Total Visits

Sunday, 15 April 2018

Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

 Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests


John Denham, the former Labour MP and a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who is now the Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University has called for recognition within Labour of the English nationalist movement.  In doing so of course he admits that at present the Labour Party doesn’t properly recognise England at all, and is reluctant to mention the ‘E’ word, let alone give us our rights as English people. 

His article is a good one, and I put it below, but one area of course that is not mentioned at all is the idea of the English Nation. 

Labour are willing to discuss the idea of the Scottish Nation and the Welsh Nation, but they are not prepared to recognise the ideas that England has its own Nation - let alone the English Nation has its own country, namely England!

It has been interesting also to see that John Denham has encountered flak from Far-Leftists within the Labour Party who do not like him raising the ‘E’ word!

His intervention is therefore welcome for the health and progress of the English movement – even if he feels he can’t fully come out as an English nationalist yet!

Below is the article.  What do you think?

DevolutionEnglandEnglish Votes for English LawsJohn DenhamNational Education ServiceScotland Bill


20 years ago, Parliament was debating the Scotland Bill. Within months, both Wales and Scotland were well on the way to their own elected governments. From then onwards, England’s education, health, social care, bus, environment and agriculture policy was distinct from that of its neighbours.

Reading Labour’s recently published 2018 policy consultation, you would never know devolution had even happened. Of eight papers, only one – on health – can even bring itself to use the word ‘England’. The policy consultation is a constitutional dog’s breakfast that ignores the challenges of making policy within a devolved UK. Most documents seem to refer to England, but don’t say so. Others wander blindly across UK, devolved and unresolved policy areas without asking party members how to manage the complications that will inevitably arise.

Education policy is devolved, so presumably the ‘National Education Service’ is only for England, but we are not told that. No one could imagine Welsh or Scottish Labour writing policies that don’t mention Wales or Scotland, so why can’t our Labour Party talk about England? The consultation on housing, local government and transport – all devolved matters – is subtitled ‘giving people the power’. It talks about local devolution. Is this devolution within England, or devolution in every part of the UK? We can assume that it is about England, but why not say so?

‘Greening Britain’ (sic) covers energy policy (not devolved) and air quality (devolved). It covers agriculture, which will become hugely contentious – in theory, it is devolved, but effectively most policy is made in Brussels. With Brexit, the powers will be returned to us: should they go straight to the devolved administrations? Cardiff and Edinburgh say ‘yes’, but many in England would want to maintain a single UK market for farm produce. It’s an ideal question for policy consultation, but the document doesn’t even mention the issue.

The policy paper on poverty and inequality is mainly about UK-wide policy, though it covers some devolved issues. ‘Protecting our communities’ ranges across English, Welsh and UK responsibilities, without making the distinctions clear.

Labour will pay a price for this confused lack of clarity. We cannot change Britain, or any part of it, without an understanding of where power lies now and a clear view of where it should lie in the future.

The 1997 Labour government did not make a serious attempt – despite John Prescott’s best efforts – to shift power and resources out of London. England saw no constitutional change (except, ironically, in London). England needs devolution today because the last Labour government, of which I was a part, failed. Labour members should be asked about the governance of England as a whole: how power and resources will be devolved, how laws for England are made, and about England’s relationship with the rest of the UK.

The party must stop talking as though England and Britain are the same thing. This lazy confusion feeds nationalist propaganda in Scotland, discourages party members from thinking about England’s needs and makes us sound out of touch with millions of voters.

The confused policy documents obscure the reality that England is the only part of Britain permanently ruled by the UK government. It’s a constitutional arrangement that allows a Conservative government to bribe the DUP while taking free school meals from English kids. We should at least be asked whether we want this to continue, but the papers avoid any discussion of how England’s laws are made (including the thorny issue of English votes on English laws).

The idea of a federal UK raised in the 2017 manifesto has disappeared.
Wales and Scotland have radical traditions. England has its own. ‘’For the many not few’ echoes popular English campaigns for land and homes, for protection from exploitation, for justice and rights, using self-organisation and co-operation. Labour could draw on such stories that are embedded in communities across the nation, but only if we can call the country, England, by its name.

While not all voters are bothered whether we mention England by name, plenty do care. They know where they live, they are proud to be English and they want to know what a Labour government will do for England.

In narrow electoral terms, Labour hasn’t won the popular vote in England since 2001. By the time of the next election, we will have been behind the Tories for 21 years. We are 60 seats behind the Conservatives and we won’t be in government unless we win more English votes. In 2015, we were badly damaged by claims that Labour policy for England would be dictated by the SNP.

At the next election, we need an English manifesto that sets out exactly what Labour will do in England; the policy consultation should be the starting point for that manifesto. Labour has gained a narrow lead on ‘best party to represent England’ but that support is dwarfed by those who can’t identify any party that stands for England. Making it clear that we know what country we are talking about and not being afraid of mentioning its name won’t guarantee victory, but it would be a good start.

Here is a link to the original >>>https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

Saturday, 14 April 2018

"South Yorkshire Police is investigat(ing) an allegation of Electoral Fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections" -- Detective Inspector Steve Leach South Yorkshire Police


Our PRESS RELEASE about the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election:- 
Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate
In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  
It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London - clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!
Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-
Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.  April 2017 (updated December 2017.
The relevant part of the Guidance states:-
“Home address form 1.12
The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you
live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.
1.13
Your home address:
• must be completed in full
• must not contain abbreviations
• must be your current home address
• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)
1.14
Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”
76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>>https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/.  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html. 
Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  
The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 
So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!
In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 
The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so as is confirmed by the quotation that is the title to this article.
David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  
“I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 
This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”
David continued:-  
“Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  
The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”
David Allen
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

Friday, 13 April 2018

WILL THE EU COLLAPSE BEFORE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMAINERS CAN GET US OUT OF IT?



WILL THE EU COLLAPSE BEFORE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMAINERS CAN GET US OUT OF IT?

I read an interesting article recently in the Daily Telegraph entitled “The Brussels empire is collapsing before our eyes – but Remainiacs just don’t see it” by Professor Gwythian Prins who is Emeritus Research Professor at the LSE and applied historical methodology to the task of trying to work out what the risk of the EU’s collapse is likely to be.  

I thought the analysis was both interesting and quite compelling.

Here is the article:-

The Brussels empire is collapsing before our eyes - but Remainiacs just don't see it 
There are two strange things about ‘remainiacs’ – the self-important 5% of the country who are trying to halt Brexit. The first is well known. It is their disrespect for the biggest winning democratic vote for any issue or any government in British history. But the second is not. This is their weird attitude to the EU. 
Their frantic ‘virtue-signalling’ finds all fault with Britain and none with the unelected Brussels machine in our mud-wrestling ‘negotiation’ to leave. But what is the actual state of health of this institution to which they would keep Britain shackled in a ‘Hotel California’ Brexit – one where you can check out anytime but you just can’t leave? 
I am an historian and cultural anthropologist, so I decided to compare the EU to similar complex social systems in the past, using the academic tools of my trade. 
My main finding should worry Mr Selmayr, the German uber-bureaucrat who just took effective charge of the EU in a surgical coup d’état last month. And it should reassure everyone who voting to leave the EU in 2016. 
By getting out now we may just avoid the cliff-edge of major crisis in the EU. And the ‘remainiacs’ just don’t see it. 
If we apply a famous technique for analysing the risk of collapse in complex societies to the EU, we find that it is squarely within the zone of that risk. How so?  
First, we have to identify what sort of institution the EU is. Well, it looks like an empire. It walks like an empire. It certainly talks like an empire - listen to Mr Tusk. It treats its subjects like an empire. They grumble rebelliously, as vassal-states do. Its rulers, the Brussels elite, feather their nests just like their predecessors in function did in the USSR. In 2007 the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso actually called it an empire. I think we may safely say that the EU is an empire. And empires collapse. Is this one facing that risk? And if it is, how would we know? 
The leading methodology today for analysing the risk of collapse in empires was first used by an American archaeologist in a comprehensive review of mainly ancient empires. He borrowed it from the world of finance and adapted it to measure the perceived marginal benefit that you either do - or do not - get if you increase the complexity of a social structure. 
Professor Tainter’s point is that empires are only strong when the benefits from increasing complexity are positive. It is when more complexity yields less benefit that an empire enters the zone of risk of collapse. So I ran the detailed history of the European ‘project’ through this methodology and the results show pretty clearly that since the introduction of the Euro, the ‘project’ has been badly on the slide. What’s happening? 
Across the EU – not just in Britain – we, the peasants, are revolting! The facts are stark. In referenda and increasingly in national elections too, since Denmark and Sweden rejected the Euro, we have had almost twenty years of rejection after rejection of the EU’s wishes by the people. 
The premature introduction of the Euro to try to force the pace towards political union was the Federalists greatest mistake. It infected the entire ‘project’ with a wasting disease that remorselessly destroys its legitimacy. 
The next crisis was 2005/6 when the Dutch and the French rejected the ‘EU Constitution’ only for it to be rammed through as the Lisbon Treaty. 
The Irish bridled, so they had to be whipped over the fence at the second attempt. The Brussels elite reran referenda when they could because they believe their own Vanguard Myth which tells them they know best. 
Or, in 2015, they simply ignored the Greek referendum and imposed even harsher terms on this troublesome colony. The biggest cluster-crisis started then, grew with Brexit and Germany’s immigration crisis. 
The revolts in Italy and now in Hungary are just the latest and possibly most threatening. All this evidence of citizen rejection while Brussels responds with further bureaucratic complexity, has plainly taken the EU into the Zone of Risk of Collapse where it now stands. 
In order to deter any other prospective escapees, Brussels is shaky but defiant, bullying, hoping to dishearten the British (some hope!), intent on punishing us for taking back control. Hardly a sign of self-confidence. 
Across the EU, the cost in terms of alienation mounts as citizens, resentful of being treated so contemptuously, rationally choose less complexity at the national level. Less complexity is no catastrophe. It’s the historical norm. And that’s the key. If people don’t regard an empire’s power as legitimate, they rebel. Empires are like Peter Pan’s fairy friend Tinkerbell. They can only live if all the children clap. And across Europe, the people aren’t clapping any more. This empire is collapsing before our eyes but it’s no crisis for the ‘Brexiteer’ Many, only for the ‘remainiac’ Few. 
The Government should understand this evidence. We are by far the stronger party facing this rickety EU. Stop being so timid. Thank goodness that ordinary people had to good sense to get us out in the nick of time. 
Gwythian Prins is Emeritus Research Professor at the LSE. His report is published on the university-based website ‘Briefings for Brexit’ set up by academics who back the majority decision to leave the EU.

What do you think? 

Monday, 9 April 2018

BBC ABANDONS SELECTION OF EXPERTS BY QUALIFICATION OR BY MERIT!



BBC ABANDONS SELECTION OF EXPERTS BY QUALIFICATION OR BY MERIT!

On Bank Holiday Monday the Daily Telegraph ran a story entitled “Half of expert voices on BBC will be female by next year”.  

The article appears below but in it the bonkers Lord Hall of Birkenhead (driven mad by obsessive International Leftism and Multi-Culturalism!) announced that he was ordering that there should be a target by April 2019 to have an equal number of male and female expert contributors. 

So the outcome of this is that we Licence Fee/Tax payers are to get female contributors, even where all the best experts on a topic are male! 

In other words from then on anybody still watching the BBC needs to be very aware that any female expert that they produce may well have been selected, not because she is any good at her area of alleged “expertise”, but simply because she is female. 

As if to support my point the article states, no doubt based on the press release by the BBC itself, that the BBC’s “gender quota is … aimed at increasing the opportunities for women on air.  It follows a series of measures including the creation of a “Women’s expert database” to make it easier to book female contributors, and more than a hundred people (sic!) have so far taken part in the “Expert women media training scheme”.” 

Needless to say bringing in women expert witnesses is not to affect programmes ““which already have a focus on gender”, such as Woman’s Hour”!

I would be very interested to know whether equivalent rules are to be applied to the BBC’s Asian Network.  In particular it would be amusing to see the contortions which the politically correct apologists for the BBC will be put to to explain why they haven’t got a 50/50 gender balance of Sharia Law experts. 

Naturally pointing out such issues and being at all critical of them is a breach of the UK Government's “fundamental British values” which insists upon acceptance of multi-culturalism and also of all its madnesses (and of its opposition to many traditional English values) as a pre-condition of acceptability!

What do you think?

Here is the article:-

“BBC pledges to have 50:50 gender split of expert voices by April next year

The BBC is to insist half of the expert voices heard on news and current affairs programmes are women by next year, it has been announced.
The broadcaster has set a 50:50 gender quota after it came under pressure over its treatment of female staff.
By April 2019, the corporation aims to have an equal number of male and female expert contributors to topical shows, as it increases the number of women on air.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the director-general, said the target would “help transform the range of expert voices across the BBC”.
Director of news  Fran Unsworth said change must move “further and faster”, pledging the organisation will produce a report to be accountable on its progress.
Earlier this year, the BBC faced accusations of being a “good old boy’s network” after allegations of its treatment of female broadcasters  including Carrie Gracie.
The gender quota is now aimed at increasing the opportunities for women on air, ensuring a range of voices are heard.
It follows a series of measures including, in 2013, the creation of a “women’s expert database” to make it easier for programme-makers to find and book female contributors for television and radio.
More than 100 people have so far taken part in an “expert women” scheme, for free media training sessions to boost confidence and performance.
The quota relates only to contributing “experts”, brought in to give insight and opinion on topical stories.
It does not include “the relevant minister, official, or organisational representative appropriate” to that news story, meaning those responsible for whatever has happened remain accountable regardless of gender.
It also rules out programmes “which already have a focus on gender”, such as Woman’s Hour, which “would not be expected to achieve a 50:50 balance because of the very nature of the programme’s editorial remit”.
Since last year, select programmes have trialled a grassroots 50:50 project, with Outside Source, a show simulcast on the BBC News Channel and BBC World News, reaching the target within three months of paying close attention to guests’ gender.
The BBC said the success of the 50:50 challenge has led to other teams to follow suit. The One Show and BBC News at Six and Ten are the latest of more than 80 programmes to sign up.
The corporation claimed “many programmes have seen uplift in gender balance since recording their figures”, with The Andrew Marr show on BBC One and Radio 4’s File on 4 each seeing a rise in expert female contributors and reporters. The former has seen an increase from 42 per cent in December to 52 per cent in February.
Lord Hall said:  “This is a fantastic project that is already driving change. The results from programmes that have taken it up have been remarkable.
“Adopting it more widely will help transform the range of expert voices across the BBC.”
Fran Unsworth, BBC Director of News, added: “We are starting to see a real transformation across the BBC. But we want to go further and faster.  
“The success already delivered demonstrates the desire and commitment of BBC teams to lead the way on this important issue.
“That’s why, the BBC is now setting the challenge of all programmes – on both radio and TV – that use expert contributors, to meet a 50/50 split of contributors by April 2019.
“The BBC will produce report on the progress at that time.  We can and are delivering change.
“The BBC is happy to share its experience of this project with other broadcasters and news organisations who might want to adopt a similar approach.”

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

THERESA MAY AND HER GOVERNMENT MAKE FAKE NEWS


THERESA MAY AND THE TORY GOVERNMENT ARE EXPOSED AS MAKERS OF FAKE NEWS

The above is an image of Theresa May talking about the UK Government’s Housing Plans in terms as if that is a “British” issue. 

However the key point to remember is that housing is not an issue which the British Government has any legal competence to deal with in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  It is only in England where the British Government has direct rule over England and we English are not properly represented by our own Government that they have any jurisdiction over housing. 

It is thus not surprising that the vast programme of house building that this Government is proposing is to be built only in England.  The English will not be properly asked about this and the members of the Government who are imposing it, although they can still calls themselves members of the Conservative Party, the leadership of it has in fact abandoned traditional Conservatives and traditional values in favour of globalism, multi-culturalism and diversity. 

It is for this reason that housing is being deceitfully represented as a domestically generated need, whereas in fact the primary generator of housing need is the vast wave of immigration that we have had, primarily into England.  This has led to at least 12 million immigrants coming to England in the last 20 years. 

Although some people have left, often to escape the consequences of mass immigration, nevertheless it does mean that, if the Government's targets are to be met, a new Greater London is to be built on England’s “green and pleasant land” without any proper consultation with the English Nation as a whole. 

Fake news or what?

Below is the report of what she says:-

'Do your duty to Britain', Theresa May tells property developers in major speech on 'restoring dream' of home-ownership

Prime Minister to pledge to 'rewrite planning laws' and force private housebuilders to 'step up and do their bit' as she attempts to place housing at heart of policy agenda

Theresa May to tell property developers to 'do your duty to Britain' in major speech on restoring 'home-ownership dream'

Theresa May will announce plans to penalise property developers who do not build homes quickly enough, as she uses a major speech to warn housebuilders they must “do their duty to Britain”.

The Prime Minister will criticise developers who profit from building expensive properties rather than the quantities of new homes the country needs, telling them it is time to “step up do your bit”.

She will vow to “rewrite the laws on planning” in order to help more people get on the housing ladder.

The Government will also adopt a tougher approach to local councils, including setting targets on how many homes each authority needs to plan for.

Key workers such as nurses, teachers and firefighters should be the priority for affordable homes, Ms May will say, and local authorities will be given powers to implement this.

The speech marks another strand of Ms May’s attempt to flesh out a domestic policy agenda that goes beyond Brexit. Last month she delivered a keynote education speech promising to review how universities are funded.

However, opponents said the “feeble” changes had already been announced in the Government’s housing white paper, published last year.
They are also likely to demand the Government make more funding available or allow councils to borrow more to invest in housing. Town halls have long insisted that restrictions on their ability to borrow to fund new homes is the biggest barrier to housebuilding.

Questions are also likely to be raised over the future of Starter Homes – one of the Government’s flagship policies for boosting home-ownership. The Independent revealed late last year that not a single one of the properties, which will be sold to first-time buyers at a discount, has yet been built.

Accepting the failings of current housing policy, Ms May will say “for decades this country has failed to build enough of the right homes in the right places”.
She will once again place housing at the heart of her agenda, saying: “We cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see unless we tackle one of the biggest barriers to social mobility we face today: the national housing crisis.”
The Prime Minister has previously said she will make tackling the housing crisis her “personal mission”.

Speaking at a planning conference in London, she will argue that “in much of the country, housing is so unaffordable that millions of people who would reasonably expect to buy their own home are unable to do so” because the “failure to match demand with supply really began to push prices upwards”, and also drove up rents.

“The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home-ownership is all too often locked and barred,” she will say.

Recounting her own experience of buying a home, she will add: “I still vividly remember the first home I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice.’ 

“And because we had that security, because we had a place to go back to, it was that much easier to play an active role in our community. To share in the common purpose of a free society.”

“That is what this country should be about – not just having a roof over your head but having a stake in your community and its future.”

Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years
Ms May will take a tougher line against private developers, criticising the “perverse incentive” that allows property executives to profit from building expensive homes rather than greater numbers of affordable ones.

She will suggest a company’s past record of delivering affordable housing should be taken into account when it bids for planning permission for new properties.  

She is expected to say: “The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price.

“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.

“I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise.”

The Prime Minister will also point out that developers have failed to build thousands of homes that have been given planning permission, warning that “the gap between permissions granted and homes built is still too large”.

Analysis by the Local Government Association (LGA) earlier this year revealed 420,000 homes that received planning permission last year are still waiting to be built.  

Calling on private housebuilders to “step up and do their bit”, Ms May will say: “I expect developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs.”

Sajid Javid, the Housing Secretary, has already hinted the Government is considering giving councils “use it or lose it” powers to take land away from developers who are refusing to build homes on sites they own.

Ms May will also criticise David Cameron’s legacy, saying her predecessor had presided over “a great and welcome increase in the number of planning permissions granted” but not “a corresponding rise in the number of homes being built”.

Budget 2017: Hammond commits £ 44bn to housing and commits to delivering 300,000 net additional homes per year by mid 2020’s

Although the Prime Minister will announce that 80 proposals from the Government’s housing white paper will be implemented, housing insiders will be watching closely to see what type of housing the Government will prioritise and whether any new funding will be made available.

Since 2012, the Conservatives have prioritised the more expensive “affordable housing” over social housing, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of the cheapest homes.

Ms May is also likely to face calls to reverse some of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which forced councils to sell off social homes and extended the controversial Right to Buy to housing association tenants. The scheme is another leading cause of the fall in the number of low-cost homes.

John Healey, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister should be embarrassed to be fronting up these feeble measures first announced a year ago. After eight years of failure on housing it’s clear her Government has got no plan to fix the housing crisis.

“Since 2010, home-ownership has fallen to a 30-year low, rough sleeping has more than doubled, and deep cuts to housing investment have led to the lowest number of new social rented homes built since records began.

“This housing crisis is made in Downing Street. It’s time the Tories changed course, and backed Labour’s long-term plan to build the genuinely affordable homes the country needs.”

The Prime Minister was also warned by Conservative peer Lord Porter, who chairs the LGA, that planning changes would be largely meaningless without new funding.
He wrote on Twitter: “If we want more houses, we have to build them, not plan them.

“The [Housing Department] need to push back against [the Treasury] or the nonsense will go on and nothing will change. Less homes built next year than there were this year.

Ms May will insist that building on green belt land is not the answer to tackling the housing crisis. She will instead announce new protections for woodland and coastlines.