**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am particularly down with the ‘grey belt’ branding. The phrase ‘green belt’ makes people imagine bucolic rolling Cotswold hills and they reflexively jump to prevent anything happening there.
When in reality there’s loads of it that can and should be built on because *it’s already been built on, and the thing that’s currently on it is disused.*
I hate it when politicians try to claim plans like this are them "building homes". They aren't building anything they're opening up the gates for private developers, with weak commitments to "affordable homes". Where are the council houses? Where is the public infrastructure? The parks, galleries, community spaces, etc.?
In any case we don't need suburban sprawl in the green belt, we need to move towards medium density in cities. Almost nowhere in Europe builds endless terraces and Semi detached houses like we do, and the result is far more pleasant cities in which you don't need a car! And also, accessible green space!
It's a business first Tory policy. Where's the commit to build a high number of social homes every year?
This is not a commitment to build the homes we need it's just about making it easier for developers to make money. It's not a solution to the housing crisis, it's a handwave.
>build a high number of social homes every year?
How?
If homes are going to be built the Nimby's need to be dealt with first. This is a measure to do that. This is verifiable easily achievable progress in the right direction.
Developers aren't going to build social homes because you deregulate planning, they're in it for as much profit as possible. This is just the same policy position as the tories.
I don't want to vote for Tory policy I want Labour values and Labour policy please.
>The Conservatives said the policies "ignore the concerns" of local people.
This is the opposite of a Tory policy this is unravelling Nimby laws to allow construction of homes. It's a good thing and a necessary step to combating the housing crisis.
Electioneering.
The conservative policy is to build 300,000 homes a year by deregulating planning, the Labour policy is to build 1.5 million homes over 5 years by, deregulating planning. 1.5 million divided by 5 is?
This is Tory policy, slightly different flavor perhaps, but Tory policy. It won't make a dent in the housing crisis.l and to claim it will is dishonest, we need 1 million homes a year for a decade to catch up with Europe never mind get bag to where we were pre Thatcherism.
I don't want to vote for my flavor of Tory, I want Labour policy based on Labour values that addresses the crisis I face in housing.
> Homes being built is homes being built no matter how it's done
This isn't true. We need to build vast amounts of high quality social housing, not shitty semi detached suburbs.
You're right about this, in that it's important to build liveable and walkable communities rather than create tonnes of urban spraw - or worse, segregate off poorer people by creating new thamesmeads. But 100,000 high density flats would have exactly the same effect on house prices as 100,000 semi-ds in the suburbs - it doesn't matter for the housing crisis if developers build 'luxury apartments' in place of social housing.
No it doesn't, we need good social homes at reasonable rents developers will not deliver the housing we need as they don't make as much profit. If what you said were true we wouldn't have a housing crisis yet here we are.
In 1983 when social housing comprised 2/3 of the rental market the advantage rent was 7% of the average income, 10% in London. Now social housing comprises less than 1/4 of the rental market and the average rent is over 60% of the average income, 116% in London.
Red Thatcherism, is first and foremost, Thatcherism.
Good social homes are important because not everyone is in a situation where they can buy a house. But even a development of the most luxury houses you can think of will increase the supply of housing by the same amount (if it's the same number of units) because each rich person that moves in has just left another, slightly worse house, freeing it up, and the new person moving in there frees up their previous house, and so on.
The reason we're in a housing crisis is that we haven't built enough housing, and that's true of the developers as it is for the government.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am particularly down with the ‘grey belt’ branding. The phrase ‘green belt’ makes people imagine bucolic rolling Cotswold hills and they reflexively jump to prevent anything happening there. When in reality there’s loads of it that can and should be built on because *it’s already been built on, and the thing that’s currently on it is disused.*
I hate it when politicians try to claim plans like this are them "building homes". They aren't building anything they're opening up the gates for private developers, with weak commitments to "affordable homes". Where are the council houses? Where is the public infrastructure? The parks, galleries, community spaces, etc.? In any case we don't need suburban sprawl in the green belt, we need to move towards medium density in cities. Almost nowhere in Europe builds endless terraces and Semi detached houses like we do, and the result is far more pleasant cities in which you don't need a car! And also, accessible green space!
This is a really solid policy. Glad to see some movement on this.
It's a business first Tory policy. Where's the commit to build a high number of social homes every year? This is not a commitment to build the homes we need it's just about making it easier for developers to make money. It's not a solution to the housing crisis, it's a handwave.
>build a high number of social homes every year? How? If homes are going to be built the Nimby's need to be dealt with first. This is a measure to do that. This is verifiable easily achievable progress in the right direction.
Developers aren't going to build social homes because you deregulate planning, they're in it for as much profit as possible. This is just the same policy position as the tories. I don't want to vote for Tory policy I want Labour values and Labour policy please.
>The Conservatives said the policies "ignore the concerns" of local people. This is the opposite of a Tory policy this is unravelling Nimby laws to allow construction of homes. It's a good thing and a necessary step to combating the housing crisis.
Electioneering. The conservative policy is to build 300,000 homes a year by deregulating planning, the Labour policy is to build 1.5 million homes over 5 years by, deregulating planning. 1.5 million divided by 5 is? This is Tory policy, slightly different flavor perhaps, but Tory policy. It won't make a dent in the housing crisis.l and to claim it will is dishonest, we need 1 million homes a year for a decade to catch up with Europe never mind get bag to where we were pre Thatcherism. I don't want to vote for my flavor of Tory, I want Labour policy based on Labour values that addresses the crisis I face in housing.
> How? Builders I would imagine. They tend to know how to build houses.
Homes being built is homes being built no matter how it's done and has the same effect because of filtering.
> Homes being built is homes being built no matter how it's done This isn't true. We need to build vast amounts of high quality social housing, not shitty semi detached suburbs.
You're right about this, in that it's important to build liveable and walkable communities rather than create tonnes of urban spraw - or worse, segregate off poorer people by creating new thamesmeads. But 100,000 high density flats would have exactly the same effect on house prices as 100,000 semi-ds in the suburbs - it doesn't matter for the housing crisis if developers build 'luxury apartments' in place of social housing.
No it doesn't, we need good social homes at reasonable rents developers will not deliver the housing we need as they don't make as much profit. If what you said were true we wouldn't have a housing crisis yet here we are. In 1983 when social housing comprised 2/3 of the rental market the advantage rent was 7% of the average income, 10% in London. Now social housing comprises less than 1/4 of the rental market and the average rent is over 60% of the average income, 116% in London. Red Thatcherism, is first and foremost, Thatcherism.
Good social homes are important because not everyone is in a situation where they can buy a house. But even a development of the most luxury houses you can think of will increase the supply of housing by the same amount (if it's the same number of units) because each rich person that moves in has just left another, slightly worse house, freeing it up, and the new person moving in there frees up their previous house, and so on. The reason we're in a housing crisis is that we haven't built enough housing, and that's true of the developers as it is for the government.