Angela Rayner set up to fail

One possibility, rather than forcing builders to build, is to put high taxes on land intended for building that is sitting unused.

Better still - both.

One possibility, rather than forcing builders to build, is to put high taxes on land intended for building that is sitting unused.

However I am concerned about the fact that they seem keen to build on sensitive ecosystems that really should be under conservation measures.

This is very similar to what Matt Goodwin described about his group giving a presentation to Labour MPs and workers before - I think it was the election with Boris as leader? It was a presentation about attitudes of voters. He said the Labour people seemed to be not one bit interested, and were very focused on their own ideological ideas. As opposed to the Conservatives who asked a lot of questions about the data.

I wouldn't be surprised if Raynor was one of the people he presented to, so maybe a continuation of that approach. It's easy for politicians to make that mistake i think, because they tend to be focused on partisan thinking, but it can be a very costly error.

Lots of councils have huge reserves that they can’t currently spend on housing as they’re restricted reserves. The government could change the laws so that such reserves could be repurposed. At the moment, lots of councils are investing such funds to bring in revenue from interest and dividends as well as commercial property rental income. There is some money, it just needs laws changed to release it.

Aye, the old glass cliff.

Same for Rachel Reeves.

Corbyn had Starmer in his shadow cabinet. He’s a red Tory.

What do you mean here? That the Labour leader will go after all

I think part of this is probably related to her leaked tax plans to Reeves in the Telegraph. This woman does not strike me as stupid at all, whatever some might say. In fact she seems to be operating rather well

Funded how? I agree we need social housing and a large programme of social housing construction but CPO and actually building the houses costs money. I am all for it, the number of people in entirely unsuitable temporary accommodation is horrendous, but I’d like to see how she actually plans to fund it.

All of that is a bit moot if you do not intend to sell. If you are building social housing for rent only, or intend to, this is a sensible start. Rayner presumably sees a much lesser need to support the profit motive because she’s a left winger. So to her, if she does get power or gives it to a local council to obtain land, with a power to fine, this would probably mean the start of a structural change on social housing where the land, design and building is dominated by the state. As it once was…

I definitely am.

They can’t “make” developers build thousands of houses though. No developer will build houses that won’t sell. I also can’t see how they can legally compulsory purchase the land bank of a private company. Even if they did, what would they do with it?
They can increase the s106 contribution required, so more infrastructure is built to support any new estates but that increase will simply be passed on to buyers, so housing becomes even more unaffordable. We need more affordable housing.

Hopefully they’ll be gone before the plans ever get off the ground.

So the government are going to make developers build thousands of houses , while forget about the infrastructure so hundreds more people on the books at the doctors, more kids squished into classes without any extra teachers etc

and not withstanding ruin what make Britain beautiful the countryside and wildlife

@LakieLady

Have you got a source for unemployment being at all-time high, please?

She included "underemployment"!

Statistics seem to show that we have historically high numbers of people not currently working (unemployed, early retirees, etc) as well as unemployed and disabled, etc.

It's not just those claiming unemployment benefits, more people than ever aren't working or are working relatively small numbers of hours.

@HoskinsChoice

I'm astounded that Starmer appointed her, she's an embarrassment to the party.

He had no choice. Starmer had to appoint who the Labour paymasters wanted to deputy PM. Just like Blair appointed Prescott, who was likewise woefully incapable of such high office.

Oh well if you've met her then you're obviously 100% to be listened to 🙄

So how do you account for the vile misogyny there is towards from right wing voices Rachel Reeves @HoskinsChoice ?

What a shame your post was deleted before I had a chance to read it. Bit of a waste, really. I’m sure was incredibly informative!
Leftys does not need an apostrophe-and the usual spelling is Lefties, BTW.

The only time we have ever managed to build that number of houses in the UK was 1934-36. We did a very impressive 300k a year and 2m overall for the whole of the 1930s.

We’ve not managed it since. There isn’t enough builders, and IIRC we can’t even make enough bricks for that many houses. Quite why they thought they’d announce such an ambitious target I don’t know? Probably sounded like a good bit of PR. So frankly they’ve bought it on themselves.

@MNHQ I think you should actually look up what a "common thick-knee" is, before rushing to delete my posts from overly sensitive lefty's who name themselves after them😂

She shares some of her left wing opinions with Corbyn. However the critical difference is that she’s in power which he never managed and is likely to do something which Corbyn never managed either.

Absolutely is like Corbyn. He had her in his cabinet, and everyone knows he would ignore/cut out anyone who didn’t agree with his own policies. I would say she is very much to the left, and is nowhere near as vocal about her opinions as she used to be. Very much muted since Labour came into power.

especially when unemployment and underemployment are at an all time high and the benefits bill is exploding

The unemployment rate from 2010 to early 2017 was higher than it is now @hartfelt Much, much higher in some years.

(Sorry Lakielady, quoted the wrong post!)