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.

Job seekers allowance – ‘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.

Labour and Lib Dem voters are overwhelmingly in support of maintaining freedom of movement with the EU. Conservative voters are more likely to oppose it (46% to 41%) https://t.co/qGGcdDC1Wu pic.twitter.com/uk27U7Tpvn

— YouGov (@YouGov) November 15, 2019

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.

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.

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.

"To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free broadband internet to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?"

Support: 62%
Oppose: 22%

via @YouGov

— Britain Elects (@britainelects) November 15, 2019

"Would you support or oppose BT’s broadband structure being nationalised, so they are run in the public sector by the government?"

Support: 32%
Oppose: 31%

via @YouGov

— Britain Elects (@britainelects) November 15, 2019

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.

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.

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.

The former pay for themselves

In one sense they pay for themselves and bring advantages of all kinds. What they don’t do is bring 1.5 acres of new land in per person.

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.

I didn’t say they ‘require’ I said they don’t bring.

If it *were* possible to bring more land how much you’d want to bring is subjective.

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.

So ok, you wouldn’t want 1.5 acres, that’s great. What do would you want? Your answer will differ from someone else’s. The whole idea is hypothetical anyway, you can’t move land around to any large degree.

[1] During dry daylight hours.

Immigrants mostly move to built up cities, I doubt anyone on here really notices the difference in population density except on certain commuter trains and roads. Very few are likely to be mountain bikers or to drive out to where the mountain biking is. How many immigrants do you see in Coed-Y-Brenin?

Answer – **** none.

There’s some debate to be had around the effects of large scale immigration to single areas – displacing local communities due to native or white flight. land density however, isn’t really an area that matters. The debate should be around how we integrate everyone and make everyone feel British and in it together, coupled with sensible non-discriminatory migration that balances our ability to integrate people with a system that doesn’t punish or split families up or those getting married.

Lots of immigrants working in the hospitality trade, so in places where there are lots of tourists. That includes more rural locations like Kendal and Aviemore. Maybe you don’t notice them because they don’t have dark skin? Try visiting the local Tesco.

Not exactly London levels of immigration though is it. Oh noes, won’t someone think of the land density issues in Aviemore!

Tell me, out on the trail in Aviemore can you tell who is a tourist and who is an immigrant?

land density however, isn’t really an area that matters.

It doesn’t matter to you, it *does* matter to me and from the strong local opposition to development of land pretty much anywhere outside of cities it matters to a lot of people. It does matter that kids are being brought up in flats or houses with tiny gardens because land is so scarce. There’s so little land left they’re building an estate down the road form me on flood zone 2 land with the communal openspace in flood zone 3. This is less than 2m above sea level with a stream through it, with rising sea levels it could be literally under water on Spring tides before some of the mortgages are paid off! In my home town they’ve granted planning permission to build on land that is literally under water tonight! This does not feel like a sparsely populated country to me, it feels like a country that is maxed out with development and then some.

Do you think China went with a one child policy for a laugh? They have half the population density of the Uk.

HOWEVER, if you think population density isn’t important, how about we change the planning system so any objection of any kind from 4 or more people halts any development? That way no land that anyone GAF about gets lost to development. As long and we’re not overcrowded few people will care about losing land and loads of developments will get built…

So I assume you have some foolproof method you can use to identify those foreign types? With that talent I am sure you can spot the tourists. Care to let us into your secret?

+1

I met three blokes up in the woods above Wylie. One of them turned out to be foreign and knew all the trails better than the local two. Showed me a brilliant descent.

As much of the media seems to have missed the point, the Government is already paying Openreach huge sums of money to install broadband.

@timescorbyn

Worth a look.

The Jezziah in his true colours.

Do you think China went with a one child policy for a laugh? They have half the population density of the Uk.

China only has half the density when you include places like the middle of **** nowhere in Inner Mongolia. That is a piss poor use of statistics. They didn’t do the one child policy for density reasons, they did it to try and stop a demographic timebomb.

HOWEVER, if you think population density isn’t important, how about we change the planning system so any objection of any kind from 4 or more people halts any development? That way no land that anyone GAF about gets lost to development. As long and we’re not overcrowded few people will care about losing land and loads of developments will get built…

What land do you care about losing? The homogenous farm land with little biodiversity that dominates much of the UK?