The drivers identified here are real; economic strain, tech disruption, demographic change, extremism. But social cohesion can't be built on a foundation of institutional distrust. When nine per cent of people trust politicians, no strategy document changes that. Cohesion comes from citizens feeling they have a genuine stake in their governance. That's a structural question, not a funding question.
Proportional Representation would be a good start. You can't represent the views of 50 million + people in a two-party, first-past-the-post system without a fair chunk of the electorate feeling excluded or marginalised.
But they are starting a Common Ground Resilience Fund and establishing a cross-government Cohesion Support and Interventions Function. Are you telling me this isn't going to work?
I speak as someone who has had 4,000 homes built around my town over the last few years, and they're pretty much useless. Most of the estates are going to be abandoned before I retire.
* The developer needs to be required to build the infrastructure (from sewage through to schools, shops, and space for doctors and dentists) before putting a single brick down on a house.
* The developer should not be allowed to roll back on affordable or council housing as part of the scheme.
* They should not build on floodplains.
* 30% of the new houses my friends have bought have been poorly constructed, which needs to change.
* They need to be future-proof - ideally, solar panels and heat pumps, but at least with proper cooling as well.
* We need to be building for our demographics, not "get people on the ladder". Build for an ageing and infirm population. My grandparents had fantastic family homes and struggled with stairs - build for their comfort, then let others who can take their old houses.
Uncritically closing the article with a quote from Lord Wolney implying that a long awaited definition of anti-Muslim hatred may prevent criticism of extremism, serves to conflate an entire religion with acts specifically defined as extreme and not representative. Nicely captures the key snag on why this government is incapable of rectifying the division as it is perpetuated at an institutional level.
The drivers identified here are real; economic strain, tech disruption, demographic change, extremism. But social cohesion can't be built on a foundation of institutional distrust. When nine per cent of people trust politicians, no strategy document changes that. Cohesion comes from citizens feeling they have a genuine stake in their governance. That's a structural question, not a funding question.
Proportional Representation would be a good start. You can't represent the views of 50 million + people in a two-party, first-past-the-post system without a fair chunk of the electorate feeling excluded or marginalised.
But they are starting a Common Ground Resilience Fund and establishing a cross-government Cohesion Support and Interventions Function. Are you telling me this isn't going to work?
A Cohesion Support and Interventions Function. I'm sure that's exactly what the nine per cent were waiting for.
No. A demand to build has many problems.
I speak as someone who has had 4,000 homes built around my town over the last few years, and they're pretty much useless. Most of the estates are going to be abandoned before I retire.
* The developer needs to be required to build the infrastructure (from sewage through to schools, shops, and space for doctors and dentists) before putting a single brick down on a house.
* The developer should not be allowed to roll back on affordable or council housing as part of the scheme.
* They should not build on floodplains.
* 30% of the new houses my friends have bought have been poorly constructed, which needs to change.
* They need to be future-proof - ideally, solar panels and heat pumps, but at least with proper cooling as well.
* We need to be building for our demographics, not "get people on the ladder". Build for an ageing and infirm population. My grandparents had fantastic family homes and struggled with stairs - build for their comfort, then let others who can take their old houses.
Uncritically closing the article with a quote from Lord Wolney implying that a long awaited definition of anti-Muslim hatred may prevent criticism of extremism, serves to conflate an entire religion with acts specifically defined as extreme and not representative. Nicely captures the key snag on why this government is incapable of rectifying the division as it is perpetuated at an institutional level.