The Liberal Democrats

[SkyBlueFlux]

And it's easier this time as they don't have to say different things in Tory seats they want to win and in Labour seats they want to win.

Yes, I think part of the strength in their ground game is the autonomy they give to local candidates to say the things that will get the local residents onside. That’s why they have a manifesto that says they’ll build 380k houses per year but no doubt their candidates are out there assuring people “they won’t be built here”.

I mentioned in an earlier post that this was the one thing I’m most cynical on with LibDems. NIMBYism is a real problem but one they can ignore as they’ll never have the seats to deliver their manifesto.

 

[law74]

Yes, I think part of the strength in their ground game is the autonomy they give to local candidates to say the things that will get the local residents onside. That’s why they have a manifesto that says they’ll build 380k houses per year but no doubt their candidates are out there assuring people “they won’t be built here”.

I mentioned in an earlier post that this was the one thing I’m most cynical on with LibDems. NIMBYism is a real problem but one they can ignore as they’ll never have the seats to deliver their manifesto.

I have a hunch (with zero evidence to back it up) that NIMBYISM is not as big an issue as 5,10 or 20 year's ago.
A lot of people are realising that their son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter will never be able to buy their own house, and in places not even afford to rent.
For some having a 35 year old son still at home will be enough for them to support large-scale house building, for others it will be the thought of their children having to move a couple of hundred miles away to cheaper houses, especially if they have young children will be the cause

 

[Vic]

Yes, I think part of the strength in their ground game is the autonomy they give to local candidates to say the things that will get the local residents onside. That’s why they have a manifesto that says they’ll build 380k houses per year but no doubt their candidates are out there assuring people “they won’t be built here”.

I mentioned in an earlier post that this was the one thing I’m most cynical on with LibDems. NIMBYism is a real problem but one they can ignore as they’ll never have the seats to deliver their manifesto.

Happens in local planning meetings too. Opposition councillors vote against new housing, knowing others will approve (because refusal can cost many thousands of pounds in a lost appeal) - even though planning is not supposed to be party political. But then some will go public on "we opposed it but the majority party rubber-stamped it". What they don't clock is that while elderly NIMBYs have objected to the plans, their (or someone else's) grandchildren will be queueing up to buy the houses off plan.

We had one village where 100 new houses were in the local plan. The objectors said it would add to the traffic problems - which they'd caused by moving into new houses in the village over the last 30 years.

I don't think we've seen the end of NIMBYism, but politicians are wising up to knowing that for every objector there's a young person or couple want a house somewhere but aren't writing to support every housing application. And it's a recognised factor that opposition to new housing boosts house prices to the benefit of existing homeowners who object.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Some crazy stuff on that account.