UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
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.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable. "Infrastructure" in terms of discussing housing developments tends to mean roads, doctors surgeries, shops etc. The things that don't seem to get built (despite promises) when both green and brownfield sites get cleared and blanketed in suburbs.
There are always some who so deeply NIMBYish that they will oppose anything and everything for the sake of it, and there will never be any appeasing them. But the most common real complaint I hear about new housing is the lack of new services to keep up with the increasing population. If Labour could finally make those kinds of infrastructure commitments really stick to new housing projects I think a lot of NIMBYness would subside.
Most people don't object to having a few more neighbours, but they do object to feeling they have to fight them for a GP appointment.
But this is flatly untrue. There are laws requiring local authorities to take this into account and they can compel developers to contribute either financially or in-kind. What causes the problems with doctor's surgeries is not new developments, but austerity, which is why it's a problem everywhere.
But even aside from austerity, nimbyism significantly contributes to the problems you've identified, at the local level both directly and indirectly. E.g., here's an example of NIMBYs trying to prevent a school building a garden (a direct example). But, it also happens indirectly:
This is the reason that, e.g., many rural schools have shut down. There was a particularly good example within the last year or so of a councillor celebrating preventing a housing development and then, mere weeks later, the very same councillor complaining that the DfE had ordered the local school to be shut down because there weren't enough children in the village!
EDIT: A further indirect consequence of NIMBYs causing the kinds of problems they claim to oppose is that you simply cannot have economic growth without development. When so much development is blocked and delayed, it leads to less growth, which means government revenue falls, which means less money for development... etc.
There have been multiple developments in my own area where the initial proposals included service provisions alongside major housing. But for each one the infrastructure commitments get dropped but the houses go up anyway.
We may well have laws on the books that are supposed to address this, but they do not seem to be working.
I agree austerity is also a problem, and it has to be addressed to make provision for community infrastructure.
We must have a carrot and stick approach to this issue. It’s not unreasonable for people to object to their communities being turned into giant dormitories. If they can’t make that heard at local planning committees they will make it heard at the ballot box. Labour’s reforms will do no good if they are all undone in a backlash at the next election.
Whatever the underlying reasons, service infrastructure must be delivered alongside housing commitments. It’s the only way to ensure this shift will be politically sustainable. I am not convinced that only increasing housing supply will itself attract infrastructure development later. It’s not really doing so in my own community.
Counterpoint: yes it is. All communities are full of houses that are empty for a lot of the time while people go to work elsewhere. My road in inner-city London is exactly like this. The 'dormitories' meme is just another NIMBY talking point, I'm afraid, which makes no sense at all. What are we going to do, forbid people to work outside of 'their communities' (whatever that means)?