Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Going for growth

5 replies

Tryingtokeepgoing · 08/07/2024 16:28

Growth, rightly, is a key plank of Labour's plans to generate more money to spend. Today Rachel Reeves has pledged to “deliver growth” in her, with plans to restore mandatory local housebuilding targets and relax planning restrictions on “ugly” parts of the green belt.

Am I alone in wondering how this is actually going to deliver any growth for years?

Firstly, the level of opposition to building on greenfield sites (helpfully redefined as only the grey and ugly bit now) means that it will take for ever to get plans approved. Even changing the law won't really help, as local MPs get dragged into opposing every plan, and the inevitable cries of 'undemocratic' as the views of local people are ignored.

There's plenty of housebuilding taking place at the moment, on land that is increased massively in value because of the planning permission granted by the State. In turn farmers and landowners sell this land for housing and make extra-ordinary profits (agricultural land carries a huge number of exemptions from CGT and IHT). Likewise housebuilders benefit too when/if they buy land without planning and hold it for years.

How about taxing the value that exceeds pure agricultural value heavily, and investing those tax receipts in proper social housing, or in public infrastructure? In the south, land with planning can easily be worth £1m+ an acre, but is worth, at best, £25k an acre as arable land. Stick a windfall tax on this, and return allow them to keep agricultural property relief for genuine cases of farms being passed from generation to generation of working farmers - not institutional investor farmers like Dyson.

Secondly, building stuff takes people with skills. And and as anyone knows if they've been involved in construction on an industrial, commercial or residential level, thanks in part to brexit, in part to COVID and in part 30 years of prioritising university education over technical skills, there's a shortage of pretty much every trade needed to build stuff. So why not just let more people in with the right skills, to work, pay tax, spend money and grow the economy? Rather than this mealy mouthed ' oh cancel Rwanda, we will process everyone and send them back to the country they came from' anti immigration rhetoric. We need people to work, and we have no idea where most illegal immigrants have come from anyway as they've destroyed their papers.

And as a side note, how can one take the position that local mayors should be given more power to determine what happens in their cities, while at the same time take power away from those in more suburban/rural areas to control what happens in their areas?

OP posts:
Magiciangirl · 08/07/2024 19:06

They are, as Starmer has said just going to "bulldoze" through planning law. They can do what they want now they are in. It is massively concerning. The backlash begins...

hattie43 · 08/07/2024 19:22

I definitely think we need more housing but it'll take longer than the term they'll be in government.
They need an army of new planning consultants in the councils , I don't know how long that'll take to recruit train etc
They'll need an army of trades / construction people of which we don't currently have
They'll have the nimby battles
We don't have the money for vast building projects
4 or 5 areas were mentioned today for proceeding with but that was a total of 14,000 houses , a drop in the ocean to the 1.5m needed ( and that figure will escalate as time goes on )

I think somehow they should get manufacturing/ industrial plant going , to be less reliant on Chinese and foreign crap and build towns / new city around them .

I think tinkering around the edges will not deliver the housing volume needed and the need is getting higher all the time .

LivelyBlake · 08/07/2024 20:51

I'm very happy that the new government has a growth agenda, and that they want to build houses and are not afraid of liberalising the planning regs. It all sounds very Tory in a way, but I don't mind that. The economy needs an impetus.

I just hope they don't give in to the Nimbys or the environmentalists.

Magiciangirl · 09/07/2024 08:50

Likely to be bad news all round. I think the country will massively regret letting them in. Roll on the next general election!

Tryingtokeepgoing · 09/07/2024 17:09

LivelyBlake · 08/07/2024 20:51

I'm very happy that the new government has a growth agenda, and that they want to build houses and are not afraid of liberalising the planning regs. It all sounds very Tory in a way, but I don't mind that. The economy needs an impetus.

I just hope they don't give in to the Nimbys or the environmentalists.

I agree a growth agenda is a good thing. But I don't see how more building will delver than, when there's already a shortage of labour in the sector. Surely it'll just drive up salaries and inflation?

I also don't know how they can overrule the nimbys and environmentalists, but then also say to the various mayors that they should have more say in what happens in their cities. It's just not joined up.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page