Do you want to discuss boring politics? (5 Viewers)

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
But but but. Labour was a gain from the Conservatives and , as @shmmeee would say, it was in Labour’s manifesto so additional housing should hardly be a surprise,

”Labour will get Britain building again, creating jobs across England, with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.”

Local politicians gonna local politician.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Didn't realise the next parliament had finished already!
Whilst Rome wasn’t built in a day, it had to start somewhere.
Reeves was pleased to announce 14,000 new homes. Well, a task force to try to conclude a process for 14,000 new homes. Meanwhile, 1,400+ new homes are turned down by a Labour council in a new Labour constituency.

It seems unreasonable to crow about the former and dismiss the latter.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Whilst Rome wasn’t built in a day, it had to start somewhere.
Reeves was pleased to announce 14,000 new homes. Well, a task force to try to conclude a process for 14,000 new homes. Meanwhile, 1,400+ new homes are turned down by a Labour council in a new Labour constituency.

It seems unreasonable to crow about the former and dismiss the latter.

The 14k homes were ones supposedly stuck in planning. There’s going to need to be actual planning law changes, which I expect will wait for the Kings Speech.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Whilst Rome wasn’t built in a day, it had to start somewhere.
Reeves was pleased to announce 14,000 new homes. Well, a task force to try to conclude a process for 14,000 new homes. Meanwhile, 1,400+ new homes are turned down by a Labour council in a new Labour constituency.

It seems unreasonable to crow about the former and dismiss the latter.

So we're at +12,600 homes net in the first week, great start I'm sure you'll agree 😁
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Have the new rules for oil been introduced yet, or more likely it’s just on a oddballs whim.

I haven’t looked into it, but I assume the government has more direct control over North Sea oil licences than a semi in Nuneaton.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Just chatting about Angela Raynors leadership interview with Campbell and Stewart
Mum and dad didn’t work, she didn’t go to university, first job as a carer then Union rep
What does she envy?
Hugs as they weren’t a part of her childhood home

No wonder the political class are after her for what she’s achieved

Love her
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Just chatting about Angela Raynors leadership interview with Campbell and Stewart
Mum and dad didn’t work, she didn’t go to university, first job as a carer then Union rep
What does she envy?
Hugs as they weren’t a part of her childhood home

No wonder the political class are after her for what she’s achieved

Love her

I assume you include Starmer in the political class?
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Just chatting about Angela Raynors leadership interview with Campbell and Stewart
Mum and dad didn’t work, she didn’t go to university, first job as a carer then Union rep
What does she envy?
Hugs as they weren’t a part of her childhood home

No wonder the political class are after her for what she’s achieved

Love her
Let’s hope she remembers her roots as it was the Union movement that gave her the platform to get where she is today.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Let’s hope she remembers her roots as it was the Union movement that gave her the platform to get where she is today.
Bit of both for me. They need to respect and work with her and she needs to recognise that part of her achieving what she has is down to the movement
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Just chatting about Angela Raynors leadership interview with Campbell and Stewart
Mum and dad didn’t work, she didn’t go to university, first job as a carer then Union rep
What does she envy?
Hugs as they weren’t a part of her childhood home

No wonder the political class are after her for what she’s achieved

Love her

I can take or leave her but the way she boils the piss of certain right wing men amazes me. Definitely something sexual going on there.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Who was it who told me I was talking rubbish about solar farms taking up fields and asked if I had ever heard of roofs? This is 7,000 acres that will be gone.


In the spirit of (hopefully) polite debate, I did a bit of digging on this.

The suggestion that even these large solar developments are a threat to UK food security, doesn't seem to be backed by evidence. A quote from an article linked to below...

"Solar panels cover an estimated 0.1% of the country, compared to 2% covered by golf courses. As the think tank Green Alliance points out, crops for biofuel production occupy 77 times more land than that used for solar panels."

So personally, I'm leaning towards supporting government policy on this. The food security argument doesn't seem to stand up, if that's the main objection to it, imho.

 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Farms are getting smaller in the UK.

If they are selling off land to build homes why not also use some of that land to power those homes?
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
In the spirit of (hopefully) polite debate, I did a bit of digging on this.

The suggestion that even these large solar developments are a threat to UK food security, doesn't seem to be backed by evidence. A quote from an article linked to below...

"Solar panels cover an estimated 0.1% of the country, compared to 2% covered by golf courses. As the think tank Green Alliance points out, crops for biofuel production occupy 77 times more land than that used for solar panels."

So personally, I'm leaning towards supporting government policy on this. The food security argument doesn't seem to stand up, if that's the main objection to it, imho.

I guess it depends just how much land needs to be covered with Chinese solar panels. Still, if it’s got panels on it, it won’t also have houses. These projects will just cover the number of additional houses to be built per year, so no real inroad into reducing current use of carbon sources.

And the Point I was really making was that people told me I was talking bollocks when I said fields would be used for solar panels and suggested roofs would do the trick.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
In the spirit of (hopefully) polite debate, I did a bit of digging on this.

The suggestion that even these large solar developments are a threat to UK food security, doesn't seem to be backed by evidence. A quote from an article linked to below...

"Solar panels cover an estimated 0.1% of the country, compared to 2% covered by golf courses. As the think tank Green Alliance points out, crops for biofuel production occupy 77 times more land than that used for solar panels."

So personally, I'm leaning towards supporting government policy on this. The food security argument doesn't seem to stand up, if that's the main objection to it, imho.

Of course, the Tony Blair institute is an entirely unbiased organisation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top