Keir Starmer's time is up

[Pickman's model]

And if you want to know how they explain it to themselves, I think it's that they believe in Meritocracy, and they think those are the people who have shown merit. 'Merit at what' is a question they have a huge ideological blind spot for.

They think they are the people who've shown merit

 

[19force8]

I’ve been predicting for over a year that Starmer’s - if he survives that long - legacy will be to usher right populism into power in Britain at the next GE. To expect him, or any of the other witless clowns prominent in the husk of the Labour Party, to develop an effective response is akin to expecting snow to feel warm.

Add in some self inflicted blows - the cruelty of the attacks on poor children and pensioners, the idiocy of going to war with farmers, the free gear Keir stuff and the weird obsession with banning things and here we are.

Hard agree about Starmer's legacy. I also agree the attacks on the poor, disabled, and migrants are a huge betrayal (if it's possible to be betrayed by someone you distrust absolutely), but I'm all in favour of the war with farmers and want to see it pursued vigorously and extended to the privatised utilities, private health companies, banks, etc. Won't happen of course.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hard agree about Starmer's legacy. I also agree the attacks on the poor, disabled, and migrants are a huge betrayal (if it's possible to be betrayed by someone you distrust absolutely), but I'm all in favour of the war with farmers and want to see it pursued vigorously and extended to the privatised utilities, private health companies, banks, etc. Won't happen of course.

The fact it won't be extended in that way is not a coincidence. Not the same kind of thing.

If the tax changes for farmers had been part of a wider strategy to reform farming and support smaller farmers, that would have been one thing. But it isn't. Its end result on land ownership may be minimal, but if it has any effect, it will be to put more land in the hands of the very richest.

Putting more wealth in the hands of the very richest is what Reeves is all about. She is an ideological believer in the idea that international capital is a wealth-creating engine that needs to be kept well-oiled, rather than a mechanism for wealth extraction that needs to be replaced. She's a Thatcherite.

It's like they've read Marx's Capital as if it were a how-to manual for capitalists.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the only conclusion you can draw after a while of watching these failures is that all these centrists are hard-line ideologues in their own way, though they've been good at disguising it. They fucking hate the left and they will do anything to avoid challenging capital too hard, because they are on the side of capital. Anything up to and including sabotaging their own chances of long-term power. They are True Believers in the right of KPMG and BP and Blackrock to be in charge. Nothing else can explain what otherwise appears to be pure idiocy.

Yep.

They hate socialism, and even its moderate sister social democracy, more than they hate Fascism. See also Emmanuel Macron. Would rather deal with le Pen than Melenchon.

Here, Starmer would rather coopt the talking points and rhetoric of Farage than cede ground to what remains of the left in his own party.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Putting more wealth in the hands of the very richest is what Reeves is all about. She is an ideological believer in the idea that international capital is a wealth-creating engine that needs to be kept well-oiled, rather than a mechanism for wealth extraction that needs to be replaced. She's a Thatcherite.

This is precisely what some posters on here consistently miss, like 19force8 just has. Welcoming handing over land to Black Rock and co is serious disorientation.

Cheering on Reeves, is cheering on transnational capital. They are indivisible.

Reeves is a Thatcherite. She is the enemy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I suspect that, like Blair and Brown before them, they sleep at night with the comforting thought that there is no other way. Capital won't allow them to do anything else.

Nationalise the odd failing rail company? Ok, we'll allow that. After all, functioning infrastructure is better for us. But any attempt to redistribute wealth? That gets a hard no.

And so that's that. Capital says NO, so it can't be done.

That said, Reeves is a true believer. She thinks acting in the interests of capital is the right thing to do.

 

[19force8]

The fact it won't be extended in that way is not a coincidence. Not the same kind of thing.

If the tax changes for farmers had been part of a wider strategy to reform farming and support smaller farmers, that would have been one thing. But it isn't. Its end result on land ownership may be minimal, but if it has any effect, it will be to put more land in the hands of the very richest.

Putting more wealth in the hands of the very richest is what Reeves is all about. She is an ideological believer in the idea that international capital is a wealth-creating engine that needs to be kept well-oiled, rather than a mechanism for wealth extraction that needs to be replaced. She's a Thatcherite.

It's like they've read Marx's Capital as if it were a how-to manual for capitalists.

Of course it won't be extended that way. I have no illusions in this government, but there's a reason "farmers" are up in arms about it and it's nothing to do with not having a strategy to support agriculture. It's down to the fact that landowners will now be subject to inheritance tax.

Small farmers are still capitalists and mostly Tories for that reason. In any case they have already pretty much disappeared - over the last 40 years the ratio of land worked by tenant farmers to farm owners has gone from 3:1 to 1:3. Apologies if those figures aren't entirely accurate, I don't have the stats to hand, but it's that ball park (I'll amend when I can find them). Much of that change has been driven by farm subsidies which make it more profitable for landowners to put farms under management. There's also been a trend for the likes of Clarkson to buy farms to avoid tax and pay a manager to run them.

Do I care whether a 1000 acre or £6M farm is owned by a family that's run it as a business for a century, a banker who bought it to protect their bonuses, or a multinational as part of a diverse portfolio? Not really, they're all capitalists.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do I care whether a 1000 acre or £6M farm is owned by a family that's run it as a business for a century, a banker who bought it to protect their bonuses, or a multinational as part of a diverse portfolio? Not really, they're all capitalists.

That's where we disagree. If we are to usher in the changes needed in agriculture over the coming decades, we need farms not to be in the hands of bankers and multinationals. Not all capitalists are the same.

To flesh that out a bit, if you work the land you own, you have an immediate interest in how that land is managed. You don't have any other land to move on to. International capital doesn't give a shit about that land. It can be made barren in 50 years' time and capital won't care if it has extracted more wealth over that 50-year period with unsustainable methods. It can always move on to other land elsewhere.

We don't have a hope of improving agriculture if land is held by multinational corporations.

 

[19force8]

That's where we disagree. If we are to usher in the changes needed in agriculture over the coming decades, we need farms not to be in the hands of bankers and multinationals. Not all capitalists are the same.

To flesh that out a bit, if you work the land you own, you have an immediate interest in how that land is managed. You don't have any other land to move on to. International capital doesn't give a shit about that land. It can be made barren in 50 years' time and capital won't care if it has extracted more wealth over that 50-year period with unsustainable methods. It can always move on to other land elsewhere.

We don't have a hope of improving agriculture if land is held by multinational corporations.

Okay, we're going to have to disagree here, but I have very little time for this idea that stewardship of the land is somehow better served by small capitalists than big ones.

I don't see any of them campaigning against the climate change that's going to make which of them owns the farms irrelevant in 50 years time

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Okay, we're going to have to disagree here, but I have very little time for this idea that stewardship of the land is somehow better served by small capitalists than big ones.

I don't see any of them campaigning against the climate change that's going to make which of them owns the farms irrelevant in 50 years time

Setting prejudices and dislike for farmers generally to one side here, you don't see any differences in interests between a farmer-owner who hopes to pass on a working farm to their children and a multinational that owns hundreds or thousands of such farms around the world and seeks to maximise returns for its shareholders?

I think you're flat wrong.

 

[19force8]

I may be wrong, but I don't have a dislike for farmers as such, I have a dislike for capitalists. None of them will lift a finger to mitigate climate change if their bottom line dictates otherwise. These are the people who sprayed their fields with nicotinoids, grubbed up hedgerows, created monocultures, dipped sheep in chemicals that poisoned workers, built massive poultry sheds and fed livestock antibiotics to promote growth. All in pursuit of profit.

It's not personal, it's not because they're bad people, it's because that's how capitalism is.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Always comes down to Thatcher in the end

 

[Rob Ray]

Yeah the thing to note about smaller scale farmers is they're capital rich but not cash rich - many either make not much more profit than average wage or can sometimes lose money, and the average farm employs a grand total of one person, with the children often working normal jobs because the farm can't sustain them. In terms of their day to day relationship with capitalism that tier is something of an outlier - trappings of a self-employed type, with the ability to become rich but only if they sell off their capital.

 

[kabbes]

Marxian analysis has moved on from just seeing capital as capital. You have to look at asset specificity if you want to understand how power operates in the economy. Since I can’t face trying to explain it myself, have a hopefully-useful diagram


If you want the fuller explanation

In this simple structure, deep asymmetries of power result from the specific features of the institution of money. In the relationship between firms and workers, the lowest asset specificity of money creates what has been described as the relatively “footloose” nature of the financial capital held by firms. On the one hand, this means that workers often form specific “assets” that are tied to the relationship with the firm and are embodied, such as their firm-specific skills or their embedded social relations at the place of residence. On the other hand, this means that employers (capitalists) can move money freely, and typically have more capital at their disposal than workers, either because of past accumulation, or because they have better access to loans, since they can make a profit by investing the loans rather than simply spending them on consumption. The resulting power asymmetry is exacerbated under the conditions of unemployment characteristic of capitalism, for various reasons, such as the possible substitution of productive capital for labor. A similar asymmetry arises between firms and financial investors, since monetary assets are more mobile than real assets which are bound to specific uses and contexts of operating a firm. On the other hand, and at first sight, the asymmetry of asset specificity resulting from holding money works to the advantage of workers as consumers who spend money in the goods market, where sellers and producers offer specific goods that may have no other use beyond market opportunity—think of the famous example of the fish market or fast fashion. This creates strong incentives for firms to build countervailing power through monopolistic means, such as branding or outright anticompetitive practices. In the financial market, power asymmetries work in favor of the financial sector, because firms depend on the production of money and on loans. Interestingly, this is not the case in an economy that relies primarily on barter. The need for productive capital formation, and thus for advance loans, shifts power to the financial sector. Since the financial sector can produce both private and public money, there is also a power asymmetry in its favor vis-à-vis workers as hoarders (aka savers). Contrary to many theories in standard economics, the extension of loans is independent of the accumulation of deposits. Hence, savers deposit money in the financial sector only as a service that overcomes the potential erosion of their wealth if it were saved in other forms. This asymmetry is salient in the systematic and pervasive gap between the interest paid on deposits and the interest paid on loans, a reliable source of profit in the financial sector.

In sum, a monetary economy necessarily features structural power asymmetries, often diagnosed in terms of the struggle between labor and capital. In the most general sense, that is, including all kinds of monetary returns on assets, interest is a defining characteristic of capital. However, as the famous Cambridge controversy has convincingly shown, albeit without any impact on current mainstream economics, in the equilibrium approach this juncture entails Gödel-type paradoxes, since the value of capital as discounted flows of future income cannot be derived in a logically consistent way (Cohen & Harcourt, 2003). The alternative “Cambridge UK” view advanced a strongly embodied alternative in seeing interest as reflecting structures of social power. As we have seen, this is inherent in money as an institution because of the asymmetries in social exchange that it implies. Therefore, our view treats power asymmetries as endogenous to the institution of money, without downplaying other sources of social power. Yet, the important implication is that even in a society with strong egalitarian and democratic institutions, the introduction of a capitalist organization of the market would always generate power asymmetries unless the institution of money is fundamentally transformed. As we shall see in Chapter 8, this requires a comprehensive transformation of the monetary order and the financial sector.

So you can’t just understand small farmers and big farming corporations as uniformly “capitalists” with respect to labour relations, you need to look at their asset specificity and thus power asymmetry. And that’s inherently tied up with the production of money and how financial capital flows to the capitalist.

 

[Gramsci]

Just been starting to read about this governments planning reforms.

Comes across as out of the Tory playbook.

Its the imo right wing view that the planning system and right to object/ comment on planning objections that's holding up development

The free market rag City AM is loving this.

Keir Starmer: Planning regime 'suffocating aspirations of working families'

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he will not "shy away" from tackling local objections to the government's ambitious building proposals.

www.cityam.com

This really is right wing populism dressed up as being about supporting the working class.

This country has had decades of free enterprise and it has not resulted in affordable homes.

If this Labour government wants to help working people it can bring in rent controls for commercial and private rented property.

As the small business I talk to and those in London who rent privately would like rent controls.

I also am someone who is active on local issues in my area. IMO the planning system is part of local democracy. Commenting on planning applications is something I have done and still do.

An issue for me is for example so called viability assessments. On large developments developers are supposed to build percentage of housing for social rent. So called viability assessments are used to reduce that percentage

There is now a whole industry of consultants employed to do this.

Is Starmer going to address this ? No

 

[kabbes]

No, what we need is another million homes that are mostly bought up by people letting them out as holiday lets and serviced apartments. That’ll sort it.

 

[Funky_monks]

75% of whom won't be affected.

In England in 2021, the majority of farms (54%) are owner occupied, followed by 31% mixed tenure and 14% wholly tenanted. In 2022, 8.9 million hectares of land in England was farmable of which 64% was wholly or partly tenant holdings. Land agents are already talking about rent increases of 20% to cover the IHT or the farm may be sold from under tennants.......

 

[The39thStep]

establishment been starting to read about this governments planning reforms.

Comes across as out of the Tory playbook.

Its the imo right wing view that the planning system and right to object/ comment on planning objections that's holding up development

The free market rag City AM is loving this.

Keir Starmer: Planning regime 'suffocating aspirations of working families'

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he will not "shy away" from tackling local objections to the government's ambitious building proposals.

www.cityam.com

This really is right wing populism dressed up as being about supporting the working class.

This country has had decades of free enterprise and it has not resulted in affordable homes.

If this Labour government wants to help working people it can bring in rent controls for commercial and private rented property.

As the small business I talk to and those in London who rent privately would like rent controls.

I also am someone who is active on local issues in my area. IMO the planning system is part of local democracy. Commenting on planning applications is something I have done and still do.

An issue for me is for example so called viability assessments. On large developments developers are supposed to build percentage of housing for social rent. So called viability assessments are used to reduce that percentage

There is now a whole industry of consultants employed to do this.

Is Starmer going to address this ? No

This article in the Guardian may provide a hint that could explain some recent Starmer sound bites relating to both the civil service and planning . Essentially the articles lesson is that Trump was elected because he promised change ,was seen as a disruptor and that Starmer needs to come across more like this as ' anti establishment'. This if course is difficult for somebody who comes across like a badly coached wooden dummy .

On wokeness, patriotism and change, Kamala Harris’s defeat has lessons for Starmer | Deborah Mattinson and Claire Ainsley

Two former senior advisers to Labour analyse the clear messages from US voters’ preference for Trump

www.theguardian.com

 

[Smokeandsteam]

This article in the Guardian may provide a hint that could explain some recent Starmer sound bites relating to both the civil service and planning . Essentially the articles lesson is that Trump was elected because he promised change ,was seen as a disruptor and that Starmer needs to come across more like this as ' anti establishment'. This if course is difficult for somebody who comes across like a badly coached wooden dummy .

On wokeness, patriotism and change, Kamala Harris’s defeat has lessons for Starmer | Deborah Mattinson and Claire Ainsley

Two former senior advisers to Labour analyse the clear messages from US voters’ preference for Trump

www.theguardian.com

That article is awful. Harris won the debate they say, before spending the next 10 paragraphs describing how she lost the debate.

The authors brag that they bravely played their role in defeating Corbyn, who partly attempted the type of left populism that erm the authors say is needed to defeat the right populist insurgency…

However, I loved reading it.There is nothing better or funnier than seeing the penny finally drop for elite liberals. The article perfectly sums them up “they’ve gone weird”.

Actually, what will be even funnier is the inevitable attempted transformation of the buttoned up, moralistic, robotic nasally droning elite liberal to his fingertips Starmer into the populist man of the people he very definitely isn’t.

 

[ignatious]

An issue for me is for example so called viability assessments. On large developments developers are supposed to build percentage of housing for social rent. So called viability assessments are used to reduce that percentage

There is now a whole industry of consultants employed to do this.

Is Starmer going to address this ? No

The draft NPPF did sort of address it but the published version (due this week) will likely water it down. Currently any development of 10 units or more must have a social element, which is why there are a staggering number of schemes with 9 units or less. I think the draft has it set at 5 but as you say viability assessments are taken into account by LA's and there is no anticipation of subsidies to make up any developer shortfall.

In any case, unless the cost of building comes down it won't matter what the NPPF says as people will continue to sit on land and mothballed schemes. There are already more than a million approved-but-unbuilt homes because the profit is not there; there used to be a rule of thumb that a development would be split equally 3 ways between cost of land, cost of build and profit. Nowadays you're looking at build costs alone of 50-60% so anything they do with the NPPF is unlikely to incentivise private developers sufficiently.

The housing situation will not improve until the state gets directly involved in building and accepts that doing so will cost it money. The chances of this lot making that case is zero.

 

[Gramsci]

I

The draft NPPF did sort of address it but the published version (due this week) will likely water it down. Currently any development of 10 units or more must have a social element, which is why there are a staggering number of schemes with 9 units or less. I think the draft has it set at 5 but as you say viability assessments are taken into account by LA's and there is no anticipation of subsidies to make up any developer shortfall.

In any case, unless the cost of building comes down it won't matter what the NPPF says as people will continue to sit on land and mothballed schemes. There are already more than a million approved-but-unbuilt homes because the profit is not there; there used to be a rule of thumb that a development would be split equally 3 ways between cost of land, cost of build and profit. Nowadays you're looking at build costs alone of 50-60% so anything they do with the NPPF is unlikely to incentivise private developers sufficiently.

The housing situation will not improve until the state gets directly involved in building and accepts that doing so will cost it money. The chances of this lot making that case is zero

I was thinking more about Starmer governments proposals to "modernise" planning committee to stop the "blockers" from supposedly holding up building.

Major overhaul of planning committees to get Britain building

Planning decisions are set to be fast-tracked in a sweeping overhaul of local planning committees, as part of new measures to tackle the housing crisis.

www.gov.uk

I'm sure Labour councils will love this."Streamlining" the process. Bypassing planning committees.

Stopping the awkward squad like me exercising our democratic right to comment on planning applications.

This is where all this faux anti establishment rhetoric is not at all anti establishment.

Developers are in practice keen to work with planners. So bypassing planning committee and thus Joe public would suit LAs and developers.

It's hard enough to get ones voice heard now. Very occasionally one gets a planning application knocked back.

But to portray those who avail themselves of this part of local democracy as blockers who hold up growth is insulting.

 

[Pickman's model]

I


I was thinking more about Starmer governments proposals to "modernise" planning committee to stop the "blockers" from supposedly holding up building.

Major overhaul of planning committees to get Britain building

Planning decisions are set to be fast-tracked in a sweeping overhaul of local planning committees, as part of new measures to tackle the housing crisis.

www.gov.uk

I'm sure Labour councils will love this."Streamlining" the process. Bypassing planning committees.

Stopping the awkward squad like me exercising our democratic right to comment on planning applications.

This is where all this faux anti establishment rhetoric is not at all anti establishment.

Developers are in practice keen to work with planners. So bypassing planning committee and thus Joe public would suit LAs and developers.

It's hard enough to get ones voice heard now. Very occasionally one gets a planning application knocked back.

But to portray those who avail themselves of this part of local democracy as blockers who hold up growth is insulting.

The Soviet Labour government’s successes in the sphere of the collective-farm movement everything are now being spoken of by everyone. Even our enemies are forced to admit that the successes are substantial. And they really are very great.

 

[ignatious]

I was thinking more about Starmer governments proposals to "modernise" planning committee to stop the "blockers" from supposedly holding up building.

Major overhaul of planning committees to get Britain building

Planning decisions are set to be fast-tracked in a sweeping overhaul of local planning committees, as part of new measures to tackle the housing crisis.

www.gov.uk

I'm sure Labour councils will love this."Streamlining" the process. Bypassing planning committees.

Stopping the awkward squad like me exercising our democratic right to comment on planning applications.

This is where all this faux anti establishment rhetoric is not at all anti establishment.

Developers are in practice keen to work with planners. So bypassing planning committee and thus Joe public would suit LAs and developers.

It's hard enough to get ones voice heard now. Very occasionally one gets a planning application knocked back.

But to portray those who avail themselves of this part of local democracy as blockers who hold up growth is insulting.

Which specific proposal do you disagree with? There's not a lot of substance there; committee members are going to actually need some relevant qualifications to do the job, and the (actually qualified) Planners are going to have a greater say in whether their Local Plans are being adhered to or not. That's about it.

 

[Gramsci]

Which specific proposal do you disagree with? There's not a lot of substance there; committee members are going to actually need some relevant qualifications to do the job, and the (actually qualified) Planners are going to have a greater say in whether their Local Plans are being adhered to or not. That's about it.

I few weeks back attended a planning committee.

I and others found two planning reasons to oppose the application. One specific about PTAL and one about emerging policy which was in its final stages

On the PTAL the planning officers sided with developers that whilst this application did not have the requisite PTAL this could be set aside in this case. On emerging policy - whilst it was in last draft they told committee to ignore it.

So , and this is not the first time, Lambeth planners did the opposite to supporting Local plans but said they had discretion to say on balance whether an application that did not follow all the guidelines could be passed.

So no planning officers do not imo experience make sure local plans are adhered to.

IMO on large schemes the large number of pre applications meetings between developers and planning officers means that they become to close to developers.

Under new plans to modernise the planning approval process, applications that comply with local development plans could bypass planning committees entirely t

So this really concerns me.

If it wasn't for people like me and others in my area attending planning committee meetings Cllrs on the committee would be unaware of some of the issues as planning officers airbrush them out in their reports to committee.

And this

Under the new plans, local planning officers will also have an enhanced decision-making role to implement agreed planning policy.

No thanks.

Its recipe for top down rule by technocrats. I'm sure in some Labour town halls its something that would suit them.

This in particular

The measures would see a national scheme of delegation introduced, the creation of streamlined committees for strategic development and mandatory training for planning committee members

BTW Planning committee members already have courses to go on.

I'm not even sure if the committees mentioned above will be of elected Cllrs.

The point ( as an old Cllr told me years back) is not that Cllrs are planning experts. They are there to represent the people. To listen to residents comments and to question officers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I few weeks back attended a planning committee.

I and others found two planning reasons to oppose the application. One specific about PTAL and one about emerging policy which was in its final stages

On the PTAL the planning officers sided with developers that whilst this application did not have the requisite PTAL this could be set aside in this case. On emerging policy - whilst it was in last draft they told committee to ignore it.

So , and this is not the first time, Lambeth planners did the opposite to supporting Local plans but said they had discretion to say on balance whether an application that did not follow all the guidelines could be passed.

So no planning officers do not imo experience make sure local plans are adhered to.

IMO on large schemes the large number of pre applications meetings between developers and planning officers means that they become to close to developers.



So this really concerns me.

If it wasn't for people like me and others in my area attending planning committee meetings Cllrs on the committee would be unaware of some of the issues as planning officers airbrush them out in their reports to committee.

And this



No thanks.

Its recipe for top down rule by technocrats. I'm sure in some Labour town halls its something that would suit them.

This in particular



BTW Planning committee members already have courses to go on.

I'm not even sure if the committees mentioned above will be of elected Cllrs.

The point ( as an old Cllr told me years back) is not that Cllrs are planning experts. They are there to represent the people. To listen to residents comments and to question officers.

Yep looks like an attack on democratic accountability to me. Technocrats know best, should not have to justify themselves.

 

[ignatious]

Yep looks like an attack on democratic accountability to me. Technocrats know best, should not have to justify themselves.

Planning Committees have a reputation across the construction industry as being thoroughly inconsistent in their understanding and application of their duties.

The fact that Gramsci feels the need to turn up to meetings and make the committee aware of issues that they should already be aware of suggests the public has similar levels of confidence in them.

That is not democratic accountability.

 

[Gramsci]

Planning Committees have a reputation across the construction industry as being thoroughly inconsistent in their understanding and application of their duties.

The fact that Gramsci feels the need to turn up to meetings and make the committee aware of issues that they should already be aware of suggests the public has similar levels of confidence in them.

That is not democratic accountability.

I'm not criticising planning committees.

I'm criticising planning officers for getting to close to developers.

And then writing reports for planning committee Cllrs which are not even handed. But there to persuade Cllrs to nod an application through.

Which is why I said its good if local residents turn up with the other side of it and tell committee. In the very short two minutes we get whilst planning officers can drone on for twenty minutes or more why committee should accept an application.

I'm sure developers find going to committee very irksome. If only they could have pre application meetings with planning officer s and get it fast tracked without going through a planning committee.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Planning Committees have a reputation across the construction industry as being thoroughly inconsistent in their understanding and application of their duties.

The fact that Gramsci feels the need to turn up to meetings and make the committee aware of issues that they should already be aware of suggests the public has similar levels of confidence in them.

That is not democratic accountability.

I'm sure there is a lot wrong with planning committees but that's not a reason to gut them. As Gramsci says, this is a top down centralisation measure. Technocracy in action. We know better.

And it does not surprise me that the construction companies dislike planning committees. Of course they do. Would be weird if they didn't given their particular interests, which obviously do not always align with the interests of others, such as people who live in a place. Hence the need for democratic accountability to balance interests. And that necessarily means non specialists making decisions, because that's how democratic accountability has to work.