Forum menu
We have 3 acres?!?
And suddenly we’re equating “successful” with home owners only?
We have 3 acres?!?
Yeah, you have three acres of land somewhere dedicated to you! It's not all in one place and it moves around, but it's there. (Rain forest was cut down to provide some of it.)
Plus the bit you live on.
You also take up a bit of space, I dunno, a couple of metres square, say.
...and if you're standing on a hill top or a beach alone, nobody else can stand on that beach or hilltop alone.
Selfish bastard!
you have three acres of land somewhere dedicated to you!
Go on… where is it?
Does anyone have hundreds of thousands of acres currently, rather than just their 3?
The drawback of a party that harvests votes from the underdog is that to win it has create underdogs in freshly made sink estates.
The advantage of a party that harvests votes from successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society is that to win it has to create more successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society.
The numbers don't back that up too well do they. And don't assume that all successful working people are all selfish tory tossers. Some of us realise we have just been lucky and still care about the underdogs...
It's telling that BT's shares haven't moved on news that Labour intends to nationalise it.
Thats how certain the markets are that its not something that's ever going to happen
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building
What, that's the only reason? FFS
The drawback of a party that harvests votes from the underdog is that to win it has create underdogs in freshly made sink estates.
Jesus. Seriously - what the hell? Why do you assume that they'll create sink estates? Lessons have been learned from the 60s. Other countries have done both social and high density private housing very well (I've lived in it).
You really need to calm down and think rationally about all of this, preferably from an apolitical standpoint.
Why do you assume that they’ll create sink estates?
Walk around any new estate. 20pc of those properties will be rented "affordable" housing. Guess which houses are the ones with the garden looking a state and with a sofa dumped on the front lawn and guess which ones are pretty well looked after.
All other things being equal would you think that, on average, a car that had been a hirecar would be a better bet as a second hand buy than a car that had been owned privately?
So I conclude, on average, people who own their houses look after their houses and the surrounding area better than people who rent. Certainly when I rented/bought I followed that pattern.
That's been my experience YMMV.
Not this Ponzi scheme bullshit again. I can’t be bothered… just go and read all the migration related parts of the EU thread, rather than repeating all that nonsense again here, please.
It's nothing to do with the EU or immigrants.... Kimbers was asking
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
It's a ponzi scheme.... how we cope is immaterial. It has nothing to do with anything other than raking in money from victims and/or raking in political capitol.
Our council core dev plan identified we need 2/3 bed homes... our council are pushing through 1100
new slum flats, in 8x 10 story slums, mostly studio high rise (of which we have hundreds empty) in a area of bungalows... along side 8 other high rise projects (and have already exceeded their quota) ... with <5% affordable... and all to an impassioned plea from our council leader about kids sleeping rough this Christmas
Walk around any new estate.
1) I live on a new estate. There are rental homes, there are professionals, it's a mix. I've got a 12 year old Passat, my neighbour has a 2 year old BMW 650d.
2) There are bad estates, but estates don't have to be bad. Like I said - it works in other countries because they do it right.
3) What are you even proposing? Not building houses at all?
EDIT
new slum flats, in 8x 10 story slums, mostly studio high rise
Again - blocks of flats don't have to be slums.
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk's housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
Estates of semis can end up quite down at heal, not that any of this is forms a useful discussion really.
robdixon claims
If you take a good walk round most cities in Europe (including the U.K.) there are now serious issues with homelessness, worker exploitation and people living in poverty.
Accelerating the flow of people will simply make this worse
I'm sorry Rob but your comment is comes across as a terrible generalisation and is completely erroneous. Go and spend some time with homeless people and immigration is not the problem. Ending all immigration will never end homelessness in any shape or form.
Again – blocks of flats don’t have to be slums.
No and I've lived in flats elsewhere and city centres but they have been planned and needed.
However
"new slum flats, in 8x10 story slums, mostly studio high rise"
Our council already WAY exceeded it's quota anyway but what we NEED is 2/3 bedroom houses not studio flats outside of town overlooking (actually wrapped around) a 10,000 seater football stadium that today has a scout hut, snooker club and community facilities (and a private gym they are relocating).
The stated goal of the CEO is to turn Woking (pop 100,000) into Singapore...so this is just one of many high rise towers. The council earn almost double per sq. m in infrastructure levy by locating these tower blocks outside the town centre... it is in direct contravention to their dev plan and allocation and doesn't meet the affordable housing goals by 50% or required housing by 90%...(and quite honestly, how many families want to live overlooking a 10,000 seater stadium)
Its miles from the town centre and public transport isn't a viable* option because of the river, railway and canal....(unless someone pays for new bridges etc. which the favoured (only developer to submit) is exempted from)
In fact far from learning from errors in the past this is pretty much a mirror of the 60's tower blocks I was brought up in and around...and this is located between two of the areas where we won the award for most violent crime places to live in Surrey according the the police statistics. (I appreciate that's not the highest bar but ....)
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk’s housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
Partly ... but only partly.
It's also HOW we do it....
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk’s housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
Perhaps, maybe it's circumstantial. Apartment blocks are common in Europe for sure, and they aren't all slums. Why this would be isn't clear to me.
I've lived in Finland and Germany, both times in what would be considered grim blocks of flats here. But they were working as designed - full of private tenants or owners of all ages and social standing.
In Finland, most of the suburbs are apartment blocks - but this is because there was a mass exodus from the countryside to the city after WWII when huge areas of the country were burned to the ground - it had been a mostly rural population. So massive housing projects were needed, they were built, and people lived in them. Full of families and professionals and all.
In Germany (Munich) the stock seemed mostly to be blocks of flats or nice bespoke houses. So it seems to me that the apartment building is in lieu of our 'modern housing estate' and is correspondingly populated. I know less about the situation there though.
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk’s housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
I thought it was mainly due to the vast sums of money the select few are making out of being legally allowed to manipulate the housing market. Aided of course by those making the rules and setting policy who just so happen to profit from the situation as well.
Anyone still doubt the institutional bias at the heart of the media? The broadcast communists at the BBC clearly don't understand irony.
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/1195327302806233088?s=20
Not this Ponzi scheme bullshit again. I can’t be bothered… v
dismissing demographic problems & immigration as a ponzi scheme is a good way of not addressing the issue in any way
its like shouting 'project fear' when you hear anything negative you want to ignore
I didn't hear about this until today but apparently Tories are promising to start reversing Beeching cuts. A massive undertaking (as it's been discussed before many times) but interesting. I doubt he'd ever do it though but it's a nice thought.
dismissing demographic problems & immigration as a ponzi scheme is a good way of not addressing the issue in any way
I'm dismissing a proposed solution as a ponzi scheme on the basis it doesn't solve the problem, just enlarge it and pass it on to the next generation.
...as it happens I don't see any way of addressing it beyond technology and automation [1]. China must have had this problem on steroids, what did they do?
[1] Although a voice in me is chanting Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run.
ONe thing I'm still not understanding is that tehe conserviatives are getting trashed in locals, but then we have this just now:
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 30% (-)
LDEM: 15% (-)
BREX: 5% (-3)
GRN: 2% (-1)
I know people say that people vote differtently in locals to GEs but I cant quite wrap my head round such a disparity.
Recent locals:
St Mary's (Powys) result:
Labour GAIN from Conservative.
Goodrington with Roselands (Torbay) result:
Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat.
Culverden (Tunbridge Wells) result:
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
Shap (Eden) result:
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
Dunfermline East (Fife) first preferences:
SNP GAIN from Conservative.
Rosyth (Fife) first preferences:
SNP HOLD.
Rhos (Neath Port Talbot) result:
Plaid Cymru GAIN from Labour.
I find the polls/results utterly unfathomable. ...and maybe it doesn't matter because we have no idea how votes relate to seats.
In other news I had to chuckle that JC's image features on less than 10 percent of Labour’s election leaflets and nearly half of the Conservative's. 😀
I know people say that people vote differtently in locals to GEs but I cant quite wrap my head round such a disparity.
Because in local elections people vote on local issues and Labour vs Tory. But in Westminster it's Corbyn vs Johnson. A Labour vote in a local election doesn't get you Corbyn as PM.
On the other hand, the pollsters might be messing it up.
Ooo… fun game Dazh…
street lights ‘Communism’?
street lights ‘Communism’?
Indeed, not to mention all those communist roads they light up. Imagine how much efficient it would be if we went back to a fully privatised road system.
Fire Service - ‘Communism’?
Job seekers allowance – ‘Communism’?
OAP bus pass - ‘Communism’?
Anyone still doubt the institutional bias at the heart of the media?
To be fair to the BBC it was a direct quote from a director at BT.
Indeed, not to mention all those communist roads they light up. Imagine how much efficient it would be if we went back to a fully privatised road system.
Have you seen the state of most private access roads?
You'd need an enduro bike to ride most of them.
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1195367786396164096?s=21
Time for Labour to back Freedom of Movement, to enable the “new close deal” with the EU&EEA they are proposing. Make that a meaningful policy, by removing the biggest red line blocking a close relationship, while also protecting the rights of our workers beyond these little islands.
It’s telling that BT’s shares haven’t moved on news that Labour intends to nationalise it.
Thats how certain the markets are that its not something that’s ever going to happen
Don't think the future is good for BT anyway.
They won't be nationalising BT - just openreach BTW as I understand it. Telegraph managed to report a slide in BT shares though.
There's eff all competition anyway - most service is average as is speed. The prices all similar and the customer service woeful of most providers.
Most of the providers are owned by BT anyway (including one I can’t tell you about as I signed something)… the competitive aspect of Broadband is almost non-existent… BT used OpenReach (before they were forced to separate it off) to make things hard for competitor brands and take them over, or push them aside. You can call it “the advantages of vertical integration” all you like - but it comes down to the abuse of near monopoly power. If they’d also delivered on their promises to improve UK infrastructure, they’d be left alone. But they’ve concentrated on reducing competition and failed to invest, despite subsidies. There is a sound market failure case for taking OpenReach back into public hands and investing in it directly, to the benefit of smaller businesses, less well off households, and promote economic growth in regions away from where most business is currently concentrated.
Yeah, you have three acres of land somewhere dedicated to you! It’s not all in one place and it moves around, but it’s there. (Rain forest was cut down to provide some of it.)
So when someone comes to the UK most of their 1.5 acres is scattered around the globe and only a small proportion is actually required here?
So when someone comes to the UK most of their 1.5 acres is scattered around the globe and only a small proportion is actually required here?
1.5 acres of productive land is the bare minimum if you want to feed them without importing food, which may be desirable since we have few mineral resources to trade for food and our skills/talents which we've able to sell worldwide for decades have now been duplicated throughout the world.
If you want to maintain the existing population density then they need to bring 1/279th of a Km2.
If you want to be guaranteed to get your favorite trail to yourself once in a while[1] they might need to bring far more than that.
It's subjective, it all depends what you want, but 1.5 acres is a pretty good starting point AFAIC. (Until the phosphates crisis kicks in when it's going to more than double.)
[1] During dry daylight hours.
There’s eff all competition anyway – most service is average as is speed. The prices all similar and the customer service woeful of most providers.
They're all selling the same thing from the same seller and have the same costs. So no wonder they all end up the same. So much for privatisation eh?
Walk around any new estate. 20pc of those properties will be rented “affordable” housing. Guess which houses are the ones with the garden looking a state and with a sofa dumped on the front lawn and guess which ones are pretty well looked after.
They built a new estate in the field that backs on to my garden. Amongst the £500/600k detached houses are the required amount of 50/50 housing association properties and a certain amount of council flats. Apart from a few fancy wall ornaments or posh garden furniture they all are kept in very similar fashion.
Come and have a look if your weird and misplaced prejudice will allow you. Actually, I withdraw that as you come across as a bit of a nasty piece of work and we don't want your sort around here.
Really feel like Labour have scored a significant victory today. Johnson was on the Radio for an hour this morning, and for once didn't say anything totally daft, and I reckon the Tories were ready to roll with it all day, and then...
Feels like a turning point, everyone has had/has rubbish broadband and the companies that supply it don't ever seem like they give a hoot, that's the story on the radio phone ins all day...Free proper fast broadband for everyone really makes everyone sit up and take notice, Whoever thought it up deserves a pint.
1.5 acres of productive land is the bare minimum if you want to feed them without importing food, which may be desirable since we have few mineral resources to trade for food and our skills/talents which we’ve able to sell worldwide for decades have now been duplicated throughout the world.
If you want to maintain the existing population density then they need to bring 1/279th of a Km2.
If you want to be guaranteed to get your favorite trail to yourself once in a while[1] they might need to bring far more than that.
It’s subjective, it all depends what you want, but 1.5 acres is a pretty good starting point AFAIC. (Until the phosphates crisis kicks in when it’s going to more than double.)
[1] During dry daylight hours.
Genetic modification and phosphate recovery methods will see to it that the land requirements do not double.
Well I’m pretty sure that someone who actually knows and has experienced what people at the bottom have to put up with would be better placed to run the country than someone who puts his **** into a dead pigs head to impress his mates at an upper class party.
And yeah, I am more like Rayner than Boris and very proud of it. Obviously the main thing you miss out on by not going to public school is the lesson in knowing your place.
You avoided the question, why do you think Rayner is more qualified than Cooper? Inequality in society is a single topic issue that can be dealt with by a group of special advisers and select MP's who hold the trust of the Prime Minister - in that role, Rayner would likely be very good. However, the job of the Prime Minister is to also steer the countries relationship and find our place within a deeply complex world and rapidly changing geopolitical landscape and make decisions that could effect this country for centuries to come - that is why Cooper is the sensible choice for PM unless you are biased and prejudiced yourself against her background and education. Rayner is simply not up to the job of the latter, if we end up with her as PM it will be just another sign that we are withdrawing from the world into a little Britain mindset.
2 families here sharing a single phone line with at most 1.8 mbs, often less when the weather is bad. 6 mile journey to send a text, and a further 4 miles to get 4G signal. Anyone who promises free highspeed broadband gets my vote by default! And if it does away with those tw*ts at Openreach then even better in my book.
The point is outofbreath, as you stated, that land is scattered around the world, it isn't all where the person lives. So an immigrant moving to the UK does not require 1.5 acres here.
Precisely, it's only a problem if world war 3 breaks out or we get embargoed by the United States Navy and we don't have access to food. If that happens we have bigger things to worry about.