DS Forums

 
 

Richmond Park by-election


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2016, 09:18
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,489
No, you are just losing the argument so making stuff up. We do what modern countries do, build more infrastructure. HS2, HS3, Varsity line, Crossrail 2 and so on.

No-one asked what population we could sustain if we halted all infrastructure investment.
Be careful, Dan will start calling you a snowflake or a bedwetter if he realises he has lost.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-12-2016, 09:22
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,745
Is there? Lots of empty houses, you mean? Or by "space" do you mean countryside which might as well be paved over as it isn't doing anything useful?
Of course I mean "space". If by "countryside" you mean fields which aren't doing anything useful then there is plenty of space for a few new towns to help spread the economy around the country. It's not just a matter of building houses and see what happens, you need the employers, infrastructure and facilities otherwise you are just creating a sink estate.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:35
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,093
Of course I mean "space". If by "countryside" you mean fields which aren't doing anything useful then there is plenty of space for a few new towns to help spread the economy around the country. It's not just a matter of building houses and see what happens, you need the employers, infrastructure and facilities otherwise you are just creating a sink estate.
You do know that grass is a crop, right?

Honestly, I try to laugh at the sheer ignorance of people, but it's actually scary.

How many remainers actually believe that the countryside is just sitting there doing nothing and can happily be filled with "a few new towns" and the roads leading to them?

I'm reluctantly beginning to think that they do, in fact, hate this country, and only think of it in monetary terms.

Can anyone on the remain side convince me otherwise? Please tell me you don't want to see the country become one huge urban area.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:36
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
Yes but its not that simple is it which is why I asked the questions:

Who owns them?
What strate are they in?

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes that have been empty for over six months. Some of these may not stay empty (if they are on the market, or are being renovated). But others are stuck empty, perhaps because of inheritance issues or because their owners are holding on to the property hoping for a rise in its value before selling it."
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:38
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,293
What veneer would that be? I just remember all the second homes being burnt to the ground purely because the owners were not Welsh.
Have you thought about the irony of your user name when discussing decades old arson?
smudges dad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:55
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,745
You do know that grass is a crop, right?
And it's a crop that we have no shortage of. We do have a housing shortage.

Even if we cut immigration to zero for the next 10 years there is still an argument for a few new towns to spread the economy around the country, allow young people to get the home they deserve and reduce overcrowding in some areas.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:55
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,489
Yes but its not that simple is it which is why I asked the questions:

Who owns them?
What strate are they in?

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes that have been empty for over six months. Some of these may not stay empty (if they are on the market, or are being renovated). But others are stuck empty, perhaps because of inheritance issues or because their owners are holding on to the property hoping for a rise in its value before selling it."
Sorry I couldn't provide a detailed survey for all 200,000 properties, which is obviously the only thing which would satisfy you.

The point is that there are a lot of empty properties, and some small changes to the law would motivate people to get many of them occupied quickly and at zero cost to the government.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 09:56
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,489
You do know that grass is a crop, right?

Honestly, I try to laugh at the sheer ignorance of people, but it's actually scary.

How many remainers actually believe that the countryside is just sitting there doing nothing and can happily be filled with "a few new towns" and the roads leading to them?

I'm reluctantly beginning to think that they do, in fact, hate this country, and only think of it in monetary terms.

Can anyone on the remain side convince me otherwise? Please tell me you don't want to see the country become one huge urban area.
So you value grass above people?
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:05
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,093
And it's a crop that we have no shortage of. We do have a housing shortage.

Even if we cut immigration to zero for the next 10 years there is still an argument for a few new towns to spread the economy around the country, allow young people to get the home they deserve and reduce overcrowding in some areas.
You may think there is an argument for this - I don't. In any case, people will still flock to certain areas - there will still be overcrowding.

Perhaps we could build new towns in Scotland, as they seem not to mind FoM. Trouble is, these towns will soon be underpopulated, as people move out.

So you value grass above people?
The grass belongs to someone and is used to feed animals which feed people.

Were you unaware of this?

Fields are as important as any other work environment.

Anyway, people like countryside - who are you to tell them they should have more towns instead?
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:11
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,489

The grass belongs to someone and is used to feed animals which feed people.

Were you unaware of this?

Fields are as important as any other work environment.

Anyway, people like countryside - who are you to tell them they should have more towns instead?
A lot of the grass belongs to people that would sell it in an instant if planning laws were relaxed to allow them to sell to developers. Ownership isn't the problem, and neither is a lack of enthusiam for building in rural areas.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:24
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
Sorry I couldn't provide a detailed survey for all 200,000 properties, which is obviously the only thing which would satisfy you.

The point is that there are a lot of empty properties, and some small changes to the law would motivate people to get many of them occupied quickly and at zero cost to the government.
I don't want you to provide a detailed survey because it is clear you cannot do that.

If the Government or LAs don't own them they can't do anything and if you read it properly it quite clearly says that at 200,000 properties are private ownership in the midst of being sold, renovated or in probate.

Unless of course you were thinking of doing what the USSR did to my ex-boyfriends grandparents after the war in the East Germany and just take their property away from them!

The issue is to build more and bring up to standard social housing not concern ourselves with privately owned property that is empty.

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes that have been empty for over six months. Some of these may not stay empty (if they are on the market, or are being renovated). But others are stuck empty, perhaps because of inheritance issues or because their owners are holding on to the property hoping for a rise in its value before selling it."
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:29
rusty123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 20,693
We were a joke already when that spineless turd Cameron capitulated to the swivel eyed loons (his advisor's words) and ran that stupid calamitous referendum.
Are you one of those "democracy is great so long as you get the result you want" types?

I didn't like the timing of it but that aside I welcomed the referendum. My side of the argument lost. I'll get over it because at the back of my mind was another question...

If we weren't already in the EU, would I vote to join it?

Absolutely not.

The country voted out so let's get out.
rusty123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:30
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
You do know that grass is a crop, right?

Honestly, I try to laugh at the sheer ignorance of people, but it's actually scary.

How many remainers actually believe that the countryside is just sitting there doing nothing and can happily be filled with "a few new towns" and the roads leading to them?

I'm reluctantly beginning to think that they do, in fact, hate this country, and only think of it in monetary terms.

Can anyone on the remain side convince me otherwise? Please tell me you don't want to see the country become one huge urban area.
BIB

I do

Cows, sheep and horses eat it and then 'we' eat them or drink their milk or use their skins for clothes and shoes, except the horses of course they do their own work on the farms, not to mention the wildlife the grass sustains and the ecosystem.

Which is why we have the 'greenbelt'.

I think the problem we have today is a lot of people think that the World revolves around computers and stock markets it doesn't. They wouldn't exist if we didn't have grass!
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:36
BrokenArrow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 20,806
So you value grass above people?
We need more grass more than we need more people.
BrokenArrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:38
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
We need more grass more than we need more people.
Yes we do.
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:38
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,745
We need more grass more than we need more people.
I have far too much of it in my back garden. It's nothing but an annoyance. I really should concrete over the whole lot or replace it with artificial turf.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:46
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,797
We need more grass more than we need more people.
We need the environment more than we need people.

As long as we have plants to produce oxygen and trees for wood, we'll be better off than if we concreted over the country side and let this country become a nightmare vision of over crowding and pollution like in Blade Runner.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:49
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,151
I have far too much of it in my back garden. It's nothing but an annoyance. I really should concrete over the whole lot or replace it with artificial turf.
Then you really would be a fool. People who have got rid of their grass and concreted over it have raised their risk of being flooded. Where do you think that all the rainfall goes?
Annsyre is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:52
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,581
BIB

I do

Cows, sheep and horses eat it and then 'we' eat them or drink their milk or use their skins for clothes and shoes, except the horses of course they do their own work on the farms, not to mention the wildlife the grass sustains and the ecosystem.

Which is why we have the 'greenbelt'.
No, it isn't. We have the green belt to protect against urban sprawl. So that we build over other bits of green instead of the nearest bits of green to London.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 11:00
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,797
No, it isn't. We have the green belt to protect against urban sprawl. So that we build over other bits of green instead of the nearest bits of green to London.
There are Greenbelts all over the country not just London.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=th...lZSOHFD9XGM%3A
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 11:03
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,745
Then you really would be a fool. People who have got rid of their grass and concreted over it have raised their risk of being flooded. Where do you think that all the rainfall goes?
There must be a way to make it only rain next door... I'm a NOMBG (Not On My Back Garden)
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 11:12
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,489
I don't want you to provide a detailed survey because it is clear you cannot do that.

If the Government or LAs don't own them they can't do anything and if you read it properly it quite clearly says that at 200,000 properties are private ownership in the midst of being sold, renovated or in probate.

Unless of course you were thinking of doing what the USSR did to my ex-boyfriends grandparents after the war in the East Germany and just take their property away from them!

The issue is to build more and bring up to standard social housing not concern ourselves with privately owned property that is empty.

"Latest Government data suggests that there are over 200,000 homes that have been empty for over six months. Some of these may not stay empty (if they are on the market, or are being renovated). But others are stuck empty, perhaps because of inheritance issues or because their owners are holding on to the property hoping for a rise in its value before selling it."
You really have no imagination do you. If you think there is nothing they can do, or steal houses. There are many things between these two extremes that would motivate private property owners to get their houses occupied.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 11:14
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
You do know that grass is a crop, right?

Honestly, I try to laugh at the sheer ignorance of people, but it's actually scary.

How many remainers actually believe that the countryside is just sitting there doing nothing and can happily be filled with "a few new towns" and the roads leading to them?

I'm reluctantly beginning to think that they do, in fact, hate this country, and only think of it in monetary terms.

Can anyone on the remain side convince me otherwise? Please tell me you don't want to see the country become one huge urban area.
Of course not but you are overblowing the idea.
The country is spacious enough, it's just the bits where all the money, jobs and prospects are to be found are all in one corner.

One reason why Germany can better absorb movements in population is because it has prosperous developed local economies in many regions.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 11:24
Welsh-lad
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,555
Are you one of those "democracy is great so long as you get the result you want" types?

I didn't like the timing of it but that aside I welcomed the referendum. My side of the argument lost. I'll get over it because at the back of my mind was another question...

If we weren't already in the EU, would I vote to join it?

Absolutely not.

The country voted out so let's get out.
Hold on, you were on the remain side but you wouldn't want our country to be in the EU if we were voting to join? Seems rather contradictory.

To address your first point, I fully respect our representative democracy in parliament.
I do not respect democracy by referenda as they are divisive and have deeply misleading campaigns (on both sides), they appeal to people's emotions and fears; they're acrimonious and confrontational.

And before you make out that this is because my side lost, that is not the case. I opposed referenda as far back as 1997 when I was 16 and we had the horridly divisive Welsh devolution referendum. That delivered the result I wanted, as it happens, but it should have been a parliamentary decision imv.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 11:44
Dan 54
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,780
No, you are just losing the argument so making stuff up. We do what modern countries do, build more infrastructure. HS2, HS3, Varsity line, Crossrail 2 and so on.

No-one asked what population we could sustain if we halted all infrastructure investment.
Losing what argument? Funny how you see it as a competition.
We'd better get building then for another 25 million people,12 lane motorways and trains everywhere that'll sort it.
Dan 54 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38.