Is Keir really credible?

[nicko31]

He has to seize this moment.
Labour will never get another chance to get a decent majority.

And push through PR and you never know we might actually get closer to a representative democracy

 

[Eeyore]

what?? its base racism to say certain groups behave, look, sound a certain way. i cant see what discourse can arise, certainly nothing productive. others saying this would be asked to resign.

David Lammy's response BBC- David Lammy described the remarks as "unfortunate" adding: "I wouldn't have made them myself."

He recognises the undercurrent of her words is an attack on the establishment. Her belief is that a black person would not, by cultural learnings, go to such a place. This is incorrect.

Racism is the belief that colour and cultural traits render someone inferior. She doesn't suggest, and probably doesn't believe that, where black people are concerned. But what she does do is suggest that his culture should not lend him to joining the establishment in that way. She is not suggesting he is inferior. I think her issue is with Eton.

It tires me that the word racism is a weapon now- because it is still a serious issue. My first step with her is to clarify what she means. I would afford her that because I do not believe it is a racist attack. I believe that the issue of cultural expectations, without and within, is something that is not discussed enough, and is one of the reasons society can be so polarised.

 

[Weststander]

i swear i heard Starmer say speculators get in the way of communities building . dont want to admit to the nimby problem because they are a vocal group of voters both parties chase.

Do you work in the sector at all? I can confirm Labour and Green councillors doing everything under the sun to stop developers, including on brown field sites for 2 or 3 storey homes. Including against a social housing provider!!!!!!

The reason, local votes. 100 votes from whinging neighbours is nectar. Future homeowners who might move into the ward, yields them no benefit now.

Immoral I think.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Do you work in the sector at all? I can confirm Labour and Green councillors doing everything under the sun to stop developers, including on brown field sites for 2 or 3 storey homes. Including against a social housing provider!!!!!!

The reason, local votes. 100 votes from whinging neighbours is nectar. Future homeowners who might move into the ward, yields them no benefit now.

Immoral I think.

Are you referring to councillors representing the ward in which the development is happening, or Planning Committee councillors?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

David Lammy's response BBC- David Lammy described the remarks as "unfortunate" adding: "I wouldn't have made them myself."

He recognises the undercurrent of her words is an attack on the establishment. Her belief is that a black person would not, by cultural learnings, go to such a place. This is incorrect.

Racism is the belief that colour and cultural traits render someone inferior. She doesn't suggest, and probably doesn't believe that, where black people are concerned. But what she does do is suggest that his culture should not lend him to joining the establishment in that way. She is not suggesting he is inferior. I think her issue is with Eton.

It tires me that the word racism is a weapon now- because it is still a serious issue. My first step with her is to clarify what she means. I would afford her that because I do not believe it is a racist attack. I believe that the issue of cultural expectations, without and within, is something that is not discussed enough, and is one of the reasons society can be so polarised.

I understood it as an attack on a black man who has had an expensive education and acquired an accent to match, who therefore doesn't appear to count as being "black" however she defines that.

Regardless of the actual meaning, it is a crass and stupid remark.

 

[beorhthelm]

...

It tires me that the word racism is a weapon now- because it is still a serious issue. My first step with her is to clarify what she means. I would afford her that because I do not believe it is a racist attack. I believe that the issue of cultural expectations, without and within, is something that is not discussed enough, and is one of the reasons society can be so polarised.

i know and why i editted. though you've not made a good case with "issue of cultral expectations"... wtf is that suppose to mean? black kids shouldnt go to good schools, go into banking, become Chancellor? yes its polarising, because people maintain such prejudice.

 

[Weststander]

Are you referring to councillors representing the ward in which the development is happening, or Planning Committee councillors?

Firstly, councillors representing the ward and all nearby wards, I directly know with full knowledge of examples in Hove, east Brighton and Lewes. I'm not going to give the details here. Councillors of every party scrambling over each other to oppose with photoshots, lying about eco damage.

Then later at the Planning Committee. Televised, it made amusing viewing, the professional planning officer gently correcting the head nimby councillor on glaring nonsense arguments.

You'd have liked the design! From a social housing provider, £100k's spent on the package, not by one of these no scruples HMO developers looking to make a fast buck.

The whole process can take 6 years. Sympathetic plans rejected, a back and forth, consultation, more consultation. In the meantime, people need homes

 

[beorhthelm]

Do you work in the sector at all? I can confirm Labour and Green councillors doing everything under the sun to stop developers, including on brown field sites for 2 or 3 storey homes. Including against a social housing provider!!!!!!

The reason, local votes. 100 votes from whinging neighbours is nectar. Future homeowners who might move into the ward, yields them no benefit now.

Immoral I think.

other way round, he said "reform planning so speculators can't stop communities getting shovels in the ground". bizarre claim.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Firstly, councillors representing the ward and all nearby wards, I directly know with full knowledge of examples in Hove, east Brighton and Lewes. I'm not going to give the details here. Councillors of every party scrambling over each other to oppose with photoshots, lying about eco damage.

Then later at the Planning Committee. Televised, it made amusing viewing, the professional planning officer gently correcting the head nimby councillor on glaring nonsense arguments.

You'd have liked the design! From a social housing provider, £100k's spent on the package, not by one of these no scruples HMO developers looking to make a fast buck.

The whole process can take 6 years. Sympathetic plans rejected, a back and forth, consultation, more consultation. In the meantime, people need homes

I've been involved with Planning Committees on and off since the late 90s. It is part of the democratic process that you can approach your local councillor to voice your objections to a scheme or whatever else. I've been at many Planning Committees where say 2 councillors have spoken in objection to a scheme, but their colleagues sat on the actual Planning Committee from the same party have permitted it. There is a clear difference between representing your constituents and being a councillor on the committee itself. I would say that B&H is generally more pro-development with a Labour led administration than not.

Of course B&H is fairly unique in that it's committees are often finely balanced. B&H in particular has quite a high ratio of Planning Inspector decisions overturning their refusals. Social Housing Providers still need to make their numbers work and still hedge their bets on as much development as they think they can get away with. Anecdotally I would say most major schemes by developers or RSLs generally budget and put at least 1 appeal into their timescales.

 

[Bold Seagull]

other way round, he said "reform planning so speculators can't stop communities getting shovels in the ground". bizarre claim.

I think he was referring to land banking. Speculators are known to buy, get permission on land, then sit on it as banked equity. Speculators would be developers if they genuinely got shovels in the ground.

 

[Lever]

The majority the Tories had has been wiped by those two main factors. I'll bet you $5 that the Labour reign is only one term.

I'll settle for destroying the mendacious Johnson/Truss Party once and for all. There are a few decent tories, but Brexit hardliners got rid of many of them.

 

[Weststander]

I've been involved with Planning Committees on and off since the late 90s. It is part of the democratic process that you can approach your local councillor to voice your objections to a scheme or whatever else. I've been at many Planning Committees where say 2 councillors have spoken in objection to a scheme, but their colleagues sat on the actual Planning Committee from the same party have permitted it. There is a clear difference between representing your constituents and being a councillor on the committee itself. I would say that B&H is generally more pro-development with a Labour led administration than not.

Of course B&H is fairly unique in that it's committees are often finely balanced. B&H in particular has quite a high ratio of Planning Inspector decisions overturning their refusals. Social Housing Providers still need to make their numbers work and still hedge their bets on as much development as they think they can get away with. Anecdotally I would say most major schemes by developers or RSLs generally budget and put at least 1 appeal into their timescales.

I expect you’ve worked with planning consultants.

They’ve explained to me that because BHCC has failed to meet its contribution to housing supply, as set out by BHCC in its own City Plan Part One (many draft versions), by a huge margin, developers are getting schemes approved on controversial sites in the city. If BHCC fails to approve, then successful appeals follow at the Planning Inspectorate. The overriding issue, after objections considered, making a contribution to housing supply.

Ironically, greenfield sites with some special flora and some fauna credentials, are getting the nod.

 

[Eeyore]

I understood it as an attack on a black man who has had an expensive education and acquired an accent to match, who therefore doesn't appear to count as being "black" however she defines that.

Regardless of the actual meaning, it is a crass and stupid remark.

I agree with you.

My reading of her remark was 'Why would a black person go to somewhere like Eton, a place for for the establishment elite, which you wouldn't expect a black person to do ?' rather than suggesting he is any way inferior and incapable. Thus it ceases to become a racist remark and more one about a derision of the elite public school system and somehow suggesting he is eroding the principles a black person should have concerning them.

David Lammy's muted response seems to endorse that. Although it is still too much of a cultural generalisation that doesn't fit.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I expect you’ve worked with planning consultants.

They’ve explained to me that because BHCC has failed to meet its contribution to housing supply, as set out by BHCC in its own City Plan Part One (many draft versions), by a huge margin, developers are getting schemes approved on controversial sites in the city. If BHCC fails to approve, then successful appeals follow at the Planning Inspectorate. The overriding issue, after objections considered, making a contribution to housing supply.

Ironically, greenfield sites with some special flora and some fauna credentials, are getting the nod.

That is partially true, Brighton is well under it's housing target, however most planning authorities are. In the case of B&H, I don't think it puts them under any more pressure on any given site, and while an inspector needs to take it into account, it isn't as big a material consideration as your main tests of appearance, massing, privacy, streetscene etc.

Take the Toad's Hole development, they've been told categorically there is no need for a new school, the local authority has a huge surplus of places and the last thing any existing school needs is a new school spreading pupil numbers even thinner. So they've resubmitted and the objections are all about greedy developers just after more housing. The truth is we need more housing and we have plenty of school places.

 

[Eeyore]

i know and why i editted. though you've not made a good case with "issue of cultral expectations"... wtf is that suppose to mean? black kids shouldnt go to good schools, go into banking, become Chancellor? yes its polarising, because people maintain such prejudice.

Nope. It doesn't mean that, and your statement adds an easy racist parasite to my words by reason of me not fully explaining it. A kind of accusation but indirectly. I'll assume that was not your intention and explain better.

Eton is seen as the school of the elite, the ruling classes. She does not suggest that a black person has no place in top universities, or top government jobs, or senior and responsible positions. She says that going to Eton is not something you would expect because Eton is the antithesis of her interpretation of black cultural attitudes towards an aristocratic elite. It's almost as if she is saying she has a respect for black culture and he is letting it down.

Thus I added how I feel cultural expectations should be an issue of much discussion. I had expectations laid upon me within my own micro culture as a kid. People within different races and classes have expectations laid upon them from without and within. If he wanted to go to Eton (or his parents wanted him to rather) then so be it. Looking at my earlier entries I'm trying to say that but not making a good job of it.

In summary, I don't think she is being racist She is just making assumptions about what a black cultural view should be of what she perceives as the haven of the elite and how he fails that.

Basically she's calling him an 'Uncle Tom'. A phrase I've seen on here a lot.

 

[Berty23]

you're right about money spent on nurses going into the economy. however point about deficit, badly put, is valid. the current budget has an amount of money raised from 45% that is being spent. the tax cut requires some debt to cover it, a budget deficit, because there is no associated spending cuts. so if you reinstate the 45% you get the revenue back you are back to original budget - you dont have a surplus to spend on new nurses.

He was not saying you cut the deficit there and then. It is long term investment to not just cut deficit but get positive response. As I said a large chunk goes straight back into tax anyway. For every policy in government there is a calculation on what the cost is and what the outcome would be. It would be like stopping funding schools to save billions when we all know that in the long run it would cost far far more to the economy. If you can service the debt then it is fine. Problem the government currently has is that is becoming harder and harder, especially with the gilt issue. A mess.

 

[Questions]

Snooker obviously got a bit boring.

It generally is.

 

[Weststander]

That is partially true, Brighton is well under it's housing target, however most planning authorities are. In the case of B&H, I don't think it puts them under any more pressure on any given site, and while an inspector needs to take it into account, it isn't as big a material consideration as your main tests of appearance, massing, privacy, streetscene etc.

Take the Toad's Hole development, they've been told categorically there is no need for a new school, the local authority has a huge surplus of places and the last thing any existing school needs is a new school spreading pupil numbers even thinner. So they've resubmitted and the objections are all about greedy developers just after more housing. The truth is we need more housing and we have plenty of school places.

This was the case that opened the gates, the Inspector identifying that BHCC was failing to meet its housing supply need.
https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1486967/inspector-finds-lack-five-year-housing-land-supply-brighton-appeal-ruling
As a result 45 homes being built on a greenfield site, despite organised opposition.

The annual set target for new homes is now 2,300, yet they’ve seen 660 built homes exceeded only twice.

107 out of 333 planning authorities haven’t met housing supply targets.

Looking at the people aspect, 8.5m people have some form of housing need according to the NHF. Something has to happen. I hope Labour have something radical, totally different from the Tories “let local communities decide’ AKA posh shires block new housing.

 

[clapham_gull]

The majority the Tories had has been wiped by those two main factors. I'll bet you $5 that the Labour reign is only one term.

That will down to the Tories. They tend to go into opposition thinking they haven't been right wing enough.

F@@@ about a few years then realise they'll only get back into power with someone "normal" in charge, although it took them a coalition to manage it last time.

They've destroyed any chance of a coalition in the future after they worked internally during that administration to destroy the Lib Dems.

They did deserve it though. I lived opposite a major Lib Dem figure in that coalition and he loved shouting down his mobile so loudly that anyone in earshot could tell how important it was.

Lost his seat next election. Gold plated ****.

 

[um bongo molongo]

He has to seize this moment.
Labour will never get another chance to get a decent majority.

Yep. Opposition have left him with an open goal. Now just needs to not Maupay it.