NPR

tabascoboy wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:29 am

epwc wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:19 am This is my constituency:
2019 election results

Tories 72%
Labour 12.4%
Lib Dem 11.9%
Green 3.7%

I've got a feeling it'll still be Tory

Not too different here, and since the boundary of the constituency has changed since 2019 with some exchanges of wards even harder to know which party might (very remotely) conceivably unseat the Tories for tactical voting. Will just have to go with a vote for whichever party is the most appealing in the run up, accept the Tory will retain the seat and suck it down...

CON 62%
LBD 16%
LAB 15%
GRN 7%

In seats like those two the best shot for removing the Tories is Labour. Tactical voting means moving with the herd and the herd is with Labour.

The Lib Dems are polling below 10%, they've basically won zero swing voters, other than in seats where they're clearly second (which are almost all Tory facing in the South of England) they're not going to remove any Tories. The herd isn't going to do some complex 4d chess calculation to come up with the Lib Dems being the pick in seats like those two, Lib Dem polling isn't high enough for that.

petej wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:48 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:34 am

_Os_ wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:15 am
My take as well. Reform are polling where an average UKIP were, which was weak. There's not many of them to win. Polling on voter intention shows about half Reform's support will never back the Tories, they're people who always go right of the Tories or don't vote, the other half didn't all come from the Tory party. Max the Tories can get out of Reform is an additional 5%, which would get them up to 25%-ish. Given their situation this would be useful to them, huge difference between 20% and 25%.

The Tories real problem isn't Reform. It's people switching directly from them to Labour, which is where most of their lost support has gone. I would've expected the Lib Dems to be higher when Labour have a leader not seen as a threat and the Tories are seen as awful, but they haven't benefitted. If Sunak wanted to win them back he needed to focus on the economy exclusively and ignore immigration, he almost did the opposite.

The Lib Dems have had a string of nothing leaders and struggle for media attention at the best of times, at the moment they've not really got anything of note to say. Jo Swinson was briefly interesting because of her delusional commitment to saying that the Lib Dems could win the 2019 general outright and pledging a second EU referendum. Since then? Meh. Their current 'Our Vision' section of the website is policy free and just bland positive platitudes. They also remain completely toxic to a massive chunk of millenial voters thanks to Clegg's u-turn on student fees. That's probably not really fair considering how much stuff the parties those millenials will likely end up voting for have put forward as pledges and policies only to discard them, but it's definitely a factor.

In my new boundary constituency, they're projected as the best bet to prevent a Tory from getting in, so they'll have my vote.

For the middle class millenial I suspect that the tuitions fees are now minor compared with the dislike of brexit.

Materially sure, but I think it goes beyond that. Particularly among those for whom it was their first general election. Tuition fees became a totemic issue embodying the bitter disappointment of deliberately not voting Tory and having that actively deliver the austerity driven coalition

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:21 am

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:07 am

Blackmac wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 7:39 am


Considering the amount of notice required, if they were to avoid school holidays that would mean we couldn't have an 'early' election until we were just about into October anyway.

Yeah, but that's the thing people can complain about - they're fine with it being a problem in Scotland but not in England.

I suspect the Tories just didn't know the Scottish school holidays would have already started. Not so much deliberate, just ignorant.

Which is amazing in itself.

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:21 am

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:07 am

Blackmac wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 7:39 am


Considering the amount of notice required, if they were to avoid school holidays that would mean we couldn't have an 'early' election until we were just about into October anyway.

Yeah, but that's the thing people can complain about - they're fine with it being a problem in Scotland but not in England.

I suspect the Tories just didn't know the Scottish school holidays would have already started. Not so much deliberate, just ignorant.

Just SNP whinging

The Scottish government had wanted to hold a second independence referendum on 19 October last year - when most schools across Scotland would have been on holiday, including those in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and the Highlands.

Slick wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:49 am

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:21 am

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:07 am

Yeah, but that's the thing people can complain about - they're fine with it being a problem in Scotland but not in England.

I suspect the Tories just didn't know the Scottish school holidays would have already started. Not so much deliberate, just ignorant.

Which is amazing in itself.

And goes back to my original point that they really don't give a fuck about Scotland.

David in Gwent wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:49 am

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:21 am

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:07 am

Yeah, but that's the thing people can complain about - they're fine with it being a problem in Scotland but not in England.

I suspect the Tories just didn't know the Scottish school holidays would have already started. Not so much deliberate, just ignorant.

Just SNP whinging

The Scottish government had wanted to hold a second independence referendum on 19 October last year - when most schools across Scotland would have been on holiday, including those in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and the Highlands.

Yeah, but that was because they planned to let 9 year olds vote, or something.

Oopsies

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:53 am

Slick wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:49 am

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:21 am

I suspect the Tories just didn't know the Scottish school holidays would have already started. Not so much deliberate, just ignorant.

Which is amazing in itself.

And goes back to my original point that they really don't give a fuck about Scotland.

Jesus, just get over Culloden.

Insane_Homer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:59 am Oopsies
staged.png

And not just once...

I like neeps wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:36 am I'll be voting Lib Dem as ever as I'm a Tory Lib Dem marginal. Quite depressing as my local MP Layla Moran is a huge NIMBY but hopefully Starmer stays true to his YIMBY words and makes Moran's NIMBYism howls into the void... I'm not holding my breath of course.

I'm really hoping Labout will lean into planning reform. They haven't made it a key pledge but had spoken positively about it. We really really need to get building houses, railways, nuclear power ETC the Nimbys and Nature England need to be swiped aside.

Johnson could style this sort of thing out under being a bit of character etc... sunak just looks like an incompetent.

Nigel Farage says he will not stand in UK general election

A man not standing who’s failed to get elected as an MP the 7 previous times he’s tried.

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:31 am

I like neeps wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:36 am I'll be voting Lib Dem as ever as I'm a Tory Lib Dem marginal. Quite depressing as my local MP Layla Moran is a huge NIMBY but hopefully Starmer stays true to his YIMBY words and makes Moran's NIMBYism howls into the void... I'm not holding my breath of course.

I'm really hoping Labout will lean into planning reform. They haven't made it a key pledge but had spoken positively about it. We really really need to get building houses, railways, nuclear power ETC the Nimbys and Nature England need to be swiped aside.

While there's definitely a bit of a NIMBY problem in this country, I get concerned by rhetoric like this. Even if one doesn't see any intrinsic value in what's left of British nature, 75% of our crops are pollinated by bees. Bees and other pollinators have seen so much of their habitat obliterated and that's had a predictable impact on their numbers. It's in our self interest to not just preserve what we have, but to actively create more pollinator-friendly habitat. And we also need to be mindful of greening and wilding as part of the fight against climate change. Restoration and creation of salt marshes is a potentially great tool for carbon sequestration.

What would really help our housing problem in the short term is a big push for remote work and decentralising the London-based economy. Let people disperse to areas of the country where there is cheaper and unused housing.

It was estimated that there were 1,455,010 dwellings in England and Wales that were truly vacant on Census Day 2021 (1,352,130 in England and 102,875 in Wales), using census and administrative data sources. This means there were no usual residents living in these dwellings and there was no indication of these being used by short-term residents or visitors.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -dwellings

tabascoboy wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:40 am Nigel Farage says he will not stand in UK general election

A man not standing who’s failed to get elected as an MP the 7 previous times he’s tried.

My world has officially been rocked by this news

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:44 am

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:31 am

I like neeps wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:36 am I'll be voting Lib Dem as ever as I'm a Tory Lib Dem marginal. Quite depressing as my local MP Layla Moran is a huge NIMBY but hopefully Starmer stays true to his YIMBY words and makes Moran's NIMBYism howls into the void... I'm not holding my breath of course.

I'm really hoping Labout will lean into planning reform. They haven't made it a key pledge but had spoken positively about it. We really really need to get building houses, railways, nuclear power ETC the Nimbys and Nature England need to be swiped aside.

While there's definitely a bit of a NIMBY problem in this country, I get concerned by rhetoric like this. Even if one doesn't see any intrinsic value in what's left of British nature, 75% of our crops are pollinated by bees. Bees and other pollinators have seen so much of their habitat obliterated and that's had a predictable impact on their numbers. It's in our self interest to not just preserve what we have, but to actively create more pollinator-friendly habitat. And we also need to be mindful of greening and wilding as part of the fight against climate change. Restoration and creation of salt marshes is a potentially great tool for carbon sequestration.

What would really help our housing problem in the short term is a big push for remote work and decentralising the London-based economy. Let people disperse to areas of the country where there is cheaper and unused housing.

It was estimated that there were 1,455,010 dwellings in England and Wales that were truly vacant on Census Day 2021 (1,352,130 in England and 102,875 in Wales), using census and administrative data sources. This means there were no usual residents living in these dwellings and there was no indication of these being used by short-term residents or visitors.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -dwellings

Most of the country is undeveloped..it's not as if slightly increasing the very low % with housing on it will kill all the bees. Besides which measures such as paying farmers to create wildflower meadows/fallow fields is a far better way to help bees than stopping houses being built.

The problem with your suggestion is that trying to fiddle with consumption side levers simply doesn't work. Making housing abundant and cheap as an essential requirement for people t0 luve can only be fixed by increasing the supply.

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:44 am

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:31 am

I like neeps wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 10:36 am I'll be voting Lib Dem as ever as I'm a Tory Lib Dem marginal. Quite depressing as my local MP Layla Moran is a huge NIMBY but hopefully Starmer stays true to his YIMBY words and makes Moran's NIMBYism howls into the void... I'm not holding my breath of course.

I'm really hoping Labout will lean into planning reform. They haven't made it a key pledge but had spoken positively about it. We really really need to get building houses, railways, nuclear power ETC the Nimbys and Nature England need to be swiped aside.

While there's definitely a bit of a NIMBY problem in this country, I get concerned by rhetoric like this. Even if one doesn't see any intrinsic value in what's left of British nature, 75% of our crops are pollinated by bees. Bees and other pollinators have seen so much of their habitat obliterated and that's had a predictable impact on their numbers. It's in our self interest to not just preserve what we have, but to actively create more pollinator-friendly habitat. And we also need to be mindful of greening and wilding as part of the fight against climate change. Restoration and creation of salt marshes is a potentially great tool for carbon sequestration.

What would really help our housing problem in the short term is a big push for remote work and decentralising the London-based economy. Let people disperse to areas of the country where there is cheaper and unused housing.

It was estimated that there were 1,455,010 dwellings in England and Wales that were truly vacant on Census Day 2021 (1,352,130 in England and 102,875 in Wales), using census and administrative data sources. This means there were no usual residents living in these dwellings and there was no indication of these being used by short-term residents or visitors.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -dwellings

The planning system does need reform but I don't want to sweep away any protections. The thousands of pages needed for public infrastructure developments can be streamlined - it was never designed, it has just had bits added on so is now cumbersome. But I'm very much focussed on this being about large infrastructure.

There should be an absolutely penal tax on empty dwellings imo.

Caroline Lucas is stepping down so it will be interesting to see who takes the seat here. She won 57.2% of the vote last time out, with Labour in second on 22.8%, but Lucas leaves big shoes to fill. I don't like that Labour have been running attack ads on Sian Berry, the Green candidate, for weeks now.

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:02 pmThere should be an absolutely penal tax on empty dwellings imo.

100%

The planning system is fucked, we've built stuff in 7 planning authorities, all were under resourced and I wouldn't have any confidence that the officers would understand much at all of the pages and pages of reports requested.

The project we've got on will cost £250k in consultants, much of which will be stuff that no one will ever read.

I agree that we need regulation, but there's no point in regulation without the resources to monitor/enforce. The system also needs to be changed from confrontational to consensual. The number of wasted planning applications is just mental, in most European countries you have a meeting with the planners they give you an outline of your maximum development envelope and any other relevant parameters, this means that schemes presented are usually built.

Sunak visits brewery, fails to organise piss up

epwc wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:22 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:02 pmThere should be an absolutely penal tax on empty dwellings imo.

100%

The planning system is fucked, we've built stuff in 7 planning authorities, all were under resourced and I wouldn't have any confidence that the officers would understand much at all of the pages and pages of reports requested.

The project we've got on will cost £250k in consultants, much of which will be stuff that no one will ever read.

I agree that we need regulation, but there's no point in regulation without the resources to monitor/enforce. The system also needs to be changed from confrontational to consensual. The number of wasted planning applications is just mental, in most European countries you have a meeting with the planners they give you an outline of your maximum development envelope and any other relevant parameters, this means that schemes presented are usually built.

And all those pages not being scrutinised is what leads to people being able to challenge decisions in the courts and drag it out for years. Making even more money for the consultants.

Biffer wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:30 pmAnd all those pages not being scrutinised is what leads to people being able to challenge decisions in the courts and drag it out for years. Making even more money for the consultants.

True

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:56 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:44 am

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:31 am

I'm really hoping Labout will lean into planning reform. They haven't made it a key pledge but had spoken positively about it. We really really need to get building houses, railways, nuclear power ETC the Nimbys and Nature England need to be swiped aside.

While there's definitely a bit of a NIMBY problem in this country, I get concerned by rhetoric like this. Even if one doesn't see any intrinsic value in what's left of British nature, 75% of our crops are pollinated by bees. Bees and other pollinators have seen so much of their habitat obliterated and that's had a predictable impact on their numbers. It's in our self interest to not just preserve what we have, but to actively create more pollinator-friendly habitat. And we also need to be mindful of greening and wilding as part of the fight against climate change. Restoration and creation of salt marshes is a potentially great tool for carbon sequestration.

What would really help our housing problem in the short term is a big push for remote work and decentralising the London-based economy. Let people disperse to areas of the country where there is cheaper and unused housing.

It was estimated that there were 1,455,010 dwellings in England and Wales that were truly vacant on Census Day 2021 (1,352,130 in England and 102,875 in Wales), using census and administrative data sources. This means there were no usual residents living in these dwellings and there was no indication of these being used by short-term residents or visitors.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -dwellings

Most of the country is undeveloped. It's not as if slightly increasing the very low % with housing on it will kill all the bees. Besides which measures such as paying farmers to create wildflower meadows/fallow fields is a far better way to help bees than stopping houses being built.

The problem with your suggestion is that trying to fiddle with consumption side levers simply doesn't work. Making housing abundant and cheap as an essential requirement for people t0 luve can only be fixed by increasing the supply.

In the sense that it's not been built on, perhaps. But a huge amount of it is farmland and that used to be wildflower meadows, peat bogs, ancient woodland and all sorts. Building on bits that still actually have bee-friendly habitat, as opposed to the hedgerowless, treeless and wildflowerless fields so much farmland is, will have negative impacts on the surviving bee population and should be a last resort.

We don't just need more housing, we need council housing and prohibitons on purchase by those, domestic or foreign, who will not actually live in the property. We should be exhausting. There also needs to be accompanying infrastructure commitments.

We absolutely need lots and lots more housing. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:51 pmWe don't just need more housing, we need council housing and prohibitons on purchase by those, domestic or foreign, who will not actually live in the property. We should be exhausting. There also needs to be accompanying infrastructure commitments.

Agree with all of that (except "We should be exhausting")

We also need to accelerate the move to properly energy efficient homes and fast track all brownfield sites

The UK has consultancy and legal sector parasite issue. Also too many managers who don't make decisions. You can take sane regulation that by the time it has been processed by our legal sector and consultants who want to monetise it, it will be batshit mental. Lots of Colin Robinsons.

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:51 pm

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:56 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:44 am

While there's definitely a bit of a NIMBY problem in this country, I get concerned by rhetoric like this. Even if one doesn't see any intrinsic value in what's left of British nature, 75% of our crops are pollinated by bees. Bees and other pollinators have seen so much of their habitat obliterated and that's had a predictable impact on their numbers. It's in our self interest to not just preserve what we have, but to actively create more pollinator-friendly habitat. And we also need to be mindful of greening and wilding as part of the fight against climate change. Restoration and creation of salt marshes is a potentially great tool for carbon sequestration.

What would really help our housing problem in the short term is a big push for remote work and decentralising the London-based economy. Let people disperse to areas of the country where there is cheaper and unused housing.



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -dwellings

Most of the country is undeveloped. It's not as if slightly increasing the very low % with housing on it will kill all the bees. Besides which measures such as paying farmers to create wildflower meadows/fallow fields is a far better way to help bees than stopping houses being built.

The problem with your suggestion is that trying to fiddle with consumption side levers simply doesn't work. Making housing abundant and cheap as an essential requirement for people t0 luve can only be fixed by increasing the supply.

In the sense that it's not been built on, perhaps. But a huge amount of it is farmland and that used to be wildflower meadows, peat bogs, ancient woodland and all sorts. Building on bits that still actually have bee-friendly habitat, as opposed to the hedgerowless, treeless and wildflowerless fields so much farmland is, will have negative impacts on the surviving bee population and should be a last resort.

We don't just need more housing, we need council housing and prohibitons on purchase by those, domestic or foreign, who will not actually live in the property. We should be exhausting. There also needs to be accompanying infrastructure commitments.

This is what it will always come back to and what doesn't seem to have much thought put into it. It's all very well building homes, but what about the schools, hospitals, shops, sewage, grid etc. "we have loads of space" - so what, if we don't put in the infrastructure it should be kept as space

epwc wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:57 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:51 pmWe don't just need more housing, we need council housing and prohibitons on purchase by those, domestic or foreign, who will not actually live in the property. We should be exhausting. There also needs to be accompanying infrastructure commitments.

Agree with all of that (except "We should be exhausting")

We also need to accelerate the move to properly energy efficient homes and fast track all brownfield sites

Think I lost my train of thought there...

Do carparks count as brownfield? You occasionally see outrage bait articles about locals not wanting car parks built over and people castigate them as Nimby's when what they really want is to still be able to park somewhere near whatever shops are in town. It does strike me that lack of access to town centres, particularly when population increases and creates more competition for what little parking exists, is a contributory factor to killing them off and rather than scrap the carparks for (likely 'luxury') flats, build the carparks upwards to increase capacity. On a related note they sort of half-arsedly did that at Haslemere station in the not too distant past. Built a brand new car park on top of the old one, but they stopped at one additional story. Given the use that station gets and its proximity to the town (plus constant proposals to try and build over the super market car park that provides most of the high street capacity) that building it up by another 3 or 4 stories would make huge sense.

petej wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:07 pm The UK has consultancy and legal sector parasite issue.

Absolutely

If we make London significantly denser and sacrifice some land within the M25, we can protect just about everything else!

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:25 pm If we make London significantly denser and sacrifice some land within the M25, we can protect just about everything else!

Londoners are already quite dense

I kid I kid

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:25 pm If we make London significantly denser and sacrifice some land within the M25, we can protect just about everything else!

Politicians in the outer boroughs don't understand that trying to reduce density on a development will generally mean encroachment on the Green Belt

So many places where the argument is about height when really it makes no difference to the neighbourhood whether a development is 18 stories or 21 high.

Slick wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:22 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:51 pm

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 11:56 am

Most of the country is undeveloped. It's not as if slightly increasing the very low % with housing on it will kill all the bees. Besides which measures such as paying farmers to create wildflower meadows/fallow fields is a far better way to help bees than stopping houses being built.

The problem with your suggestion is that trying to fiddle with consumption side levers simply doesn't work. Making housing abundant and cheap as an essential requirement for people t0 luve can only be fixed by increasing the supply.

In the sense that it's not been built on, perhaps. But a huge amount of it is farmland and that used to be wildflower meadows, peat bogs, ancient woodland and all sorts. Building on bits that still actually have bee-friendly habitat, as opposed to the hedgerowless, treeless and wildflowerless fields so much farmland is, will have negative impacts on the surviving bee population and should be a last resort.

We don't just need more housing, we need council housing and prohibitons on purchase by those, domestic or foreign, who will not actually live in the property. We should be exhausting. There also needs to be accompanying infrastructure commitments.

This is what it will always come back to and what doesn't seem to have much thought put into it. It's all very well building homes, but what about the schools, hospitals, shops, sewage, grid etc. "we have loads of space" - so what, if we don't put in the infrastructure it should be kept as space

That'd be quite easily done by enforcing capital contributions towards infrastructure rated on the scale of development in legislation. And a binding requirement on the providers to use that capital to increase capacity.

There's a budget crisis for the next Government. What's more important:

More planning officers to judge on new house builds or more immigration officers to deal with the backlog of asylum seekers?

epwc wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:30 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:25 pm If we make London significantly denser and sacrifice some land within the M25, we can protect just about everything else!

Politicians in the outer boroughs don't understand that trying to reduce density on a development will generally mean encroachment on the Green Belt

So many places where the argument is about height when really it makes no difference to the neighbourhood whether a development is 18 stories or 21 high.

Yep. Round me people kick off about tower blocks being built in central Watford. Building hundreds of units in the centre of Watford is good for maintaining my town as it is, and they still oppose it!

To my mind though, if you shortened the planning process and narrowed the grounds for appeal a lot of these complaints would turn into ‘ah well, can’t be helped’ very quickly, and everyone would get on with their lives. I don’t think NIMBYs are the towering political force they are believed to be

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 2:25 pmYep. Round me people kick off about tower blocks being built in central Watford. Building hundreds of units in the centre of Watford is good for maintaining my town as it is, and they still oppose it!

To my mind though, if you shortened the planning process and narrowed the grounds for appeal a lot of these complaints would turn into ‘ah well, can’t be helped’ very quickly, and everyone would get on with their lives. I don’t think NIMBYs are the towering political force they are believed to be

We're involved with stuff in Romford so I know whats been going on there, there's a council led scheme adjacent to a railway bridge that has its tallest elements pegged at 12, 14 and 18 stories. This is ll due to councillors concerns about height, the height will affect no one in this location. The development is 3 mins walk from the train station, all the local bus routes and the shopping centre, the ideal location for a super high density scheme.

Watford like most town centres needs life brought back in, so yeah totally agree, high density where the infrastructure already exists

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:54 pm We absolutely need lots and lots more housing. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

Wr need more social housing, proper social housing and not just stuff that gets gobbled up by buy to let, institutional investors and money launderers.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 2:25 pm

epwc wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:30 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 1:25 pm If we make London significantly denser and sacrifice some land within the M25, we can protect just about everything else!

Politicians in the outer boroughs don't understand that trying to reduce density on a development will generally mean encroachment on the Green Belt

So many places where the argument is about height when really it makes no difference to the neighbourhood whether a development is 18 stories or 21 high.

Yep. Round me people kick off about tower blocks being built in central Watford. Building hundreds of units in the centre of Watford is good for maintaining my town as it is, and they still oppose it!

To my mind though, if you shortened the planning process and narrowed the grounds for appeal a lot of these complaints would turn into ‘ah well, can’t be helped’ very quickly, and everyone would get on with their lives. I don’t think NIMBYs are the towering political force they are believed to be

John Burn-Murdoch is great on this for the FT. Talks a lot about it. Argues that the housing crisis is primarily caused by a broken planning system. Also the scope for densification of cities

At a time when homelessness and people in temporary accommodation is exploding in this country, it really can't be ignored for much longer. This is one recent thread that starts comparing SF and Houston, but arrives back in London.

https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1760995132034130335

Hal Jordan wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 2:42 pm

tc27 wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 12:54 pm We absolutely need lots and lots more housing. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise.

Wr need more social housing, proper social housing and not just stuff that gets gobbled up by buy to let, institutional investors and money launderers.

Will this government be brave enough to do that?

'kipper watch;

They're running an opinion piece headlined, "There are just 1000 hours to save Britain - socialist Labour agenda blah blah"

Well the last 120 odd thousand hours haven't worked out too well, so it's time you lot fucked off.