UK General Election 2024

[Purple Train]

Barely any difference between being born in 1960 or being born in 1962, of course.

Well, on the face of it, yes - but, if he was born in 1960, even if he only served eight years rather than ten, he would be into his 70s at his final election, whereas he'd actually be not quite 70. Personally, I think 70 is a decent benchmark for considering stepping away from positions of high office*, although I have no problem with backbenchers continuing as long as they are able. The fact that the President of the United States will most likely be 80-something in 2028 is neither here nor there.

(*Obviously this depends on the person. If Starmer is still able to pull off the trick of seeming ten years younger in ten years' time, I would happily support him having another go.)

 

[The Ham]

OK, so from that we can infer that between the 1970s and 2005-ish, mean household size fell significantly. That was a time when net migration was negligible as a proportion of UK population, so the drivers would have been a very slowly increasing population, a desire for smaller households, and housebuilding that apparently was able to keep up with that. Since 2005-ish mean household size has remained the same, despite what appears to be a continuing strong desire by people for smaller households, and house prices have rocketed. Meanwhile, the rate of housebuilding has remained stable since the early 1980s (https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/).

The only plausible causal factor that changed between those periods (roughly 1980-2005 and 2005-today) was that net immigration rose sharply from around 2005 onwards, causing a much higher rate of population increase. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that it is in fact, population increase due to high net immigration (and not falling household sizes) that is that main cause of the current housing crisis and the unaffordable house prices.

Whilst it's a factor, and quite a significant, it's certainly not the main one. Yes there's currently about 10 million people who live in the UK who were born overseas, however a number greater than zero of these would always be able to come and live in the UK almost regardless of immigration policy (unless you are going to deny access to the UK of children of British parents), however even if they all came here in the last 20 years (unlikely) with a household size of 2.4 people you would have only needed to have built 209,000 homes a year.

That number of homes has generally been delivered each year for the last 20 years, overall maybe we are likely to be down by a little bit due to those years were we fell below that value, however generally not far off. Hardly a significant shortage though.

Although there's also a non zero number of people who already lived in the UK who were born overseas (4.6 million) and whilst it's impossible to be able to be sure of the numbers who are still living here from then it's certainly more than zero and do for every 100,000 still living here that's an extra 2,083 fewer homes needed each year (if all of them still lived here it would have been around 95,000 fewer homes a year, however that's unlikely).

The outcome is likely that to accommodate the number of new homes would have needed to have been somewhere between 130,000 and 175,000, which is comfortably below the number of homes being built, and so other factors do play a part.

Household size is a factor, (and it would have fallen further without migration), in 2000 the population was 59 million (it's now 68 million, so it's risen by about 9 million, so on a household size of 2.4 that's only 188,000 houses a year over the last 20 years, so we should have built enough to cover that rise), if you apply the UK household size in 2000 (2.38) and compare that to that if 2023 (2.36), whilst the numbers don't look that different when applied to 59 million it's the difference between 24.8 million homes and 25.0 million homes.

That's perhaps down to changes in who lives in their own, between 2000 (11.86%) and 2014 (11.66%) the percentage of people who lived alone had hardly changed, although this hides a significant shift upwards in age of those doing so, with those over 75 making up an extra 0.5% of those living alone, whilst those aged 16-24 falling from 3.45% to 1.94%.

Whilst an extra 20,000 homes a year doesn't sound a lot, when you add it to the 188,000 per year for the actual population growth of 9 million, you're back to 208,000 a year, so shouldn't be an issue.

However not all homes are created equally, and so if you've got an aging population where they are blocking up the larger homes (for example my parents live a 5 bed house) whilst those with children are more likely to live in smaller homes (for example, whilst we are fortunate that our kids each have their own room we don't have an office, even though my wife works from home an average of 2 days a week) you're going to create pressure on the housing market.

Likewise, there's an argument that second home ownership has also impacted on this too with 650,000 in 2008/09 rising to 809,000 2021/22, so in that 13 year window an extra 159,000 homes would have been needed so an extra 12,200 homes a year. Note this is truly homes people use as second homes and not all households who own more than one property, with the majority of the latter are renting out their additional properties.

There's also been a significant rise in the number of adults who own properties to rent, which further adds pressure on housing. It's harder to find year by year data on this, however between 2000 and 2017 it's been suggested that it rose from 3.6 million adults in 2000 to 5.2 million adults in 2014. That's at least (assuming 1 home per person) an average of 114,000 homes a year no longer available for people to buy.

Whilst those fingers are available to rent, so don't need "replacing" by building of new homes (maybe a small number due to the potential for small grapes between renters), it does reduce the ability for so many to be able to buy homes.

However, even by the 1990's there was already a gap in the number of homes being built, as compared to other European countries the UK should have built around 4 million extra homes over the last 50 years. To have kept up would have required an extra circa 80,000 new guinea a year.

Also, there's a big question to which the answer is unknown, how many homes would have been delivered if it wasn't for overseas workers?

At around the turn of the Millennium it was very costly (if not hard as well) to find a decent trades person. The influx of Eastern Europeans made this a much easier and cheaper thing to do. Whilst this resulted in a lot of ill feeling amongst those builders who saw their wages fall (which certainly had an impact on the Brexit debate) it also meant that it was easier to get more built.

It's a complex thing and whilst immigration has a sizable impact, we were already not delivering enough homes by 2000 for the aging population and then there's benefits in the ability to build the number of required homes.

Bringing it back to the current election, the Tories are saying we only need 200,000 per year, which means we're likely to continue to have a shortfall and not improving things.

Labour are keeping the 300,000 per year, so at least trying to keep house building at a level which should give us a chance to not get any worse and if the target is met could start to see things improving a little.

Lib Dems are wanting to build 400,000 per year, which is likely to be missed, however, if they could get the numbers up further than Labour then things could start to improve further.

One policy which could help would be something along the lines of the Labour New Towns policy, only with the land having been purchased by the government and there being thought through employment and public transport infrastructure plans to ensure that they don't become dormitory towns.

 

[HSTEd]

The UK should have built around 4 million extra homes over the last 50 years. To have kept up would have required an extra circa 80,000 new guinea a year.

Also, there's a big question to which the answer is unknown, how many homes would have been delivered if it wasn't for overseas workers?

At around the turn of the Millennium it was very costly (if not hard as well) to find a decent trades person. The influx of Eastern Europeans made this a much easier and cheaper thing to do. Whilst this resulted in a lot of ill feeling amongst those builders who saw their wages fall (which certainly had an impact on the Brexit debate) it also meant that it was easier to get more built.

It's a complex thing and whilst immigration has a sizable impact, we were already not delivering enough homes by 2000 for the aging population and then there's benefits in the ability to build the number of required homes.

It's even more complicated than that, because the shortage of relevant tradespeople is itself a function of government policy as expressed through the planning system.

If it wasn't for planning restrictions I doubt there would be a significant amount of bricks being used for construction of houses today.
Structural bricks are essentially extinct in the commercial/retail construction business, because they've long since adopted far more efficient methods of construction.
Most brickwork seen is factory manafactured facing, often produced from brick slips rather than full sized bricks.

It is the same as other trades like electricians and plumbers, which over the past several decades have steadily adopted methods that use more expensive or complex raw materials to minimise time on site.
Which is why traditional soldered copper pipework is almost extinct in new construction.

If there were not planning prohibitions on the design of housing we'd see an explosion of people ordering US style 'Manufacturing Housing' delivered whole on a lorry with prefitted electrics, hot air heating systems and the like.

Labour are keeping the 300,000 per year, so at least trying to keep house building at a level which should give us a chance to not get any worse and if the target is met could start to see things improving a little.

I doubt 300,000 houses a year will lead to significant improvements unless the immigration rate collapses, given the continuing shrinking of the desired household and the size of the backlog that has built up.
Between 2021 and 2031 the UK's population is expected to grow from 67.0 to 72.1 million.
That's 5.1 million people, or about 216,000 homes per year if the current household size remains constant, but the household size is likely being artificially inflated by the shortage of housing.
I would not be at all surprised if 300,000 is still below the desire household equilibrium level, and in any case it has been a long time since any government succesfully delivered that many houses. Without a fundamental change of approach I am skeptical it can be done. New Towns will help but noone appears to have the Stomach to build something on the scale or larger than Milton Keynes - which is probably what we need.

EDIT: Apparently, the last financial year that 300,000 units were actually delivered (in England) was 1969-1970!

One policy which could help would be something along the lines of the Labour New Towns policy, only with the land having been purchased by the government and there being thought through employment and public transport infrastructure plans to ensure that they don't become dormitory towns.

From an economic perspective, isn't there a powerful argument that dormitory towns are what we actually want though?
We have a surfeit of towns that are struggling to find an economic raison d'etre due to the lack of aggregation effects, do we really want to risk creating more?

Unless we are going to build Super Milton Keynes, I am skeptical we can create a new self sustaining economic unit from scratch.

 

[renegademaster]

Lib Dems are wanting to build 400,000 per year, which is likely to be missed

Considering they are the nimby party in every local election...

 

[Enthusiast]

My opposition comes from a mixture of ideology and practicality.

As I may have said before, my opposition comes entirely from ideology. The practicalities will have to be overcoome.

 

[nw1]

From an economic perspective, isn't there a powerful argument that dormitory towns are what we actually want though?

They don't provide jobs though. Don't we want to grow industry and encourage new industrial units (on non-sensitive land, of course, ideally former industrial land) where possible?

Is it not better to extend existing towns where this is possible, in other words where it will not impact upon environmentally sensitive areas, areas important for recreation, or areas important for cultural heritage? That way, people can more easily access jobs in the city centre and existing public transport (buses) can be extended outwards to serve the new areas?

Also from a general environmental perspective it makes more sense, to me, to build new housing in areas where there already is plenty of housing, rather than on virgin land, so to speak.

 

[BrianW]

They don't provide jobs though. Don't we want to grow industry and encourage new industrial units (on non-sensitive land, of course, ideally former industrial land) where possible?

Is it not better to extend existing towns where this is possible, in other words where it will not impact upon environmentally sensitive areas, areas important for recreation, or areas important for cultural heritage? That way, people can more easily access jobs in the city centre and existing public transport (buses) can be extended outwards to serve the new areas?

Also from a general environmental perspective it makes more sense, to me, to build new housing in areas where there already is plenty of housing, rather than on virgin land, so to speak.

Current Labour thinking appears to be about use of grey land ('poor' Green Belt- ie edge of town) development; and brown land (ex Industrial, expensive to remediate).

Intensification is another possibility- more, smaller dwellings on the same area, Bungalows/ two storey houses become three/four storey flats; 10/20minute walkable cities ...

Previous 'models' have included New Towns, Expanded Towns, Garden Cities, Garden Suburbs, Metroland, Radburn, High-rise, Ecotowns,'Ribbon development', Industrial Estates, Business parks, Out-of-town retail parks, ...

My suggestion- turn 'brown land' into new parks in green-deprived urban areas to 'bring in' Green Belt as accessible Green Space; convert 'grey land' to desirable 'garden suburbs'.

People need access to a range of employment opportunities, and self-employment working at/from home with small communal workplace 'centres' for sharing coffee/ networking

I foresee renaissance of inter-city towns like Warrington and Wigan (accessible Liverpool AND Manchester), Halifax/ Hebden Bridge/ Huddersfield, Chesterfield, Doncaster, Goole ... you get the idea?

 

[ainsworth74]

Why do people believe that when they have voted for an MP who did not win the seat in their constituency, that his or her party should somehow be entitled to a share of seats in the HoC based on their losing votes?

Because I believe that the Government should, as far as possible, represent the will of a majority of the electorate. Not just a minority and, even when parties are not in Government themselves representation in Parliament as part of the Opposition (be it the official or otherwise) is a valuable thing. It is bonkers that in 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the vote (9.5m votes) and got 355 seats and a majority of 66 seats whilst the Tories won 32.4% of the vote (8.7m votes) and got 198 seats. 65% of the electorate voted for Parties other than Labour and yet they formed the Government. Bonkers. Or 2015, UKIP win 12.6% of the vote (3.8m votes) and win one seat whilst the SNP win 4.7% of the vote (1.4m votes) and gain 56 seats. Madness.

I don't suggest that it isn't democracy but it isn't healthy democracy.

Voters in the UK elect individuals to represent them at Westminster. We often hear comments on here about their MP being a "good constituency MP". How will those qualities be maintained when the selection of MPs will rely on things like "party lists", compiled based on negotiations in smoky back rooms?

There are of course other ways of holding elections than just pure PR party list systems which, I agree, are too open to parties just sorting things out for themselves. Though the way that candidates are chosen in our system is, itself, rife with such behaviour (see Richard Holden bagging himself a safe seat without even allowing the local Conservative Association a say in the matter, or the various factional arguments in Labour with the way some of their candidates have been chosen).

But in any event you could do mixed system where you have constituency MPs then a list based top-up (see the Scottish Parliament) which means you keep the local link but gain an element of proportionality. You can do the Supplementary Vote where you rank you top choice and then a second preference. If someone gets over 50% in the first round they win outright otherwise the second preferences are distributed and whoever gets the majority once distributed wins. That worked very well for PCC (despite the office itself being a joke) and the various Mayoralties until it was vandalised by the outgoing Government and changed both to FPTP.

Or if you want something a bit different simply look over the Channel at France at the moment in their legislative election where they have a two round system in place. In that system they have single member constituencies (like us) but to chose the winner there are two rounds. In the first round anyone who receives an absolute majority of votes and a vote total greater than 25% of the registered voters is elected. If no-one meets those criteria then a run-off is held between the top two candidates (along with anyone else who gained a vote share of at least 12.5% of the registered electorate, though I think in practice this its very rare for there to be more than two in the final round) with the winner being the one who wins the most votes in the second round. This isn't particularly PR like but does mean that nearly all winners would have won a majority of their votes in their seat.

But anyway, hopefully the point is clear, it is perfectly possible to have a different electoral system, including ones that are more proportional and/or more democratic, without needing to resort to Party List systems.

 

[AlterEgo]

Most of our problems could be dealt with by repealing the Town and Country Planning Acts. This country was at its most productive and bombastic before you needed the state's permission to put bricks on top of one another.

 

[BrianW]

Most of our problems could be dealt with by repealing the Town and Country Planning Acts. This country was at its most productive and bombastic before you needed the state's permission to put bricks on top of one another.

However... vociferous and self-centred people apparently 'don't want the countryside concreted over', or their view (which they don't own) 'ruined', and canvass for and elect Councillors and MPs who will agree with them.

Because I believe that the Government should, as far as possible, represent the will of a majority of the electorate. Not just a minority and, even when parties are not in Government themselves representation in Parliament as part of the Opposition (be it the official or otherwise) is a valuable thing. It is bonkers that in 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the vote (9.5m votes) and got 355 seats and a majority of 66 seats whilst the Tories won 32.4% of the vote (8.7m votes) and got 198 seats. 65% of the electorate voted for Parties other than Labour and yet they formed the Government. Bonkers. Or 2015, UKIP win 12.6% of the vote (3.8m votes) and win one seat whilst the SNP win 4.7% of the vote (1.4m votes) and gain 56 seats. Madness.

I don't suggest that it isn't democracy but it isn't healthy democracy.



There are of course other ways of holding elections than just pure PR party list systems which, I agree, are too open to parties just sorting things out for themselves. Though the way that candidates are chosen in our system is, itself, rife with such behaviour (see Richard Holden bagging himself a safe seat without even allowing the local Conservative Association a say in the matter, or the various factional arguments in Labour with the way some of their candidates have been chosen).

But in any event you could do mixed system where you have constituency MPs then a list based top-up (see the Scottish Parliament) which means you keep the local link but gain an element of proportionality. You can do the Supplementary Vote where you rank you top choice and then a second preference. If someone gets over 50% in the first round they win outright otherwise the second preferences are distributed and whoever gets the majority once distributed wins. That worked very well for PCC (despite the office itself being a joke) and the various Mayoralties until it was vandalised by the outgoing Government and changed both to FPTP.

Or if you want something a bit different simply look over the Channel at France at the moment in their legislative election where they have a two round system in place. In that system they have single member constituencies (like us) but to chose the winner there are two rounds. In the first round anyone who receives an absolute majority of votes and a vote total greater than 25% of the registered voters is elected. If no-one meets those criteria then a run-off is held between the top two candidates (along with anyone else who gained a vote share of at least 12.5% of the registered electorate, though I think in practice this its very rare for there to be more than two in the final round) with the winner being the one who wins the most votes in the second round. This isn't particularly PR like but does mean that nearly all winners would have won a majority of their votes in their seat.

But anyway, hopefully the point is clear, it is perfectly possible to have a different electoral system, including ones that are more proportional and/or more democratic, without needing to resort to Party List systems.

There are many 'systems' with a range of outcomes. Not all can be 'winners'; what is important is the 'losers' (ALL except the one winner!) accept the result- like in Sport. Only one winner of the Premier League, the Euros, Wimbledon. You get different results with three points for a win from two for a win; a three set match from a five-setter, or two sets; however many points for a try etc; VAR, DRS, referees, umpires, ...

 

[HSTEd]

They don't provide jobs though. Don't we want to grow industry and encourage new industrial units (on non-sensitive land, of course, ideally former industrial land) where possible?

We don't really need more jobs right now, we have a crippling and ongoing labour shortage. Creating large numbers of industrial jobs will just lead to us having to eliminate jobs somewhere else.

The challenge we have now is to produce the most productive economy possible to enable standards of living to be maintained even as the fraction of working age people continues to fall.
We no longer face the spectre of mass unemployment, we face the spectre of having far too much work that needs doing and not enough people to do it.

Is it not better to extend existing towns where this is possible, in other words where it will not impact upon environmentally sensitive areas, areas important for recreation, or areas important for cultural heritage? That way, people can more easily access jobs in the city centre and existing public transport (buses) can be extended outwards to serve the new areas?

Most existing settlements are very badly laid out for functional public transport. Far greater transport productivity can be obtained in areas that are designed from the outset for the systems that you intend to use.
The lesson of Milton Keynes is probably more instructive, it is arguably the most succesful of the new towns of the 20th Century, and it did this by being built from the ground up for the chosen transport system (the car).
It didn't try to fit into a mould of previous towns that were designed ina different time, for a different purpose.

Also from a general environmental perspective it makes more sense, to me, to build new housing in areas where there already is plenty of housing, rather than on virgin land, so to speak.

From an engineering and political perspective, however, the opposite is true.
The more people around the more people to complain, and the more extant infrastructure to get in the way.

The only way to get something built on the scale necessary will be to go somewhere where the anti development lobby is easily overpowered.
There is plenty of non-photogenic farmland in the UK in low population density areas.

 

[ainsworth74]

Most of our problems could be dealt with by repealing the Town and Country Planning Acts. This country was at its most productive and bombastic before you needed the state's permission to put bricks on top of one another.

I broadly agree but I do think that some sort of oversight is perhaps desirable! Though the current system is horrifically onerous (I'd suggest people have a look at some planning applications on their local councils planning portal) I'm not sure just letting anyone put bricks on top of one another anywhere they feel like is sensible either. Perhaps we could find some middle ground somewhere?

 

[HSTEd]

Why do people believe that when they have voted for an MP who did not win the seat in their constituency, that his or her party should somehow be entitled to a share of seats in the HoC based on their losing votes? Voters in the UK elect individuals to represent them at Westminster. We often hear comments on here about their MP being a "good constituency MP". How will those qualities be maintained when the selection of MPs will rely on things like "party lists", compiled based on negotiations in smoky back rooms? This seems to me to be another manifestation of losers being unable to bear the fact that they have lost.

The Additional Member System (technically Mixed Member Proportional but I digress) in Baden Wurttemberg has no party lists at all. This was also true of the Additional Member System variation proposed by the Hansard Society in 1978.

In Baden-Wurttemberg the top up seats are awarded to candidates of a given party that achieve high vote shares in constituency elections but who were nevertheless not elected.

I'm not sure it is reasonable for a system to allow a party to be awarded functionally total power based on ~35% of the vote or even less, which is what the current system does.
Opposition to proportional representation seems largely to be based on the horror that the peasantry might become immune to the blackmail of "vote for the party's leadership clique or the worse people will get in".

The cozy duopoly must be crushed if Britain is to succeed in the modern world.

 

[AlterEgo]

I broadly agree but I do think that some sort of oversight is perhaps desirable!

Buildings should be safe, habitable and fit for human use, basically. I don't much care about anything else.

Perhaps we could find some middle ground somewhere?

Well, National Parks should need permission, I think, and anywhere within some distance of critically important infrastructure (airports, perhaps, gas terminals, etc).

But apart from that, if you buy the land, you should be able to build on it. Many of the most interesting places I have been are a little chaotic but they are pumping with energy, dynamism and human progress.

Britain should be shaken free from its necrotic aesthetic conservatism; we do not live in a museum - if we do, I have to say, it is a crap one, badly maintained and with miserable people.

 

[nw1]

Most of our problems could be dealt with by repealing the Town and Country Planning Acts. This country was at its most productive and bombastic before you needed the state's permission to put bricks on top of one another.

So does this mean revoking planning permission?

I'm not sure I the sound of that; could it mean an end to environmental objections to development?

I wouldn't like to see a reversion to pre-modern times before planning permission existed!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2024 ==

Buildings should be safe, habitable and fit for human use, basically. I don't much care about anything else.


Well, National Parks should need permission, I think, and anywhere within some distance of critically important infrastructure (airports, perhaps, gas terminals, etc).

But apart from that, if you buy the land, you should be able to build on it. Many of the most interesting places I have been are a little chaotic but they are pumping with energy, dynamism and human progress.

Britain should be shaken free from its necrotic aesthetic conservatism; we do not live in a museum - if we do, I have to say, it is a crap one, badly maintained and with miserable people.

I strongly disagree there - we could end up with a bland, soulless, anodyne country if so.

Our cultural and architectural heritage and our natural world are about the only things the UK's got going for it compared to our Western peers. Let's face it, the UK doesn't do well on many other measures (the climate is terrible compared to most other Western countries both in Europe and elsewhere, and we have far less migration opportunities compared with our continental neighbours, to take two examples).

Drastically reduce the heritage and the nature and the UK would have little going for it at all.

Aesthetics absolutely do matter, IMO, for quality of life. If you can't take pleasure from the world around you, it's a big part of your life impacted.

 

[ainsworth74]

Buildings should be safe, habitable and fit for human use, basically. I don't much care about anything else.

Can't argue with you on that!

Well, National Parks should need permission, I think, and anywhere within some distance of critically important infrastructure (airports, perhaps, gas terminals, etc).

But apart from that, if you buy the land, you should be able to build on it. Many of the most interesting places I have been are a little chaotic but they are pumping with energy, dynamism and human progress.

Also broadly agreed, I might be a touch less gung-ho as, for instance, I'm not sure if you own a parcel of land you should just be able whack down a fifty story mixed office/residential building without also explaining how you propose the infrastructure (transport, utilities, etc) around it will cope. But broadly I would tend to take the same view, if you own the land you should be able to build on it as long as you can show its safe, habitable and fit for purpose.

Britain should be shaken free from its necrotic aesthetic conservatism; we do not live in a museum - if we do, I have to say, it is a crap one, badly maintained and with miserable people.

Broadly agreed though I do think that listing buildings has some utility but I definitely think we've strayed to far into being a living museum (and a rubbish one at that as you say!). Something like St Pancras I'm happy is listed and protected from just being demolished or utterly transformed out of all recognition. It is a beautiful and unique building. But many buildings just seem to get listed for the sake of it and damn the consequences. Quite apart from the more generic "it's not in keeping with the area" arguments.

 

[sor]

There are many 'systems' with a range of outcomes. Not all can be 'winners'; what is important is the 'losers' (ALL except the one winner!) accept the result- like in Sport. Only one winner of the Premier League, the Euros, Wimbledon. You get different results with three points for a win from two for a win; a three set match from a five-setter, or two sets; however many points for a try etc; VAR, DRS, referees, umpires, ...

that range of outcomes includes having multiple winners, eg in an STV system where you have slightly larger consitutencies electing multiple members. More people get what they want.

Works fine in most of the world. It would work fine here. FPTP doesn't necessarily deliver the correct outcome at a local level, let alone national. All those constituencies where Lab and Lib (and/or SNP/plaid/green) split the not-tory vote and therefore the tory gets in anyway. The biggest minority is not necessarily what voters actually wanted if they were given the ability to express preferences, as they would be under PR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2024 ==

Broadly agreed though I do think that listing buildings has some utility but I definitely think we've strayed to far into being a living museum (and a rubbish one at that as you say!). Something like St Pancras I'm happy is listed and protected from just being demolished or utterly transformed out of all recognition. It is a beautiful and unique building. But many buildings just seem to get listed for the sake of it and damn the consequences. Quite apart from the more generic "it's not in keeping with the area" arguments.

Listing should be a more serious process than it currently is (and not weaponised to prevent demolition or changes at the last minute as sometimes happens), and it should come with funding. If someone else wants to tell you that you need to maintain your building in a certain way then they should be required to pay for it, for example the red tape around replacing windows with energy efficient triple glazing which mean you can't just bung some PVC frames in as anyone else could.

Plymouth Civic Centre stands out here. Got listed after demolition was announced. Locals consider it an eyesore.

 

[ainsworth74]

Listing should be a more serious process than it currently is (and not weaponised to prevent demolition or changes at the last minute as sometimes happens), and it should come with funding. If someone else wants to tell you that you need to maintain your building in a certain way then they should be required to pay for it, for example the red tape around replacing windows with energy efficient triple glazing which mean you can't just bung some PVC frames in as anyone else could.

Plymouth Civic Centre stands out here. Got listed after demolition was announced. Locals consider it an eyesore.

Yes absolutely. It should be actually unique or at least very interesting buildings and it should also account for keeping them either in a reasonable state of repair (so they don't become an eyesore) or allow them to be utilised in someway even if that does mean sacrificing some original features (for instance St Pancras gaining a sodding great metal and glass box on one end and all sorts of other changes which keep it useful but also preserved much of its character).

 

[AlterEgo]

I strongly disagree there - we could end up with a bland, soulless, anodyne country if so.

We are ending up with one precisely because people can object to different styles of architecture. Take a look at any new build estate, too, to see how environmental regulations stifle the style and aesthetic of new housing.

Our cultural and architectural heritage and our natural world are about the only things the UK's got going for it compared to our Western peers.

I don't agree with this anyway, but assuming I do - When was most of our heritage built, and what planning permission did it need?

Drastically reduce the heritage and the nature and the UK would have little going for it at all.

Britain isn't a museum! You are a conservative by saying this.

Aesthetics absolutely do matter, IMO, for quality of life. If you can't take pleasure from the world around you, it's a big part of your life severely impacted.

Very conservative again! I'd rather a facility or a home existed and was unappealing than objecting to building new stuff because it's "eww".

Build more stuff. You can't have a dynamic country without it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2024 ==

Listing should be a more serious process than it currently is (and not weaponised to prevent demolition or changes at the last minute as sometimes happens)

Fully agreed.

 

[nw1]

Britain isn't a museum! You are a conservative by saying this.

I freely admit to being small-c conservative on this particular matter. I'm not ashamed of that label, to be quite honest; I am quite the reverse on the things that really matter (to me), such as LGBTQ+ rights, employment rights, the right to strike, or immigration.

I suspect it's quite common. We probably all have a mixture of non-conservative and conservative traits; it's just a question of which dominates.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Count Binface has published his excellent manifesto with some brilliant policies.

BINFACE MANIFESTO 2024
BLOODY LOYAL TO WHEREVER I’M STANDING FOR ELECTION
1 all Water bosses to take a dip in british rivers, to see how they like it

2 national service to be introduced for all former prime ministers

3 wifi on trains that works

4 trains that work

5 the reintroduction of ceefax

6 children in need to finally get round to fixing pudsey’s eye

7 traffic on northallerton high street to be fixed by a new space bridge, bypassing both level crossings

8 european countries to be invited to join the uk, creating a new ‘union of europe’, if you will

9 wallace and gromit to be knighted, for services to wensleydale

10 I pledge to build at least one affordable house

11 croissants to be price-capped at £1.10, and 99 flakes to cost 99p

12 national yorkshire pudding day to be a bank holiday (except for banks)

13 loud snacks to be banned from cinemas and theatres

14 pensions to be double-locked, but with a little extra chain on the side

15 claudia winkleman’s fringe to be grade 1-listed

16 a new series of gladiators to feature ’90s gladiators against age-appropriate contenders

17 minsters’ pay to be tied to that of nurses for the next 100 years

18 shops that play christmas music before december to be closed down and turned into public libraries

19 to combat the uk’s increasingly wet climate, all british citizens to be offered stilts

20 a ban on speakerphones on public transport. offenders to be forced to live with matt hancock for a year

21 the mini golf course at richmond swimming pool to host the open championship

22 mps to live in the area they wish to serve for 4 years before election, to improve local representation

23 the hand dryer in the gents’ urinals at the crown & treaty, uxbridge to be moved to a more sensible position.

24 count binface to represent the uk at eurovision

Manifesto 2024 — Count Binface

www.countbinface.com

I particularly support sending Count Binface to Eurovision!

 

[AlterEgo]

I freely admit to being small-c conservative on this particular matter. I'm not ashamed of that label, to be quite honest; I am quite the reverse on the things that really matter (to me), such as LGBTQ+ rights, employment rights, the right to strike, or immigration.

I suspect it's quite common. We probably all have a mixture of non-conservative and conservative traits; it's just a question of which dominates.

But this is not coherent; you cannot stifle building, growth, economic development, and insist on strict approval of "aesthetic good", all while advocating for many things which require a larger economy to support.

You want more immigrants but you want to strictly specify what their work places look like and you want their apartments or houses to suit your aesthetic preference. No - they need places to live - we need total pragmatism. You would like employment rights but what is the point of well paid work when rent is so high and housing purchase costs are so high? We aren't building enough; we do not have the infrastructure for all of this.

 

[nw1]

But this is not coherent; you cannot stifle building, growth, economic development, and insist on strict approval of "aesthetic good", all while advocating for many things which require a larger economy to support.

You want more immigrants but you want to strictly specify what their work places look like and you want their apartments or houses to suit your aesthetic preference. No - they need places to live - we need total pragmatism. You would like employment rights but what is the point of well paid work when rent is so high and housing purchase costs are so high? We aren't building enough; we do not have the infrastructure for all of this.

I just want a continuation of the planning laws we've been used to - nothing more. I don't want a severe restriction on new building, rather I want to see it placed in areas where it will minimise the aesthetic and environmental impact and being subject to the planning laws we've all been used to. And I don't want to implement aesthetic "bans" on things which have been allowed for the past 50 years.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Buildings should be safe, habitable and fit for human use, basically. I don't much care about anything else.

The problem with that is that buildings don't just impact the owner: They often impact many of the people who already live locally. Build something ugly and you make the community less pleasant for everyone else or reduce the value of nearby houses. Build too many houses without enough other infrastructure and then the people who live there will struggle to access services. Build something that is inaccessible to public transport and you lock in more pollution and congestion for the nearest town. That's why we arrange that you need planning permission and for the local authority to approve significant building plans. I think it's clear that the planning system does need reform though.

 

[Howardh]

R/e the need for affordable housing, over the last 20-30 years we have allowed megastores and factories to be built; the likes of Tesco and Amazon but those are just two names out of dozens. That's using up land productively, but that land also comes with huge car-parks etc. The space ABOVE is totally unused. I would like to see any new developments have affordable flats and apartments above these mega structures, three or four storeys high if necessary, and if possible build above these massive car-parks that are already there. Wouldn't necessarily solve our housing crisis but it's a start.

 

[Magdalia]

We don't really need more jobs right now, we have a crippling and ongoing labour shortage. Creating large numbers of industrial jobs will just lead to us having to eliminate jobs somewhere else.

That is what the UK needs to do. We need to switch out of low pay low productivity jobs and into high pay high productivity jobs. In particular we need to stop the delusion that we can all get rich by selling each other beer and cake. The place I would eliminate jobs is the so called hospitality industry, there are lots of people in the hospitality industry who could and should be doing things that are much more productive.

Most of our problems could be dealt with by repealing the Town and Country Planning Acts. This country was at its most productive and bombastic before you needed the state's permission to put bricks on top of one another.

The planning system is a huge brake on economic development. It needs major reform because major projects take far too long from concept to completion. Cambridge South station is a good example: 5 years of planning for something that will take less than 2 years to build.

From an engineering and political perspective, however, the opposite is true.
The more people around the more people to complain, and the more extant infrastructure to get in the way.

The only way to get something built on the scale necessary will be to go somewhere where the anti development lobby is easily overpowered.
There is plenty of non-photogenic farmland in the UK in low population density areas.

From an economic perspective, isn't there a powerful argument that dormitory towns are what we actually want though?

They don't provide jobs though. Don't we want to grow industry and encourage new industrial units (on non-sensitive land, of course, ideally former industrial land) where possible?

The clue is in the name. For dormitory towns the jobs are somewhere else. Near here Cambourne and Northstowe are examples of new settlements where lots of residents work in Cambridge. More are needed.

The bit that worries me the most about this is capacity to build. The UK economy needs new capacity for construction raw materials, such as steel and bricks, and people with the right skills, more of the people currently building Cambridge South.

 

[nw1]

The problem with that is that buildings don't just impact the owner: They often impact many of the people who already live locally. Build something ugly and you make the community less pleasant for everyone else or reduce the value of nearby houses. Build too many houses without enough other infrastructure and then the people who live there will struggle to access services. Build something that is inaccessible to public transport and you lock in more pollution and congestion for the nearest town. That's why we arrange that you need planning permission and for the local authority to approve significant building plans. I think it's clear that the planning system does need reform though.

I think most of that (apart from the last sentence) is close to my own view to be fair in terms of planning.

 

[WesternLancer]

R/e the need for affordable housing, over the last 20-30 years we have allowed megastores and factories to be built; the likes of Tesco and Amazon but those are just two names out of dozens. That's using up land productively, but that land also comes with huge car-parks etc. The space ABOVE is totally unused. I would like to see any new developments have affordable flats and apartments above these mega structures, three or four storeys high if necessary, and if possible build above these massive car-parks that are already there. Wouldn't necessarily solve our housing crisis but it's a start.

Agree with the jist of this but you have to recall that living above a place getting 24 hour delivery and dispatch lorries is not that appealing to potential residents of said accommodation who might want some peace and quiet when they themselves are not working.

 

[nw1]

The clue is in the name. For dormitory towns the jobs are somewhere else. Near here Cambourne and Northstowe are examples of new settlements where lots of residents work in Cambridge. More are needed.

Not sure where these places are (the only Camborne I know of is in Cornwall!) but the key thing is that there need to be good, and not just Mon-Sat 9-5, public transport links to the major towns. And the major towns need to be close by, so that people can easily travel there. If that is the case, then fine.

 

[The Ham]

It's even more complicated than that, because the shortage of relevant tradespeople is itself a function of government policy as expressed through the planning system.

If it wasn't for planning restrictions I doubt there would be a significant amount of bricks being used for construction of houses today.
Structural bricks are essentially extinct in the commercial/retail construction business, because they've long since adopted far more efficient methods of construction.
Most brickwork seen is factory manafactured facing, often produced from brick slips rather than full sized bricks.

It is the same as other trades like electricians and plumbers, which over the past several decades have steadily adopted methods that use more expensive or complex raw materials to minimise time on site.
Which is why traditional soldered copper pipework is almost extinct in new construction.

If there were not planning prohibitions on the design of housing we'd see an explosion of people ordering US style 'Manufacturing Housing' delivered whole on a lorry with prefitted electrics, hot air heating systems and the like.

Indeed.

I doubt 300,000 houses a year will lead to significant improvements unless the immigration rate collapses, given the continuing shrinking of the desired household and the size of the backlog that has built up.
Between 2021 and 2031 the UK's population is expected to grow from 67.0 to 72.1 million.
That's 5.1 million people, or about 216,000 homes per year if the current household size remains constant, but the household size is likely being artificially inflated by the shortage of housing.
I would not be at all surprised if 300,000 is still below the desire household equilibrium level, and in any case it has been a long time since any government succesfully delivered that many houses. Without a fundamental change of approach I am skeptical it can be done. New Towns will help but noone appears to have the Stomach to build something on the scale or larger than Milton Keynes - which is probably what we need.

EDIT: Apparently, the last financial year that 300,000 units were actually delivered (in England) was 1969-1970!

I did say "not get any worse" I doubt that the target would make too much of a difference in the actual number built (other than the Tory party being able to say that they've reached their goal).

It maybe that it does get a bit worse, but the key point was the comparison between the parties.

From an economic perspective, isn't there a powerful argument that dormitory towns are what we actually want though?
We have a surfeit of towns that are struggling to find an economic raison d'etre due to the lack of aggregation effects, do we really want to risk creating more?

Unless we are going to build Super Milton Keynes, I am skeptical we can create a new self sustaining economic unit from scratch.

We probably do need a fair amount of people moving out of the new town for their work, however you do need some local employment, even if that's just supermarkets/corner shops, pubs/other leisure activities and the like, so that those living there don't feel that they would be better off living where they travel to rather than the new town. Therefore, some new employment would be useful - even if that's little more than an industrial estate to provide a Screwfix, a garage to repair cars, a self storage unit and a few other bits.

i.e. something between just a large housing estate with no facilities and somewhere like MK where is the mayor town for the areas around it.

We are ending up with one precisely because people can object to different styles of architecture. Take a look at any new build estate, too, to see how environmental regulations stifle the style and aesthetic of new housing.

It depends on the developer, some are more open to using a range of materials than others. There's two new build estates near me, one is only brick, the other has bricks (which is still quite a significant percentage of the homes), tiles, render, even a few stone blocks (a few within buildings, such as date stones or lintels rather than the main build material), they were also more willing to mix up the roofing colours a bit as well. The latter is a much more interesting estate to walk through.