[The Weeping Angel]

I could have posted this in the Greens or Your Party thread.

https://labourlist.org/2025/11/london-h ... een-nimby/

Which is why it matters who steps up and who stands in the way.

Too often, the Green Party and those affiliated with what is currently known as ‘Your Party’ act as a coordinated force of obstruction. They arrive at the end of long consultations, disrupt community engagement, amplify anxiety and then vanish before responsibility lands. They claim to speak for neighbourhoods they barely know. Their tactics, messages and outcomes are identical. Lewisham is simply their latest stop.

Their answer to the housing crisis is always the same – stop building and hope no one notices the consequences.

After years of engagement with residents about replacing a car park with social and affordable homes, Jeremy Corbyn arrived at the eleventh hour to oppose the Lewisham Shopping Centre redevelopment. And this week Zara Sultana fronts Your Party’s Question Time debut, talking about poverty while her party campaigns against the homes that lift families out of it. You cannot defend an empty car park and call it social justice.

[The Weeping Angel]

Luke Tryl of More in Common has thoughts on yimbys vs nimbys.

https://www.ft.com/content/f4563769-d56 ... pe=nongift

Ask Britons to describe their country in a word and the most common response is “broken”. Any optimism that accompanied the election of a new government last year has been replaced with, at best, weary cynicism, and at worst, boiling anger. But Labour’s decision to pick a fight with nature lovers, designed to show it is determined to get Britain building, may not be the best way to prove its mettle on delivering the longed-for, promised change.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, 54 per cent of Britons expected the new government to improve the lives of people like them; today, that figure is just 27 per cent. One of the key drivers of the “Britain is broken” sentiment is housing. An Englishman’s home was once his castle but with rents and house prices so high, the idea of a home as a source of sanctuary and security feels like a pipe dream for many.

To its credit, the government has both recognised the scale of the challenge and set itself the ambitious target of building 1.5mn homes to address it. The problem, however, is the aggressive rhetoric. Its determination to push the mantra “build, baby, build” — which, in crude terms, positions environmental protections as red tape to be cut, and nature as a blocker to building — risks doing more to damage the mission to address the housing crisis than enable it.