|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 8:57:51 GMT
Yes, politicians decide which land can apply for planning permission, they play the games, they control how much land becomes available and therefore its price. I disagree with your reasoning. I do not think its Nimbyism. I think its hiding behind Nimbyism to artificially inflate land prices. Effectively stealing money from the poor to give to the rich land owners. I am not generally a scare monger, but I genuinely feel that if some of this money taken from the poor is not returned in some way we are genuinely looking at civil strife. It might be blamed on immigration policy, but it amounts to the same thing, less houses than people and massively high house prices. That deals with the small number of those supported by the state, but doesn't touch the millions who earn enough to pay rent or mortgages. I do not believe it would free up anywhere near enough housing in the areas where the work is either. Nor do I think its a good idea to push people on benefits into areas where the chance of work is almost zero. Most people who cannot afford their rent are in that position for a relatively short time (around 8 months I believe) It is often suggested that high tax puts people off of working, well so does lack of spare income to enjoy life. Just making ends meet every month is demoralising. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 8:59:20 GMT
I agree with stopping more. I have always agreed with stopping more, I have made this argument so many times. But I see it doesn't suit you so I sadly have no choice but to treat you with the same contempt you treat me. Let me highlight something I suspect is happening here - When many English people hear the words 'new housing development' they often don't associate it with the notion of 'more housing for my children and grandchildren'. They hear 'housing for other people's children'. No longer interested in your opinion at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 17, 2023 9:15:36 GMT
Let me highlight something I suspect is happening here - When many English people hear the words 'new housing development' they often don't associate it with the notion of 'more housing for my children and grandchildren'. They hear 'housing for other people's children'. No longer interested in your opinion at this time. A pervasive pattern of ignoring the actual problem |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 9:44:20 GMT
No longer interested in your opinion at this time. A pervasive pattern of ignoring the actual problem No just your constant claims I have opinions I don't, which makes your responses to me boring and untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 17, 2023 9:57:59 GMT
A pervasive pattern of ignoring the actual problem No just your constant claims I have opinions I don't, which makes your responses to me boring and untrue. 1) Zany ignores a relevant and important reality. 2) Orac Illustrates this hole by pointing out how Zany's avoidance can be interpreted uncharitably as deliberate and calculated 3) Zany has a strop 4) Orac highlights the same, previously avoided, reality in a different way. 5) Zany uses the strop at step 3 to rationalise avoiding the same reality once again. Pervasive? Here is another reality - All grand, co-operative plans rely on people feeling they have ownership - that their children will benefit from any sacrifice. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2023 9:58:59 GMT
A pervasive pattern of ignoring the actual problem No just your constant claims I have opinions I don't, which makes your responses to me boring and untrue. However your proposals are not solutions, they are temporary fixes that will eventually exacerbate the problem and what is required is a solution. Building on arable land in a nation that needs food imports is a rather short sighted view. Germany relied on energy imports and look how she is now struggling. The world is not a settled entity unchanging and benign. It is ever changing and relying on others, many of whom actually despise what we are and stand for, is I am afraid to say idiotic. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 9:59:49 GMT
No just your constant claims I have opinions I don't, which makes your responses to me boring and untrue. 1) Zany ignores a relevant and important reality. 2) Orac Illustrates this hole by pointing out how Zany's avoidance can be interpreted uncharitably as deliberate and calculated 3) Zany has a strop 4) Orac highlights the same, previously avoided, reality in a different way. 5) Zany uses the strop at step 3 to rationalise avoiding the same reality once again. Pervasive? Here is another reality - All grand, co-operative plans rely on people feeling they have ownership - that their children will benefit from any sacrifice. Not interested. But I'm sure others will be, enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 10:08:18 GMT
No just your constant claims I have opinions I don't, which makes your responses to me boring and untrue. However your proposals are not solutions, they are temporary fixes that will eventually exacerbate the problem and what is required is a solution. Building on arable land in a nation that needs food imports is a rather short sighted view. Germany relied on energy imports and look how she is now struggling. The world is not a settled entity unchanging and benign. It is ever changing and relying on others, many of whom actually despise what we are and stand for, is I am afraid to say idiotic. I agree Sandy, they will only be solutions if we stop or dramatically reduce Immigration. Then I think normal development could cope with natural population growth. My thoughts are with where we are now. I think we could still be food stable if we use science to help. Also eat more in season and waste less. Perhaps a separate thread (What do you think?) |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 17, 2023 11:47:34 GMT
I disagree with your reasoning. I do not think its Nimbyism. I think its hiding behind Nimbyism to artificially inflate land prices. Effectively stealing money from the poor to give to the rich land owners. I am not generally a scare monger, but I genuinely feel that if some of this money taken from the poor is not returned in some way we are genuinely looking at civil strife. It might be blamed on immigration policy, but it amounts to the same thing, less houses than people and massively high house prices. You might find one or two MP's interested in inflating land prices for rich land owners - you will not find 650. What you will find are 650 MP's interested in responding to the wishes of their electorate. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2023 15:31:54 GMT
However your proposals are not solutions, they are temporary fixes that will eventually exacerbate the problem and what is required is a solution. Building on arable land in a nation that needs food imports is a rather short sighted view. Germany relied on energy imports and look how she is now struggling. The world is not a settled entity unchanging and benign. It is ever changing and relying on others, many of whom actually despise what we are and stand for, is I am afraid to say idiotic. I agree Sandy, they will only be solutions if we stop or dramatically reduce Immigration. Then I think normal development could cope with natural population growth. My thoughts are with where we are now. I think we could still be food stable if we use science to help. Also eat more in season and waste less. Perhaps a separate thread (What do you think?) Where we are now is an island nation that is rarely able to meet its own food needs, so the loss of any arable land is at best very risky and at worst idiocy (I class rewilding in the same bracket). Science, at least the Bill Gates variety, seems determined to have us eating artificial meat, and I strongly suspect that proper meat will still be available for those that can afford it. Perhaps we are quite close to Soylent Green already. There are several advantages to my solutions in that they deal with many aspects of our problems. Stopping immigration and deporting illegal immigrants stops overcrowding, cuts down our carbon footprint, enables the unemployed to find jobs and reduces terrorism risk. What is not to like. It ticks many boxes. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 18:25:58 GMT
I disagree with your reasoning. I do not think its Nimbyism. I think its hiding behind Nimbyism to artificially inflate land prices. Effectively stealing money from the poor to give to the rich land owners. I am not generally a scare monger, but I genuinely feel that if some of this money taken from the poor is not returned in some way we are genuinely looking at civil strife. It might be blamed on immigration policy, but it amounts to the same thing, less houses than people and massively high house prices. You might find one or two MP's interested in inflating land prices for rich land owners - you will not find 650. What you will find are 650 MP's interested in responding to the wishes of their electorate. Or a party funded by them and trained at Eton. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 17, 2023 18:40:21 GMT
You might find one or two MP's interested in inflating land prices for rich land owners - you will not find 650. What you will find are 650 MP's interested in responding to the wishes of their electorate. Or a party funded by them and trained at Eton. LOL - the party funded by them and trained at Eaton brought in a Law that overrode local objections to allow mass housebuilding. The electorate (not surprisingly) then voted for other Party's who rejected that and wanted local people to have more of a say. This is where you keep going wrong - you think this is Party political. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 18:59:09 GMT
I agree Sandy, they will only be solutions if we stop or dramatically reduce Immigration. Then I think normal development could cope with natural population growth. My thoughts are with where we are now. I think we could still be food stable if we use science to help. Also eat more in season and waste less. Perhaps a separate thread (What do you think?) We have been that way for while now without much concern. But if push came to shove and we all stopped being as fat a pigs we could be self sufficient. Most of our meat comes from Australia, New Zealand and South America. So no worries there. Grain and vegetables could be grown like this with solar and wind power ..  No arguments from me for stopping immigration. Deporting illegal migrants is proving to be a big problem, but with over 100 million displaced citizens in the world we really need to look at the way we deal with refugees and re-write the rule book. We can't just keep accepting more. Those of us who still want o do the best we can are in a worse position than those who don't care what happens to refugees, but I'm a realist. Seems at the moment we can't save the world from itself  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2023 19:00:13 GMT
Or a party funded by them and trained at Eton. LOL - the party funded by them and trained at Eaton brought in a Law that overrode local objections to allow mass housebuilding. The electorate (not surprisingly) then voted for other Party's who rejected that and wanted local people to have more of a say. This is where you keep going wrong - you think this is Party political. Yet still strangely not enough houses were built. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2023 19:17:54 GMT
No longer interested in your opinion at this time. A pervasive pattern of ignoring the actual problem To maintain the problem, because that's the agenda. I'm surprised he didn't report you and make demands to have you banned for daring to challenge him. |
|
