Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[takno]

Isn't he suspended from the Labour Party so could face deselection or could stand as independent. I am unsure if he'd win in that case as I am sure most people just cross the box for the party not really the person themselves.

He's actually not suspended from the party anymore, but he still hasn't had the whip restored (and probably won't ever get it restored under Starmer), so he's not eligible anyway. The local party is pretty torn on the whole thing according to the article I read last week, partly because they don't fancy their chances against him and partly because they mostly still support him.

 

[Thirteen]

He's actually not suspended from the party anymore, but he still hasn't had the whip restored (and probably won't ever get it restored under Starmer), so he's not eligible anyway. The local party is pretty torn on the whole thing according to the article I read last week, partly because they don't fancy their chances against him and partly because they mostly still support him.

I suppose the danger of putting a Labour candidate against Corbyn is that it splits the vote and allows another party to nab that seat.

I wonder what's the most amount of MPs to not stand at an election?

 

[WizCastro197]

I suppose the danger of putting a Labour candidate against Corbyn is that it splits the vote and allows another party to nab that seat.

I wonder what's the most amount of MPs to not stand at an election?

If that does happen, I am sure the likely outcome if another party were to swoop in and take the seat, it would be Lib Dems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==

I suppose the danger of putting a Labour candidate against Corbyn is that it splits the vote and allows another party to nab that seat.

I wonder what's the most amount of MPs to not stand at an election?

List of MPs who stood down at the 2010 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Acfb]

I think Corbyn is still a member of the Labour Party (his membership was only ever suspended and that was soon ended), but he has not been given back the Labour whip, so he sits as an independent.

Raab is a potential embarrassment and has a seat that a better candidate might hold. I can see him being offered a nice little job or two if he will step down: Chairman of the Tomato Throwers Association (£110,000 p.a. for fifteen hours a month) or the Crete Beach Tourist Examination Committee (£20,000 pcm (30 hours a week, May-September only)).

I don't particularly mind whether Corbyn remains an MP now although I am genuinely troubled by the obsession/level of hatred that still exists among various centrists and the Labour right that goes well beyond reasonable criticisms. See also Rachel Reeves mentioning Corbyn today at the Labour Friends of Israel Meeting


I think it depends on whether they try to stitch things up or not. If Corbyn is a not allowed to allowed to stand but they allow a popular local left winger to stand then I think Corbyn would happily stand down and endorse that candidate. On the other hand they might to parachute some right wing central office ghoul in and Corbyn could win a la Blaenau Gwent 2005.

 

[Thirteen]

There is a rumour that Corbyn wants to stand as Mayor of London in 2024 but I cannot see it myself mostly because I think his time as Labour leader probably hurts his chances of winning.

 

[takno]

I suppose the danger of putting a Labour candidate against Corbyn is that it splits the vote and allows another party to nab that seat.

I wonder what's the most amount of MPs to not stand at an election?

I think Corbyn got over twice as many votes as the second place candidate at the last election, so while it's always a risk it's probably one of the safest seats for that kind of contest.

 

[WizCastro197]

I think Corbyn got over twice as many votes as the second place candidate at the last election, so while it's always a risk it's probably one of the safest seats for that kind of contest.

4x more votes.

 

[Thirteen]

4x more votes.

I didn't realise how safe a seat it was for Labour until looking at past elections, the only time a rival candidate broke 10,000 vots was 2010 and Corbyn still won it comfortably.

 

[birchesgreen]

The best bet would be for Labour to not stand a candidate against Corbyn then quietly restore the whip to him if/when Labour win the election comfortably.

 

[DustyBin]

The best bet would be for Labour to not stand a candidate against Corbyn then quietly restore the whip to him if/when Labour win the election comfortably.

Would he then be able to mount a leadership challenge though?

 

[Snow1964]

One thing I have noticed where I live is the Conservatives seem to have abandoned being noticed. Current MP hasn’t appeared at anything locally (our town is changing constituency under the proposed boundary changes, so she doesn’t make effort to come here any more)

MP of constituency which we are moving to hasn’t bothered to be seen in our town either.

Feels like they have a policy of we know we will lose, so can’t be bothered to be seen locally anymore. Either that or are just disorganised and they haven’t realised both old and new constituency teams are leaving it to each other, with neither covering.

 

[brad465]

One thing I have noticed where I live is the Conservatives seem to have abandoned being noticed. Current MP hasn’t appeared at anything locally (our town is changing constituency under the proposed boundary changes, so she doesn’t make effort to come here any more)

MP of constituency which we are moving to hasn’t bothered to be seen in our town either.

Feels like they have a policy of we know we will lose, so can’t be bothered to be seen locally anymore. Either that or are just disorganised and they haven’t realised both old and new constituency teams are leaving it to each other, with neither covering.

Maybe you can get comedian Adam Hills to do a mock surgery in your constituency, like he did in Hancock's while the latter is in the jungle

 

[Typhoon]

If that does happen, I am sure the likely outcome if another party were to swoop in and take the seat, it would be Lib Dems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2022 ==

List of MPs who stood down at the 2010 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2010 - Labour in power for 13 years, many that were standing down were Blairites, and it followed widespread boundary changes. My MP, decent constituency MP, at the time stood down when the number of MPs for the area was reduced. I suspect she was not alone. This time the boundary changes are likely to favour the governing party though.

 

[ainsworth74]

A reminder that this is the thread for Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives so I rather feel that discussing any future moves of Jeremy Corbyn is a touch off-topic

 

[jfollows]

Danny Finkelstein writes today in The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-should-act-as-if-theyve-already-lost-2bbn7pkjh) that, since the Conservatives aren't going to win the next election and will have to make some significant changes, they should start now rather than after they've lost the election.
Specifically, he thinks that they'll have to:

• Be honest about its failures in office
• Address the ethical failings of Boris Johnson and his administration
• Promise independent policing of the ministerial code
• Acknowledge and apologise for the spectacular loss of financial control and sense
• Address the way in which party members were bribed into choosing a completely unsuitable prime minister

Of course, they're not going to do this because it would require them admitting today that they're wrong, and would only provide further ammunition to their opponents. So they'll continue to plunge forwards in the hope that something will change, which it won't, and the country will be all the worse for it.

I've paraphrased some of his words, but the article follows:

Tories should act as if they’ve already lost
It’s clear the Conservative Party will have to reinvent itself in the event of defeat — but why wait until then to move?​

Daniel Finkelstein

Tuesday November 22 2022, 5.00pm, The Times

A couple of years before the 1997 general election I invited over an American friend who had experience as a strategist on a number of victorious presidential campaigns. The Tories were in a mess, I explained. Did he have any advice about what to do?

He came to London for a few days, met a range of government ministers, studied some of the opinion polling and talked to defecting Tory voters. All before telling me that he really didn’t know what to do. But just as I was beginning to think both the time and money I’d expended on the visit had been wasted, he provided me with one of the best pieces of political advice I’ve ever had.

“I don’t know what you should do,” he said. “But you know what you should do.” Noticing my look of confusion, he continued. “I suspect you’ve got a good idea what it is you might do to recover if you lose,” he said. I acknowledged that I’d begun to think about it and had at least some rough thoughts. “Good,” he responded. “Now ask yourself — are you going to lose?” I conceded that we almost certainly were going to. Which is when he said: “Well, what are you waiting for?”

His point was that if the Tory party was going to have to change when it lost, and I thought it probably would lose, why not start making the moves now that you knew would eventually be necessary. Why wait until you’d been removed from office?

A real insight. And quite a good way for Rishi Sunak to look at what to do next.

The situation now isn’t quite what it was in the mid 1990s, of course. The economic position is more difficult but the opponent the Tories face is less fearsome. Defeat for John Major’s government seemed to me to be almost inevitable, whereas now I merely think defeat for the Tories highly likely. I still think my friend’s way of looking at it is helpful.

If the Tories lose in 2024 the party will need to change in order to win again. It’s not hard to imagine what sort of things it will need to do to recover support. And since, let’s face it, it probably will lose, it may as well get to work now.

The first step on the road to recovery for any new opposition is to be honest about its failures in office and to address the problems voters have with it. If you don’t do that — as Ed Miliband showed when he took over as Labour leader in 2010, just to give one example — you go nowhere.

The Conservatives have now provided two prime ministers in a row that its own MPs have concluded could not do the job. In opposition this failure will have to be confronted, an explanation provided, some sort of apology proffered and a promise given not to let it happen again. So why not do this now?

The new leaders of the government, Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, are seeking to move on smoothly from what has happened. But they can’t possibly think the rest of us have.

A Tory opposition that wanted a return to power would have to address the ethical failings of the Johnson administration and promise independent policing of the ministerial code. It would have to acknowledge the spectacular lapse in financial control and say sorry for it. And it would have to address the issue of party members choosing prime ministers in exchange for a small donation.

It’s unthinkable that a return to power could be secured without this, and any leader of the opposition would soon work that out. So Sunak should do all this while he is still in office.

What else? Well, the moment the party is defeated, it will commission a study on why it lost and who didn’t vote for it. But it’s already perfectly obvious that this study will conclude that the party did much better among older people than younger ones. It will observe that the age gap has become so large that it threatens the future existence of the party. The study will show that the problem isn’t just with students but with everyone still of working age.

Why wait to read this study in opposition when you know already what is going to be in it? Why not think now how to diversify the party’s appeal and reach new voters?

Before an opposition can win power it has to persuade voters that it can be trusted. It needs to seem moderate, professional and capable of resisting pressure from ideologues. Its leader needs to come across as if he or she is properly in charge and not just being pushed about by party factions. They need to take risks to challenge the hardliners and show who is boss. The Conservative Party may as well try to govern like that while it is still in office.

An opposition also needs a vision, something optimistic, something that suggests it can change the country for the better. And while they may offer a smaller, nimbler state, the Conservatives won’t be able to rest entirely on tax cuts to provide this vision. Labour will point out that such tax cuts would require spending cuts and, inevitably, the Tories in opposition would be forced to provide reassurances. That’s what oppositions do.

So the vision will have to come from promising to run the state better, spend public money more effectively, provide consumers with more choice. Why not start now? While the party is still in power it can actually implement some of this.

And Brexit? A Labour government is bound to develop a new relationship with Europe, one which is consistent with its desire to match the European social model. The Conservatives, lacking the unity to do anything else, will fight their next successful election campaign leaving the issue well alone and promising mere pragmatism. They may as well promise that now.

It is often said that the Conservative Party (let alone the country) would benefit from a period in opposition. But this assumes there is something special about opposition that enables you to think. There isn’t. In fact, in opposition
you have less help developing workable policies.

The advantage of opposition to a party is only that eventually people in it get fed up with losing and decide that they had better do something about it. There is nothing magical about this. And there is no brilliant thought that will magically occur to Tories out of office.

The best time to be fed up with losing and determined to avoid it is before you lose. And all the things you will end up doing are plain to see. So why not just do them?

 

[DC1989]

I think the tories are in a muddle for sure. They are still completely conflicted internally about numerous issues

• For Housing/Infrastructure or Against - Large parts of conservative party want to build to get the economy going and help alleviate the housing crisis, many recognise the reason so few under 60's vote for them is not being able to get on the housing ladder. Truss of course said there was the 'anti growth coalition' against this. However another part of the party are completely against any more building (see the recent housing amendment which lead to the vote being pulled by the government)
• Pro/Against Immigration - Many tories know we need large scale immigration to keep the economy going. Net migration has been between 200-300k for the past 20 years and shows no sign of slowing down. Many tories still want to get migration down to 'tens of thousands'
• Brexit/Relationship with the EU - I think we all know about this one !
• Tax - The UK now has the highest tax burden since the 1940's. Some see it as necessary to calm the markets and bring our record debt down, many still want to cut taxes

 

[Howardh]

With Starmer ruling out the single market/customs union, then to me Labour and the Tories are both UKIP. Voters like me hoping that Labour might pave the way back into SM/CU are now politically homeless unless there's a surge towards the Libdems and we can have a Libdem/SNP/Labour coalition and Labour would be forced to improve our relations with the EEA.

So as far as the thread title goes, Sunak will be laughing all the way to the election - why vote Labour when the policy on Europe is no different than Conservatives??

 

[jfollows]

The housing thing is a big problem, for sure.
I live in a long-established area, and just about everyone is against more housing.
Developers and builders lie, don't follow the law or the planning consent properly, and cause unpleasantness to local residents during construction.
On completion, the new houses add more traffic to roads which are already beyond their design capacity as well as not being maintained properly in the first place.
The local councils are incapable of spending the money paid by the developers for local improvements.
The planning process seems to be about resubmitting the same application with minor changes until it's approved, or until someone from central government overrides local objections and forces its approval.
The local council is incapable of enforcing conditions in its planning consent, and developers know this.
Just about any Conservative area is going to be similar - it's nimby-ism of course but it's not without a lot of justification.

There may be a justification for allowing more house building, but my feeling is that the existing system is opaque and corrupt and needs radical overhaul first. For which there is no money and no political will.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The housing thing is a big problem, for sure.
I live in a long-established area, and just about everyone is against more housing.
Developers and builders lie, don't follow the law or the planning consent properly, and cause unpleasantness to local residents during construction.
On completion, the new houses add more traffic to roads which are already beyond their design capacity as well as not being maintained properly in the first place.
The local councils are incapable of spending the money paid by the developers for local improvements.
The planning process seems to be about resubmitting the same application with minor changes until it's approved, or until someone from central government overrides local objections and forces its approval.
The local council is incapable of enforcing conditions in its planning consent, and developers know this.
Just about any Conservative area is going to be similar - it's nimby-ism of course but it's not without a lot of justification.

Agree. There is poor management of new housing construction from start to finish. If it was managed well there'd always be some objections (who for instance would be happy losing their view over fields to a view into someone's front or back window*?) but there would be fewer *justified* ones.

One that people here in Milton Keynes don't get is why planning gain from new estates isn't used to dual some of the relevant single carriageways and close right turns so as to reduce negative traffic effects. The space is mostly reserved to do so, it's just grass. It's not even parkland or somewhere nice to walk the dog so nobody would object other than the zealot-level anti-road campaigners. Even if there was a view to wanting to encourage public transport use, you could put bus lanes there - as it is the cars and buses are stuck in the same jam.

* Much as I've love a house with a view like that, this is why I won't buy one, there would always be the stress of the likelihood that at some point more housing would be built blocking it.

 

[RailWonderer]

The housing thing is a big problem, for sure.
I live in a long-established area, and just about everyone is against more housing.
Developers and builders lie, don't follow the law or the planning consent properly, and cause unpleasantness to local residents during construction.
On completion, the new houses add more traffic to roads which are already beyond their design capacity as well as not being maintained properly in the first place.
The local councils are incapable of spending the money paid by the developers for local improvements.
The planning process seems to be about resubmitting the same application with minor changes until it's approved, or until someone from central government overrides local objections and forces its approval.
The local council is incapable of enforcing conditions in its planning consent, and developers know this.
Just about any Conservative area is going to be similar - it's nimby-ism of course but it's not without a lot of justification.

There may be a justification for allowing more house building, but my feeling is that the existing system is opaque and corrupt and needs radical overhaul first. For which there is no money and no political will.

When you build more houses, you also need to build another GP surgery and another school as well. Make the settlement larger and you need local shops as well. You can't tack more houses on to a town without increasing congestion. The problem is town planning has been thrown out the window to build more houses without regards to facilities. What you have then is increased congestion because more people are crowding out the same retail park or town centre with traffic.

Everytime I take a train journey I look out the window and a new housing development is being built. The WCML in the Rugby area, the GEML at Hatfield Peverel, the GWML has some as well and many other places and they are only built where convenient to the developers. In my area everyone is against them as well.

Pro/Against Immigration - Many tories know we need large scale immigration to keep the economy going. Net migration has been between 200-300k for the past 20 years and shows no sign of slowing down. Many tories still want to get migration down to 'tens of thousands'

Immigration was a key driver of the Brexit vote. Cheap foreign labour pushes down wages for British workers and makes the job market more competitive. Automation and British workers would be a better alternative to mass migration, that puts a strain on hospital waiting lists, school lists, road traffic etc.

Tax - The UK now has the highest tax burden since the 1940's. Some see it as necessary to calm the markets and bring our record debt down, many still want to cut taxes

Sunak said tax rises were temporary and they would reduce them before 2024 but that has to be replaced with 'we will reduce them once the economy has recovered' otherwise if they are here to stay electoral wipeout is almost certain. They all want to cut taxes but who knows how blind Hunt and Sunak are really.

 

[DC1989]

When you build more houses, you also need to build another GP surgery and another school as well. Make the settlement larger and you need local shops as well. You can't tack more houses on to a town without increasing congestion. The problem is town planning has been thrown out the window to build more houses without regards to facilities. What you have then is increased congestion because more people are crowding out the same retail park or town centre with traffic.

Everytime I take a train journey I look out the window and a new housing development is being built. The WCML in the Rugby area, the GEML at Hatfield Peverel, the GWML has some as well and many other places. In my area everyone is against them as well.

But often even when those things are included people are still against it. There's a new development by me that recently got planning permission that includes a primary school, GP surgery and a dentist. People were still against it. The roads are busy enough they cry!

But hold on - this development is car free (except for some disabled spaces) Nonsense they say, people will buy a car and park it in local streets instead

At the end of the day some people are just against building houses no matter what, I would have more respect for those people if they just said that !

Immigration was a key driver of the Brexit vote. Cheap foreign labour pushes down wages for British workers and makes the job market more competitive. Automation and British workers would be a better alternative to mass migration, that puts a strain on hospital waiting lists, school lists, road traffic etc.

You may well be right - but the fact remains immigration hasn't gone down and will not go down. If anything it will increase to help growth figures

It didn't go down under Boris, it wasn't going to go down under Truss, it's not going down under Sunak and it won't go down under Starmer. This is not a secret.

So we're going to have a net migration of 250-350k per year at least until the election after next (2029?) This is a fact, it's going to happen. So we need to prepare for that rather than wishing it away. That's about 1.5 million homes just to stand still (We'd still have a housing crisis)

 

[najaB]

You may well be right - but the fact remains immigration hasn't gone down and will not go down. If anything it will increase to help growth figures

It didn't go down under Boris, it wasn't going to go down under Truss, it's not going down under Sunak and it won't go down under Starmer. This is not a secret.

So we're going to have a net migration of 250-350k per year at least until the election after next (2029?) This is a fact, it's going to happen. So we need to prepare for that rather than wishing it away. That's about 1.5 million homes just to stand still (We'd still have a housing crisis)

And it's not just about immigration. If we want the economy to grow we are going to need more people in work since improvements in productivity only get you so far - it doesn't matter if those people are native-born or immigrants, they're going to need houses, schools, hospitals, etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

why vote Labour when the policy on Europe is no different than Conservatives??

Because you realise that the Government is responsible for hundreds of other things besides policy on Europe, and you have opinions about many of those things too?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But often even when those things are included people are still against it. There's a new development by me that recently got planning permission that includes a primary school, GP surgery and a dentist. People were still against it. The roads are busy enough they cry!

But hold on - this development is car free (except for some disabled spaces) Nonsense they say, people will buy a car and park it in local streets instead

Yep, they absolutely will, and it's astonishing to think they would not. People need to own cars, while the UK's public transport and cycling provision is still woeful. If they can't park them by their house, they'll park them somewhere else, they will not forego them.

Even if you live somewhere very cycle-friendly like Oxford or Cambridge, these are still very rural cities with poor public transport to anywhere around them other than London and (in Oxford's case) Birmingham.

There certainly are plain NIMBYs, though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

It didn't go down under Boris, it wasn't going to go down under Truss, it's not going down under Sunak and it won't go down under Starmer. This is not a secret.

Though it's quite understandable that some of us, me included, are angry that politicians are failing to deal with this issue properly and reduce it to people who will contribute to our economy and culture (e.g. fill unfilled jobs*), other than genuine asylum seekers who have a valid case.

* Noting that we also need to sort out a German style apprenticeship system so people are trained for jobs rather than companies just whining there aren't any engineers, say. If there aren't enough engineers, take some enthusiastic school leavers and turn them into engineers! If you want people to pick crops, give them decent conditions rather than mouldy caravans and you might get some students or older teens. If you want a good waiter, consider it a profession and not something to do zero hours on minimum wage and provide for progression as far as possible e.g. into management (McD's are good at this). Etc. Starmer's speech is totally right - business has just got self-entitled and isn't willing, in many cases, to take in people and shape them into what they want at their cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

And it's not just about immigration. If we want the economy to grow we are going to need more people in work since improvements in productivity only get you so far - it doesn't matter if those people are native-born or immigrants, they're going to need houses, schools, hospitals, etc.

My view on the "everything has to grow forever" fallacy of capitalism is well known. But to be clear it IS a fallacy, and the direct cause of "boom and bust" precisely BECAUSE things cannot grow forever. A stable economy is much better than boom-and-bust.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

When you build more houses, you also need to build another GP surgery and another school as well. Make the settlement larger and you need local shops as well. You can't tack more houses on to a town without increasing congestion. The problem is town planning has been thrown out the window to build more houses without regards to facilities. What you have then is increased congestion because more people are crowding out the same retail park or town centre with traffic.

Another big problem is a structural one of Councils. One major development planned near MK (Salden Chase) was actually located in Buckinghamshire Council's area, thus they would get any and all planning gain, with MK getting the demand for roads, parking, public transport, the tip etc with absolutely no money whatsoever to show for it. This was a total disgrace, and I and many others objected on those grounds, as a result it has been massively scaled down.

Personally I'd rather it had gone ahead but that part of creating a development like that required the boundaries to be reviewed by an independent Government agency to see if alterations need to be made to bring the development into the Council area that will de-facto provide all its services (this is different from constituency boundaries which have more to do with the number of voters in them). In this case, the eastern, western and southern boundaries of Milton Keynes, plus that corner of Northants that takes in Old Stratford (MK otherwise goes a long way north*), need expanding to encompass any such development so planning gain and Council Tax funds the infrastructure the owners and renters of these houses will actually use.

* There's actually a case to say there should be a land-swap - all the future likely expansion area of MK into MKC, and that North Eastern bit towards Olney that is never likely to be developed into the relevant bits of Northants. MKC is a unitary city council and isn't particularly good at dealing with the rural bits properly, whereas South Northants has lots of that and can probably do it better.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yep, they absolutely will, and it's astonishing to think they would not. People need to own cars, while the UK's public transport and cycling provision is still woeful. If they can't park them by their house, they'll park them somewhere else, they will not forego them.

Even if you live somewhere very cycle-friendly like Oxford or Cambridge, these are still very rural cities with poor public transport to anywhere around them other than London and (in Oxford's case) Birmingham.

There certainly are plain NIMBYs, though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==



Though it's quite understandable that some of us, me included, are angry that politicians are failing to deal with this issue properly and reduce it to people who will contribute to our economy and culture (e.g. fill unfilled jobs*), other than genuine asylum seekers who have a valid case.

* Noting that we also need to sort out a German style apprenticeship system so people are trained for jobs rather than companies just whining there aren't any engineers, say. If there aren't enough engineers, take some enthusiastic school leavers and turn them into engineers!

I agree that, as a nation, we need to be training people in the UK to do the jobs that are required, but I'm not sure it's fair to expect businesses to do all that. To take your example of an engineer, a business might take a school leaver, spend tens of thousands of pounds training that person to be an engineer while not really getting much useful work from them, and then the moment the trainee is fully qualified and able to contribute to the business, they leave for another company (Perhaps, a company that can afford higher wages because they're not wasting money training people who promptly leave ), or they decide that engineering isn't really for them, or something. You can't expect businesses to take that risk, or blame them for choosing not to do so. To that extent I don't think Starmer's speech was realistic.

 

[Typhoon]

When you build more houses, you also need to build another GP surgery and another school as well. Make the settlement larger and you need local shops as well. You can't tack more houses on to a town without increasing congestion. The problem is town planning has been thrown out the window to build more houses without regards to facilities. What you have then is increased congestion because more people are crowding out the same retail park or town centre with traffic.

As well as all sorts of other infrastructure. often the responsibility (or formerly the responsibility) of local government, who are starved of cash, and have been for some time.

But often even when those things are included people are still against it. There's a new development by me that recently got planning permission that includes a primary school, GP surgery and a dentist. People were still against it. The roads are busy enough they cry!

But it is not just the buildings, it is the staffing. There is a shell of a GP surgery at Leybourne in Kent. It has never been occupied, apparently no-one has come forward to take it on, so the developer wants to convert it into a restaurant. Residents of the development and others locally are up in arms because they are being directed to a nearby surgery where the staff appear to be overrun. I don't live close enough to know whether someone could have tried harder to get it occupied but, nonetheless I can understand resident's frustration.
And, yes, developers offer to build primary schools, but children move on, some will already be of secondary school age. There is a development nearby, walkable distance to the secondary school but they won't get in, they already have extensions and portacabins. There are children who can see it from their bedroom windows who have to travel, some catching two buses, to get to school so newcomers have no chance. There is provision, an Academy Trust have redeveloped an old site - some distance away so no-one else is coming forward.
Even other resources are a problem. I attended a presentation by a developer for an area we were thinking of moving too. A current resident asked about water, saying they already had low water pressure at times, the developer's rep just shrugged his shoulders and said that the water company would have to improve it (fat chance).

The problem appears to be with planning - not the actual developments themselves but the necessary infrastructure (with planning departments cut and cut again). Yes, people complain that a new estate will block their view when the estate they moved into blocked the view of others but some, justifiably in my opinion, complain that the services which they have relied upon will struggle to take the strain of a significant increase in population in the area, particularly when the new development is nodded through by Planning Inspectors who seem to completely disregard the local population.

Leybourne - this is the best I can find but I am sure there was something more recently with plans submitted https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/no-gps-want-to-move-to-new-surgery-214396/

 

[JamesT]

I agree that, as a nation, we need to be training people in the UK to do the jobs that are required, but I'm not sure it's fair to expect businesses to do all that. To take your example of an engineer, a business might take a school leaver, spend tens of thousands of pounds training that person to be an engineer while not really getting much useful work from them, and then the moment the trainee is fully qualified and able to contribute to the business, they leave for another company (Perhaps, a company that can afford higher wages because they're not wasting money training people who promptly leave ). You can't expect businesses to take that risk, or blame them for choosing not to do so. To that extent I don't think Starmer's speech was realistic.

The usual answer to that kind of thing is to have a training contract where the employee agrees to repay some proportion of the costs of the training if they leave within a specified timeframe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that, as a nation, we need to be training people in the UK to do the jobs that are required, but I'm not sure it's fair to expect businesses to do all that. To take your example of an engineer, a business might take a school leaver, spend tens of thousands of pounds training that person to be an engineer while not really getting much useful work from them, and then the moment the trainee is fully qualified and able to contribute to the business, they leave for another company (Perhaps, a company that can afford higher wages because they're not wasting money training people who promptly leave ). You can't expect businesses to take that risk, or blame them for choosing not to do so. To that extent I don't think Starmer's speech was realistic.

It's perfectly possible to put contractual elements in to require the paying back of training costs if someone leaves within a certain time period. Bus companies for instance almost universally do it. It's also possible for another employer to buy someone out of a contract like that on their behalf if they want them well enough.

It's also totally viable to have a decent apprenticeship system that does this. Germany does. We really should look at their system of Realschulen, Berufsausbildungen and Fachhochschulen* and copy it, it's really excellent.

* A Realschule is a secondary school for people who don't wish to pursue the academic route to employment. Kind of like a Secondary Modern, but instead of being looked down upon it is just a different route to diffferent types of employment. A Berufsausbildung is an apprenticeship, basically, but much more than ours. A Fachhochschule is something like what UMIST was prior to it being merged into the Victoria University, or like Imperial College is - some might compare it to a polytechnic, but again it's not looked down on, it's a different, more vocational route to the same level of excellence. This, put together, is one key reason for Germany's excellent engineering*** reputation.

** I know they can't run a railway at the moment.

 

[DC1989]

As well as all sorts of other infrastructure. often the responsibility (or formerly the responsibility) of local government, who are starved of cash, and have been for some time.

But it is not just the buildings, it is the staffing. There is a shell of a GP surgery at Leybourne in Kent. It has never been occupied, apparently no-one has come forward to take it on, so the developer wants to convert it into a restaurant. Residents of the development and others locally are up in arms because they are being directed to a nearby surgery where the staff appear to be overrun. I don't live close enough to know whether someone could have tried harder to get it occupied but, nonetheless I can understand resident's frustration.
And, yes, developers offer to build primary schools, but children move on, some will already be of secondary school age. There is a development nearby, walkable distance to the secondary school but they won't get in, they already have extensions and portacabins. There are children who can see it from their bedroom windows who have to travel, some catching two buses, to get to school so newcomers have no chance. There is provision, an Academy Trust have redeveloped an old site - some distance away so no-one else is coming forward.
Even other resources are a problem. I attended a presentation by a developer for an area we were thinking of moving too. A current resident asked about water, saying they already had low water pressure at times, the developer's rep just shrugged his shoulders and said that the water company would have to improve it (fat chance).


Leybourne - this is the best I can find but I am sure there was something more recently with plans submitted https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/no-gps-want-to-move-to-new-surgery-214396/

I completely agree, but then that's hardly the house builders fault (or problem)

These are problems for the central government to sort out and they have clearly failed in doing so for the past 15 years

 

[najaB]

It's perfectly possible to put contractual elements in to require the paying back of training costs if someone leaves within a certain time period.

That only works to capture direct, specified training costs - eg. training courses. However, the majority of the cost to a business is non-quantifiable: time of other employees mentoring, lower productivity while they build up experience, etc.