Government must do more on affordable housing

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which suggests the government should do whatever the people wish for? Regardless of the problems down the line?

No it doesn't suggest that at all.

ruggedtoast

NIMBYs. They make my blood boil.

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

No it doesn't suggest that at all.

So what are you saying?

The houses in Eastleigh are much needed. People who want to play golf and people who don't want their own views spoilt (whos own houses spoilt the views of others) are campaigning against these houses.

The tories have seen this and are now suggesting that they would try and reverse this housing (although it has got planning permission).

So, you suggest it's good, democracy is being listened to. But what about the fact people need those homes?

If a by election happened in a poor area, and people were campaigning for a 200% uplift in welfare payments, would you turn around and say "well isn't it good the parties are listening, democracy in action".

Of course you wouldn't. But anything stopping housing and you are all for it. That's not democracy. The planning permission has been through all the processes which were long drawn out battles and has been given. This is now about campaigns by people who have lost their fight, and parties looking for a quick vote.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If a by election happened in a poor area, and people were campaigning for a 200% uplift in welfare payments, would you turn around and say "well isn't it good the parties are listening, democracy in action".

Dearie me, what a comparison.
We have a government in place defining welfare entitlements. If we're not happy with how they handle things, we can vote them out.
On a local level, an MP is supposed to look after the best interests of his constituents.

Mr._Pricklepants

ruggedtoast wrote: »

NIMBYs. They make my blood boil.

Everybody is a NIMBY to some degree, including you.

If you tell us you'd be happy with an anareobic digestion facility next door you'd be lying.
If you tell us you'd be happy with a 15 storey concrete social housing monstrosity looking over your back garden, you'd be lying.

No matter how many fancy pictures and exclamation marks you use on a forum.

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Dearie me, what a comparison.
We have a government in place defining welfare entitlements. If we're not happy with how they handle things, we can vote them out.
On a local level, an MP is supposed to look after the best interests of his constituents.

And that's exactly the scenario I put to you which you have conviniently decided to completely ignore.

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

Like that or not local politicians are there to serve the electorate and not the other way round.

The reason for a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy is that you are supposed to vote for someone who agrees with your broad beliefs and who you trust to act in the best interests of their constituents; not just a bag-o-flesh who will do whatever the biggest whiners or alternatively the general majority prefer even if they know it to be a mistake.

If we just want the majority opinion to be followed blindly then get rid of politicians and allow the electorate to propose and vote for policies directly or via representative sample groups. It'll be an absolute disaster but at least we'd wouldn't need the middle men getting in the way of us destroying the country.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which suggests the government should do whatever the people wish for? Regardless of the problems down the line?.

What, like with the EU referendum.... And immigration.... And whatever else you've been supporting lately.;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The other problem with this view is where do you stop?

Hamish has sadd openly that you don't stop, you simply saturate the UK in limitless debt. I don't know what he thinks this will achieve other than massive short term gain.

You on the other hand have said it's all lack of lending. However, lending HAS been looked at. We have QE. We have funding for lending. We have newbuy. We have lend a hand. We have products whereby the government AND your parents can now join to become guarantors. We have councils willing to become guarantors.

And guess what, people just keep saying the same thing.... "lending is the problem".

Well what more do you want? Where do you stop blaming the lending and look at what's been done on the lending front....while peepin at the results all that expense has bought.

In terms of value for money, all of that I mentioned above has bought a tiny amount of value for builders and the market. So theres surely some other problem?

Many of us can see that problem, but it seems a few simply cannot...or will not. Not really sure which.

Holy sophistry, Batman....

N1AK

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Everybody is a NIMBY to some degree, including you.

If you tell us you'd be happy with an anareobic digestion facility next door you'd be lying.
If you tell us you'd be happy with a 15 storey concrete social housing monstrosity looking over your back garden, you'd be lying.

That's a pretty desperate attempt to shoehorn in a straw-man especially given that you just accused Graham of using a completely excessive example :rotfl:

There is a vast difference between having your property made unusable and having one less field somewhere outside your village to gaze over. We already look at the impact of development thus you'd never see the nonsensical examples you bring up happen without it requiring properties in the surrounding area to be compensated or purchased.

If the best argument you can come up with for NIMBYism is the intellectual equivalent of saying anyone who treads on an ant is guilty of animal cruelty then you're going to struggle to come up with a compelling case.