[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[abc]

I’ll be very interested to see how the £39billion will be used in social housing. When I started my career, working as. trainee QS for Rice & Son in Brighton they built a lot of council accommodation. Sites in Hollingdean, Kemp Town, Moulsecoomb and central Brighton were all built on Council land directly for and funded by Brighton Borough Council. The standard of building was high and all the houses / flats are still in occupation. Now they are talking about taking bids for the social housing developments with direct government funding. Will this mean that the government will be the client with a government body of architects, engineers, building control and surveyors etc overseeing and running individual projects, employing building contractors who have made a successful bid after the government has acquired suitable sites? I don’t think so. Where will the land come from? If it’s land already owned by developers they will want the market price as if it were for their own private developments. One of the reasons Council housing dried up is because local authorities sold their own land banks to developers ending their source of “cheap” land. If the government is just going to ask developers to build social housing on their own land banks, the bids will include the full commercial value of the land together with cost of construction with a mark up and the management company costs. The standard of new builds is already appalling as sub-contractors are paid bottom dollar and so cost cut where they can. Ideally it would great to return to Local Authority housing, but I can’t see that happening, meaning that homes will be built but not in the numbers or standards that they would’ve in the past for an equivalent budget.

It’s an interesting one and I wish Reeves had spent more time explaining what on the face of it seems like a really good move, rather than spend most of her time spinning and politicking. Consequently I don’t know whether this is will move the dial or not.

Any development of size currently has to provide 30% social housing. Developments are master planned to include this by the landowner before going to the market. Thus the sale value reflects this. So the land cost is not picked up by government.

Developers have to build all houses to a min spec but build some to a higher one to sell for a higher price. Inevitably, social housing is built to the lowest spec. This is an area that could be improved by the new funding allocation.

Developers also try and put social housing in the least valuable location (eg against a major road or adjacent to an industrial estate). This should be prevented by the planning authority without cost to the gov.

So what is this £34 billion going to do?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It’s an interesting one and I wish Reeves had spent more time explaining what on the face of it seems like a really good move, rather than spend most of her time spinning and politicking. Consequently I don’t know whether this is will move the dial or not.

Any development of size currently has to provide 30% social housing. Developments are master planned to include this by the landowner before going to the market. Thus the sale value reflects this. So the land cost is not picked up by government.

Developers have to build all houses to a min spec but build some to a higher one to sell for a higher price. Inevitably, social housing is built to the lowest spec. This is an area that could be improved by the new funding allocation.

Developers also try and put social housing in the least valuable location (eg against a major road or adjacent to an industrial estate). This should be prevented by the planning authority without cost to the gov.

So what is this £34 billion going to do?

Your comments on planning regs is interesting, noting the mountains of housing going up in Faversham.

Regarding spec, I spotted another comment in another post (could have been yours) that implies that quality is poor in social housing. I though building regs now mean that new builds all have to be environmentally unthreatening, which means top spec insulation (energy rating)? one can imaging less space, smaller windows and a lack of 'built to last-ability', but poor actual quality build?

The social housing on the new estates here is typically flats, and is typically albeit not always facing a main road, and is rarely contextually integrated into the main estate.

One of my family is just completing on a new(ish)build semi. It was interesting hearing the sellers (who I would estimate are working class but I'm guessing politics far from red in tooth and claw) crowing about the fact that the social housing is all at the other end of the estate. When working class with a few bob sneer at social housing, and prejudge the residents as undesirable, perhaps we can understand why prioritizing social housing is not the vote-winner one might have anticipated. People are a rum lot.

 

[Weststander]

Your comments on planning regs is interesting, noting the mountains of housing going up in Faversham.

Regarding spec, I spotted another comment in another post (could have been yours) that implies that quality is poor in social housing. I though building regs now mean that new builds all have to be environmentally unthreatening, which means top spec insulation (energy rating)? one can imaging less space, smaller windows and a lack of 'built to last-ability', but poor actual quality build?

The social housing on the new estates here is typically flats, and is typically albeit not always facing a main road, and is rarely contextually integrated into the main estate.

One of my family is just completing on a new(ish)build semi. It was interesting hearing the sellers (who I would estimate are working class but I'm guessing politics far from red in tooth and claw) crowing about the fact that the social housing is all at the other end of the estate. When working class with a few bob sneer at social housing, and prejudge the residents as undesirable, perhaps we can understand why prioritizing social housing is not the vote-winner one might have anticipated. People are a rum lot.

Building regs are met.

I wonder if @The Antikythera Mechanism is referring to build quality e.g. snagging not done, poor brickwork, etc. I've heard this subbies working on the big sites in West Sussex. It's not a social housing thing, it's across the board on development.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Building regs are met.

I wonder if @The Antikythera Mechanism is referring to build quality e.g. snagging not done, poor brickwork, etc. I've heard this subbies working on the big sites in West Sussex. It's not a social housing thing, it's across the board on development.

It’s not a social housing thing, but a large proportion of all new build developments. For example a common problem is extract fans from bathrooms venting in the roof space rather than through an outside wall. The number of complaints I’ve seen online with people complaining of damp roof spaces is insane.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Building regs are met.

I wonder if @The Antikythera Mechanism is referring to build quality e.g. snagging not done, poor brickwork, etc. I've heard this subbies working on the big sites in West Sussex. It's not a social housing thing, it's across the board on development.

Ah, OK.

 

[abc]

Your comments on planning regs is interesting, noting the mountains of housing going up in Faversham.

Regarding spec, I spotted another comment in another post (could have been yours) that implies that quality is poor in social housing. I though building regs now mean that new builds all have to be environmentally unthreatening, which means top spec insulation (energy rating)? one can imaging less space, smaller windows and a lack of 'built to last-ability', but poor actual quality build?

The social housing on the new estates here is typically flats, and is typically albeit not always facing a main road, and is rarely contextually integrated into the main estate.

One of my family is just completing on a new(ish)build semi. It was interesting hearing the sellers (who I would estimate are working class but I'm guessing politics far from red in tooth and claw) crowing about the fact that the social housing is all at the other end of the estate. When working class with a few bob sneer at social housing, and prejudge the residents as undesirable, perhaps we can understand why prioritizing social housing is not the vote-winner one might have anticipated. People are a rum lot.

There is a build quality minimum but non social housing is often built to a higher than the minimum as the property can be sold for more. I think a previous poster mentioned that the old council houses built post war are often of better build quality than those of today (though in fairness I think this applies to a large amount of new housing now).

I was shown around Prince Charles’s housing project at Poundbury c 25 years ago for which was and sometimes still is, much derided. However he had a vision to try and make developments different via diversity and integration.
He started the theme which is now the norm of mixing up building styles, shapes and sizes which is now common place.

He also mixed up social housing, elderly and special need housing and the mini mansions so that there were no ‘ghettoes’ and really no one could tell what was what by location or build quality.

IMHO he was ahead of his time and inspired. Sadly developers and planners still do not share such vision or passion for community

 

[BenGarfield]

That's a whole new hole, 25% forecast error mostly from December. I wonder where it is going.

Why does this obsession with so called "borrowing" matter if the resources are available in the economy? Governments which are monopoly issuers of their own fiat currency arent like households. Government so called borowing in the form of bonds is a relic of gold standard days when governments needed to borrow to finance spending because their currency was tied to gold reserves.

Bonds are used as a monetary policy tool. When a government issues bonds, it’s essentially shifting reserves from one account (non-interest-bearing) to another (interest-bearing). Bond issuance does not finance expenditure. Since reserves are often interest bearing anyway these days, theres a good case for scrapping bonds altogether. Traditionally, issuing bonds helped drain excess reserves from the banking system, influencing interest rates. But if reserves themselves are interest-bearing, central banks can set rates directly without needing to rely on bond issuance. Bonds in effect are state benefits for people who already have money.

 

[Mustafa II]

This government is so impressive. Quite likely the best in my life time, it not generations, and it's probably all down to Starmer.

This is what the country has needed for so long. An intelligent, competent leader with a vision and is true to his word.

Considering the shite he inherited, things are all of a sudden looking really optimistic for Britain.

Can Labour turn the country around? It's certainly seeming like a resounding yes, for sure

 

[Is it PotG?]

This government is so impressive. Quite likely the best in my life time, it not generations, and it's probably all down to Starmer.

This is what the country has needed for so long. An intelligent, competent leader with a vision and is true to his word.

Considering the shite he inherited, things are all of a sudden looking really optimistic for Britain.

Can Labour turn the country around? It's certainly seeming like a resounding yes, for sure

Abso-bloody-lutely this.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Having seen the Spending review today, Mrs Wz and I were wandering back from dinner tonight discussing how good it is to get back to professional, intelligent and boring Government after the farce of the last 10 years from the moment when David Cameron had that 'brilliant idea' for papering over the cracks in his party and the complete clusterf*** that followed.

So yes it has been turned around. Whether you agree with the direction is another question, but we are no longer plummeting into the divisive populist oblivion we were (the US seemingly taken over our ticket for that particular destination).

 

[Bodian]

Mrs Wz and I were wandering back from dinner tonight

I have to ask - do you ever cook? You always seem to be either popping out to dinner, or on your way back to dinner!!

 

[TomandJerry]

From the BBC:

"The British economy shrank by 0.3% in April, official figures show.

The ONS says services output fell by 0.4% in April 2025, following growth of 0.4% in March 2025, and was the largest contributor to the fall in GDP in the month.

Production output also decreased, by 0.6%, but construction output rose by 0.9% in April"

 

[WATFORD zero]

I have to ask - do you ever cook? You always seem to be either popping out to dinner, or on your way back to dinner!!

I love cooking and cook a lot, but we're on holiday at the moment so eating out all the time

 

[Is it PotG?]

I love cooking and cook a lot, but we're on holiday at the moment so eating out all the time

 

[BrightonCottager]

@abc 30% 'social' housing isn't the normal requirement on new housing sites. The percentage varies between local planning authorities and it's 'affordable ' housing. The definition of 'affordable ' was, ahem, widened by the last government to encompass homes for market sale and rent at 80% of local averages, starter homes, shared ownership etc etc as well as homes provided by Councils and registered social landlords at rents more geared to local income levels. So in an area of high prices and rentals and low incomes, like Brighton and Hove, new homes are seldom really affordable for locally employed people.

 

[abc]

This government is so impressive. Quite likely the best in my life time, it not generations, and it's probably all down to Starmer.

This is what the country has needed for so long. An intelligent, competent leader with a vision and is true to his word.

Considering the shite he inherited, things are all of a sudden looking really optimistic for Britain.

Can Labour turn the country around? It's certainly seeming like a resounding yes, for sure

So I have to ask…

NI increases on businesses that are supposed to be the driver for growth.
NI increases on charities supporting the most vulnerable that are now in in serious financial trouble.
Cuts to the support for the same most vulnerable people.
Interest rates and inflation (according to OBR and IFS) higher than would have been without Reeves’s budget and future growth stats being downgraded.
Unemployment rising.
Negative growth.
More taxes rises to come (Reeves today not ruling out increases in council tax).
National debt continuing to rise


How is this government ‘so impressive’?

(And we share the contempt for the last lot so no need to go down that road)

 

[abc]

@abc 30% 'social' housing isn't the normal requirement on new housing sites. The percentage varies between local planning authorities and it's 'affordable ' housing. The definition of 'affordable ' was, ahem, widened by the last government to encompass homes for market sale and rent at 80% of local averages, starter homes, shared ownership etc etc as well as homes provided by Councils and registered social landlords at rents more geared to local income levels. So in an area of high prices and rentals and low incomes, like Brighton and Hove, new homes are seldom really affordable for locally employed people.

I stand corrected on the % (I thought this was a national minimum not just what I have seen in my region) and your last line is possibly the most relevant to the whole debate. ‘Affordable’ is in the eye of the beholder not the policy maker.

 

[Machiavelli]

So I have to ask…

NI increases on businesses that are supposed to be the driver for growth.
NI increases on charities supporting the most vulnerable that are now in in serious financial trouble.
Cuts to the support for the same most vulnerable people.
Interest rates and inflation (according to OBR and IFS) higher than would have been without Reeves’s budget and future growth stats being downgraded.
Unemployment rising.
Negative growth.
More taxes rises to come (Reeves today not ruling out increases in council tax).
National debt continuing to rise


How is this government ‘so impressive’?

(And we share the contempt for the last lot so no need to go down that road)

Disagree on your view on growth. Care to share the figures? You can even factor in today's 0.3% drop for April.
Your point about interest rates and inflation is dubious at best. If RR hadn't done anything, both would have been higher. RR boxed herself in by ruling out increases of the big-ticket taxes: the IFS -- or its director, Paul Johnson -- has been pretty consistent in arguing that any Chancellor should increase income tax. This would stop debt from rising, which would also impact on interest rates and the cost of government debt. But it'd be massively unpopular. At some point, the public are going to have to suck up something unpopular.

Agree with much of the rest of your list and I certainly wouldn't consider them 'so impressive'. But all of this neglects the shower of an inheritance and, in comparison to the past five administrations, they are 'so impressive'.

 

[abc]

Disagree on your view on growth. Care to share the figures? You can even factor in today's 0.3% drop for April.
Your point about interest rates and inflation is dubious at best. If RR hadn't done anything, both would have been higher. RR boxed herself in by ruling out increases of the big-ticket taxes: the IFS -- or its director, Paul Johnson -- has been pretty consistent in arguing that any Chancellor should increase income tax. This would stop debt from rising, which would also impact on interest rates and the cost of government debt. But it'd be massively unpopular. At some point, the public are going to have to suck up something unpopular.

Agree with much of the rest of your list and I certainly wouldn't consider them 'so impressive'. But all of this neglects the shower of an inheritance and, in comparison to the past five administrations, they are 'so impressive'.

Growth -0.3% in April and the trend is downwards. It takes time for the impact of the anti growth budget to feed through and unfortunately it now is and will continue to do so. For me this was inevitable and obvious but I genuinely wish I was wrong.

I agree with you regarding income tax and that much of the problem lies with popularity or in effect us the voters. If we want more spending on health, defence, education, energy etc and we dont want cuts to benefits, climate mitigation and infrastructure investment then we have to pay more tax. The 'tax the rich but not me' is a reasonable ideology but a disaster in practice because it does not increase the total tax take. Successive chancellors (inc Gordon Brown) have kept the higher rate at 40% because history shows that making it any higher reduces the total received by gov. We may not like it but this is why it has remained at this level for 36 years.

Personally I would like to see the basic rate rise by say 1% and the higher rate by say 2% (hoping that a small increase doesn't contradict what I have said above) and then more people taken out of tax altogether to help the lowest paid. I also have no problem with increases in council tax as this reflects house values and thus one way or another the increase is affordable for most if not all.

But then I believe we should increase support for the most vulnerable in our society, increase defence spending and increase support for UK SMEs.

 

[Machiavelli]

Growth -0.3% in April and the trend is downwards. It takes time for the impact of the anti growth budget to feed through and unfortunately it now is and will continue to do so. For me this was inevitable and obvious but I genuinely wish I was wrong.

I agree with you regarding income tax and that much of the problem lies with popularity or in effect us the voters. If we want more spending on health, defence, education, energy etc and we dont want cuts to benefits, climate mitigation and infrastructure investment then we have to pay more tax. The 'tax the rich but not me' is a reasonable ideology but a disaster in practice because it does not increase the total tax take. Successive chancellors (inc Gordon Brown) have kept the higher rate at 40% because history shows that making it any higher reduces the total received by gov. We may not like it but this is why it has remained at this level for 36 years.

Personally I would like to see the basic rate rise by say 1% and the higher rate by say 2% (hoping that a small increase doesn't contradict what I have said above) and then more people taken out of tax altogether to help the lowest paid. I also have no problem with increases in council tax as this reflects house values and thus one way or another the increase is affordable for most if not all.

But then I believe we should increase support for the most vulnerable in our society, increase defence spending and increase support for UK SMEs.

I think you're right on criticising the employers' NI hike, but disagree on too much.
Your claim that growth is negative is a departure from the facts -- which is why you were unable to provide any evidence for it -- and rests on your impression that it will happen. It might, it might not.
This also neglects that we're in a low growth environment and have been for 17 years, and might well be our future too irrespective of any governmental policies.
You've also repeated that old canard that 'taxing the rich' doesn't bring in higher revenues -- and presumably growth -- and have invoked history to make this claim. How on earth do you explain the high growth, high tax on the rich period of UK politics (and way, way beyond that too) of 1945-79? You've then gone on to advocate higher taxes for the rich, so I'm struggling on this one.
With you on council tax though. It's long overdue a change. As the Green Party has been arguing for decades, a land value tax would be the best option here. Failing that, the current bands need to be reviewed in line with 35 years of house price inflation and perhaps some higher ones introduced.