A serious policy intended to meet housing needs would begin with tearing up the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act and its replacement with a law that is pro-housing and pro-development.
It always seemed likely that the details of Labour's policy would make it clear that they weren't serious about building homes, but your clear, detailed and thorough article does seem to confirm my worst fears. Thank you, and depressing that it was so predictable.
4.5 million new homes! How about 4.5 million less people? Perhaps 4.5 million x 2 cars on the rpoad? How about 4.5 x2 million's worth less of NOx and other particulates? Perhaps the laws of unintended consequences will rear its ugly head?
I demand you build a housing estate on that Brownfield site you have in your land bank. Yes sir! At once sir! Excuse me sir. Where do I get the capital, labour, construction materials, etc because all my resources are busy building elsewhere, and other resources are being used by other builders? How do I make the utility companies put in the necessary drainage, power, gas and water lines so I can start building? And how do I sell these houses when built to people who can’t afford them?
Never forget Labour is genetically Socialist = central planning and control of a command economy. They believe you just say: I command it - then tell you how it must be done, and it’s as good as done. The same ass hats glibly tell us we shall be Net Zero by 2050 with no consideration of the resources required or whether the basic material - copper ore - will be sufficiently available to provide the copper to provide the copper wire to build the generation, grid, and appliances that Net Zero requires.
It’s bad enough now under the Conservatives New Labour Continuity Government, but most people have never lived under a true Labour Government. They only know New Labour which wasn’t really Labour, hence the name, otherwise it would never have won in 1997. Starmer is old school. Stand by if he wins.
It always seemed likely that the details of Labour's policy would make it clear that they weren't serious about building homes, but your clear, detailed and thorough article does seem to confirm my worst fears. Thank you, and depressing that it was so predictable.
4.5 million new homes! How about 4.5 million less people? Perhaps 4.5 million x 2 cars on the rpoad? How about 4.5 x2 million's worth less of NOx and other particulates? Perhaps the laws of unintended consequences will rear its ugly head?
I demand you build a housing estate on that Brownfield site you have in your land bank. Yes sir! At once sir! Excuse me sir. Where do I get the capital, labour, construction materials, etc because all my resources are busy building elsewhere, and other resources are being used by other builders? How do I make the utility companies put in the necessary drainage, power, gas and water lines so I can start building? And how do I sell these houses when built to people who can’t afford them?
Never forget Labour is genetically Socialist = central planning and control of a command economy. They believe you just say: I command it - then tell you how it must be done, and it’s as good as done. The same ass hats glibly tell us we shall be Net Zero by 2050 with no consideration of the resources required or whether the basic material - copper ore - will be sufficiently available to provide the copper to provide the copper wire to build the generation, grid, and appliances that Net Zero requires.
It’s bad enough now under the Conservatives New Labour Continuity Government, but most people have never lived under a true Labour Government. They only know New Labour which wasn’t really Labour, hence the name, otherwise it would never have won in 1997. Starmer is old school. Stand by if he wins.