In full: Rachel Reeves gives first speech as Chancellor 

No need we all know the Tories have left no money just debt open borders and trashed NHS .

​@@stephennelmes4557it's britain.

She normally like this. Give her time, could be a leader in 5 years.

@@dangosypethau 25000 a month? 😄😄😄😄

...also schools, GP surgeries, public transport, health care, employment opportunities etc etc etc

Probably young families and the vulnerable like it is now. And rightly so.

​@@zenco7936were they will get the money for it?

yes I agree and I don't believe they will

we're all mugs already mate, at least now we'll be able to see where the money's going

Happened in 2016, lightning.

5year's of a Labour government ....it tastes sweet.

And are family Roman or Saxon?

Moorish

They already do

​@@MrLillywhite2011God 😂

Hopefully do or we will have people taking planning matters into their own hands and building Shanty Towns which will be no go areas run by criminals as in South America and South Africa.

Given Labour's plans for energy, yes. There probably will be.

Strong speech when reading from the teleprompter, plenty of hesitation answering questions (which she knew were coming) so I question whether she actually wrote the speech.

@@user-cq2by2cu7p blue globalist, red globalists…it really doesn’t matter, neither party are for the people.

Not sure about that .

​@MADCHESTERUTD-f8f They're just not though are they, and Starmer mentioned housing loads of times at PMQs on weeks when it wasn't clear what he would even go in on

Why give away their policy ideas. The few that they did talk about the torys stole. Its clear they have a plan for a new way of doing things based on this speech alone,.

Tax the wealthy then lend the proceeds back to them.

Think it's 2.7 Trillion debt.

To be fair, she didn't say "big" mandate 😅

amazing level of cope here. the left voted is always split by the libdems, the snp, the greeds and the right vote is never split. One new party on the right turns up and all of a sudden FPTP doesnt give a real mandate. Give me a break

@@GreenZerg Yes, FPTP is increasingly not giving governments a proper mandate, time to stop defending it.

And then bankrupt the country 😂😂

@@rd123. Technically not possible as a personal concept but putting that aside the Tories have driven us close to the financial edge

Some of those polices (green transition) are great. 90% taxes mean that lots of those this tax will apply to will leave (UK, Canada amongst other destinations)

@@FranzBieberkopf They’ll be moving to Dubai and Singapore

Rayner has said migrants will be eligible for the houses

@@hTyKn1 Of course they should be. Just like anyone else.

Young families and vulnerable get priority over refugees anyway. They always have. It's another reason why the UK spends so much putting them in hotels, because we can't house them, we can't house our own. And it's not the refugees coming here's fault, or the young families. It's putting landlords and profit before people and decency.

No it does not. Look at mainland Europe after the 2007 crash. We were alone in pursuing austerity

This is LITERALLY what the tories were doing for 14 years😂😂

@@Worldeaterosg The same braindead idiots who have been wrong for a decade and a half, still havent realised that they have no idea how anything works.

@@Worldeaterosg apparently it's one rule for one eh 😂😂😂😂 "when it goes wrong". When. How negative 😊

just?

We get 10 days of sunshine each year so solar panels will not actually benefit us most of the time but will make the rich richer and make housing more expensive.

Solar panels to be installed only in areas with more hours of sunshine! Insulation for all houses to reduce energy bills! The use of heat pumps in larger houses! Agriculture needs a complete update! The use of tidal energy and hydro turbines on rivers to supplement the energy reserves?

​@@user-bt8cz9nv4x Splendid vision for a grand plan like this. I like it

@@seanehzthe sun rises every single day solar panels work best with direct sunlight, but still work during cloudy weather. Its UV they need not heat😂

Or higher tax for billionaires

@@tomburke198 the billionaires will move out

@@billwoolston6716 that’s what we want

​@@tomburke198then say goodbye to the economy for good. Moron

@@tomburke198 great. all we have left are poor sods

if Trump gets in NATO will collapse and we will be in serious trouble. Behind the scenes the UK is preparing for war

When listening to this remember that they have higher posts than Nigel Farage for example, but as they sat so they sit, as they promised they still promise.

There was an election that brough Labout into government. Before the election they said what they planned. In the election despite tough competition. They managed to secure a majority in the currents voting system . The managed to secure an historic majority. When this happens they can basically do what they want. So this equal not just a mandate cause the won but a strong mandate .

@@Ronariverah TOUGH COMPETITION??

The mandate from the people landslide victory 👍.

​@Ronariverah A relatively small percentage of the vote on a low turnout against a split opposition is not a strong mandate. it's an anomaly of the system. Kier Starmer's speech implicitly recognised this. They have many people to win over

@@pip1723 Labour got more votes when Corbyn was the candidate.

Will be around 200 million by 2050 which will be more than the largest country in the World Russia.

@@davidmorris9661 the people who have more money... surprisingly.

yes the ones who go out to work

Who's paying the same one's who paid for all the tory waste and incompetence.

Its called investment

Yes much better spent on expensive curtains for number 10 and a useless track and trace system. Brainrot

Yeah I live in a village under a Tory council and government it was swallowed up by 1000 house's all green belt so it's not a Labour thing .

Our countryside and it’s wildlife has been decimated by the previous government

Both Labour and Tories will destroy our lovely Country due to both allowing too many people in.

As she said, there needs to be compromise... Green and building

​@@DrAshaphimWhere does it end, get another 20 million in, find a blade of grass and build on it? How is that good for the environment?

@@steve7445 ...of the rich

@@steve7445 I'm in the higher tax band mate and I'm not concerned. They won't hit working hard earners, we are talking about the very very rich people (like Rishi's tax dodging wife 😊)

@@hannahoosh Who will simply move away as will the investors.

It’s called investment.

@@LadyLuck8_4 and Brexit really delivered that didn't it 😂 our export and import has never been so poor 😂

The 412 seats mandate cry harder :)

when cars first came out only the wealthy could afford them and it will revert back to this

In a tax system that doesn't promote growth yes i.e 14years

No tax, no nhs etc.

They can print money 💰 and cause more inflation 🤣 stupid people voted Labour

Warned? By who?

What tax did she say she was increasing again?

​@@GreenZergdon't make him explain 😂

@@zenco7936 all will be revealed. Be patient

@@zenco7936 all will be revealed. be patient

woman going shopping....

Spellcheck?

School?

Try writing in English

It was the Tories who opened the doors the figues are shocking .

@@pip1723 Tony Blair did

Stop crying

Most sensible opposing comment.

We need more housing - so yes compulsory house building targets.🤦🏻‍♀️ I don’t understand why people are being so negative, they’re trying to resolve the biggest issues the Tories have failed to address

@@louisedepinna5898 no, we just need less people

@@louisedepinna5898 Here are six reasons why such targets might be seen as a bad idea: Economic Feasibility and Market Distortions: Cost Implications: Implementing compulsory house building targets could lead to significant financial strain on local authorities and developers, particularly in regions where the market conditions do not support large-scale construction. Market Imbalances: Compulsory targets may create artificial supply in areas where there is insufficient demand, leading to potential issues such as unsold properties, price drops, and wasted resources. Quality Concerns: Pressure on Quality: Setting compulsory targets may lead to a focus on quantity over quality. Developers might cut corners to meet targets, resulting in substandard housing that fails to meet the needs of residents in the long term. Sustainability Issues: The rush to build houses to meet targets might undermine sustainability goals, leading to environmentally damaging practices and poorly designed urban landscapes. Local Opposition and Community Impact: NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard): Compulsory targets can exacerbate local opposition to new housing developments, particularly in areas where residents are concerned about the impact on local infrastructure, environment, and community character. Community Disruption: Large-scale, top-down housing initiatives can disrupt existing communities, leading to social tensions and a loss of local identity. Infrastructure and Services Strain: Inadequate Infrastructure: Rapid, large-scale housing development can put a strain on local infrastructure and services such as roads, schools, healthcare, and public transportation, which may not be adequately planned or funded to cope with the sudden increase in population. Service Delivery Issues: Overburdened infrastructure and services can lead to a decline in the quality of life for both new and existing residents, undermining the benefits of new housing. Planning and Land Use Challenges: Planning Conflicts: Compulsory targets might conflict with local planning policies and priorities, leading to tensions between central and local governments. This can result in delays and legal battles that hinder the effective delivery of new housing. Land Availability: There may be a lack of suitable land for development in the required areas. Forcing development in inappropriate locations can lead to poor urban planning outcomes, such as urban sprawl and loss of green spaces. Economic Cyclicality and Flexibility: Economic Downturns: The housing market is cyclical, and compulsory targets do not account for economic downturns or fluctuations in housing demand. Forcing construction during a market slump could exacerbate economic issues and lead to financial losses. Lack of Flexibility: Compulsory targets are rigid and may not be adaptable to changing economic, social, and demographic conditions. A more flexible, responsive approach might be needed to address the dynamic nature of housing needs. In summary, F@%?ing 35 years EXPERIENCE in the planning and building sector.

​@@hTyKn1 No x]

They have a 172 majority. They can do anything they want.

So far she said she won't

because there are more than three parties?

Cos they got more than anyone else, genius thinking

@@danjoconnor3701 But 2/3 didn't vote for them. By claiming Labour has a mandate, Labour is insulting democracy and make it a joke. This is an abuse of voters human rights as well.

Maybe if people wanted a different party they should have gone out and voted it for it. Poor turnout and then whinging because Labour got a majority

@@louisedepinna5898 1/3 of the votes didn't give a mandate. Most of dictators also have some support, it doesn't mean they have a mandate. Labour can rule us but there is no mandate.

woman wants to go shopping, that's all! (but with someone else's credit card!)

Lmfao. Most deranged comment

One of the more pleasant looking MPs infact. (And I'm Reform)

Helmet hair 😮

Who actually cares what they look like? They’re running the country, not taking part in a fashion show. Grow up

@@louisedepinna5898 I’m part of the minger community and find your comment offensive.

Not boring, sensible.

@FeniksGaming sensible! Really on what planet? We're DOOMED

Why? They all talk like this

It's your fault

Yet we were taxed higher than ever under the Tories...