|
|
Post by borchester on Oct 10, 2023 15:10:46 GMT
Actually, if Starmer is thinking in terms of an exciting new decade, that works out at 150,000 homes a year which is about 40% less than the quarter of a million properties that have already been given the go ahead for 2023.
Still, we shall see
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 11, 2023 9:20:18 GMT
I believe that the 1.5 million homes is over 5 years not 10, so 300,000 on average. Still short of the 420,000 calculated that we require, but at least ballpark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 11, 2023 9:24:48 GMT
I notice when he mentioned 1.5 million news homes he didn't mention any timeframe, but 1.5 million news homes wouldn't even house the number of illegals from the EU a future Labour government would welcome to this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 11, 2023 9:46:05 GMT
I notice when he mentioned 1.5 million news homes he didn't mention any timeframe, but 1.5 million news homes wouldn't even house the number of illegals from the EU a future Labour government would welcome to this country. That was what he said to Victoria Darbyshire on Sunday. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 11, 2023 10:07:27 GMT
I notice when he mentioned 1.5 million news homes he didn't mention any timeframe, but 1.5 million news homes wouldn't even house the number of illegals from the EU a future Labour government would welcome to this country. That was what he said to Victoria Darbyshire on Sunday. I wouldn't know, I don't listen to her or the BBC. Everyone who I've seen interviewed* about Labours house building promises say it's most unlikely that any government will build anywhere near 1.5 million new homes, which is why Starmer is intentionally vague over any time frame. *Apart from Labour MP's obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 11, 2023 16:10:32 GMT
How can you say he is "intentionally vague" about timescales when he goes on national TV and quotes a timescale?
You seem to be getting less rationale even than normal. Are you Ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 11, 2023 17:56:33 GMT
I believe that the 1.5 million homes is over 5 years not 10, so 300,000 on average. Still short of the 420,000 calculated that we require, but at least ballpark. So the same target for housebuilding that the present government has... |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 11, 2023 18:10:06 GMT
I believe that the 1.5 million homes is over 5 years not 10, so 300,000 on average. Still short of the 420,000 calculated that we require, but at least ballpark. No government since the late 1950's Macmillan government has ever succeeded in building 300,000 homes in one year. Today England is a very different country to that of the late 1950's. If a future Labour government insist on building thousands of houses on greenbelt land to house people who are crossing the channel, I suspect there may be trouble ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 11, 2023 19:34:51 GMT
I believe that the 1.5 million homes is over 5 years not 10, so 300,000 on average. Still short of the 420,000 calculated that we require, but at least ballpark. No government since the late 1950's Macmillan government has ever succeeded in building 300,000 homes in one year. Today England is a very different country to that of the late 1950's. If a future Labour government insist on building thousands of houses on greenbelt land to house people who are crossing the channel, I suspect there may be trouble ahead. You are obsessed by Asylum Seekers. Our housing shortage is caused far more by having far more single people than we did 50 years ago than asylum seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 11, 2023 19:37:29 GMT
I believe that the 1.5 million homes is over 5 years not 10, so 300,000 on average. Still short of the 420,000 calculated that we require, but at least ballpark. So the same target for housebuilding that the present government has... Indeed. The question is can they succeed where the Tories didn't. (Actually there's another question over not just number, but the type, as there needs to be defined numbers of social (not just affordable) housing in there, and that will mean central government working with LAs to deliver this.) |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 11, 2023 19:56:41 GMT
No government since the late 1950's Macmillan government has ever succeeded in building 300,000 homes in one year. Today England is a very different country to that of the late 1950's. If a future Labour government insist on building thousands of houses on greenbelt land to house people who are crossing the channel, I suspect there may be trouble ahead. You are obsessed by Asylum Seekers. Our housing shortage is caused far more by having far more single people than we did 50 years ago than asylum seekers. No Andrew, I am not obsessed by anything. Labour say they will build 300,000 homes a year in which case with current levels of housing demand would not be nearly enough. The government granted more than 3 million (3,057,654) immigrant visas last year, and that's before we even get to the tens of thousands of illegals who are entering this country and will never be deported. In order to satisfy housing demand the government must build a damned sight more than 300,000 a year and that's not going to happen because people today unlike the 1950's will not stand back and allow this once green and pleasant land to be concreted over. I will also add, and this goes for Labour and the Tories. Election promises should be enshrined in law, it's far too easy to promise the world and deliver nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 11, 2023 20:56:26 GMT
You can’t enshrine electoral promises in law Red. Unfortunately circumstances change and new problems com along. Johnson promised all sorts of things at the last election but to be fair couldn’t have known that Covid would come along that had to be dealt with instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 11, 2023 21:02:51 GMT
Incidentally if you really want to know why we have a housing issue, the honest answer that no politician from any side will ever utter is that it is the ageing population staying in their houses for far too long. I’m guilty, I have four bedrooms and have only used one for years (apart from occasional visitors) and will continue to do so for years (hopefully) . Both next doors are the same and both their next doors. 5 should be family homes instead occupied by empty nesters - perhaps for 30-40 years. Our use of our housing stock is grossly inefficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 11, 2023 21:07:08 GMT
You can’t enshrine electoral promises in law Red. Unfortunately circumstances change and new problems com along. Johnson promised all sorts of things at the last election but to be fair couldn’t have known that Covid would come along that had to be dealt with instead. I agree, how about that lol. However, it should not be beyond the wit of parliament the speaker perhaps, to introduce laws or rules that limit electoral promises, or make parties more accountable to their electoral promises. It seems to me the reason we have low turnouts or electoral apathy is because the electorate have become used to politicians making ridiculous electoral promises that are never realised. For instance, Labour will build 300,000 homes a year. Everyone knows that will not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 11, 2023 21:09:38 GMT
Incidentally if you really want to know why we have a housing issue, the honest answer that no politician from any side will ever utter is that it is the ageing population staying in their houses for far too long. I’m guilty, I have four bedrooms and have only used one for years (apart from occasional visitors) and will continue to do so for years (hopefully) . Both next doors are the same and both their next doors. 5 should be family homes instead occupied by empty nesters - perhaps for 30-40 years. Our use of our housing stock is grossly inefficient. When the government tried to rectify that in council houses lefties accused them of a ‘ bedroom tax’. |
|
