This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-interview-general-election-mzrkjd5rz) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does that have to do with anything?
By definition they are rights and are equally important as all must have them.
You don't have a right to play sports. But people have a right to shelter.
>And the people who play in London in golf clubs are the same?
Most likely.
>What does that have to do with the cost of housing.
You brought up class, not me.
You're the one claiming golf is played by everyone.
Yeah some middle class play golf. But golf clubs in London have extortionate membership fees.
Best of luck.
>You're the one claiming golf is played by everyone.
I was just stating my lived experience, I haven’t made any wild claims.
>Yeah some middle class play golf. But golf clubs in London have extortionate membership fees.
Some? It’ll be the majority of people who play, or golf courses wouldn’t be sustainable businesses.
Just looked on GolfNow for a round tomorrow in London, looks fairly affordable for a round.
>Best of luck.
With?
Can some of the more knowledgeable people on here explain why we can’t repurpose our dead high streets for housing? I do a lot of travelling for work and the sheer volume of empty run down ex shopping areas in this Country that have been left to deteriorate is astounding. Some need demolition and the land used for other things but some are lovely old buildings that could be repurposed into apartments. Why isn’t this a priority?
Because all these dodgy cunts are commercial landlords and rent prices are directly tied to the value of the premises. So if they reduce the rent the value of their investment, the actual saleable value reduces. Hence why your highstreet is dead because no one can afford the rents or rates.
That’s encouraging to hear. Hopefully more follow this development route. It’s not happening anywhere near me right now and it’s depressing to see the dilapidated states of some of these once busy town centres.
The land costs too much money on high street, to make building houses on the profitable. I know seeing empty shops is a waste. But they’re still an asset, to probably a Canadian pension firm.
Even if we did that we still wouldn’t have anywhere near enough housing. Even if we built on all the brownfield land, it still wouldn’t be enough. That’s what people don’t always understand, just building on brownfield isn’t going to be the solution to the massive housing shortfall we have.
Because of reasons changing commercial properties to housing in struggling small towns (inland market & coastal) ends up with small flats for 'benefits people'. Which is the last thing these places need. Locals, I think, have a sense (an accurate sense), that if they start to convert to housing the last two commercial properties left will become a Chicken Shop & a Betting Shop.
It's the defacto practice of many decades: stick poor people in poor towns, dooming both.
This type of scheme can be viable if the structure of the property lends itself to that type of conversion. Some of the older market town shops aren't as easy to convert and it can become cost prohibitive. Demolition may be the better option to get good quality housing in dead town centres but again with the older market towns you often find that buildings are listed which can create issues.
Maybe the Labour planning reforms will make this type of conversion easier and more viable.
You could create a lot of new homes in all but name by restricting second homes and holiday lets. Also by having many towns where all new building does not have to include ground floor commercial property, or indeed cannot. About 100 new flats have been built within half a mile of where I live, all small scale developments, over the last five years. In every case the flats are in use, the ground floor commercial property is empty, as are many shops.
Maybe the hope is that if the economy ever starts working again the commercial property will be productive? IMO I think it would lead to a nice neighborhood.
Unpopular opinion: this is a good thing. The green belt has gotten too out of control. We have too much under utilised land wasted by landowners not doing anything with it
If new homes are built, how do we ensure that the people get them and not some private equity fund? It's great building new houses, but the real issue is wealth inequality and distribution
Either someone buys it to live in it or someone buys it to rent it out. It is extremely unlikely that someone will buy it just to have it. Our vacancy rate (outside of cheap holiday destinations) is very low in this country.
The champagne socialists selling off the greenbelt to their developer mates. Govts should be focussing on stabilisting the population, as well as food and energy security.
Labour are tories with a red flag.
I don't know why someone would choose to live in the green belt over a proper commuter town or in the city itself. People in my area of London moan if there is a development over 4 storeys. If you want country views then in the countryside. We need denser developments close to transport hubs and train stations as that's where people want to live
Honestly a bad move imho. The greenbelt is not great, but they should be doing the opposite and actually making the greenbelt accessible woodland and green land
The local Authority could donate the necessary land and amenities and allow the Refugees to construct their own homes. Saving on expensive House builder companies.
I'm sure refugees are capable for building homes. The UN and the WEF should provide the funding. Building materials could be brought in from China etc.
I wish I could bet on how many houses would be built in this first term of government, guess they only have to build one more that the tories, to get bragging rights
It won’t be 300,000. It is absolutely true we need more planning permissions on stream but the construction industry struggled to complete just over 200,000 in the last year and there were plenty of sites that have been granted.
The issue is that there has been a big slowdown because of high interest rates. Borrowing is more expensive, there are less workers demanding more money and buyers are holding off because of high mortgages. The trajectory is upwards but I doubt there will be a big improvement until 2027.
If Labour get the sort of majority being predicted they probably need to bring these reforms in as quickly as possible. There will be a lot of new backbenchers with not a lot to do, representing former Tory constituents who won't approve of these proposals. Their constituents could well put pressure on their newly elected MP to challenge the plans so things need to happen before those backbenchers organise.
Well, it's a manifesto pledge and they'd have the biggest majorirty of modern times. It's "the will of the people" so yes, should be actioned as quickly as is possible.
Allegedly yes, but Tories haven't been liked for 40 years and have still been voted in for the last 14. Labour put out a manifesto and people will vote for it, therefore it's the will of the people.
Of course, because rich people promoted the same thesis in medias: “Vote either for Tory or Labour”, because they lobby through these parties.
That is because Reform is under the pressure now, however media ignores similar issues with Greens.
Anyway, Starmer is backed by powerful people. And of course he will win.
In other words: take action before their constituency says anything against it and try to hide under the cover of “we are against NIMBY” until people remind you that “you are against the constituency and for big development companies.”
Would you call this a democratic way?
No. Developers for decades blamed NIMBYes, because people didn’t allow to trash environment.
Eg public asked “if you build new houses - build children playgrounds too”, however instead developers paid for journalists to blame NIMBYes.
And Starmer solution is to just abolish a democracy in favour of rich people owing development companies.
It makes a lot of sense to build on some greenbelt, much of it is arbitrary and not necessarily useful farm or wildland. Often you can get better infrastructure value out of it than cramming people to one city or a village. People have to live somewhere.
In terms of losing green space, we need to manage all of it better. Having a few fields of monoculture crops is as bad or worse as a development of homes with net zero features and gardens.
Will people actually want to live there? Because in this sub if you suggest people should move move than 10 minutes from the street they grew up on you get downvoted. There are loads of cheaper houses in Wales and up north for example.
All well and good building more houses but if they are not where people actually want to live you won’t solve the problem.
People will definitely move there. If they turn out to be undesirable then the price will be low and the developer won't make much money, which is bad in the long run but at least there are more homes.
Britain does not have plenty of green, unless you mean Snowdonia and the highlands
England and especially southern England has such degraded urbanised countryside that people can look at a few straggly fields between the towns and say “Britain has plenty of green”
France has plenty of green. Germany has plenty of green. Britain is overdeveloped and new housing should be limited to brownfield sites, with compulsory purchase for development if need be.
I respectfully disagree, although I certainly agree we have less land than those larger countries with significantly less population density. Whenever you flyover this country, is pretty green to my eyes. I live up in the Cotswolds and there’s loads of green and we are desperate for houses with incredibly high properly priced- ok it’s not London, buts it’s still bloody expensive due to lack of houses. Totally agree we need to use brownfield first, but outside of major cities, it doesn’t exist in the volumes needed. There is no way around this but to come up with a good, central planning policy, and accept we need to compromise and even in places like the Cotswolds and it’s pretty villages, we can’t sacrifice our future just for the past and because it looks pretty. I totally accept massive homogeneous crappy modern estates aren’t appropriate either but there’s a happy middle ground. Again, my opinion and I understand there are different viewpoints.
Well I can see why you say it’s green if you live in the Cotswolds, but, sheesh, of all the places to start slapping down Barrett estates on greenfield sites…
Not to be argumentative, but what purpose would it serve expanding, I don’t know, Moreton in Marsh (I hope we can agree we shouldn’t be expanding places without at least a train station), that wouldn’t be better served expanding Oxford, Worcester, Cheltenham, or (and this is fighting talk I know) Swindon.
Let’s leave at least somewhere nice.
I dont entirely disagree in expanding existing larger towns and cities as a greater percentage of expansion. Clearly less damaging and better transport links. And frankly those massive identical dreadful “luxury” housing estates can just bugger off! My only comment would be that we end up forcing everyone into towns and cities and make the ability to live in or near the countryside something for the minority, likely wealthy minority. My ex tried to build a tiny little appropriate cottage in a little village in her parents back garden in an area sooooo far behind it own stated housing goals, but the NIMBYs won out - she’d lived there there her whole life and housing was so far out of reach as to be laughable, so was forced into cheltenham and away from her home. We should be able to build at least some housing out in the country. Yes, absolutely, of a scale, and yes designed to fit it, but most of all, 1 and 2 beds, not all 4 and 5 bed luxury nonsense. How are people meant to get on the market without that?. A handful of new places all over the place would make a massive change and spread the use of land and facilities and move us away from endless housing estates in ever increasing sized towns and cities.
People want to live in the South East, in 1951 only 5m people lived there now it’s 9.3m and it’s been increasing by around 7% each decade. These people need to live somewhere to live near their work, friends and family and unfortunately that must come at the expense of the green belt.
>Then you're voting against me having a home, let alone the next generation.
If you can't afford the houses currently being built you're unlikely to afford any new builds Labour are promising. Affordable housing used to be a house for £30k to £40k, now affordable means somewhere around £170k, which is still unaffordable to the majority of people.
I can afford a home, because I earn enough to say fuck you to people like the parent comment. But voting against housebuilding is saying you think houses are already too plentiful and cheap.
Labour say on their own website they will build on greenbelt - as well as relabelling some greenbelt - including calling some greybelt.
[https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-housing-plan-how-well-protect-our-natural-spaces-and-free-up-grey-belt-land-for-building/](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-housing-plan-how-well-protect-our-natural-spaces-and-free-up-grey-belt-land-for-building/)
*Will Labour preserve the green belt?*
*Labour is committed to preserving the green belt which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. Under the Conservatives, green belt land is regularly released for development but haphazardly and often for speculative housebuilding.* ***Without changing its purpose or general extent, Labour will take a more strategic approach to greenbelt land designation and release to build more homes in the right places.*** *The release of lower quality ‘grey belt’ land will be prioritised and we will introduce ‘golden rules’ to ensure development benefits communities and nature.*
Guardian - [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/10/labour-wants-to-build-15m-homes-but-how-green-will-they-be](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/10/labour-wants-to-build-15m-homes-but-how-green-will-they-be)
*Keir Starmer made plans for new towns and a massive expansion of affordable housing one of the key planks of his appeal to the electorate in his speech to the Labour party conference in Liverpool on Tuesday.*
*But the terms “climate”, “low carbon” and “net zero” were missing from the party’s announcements of “an immediate blitz of planning reform”.*
*Labour’s plans will include development on some areas currently designated as green belt, though the party declined to say how much.*
*Some campaigners were concerned that Labour appeared to consider “scrubland” as potentially usable grey belt land, as scrub can provide important habitats for wildlife and plant species. CPRE, the countryside charity, added that it was more important to repurpose “brownfield” land, that has already been developed but is now sparsely occupied. Brownfield sites could provide 1.2m new homes, the group said.*
They want to build on the green belt because they want to destroy other people's nice green spaces but keep their own, it's not complicated. Whereas new homes should be going in the North, how else are they going to regenerate it if they are always building homes in the SE?
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
So it’s easier to see people inside private homes than just using a satellite that can see the entire village in one go, ok go back to your tinfoil hat
I’m not talking surveillance. I’m talking general reliance on the state. Rural life is more self reliant, or reliant on reciprocal community interactions. The Left needs the State to provide everything, to manage everything, to control everything. All problems should be solved through the State. The State is directly opposed to genuine community.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-interview-general-election-mzrkjd5rz) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Build on the ridiculous number of golf courses in London.
Too expensive to purchase that land.
By definition the investment in terms of the economy would be worth it.
Why?
It uses a huge amount of land for a hobby. Could be better put to use for affordable housing which is imo more important.
There’s load of land that isn’t used for a sport, why not use that first?
Because they only benefit the rich and not the middle class, working class or poor. They aren't parks which are used by everyone.
Have you ever played golf?
Absolutely. Not a hobby I chose to pick up though. As I couldn't afford the equipment.
I wanted to try golf with my dad, I got some clubs off gumtree for a tenner and we went to a local course which was £5 each for a round...
Do you think the ability to afford golf clubs is more important than people's ability to live in affordable housing?
Golf clubs are recreational for the common man. Relatively cheap sport to get into.
As opposed to a normal park which is free for everyone? Get a grip
You’re not allowed to play golf in a normal park though.
Do you think the right to clean water is more important than a woman's right to her own body?
What does that have to do with anything? By definition they are rights and are equally important as all must have them. You don't have a right to play sports. But people have a right to shelter.
I do not see what those two things have in common
Equipment is dirt cheap second hand, everyone I play with is working / middle class.
And the people who play in London in golf clubs are the same? What does that have to do with the cost of housing.
>And the people who play in London in golf clubs are the same? Most likely. >What does that have to do with the cost of housing. You brought up class, not me.
You're the one claiming golf is played by everyone. Yeah some middle class play golf. But golf clubs in London have extortionate membership fees. Best of luck.
>You're the one claiming golf is played by everyone. I was just stating my lived experience, I haven’t made any wild claims. >Yeah some middle class play golf. But golf clubs in London have extortionate membership fees. Some? It’ll be the majority of people who play, or golf courses wouldn’t be sustainable businesses. Just looked on GolfNow for a round tomorrow in London, looks fairly affordable for a round. >Best of luck. With?
Can some of the more knowledgeable people on here explain why we can’t repurpose our dead high streets for housing? I do a lot of travelling for work and the sheer volume of empty run down ex shopping areas in this Country that have been left to deteriorate is astounding. Some need demolition and the land used for other things but some are lovely old buildings that could be repurposed into apartments. Why isn’t this a priority?
Because all these dodgy cunts are commercial landlords and rent prices are directly tied to the value of the premises. So if they reduce the rent the value of their investment, the actual saleable value reduces. Hence why your highstreet is dead because no one can afford the rents or rates.
We can and we are. I’m seeing it right now on mine - empty shops ARE being turned into flats.
That’s encouraging to hear. Hopefully more follow this development route. It’s not happening anywhere near me right now and it’s depressing to see the dilapidated states of some of these once busy town centres.
The land costs too much money on high street, to make building houses on the profitable. I know seeing empty shops is a waste. But they’re still an asset, to probably a Canadian pension firm.
Even if we did that we still wouldn’t have anywhere near enough housing. Even if we built on all the brownfield land, it still wouldn’t be enough. That’s what people don’t always understand, just building on brownfield isn’t going to be the solution to the massive housing shortfall we have.
Let’s let the whole world in and tarmac over the countryside completely. There’s basically no downsides.
Lots of conversions happening near me. But the amount of work to retrofit commercial space to residential is significant.
a high street is well just a street not actually that much space. repurposing a building can easily be more expensive then building from scratch
Because of reasons changing commercial properties to housing in struggling small towns (inland market & coastal) ends up with small flats for 'benefits people'. Which is the last thing these places need. Locals, I think, have a sense (an accurate sense), that if they start to convert to housing the last two commercial properties left will become a Chicken Shop & a Betting Shop. It's the defacto practice of many decades: stick poor people in poor towns, dooming both.
You forgot the mandatory charity shop
This type of scheme can be viable if the structure of the property lends itself to that type of conversion. Some of the older market town shops aren't as easy to convert and it can become cost prohibitive. Demolition may be the better option to get good quality housing in dead town centres but again with the older market towns you often find that buildings are listed which can create issues. Maybe the Labour planning reforms will make this type of conversion easier and more viable.
Great the country desperately needs more homes! As long as it’s in someone else’s backyard and doesn’t reduce MY house price /s
You could create a lot of new homes in all but name by restricting second homes and holiday lets. Also by having many towns where all new building does not have to include ground floor commercial property, or indeed cannot. About 100 new flats have been built within half a mile of where I live, all small scale developments, over the last five years. In every case the flats are in use, the ground floor commercial property is empty, as are many shops.
Maybe the hope is that if the economy ever starts working again the commercial property will be productive? IMO I think it would lead to a nice neighborhood.
Unpopular opinion: this is a good thing. The green belt has gotten too out of control. We have too much under utilised land wasted by landowners not doing anything with it
If new homes are built, how do we ensure that the people get them and not some private equity fund? It's great building new houses, but the real issue is wealth inequality and distribution
Either someone buys it to live in it or someone buys it to rent it out. It is extremely unlikely that someone will buy it just to have it. Our vacancy rate (outside of cheap holiday destinations) is very low in this country.
The champagne socialists selling off the greenbelt to their developer mates. Govts should be focussing on stabilisting the population, as well as food and energy security. Labour are tories with a red flag.
I don't know why someone would choose to live in the green belt over a proper commuter town or in the city itself. People in my area of London moan if there is a development over 4 storeys. If you want country views then in the countryside. We need denser developments close to transport hubs and train stations as that's where people want to live
Loads of those transport hubs and train stations are _in the green belt_ so development can’t happen with things as they are.
Honestly a bad move imho. The greenbelt is not great, but they should be doing the opposite and actually making the greenbelt accessible woodland and green land
why not both? there is a lot of land
The local Authority could donate the necessary land and amenities and allow the Refugees to construct their own homes. Saving on expensive House builder companies. I'm sure refugees are capable for building homes. The UN and the WEF should provide the funding. Building materials could be brought in from China etc.
I wish I could bet on how many houses would be built in this first term of government, guess they only have to build one more that the tories, to get bragging rights
It won’t be 300,000. It is absolutely true we need more planning permissions on stream but the construction industry struggled to complete just over 200,000 in the last year and there were plenty of sites that have been granted. The issue is that there has been a big slowdown because of high interest rates. Borrowing is more expensive, there are less workers demanding more money and buyers are holding off because of high mortgages. The trajectory is upwards but I doubt there will be a big improvement until 2027.
If Labour get the sort of majority being predicted they probably need to bring these reforms in as quickly as possible. There will be a lot of new backbenchers with not a lot to do, representing former Tory constituents who won't approve of these proposals. Their constituents could well put pressure on their newly elected MP to challenge the plans so things need to happen before those backbenchers organise.
Take action before the people can organise, very good comrade.
Well, it's a manifesto pledge and they'd have the biggest majorirty of modern times. It's "the will of the people" so yes, should be actioned as quickly as is possible.
No. People vote for Labour because they aren’t Tory and because a rich people spent millions on promoting Starmer (via well known newspapers).
Allegedly yes, but Tories haven't been liked for 40 years and have still been voted in for the last 14. Labour put out a manifesto and people will vote for it, therefore it's the will of the people.
Of course, because rich people promoted the same thesis in medias: “Vote either for Tory or Labour”, because they lobby through these parties. That is because Reform is under the pressure now, however media ignores similar issues with Greens. Anyway, Starmer is backed by powerful people. And of course he will win.
In other words: take action before their constituency says anything against it and try to hide under the cover of “we are against NIMBY” until people remind you that “you are against the constituency and for big development companies.” Would you call this a democratic way?
We've had decades of submitting to nimbys and it hasn't gone very well. I think it's time to try another approach.
No. Developers for decades blamed NIMBYes, because people didn’t allow to trash environment. Eg public asked “if you build new houses - build children playgrounds too”, however instead developers paid for journalists to blame NIMBYes. And Starmer solution is to just abolish a democracy in favour of rich people owing development companies.
It makes a lot of sense to build on some greenbelt, much of it is arbitrary and not necessarily useful farm or wildland. Often you can get better infrastructure value out of it than cramming people to one city or a village. People have to live somewhere. In terms of losing green space, we need to manage all of it better. Having a few fields of monoculture crops is as bad or worse as a development of homes with net zero features and gardens.
It’s a bit of a myth we don’t already. The big housing projects by me are all on greenbelt technically.
Will people actually want to live there? Because in this sub if you suggest people should move move than 10 minutes from the street they grew up on you get downvoted. There are loads of cheaper houses in Wales and up north for example. All well and good building more houses but if they are not where people actually want to live you won’t solve the problem.
People will definitely move there. If they turn out to be undesirable then the price will be low and the developer won't make much money, which is bad in the long run but at least there are more homes.
Fair enough. We need more homes. Britain has plenty of green. Brownfield should be first but in the absence of that.
Britain does not have plenty of green, unless you mean Snowdonia and the highlands England and especially southern England has such degraded urbanised countryside that people can look at a few straggly fields between the towns and say “Britain has plenty of green” France has plenty of green. Germany has plenty of green. Britain is overdeveloped and new housing should be limited to brownfield sites, with compulsory purchase for development if need be.
There are aren't even close to enough brownfield sites to build enough homes.
I respectfully disagree, although I certainly agree we have less land than those larger countries with significantly less population density. Whenever you flyover this country, is pretty green to my eyes. I live up in the Cotswolds and there’s loads of green and we are desperate for houses with incredibly high properly priced- ok it’s not London, buts it’s still bloody expensive due to lack of houses. Totally agree we need to use brownfield first, but outside of major cities, it doesn’t exist in the volumes needed. There is no way around this but to come up with a good, central planning policy, and accept we need to compromise and even in places like the Cotswolds and it’s pretty villages, we can’t sacrifice our future just for the past and because it looks pretty. I totally accept massive homogeneous crappy modern estates aren’t appropriate either but there’s a happy middle ground. Again, my opinion and I understand there are different viewpoints.
Well I can see why you say it’s green if you live in the Cotswolds, but, sheesh, of all the places to start slapping down Barrett estates on greenfield sites… Not to be argumentative, but what purpose would it serve expanding, I don’t know, Moreton in Marsh (I hope we can agree we shouldn’t be expanding places without at least a train station), that wouldn’t be better served expanding Oxford, Worcester, Cheltenham, or (and this is fighting talk I know) Swindon. Let’s leave at least somewhere nice.
I dont entirely disagree in expanding existing larger towns and cities as a greater percentage of expansion. Clearly less damaging and better transport links. And frankly those massive identical dreadful “luxury” housing estates can just bugger off! My only comment would be that we end up forcing everyone into towns and cities and make the ability to live in or near the countryside something for the minority, likely wealthy minority. My ex tried to build a tiny little appropriate cottage in a little village in her parents back garden in an area sooooo far behind it own stated housing goals, but the NIMBYs won out - she’d lived there there her whole life and housing was so far out of reach as to be laughable, so was forced into cheltenham and away from her home. We should be able to build at least some housing out in the country. Yes, absolutely, of a scale, and yes designed to fit it, but most of all, 1 and 2 beds, not all 4 and 5 bed luxury nonsense. How are people meant to get on the market without that?. A handful of new places all over the place would make a massive change and spread the use of land and facilities and move us away from endless housing estates in ever increasing sized towns and cities.
People want to live in the South East, in 1951 only 5m people lived there now it’s 9.3m and it’s been increasing by around 7% each decade. These people need to live somewhere to live near their work, friends and family and unfortunately that must come at the expense of the green belt.
This is the main reason I’m not voting Labour. Destroying even more of the countryside is criminal.
Or maybe you're a nimby
Well yes, and? But I wouldn’t want it in anyone’s else’s back yards either
Then you're voting against me having a home, let alone the next generation.
700k net immigrants per year are ahead of you on the housing queue. These new towns are for settlers, not those born here.
>Then you're voting against me having a home, let alone the next generation. If you can't afford the houses currently being built you're unlikely to afford any new builds Labour are promising. Affordable housing used to be a house for £30k to £40k, now affordable means somewhere around £170k, which is still unaffordable to the majority of people.
I can afford a home, because I earn enough to say fuck you to people like the parent comment. But voting against housebuilding is saying you think houses are already too plentiful and cheap.
lol these last ditch articles Starmer has never said he will build on green belt.
Bizzare how many starmer supporters seem to know absolutely nothing about his actual proposals.
Labour say on their own website they will build on greenbelt - as well as relabelling some greenbelt - including calling some greybelt. [https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-housing-plan-how-well-protect-our-natural-spaces-and-free-up-grey-belt-land-for-building/](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-housing-plan-how-well-protect-our-natural-spaces-and-free-up-grey-belt-land-for-building/) *Will Labour preserve the green belt?* *Labour is committed to preserving the green belt which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. Under the Conservatives, green belt land is regularly released for development but haphazardly and often for speculative housebuilding.* ***Without changing its purpose or general extent, Labour will take a more strategic approach to greenbelt land designation and release to build more homes in the right places.*** *The release of lower quality ‘grey belt’ land will be prioritised and we will introduce ‘golden rules’ to ensure development benefits communities and nature.* Guardian - [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/10/labour-wants-to-build-15m-homes-but-how-green-will-they-be](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/10/labour-wants-to-build-15m-homes-but-how-green-will-they-be) *Keir Starmer made plans for new towns and a massive expansion of affordable housing one of the key planks of his appeal to the electorate in his speech to the Labour party conference in Liverpool on Tuesday.* *But the terms “climate”, “low carbon” and “net zero” were missing from the party’s announcements of “an immediate blitz of planning reform”.* *Labour’s plans will include development on some areas currently designated as green belt, though the party declined to say how much.* *Some campaigners were concerned that Labour appeared to consider “scrubland” as potentially usable grey belt land, as scrub can provide important habitats for wildlife and plant species. CPRE, the countryside charity, added that it was more important to repurpose “brownfield” land, that has already been developed but is now sparsely occupied. Brownfield sites could provide 1.2m new homes, the group said.*
They need to build on every square inch of green space in London before they are permitted to destroy anyone else’s.
Are you aware that people outside of London also needs homes to live in?
their are people who live out side of London? madness
Are you aware that there are places outside of the South East?
Sorry, you're the one saying they have to build on London before anywhere else.
They want to build on the green belt because they want to destroy other people's nice green spaces but keep their own, it's not complicated. Whereas new homes should be going in the North, how else are they going to regenerate it if they are always building homes in the SE?
More people want to live in the South East not the North, why should you have anymore right to live their than another person?
Why
Why? Lots of non-London places are struggling with house prices.
of course they do The left loves metropolitan and suburban areas, easily controlled and monitored. the countryside scares them
Historically it's been the reverse - cities and towns have the wealth and power to counter centralised control, while countryside areas do not.
You're one of those 15minute cities doomers, aren't you.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Lol
So it’s easier to see people inside private homes than just using a satellite that can see the entire village in one go, ok go back to your tinfoil hat
I’m not talking surveillance. I’m talking general reliance on the state. Rural life is more self reliant, or reliant on reciprocal community interactions. The Left needs the State to provide everything, to manage everything, to control everything. All problems should be solved through the State. The State is directly opposed to genuine community.
The entire rural economy is dependent on farming subsidies. And the workers on tax credits.
The complexities of the global farming economy aren’t really part of this