Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

I actually think full up is the right dialogue. There will come a point in the not too distant future when we cannot produce enough food for ourselves.

You appear to be focusing on this particular part and ignoring the bit about having enough of a working age population to support ourselves (and here I'm taking as read continuing misappropriation and sequestration of wealth by those at the top).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's an easy problem to solve and I'm not sure that we will without some very difficult questions being asked at some point (much more difficult than those of immigration).

I think a solution which says 'pull up the drawbridges, we're full' is a sure way to self destruction, though.

 

Edited a couple of times.

Edited March 30, 2013 by snowychap

[blandy]

I actually think full up is the right dialogue. There will come a point in the not too distant future when we cannot produce enough food for ourselves. Then not long after we will have to import water. I am not sure there would be space for enough desalination plant, and these actually do need the right types of water. Now people who say there is plenty of space, Well yes, there is enough if we give up vast tracts of agricultural land for this,  Dont think you can just add the welsh Mountain  or scottish highlands to the equation. The reason they produce little food is because it doesn't grow there. t. So if you have a problem with uk, simple turn off the food and water supply. We are the second most densely populated country in europe, after holland, but that is an area the size of yorkshire, and flat and fantastic agricultural land. It is my opinion that the cost of land in this country is so great now that future generations will have no hope of ever owning a house. If that population increases the cost of that land will escalate

There’s clearly something in that line. There is a strain on land, on the environment, on services and so on. Yes there’s also a need to look at age profile. to take ridiculous extremes, to illustrate the point - if the population of the UK was made up of a very high percentage of pensioners, with a low birth rate, then in a decade or so, the population would suddenly be made up of a load of kids and hardly any pensioners, as the “wave” would have mostly died. If you have a load of middle aged people in their 40s and 50’s and not many younger people, there’s a crisis looming, as there would, in 10 years be a sudden load of pensioners, and many fewer of working age, to pay taxes to support health and pension spending.

 

At the moment, we are more in that latter situation than the former, because of the wave of “baby boomers” from the 60s now approaching towards retirement.

 

So it’s not just numbers but the balance of population ages. Few kids and the need for schools goes down, few pensioners and the need for care for the elderly drops, and so on.

 

The world’s population is increasing massively, and the toll on natural resources is climbing, leading to all kinds of bad effects, and it will ultimately destroy the planet, environmentally, or through war over resources  - fish, water, oil, climate, whatever.

 

WIthin the UK we’re not at that point yet, but we do need to balance our ability to support our population and country. Measures to do that sensibly are a good thing. There’s not many people would disagree. The problem with UKIP is that as snowy said  "a solution which says 'pull up the drawbridges, we're full' is a sure way to self destruction”. It’s just dumb on many levels.

 

I’m not sure at all there’s a simple solution of any kind. It’s a complex thing. Allowing a profile of young working people to come here seems like a good thing. Skilled people, hard workers, carers and so on. Students and scientists. The alarmism about “loads of foreigners coming over here, getting free houses and benefits” is basically a myth, but it scares people, and it sounds unfair as well. The vast vast majority of people coming to the UK come to work and pay taxes and contribute to a healthy country and society. If you start from that fact, then looking at the problem of the burden on resources is a different one to the UKIP scaremongering which tends towards the “they’re all scroungers” version. Immigration can be part of the ongoing solution to the need for people to work, to contribute.

[chrisp65]

The lack of water thing is interesting. Where do we draw the line on people co-operating? This whole 'england is full' bullshit kind of falls over if we all take that attitude. Wales is nowhere near running out of water, you could quadruple the population of Wales and the water would still be running. Perhaps Wales and Scotland have to consider the bigger picture and cut ties with England? Yes a bit of short term pain as they don't get their benefits subsidised, but I'm sure there would be a deal to be done once this water thing kicks in.

 

As for not building on agricultural land because the non agricultural land can't grow crops. Well, forgive me, could we build the houses on the shitty land then? Well yes we could. We could also consider why we are using sooo much resource to grow cows not crops. When we are serious about space and about self sufficiency we'll see the true cost of beef kick in.

 

When we are serious about space, we'll see a level of innovation around pre fabs and factory build homes that at present looks like sci fi, which is comical, because we were so close to nailing it in the 1950's. Too many oldies hogging 3 bedroom houses? Build them a nicer community based around pre fabs with on call wardens and care and a little post office / pharmacy / shop / cafe. Make it aspirational, not somewhere that stinks where you go to be slapped for two years before you die and stop being a drain on resources. We could get all those angry unemployed english kids to look after the place.

 

Desalination plants? We could build them off shore, on top of the wave turbines and wind turbines we need to keep the lights on 15 years from now. It might not make great drinking water, but it could irrigate the crops and golf courses of england that currently do suck up drinking water. All that sea, all that coast, all that wind, how we can be running short of energy is a scandal. But as long as those in control have more money than us they can buy the last of the old fuel so no **** worries eh. Crazy idea, don't shed thousands of army jobs, get them building flood defences and prefabs and roads and railway routes and turbines. Perhaps the money we are spending on assasination drones could be used to build solar panels or insulation or wood chip burners.

 

But do you know what happens when there are two possible plans? When one plan says we'll keep our shit and close our door, and the other plan says we could actually take a risk, pool resources and build a sustainable community? What happens is the lazy, the thick, the selfish, the duped and the scared make the wrong choices and the door closes.

 

No money for a grand plan? Bollocks, they found it soon enough when their banks fell over and when their bombs became outdated.

[blandy]

Re Water I said

The world’s population is increasing massively, and the toll on natural resources is climbing, leading to all kinds of bad effects, and it will ultimately destroy the planet, environmentally, or through war over resources  - fish, water, oil, climate, whatever.

It’s most definitely a problem in parts of the world. In the UK, it’s not water, but things like energy and food that are more of an issue.

 

And on building - for me, it’s important to protect the wild places. Whether they be forests and woods, hedgerows, marsh land, estuaries, or whatever. Building on school playing fields is a bad thing. More roads and traffic are bad. For polution, for energy use, for noise and for the environment. Yes more use should be made of brownfield land - derelict area etc. but there’s a limited amount. You see where houses have been built on flood plains the problems that causes.

[colhint]

The lack of water thing is interesting. Where do we draw the line on people co-operating? This whole 'england is full' bullshit kind of falls over if we all take that attitude. Wales is nowhere near running out of water, you could quadruple the population of Wales and the water would still be running. Perhaps Wales and Scotland have to consider the bigger picture and cut ties with England? Yes a bit of short term pain as they don't get their benefits subsidised, but I'm sure there would be a deal to be done once this water thing kicks in.

 

As for not building on agricultural land because the non agricultural land can't grow crops. Well, forgive me, could we build the houses on the shitty land then? Well yes we could. We could also consider why we are using sooo much resource to grow cows not crops. When we are serious about space and about self sufficiency we'll see the true cost of beef kick in.

 

When we are serious about space, we'll see a level of innovation around pre fabs and factory build homes that at present looks like sci fi, which is comical, because we were so close to nailing it in the 1950's. Too many oldies hogging 3 bedroom houses? Build them a nicer community based around pre fabs with on call wardens and care and a little post office / pharmacy / shop / cafe. Make it aspirational, not somewhere that stinks where you go to be slapped for two years before you die and stop being a drain on resources. We could get all those angry unemployed english kids to look after the place.

 

Desalination plants? We could build them off shore, on top of the wave turbines and wind turbines we need to keep the lights on 15 years from now. It might not make great drinking water, but it could irrigate the crops and golf courses of england that currently do suck up drinking water. All that sea, all that coast, all that wind, how we can be running short of energy is a scandal. But as long as those in control have more money than us they can buy the last of the old fuel so no **** worries eh. Crazy idea, don't shed thousands of army jobs, get them building flood defences and prefabs and roads and railway routes and turbines. Perhaps the money we are spending on assasination drones could be used to build solar panels or insulation or wood chip burners.

 

But do you know what happens when there are two possible plans? When one plan says we'll keep our shit and close our door, and the other plan says we could actually take a risk, pool resources and build a sustainable community? What happens is the lazy, the thick, the selfish, the duped and the scared make the wrong choices and the door closes.

 

No money for a grand plan? Bollocks, they found it soon enough when their banks fell over and when their bombs became outdated.

 

 

Just wondering why its Bulshit. Also wondering how big the population would have reach before it came a problem, 100m 500m maybe a billion.  As for the bit about you could quadruple the population of wales and still have enough water, well hasn't that happened in the last 40 years, except the people haven't moved to wales, they have moved to the flood plains of the south east. The geology of Wales and the Scottish highlands prohibits large scale water transfer to England. And its not that simple, water isn't just one type. You cannot just have an M1 type pipe bringing it in to where its needed. If the waters from Wales are mixed with Yorkshire, the minerals in the 2 combine to make it toxic. Birmingham does very well to get all its water from the Elan Valley, But you couldn't just take the water from the next valley and feed it in, you would then need to build a new pipeline through to a different area. So lets just say the population increases at the current rate, 7.1% in the last decade,  in 68 years the population will reach 100m.  So then we will have had to build 43 cities the size of Birmingham. In other words a new one every 19 months. Now given that it will take more than a decade to build a 300 mile fast speed train line, I don't think there would be a cat in hells chance of that happening. Anyway in doing so, it would further reduce the water table, thus reducing our water supply. As for building on the shitty land, well the waters there, but I don't think you can build cities on mountains. We don't have the capabilities. . As for your suggestion for desalination plants for irrigation, that would almost work, except for the fact they could only be placed in the south and eastern coasts, unless you wanted to put them in the better atlantic water, and pipe this over to the east coast. 

 

The most interesting point I find is to build retirement communities to free up plenty of 3 bedroom houses. Let me see now, 1 couple in a 3 bedroom house, move them to a smaller house. Isn't that what they are doing with the bedroom tax. Presumably you support that then. 

 

And I'm wondering why we would do all this. Because we need people to pay for our state pension. Maybe we should look at solving that instead

[chrisp65]

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx

 

This report appears kinda in depth and without political bias, it shows 6.8% of the UK is urban, I'd suggest 6.8% is not full. I'd go as far as to say it's over 93% not full.

 

I've never previously been warned not to mix my UK drinking waters as they become toxic, I might have to look into that later.

 

It would be a mistake to presume I support the bedroom tax. Quite the opposite, I support the nurturing of a community spirit whilst also helping build infrastructure and not the spiteful vindictive taxing of the poor to push them into ghettos.

 

We would do all this because it would be a constructive way to improve quality of life, potentially if we can feed ourselves, fuel our homes and live in good quality suitable housing in sensible places we won't need more and more cash to buy in fuel and food. The problem with buying in fuel and food, it's expensive, doubly so when we need to spend on the military to then protect our fuel and food interests. It's kinda connected. It's about polititcians having aspirations to improve the nation not just stay in power by pandering to a short term majority with short term tax tweeks, expensively buying off group after group.

[bickster]

Bedroom Tax - In England there are 180,000 social tenants "under-occupying" two-bedroom houses but fewer than 70,000 one-bedroom social houses to move to.

Fair? methinks not

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It is nonsense.

 

I've a better idea. Get rid of the monarchy. Get rid of the lords, ladies, and all other establishment feckers who own huge parts of the country simply through blood. Take it back in the name of meritocracy and tell them to get on their **** bike and earn their way in the world like the rest of us.

 

Then build some decent, low-energy, sustainable communities in parts of that land and offer them for decent prices to first time buyers.

 

[snowychap]

Take it back in the name of meritocracy...

Please do nothing 'in the name of meritocracy'.

[colhint]

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx

 

This report appears kinda in depth and without political bias, it shows 6.8% of the UK is urban, I'd suggest 6.8% is not full. I'd go as far as to say it's over 93% not full.

 

I've never previously been warned not to mix my UK drinking waters as they become toxic, I might have to look into that later.

 

It would be a mistake to presume I support the bedroom tax. Quite the opposite, I support the nurturing of a community spirit whilst also helping build infrastructure and not the spiteful vindictive taxing of the poor to push them into ghettos.

 

We would do all this because it would be a constructive way to improve quality of life, potentially if we can feed ourselves, fuel our homes and live in good quality suitable housing in sensible places we won't need more and more cash to buy in fuel and food. The problem with buying in fuel and food, it's expensive, doubly so when we need to spend on the military to then protect our fuel and food interests. It's kinda connected. It's about polititcians having aspirations to improve the nation not just stay in power by pandering to a short term majority with short term tax tweeks, expensively buying off group after group.

 

You would be wrong in thinking that we are 93%  not full then. I have spent a little time on the report but will consider it more. It does say that UK is 6.8% urban. But it also states that 

 

 

Access to Urban greenspace is essential for good mental and physical

health, childhood development, social cohesion and other important cultural

services1.

 

So if we want people to be reasonably happy and healthy we would have to include the non built up areas, parks playing fields etc. This then raises that figure to 9.5%. Now as the overwhelming majority want to live in England that figure then increases to 14.6 %. 

 

So now what is an Urban area. Charles Clarke defined the rules in 2004. as 

 

contiguous areas with 10,000 people.( And if Clarke  classed Urban in England, by the same rules he applied  to Scotland and Wales, but he decided we English should be treated less generously , the figure would be vastly higher)

 

So Any large village with a population of  less than 10,000, and there must be 100's of them, is classed as non urban,  The land these about 8 million people live in is also excluded from the figure.

 

 

As for your water its all perfectly safe, no matter where you are in the country. You can even take a gallon of water from home and mix it with a gallon anywhere else. What you cant do is mix millions of gallons from one area and mix it with millions of gallons from another, unless the match is ok

 

I'm sorry I got your view one bedroom tax wrong, Its just I thought you wrote that it would be ok to move old people from their 3 bedroom home into a smaller prefab. I could just see similarities.

 

Again I say I don't believe that by increasing our population will assist in being able to feed, water and provide our own fuel, when what you advocate will reduce what is the common denominator, land and increase demand, people.

 

Edited March 30, 2013 by colhint

[snowychap]

Again I say I don't believe...

Why not?

If you are going to advocate the pulling up of drawbridges, shouldn't you bring to the table evidence that it won't be detrimental (i.e. contrary to the evidence put forward that immigration is of net economic benefit)?

Edited March 30, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

Bedroom Tax - In England there are 180,000 social tenants "under-occupying" two-bedroom houses but fewer than 70,000 one-bedroom social houses to move to.

Fair? methinks not

 

Your are right, It can't be fair to everyone. but it might solve the problem for 50,000 or so

[snowychap]

Bedroom Tax - In England there are 180,000 social tenants "under-occupying" two-bedroom houses but fewer than 70,000 one-bedroom social houses to move to.

Fair? methinks not

Your are right, It can't be fair to everyone. but it might solve the problem for 50,000 or so

It may solve the problem for 50k by penalising the other 130k? Or have I got your fairness wrong?

[colhint]

Again I say I don't believe...

Why not?

If you are going to advocate the pulling up of drawbridges, shouldn't you bring to the table evidence that it won't be detrimental (i.e. contrary to the evidence put forward that immigration is of net economic benefit)?

 

 

quoted the wrong one.

 

I'm sure immigration is good. The majority of those coming in are hard working. My concern is not that I think they are scroungers, benefit cheats or whatever, Its about our resources. 

 

So now I agree that net immigration on the whole is a good thing, But my concern is for our resources, would you or anybody answer the 1 question  (brought to the table with evidence  )  I have asked several times what you think the maximum population could be, 100 million, 200 million 500 million, 1 billion. 

 

Because all I hear is net immigration is good lets have more, up to what point?

Edited March 30, 2013 by colhint

[colhint]

 

Bedroom Tax - In England there are 180,000 social tenants "under-occupying" two-bedroom houses but fewer than 70,000 one-bedroom social houses to move to.

Fair? methinks not

Your are right, It can't be fair to everyone. but it might solve the problem for 50,000 or so

 

It may solve the problem for 50k by penalising the other 130k? Or have I got your fairness wrong?

 

Just wondering how its penalising the other 130,000. if 50,000 people in couples live in 3 bedroom houses, but 50,000 families are in 2 bedroom houses, just an example, whats wrong with them swapping. I just took 50,000 as a guess, because I don't believe every case would be a like for like match

[TheDon]

 

 

Bedroom Tax - In England there are 180,000 social tenants "under-occupying" two-bedroom houses but fewer than 70,000 one-bedroom social houses to move to.

Fair? methinks not

Your are right, It can't be fair to everyone. but it might solve the problem for 50,000 or so

 

It may solve the problem for 50k by penalising the other 130k? Or have I got your fairness wrong?

 

Just wondering how its penalising the other 130,000. if 50,000 people in couples live in 3 bedroom houses, but 50,000 families are in 2 bedroom houses, just an example, whats wrong with them swapping. I just took 50,000 as a guess, because I don't believe every case would be a like for like match

 

Because they lose money for not swapping into properties that don't actually exist?

[snowychap]

Ok, Until we have the will, money technology and politicians to deliver Chris' suggestions, a more prudent route would be to rein in net immigration ( by the way, I don't mind if 5 million immigrants come in if about 8 million white English folk move out)

Nice. 'You don't mind'?

'8 million white English folk', eh?

[villaajax]

[snowychap]

Just wondering how its penalising the other 130,000. if 50,000 people in couples live in 3 bedroom houses, but 50,000 families are in 2 bedroom houses, just an example, whats wrong with them swapping. I just took 50,000 as a guess, because I don't believe every case would be a like for like match

Firstly, wot The Don points out.

Secondly, you weren't talking about 3 bedrooms going in to 2 bedrooms - or you weren't responding to a post talking about that. Bicks's point was about one bedroom social houses (existing stock, I'd guess) and you seem to have, unsurprisingly, run straight past this to the point that you wanted to make.

As per the point that I brought up earlier in the thread in response to Ender's claim about a shortage of 3/4 bedrooom properties as opposed to 1 beds, I'm not sure that's correct (at least across the country).

One report that I did read about 7 HAs in the south east, they claimed that there would need to be a 7.5% increase in their stock of 1 beds in order to satisfy the 'demand' (i.e the transfer of existing tenants) and that didn't take in to account the lack of fiscal sense that investing in new 1 bed properties would mean. Their analysis opf the situation may be wrong but it would take an expert to claim so, otherwise it was pretty horrifying with regard to where we will end up (they suggested that it would be irresponsible to acquire any new 3 bed + properties, too).

Edited March 30, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

Again I say I don't believe...

Why not?

If you are going to advocate the pulling up of drawbridges, shouldn't you bring to the table evidence that it won't be detrimental (i.e. contrary to the evidence put forward that immigration is of net economic benefit)?

 

Ok, Until we have the will, money technology and politicians to deliver Chris' suggestions, a more prudent route would be to rein in net immigration ( by the way, I don't mind if 5 million immigrants come in if about 8 million white English folk move out)