People feel like there are a lot of these, because they're conspicuous, but there really just isn't enough building going on.

Part of the issue with the low-quality housing is that it's often in the middle of nowhere, with no connections - because nimbyism has made it impossible to build housing where it's needed or to build the infrastructure that would improve the quality. So there's a vicious cycle of: good housing is blocked > low-quality housing is built > people point to low-quality housing as a reason to block more developments > good housing is blocked...

But you still have to either build it or convert existing non-residential building into residential building. Existing planning law makes it much too easy for nimbys to block either, hence the need for reform. Fact is, we need to build, convert, and add more council housing, but we need new planning law, first, to make any of those three possible.

I'm never 100% behind anything, but I think that in a crisis - and this is a crisis - you need to be radical and take risks. Caution is not going to cut it.

This is exactly why the government is right to reform planning law and allow more building, even if that on its own won't be sufficient to deal with the scope of the crisis.

The government is taking biodiversity seriously by banning bee-killing pesticides, encouraging a shift to regenerative farming and through their commitment to green energy generally. They've also promised to make considerations around biodiversity part of the new planning policy.

What they have to stop is the use of biodiversity as a mere excuse for nimbyism. And, yes, this will entail building on some 'green' land. However, just because there's a bit of grass on something doesn't necessarily make it particularly biodiverse. We'll do far more for biodiversity by making protected green land truly biodiverse (rather than vast areas of near-dead monocultures, which is what all too much 'green space' in the UK actually is) while building good homes on some of the low-quality green space - which is the plan.

Genuinely, the reason I've never gone into politics is that I absolutely do not want to have the job of solving political problems. Like, when the problem is 'not enough houses', I just want to go 'So build some houses', not the thing you actually have to do which is 'Balance the interests of a whole host of people, many of whom will be furiously ungrateful even when you do things in their interest'.

Don't think there's much chance of PR passing, unfortunately. I'd vote Labour under pretty much any system, but I'd be much happier with PR than FPTP.

Very much so! That's why their slogan at the GE was literally just the word 'CHANGE'.

Of course, now they have to deliver change, but only change people are happy with. In fact, only change that people who might vote for them and live in winnable seats are happy with. This is the complicated bit.

What's the five-year failure rate for start-ups, again?

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.

I agree with this. And all your mooted solutions require changes to planning policy, first, so this is a good start by the government!

For me, what would really fix the problem is banning right to buy, but I'm quite sure that will never happen.

We can all keep throwing around the word 'democracy' while the housing crisis gets worse, or the government can exercise its democratic (see?) mandate to change planning regulations in order to fix the housing crisis. For me, this change prevents councillors going rogue against the democratically (there it is again!) agreed local plans - there's no 'overruling' by the government because it's not a centrally made decision to overrule them, they simply won't be able to poleaxe their own plans.

So, it's democratic twice over: the government exercises its mandate to allow councils to exercise their mandate to build.

We end up building on floodplains because NIMBYs block building everywhere else. These reforms will help us get more homes built where they're needed. And they don't overrule local democracy, they'll take away the outsized influence of the blockers. Democracy requires a level playing field.

No, only lovers or enemies. Very much a binary.

Classic Fediverse! Do we need to pin it separately on every instance?

I was just more curious whether this was a posting for awareness that it was happening or if “don’t cross the picket line” was shared for solidarity.

Bit of both, really! I feel like using a business (in this case, clicking links) counts as crossing the picket, whether you (physically) work there or not.

Done!

If other mods agree, then I think yes.

Your assumption is correct!

Lots of good answers here - it's the kind of question where lots of explanations are partly correct. For me, the decision by early communists to advocate for violent revolution as the only or main way of bringing about communism is a key factor.

It's pretty common for revolutions to produce dictators, going right back to the fall of the Roman Republic. Ironically, the Roman Civil War that preceded the fall was won by the populares - the people's movement, as opposed to the optimates, the aristocracy. And yet, the end result was the abolition of the tribunes, which had been the people's branch of the legislature, and the establishment of the Dictatorship of Julius Caesar, then the Principate of his nephew, Augustus, who we now regard as having been the first Roman Emperor. It wouldn't be accurate to project back our exact ideas of democracy or class politics to the Romans, but it's pretty telling that one of the first explicitly 'class-based' civil wars in history turned out this way.

Many centuries later, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the British Isles had a similar outcome: the royalists were defeated by the parliamentarians, only for the victorious generals to set up one of their own as what we would now call a dictator (Oliver Cromwell as 'Lord Protector'), who was virtually a king himself.

(Worth noting here that many people assumed George Washington would turn out to be another Cromwell. The fact that he didn't and the question of why he didn't, is not something I know enough to even begin to speculate about, but is definitely something to look into when trying to understand this topic.)

Most relevant for the early communists was the French Revolution, which led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte who, more or less explicitly imitating Caesar and Augustus, made himself sole ruler of France, first as 'Consul' (a title also borrowed from Classical Rome), then Emperor. He was also followed, a little later, by his nephew doing a very similar thing, again explicitly imitating the Romans.

Ironically, Marx himself wrote about this exact tendency, even calling it 'Bonapartism', to warn revolutionaries to try and avoid it. I don't know how exactly he missed the point that the very thing he elsewhere advocated for - violent revolution - was itself the cause of Bonapartism but it seems he did. Plainly, the early Marxists didn't sufficiently heed this warning, for whatever reason (and see other replies in this thread for many good suggestions!).

Basically, if you're going to advocate for the violent destruction of a system of government, you are running a major risk that in the ensuing chaos, someone very good at being violent and decisive will end with far too much power.