Rachel Reeves makes first speech as UK chancellor

[HebburnPokemon]

She sounds majorly pissed off

Watching it now on YouTube. She sounds enthusiastic to me. I have doubts about some of the initiatives - depends how they are implemented - but I don't get why you think the Chancellor doesn't appear keen on her own policies.

Why do you think she sounds pissed off? I didn't get that impression at all?

I’m no Labour supporter but she doesn’t sound remotely pissed off to me either

I did get an angry vibe from her. Angry at what hadn't been done. Angry that the tories wasted opportunities. I think she's eager to get things turned around enthusiastic about the role ahead though.

I think you’re projecting there.

I think she has a slightly abrasive communication style. Is that what you mean?
but in terms of what she wants to do, I don’t have any complaints

Probably, I'll admit I'm pretty pissed off with the way the tories destroyed the country so it wouldn't surprise me if Rachel Reeves is

Well yes but saying she’s angry and then pretending you can tell what she’s angry about, like you’re telepathic is a little odd.

I briefly heard something about vowing to loosen up green belt rules so I assume that means they are going to let developers build indiscriminately across vast swathes of green belt land and there will be nothing local people or Councils will be able to do about it. There is a beautiful field behind my house which is a well known walking and cycling route for locals with beautiful views. I expect this will be dug up and turned into housing now. It’s one of the reasons I didn’t vote for them because I knew they would do this. Funny how they didn’t mention it before the election. I’m sure the developers had pound signs in their eyes when that announcement was made. Once it’s gone it’s gone.

Sorting out planning was front and centre in the manifesto. And much needed too.

I briefly heard something about vowing to loosen up green belt rules so I assume that means they are going to let developers build indiscriminately across vast swathes of green belt land and there will be nothing local people or Councils will be able to do about it.

What she said was that it will still be up to local authorities and local people to decide where housing should be built but that the answer cannot always be no. There will be mandatory building targets so that local people can decide where housing is built - but it has to be built.

If your local authority and everyone locally decides that field is so important it should not be built on, that sounds possible - based on what was said this morning.

I don’t get why folks think this is something new, we’ve been building on greenfield for ages, it’s just reclassified from green to brown. Yes some red tape, but homes England basically build where they wish when they wish, it’s not onerous for them. Labour are just making it more of a free for all.

Green belt was defined today as green areas in between conurbations to stop them spreading.

It isn’t about lands used for recreation or activities. So not about beautiful views, but edges of towns and cities.

Yep I agree. There is Greenland at the back of me that’s had developers after it for ages but it’s full of kestrels and gets knocked back.

If developers get a hold of it it it won’t be for social housing - they will be going from £300,000 - £500,000 like the last one were

I'm just wondering where Labour and all the Mumsnetters who slag off the construction companies think all the tradies are coming from to build these houses?

Because there is a massive labour shortage which for some reason isn't being filled by all the young people that can't get jobs.

Channel 4 News just now was talking about their plans for developing “grey sites” - never heard this before but it sounds similar to brownfield sites?

Our local council rejected a local development plan on the basis that it was an unsuitable location (a field, cutting through narrow roads to get there) and they're 5 years ahead of where they need to be house building wise. No problem, the developer just went to central gov and got it approved. No obligation to do anything to improve road access, support the 1 local GP practice, or provide any housing affordable for first time buyers. As far as I can see developers have always had central government in their back pocket.

We clearly need more housing stock but we also need infrastructure with that. There are great big suburban developments that could do with a small clinic, or small supermarket or community centre etc.

We need lots of great crested newts to save the greenbelt... Unless they're not going to stop for anything.

We don't need more housing, we need less people. France has less than half the population per square kilometre than the UK for instance.
Also second home and Airbnbs need to be stomped on. Villages around us are around 80% second homes etc. Why not free some of them up?

How do you propose getting rid of half the population within a 5 year government term? Assisted dying?

Our local council rejected a local development plan on the basis that it was an unsuitable location (a field, cutting through narrow roads to get there) and they're 5 years ahead of where they need to be house building wise. No problem, the developer just went to central gov and got it approved. No obligation to do anything to improve road access, support the 1 local GP practice, or provide any housing affordable for first time buyers. As far as I can see developers have always had central government in their back pocket.

As @CurbsideProphet described, this is what happened near here.
A really controversial development of a disused golf course - a real oasis of green in our city, with loads of mature trees and wildlife was rejected by the Council and the developers got that overturned by Central Government.

800 new homes and it was supposed to include a new school. That new school has now gone by the wayside.
No new services (dentists, Doctors, shops, etc) but the mature trees have gone, the open greenery gone, and the developers are quids in.