|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 3, 2023 21:23:02 GMT
It is not the single greatest thing nor is the cheapest single thing nor is it the most desirable single thing. Stopping the boats and returning illegal migrants would save 2.5 billion in the first year alone, it would release border force and RNLI to do the jobs they are supposed to do and it would remove a blight from many communities up and down the country and bring hotels back to being public facilities. It would also release a large amount of accommodation for use by the British in need. In terms of illegal migrants I would make that across the board for anyone whose right to remain here is non existent or expired and those who gained UK citizenship by fraud. Making gold from bronze would be even better, but I was talking about possible things. To date short of machine gunning them in the channel I haven't heard any practical way of stopping illegal migrants coming here. On top of that you are way off if we lowered the average house price by £100,000 it would save buyers and renters £280Bn a year. But lowering house prices requires subsidies and building homes, especially green compliant homes is more expensive and house prices will not come down in the first few years. Then we have many more acres of England's green and pleasant land subsumed by houses, schools, roads, shopping centres at half hour walking pace intervals or 15 minute electric bus rides away. There are many practical ways of doing what I suggest but they require determination to act, so far the government have been fart arsing around and the consequence of that 30 years of fart arsing is gradually being played out on the streets of our towns and cities and may be much more unpleasant by next weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 3, 2023 21:30:53 GMT
Making gold from bronze would be even better, but I was talking about possible things. To date short of machine gunning them in the channel I haven't heard any practical way of stopping illegal migrants coming here. On top of that you are way off if we lowered the average house price by £100,000 it would save buyers and renters £280Bn a year. But lowering house prices requires subsidies and building homes, especially green compliant homes is more expensive and house prices will not come down in the first few years. Then we have many more acres of England's green and pleasant land subsumed by houses, schools, roads, shopping centres at half hour walking pace intervals or 15 minute electric bus rides away. There are many practical ways of doing what I suggest but they require determination to act, so far the government have been fart arsing around and the consequence of that 30 years of fart arsing is gradually being played out on the streets of our towns and cities and may be much more unpleasant by next weekend. Lowering the price of houses requires lowering the price of land. That is done by giving more planning permissions. It costs nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 3, 2023 22:19:00 GMT
Not if it means voting Labour or Tory I am not. Just a different least worst. I sympathise with much of your position. I'm just a pragmatist. Labour say they'll build more homes, that is the single biggest thing any government could do to help the poorest. government since WW2 has said they will build more homes - have you not learnt your lesson yet?  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 3, 2023 22:20:36 GMT
But lowering house prices requires subsidies and building homes, especially green compliant homes is more expensive and house prices will not come down in the first few years. Then we have many more acres of England's green and pleasant land subsumed by houses, schools, roads, shopping centres at half hour walking pace intervals or 15 minute electric bus rides away. There are many practical ways of doing what I suggest but they require determination to act, so far the government have been fart arsing around and the consequence of that 30 years of fart arsing is gradually being played out on the streets of our towns and cities and may be much more unpleasant by next weekend. Lowering the price of houses requires lowering the price of land. That is done by giving more planning permissions. It costs nothing. well it costs political capital - that is why all Parties are against building homes in their back yard. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 3, 2023 22:22:19 GMT
Just a different least worst. I sympathise with much of your position. I'm just a pragmatist. Labour say they'll build more homes, that is the single biggest thing any government could do to help the poorest. government since WW2 has said they will build more homes - have you not learnt your lesson yet? Naah. I'm an eternal optimist. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 3, 2023 22:24:02 GMT
Lowering the price of houses requires lowering the price of land. That is done by giving more planning permissions. It costs nothing. well it costs political capital - that is why all Parties are against building homes in their back yard. Sadly that is true. The ones with the land still own the country. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 4, 2023 9:58:04 GMT
But lowering house prices requires subsidies and building homes, especially green compliant homes is more expensive and house prices will not come down in the first few years. Then we have many more acres of England's green and pleasant land subsumed by houses, schools, roads, shopping centres at half hour walking pace intervals or 15 minute electric bus rides away. There are many practical ways of doing what I suggest but they require determination to act, so far the government have been fart arsing around and the consequence of that 30 years of fart arsing is gradually being played out on the streets of our towns and cities and may be much more unpleasant by next weekend. Lowering the price of houses requires lowering the price of land. That is done by giving more planning permissions. It costs nothing. Of course it costs something. It means miserable lives for a multitude of people who spent many years trying to ensure their lives would not be blighted so. Green compliance costs a packet and lowering the cost of land by relaxing planning rules is a finite solution no matter how you look at it. We can stop the rot before we become Blade Runner type cities or we can 'relax' planning and let the developers and boosters have their way and inside a generation we will have that dystopian future. It will be a disaster in the making. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 4, 2023 10:12:21 GMT
Lowering the price of houses requires lowering the price of land. That is done by giving more planning permissions. It costs nothing. Of course it costs something. It means miserable lives for a multitude of people who spent many years trying to ensure their lives would not be blighted so. Green compliance costs a packet and lowering the cost of land by relaxing planning rules is a finite solution no matter how you look at it. We can stop the rot before we become Blade Runner type cities or we can 'relax' planning and let the developers and boosters have their way and inside a generation we will have that dystopian future. It will be a disaster in the making. At the moment approximately 2% of the UK is built on. So we have enough leeway for the current population and some. Spreading scare stories about Blade runner type cities is nonsense. By all means stop immigration, but that wont help the current housing shortage, nor have anywhere near the monetary effect that reducing house prices would have. At the moment land represents 40 to 50% of the cost of building a house. If you paid the same price for building land as you do for arable land you could easily knock a 100k off the average price Building land is deliberately kept scarce to artificially inflate the price. There is loads of land that could be built on with destroying any ones view. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 4, 2023 10:22:28 GMT
I disagree. FPTP may not be perfect, indeed it isn't perfect but it's preferable to PR. The EU support PR and every EU state uses some form of PR which is why they will never leave to EU. Under PR strong majority governments become a thing of the past, replaced with endless coalitions sometimes three or even four way coalitions which inevitably struggle to agree on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 4, 2023 14:30:53 GMT
I disagree. FPTP may not be perfect, indeed it isn't perfect but it's preferable to PR. The EU support PR and every EU state uses some form of PR which is why they will never leave to EU. Under PR strong majority governments become a thing of the past, replaced with endless coalitions sometimes three or even four way coalitions which inevitably struggle to agree on anything. Yes, that's the possible downside.
But as it stands, there is no incentive for the big two parties to provide any alternative choice: They've got ever closer over the years and now they both sing off the same europhile, net-zero bollocks hymn sheet and I'm totally sick of voting for the (marginally) least worst choice.
So I'm done with fptp. I want to be able to vote for a party that I actually agree with, without throwing away my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 4, 2023 14:44:31 GMT
I disagree. FPTP may not be perfect, indeed it isn't perfect but it's preferable to PR. The EU support PR and every EU state uses some form of PR which is why they will never leave to EU. Under PR strong majority governments become a thing of the past, replaced with endless coalitions sometimes three or even four way coalitions which inevitably struggle to agree on anything. Yes, that's the possible downside.
But as it stands, there is no incentive for the big two parties to provide any alternative choice: They've got ever closer over the years and now they both sing off the same europhile, net-zero bollocks hymn sheet and I'm totally sick of voting for the (marginally) least worst choice.
So I'm done with fptp. I want to be able to vote for a party that I actually agree with, without throwing away my vote.
Believe me I understand and I agree, it's frustrating. Labour and the Tories are far too centrist, especially the Tories. But I think a PR coalition government that is possibly made up of all sorts of factions is likely to be left of centre, more pro EU and even keener on net-zero. In an ideal world I'd vote for Reform, but I'm concerned that a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour because all it will do is reduce the Tory vote count. Dear dilemma. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 4, 2023 14:52:00 GMT
Yes, that's the possible downside.
But as it stands, there is no incentive for the big two parties to provide any alternative choice: They've got ever closer over the years and now they both sing off the same europhile, net-zero bollocks hymn sheet and I'm totally sick of voting for the (marginally) least worst choice.
So I'm done with fptp. I want to be able to vote for a party that I actually agree with, without throwing away my vote.
Believe me I understand and I agree, it's frustrating. Labour and the Tories are far too centrist, especially the Tories. But I think a PR coalition government that is possibly made up of all sorts of factions is likely to be left of centre, more pro EU and even keener on net-zero. In an ideal world I'd vote for Reform, but I'm concerned that a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour because all it will do is reduce the Tory vote count. Dear dilemma. I'm in the same boat: I'd like to vote for Reform. But around here, it's a two horse race between the FibDims and the Tories and our local FibDims are utter fascists so it'll have to be Tory even though they don't deserve my vote.
Where I disagree is where the alliance would form. I think that PR could just as easily result in a Tory/Reform coalition. Let's not forget that UKIP once polled 4 million votes (and didn't get a single seat) while the Greens, the SNP etc get seats on the basis of very few actual votes.
I'm willing to take a punt on PR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 4, 2023 15:18:02 GMT
Believe me I understand and I agree, it's frustrating. Labour and the Tories are far too centrist, especially the Tories. But I think a PR coalition government that is possibly made up of all sorts of factions is likely to be left of centre, more pro EU and even keener on net-zero. In an ideal world I'd vote for Reform, but I'm concerned that a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour because all it will do is reduce the Tory vote count. Dear dilemma. I'm in the same boat: I'd like to vote for Reform. But around here, it's a two horse race between the FibDims and the Tories and our local FibDims are utter fascists so it'll have to be Tory even though they don't deserve my vote.
Where I disagree is where the alliance would form. I think that PR could just as easily result in a Tory/Reform coalition. Let's not forget that UKIP once polled 4 million votes (and didn't get a single seat) while the Greens, the SNP etc get seats on the basis of very few actual votes.
I'm willing to take a punt on PR.
It's not a case of 'taking a punt' on PR though is it. If the political system is changed to PR and turns out to be worse, there will be no going back, we'll be stuck with it. PR has caused all sorts of problems for some EU states not least of all Germany and Italy. No, I'm a big believer in that old adage 'better the devil you know'. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 4, 2023 15:30:49 GMT
I'm in the same boat: I'd like to vote for Reform. But around here, it's a two horse race between the FibDims and the Tories and our local FibDims are utter fascists so it'll have to be Tory even though they don't deserve my vote.
Where I disagree is where the alliance would form. I think that PR could just as easily result in a Tory/Reform coalition. Let's not forget that UKIP once polled 4 million votes (and didn't get a single seat) while the Greens, the SNP etc get seats on the basis of very few actual votes.
I'm willing to take a punt on PR.
It's not a case of 'taking a punt' on PR though is it. If the political system is changed to PR and turns out to be worse, there will be no going back, we'll be stuck with it. PR has caused all sorts of problems for some EU states not least of all Germany and Italy. No, I'm a big believer in that old adage 'better the devil you know'. Or the one you think you do. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 4, 2023 16:53:14 GMT
Of course it costs something. It means miserable lives for a multitude of people who spent many years trying to ensure their lives would not be blighted so. Green compliance costs a packet and lowering the cost of land by relaxing planning rules is a finite solution no matter how you look at it. We can stop the rot before we become Blade Runner type cities or we can 'relax' planning and let the developers and boosters have their way and inside a generation we will have that dystopian future. It will be a disaster in the making. At the moment approximately 2% of the UK is built on. So we have enough leeway for the current population and some. Spreading scare stories about Blade runner type cities is nonsense. By all means stop immigration, but that wont help the current housing shortage, nor have anywhere near the monetary effect that reducing house prices would have. At the moment land represents 40 to 50% of the cost of building a house. If you paid the same price for building land as you do for arable land you could easily knock a 100k off the average price Building land is deliberately kept scarce to artificially inflate the price. There is loads of land that could be built on with destroying any ones view. However the houses will be built largely in areas where people want to live. Namely close to existing towns largely in the South and it is significantly more than 2% in these areas. This is also the land with the most productive agricultural yields and obviously part of England's dreaming spires and rolling countryside. There are villages in the North and in Scotland that are either declining or static. No one wants to live there. I have lived in a Scottish village over one thousand feet and it is nine months of winter and three months of bad weather and in the bad weather the midges come out to play. Houses are cheap in these areas. As an example a two bed refurbished cottage you can get for 130,000 in Wanlockhead, the highest village in Scotland. Land is already cheap and planning is easy but restricted on style. However these are not the places that will be built upon it will be round London and the Southern cities and over the Downs. It is supply and demand, you have to control demand if you cannot supply within the parameters people have set as being reasonable. Changing those parameters will only create a bigger future problem whereby land was acquired cheaply but new demand is still rising. |
|
