[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[clapham_gull]

Sir Keir Starmer has accused those calling for a new inquiry into grooming gangs of jumping on a “far-Right bandwagon”.

No he didn't. He was attacking other politicians / commentators for jumping on a bandwagon for their own political purposes.

When he talked about the far right he was talking threats of voilence to a serving MP

You've clearly never seen it and are simply repeating what you've read. Disingenuously stitching together two different parts of the speech to give it a different meaning.

 

[Rdodge30]

No he didn't. He was attacking other politicians / commentators for jumping on a bandwagon for their own political purposes

I stand corrected

 

[pb21]

Either way he really needs some help with PR because virtually everything he has said has apparently been misconstrued, starting with working people of all things

Funny that.

 

[borat]

I wonder if the Caplin "situation" will make Labour reconsider the hiring of Peter Mandelson

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That’s not what I said. As a matter of interest our village has had around 80 new houses built in the past decade or so - which is an increase of around 20%. Most of those properties are in entirely logical places, and - obviously - in accordance with planning regulations. However, often it makes zero sense to build 3 and 4 bedroom homes on green field sites in locations with virtually zero public transport or other infrastructure. It generally makes far more sense to build in or near towns and cities which have appropriate services, and which can provide decent employment opportunities. If that’s difficult to understand, then I apologise.

Exactly the same here. What we object to is people trying to take the piss out of the lacal plan.

 

[Since1982]

I probably qualify as one of those retired folk, "sitting pretty" (albeit I spend at least 40 hours a week on voluntary stuff, so I don't have huge amounts of spare time). For my sins, I'm a Parish Councillor in our village, and have had to teach myself a lot about planning law over the past 5 years, simply because our village is at risk of being swamped by new housing. As a Parish Council we have opposed three major housing developments in recent years. We're not the decision-maker at the end of the day (in our case, it's Somerset Council). But what we say DOES have some relevance, provided it makes sense from a planning law perspective. No matter how "switched on" we might be, at the end of the day any decision taken by the planning authority will be taken on the basis of the law. And in reality Parish Councils (and even large unitary authorities) simply don't have the resources to spend on fancy lawyers, unlike housing developers. In our village, all our work to oppose housing developments is undertaken by unpaid parish councillors who are definitely NOT planning experts. A few years ago I spoke at an appeal where the developer was trying to build 29 houses in the grounds of a Grade 2* listed building, abutting the conservation area, opposite our village school. It was a ridiculously inappropriate place for new houses. They had a team of planning experts (including a barrister) to present their case. For the local community, it was just me! An unpaid volunteer whose only "expertise" was the result of many hours of reading about planning law. And this is happening everywhere! So called nimby-ism is generally just an effort to uphold the law, and prevent complete housing anarchy in the countryside, with zero resources (compared to large developers with very deep pockets). In the case I just referred to, the developrs appeal was defeated - simply because their proposals were not in accordance with planning law.

To be clear, I don't oppose more house-building....but it has to be in the right place. And cities or large towns are generally the best place. They have the infrastructure (we don't even have a decent bus service in our village, let alone access to trains. The GP surgery is at breaking point. The roads are already clogged with traffic).

So - if we want more houses, first of all change the law! Don't blame this so-called cottage industry of retired people. End of rant!!

I struggle with this. In Sussex, towns like Burgess Hill, Horsham, Billingshurst etc have taken massive amounts of new housing. Why should a village be exempt from this pressure - it smacks of this is a nice place to live and I don't want anyone else coming here because that makes it less nice. Towns don't necessarily have the infrastructure - we all need to take a fair share.

 

[pb21]

I wonder if the Caplin "situation" will make Labour reconsider the hiring of Peter Mandelson

I see that Musk's misfits are now all over this Caplin 'situation' claiming this as PROOF for the real why Starmer didn't want a national inquiry into Pakistani grooming/rape gangs...

 

[Jim in the West]

I struggle with this. In Sussex, towns like Burgess Hill, Horsham, Billingshurst etc have taken massive amounts of new housing. Why should a village be exempt from this pressure - it smacks of this is a nice place to live and I don't want anyone else coming here because that makes it less nice. Towns don't necessarily have the infrastructure - we all need to take a fair share.

I agree the share should be “fair”…just a question of defining “fair”. I lived in Burgess Hill for five years, and go back every now and then. It’s got a fantastic train service, loads of shops, schools, churches, local employment opportunities, decent medical facilities…the list goes on. It’s a great place to build houses because it has pretty much everything you need. It’s not logical (or fair) to build loads of houses in places that have none of those. And unfortunately house builders don’t seem interested in stumping up the cash to build the infrastructure that the new home owners will actually need!

 

[Bodian]

I agree the share should be “fair”…just a question of defining “fair”. I lived in Burgess Hill for five years, and go back every now and then. It’s got a fantastic train service, loads of shops, schools, churches, local employment opportunities, decent medical facilities…the list goes on. It’s a great place to build houses because it has pretty much everything you need. It’s not logical (or fair) to build loads of houses in places that have none of those. And unfortunately house builders don’t seem interested in stumping up the cash to build the infrastructure that the new home owners will actually need!

Our town is around 4,500 population. The Neighbourhood Plan of 15-20 years ago drawn up by the District Council identified that as all the traffic has to pass along one street, with narrow pavements - the pedestrian experience was deteriorating rapidly and the town was in danger of becoming car dominated, and unsafe for pedestrians.

They then went ahead and have approved numerous developments since then - the current one being built will be for 200+ houses (so, a likely 10% minimum increase in population). The developments that took place within the town boundary on old sites were largely welcomed. These 200+ are not - they are too far out of town for people to walk into the shops (and too steep to carry your shopping back again anyway), the road is awful for cycling, there is a circular trip bus twice a day, on some days. So, everyone in those 200+ houses will have to drive to go shopping, get to the station, or get to the main bus stop - as these are all the other end of the town. And once in their cars, they'll probably go to the supermarkets 10-15 miles away. And for work as well - as there won't suddenly be extra jobs here.

The developers are not being forced to put in cycle lanes (they couldn't anyway, the road is too narrow), improve pavements, pay for buses - or anything like that. I understand they are making a contribution towards improving the childrens' playground which is that side of town. That's it.

The highway authority have said that the one street through town can physically cope with the traffic.

It's barmy that the council can basically draw up a plan saying that any more traffic on that road is going to seriously affect the health of the town and it's residents - and then also give permission for 200+ houses which will increase traffic by 10-20% on that road and do just that. It's the complete lack of joined up thinking and actual 'planning' that is the main problem.

 

[Since1982]

I agree the share should be “fair”…just a question of defining “fair”. I lived in Burgess Hill for five years, and go back every now and then. It’s got a fantastic train service, loads of shops, schools, churches, local employment opportunities, decent medical facilities…the list goes on. It’s a great place to build houses because it has pretty much everything you need. It’s not logical (or fair) to build loads of houses in places that have none of those. And unfortunately house builders don’t seem interested in stumping up the cash to build the infrastructure that the new home owners will actually need!

Medical facilities, shops, schools are all massively underpowered for the development that has and is happening. Have you seen what the last District Council and New River Retail have done to the town centre? Trains are fine but not if you have to drive to the station because the new homes are so far out - it creates more traffic, more congestion. Try driving around Worlds End / Wivelsfield Station at peak hours. Towns like BH have been shafted with huge numbers of new houses - time for other places to take a share whether local residents like it or not.

 

[London Irish]

I see that Musk's misfits are now all over this Caplin 'situation' claiming this as PROOF for the real why Starmer didn't want a national inquiry into Pakistani grooming/rape gangs...

The Labour right are an absolute shitshow - imagine giving the fascists a story like this right at this very moment. Just freak show stuff

 

[dsr-burnley]

I agree the share should be “fair”…just a question of defining “fair”. I lived in Burgess Hill for five years, and go back every now and then. It’s got a fantastic train service, loads of shops, schools, churches, local employment opportunities, decent medical facilities…the list goes on. It’s a great place to build houses because it has pretty much everything you need. It’s not logical (or fair) to build loads of houses in places that have none of those. And unfortunately house builders don’t seem interested in stumping up the cash to build the infrastructure that the new home owners will actually need!

If Burgess Hill has everything you need, and the place you live now has nothing that you need, why did you move?