The Labour Government

[bluethrunthru]

I can't handle cringe, nearly jumped out my window seeing that again.

and what makes that terrifying is that you are in a windowless room ha ha ha

 

[Vic]

House builders share prices have all gone up this morning, so I guess the majority won't be social housing

Labour can rewrite the "viability" rules that allow so many developers to avoid including "affordable" housing.

Rule 1: you can't avoid 30% affordable housing if your share price went up because of the Labour government's policies...

 

[Vic]

Yeah Vic no one knew things grow with immigration, thanks for that.

Pmsl

You really do have an attitude problem.

The thing that grows without immigration is the OADR.

 

[hilts]

You really do have an attitude problem.

The thing that grows without immigration is the OADR.

I think the problems with never ending population growth have been covered so has the increasing number of elderly people.

I don't have an attitude problem I'm just averse to people posting really obvious stuff and therefore treating people like imbeciles. Most posters on here including yourself ain't stupid they just spend their lives deflecting away from the negatives of their point of view.

Expansion cannot go on forever people know that but they prefer someone else to deal with it long after it can inconvenience them no matter what damage it does in the meantime. Now that is a pretty shitty attitude so they kid themselves which is fine, just don't try it with me.

 

[threespires]

Shark. Jumped.

Worsley is on the Wum. I might not agree with his politics but he is more than capable of posting something sane but this certainly doesn't qualify. I reckon he's just very very fucked off with last week's result and he's still getting it out of his system.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think the problems with never ending population growth have been covered so has the increasing number of elderly people.

I don't have an attitude problem I'm just averse to people posting really obvious stuff and therefore treating people like imbeciles. Most posters on here including yourself ain't stupid they just spend their lives deflecting away from the negatives of their point of view.

Expansion cannot go on forever people know that but they prefer someone else to deal with it long after it can inconvenience them no matter what damage it does in the meantime. Now that is a pretty shitty attitude so they kid themselves which is fine, just don't try it with me.

That's fine. But you don't practice what you preach. If you want to reduce the population you should have never had children. You should probably also make arrangements not to live to your full life expectancy or make use of the NHS or private medical care and prolong your life.

It's obviously an issue you care deeply about so show it through your actions.

 

[Vic]

Setting a target to build 1.5 million homes in this parliament and by changing planning so that the green belt can be built on (some always has ) by designating as Grey belt ( what ever that is) they will find that the nimbys & the eco/greens will tie up the courts and use direct action to try & stop these developments.

I'm assuming "grey belt" means "previously developed land in the green belt", as distinct from greenfield land not in the green belt.

The greenbelt is a nice idea, but unless you believe the fiction * that there are vast swathes of brownfield land in town centres waiting to be built on, it inevitably means that people will want to build on land outside the green belt (i.e. most of the country's farmland).

Stopping individual towns merging into one is arguably the primary function of green belt, and most towns didn't bother (that great metropolis of Bournemouth designated one), but there's no logical reason why it should be sacrosanct. Ideally, expand communities near a railway station.

* As a test, look at where industries have closed where you live. Do the sites have housing on? The main undeveloped sites in towns are the ones that need a lot of decontamination (as City were willing to do with the Clayton Aniline site with its purple soil...)

I get a bit cross with people on the edge of green belt with a massive land take for their large house with a big garden, and a double garage not used for any of the four cars, who insist that everyone else should live in high-density housing in urban centres.

 

[inbetween]

I think the problems with never ending population growth have been covered so has the increasing number of elderly people.

I don't have an attitude problem I'm just averse to people posting really obvious stuff and therefore treating people like imbeciles. Most posters on here including yourself ain't stupid they just spend their lives deflecting away from the negatives of their point of view.

Expansion cannot go on forever people know that but they prefer someone else to deal with it long after it can inconvenience them no matter what damage it does in the meantime. Now that is a pretty shitty attitude so they kid themselves which is fine, just don't try it with me.

We can more than cope with further population growth but the secondary impact of that is poorly misunderstood. There are people who bizarrely want more population growth but they also want less climate change and less destruction of the biosphere..

These two things are not compatible, further immigration and further growth WILL eventually destroy the natural world as it is now. It's already too late to save the natural world as it looked even 30 years ago because it has already gone and has been replaced by concrete.

 

[hilts]

That's fine. But you don't practice what you preach. If you want to reduce the population you should have never had children. You should probably also make arrangements not to live to your full life expectancy or make use of the NHS or private medical care and prolong your life.

It's obviously an issue you care deeply about so show it through your actions.

It's a nonsense argument because true change has to come from the collective, people have been protesting for decades and it still doesn't alter enough people's attitude. You expecting mass suicide of people that care so we are left with the ones that don't? Like I said people just make excuses.

Also you are completely wrong on my personal situation so I would suggest you don't try that one.

 

[Vic]

I think the problems with never ending population growth have been covered so has the increasing number of elderly people.

I don't have an attitude problem I'm just averse to people posting really obvious stuff and therefore treating people like imbeciles. Most posters on here including yourself ain't stupid they just spend their lives deflecting away from the negatives of their point of view.

Expansion cannot go on forever people know that but they prefer someone else to deal with it long after it can inconvenience them no matter what damage it does in the meantime. Now that is a pretty shitty attitude so they kid themselves which is fine, just don't try it with me.

If you think my pithy summary with a link to a government report (which you may or may not have read) was "treating people like imbeciles" I take it you've never tried to teach anything to anyone.

 

[hilts]

We can more than cope with further population growth but the secondary impact of that is poorly misunderstood. There are people who bizarrely want more population growth but they also want less climate change and less destruction of the biosphere..

These two things are not compatible, further immigration and further growth WILL eventually destroy the natural world as it is now. It's already too late to save the natural world as it looked even 30 years ago because it has already gone and has been replaced by concrete.

That is what I was saying I didn't mean there wasn't enough room. Although you usually have some daft donk who says yeah but from a plane I can see loads of countryside:-)

 

[BrianW]

Is it me, or are shares soaring?

My portfolio is well up. So obviously the Stock Market is not worried about those Marxist scoundrels. £ seems higher too.

Amazing what having people in power with an air of vague competence can do.

Mind you, it could be a left-wing plot to buy shares to make Labour look good. We should not altogether discount that.

 

[jazzy]

I'm assuming "grey belt" means "previously developed land in the green belt", as distinct from greenfield land not in the green belt.

The greenbelt is a nice idea, but unless you believe the fiction * that there are vast swathes of brownfield land in town centres waiting to be built on, it inevitably means that people will want to build on land outside the green belt (i.e. most of the country's farmland).

Stopping individual towns merging into one is arguably the primary function of green belt, and most towns didn't bother (that great metropolis of Bournemouth designated one), but there's no logical reason why it should be sacrosanct. Ideally, expand communities near a railway station.

* As a test, look at where industries have closed where you live. Do the sites have housing on? The main undeveloped sites in towns are the ones that need a lot of decontamination (as City were willing to do with the Clayton Aniline site with its purple soil...)

I get a bit cross with people on the edge of green belt with a massive land take for their large house with a big garden, and a double garage not used for any of the four cars, who insist that everyone else should live in high-density housing in urban centres.

Apparently Grey belt is the not so nice greenbelt, it is land that has never been built on or little or no value for farming.

 

[hilts]

If you think my pithy summary with a link to a government report (which you may or may not have read) was "treating people like imbeciles" I take it you've never tried to teach anything to anyone.

There you go deflecting again, your post was a we need more people because of the increasing number of elderly people as a % in our society. It's been mentioned a million times so you ain't teaching anyone anything.

Wrapping it up in a long winded post with a link doesn't change that. If you can give me an answer to the obvious flaw in an ever growing population that damages the home we all live in but don't own please do it would be very comforting.

I had enough of we need people to serve us at Pret a decade ago tbh.

 

[hilts]

Is it me, or are shares soaring?

My portfolio is well up. So obviously the Stock Market is not worried about those Marxist scoundrels. £ seems higher too.

Amazing what having people in power with an air of vague competence can do.

Mind you, it could be a left-wing plot to buy shares to make Labour look good. We should not altogether discount that.

It's another positive(if one has a portfolio) of getting rid of the worst govt in living memory.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It's a nonsense argument because true change has to come from the collective, people have been protesting for decades and it still doesn't alter enough people's attitude. You expecting mass suicide of people that care so we are left with the ones that don't? Like I said people just make excuses.

Also you are completely wrong on my personal situation so I would suggest you don't try that one.

No I'm expecting you to take the issue of overpopulation as seriously in practice as you seem to believe it is in theory.

We don't need to get into your personal circumstances it's not about finding a chink in your armour it's just about practicing what you preach.

Unless your offspring are only stepchildren or adopted then you've obviously contributed to maintaining or increasing population levels.

When you are eventually able to claim the state pension you should hand some of it back rather than take the blood money provided by rising population maintaining the pension pyramid.

 

[jazzy]

Is it me, or are shares soaring?

My portfolio is well up. So obviously the Stock Market is not worried about those Marxist scoundrels. £ seems higher too.

Amazing what having people in power with an air of vague competence can do.

Mind you, it could be a left-wing plot to buy shares to make Labour look good. We should not altogether discount that.

FTSE 100 is 200 points lower than April high . You will need to track over next 3 months to see a longer picture as it will depend on interest rates / inflation and gov borrowing . Watch out for the fed interest rate decision as this will be a good indicator of market confidence

 

[I'm With Stupid]

We can more than cope with further population growth but the secondary impact of that is poorly misunderstood. There are people who bizarrely want more population growth but they also want less climate change and less destruction of the biosphere..

To be fair, immigration doesn’t increase the population, it just moves it from one country to another. Is there anyone who really wants more population growth? But ultimately I’m not sure there’s a lot you can do about it short of mass sterilisation or a China-style draconian limit on children. Or of course increasing living standards to the point that people don’t have huge numbers of children. But then that’s not going to do much for climate change because a family of 10 living in a mud hut do far less damage than a family of 3 living in a detached house in rural England.

 

[hilts]

No I'm expecting you to take the issue of overpopulation as seriously in practice as you seem to believe it is in theory.

We don't need to get into your personal circumstances it's not about finding a chink in your armour it's just about practicing what you preach.

Unless your offspring are only stepchildren or adopted then you've obviously contributed to maintaining or increasing population levels.

When you are eventually able to claim the state pension you should hand some of it back rather than take the blood money provided by rising population maintaining the pension pyramid.

Like I said it's a nonsense and you don't know my circumstances so you are guessing anyhow. I'm guessing your a big fan of fly tipping and homelessness because you don't spend all your spare time filling bins and filling your house up with people without a home.

Like I said people like deflecting and even if your laughable argument stood up, which it doesn't, that is all your doing.

If a drove a Hummer had more kids than Boris and had discovered immortality or did the exact opposite it wouldn't change the problem.

All people can do is accept the problem and put their faith in people who have the power to do something. Unfortunately not enough people are willing to do that so we are fucked.

BTW theory really?

 

[metalblue]

Why would it not be social housing? The government does not build social houses, housebuilders do.

If the government wants more social housing then they'll get a housebuilder to build the houses, they'll pay the housebuilder for the house and the council/housing associations take over management of the stock.

The biggest obstacle to this is land values, especially in the south. A 2-bed terrace can go for £500k near London, if even 100,000 minimum council houses are built near London then that's £50bn gone already...

Build ‘em further north. There are too many southerners as it is.