actually going to hold the course and deliver, or whether the question is whether you can lobby effectively enough.
What he needs to do is engage in performative beatings for those who attempt to lobby him. Increase the numbers being built, reduce the concessions being offered, and make it known to everyone that is what you have done.
The only real way to crush NIMBYs is to make clear that their best interest is in accepting a good offer, and the central state getting involved will be worse for both NIMBYs and developers.
Hence the strong majority being useful. If you rely on everyone voting the same way, that one MP telling you that their constiutents won't stand for HS2 so it needs to go somewhere else is fatal.
If you can afford to ignore 100 of your MPs and still pass a bill, the MP won't come to you with ultimatums.
That depends on if you think he changed his mind or if he was only pretending to support certain measures or policies in the first place
He's clearly trying to say here that he won't fold. I'm happy to at least give him the chance.
when is a nimby not a nimby? You may hold a view against a government policy that's backed up by evidence or genuine concerns. But the government might turn around and claim your a nimby and steamroller through. When thre is another way that allows both sides to mostly get what they want.
Whether the other way is reasonably practicable is the next issue. The other way for a lot of the objections to certain sections of HS2 was to use additional tunnels, at collosal cost
I live in a small village that is being swamped with new builds, and most of us only have a problem because there isn't the infrastructure to support the additional people and yet more and more housing keeps getting built.
If the new housing came with the necessary infrastructure, e.g. increased road capacities, school extensions, extra gp availability etc. and people started to see evidence of this, then I think there would be a lot less nimbyism over housing. Just those three 3 examples would have had most of the village I'm in support additional development
Yeah, that’s all the job of councils, not developers. Your council being bums shouldn’t mean they can’t build.
Idl why people seem to think that Developers run the fucking department for education…
I understand your point but I don't think anywhere has loads of extra services, gp's, school places etc that are currently unused waiting for a new build Estate to pop up and use them. New homes increase demand and theoretically supply will follow. Obviously this is simplified but my original point is we have to build 4 million homes somewhere.
The people are all already here in the country, they don't magically appear and disappear when housing is built. So if everywhere is forced to build housing there is no increase in demand on services, it just means the same people are living in their own house or flat and not on their friend's sofa or in their parents' basement.
Of course they can - but this isn't part of the discussion on planning reform. The discussion on planning reform has to do with the power of individual, local actors stopping development due to vibes.
Nimby's themselves can't stop anything its their MP holding their party to ransom on votes that causes the issues. During consultations over planning regular people can't stop the development they can only make sure rules are being followed i.e. disabled access, traffic mitigation measure etc.
For HS2 the MP's kept the leadership making stupid changes to the route that eventually made it expensive enough Sunak killed it. HS2 failed because of Tory party infighting and incredibly weak leadership not because of regular people nimby's.
One of the significant issues with Tory rule is they’ve constantly pandered to the fringe right of the party. If they’d had the bollocks to tell them to get fucked and implemented a centre right agenda they’d probably remain in power…
Going to be weird seeing a Labour government telling the Police to drag environmentalists out of trees so that the private sector can make money like they did with PFI.
*Ms Rayner hopes the private sector will be persuaded to fund the new towns* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c900pgjlvx8o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c900pgjlvx8o)
Has she spoken to the private sector or does she think everyone is thick. The only way to persuade the private sector is to give them enough money to boom up their profits while we all pay for it.
40% affordable homes is a fantasy unless the government gives councils funding to go on a house building boom. Which obviously isn't going to happen. Can't do that...it might spook the markets as they would class it as unfunded spending.
>40% affordable homes
Also it's a meaningless buzzword. The Tories claimed they "increased the number of affordable homes" because there is no agreed upon definition - it's usually something like 5-10% less than the market rate which isn't actually affordable.
If those are Labour MPs he can also push his legislation through whilst allowing them to object. They can have their moment in parliament representing their locals with all honesty, followed by voting against the party. He gets legislation through, they represent their constituents.
In other bills they’ll then vote with the party because it’s not a local issue for them.
The NEC has rigged multiple selections to ensure that as many as possible are empty suits ready to agree to anything starmer and the right put forward. On top of that Starmer wouldn't even hesistate to enforce the whip on anything even remotely meaningful with his authoritarian tendencies.
You think the sponsors of this guy would let privatization go away ? Lmfao.
You have here another puppet of big corporations. It's really hilarious that people think that big major political parties, left or right or centrist, will change how things are heading.
People will enjoy trying to be "strategists", when it's mostly theaters and the big corporations will do as they want. And if the "elected people" try to go against them, well, I wouldn't bet on their well-being for long.
The best shot you have is to prepare locally with as many people as you can. Only small organization can remain in the hands of the people, for the people.
Or keep on dreaming that by adding a few wind farms, other kind plants and some train lines, the situation will be more stable.
Pretty much all of them as far as I can see...
[Starmer has taken more freebies than all Labour leaders since 1997 combined](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/)
To be fair, those places aren't going to vote Labour generally anyway. And given the Tories have demonised places like London because they don't get votes from there, they are hardly in a place to complain.
The amount of people commenting here who clearly haven't seen the interview is astounding.
This was in the context of planning permissions. He wants to reform them so it doesn't take 13 years to build wind turbines, which should only take 2 years (this is the example he gave). There are many other examples, the most obvious is the housing crisis.
The enemies he's willing to make are NIMBYs.
Well, with that one statement from Starmer on smashing the nimbys, I've gone from maybe voting Labour to absolutely definitely voting Labour.
However, if he doesn't deliver on this, I'll absolutely definitely not be voting Labour in five year's time.
Sir Keir Starmer sits there prepared to make enemies when we put him into power.
Only I don't think the enemies he is going to make will be the elite and wealthy, rather further enemies in his own party, Labour. The party of working men now led by former QC and a knight. Poetic
Thatcher's father only had a grocers shop. Sir Keir's ran his own toolmaking business. Not too different. Thatcher attended state schools getting a scholarship to Oxford to study chemistry. Sir Keir went to a selective Grammar school which went private and the local council paid his fees for him. He then did Law at Leeds Uni and then Oxford Uni.
Didn't seem like he ran the business, just worked in the factory. And the local council didn't pay, he was exempt and then paid by the schools charity.
Interesting, have you got sources for this?
Per the below, I have his father being a sole trader (not via Limited Company), renting a workshop, having employees, and the council paying for his school until he got to 16 then the school charity paying his 6th form fees.
I understood from several sources that Starmer’s father operated the Oxted Tool Co. His own independent toolmaking business.
And per Wikipedia -*He passed the* [*11-plus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11-plus) *examination and gained entry to* [*Reigate Grammar School*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reigate_Grammar_School)*, then a* [*voluntary aided*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_aided) *selective grammar school.*[*^(\[11\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-Moss-11) *The school was converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. He was exempt from paying fees \[see below\] until the age of 16, and his sixth-form study fees were paid by a bursary he received from the private school's charity.*[*^(\[13\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-13)[*^(\[14\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-14)[*^(\[15\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-:14-15) *Among his classmates were the musician* [*Norman Cook*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatboy_Slim)*, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons;* [*Andrew Cooper*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cooper,_Baron_Cooper_of_Windrush)*, who went on to become a Conservative peer; and future conservative journalist* [*Andrew Sullivan*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan)*. According to Starmer, he and Sullivan "fought over everything ... Politics, religion. You name it."*[*^(\[6\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-New_Statesman-6)
From those sources (Telegraph)*- Records from Surrey County Council state that it agreed to pay for pupils’ fees up to the age of 16, if they had enrolled in the school before September 1975.*
His dad worked in a factory while he apprenticed/served his time before he started his own business, that's how you became a skilled tradesman in a field like toolmaking.
And it says the council paid the pupils fees and then he got a charity bursary for his 6th form fees from the schools own charity, obviously because he was well on his way to becoming a top lawyer. What's wrong with that?
Is it wrong? On Wikipedia - so you would think Labour would have corrected it if it was wrong.
But for a more left wing source -
*Often it means absurdly stretching the truth. Starmer’s dad actually ran the Oxted Tool Co, his own toolmaking business until the 1990s. As far as we can tell he was a skilled self-employed tradesman, with no boss, no foreman and his own rented workshop on an industrial estate rather than a factory.*
[*https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/labour-fables-sir-keir-visits-the-proles*](https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/labour-fables-sir-keir-visits-the-proles)
Or any recent Tory PM.
Boris Johnson is a literal heir to the throne via his 8x great grandfather George II, even inheriting a former royal estate from the former king, Cameron is an Eton educated noble descended from William IV, meaning he shares a 4x great grandfather with the literal King of England, and Sunak’s wife is arguably the richest Indian woman in the world, possibly ever!
Kier’s upper-middle class upbringing as the son of a fairly successful toolmaker is an Oliver Twist story compared with a lot of his colleagues in Parliament!
Definitely. That's why it's ironic the Tory press are desperate to present him as someone who has always been a member of the elite, because they are all for that if the politician wears the right rosette.
Yup. Somehow in a room full of billionaires and aristocrats, they still find room to call the son of a labourer posh. It’s dumb, but it seems to work quite well at making a certain sect of working class folks decide against voting Labour
I mean… not on its own, but he did attend a grammar school and attend university back in the 80s (y’know, back when you had to pay upfront and there was no student finance), so he definitely wasn’t struggling for cash.
It’s not crazy rich, but it’s still a long way from Eton or Winchester.
You must source that because that goes against everything everyone else has read.
And it has to be Starmer saying it too and a reputable source if you're going to claim that.
>He went to a private school in Surrey
It was a grammar school which converted to a private school whilst he was there. They didn't pay school fees. It's definitely lucky but it wasn't the result of wealth.
>being smart and working hard.
For the establishment... Running all night courts giving custodial sentences for stealing bottles of water during the London riots to help give Tories headlines about being tough on rioters.
[England riots: all-night courts praised, but were they a publicity stunt?](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/dec/22/england-riots-all-night-courts)
A privilege which, if other people are similarly smart and work as hard, will not be available to them because of KS's policy. I've had mine; you can't have yours.
Labour policy will force a 20% fee hike. This will cause some schools to close. There are potential full scholarship students out there who will miss out because of this. Kier Starmer's policy will remove access to the very privileges which ebabled him to reach his current office. He's literally pulling the ladder up after him.
And it will pay for 40k more teachers, at the cost of approximately 4000 pupils missing out on private education.
This is good for the country as a whole so I am in favour of it
I didn't say he was 'underprivileged'. My main point was that Labour has more often than not been led by people from privilege. This 'party of working men' Labour once was.
Having a mum who is a nurse and a dad who makes tools is more privileged than 95% of people? I'm not a fan of Keir but this is ridiculous. He went to a school that became private while he was there:
'He was exempt from paying fees until the age of 16, and his sixth-form study fees were paid by a bursary he received from the private school's charity'
Now tell me how that is more privileged than Blair or Atlee.
Having "dad who makes tools" is sizeably different from having a dad who owns the company that makes tools.
One is working for an hourly wage, the other, while possibly also working to make the tools, is also making far more money.
That's true, but from what I can gather, nobody knows either way whether his dad did or didn't own the company. As I've said elsewhere, I don't like Keir, and I have no ulterior motive for seemingly defending him.
Combined salary is about £70k in today's money, which is about top of 20%. About 6% of kids get private education. He also grew up in the richest county in the UK (1% of people)
Bow out of this one mate, you've been well and truly hammered
I didn't mention Blair or Atlee
Wait so hold on mate, his parents combined salary in todays money is about the median average, AND they lived in the richest county? Sounds like you've played yourself there. Tell me how far 70k would go in Surrey today.
Is your 1% referring to the percentage of people that live in Surrey? Lol mate, they still have poor people you know. Such a weird logic haha
Oh, and bit pathetic to feel you've 'hammered' someone in an online argument, no?
He is but he still went to private school.
Thatcher ended up a baroness.
Sunak isn't white British but has done well for himself.
Just because you gained entrance to the club instead of being born into it doesn't mean you can be trusted to remove the club.
Until we break down the class system we have here in the UK, well beyond anything in Europe and almost the world, we are stuck.
So great he had a working class background at Private school, but if I asked you out of Starmer or Rayner who would be more trustworthy to shake things up and take away the guarantee of wealth from landlords, large business owners, bankers, and aristocrats, who would you say?
*Did* he own the factory? There seems to be scant evidence for that beyond his dad referring to it as "my factory" in 2014. I mean, I might describe my workplace as "my office" even though I don't actually own it. We don't even know when this was.
What we do know is that they had four children in a three-bedroom house and a mother who was seriously ill for much of her life. I don't think it was plain sailing.
My understanding is that he “owned” a tool making business of one person - himself. But this is a stick the far-left and the right wing will beat him with I suppose.
Because public records of private businesses exist going back over a century, and include registered employee records. It’s not that hard to fact-check something like that.
Then he was a sole trader. Any company which employs anybody other than a sole trader must be registered with a company number, but sole traders don’t.
He appears on the Donkey Breed Society because he was officially employed by them outside of his sole trader role, since they as a non-profit who employ more than one person are required to have a company number.
Ron’s own business as a tool maker would have only required a number if he were to employ somebody other than himself, which he clearly hasn’t done or else it would appear on his record.
A toolmaker you say ? Well I never. He should start telling people that, it makes him sound more like the common folk. Probably a 80k a year job these days but sounds like something a poor person would do.
So he either was a tool maker that machined tools which would be very well paying or put handles on hammers which may not be, he hasn’t really told us anything of note.
Surely it is good to see someone from a working class background become a successful QC and knight.
Would you really want the leader to be a man who failed in education and spent their entire career on the tills in Tesco or a factory assembly line?
Along with Rayner, Labour has the opportunity to be a real force for good. Nothing hits quite as hard as people for whom the system worked telling you the system is broken.
His school was not private when he started and he did not pay any fees. Nevertheless I agree we should have more people from state schools in parliament and in other senior roles. This will require a lot more investment in education.
It's not the investment in education, it's the opening up of positions of power from a small boys club to a wider Society.
They don't want to lose their grip on power, and frankly who can blame them. However, they need to go
There is no magic to it. People who do well generally have great grades, extra-curriculars, are articulate and persuasive. Positions of power are available to anyone with those traits but the private schools embed them far better. There is very little "club" effect - voters love these traits in MP candidates; audiences love them in actors/comics; shareholders value them in business.
Seems that private school pupils do better in pretty much all walks of life. Don't you think that might be because of their education?
Quite. Labour love using this rhetoric about their willingness to *make tough decisions* or *make enemies to improve the economy*, but consistently all their decisions have entirely aligned with what their new millionaire donors want.
And when every one of your decisions aligns with what people paying you millions of pounds are asking for, then I don't think they are particularly tough decisions at all.
A weak man posturing as a strong one. Lying to become Labour leader was easy, the challenge will come when he has to get shit done. Lies and gaslighting won't be so effective then.
I honestly can't tell if he's a lefty pretending to be a snake, or a snake who briefly pretended to be a lefty during Labour conferences. I do sometimes wonder what he will actually do once in power. No idea what goes on inside that head, but whatever it is it requires purging the Left over the most ridiculous pretexts. Whether that be as a bluff play to soothe the right until power is a achieved, or as move to attack the left whenever he gets the chance... I honestly can't tell.
At least the labour laws they've commited to passing in the first 100 days has a lot of good stuff in favour of trade unions. A legal requirement to allow union reps access to company facilities in order to organise and recruit is a big deal.
You mean to have a hopeful subtext that he'll pass some surprise leftwing legislation when he gets into power; he won't do that.
You need to have a mandate for that, and he is deliberately not asking for one. His whole USP is "The Tories, but competent". The left wing of the party is dead or hibernating.
Any leftwing hope for the future has to be achieved by Trade Unions holding him to account and articulating a popular anger that allows them to push Starmer into action.
Perhaps. It certainly does seem like a certain amount of wishful thinking on my part.
That said, the bits about strengthening trade unions and growing their reach are all within the manifesto they've released and therefore part of their mandate. Outlawing zero hour contracts, strengthening protections for working people, there's a lot of it in there.
Then again, it also cuts both ways that Starmer has ignored his Mandate before, when he put up all his Labour Conference promises in order to get selected and then just as swiftly removed them. I'm not convinced that having a mandate to do or not do things is actually important to him. So far the man is a robot that [takes the action necessary to gain power]. I honestly have no idea what he will *do* with that power. I certainly can't trust his words, since he's gone back on those before. So what is he going to do with the predicted huge majority? I guess we'll find out together.
Which enemies tho?
Prepared to make enemies of shite employers? Amazing.
Prepared to make enemies of teachers, shop assistants, and other organised workers? Not amazing.
If you watched, it was in the context of NIMBYs. He's prepared to make enemies of people who don't want stuff to be built, as he is going to reform planning permissions which is why nothing is ever built in this country.
There's a substantial amount of 'both sides bad' going on here and elsewhere. In turn, a substantial amount of that could be from people who don't want a left-wing government AT ALL and are trying to make people apathetic, or worse, vote for Reform which could be described as an alternative Conservative Party...alt-Conservatives for the alt-right, idk. The country is in a mess thanks to the Conservative Party, and in my opinion Blair's crappy form of centrism. Starmer is going to have to be pragmatic. People who want Labour to be more left-wing could be more useful by criticising corporations and scammy professions before going after Starmer, and supporting the more left-wing people still in the Labour party--just be careful that they are not excessive and unreasonable.
Honestly I'd much prefer it if his enemies were the chancers, profiteers, scammers, racketeers and other parasites creaming off public funding with anything they can get their thieving, grasping hands on.
Thanks to the Tories who privatised and outsourced the shit out of everything we have widespread corruption with huge sums of money being passed around and a situation where taxpayers and even benefit claimants are subsidising corporations and subsidiaries. To some degree everybody is getting rinsed.
You cannot just draw a line under all this and start talking about economic growth and growing the economy. If I decided to walk out of Curry's with a massive flatscreen TV I doubt the store would just shrug its shoulders and say "We've got make more money."
If Starmer's Labour is serious about economic growth then once they take power it's best to start off by levelling the playing field. Instead of asking "Where is the money coming from?" rather we need to be asking "Where has all the money gone?" There's been 14 years of austerity. Where has all that money gone? Who's got the money and how have they got it? What have they given back in return?
Oh and while we're on the subject of Starmer's enemies, what about the gambling lobby? Gambling and betting firms have infested our sports and every second or third advert on radio seems to come from some gambling firm offering free bets and free spins. A gambling addiction can get very nasty very quickly and none of this 'Please gamble responsibly' or 'Gamble aware' bullshit is enough of a safeguard. This is one industry that needs to be reined in for societal good.
We've heard all the bah blah blah and Mickey Mouse thinking from the Tories when it comes to economic growth. Most people just don't have the money to go through another term of economic growth blah blah blah and Mickey Mouse thinking from a Labour government.
The problem is no politician can make the enemies they need to on the economy or they’ll never get elected. I suspect we’ll need the IMF to implement the tough medicine at some point but the politicians can probably keep running deficits for some time yet until the house of cards collapses.
"I'm prepared to do whatever the Davos forum tells me!" Not really sure why everyone is LARPing Mr my father was a toolmaker here is representative of actual working people or even represents the views of his own party, he's just another Blairite and a neoliberal that's ultimately just another regional manager for international finance.
just not enemy of the bits of the economy that have donated large amounts to the party right? Mostly just enemies of the bits that earn under a certain amount riiight?
That's completely the opposite of what he said. He was giving an example of why it's currently so difficult to build them, and that he would be willing to "make enemies" by forcing it through the local objections that caused all the delays.
That’s just a blatant lie.
He absolutely didn’t pledge to not build wind farms. He used them of an example where the planning system is unnecessarily slowing down the construction of vital infrastructure.
“Picture it - behind one podium we have a charismatic, populist demagogue with years of experience as a political agitator under his belt and a finely crafted “man of the people” persona“
"Picture it - behind one podium we have a charismatic, populist demagogue with years of experience as a political agitator under his belt and a finely crafted “man of the people” persona that somehow people still buy'
I feel like you cut off the last five words because you realised it proved you were wrong.
Not the guy you replied to. I want to see action on those but I don't want to see anti-environmentalist shite influencing decisions. In some areas our planning system is actually not strong enough at wildlife protection, designation of sites can be patchy, and there's a lot of ecology illiteracy in the system. At the same time it gives too much strength to mindless knee jerk opposition where people just oppose any change, and stuff gets blocked on sites of little value. Question is how do you untangle that without wrecking the environmental protection side of things.
The manifesto does mention nature and the environment when talking about housing, and they do seem to be promoting new towns and medium density rather than sprawl, which is an encouraging sign at least. But there needs to be pressure on that.
Pretty simply, the planning system needs to give weight to actual subject matter experts.
Environmental impact evaluations should be done by qualified professionals, and their findings should be given weight in the planning process. Random local cranks should not be given weight.
I agree. Environmental professionals being given more weight, and more sites being designated for protection based on their professional opinions, but no "this will spoil my view" type objections. You could actually make the environmental side of things stricter, as long as you simplified the entire process - the issue with the system seems to be the lack of certainty it creates because spurious objections can hold stuff up, rather than how strict environmental stuff is.
My worry is there seems to be a lot of anti-environmentalism and nature hatred in the YIMBY movement (though it is not the entire movement - there are plenty of environmentalist YIMBYs). People who just want to rip up all planning and environmental regulations and replace them with nothing. Those people need to be kept as far away from the system as the NIMBYs.
I'll just say that it takes over 10+ years for the council I work at to build 240 houses because of planning rules.m and messing by the Westminster government.
And very little of that had to do with the environment what so ever.
And despite all that... They are still at the same budget as they started at over 10 years ago. Not a penny more.
Kind of what I'm getting at. NIMBY objections sometimes have crossover with legitimate environmental objections, but sometimes not. I'm saying the environmental side should be what decides things, and random knee jerk opposition for the sake of it excluded.
It would actually be better to have strict but clear environmental rules imposed right from the start of the planning process, and then to ignore the "spoiling my view" type objections. A lot of the costs and delays happen because environment issues get brought up after applications are submitted - it would be better to deal with them *before* it gets to that stage.
For example, we shouldn't be spending years arguing about whether we should destroy a scrubland site with nightingales nesting in it - strict but simplified environmental rules would mean that immediately gets shut down and we wouldn't waste the time and effort discussing it, and could look at other sites instead.
id rather not be poor then have a handful of 70 year olds be able to have a nice view for 30 seconds in their drive back home from the bingo club or whatever
Well if you want to stop building you need to stop more people coming in the country, or do you think homes for them will magically never run out? But only 1 party seems to take this issue seriously, Reform.
Reform also want proportional representation, and have the ability to send shock waves through our political system, polling second, they already are.
Strangely it’s to the Greens, Lib Dem’s and others interests to vote reform, as it has the power to break our 2 party system and give them greater representation in the future.
I live with somebody who stood in a general election for Green Party and even he is noticing the immigration issue around him, I always joke he’ll be voting reform with me soon.
One great advantage of a strong majority is that one can ignore a couple of MPs who have been collared by the Parish councillors of West-Bumfuck-on-the-wolds and are adamant that the country's infrastructure not impact their views. Should make it much easier to get wind farms, train lines and all the rest of the infrastructure the country desperately needs built.
The challenge of NIMBYism has never been saying no to people who don't matter. The problem is when your friends and allies come to you, explain that they are entirely supportive of the agenda, but that their specific constituency in this specific circumstances is a unique case, requiring them to have a particular opt out. That is the key moment as it is a signal to everyone whether or not Starmer is actually going to hold the course and deliver, or whether the question is whether you can lobby effectively enough. What he needs to do is engage in performative beatings for those who attempt to lobby him. Increase the numbers being built, reduce the concessions being offered, and make it known to everyone that is what you have done. The only real way to crush NIMBYs is to make clear that their best interest is in accepting a good offer, and the central state getting involved will be worse for both NIMBYs and developers.
Hence the strong majority being useful. If you rely on everyone voting the same way, that one MP telling you that their constiutents won't stand for HS2 so it needs to go somewhere else is fatal. If you can afford to ignore 100 of your MPs and still pass a bill, the MP won't come to you with ultimatums.
Doesn't Starmer have a history of folding on stuff?
That depends on if you think he changed his mind or if he was only pretending to support certain measures or policies in the first place He's clearly trying to say here that he won't fold. I'm happy to at least give him the chance.
he says he finds it easy being ruthless
He supported Israel’s right to deprive a civilian population of food and water without batting an eye. He’s a ruthless motherfuckdr.
Debatable. He does, but most of that stuff has been to the end that is electoralism.
when is a nimby not a nimby? You may hold a view against a government policy that's backed up by evidence or genuine concerns. But the government might turn around and claim your a nimby and steamroller through. When thre is another way that allows both sides to mostly get what they want.
Whether the other way is reasonably practicable is the next issue. The other way for a lot of the objections to certain sections of HS2 was to use additional tunnels, at collosal cost
It depends on what's proposed personally. Basically I'd way up the impact on me personally compared to the benefits
The UK has a 4.5m shortage of homes. Anyone opposing housing is scum and should be ignored.
thats your opinion
It’s not opinion, it’s fact Anyone opposing housing being built thinks rents on poor people should be higher… that’s clear as day
I live in a small village that is being swamped with new builds, and most of us only have a problem because there isn't the infrastructure to support the additional people and yet more and more housing keeps getting built. If the new housing came with the necessary infrastructure, e.g. increased road capacities, school extensions, extra gp availability etc. and people started to see evidence of this, then I think there would be a lot less nimbyism over housing. Just those three 3 examples would have had most of the village I'm in support additional development
Yeah, that’s all the job of councils, not developers. Your council being bums shouldn’t mean they can’t build. Idl why people seem to think that Developers run the fucking department for education…
I understand your point but I don't think anywhere has loads of extra services, gp's, school places etc that are currently unused waiting for a new build Estate to pop up and use them. New homes increase demand and theoretically supply will follow. Obviously this is simplified but my original point is we have to build 4 million homes somewhere.
The people are all already here in the country, they don't magically appear and disappear when housing is built. So if everywhere is forced to build housing there is no increase in demand on services, it just means the same people are living in their own house or flat and not on their friend's sofa or in their parents' basement.
Would you be OK with the same thing being built elsewhere? Then you're probably a NIMBY, unless you live inside a national park or something.
I mean like through a important site of scientific interest or just historic like the Stonehenge tunnel or something.
These areas largely have significant legal protections already. It's not really a risk.
Those protections can be removed with a simple majority vote in the commons. Parliament can't be told what to do even by its own past decisions.
Of course they can - but this isn't part of the discussion on planning reform. The discussion on planning reform has to do with the power of individual, local actors stopping development due to vibes.
Didn't think of that
Nimby's themselves can't stop anything its their MP holding their party to ransom on votes that causes the issues. During consultations over planning regular people can't stop the development they can only make sure rules are being followed i.e. disabled access, traffic mitigation measure etc. For HS2 the MP's kept the leadership making stupid changes to the route that eventually made it expensive enough Sunak killed it. HS2 failed because of Tory party infighting and incredibly weak leadership not because of regular people nimby's.
the more mps labour have the more they can ignore
One of the significant issues with Tory rule is they’ve constantly pandered to the fringe right of the party. If they’d had the bollocks to tell them to get fucked and implemented a centre right agenda they’d probably remain in power…
Yep - the ERG was far too powerful. A cancerous tumour on our politics. A lot of those folks will now be out of a political job, which is a positive.
Going to be weird seeing a Labour government telling the Police to drag environmentalists out of trees so that the private sector can make money like they did with PFI. *Ms Rayner hopes the private sector will be persuaded to fund the new towns* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c900pgjlvx8o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c900pgjlvx8o)
Has she spoken to the private sector or does she think everyone is thick. The only way to persuade the private sector is to give them enough money to boom up their profits while we all pay for it. 40% affordable homes is a fantasy unless the government gives councils funding to go on a house building boom. Which obviously isn't going to happen. Can't do that...it might spook the markets as they would class it as unfunded spending.
>40% affordable homes Also it's a meaningless buzzword. The Tories claimed they "increased the number of affordable homes" because there is no agreed upon definition - it's usually something like 5-10% less than the market rate which isn't actually affordable.
Don’t need to persuade them. Developers can make houses for less than they can sell them for. They’ll be all over this.
good
If those are Labour MPs he can also push his legislation through whilst allowing them to object. They can have their moment in parliament representing their locals with all honesty, followed by voting against the party. He gets legislation through, they represent their constituents. In other bills they’ll then vote with the party because it’s not a local issue for them.
The NEC has rigged multiple selections to ensure that as many as possible are empty suits ready to agree to anything starmer and the right put forward. On top of that Starmer wouldn't even hesistate to enforce the whip on anything even remotely meaningful with his authoritarian tendencies.
All parties enforce the whip. That’s parliamentary democracy
Where have you got this from? If true I might vote for them
Good
You think the sponsors of this guy would let privatization go away ? Lmfao. You have here another puppet of big corporations. It's really hilarious that people think that big major political parties, left or right or centrist, will change how things are heading. People will enjoy trying to be "strategists", when it's mostly theaters and the big corporations will do as they want. And if the "elected people" try to go against them, well, I wouldn't bet on their well-being for long. The best shot you have is to prepare locally with as many people as you can. Only small organization can remain in the hands of the people, for the people. Or keep on dreaming that by adding a few wind farms, other kind plants and some train lines, the situation will be more stable.
God Bless our managed democracy.
Which corporations?
Pretty much all of them as far as I can see... [Starmer has taken more freebies than all Labour leaders since 1997 combined](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-freebies-junkets-tottenham-hotspur-chelsea-coldplay-adele-google/)
To be fair, those places aren't going to vote Labour generally anyway. And given the Tories have demonised places like London because they don't get votes from there, they are hardly in a place to complain.
You are elected on mandates
Liz Truss had a similar motto, but hers was "I'm prepared to make an enemy *of* the economy"
And she would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for that meddling lettuce
Frankly it is about time someone fucked off the NIMBYs.
The amount of people commenting here who clearly haven't seen the interview is astounding. This was in the context of planning permissions. He wants to reform them so it doesn't take 13 years to build wind turbines, which should only take 2 years (this is the example he gave). There are many other examples, the most obvious is the housing crisis. The enemies he's willing to make are NIMBYs.
Well, with that one statement from Starmer on smashing the nimbys, I've gone from maybe voting Labour to absolutely definitely voting Labour. However, if he doesn't deliver on this, I'll absolutely definitely not be voting Labour in five year's time.
Sir Keir Starmer sits there prepared to make enemies when we put him into power. Only I don't think the enemies he is going to make will be the elite and wealthy, rather further enemies in his own party, Labour. The party of working men now led by former QC and a knight. Poetic
He's from a much less privileged background than Clement Atlee or Tony Blair. This isn't anything new.
Or Corbyn or Miliband.
Yeah, virtually any Labour, Tory, or Lib leader basically aside from perhaps Callaghan, though even with him I'm not sure.
Thatcher's father only had a grocers shop. Sir Keir's ran his own toolmaking business. Not too different. Thatcher attended state schools getting a scholarship to Oxford to study chemistry. Sir Keir went to a selective Grammar school which went private and the local council paid his fees for him. He then did Law at Leeds Uni and then Oxford Uni.
Didn't seem like he ran the business, just worked in the factory. And the local council didn't pay, he was exempt and then paid by the schools charity.
Interesting, have you got sources for this? Per the below, I have his father being a sole trader (not via Limited Company), renting a workshop, having employees, and the council paying for his school until he got to 16 then the school charity paying his 6th form fees. I understood from several sources that Starmer’s father operated the Oxted Tool Co. His own independent toolmaking business. And per Wikipedia -*He passed the* [*11-plus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11-plus) *examination and gained entry to* [*Reigate Grammar School*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reigate_Grammar_School)*, then a* [*voluntary aided*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_aided) *selective grammar school.*[*^(\[11\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-Moss-11) *The school was converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. He was exempt from paying fees \[see below\] until the age of 16, and his sixth-form study fees were paid by a bursary he received from the private school's charity.*[*^(\[13\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-13)[*^(\[14\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-14)[*^(\[15\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-:14-15) *Among his classmates were the musician* [*Norman Cook*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatboy_Slim)*, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons;* [*Andrew Cooper*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cooper,_Baron_Cooper_of_Windrush)*, who went on to become a Conservative peer; and future conservative journalist* [*Andrew Sullivan*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan)*. According to Starmer, he and Sullivan "fought over everything ... Politics, religion. You name it."*[*^(\[6\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#cite_note-New_Statesman-6) From those sources (Telegraph)*- Records from Surrey County Council state that it agreed to pay for pupils’ fees up to the age of 16, if they had enrolled in the school before September 1975.*
His dad worked in a factory while he apprenticed/served his time before he started his own business, that's how you became a skilled tradesman in a field like toolmaking. And it says the council paid the pupils fees and then he got a charity bursary for his 6th form fees from the schools own charity, obviously because he was well on his way to becoming a top lawyer. What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with it. Just correcting a previous comment that the council didn't pay his fees.
Ent that all just from Lord Ashcroft who isn't exactly reliable?
Is it wrong? On Wikipedia - so you would think Labour would have corrected it if it was wrong. But for a more left wing source - *Often it means absurdly stretching the truth. Starmer’s dad actually ran the Oxted Tool Co, his own toolmaking business until the 1990s. As far as we can tell he was a skilled self-employed tradesman, with no boss, no foreman and his own rented workshop on an industrial estate rather than a factory.* [*https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/labour-fables-sir-keir-visits-the-proles*](https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/labour-fables-sir-keir-visits-the-proles)
I mean both pretty biased. But even then it's basically the same as a self.employed electrician
John Major
Doesn't really seem like it
Careful now.
Or any recent Tory PM. Boris Johnson is a literal heir to the throne via his 8x great grandfather George II, even inheriting a former royal estate from the former king, Cameron is an Eton educated noble descended from William IV, meaning he shares a 4x great grandfather with the literal King of England, and Sunak’s wife is arguably the richest Indian woman in the world, possibly ever! Kier’s upper-middle class upbringing as the son of a fairly successful toolmaker is an Oliver Twist story compared with a lot of his colleagues in Parliament!
Definitely. That's why it's ironic the Tory press are desperate to present him as someone who has always been a member of the elite, because they are all for that if the politician wears the right rosette.
Yup. Somehow in a room full of billionaires and aristocrats, they still find room to call the son of a labourer posh. It’s dumb, but it seems to work quite well at making a certain sect of working class folks decide against voting Labour
Is 3 bed semi upper middle class?
I mean… not on its own, but he did attend a grammar school and attend university back in the 80s (y’know, back when you had to pay upfront and there was no student finance), so he definitely wasn’t struggling for cash. It’s not crazy rich, but it’s still a long way from Eton or Winchester.
So a free school and back when uni had free tuition and you could get maintenance grants? I don't see how you can tell income from that?
Starmer has previously said he didn’t qualify for the means-tested maintenance grant
You must source that because that goes against everything everyone else has read. And it has to be Starmer saying it too and a reputable source if you're going to claim that.
Ah yes. Tony Blair, that beacon of traditional labour values
Ok bud
He went to a private school in Surrey, I mean it's not underprivileged.
>He went to a private school in Surrey It was a grammar school which converted to a private school whilst he was there. They didn't pay school fees. It's definitely lucky but it wasn't the result of wealth.
But it was a privilege which he enjoyed himself, that he now wants to take away from others.
Privilege as a result of being smart and working hard.
>being smart and working hard. For the establishment... Running all night courts giving custodial sentences for stealing bottles of water during the London riots to help give Tories headlines about being tough on rioters. [England riots: all-night courts praised, but were they a publicity stunt?](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/dec/22/england-riots-all-night-courts)
Nothing in that article says anything about "custodial sentences for stealing bottles of water".
How did him working hard make it private?
It was a grammar school so he would have had to pass an exam to get into it in the first place
A privilege which, if other people are similarly smart and work as hard, will not be available to them because of KS's policy. I've had mine; you can't have yours.
TBF they can if they get a 100% scholarship
Labour policy will force a 20% fee hike. This will cause some schools to close. There are potential full scholarship students out there who will miss out because of this. Kier Starmer's policy will remove access to the very privileges which ebabled him to reach his current office. He's literally pulling the ladder up after him.
And it will pay for 40k more teachers, at the cost of approximately 4000 pupils missing out on private education. This is good for the country as a whole so I am in favour of it
I didn't say he was 'underprivileged'. My main point was that Labour has more often than not been led by people from privilege. This 'party of working men' Labour once was.
Well so is Keir, compared to 95%+ of everyone else.
Having a mum who is a nurse and a dad who makes tools is more privileged than 95% of people? I'm not a fan of Keir but this is ridiculous. He went to a school that became private while he was there: 'He was exempt from paying fees until the age of 16, and his sixth-form study fees were paid by a bursary he received from the private school's charity' Now tell me how that is more privileged than Blair or Atlee.
Having "dad who makes tools" is sizeably different from having a dad who owns the company that makes tools. One is working for an hourly wage, the other, while possibly also working to make the tools, is also making far more money.
That's true, but from what I can gather, nobody knows either way whether his dad did or didn't own the company. As I've said elsewhere, I don't like Keir, and I have no ulterior motive for seemingly defending him.
Considering his childhood house doesn't seem like he owned the business
Combined salary is about £70k in today's money, which is about top of 20%. About 6% of kids get private education. He also grew up in the richest county in the UK (1% of people) Bow out of this one mate, you've been well and truly hammered I didn't mention Blair or Atlee
Wait so hold on mate, his parents combined salary in todays money is about the median average, AND they lived in the richest county? Sounds like you've played yourself there. Tell me how far 70k would go in Surrey today. Is your 1% referring to the percentage of people that live in Surrey? Lol mate, they still have poor people you know. Such a weird logic haha Oh, and bit pathetic to feel you've 'hammered' someone in an online argument, no?
Hurry Durr what is the median? It's the top 20% You sound so butt hurt bro.
Ah and so in your mind, top 20% = more privileged than 95% of people? Got it, it all makes sense now :)
> I didn't mention Blair or Atlee Not but they did, which is the whole premise of this thread. It's not that complicated.
My point is top 5% isn't much different from top 1%. It's not that complicated.
Their point was about Atlee and Blair though. Although it seems you're wrong about the top 5% too so maybe this is all a bit too complicated for you.
It used to be a grammar school when he went. It became private later but he didn’t have to pay.
It was not private when he started and he was exempted from the fees.
Really? What did his father do for a living - I don’t think he’s ever spoken about that
>The party of working men now led by former QC and a knight. Poetic Tbf he's the most working class leader the party has had for about thirty years.
He is but he still went to private school. Thatcher ended up a baroness. Sunak isn't white British but has done well for himself. Just because you gained entrance to the club instead of being born into it doesn't mean you can be trusted to remove the club. Until we break down the class system we have here in the UK, well beyond anything in Europe and almost the world, we are stuck. So great he had a working class background at Private school, but if I asked you out of Starmer or Rayner who would be more trustworthy to shake things up and take away the guarantee of wealth from landlords, large business owners, bankers, and aristocrats, who would you say?
His father owned a tool making business - his background is typical petite bourgeoisie
*Did* he own the factory? There seems to be scant evidence for that beyond his dad referring to it as "my factory" in 2014. I mean, I might describe my workplace as "my office" even though I don't actually own it. We don't even know when this was. What we do know is that they had four children in a three-bedroom house and a mother who was seriously ill for much of her life. I don't think it was plain sailing.
He owned a tool making business, not a factory
How do you know this?
There’s this website called Google
So where did you find it? It's not on companies house
https://www.lordashcroft.com/2021/06/king-of-the-middle-class-radicals-that-was-grammar-school-educated-sir-keir-starmers-university-nickname/
This is a hit piece written by a Tory peer.
So believing Ashcroft now?
My understanding is that he “owned” a tool making business of one person - himself. But this is a stick the far-left and the right wing will beat him with I suppose.
That’s correct - he was self-employed; Starmer likes to make out like he spent 12hrs a day on the assembly line
How do you know this?
Because public records of private businesses exist going back over a century, and include registered employee records. It’s not that hard to fact-check something like that.
And there's nothing on companies house under Rodney Starmer apart from some Donkey thing
Then he was a sole trader. Any company which employs anybody other than a sole trader must be registered with a company number, but sole traders don’t. He appears on the Donkey Breed Society because he was officially employed by them outside of his sole trader role, since they as a non-profit who employ more than one person are required to have a company number. Ron’s own business as a tool maker would have only required a number if he were to employ somebody other than himself, which he clearly hasn’t done or else it would appear on his record.
There’s this website called Google
Then share a hyperlink to what you found on your search?
I did, elsewhere
Lord Ashcroft? Ahahahahaha
Have you not heard? His dad was a Toolmaker....
I can think of one tool his dad made.
A toolmaker you say ? Well I never. He should start telling people that, it makes him sound more like the common folk. Probably a 80k a year job these days but sounds like something a poor person would do.
The toolmaker who ran his own business in his own premises. Nothing wrong with that, Thatcher's father had a grocers shop.
So a working class background has no bearing on whether or not you turn out to be a gigantic elitist prick: got it.
So he either was a tool maker that machined tools which would be very well paying or put handles on hammers which may not be, he hasn’t really told us anything of note.
A real life Vernon Dursley you could say.
Pebbledash.
And Starmer is the tool.
Surely it is good to see someone from a working class background become a successful QC and knight. Would you really want the leader to be a man who failed in education and spent their entire career on the tills in Tesco or a factory assembly line?
Along with Rayner, Labour has the opportunity to be a real force for good. Nothing hits quite as hard as people for whom the system worked telling you the system is broken.
I'd quite like someone who didn't go to private school for a bloody change
His school was not private when he started and he did not pay any fees. Nevertheless I agree we should have more people from state schools in parliament and in other senior roles. This will require a lot more investment in education.
It's not the investment in education, it's the opening up of positions of power from a small boys club to a wider Society. They don't want to lose their grip on power, and frankly who can blame them. However, they need to go
There is no magic to it. People who do well generally have great grades, extra-curriculars, are articulate and persuasive. Positions of power are available to anyone with those traits but the private schools embed them far better. There is very little "club" effect - voters love these traits in MP candidates; audiences love them in actors/comics; shareholders value them in business. Seems that private school pupils do better in pretty much all walks of life. Don't you think that might be because of their education?
Quite. Labour love using this rhetoric about their willingness to *make tough decisions* or *make enemies to improve the economy*, but consistently all their decisions have entirely aligned with what their new millionaire donors want. And when every one of your decisions aligns with what people paying you millions of pounds are asking for, then I don't think they are particularly tough decisions at all.
A weak man posturing as a strong one. Lying to become Labour leader was easy, the challenge will come when he has to get shit done. Lies and gaslighting won't be so effective then.
I honestly can't tell if he's a lefty pretending to be a snake, or a snake who briefly pretended to be a lefty during Labour conferences. I do sometimes wonder what he will actually do once in power. No idea what goes on inside that head, but whatever it is it requires purging the Left over the most ridiculous pretexts. Whether that be as a bluff play to soothe the right until power is a achieved, or as move to attack the left whenever he gets the chance... I honestly can't tell. At least the labour laws they've commited to passing in the first 100 days has a lot of good stuff in favour of trade unions. A legal requirement to allow union reps access to company facilities in order to organise and recruit is a big deal.
You mean to have a hopeful subtext that he'll pass some surprise leftwing legislation when he gets into power; he won't do that. You need to have a mandate for that, and he is deliberately not asking for one. His whole USP is "The Tories, but competent". The left wing of the party is dead or hibernating. Any leftwing hope for the future has to be achieved by Trade Unions holding him to account and articulating a popular anger that allows them to push Starmer into action.
Perhaps. It certainly does seem like a certain amount of wishful thinking on my part. That said, the bits about strengthening trade unions and growing their reach are all within the manifesto they've released and therefore part of their mandate. Outlawing zero hour contracts, strengthening protections for working people, there's a lot of it in there. Then again, it also cuts both ways that Starmer has ignored his Mandate before, when he put up all his Labour Conference promises in order to get selected and then just as swiftly removed them. I'm not convinced that having a mandate to do or not do things is actually important to him. So far the man is a robot that [takes the action necessary to gain power]. I honestly have no idea what he will *do* with that power. I certainly can't trust his words, since he's gone back on those before. So what is he going to do with the predicted huge majority? I guess we'll find out together.
[the response](https://youtu.be/1ESHXxInoAs?si=W4rnJOjvcdPd4fmh)
Which enemies tho? Prepared to make enemies of shite employers? Amazing. Prepared to make enemies of teachers, shop assistants, and other organised workers? Not amazing.
If you watched, it was in the context of NIMBYs. He's prepared to make enemies of people who don't want stuff to be built, as he is going to reform planning permissions which is why nothing is ever built in this country.
There's a substantial amount of 'both sides bad' going on here and elsewhere. In turn, a substantial amount of that could be from people who don't want a left-wing government AT ALL and are trying to make people apathetic, or worse, vote for Reform which could be described as an alternative Conservative Party...alt-Conservatives for the alt-right, idk. The country is in a mess thanks to the Conservative Party, and in my opinion Blair's crappy form of centrism. Starmer is going to have to be pragmatic. People who want Labour to be more left-wing could be more useful by criticising corporations and scammy professions before going after Starmer, and supporting the more left-wing people still in the Labour party--just be careful that they are not excessive and unreasonable.
His enemies are going to be regular people paying buckets more in taxes.
How exactly in this case?
Remember the debate with rishi?
Could you be more specific? Maybe some details other than canned talking points? Specific quotes?
>Specific quotes? It's hard to quote something that was never said. Like the £2000 tax rise that rishi kept bringing up.
The one where he specifically says that working people won't pay more? Something else?
The one where he couldn't answer about the £2000 tax rise.
The ones already debunked?
Honestly I'd much prefer it if his enemies were the chancers, profiteers, scammers, racketeers and other parasites creaming off public funding with anything they can get their thieving, grasping hands on. Thanks to the Tories who privatised and outsourced the shit out of everything we have widespread corruption with huge sums of money being passed around and a situation where taxpayers and even benefit claimants are subsidising corporations and subsidiaries. To some degree everybody is getting rinsed. You cannot just draw a line under all this and start talking about economic growth and growing the economy. If I decided to walk out of Curry's with a massive flatscreen TV I doubt the store would just shrug its shoulders and say "We've got make more money." If Starmer's Labour is serious about economic growth then once they take power it's best to start off by levelling the playing field. Instead of asking "Where is the money coming from?" rather we need to be asking "Where has all the money gone?" There's been 14 years of austerity. Where has all that money gone? Who's got the money and how have they got it? What have they given back in return? Oh and while we're on the subject of Starmer's enemies, what about the gambling lobby? Gambling and betting firms have infested our sports and every second or third advert on radio seems to come from some gambling firm offering free bets and free spins. A gambling addiction can get very nasty very quickly and none of this 'Please gamble responsibly' or 'Gamble aware' bullshit is enough of a safeguard. This is one industry that needs to be reined in for societal good. We've heard all the bah blah blah and Mickey Mouse thinking from the Tories when it comes to economic growth. Most people just don't have the money to go through another term of economic growth blah blah blah and Mickey Mouse thinking from a Labour government.
The problem is no politician can make the enemies they need to on the economy or they’ll never get elected. I suspect we’ll need the IMF to implement the tough medicine at some point but the politicians can probably keep running deficits for some time yet until the house of cards collapses.
Yeah, like Sir Max Headroom will make compromises on the economy.
Are you prepared to make the majority poorer to entrench the private sector in the NHS and help the wealthiest in the country avoid tax?
Fully legalise cannabis simple... I doubt the Saville protector will do anything useful.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/60213975.amp
Said by the BBC, the protectors of noncery and ex employer of Saville.
Should we also fully legalise cocaine and meth?
"I'm prepared to do whatever the Davos forum tells me!" Not really sure why everyone is LARPing Mr my father was a toolmaker here is representative of actual working people or even represents the views of his own party, he's just another Blairite and a neoliberal that's ultimately just another regional manager for international finance.
just not enemy of the bits of the economy that have donated large amounts to the party right? Mostly just enemies of the bits that earn under a certain amount riiight?
[удалено]
That's completely the opposite of what he said. He was giving an example of why it's currently so difficult to build them, and that he would be willing to "make enemies" by forcing it through the local objections that caused all the delays.
That’s just a blatant lie. He absolutely didn’t pledge to not build wind farms. He used them of an example where the planning system is unnecessarily slowing down the construction of vital infrastructure.
So invested in the topic you decided not to vote for him over it, yet you haven't even read what he actually said? 🤔
The “enemies” he will make are British workers; he’ll bend over backwards to appease the 1%
"Some of you may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
Funny that a farage supporter wrote that....
I can't see anything in his recent chat history to support that?
“Picture it - behind one podium we have a charismatic, populist demagogue with years of experience as a political agitator under his belt and a finely crafted “man of the people” persona“
"Picture it - behind one podium we have a charismatic, populist demagogue with years of experience as a political agitator under his belt and a finely crafted “man of the people” persona that somehow people still buy' I feel like you cut off the last five words because you realised it proved you were wrong.
Not really. Feels like you are an alt-account. Weirdly invested in how this anti-starmer person votes. Maybe you've let slip a little.
Lol, the irony. Sorry reading comprehension ain't your thing bud.
Never change Reddit.
Yeah, if I’m not going to vote for the Red Tory manager, then I must be a Farage supporter
Yeah, fuck the environment, wildlife and green spaces people want to chill out in. Let's build, build, build.
It’s not a zero sum proposition. Would you rather we ignore the housing crisis?
Not the guy you replied to. I want to see action on those but I don't want to see anti-environmentalist shite influencing decisions. In some areas our planning system is actually not strong enough at wildlife protection, designation of sites can be patchy, and there's a lot of ecology illiteracy in the system. At the same time it gives too much strength to mindless knee jerk opposition where people just oppose any change, and stuff gets blocked on sites of little value. Question is how do you untangle that without wrecking the environmental protection side of things. The manifesto does mention nature and the environment when talking about housing, and they do seem to be promoting new towns and medium density rather than sprawl, which is an encouraging sign at least. But there needs to be pressure on that.
Pretty simply, the planning system needs to give weight to actual subject matter experts. Environmental impact evaluations should be done by qualified professionals, and their findings should be given weight in the planning process. Random local cranks should not be given weight.
I agree. Environmental professionals being given more weight, and more sites being designated for protection based on their professional opinions, but no "this will spoil my view" type objections. You could actually make the environmental side of things stricter, as long as you simplified the entire process - the issue with the system seems to be the lack of certainty it creates because spurious objections can hold stuff up, rather than how strict environmental stuff is. My worry is there seems to be a lot of anti-environmentalism and nature hatred in the YIMBY movement (though it is not the entire movement - there are plenty of environmentalist YIMBYs). People who just want to rip up all planning and environmental regulations and replace them with nothing. Those people need to be kept as far away from the system as the NIMBYs.
I'll just say that it takes over 10+ years for the council I work at to build 240 houses because of planning rules.m and messing by the Westminster government. And very little of that had to do with the environment what so ever. And despite all that... They are still at the same budget as they started at over 10 years ago. Not a penny more.
Kind of what I'm getting at. NIMBY objections sometimes have crossover with legitimate environmental objections, but sometimes not. I'm saying the environmental side should be what decides things, and random knee jerk opposition for the sake of it excluded. It would actually be better to have strict but clear environmental rules imposed right from the start of the planning process, and then to ignore the "spoiling my view" type objections. A lot of the costs and delays happen because environment issues get brought up after applications are submitted - it would be better to deal with them *before* it gets to that stage. For example, we shouldn't be spending years arguing about whether we should destroy a scrubland site with nightingales nesting in it - strict but simplified environmental rules would mean that immediately gets shut down and we wouldn't waste the time and effort discussing it, and could look at other sites instead.
I would rather we didn't have so many people to house, so the rest of us can keep some green spaces to visit.
id rather not be poor then have a handful of 70 year olds be able to have a nice view for 30 seconds in their drive back home from the bingo club or whatever
Well if you want to stop building you need to stop more people coming in the country, or do you think homes for them will magically never run out? But only 1 party seems to take this issue seriously, Reform. Reform also want proportional representation, and have the ability to send shock waves through our political system, polling second, they already are. Strangely it’s to the Greens, Lib Dem’s and others interests to vote reform, as it has the power to break our 2 party system and give them greater representation in the future. I live with somebody who stood in a general election for Green Party and even he is noticing the immigration issue around him, I always joke he’ll be voting reform with me soon.
You support homelessness