The Labour Government

Vic said:
I presume every council has a policy (explicit or assumed) about where and how high towers may go.

If your contention is that the North is disadvantaged because housing demand is higher in the south, that's just part of the self-perpetuating reality of the pull of London.

Developers will go for highest profit, governments will say you must provide "affordable" homes, and developers will plead "viability".

The previous government scuppered NPR, by scrapping HS2 to Crewe and Manchester. NPR relied on sharing the HS2 infrastructure from High Legh into Manchester (and even then it was not a great business case). £17bn was a Tory fiction - there's no way it would fund new platforms at Piccadilly (let alone another £4bn for Burnham's subsurface station), 7 miles of tunnel under south Manchester, then another 30 miles of new or converted railway to Liverpool with 3 motorway crossings and over the Ship Canal, revamping Warrington Bank Quay, and the two new stations Mayor Rotheram wants in Liverpool), plus an airport station that was always to be privately funded - and all to have a Liverpool-Manchester journey time slower than Lime St - Victoria now.

I suspect we're actually on the same hymnsheet about infrastructure spending in London. Who can forget this benefit from cancelling HS2 to the North?
Click to expand...
My overarching contention is around not making aggressive steps via investment and financial incentives to major businesses to decentralise our economy away from just the south east.

Housing is clearly unaffordable in London with areas like Enfield now up in the 350-400k bracket for a run down ex council house.

You therefore have three options or a combination there of..

1). In the Greater London area force the building of affordable houses by legislation, if land in the area is held for over 3yrs without houses being developed and sold then the land is sold at the median asking price for similar land to another developer or the government.

2). Build high speed railways to London which are cheap, for people commuting from the north, look to offset a percentage of the standard commuting fare against tax so that its no more expensive than travelling from say Stevenage (for instance). This allows cheaper houses in the north to be utilised but has the benefit of bringing higher salaries and money back to northern communities, hence improving the local economies.

3). Develop the North and significantly reduce spending in the London area, e.g. scrap the Lower Thames crossing for instance costing £10Bn. This will cool the growth in London. Use the money to incentivise major international and UK businesses to locate to the North to readdress the balance. For reference the spending per person is 2.5 times in London compared to northern England, that equates to 2.4k less per person. Make the spend equal.
 
Last edited:
west didsblue said:
What are we doing on here if not expressing opinions then?
In my opinion you’re posting shite.
Click to expand...
Now that made me laugh.....

What are we actually doing in the sub basement of a football forum. Are we changing the world, or UK ?

Are we making a difference to anything ?

No, we're all moaning and talking shite.

Some seem to love pretending to be a huge fish in a tiny pond though !
 
Someone at Labour knew what they were doing, and wrote that speech to be as offensive in order for the left to be against it, so they can turn around and say look we are not the party of progressives, uni students and urban liberals in order to capture Reform/Tory voters.

So I don't know why the centre are trying to say he didn't mean it, at least own up to the fact ffs.
 
west didsblue said:
If you think Starmer will ever be hailed a hero on here you haven’t been on here very long.
He could cut NHS waiting lists to zero, cut taxes, reduce the deficit and improve public services and the same people will still moan about him.
Click to expand...
Disagree, I for one would vote for him.... sadly, he hasn't a clue as to how best to achieve your admiral objectives.... that is why he is unlikely to be hailed a hero on here (with notable exceptions who just cannot blow enough smoke up his arse).
 
117 M34 said:
The tories weren't doing this.
Their plan was to round them up and send then to a country they've never been to before.
This plan is to send them back to where they came from.
Click to expand...
The significant difference in the plans (I believe) is that the Rwanda plan sent people to have their case heard in Rwanda failed cases were returned to homeland or remained in Rwanda no idea what happened to successful cases. whereas under this plan it would only be failed applicants sent to the Balkans until their homeland became safe enough for a return. Not knocking either there needs to be a deterrent.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Would Rwanda be one option? What a fucking joke, he had the ideal opportunity to test this but instead threw away millions of pounds already invested..... and started again. What a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

It was a failed gimmick , a desperate last minute policy that was never going to work, Rwanda deterrent was already in place but it didn’t reduce the boats at all, the projected forecast was that it was going to cost millions/billions to just fly a few handful of migrants out to Rwanda. It failed.
Why you getting upset Labour seem to genuinely trying to tackle the migrant issue ? Isn’t that what you’ve been begging for ? You was claiming they’re just ignoring the issue and now they talk proposals you get all pent up. Seems unless it’s out of Farages mouth nothing will satisfy.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
It was a failed gimmick , a desperate last minute policy that was never going to work, Rwanda deterrent was already in place but it didn’t reduce the boats at all, the projected forecast was that it was going to cost millions/billions to just fly a few handful of migrants out to Rwanda. It failed.
Why you getting upset Labour seem to genuinely trying to tackle the migrant issue ? Isn’t that what you’ve been begging for ? You was claiming they’re just ignoring the issue and now they talk proposals you get all pent up. Seems unless it’s out of Farages mouth nothing will satisfy.
Click to expand...
More meaningless pointless drivel.... don't you ever stop?

I have never quoted Farage... (unlike you and Starmer).

If you are capable of comprehending the written word, in my post I don't knock Starmer for doing what he's doing, all I do is call him out for being a hypocrite - back to school for you I think.

The failed gimmick wasn't the brightest move but it was an attempt that would see people sent to Rwanda immediately where their cases would be processed. From what I understand Starmers solution involves processing them here then..... so no real resolution except once they've been processed we pay for them to go somewhere else... in the meantime, whilst they're being processed.... all the while the backlog grows, more cost, more hotels, more housing needed... great idea.
 
ganganvince said:
The significant difference in the plans (I believe) is that the Rwanda plan sent people to have their case heard in Rwanda failed cases were returned to homeland or remained in Rwanda no idea what happened to successful cases. whereas under this plan it would only be failed applicants sent to the Balkans until their homeland became safe enough for a return. Not knocking either there needs to be a deterrent.
Click to expand...
If there is a need to wait in a third country for 'their homeland to become safe enough for a return' then surely that would be pretty clear evidence that they had a legitimate asylum claim? Either their home country isn't safe to return to, in which case they're granted asylum, or it is, in which case they can be put on the first flight back there.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
If there is a need to wait in a third country for 'their homeland to become safe enough for a return' then surely that would be pretty clear evidence that they had a legitimate asylum claim? Either their home country isn't safe to return to, in which case they're granted asylum, or it is, in which case they can be put on the first flight back there.
Click to expand...

That was my initial thought … so surely a pointless policy? Unless I’m missing something which is quite possible!
 
BigJoe#1 said:
More meaningless pointless drivel.... don't you ever stop?

I have never quoted Farage... (unlike you and Starmer).

If you are capable of comprehending the written word, in my post I don't knock Starmer for doing what he's doing, all I do is call him out for being a hypocrite - back to school for you I think.

The failed gimmick wasn't the brightest move but it was an attempt that would see people sent to Rwanda immediately where their cases would be processed. From what I understand Starmers solution involves processing them here then..... so no real resolution except once they've been processed we pay for them to go somewhere else... in the meantime, whilst they're being processed.... all the while the backlog grows, more cost, more hotels, more housing needed... great idea.
Click to expand...
"From what I understand" seems to be your usual excuse for not understanding.

People weren't to be removed to Rwanda to have their British asylum case processed, but forcibly deported to claim asylum in Rwanda.
 
Vic said:
"From what I understand" seems to be your usual excuse for not understanding.

People weren't to be removed to Rwanda to have their British asylum case processed, but forcibly deported to claim asylum in Rwanda.
Click to expand...

That brick did some damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top