UK Politics

3145 readers

7 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Prioritise people’s needs ‘over newts’ in housing policy, says Angela Rayner (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/uk_politics

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The government plans to unveil sweeping changes this week to the national planning policy framework, the document which sets out national priorities for building, after a consultation.

I'm really looking forward to the yimby charter, I've got to say. We're going to build so much stuff, it's going to be amazing.

'Labour seem to be saying that Angela is best and local people can be ignored.'

I endorse this message.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well there's the other solution, the final solution to this problem which you are advocating for by default. But most people agree that that's not the direction to go so maybe we need more housing now and accept the loss of some scenery.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the other solution, the final solution to this problem which you are advocating for by default

Say what now?

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you don't build houses and people can't afford to live in the few houses that exist, then you're condemning them to death, so just build the houses or admit you're fine with killing the undesirables instead of hiding behind pointless green washed versions of NIMBYism.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

See, this reads very reasonably, but I think people were a bit put off by your original reference to a 'final solution', which has some... overtones.