Starmer's speech

Starmer always reminds me of the very boring Priest in Father Ted who, as soon as he starts talking, sends people to sleep. 🤣

DrWatson
Fact check:

We’ve seen no evidence that councils implementing the 15 minute cities concept are attempting to place restrictions on how often residents can go to the shops. Some councils are also proposing schemes which would restrict traffic on some roads, which have been the subject of controversy, though these aren’t always necessarily directly linked to the 15 minute cities concept.

It's a lie and a very specific and deliberate type if lie, presumable aimed at those in the Red Wall as they know such lies have worked on them in the past. You can disagree with a proposal without either lying or being lied to.

Source: fullfact.org/news/mark-harper-15-minute-cities/

Thanks DaisyAnneReturns. ‘Reminded of rallies by Adolf Hitler’ How can this statement not link the dictator and his followers with Mr Starmer and the people at the conference

Back to the speech, I’ll be delighted if brownsites in our deprived northern town are developed, with social housing and facilities developed.

Dr Watson you say the comparison was with RALLIES in general, NOT the particular people at the front.

And yet the poster put I was reminded of the rallies by Adolf Hitler. I'm not sure how any one could read that and say it has no reference to AH.

(Capitals means you are shouting at us, by the way)

Casdon

Callistemon21

LizzieDrip

There are many brownfield sites available which should be utilised first and they would be closer to amenities too.

Which is explicitly where Keir Starmer said new building would take place. He said new building would not happen on greenfield sites. As you rightly say Callistemon21 there are plenty of brownfield sites, many of which are eyesores and would benefit from new builds. A small estate of affordable houses was recently built on a disused brownfield site near me and it totally enhances the locality. Bring it on, I say!

I may not have been concentrating at that bit!

Reading the thread gives a different impression 🤔

There has been some building on a brownfield site near here but much more on what was Green Belt land.

When I think of brownfield site building, I think of regeneration of former industrial areas that leave a real blot on the landscape in towns and cities. All the docks developments in major cities, and the former steelworks sites in the Welsh Valleys are such an improvement on what was there before. Surely it’s worth investing the money to use this otherwise worthless land?

There are housing estates being built all along on the former Llanwern Steelworks site:

The completed £1 billion project will see a total of 4,000 new homes built, while a new primary school – Glan Llyn Primary – which opened in 2019, sports facilities and a pub have already been built.

Other community facilities, including a community centre, will be constructed, and a new business park with offices, manufacturing and warehousing, and new transport links including roads, cycle routes, footpaths and bus services will also be built.

Callistemon21

LizzieDrip

There are many brownfield sites available which should be utilised first and they would be closer to amenities too.

Which is explicitly where Keir Starmer said new building would take place. He said new building would not happen on greenfield sites. As you rightly say Callistemon21 there are plenty of brownfield sites, many of which are eyesores and would benefit from new builds. A small estate of affordable houses was recently built on a disused brownfield site near me and it totally enhances the locality. Bring it on, I say!

I may not have been concentrating at that bit!

Reading the thread gives a different impression 🤔

There has been some building on a brownfield site near here but much more on what was Green Belt land.

When I think of brownfield site building, I think of regeneration of former industrial areas that leave a real blot on the landscape in towns and cities. All the docks developments in major cities, and the former steelworks sites in the Welsh Valleys are such an improvement on what was there before. Surely it’s worth investing the money to use this otherwise worthless land?

‘Starmers planning reforms welcomed by the profession’:
www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/starmers-proposed-planning-reforms-welcomed-by-the-profession

That is the case fancythat but with government support and backing it can be made worthwhile for the developers. Currently, only the more expensive houses tend to be built on brownfield because of the extra costs involved.

* Callistemon21* apologies, what Starmer actually said in his speech was that, in addition to brownfield sites, ‘grey’ field sites could be developed e.g. disused car parks etc. He also specifically said new building would NOT involve ‘ripping up the countryside’. Regarding the thread … people interpret things in their own way.

I think I am right in saying that brownfield sites are more expensive, or potentially more expensive to build on for developers, than greenfield sites.

Brownfield sites have to be cleared first of any potential health hazards in the soil.

LizzieDrip

*There are many brownfield sites available which should be utilised first and they would be closer to amenities too.*

Which is explicitly where Keir Starmer said new building would take place. He said new building would not happen on greenfield sites. As you rightly say Callistemon21 there are plenty of brownfield sites, many of which are eyesores and would benefit from new builds. A small estate of affordable houses was recently built on a disused brownfield site near me and it totally enhances the locality. Bring it on, I say!

I may not have been concentrating at that bit!

Reading the thread gives a different impression 🤔

There has been some building on a brownfield site near here but much more on what was Green Belt land.

There are many brownfield sites available which should be utilised first and they would be closer to amenities too.

Which is explicitly where Keir Starmer said new building would take place. He said new building would not happen on greenfield sites. As you rightly say Callistemon21 there are plenty of brownfield sites, many of which are eyesores and would benefit from new builds. A small estate of affordable houses was recently built on a disused brownfield site near me and it totally enhances the locality. Bring it on, I say!

Catlover123

I was feeling hopeful but when he said he was going to override local opposition to planning he lost me. Local democracy is important.

I agree

We must not build on needed agricultural land, nor develop new estates without amenities as has happened, on the outside of towns and cities.

There are many brownfield sites available which should be utilised first and they would be closer to amenities too.

www.cpre.org.uk/about-us/cpre-media/record-breaking-number-of-brownfield-sites-identified-for-redevelopment/

DrWatson

For SarahCyn - "pretty good speech"? Well, there is a ticking time bomb in there, which will be attacked when the Tories have woken up (well, IF . . .) and that was the reference to ripping up Planning Laws to make it easier to build more houses.

If and when floating voters realise that could mean them getting horrible new estates next door, or worse a tower block (even a low-rise one) and there's naff all they can do about it, that's a big chunk of potential votes who may not give Labour their X, despite the staggering combined stupidity of BoJo, the hopeless Truss, and weathervane Sunak (clearly loves Bob Dylan, for his Blowin in the Wind ethic).

People over much of the country do NOT want further big chunks of the Green Belt (or their available countryside) concreted over, and despite Starmer referring to safeguards and guidelines, we all know how those can get tweaked if it's expedient?!

There are several new estates going up around here and everywhere we've been.
🤔

All I could think was - thank goodness it's not Corbyn standing there.

I'll read the manifestos.

fancythat

Iam64

Compairing Starmer to Hitler - what nonsense. There’s a particular irony given Starmer’s strong views on anti semitism

And his wife and children are Jews.

Yes, I’m well aware that Starmer’s wife is Jewish and that the family keep Shabbat. He tries to avoid working on Friday evening but that can’t be easy.

orly

Everything was qualified with "if we get in at the next election" as if he's hoping that they don't get it as they are clueless.

Heavens above !!!! What nonsence.

Our Labour council would welcome what he says. They have been sitting on planning permission for a new estate since before Covid. I thought it hadn’t gone anywhere because several of the planning committee would be affected. They won’t have a leg to stand on!

I agree ronib that we need to be 'watchful' and not just of apparent extremist agendas (these may edge in like sheep in wolf's clothing). And I am fearful of schemes like 15 minute cities, imposed 'for the good of all', which generally means for the good of someone higher up, who will benefit from depriving us of our freedom. I have been supporting Labour and hoping they win the next election for the sake of all the poor people who are struggling on benefit, and with low wages. I just hope something happens in that area, not just more ULEZ type schemes

For SarahCyn - "pretty good speech"? Well, there is a ticking time bomb in there, which will be attacked when the Tories have woken up (well, IF . . .) and that was the reference to ripping up Planning Laws to make it easier to build more houses.

If and when floating voters realise that could mean them getting horrible new estates next door, or worse a tower block (even a low-rise one) and there's naff all they can do about it, that's a big chunk of potential votes who may not give Labour their X, despite the staggering combined stupidity of BoJo, the hopeless Truss, and weathervane Sunak (clearly loves Bob Dylan, for his Blowin in the Wind ethic).

People over much of the country do NOT want further big chunks of the Green Belt (or their available countryside) concreted over, and despite Starmer referring to safeguards and guidelines, we all know how those can get tweaked if it's expedient?!

For DaisyAnneReturns, I'd guess the jibe by Tory Mark Harper that ""What is sinister, and what we shouldn't tolerate, is the idea that local councils can decide how often we should go to the shops." is targeting the various Labour councils - some with LibDem help - who've been implementing Local Traffic Neighbourhoods and other policies designed to attack motorists? And put in with 'consultation' that ignores a mass of contrary opinion! [NB - see my other comment re lack of faith in ANY politicos!]

As a recently retired nurse I’m as well qualified to comment on the NHS as anyone, it’s not beds, it’s bed blocking causing lack of places in hospitals. The increase in day procedures (including maternity) has reduced demand for beds, cost cutting makes it much harder to do the job.

Most of all staff shortage and management ineptitude makes proper patient care very difficult.

Everything was qualified with "if we get in at the next election" as if he's hoping that they don't get it as they are clueless.

For IAM64, don't be silly? The comparison was with RALLIES in general, NOT the particular people at the front.

NOBODY is saying that Starmer is like Hitler, in fact on all known evidence, he's highly unlikely to try and suggest much decisive policy (at the 2019 election, he was touting I think it was "6 possible Brexit policies"?!).

Various pundits have said that with a massive polls lead, and the wretched Tories determined to keep shooting themselves in both feet, he needs to say as little as possible other than general 'feel good' slogans.

[NB -- having voted since the 60s, and with mountains of evidence, I lost faith many years ago that ANY of our politicos, any badge, would shed the easy accusation that they are generally incompetent, often corrupt, and far too likely to put party interests above ours. I suggested back in the 90s I think it was that we should sub-contract out our Gove to somewhere sensible like Holland or Denmark, they could do a better job in about 2 days a week, and cost us far less!]

Casdon yes my thinking is very muddled on health…. and I think the Nhs leadership does advocate a lean machine best buck approach which is failing to give results. I don’t know that the Conservative Party is looking to privatise the Nhs - big mistake if that’s true.

The Guardian seems to echo the traditional left wing approach to private education and seems very limited in its scope.

I don't think the comment was thought through in that way ronib. The poster could have compared the reception of the speech to many things, a football match for example.

The Conservative Party, its followers and its current leader had a conference to prepare for opposition. Sadly, they are being very Trumpian in how they are going about it. They are throwing every bit of lying ordure at the wall, in the hope that something sticks. At the Conference we had:

" ... a government diktat to sort your rubbish into 7 different bins." (Rishi Sunak)

"What is sinister, and what we shouldn't tolerate, is the idea that local councils can decide how often we should go to the shops." (Mark Harper)

"It's no wonder that Labour seem so relaxed about taxing meat". (Claire Coutinho)

I think the "Hitler" post is of the same ilk as these lies. It is said in the hope that the lie is halfway round the world before truth has got its boots on.

If this Trunpian vein is to be followed, do the supporters of the entitled right see themselves marching on, and attacking, parliament in a few years time in order to overturn our democracy?

ronib

Casdon we will be facing different challenges in 2024 to those in 1997.
Re health - so with the physical expansion of hospital building there was no similar expansion of numbers of medical staff training places. As has been discussed before, this is because the BMA voted against increasing medical training places. No wonder there are now 7.5 million on the Nhs waiting list.

The Guardian is no authority on inequality in education. So The Guardian doesn’t approve of lower middle class families being given a private education? It isn’t for the Guardian to block apparent opportunities for this group because the ‘real’ working class had no access to assisted places. Life is so much more complicated and nuanced than anything the Guardian prints.

Fundamentally the domestic challenge now is not dissimilar to what it was in 1997. ronib.
Your thinking on the NHS is muddled. The hospital building programme was not designed to increase NHS bed numbers, it was to replace outdated facilities and equipment. Since then, the hospital bed stock reduced by 8.3% between 2010/11 and 2019/20, I worked in the NHS, and can tell you that has had the most profound impact on the growth of waiting lists. Anybody who has had, or is waiting for an operation will tell you that the main reason for delays is lack of beds - and that is because the NHS has insufficient funding to run safe services. Staffing levels are of course an issue, because the NHS is leaching staff and there are insufficient training places - but the root of the problem is Tory funding levels as part of a deliberate policy to privatise.

Your take on education is interesting - do you think the Guardian has some influence on educational policy?