Bye bye Starmer

[DeskJockey]

Why are coalitions undemocratic? Isn't broader representation, by default, more democratic?

[Swervin_Mervin]

"Effectively"

Meaning what? Campaigning? Rigging an election ineffectively would not be very successful so you're still saying it's rigged.

Yes - it's rigged, but all above board. A bit like gerrymandering really.

[Swervin_Mervin]

It was a good effort to pull together a coalition to stop the far right in like a week.

Not sure I agree - it seemed highly un-democratic to effectively rig an election. The sort of practice that we'd cry foul for in other parts of the world.

I’m not sure that forming a coalition before you’re elected is any more undemocratic than forming one when in power.

It's not a coalition to govern as that clearly was not going to happen, as they're now finding out. So it's not really the same thing.

[ZedLeg]

I’m still not sure how it’s undemocratic.

It’s an agreement by people who were already in the election to come together so they can form a decent defence to politics they disagree with.

It’s not like people thought they were voting for one thing and getting something else.

[Gavster]

I've seen a lot of clips of Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves on social media today, and they're absolutely making all the right noises. Of course the need to follow up that intention with action, however, it's incredibly refreshing to hear straight-talking and well positioned intention in politics.

[Rich B]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/arti ... haven.html

Daily Mail encouraging economic migration. Good thing there's freedom of movement after they were so pro-Brexit!

[Mito Man]

The local conservation/nimby group are already ripping their cocks off at the increase in housing and more lax planning regs being proposed...

"The Labour Leader has shown a staggering lack of respect for his electorate and for communities.
His approach shows that Labour has no interest in an evidence-based approach to planning or one which appraises alternatives* with stakeholders to seek the best outcomes.
Starmer has indicated that he does not care what gets built or what it costs taxpayers/consumers. It would appear that he has no interest in the impact of development or pylons on farmers, the tourist industry, food security, nature, climate mitigation or heritage when it comes to developments. The clear message is build, build build."

[Beany]

They're just worried that the value of their homes won't increase quite as quickly as it has been.

[Gavster]

Nimby arguments always sound soooo fragile

[duncs500]

This was one of my biggest pre-election concerns, not that I could find a party that really gave a crap about it. The development round me is out of hand, just big estates bolted on to small villages with little consideration for infrastructure or the environment. It was bad under the Tories and surely the planning system is corrupt as shit, so I'll wait and see how labour plan to keep it controlled whilst giving so much encouragement to pranning officers and developers. I suspect some people are going to get rich very quickly as (even with good ideas like this "grey belt" stuff) any loopholes are soon found and exploited.

Round me they even seem to not have to build many affordable homes or supporting infrastructure, most of the houses start at £800k.

[V8Granite]

It’s the same in Market Deeping. They’ve built a few hundred homes, no extra places at dentists or doctors. ur local doctors are a particularly workshy bunch.
It will only get worse and more people will struggle. Luckily the local councillor is very sensible and fights where he can do there is a small chance of common sense.

The planning and building game being so corrupt itself certainly doesn’t help.

Dave!

[Swervin_Mervin]

This was one of my biggest pre-election concerns, not that I could find a party that really gave a crap about it. The development round me is out of hand, just big estates bolted on to small villages with little consideration for infrastructure or the environment. It was bad under the Tories and surely the planning system is corrupt as shit, so I'll wait and see how labour plan to keep it controlled whilst giving so much encouragement to pranning officers and developers. I suspect some people are going to get rich very quickly as (even with good ideas like this "grey belt" stuff) any loopholes are soon found and exploited.

Round me they even seem to not have to build many affordable homes or supporting infrastructure, most of the houses start at £800k.

Just to be absolutely clear - the planning system is not corrupt. It's a stupid old trope.

Strategic planning is the responsibility of the Local Authorities. Unfortunately, they're not very good at it, and planning for infrastructure - properly planning for it - is just not taken into account fully. Perhaps because the Authorities planning departments have been gutted and the sector is limping along with a lot of the very best having either long retired or moved into the private sector.

[Mito Man]

I’ve seen some pretty suspicious stuff within Kent. Councillors buying cheap land or properties and very easily getting planning for larger projects before selling it on to a developer. Perhaps much easier than if someone without connections within the council did it.
Louise Jones Roberts is a recent one.
One councillor/farmer here gets planning approval for seemingly any project on his farm to the point that everyone jokes about it.
The whole system seems very open to corruption - there was even a story about it today
https://archive.is/2024.07.08-150442/h ... -9mvr5qccs

[Swervin_Mervin]

Sounds like a load of twaddle. I've been in the industry over 25years and never seen any of that going on. And I've met some monumentally shady characters.

And from what that article makes out the turnover of planning officers in London at least must be so high that I can't believe any of them actually know anyone in their former departments because they've only been there 5mins before skipping to their wealthy clients.

Or maybe London is just hugely more crooked than the rest of the UK

[Mito Man]

Exactly the response I'd expect from someone involved in the industry for a long time

[Jobbo]

I love these ‘planning is crooked’ accusations. If you’re not involved in it, you won’t necessarily be aware that the purpose of the planning system is to permit development, not stop people building houses next to neighbours who object.

[jamcg]

I think there was a high level of corruption and backhanders in the 70/70/80’s (Read up on Stockton-on-Tees Castlegate shopping centre if you want a prime example) that’s kind of fizzled out in the modern age where everything is accountable and available under freedom of information. Unfortunately there’s probably still a bit going on, and as a result the reputation has stuck

As for mito’s councillors, I don’t see that as a planning corruption, I’d say it’s more akin to insider trading, knowing that something would get approved and getting in there early to make a quick buck

[ZedLeg]

Glasgow’s propensity to ignore listed buildings until they fall over or mysteriously catch fire has always led to rumours that developers and planning people are a bit closer than they should be.

[duncs500]

Well hey, you guys are the experts. Although I don't see how you can speak with such certainty, I doubt there's any governmental system or process that exists that isn't open to manipulation in some shape or form if you know what levers to pull.

I don't see how FOI would come into it either, it's not like any of this stuff is going to have much of a paper trail (and if it did, those are the cases we'd have heard about).

[duncs500]

Either way, some of the developments that get approval are inexplicable, and the odd one that gets rejected comes back with a minor ammendment and seems to go through when local campaigners are not paying attention. Since I've lived here, I've never seen an application that didn't get accepted either immediately or on appeal... so far not one of them has delivered any supporting infrastructure.