Angela Rayner set up to fail

I haven’t met her, but I know a few people who have. They all say she is very charismatic, funny, likeable etc. And you have to admire anyone who has got to where she is from her background. That doesn’t mean she is up to succeeding in such a big, complex job in which massive structural change is needed, though.

Wow, that was quick!

I’ve met her in real life a few times and she’s fab. Really like her. Wish she was the leader.

Very pleased to see MNHQ zapped that vile post.

Highly unlikely given that the people advising her are career civil servants. I suspect the person you know is unused to government push back when he tries to blind them with science.

The housing targets in our area are frightening. So many houses needed in such a short space of time that it is going to cause massive problems.

I’m hoping she does fail. Not just AR but anyone in charge of those bonkers targets.

I don't think shes been set up to fail. I think she either not listening properly or doesnt understand the issues. I kmow someone who is a director of a large buikding firm and has regular meetings with her and her people. He says she and they don't listen to what they are telling them about how impossible their targets are. I can well believe this.

He feels that she surrounds herself with people that have come up with her through the unions and that their collective lack of experience in commercial companies/private sector is a massive problem. He tells me it's like both sides are talking in a different language.

A close fmaily member works for a union and I can also see this. It is a different, slightky cult-like, environment to a commercial building company with shareholders (has own issues with ethics, im sure, but clearly understand targets).

I have no idea about her as a person and I think the fact that she is a woman is not really relevant, much as I would like to support her on this basis. I think its about ideological capture and the power that unions have in politics.

That’s because so many ungrateful adult brats treat their parents like total shit nowadays and dress it up as ‘boundaries’.

Yep. I don't think he ever apologised for his language, unlike Rayner. But people seem to forget she did so and bring up what she said every single time her name is mentioned.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59081482.amp

I can't discuss housing when we are seeing immigration in such a volume that it's often referred to the size of Leeds coming here through nefarious channels.

Then landlords being asked to house them and give special rates and agreements to do so.

I cannot see how we can ever get on top if this whilst allowing this to happen. Where I live in a town we have seen extraordinary rates of building and flats going up.
I don't mind that except for the fact they're ugly. However what I do mind is why then is near by green belt constantly under threat and I believe we have lost a chunk to housing?
It doesn't make sense to me. But then neither does anything labour is doing at the moment make sense except for perhaps castrating sex offenders.

He referred to the Tories as 'lower than vermin'.

Whilst I don't think it will be achieved, I don't see it as being set up to fail.

My own view is that we need to look at housing being brought into full time use or built.

• Ending AirbNB and similar short term lets,
• Repurposing vacant commercial property (think ground floor with flats above),
• Tackling the money laundering use of shops such as Turkish barbers and making those properties homes, and
• Vastly reducing second homes,

That's even before you deal with land banking and other restrictive practices, or making house sale and purchase less of a spivs charter.

It never did make any sense is the point I made.

Regardless of what Cameron did or didn’t do, you can hardly say that taking it away from the family in the example I gave above and allowing the other family to keep it makes any sense.

Er yes!

Rayner isn’t ‘set up to fail’ in that she is the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing. She is the person in charge of housing & planning policy in the U.K. If structural planning reform and major changes to the law are required, it’s her responsibility to lead that change and drive it through the system. That’s what successful CEOs do in the private sector and it’s what successful SoS’s do in government, eg Gordon Brown at the Treasury & Michael Gove at Education.

She may be ‘set up to fail’ in terms of her lack of the necessary experience, credibility & qualifications to take on such a senior role in which transformational structural change is required in a highly complex area of public policy. In simple terms, she may be hopelessly out of her depth in that job, as so many senior politicians are. Most obviously Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. We’ll see, but I know where my money would be.

She’s a tough woman I can’t see her agreeing to something impossible . She won’t hit targets but even a layman in the street could have seen that . All the ideals and no idea springs to mind .

it will mean that a household where one parent earns £50k and the other is on £20k wouldn’t get child benefit anymore, but a household where both parents are in £49k would. Where is the logic in that?

You mean like it was when the Cameron government first brought in means testing?

Well I think she’s got something that a lot of current leaders don’t have; a degree of charisma and a fighting spirit. If she even achieves half of her targets it will be a major achievement and more than any other politician in her position has done.

Labour won’t win an election by being technocrats. Reform should be worried by her. Rayner kicks them about in Parliament pretty easily. Politics is not all about what universities people go to; it’s a campaign

I can understand them being scared of Reform but not Rayner.

I think it’s only a matter of time before she replaces Starmer as PM. It was in the news last week that she wants to scrap child benefit for ‘middle class’ families. But according to her that means where the highest earner is bringing in at least £50k per annum. So by that justification it will mean that a household where one parent earns £50k and the other is on £20k wouldn’t get child benefit anymore, but a household where both parents are in £49k would. Where is the logic in that?

I hope she does become PM because then it will mean the government becomes even more unpopular with the electorate and are destined to lose the next general election.

I think the Tories are a bit scared of Rayner. Reform too. Hence the vile abuse thrown at her.

@myplace and @Acommonreader was not my area of research but did touch on housing and the rise of single households is huge. In the 1970’s 10% of households had a single adult as head of household, now it’s around 33%. It’s a societal change. I see it in my own row of houses. At one point 4 of the 8 had a single person in, it has changed but it is still 3 of 8 in 3 bed houses with much bigger than average gardens. The independence of women and people living much longer are the main reasons so in theory it should be celebrated but in practice it’s a housing disaster. I have three friends divorcing currently all in their fifties all used to big houses. There is no way they are not buying as big a property as they can afford when they get their settlements.

Me too. I’m very much hoping she’ll be Labour’s first female leader. She’s an incredibly impressive woman.