The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[tonyh29]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

fwiw, there is far too much greenbelt

it's a con

Having said that (and it was a serious point): It's not nice for the individuals concerned when somewhere they like gets a planning app for a disproportionate expansion, I 100% understand people not wanting expansion by them, but if we're going to do trade deals with Brazil and India and China and Australia and Saudi and Nigeria, all those immigrants that will be part of the deal will need somewhere to live.

I think there is a stat that we have more acres of golf curses than we do land with houses on , so I sorta see your point 

 

but we have something like 100, 000 empty houses in England that could be used first ,  I appreciate everyone wants to live in sunny Surrey but utilise the empty ones first 

[chrisp65]

33 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but we have something like 100, 000 empty houses in England that could be used first ,  I appreciate everyone wants to live in sunny Surrey but utilise the empty ones first 

I join you in your celebrations of Karl Marx's 200th birthday, and I also endorse government seizing the assets of the landed and monied classes.

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

golf curses

swish        **** it

I too endorse your vote against the tories, comrade.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

but we have something like 100, 000 empty houses in England that could be used first ,  I appreciate everyone wants to live in sunny Surrey but utilise the empty ones first

 

[tinker]

As long as we have undeveloped or unused brownfield sites we should not be building on green belt land 

[HanoiVillan]

31 minutes ago, tinker said:

As long as we have undeveloped or unused brownfield sites we should not be building on green belt land 

The problem is that if I'm working in an office in London, a derelict factory in Hull isn't all that much use. 

[chrisp65]

23 minutes ago, tinker said:

As long as we have undeveloped or unused brownfield sites we should not be building on green belt land 

So the people that grow up in rural and coastal communities that can't compete with second home owners and private landlords, they should move to an ex industrial site on the outskirts of a city 2 hours away?

Sounds like social planning for the masses to me. 

 

[tinker]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The problem is that if I'm working in an office in London, a derelict factory in Hull isn't all that much use. 

If the housing market is too expensive and wages can't cover it  then the office isn't viable and should move to somewhere it is , capitalism. If you believe developed greenbelt land would meet social housing needs then I just don't see it, it would be housing for big profits .

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, tinker said:

If the housing market is too expensive and wages can't cover it  then the office isn't viable and should move to somewhere it is , capitalism. If you believe developed greenbelt land would meet social housing needs then I just don't see it, it would be housing for big profits .

I agree with you that developing green belt land isn't a solution on its own, I just don't think it can be divorced from the fact that there's loads of it around London and some of it will have to end up going because that's where it's most needed. Or we could really try de-centralising this country, but I don't hold out much hope. 

[tinker]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So the people that grow up in rural and coastal communities that can't compete with second home owners and private landlords, they should move to an ex industrial site on the outskirts of a city 2 hours away?

Sounds like social planning for the masses to me. 

 

Well I would love to be able to live in a rural or costal area but the fact is there's little or no suitable work , that's why I live in a city.

Unless the jobs and public money is distributed equally then we will always be in a society that's doesn't seem fair. 

Even the second home owners have to live in cities to be able to afford the second homes . 

Building on green belt land and giving it to low earning locals would just make those people property rich, in 5 years time they could sell to rich city dwellers and move.on, that's what's happened anyway? What then , more green belt land development? 

Fix the root of the problem, not the end result.

[chrisp65]

41 minutes ago, tinker said:

As long as we have undeveloped or unused brownfield sites we should not be building on green belt land 

 

Just now, tinker said:

If the housing market is too expensive and wages can't cover it  then the office isn't viable and should move to somewhere it is , capitalism. 

So, no building other than brownfield sites in economically disadvantaged areas?

I'm not opposed to the idea, but to stop profiteering and to make sure these places have the correct infrastructure it really would take state intervention on a scale we haven't seen in decades.

I'm also not opposed to controlling the profiteering of private developers AND home owners that cash in on rising values.

I think what we're edging close to here, is some sort of council house building programme, on a scale that can impact supply, demand and therefore price. With a profit share for councils if people sell up, or even a bar on people being able to sell social housing.

I'd be up for that.

[tinker]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

IOr we could really try de-centralising this country, but I don't hold out much hope. 

I.live in a city and want to be able to visit the country side , one that's undeveloped.

We have to distribute the jobs and wealth of this country more evenly, it's the center of so many issues we have, it's possible to do it 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, tinker said:

If the housing market is too expensive and wages can't cover it  then the office isn't viable and should move to somewhere it is ,

China?

[tinker]

9 hours ago, bickster said:

China?

Ultimately that's what the capatalist system dictates. However we should be protecting our economy and keep it in house (in the UK ) .

I have never agreed with  the principle of London weighting for wages and benefits, surely it's just making the issue worse? 

[bickster]

23 minutes ago, tinker said:

Ultimately that's what the capatalist system dictates. However we should be protecting our economy and keep it in house (in the UK ) .

I have never agreed with  the principle of London weighting for wages and benefits, surely it's just making the issue worse? 

Your statements aren't compatible with each other

[StefanAVFC]

My mp calling a constituent a 'clearing in the woods'

Political discourse is dead. I remember when Gordon brown got into huge trouble for calling a bigoted woman, a bigot. 

Now MPs can call their constituents clearings in the woods with zero backlash. 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

My mp calling a constituent a 'clearing in the woods'

Political discourse is dead. I remember when Gordon brown got into huge trouble for calling a bigoted woman, a bigot. 

Now MPs can call their constituents clearings in the woods with zero backlash. 

Gordon Brown triped up by calling her bigoted behind her back but was caught on an open mic. 

If he had had the courage to say it to her face he would have been fine.  

[bickster]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Gordon Brown triped up by calling her bigoted behind her back but was caught on an open mic. 

If he had had the courage to say it to her face he would have been fine.  

You don’t honestly believe that do you?

Gordon Brown insults woman to her face headlines all over place

[chrisp65]

How does a place arrive at the collective decision that Michael Fabricant is the best person in the whole of the area to represent them?

[StefanAVFC]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

How does a place arrive at the collective decision that Michael Fabricant is the best person in the whole of the area to represent them?

Have you ever been to Lichfield?

The place is Tory personified.