London Housing applicants sent to coast

ERICS_MUM

or even young women don't get pregnant until they and the father can support themselves, or they continue to live with Mum (presumably that young woman was living somewhere already but required re-homing).

I know this isn't the answer to the whole problem but it would help.

Loughton_Monkey

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

or even young women don't get pregnant until they and the father can support themselves, or they continue to live with Mum (presumably that young woman was living somewhere already but required re-homing).

I know this isn't the answer to the whole problem but it would help.

Does anyone know whatever happened to the "Child Support Agency"? Was supposed to have the woman tortured until she 'fingered' the father, otherwise no benefits. Then father was supposed to be tracked down and have his own wages or benefits sequestered to pay....

Down the pan, I suspect, like every other government so-called 'initiative'......

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

Just got to convince Henrietta and Tarquin's daddy to sell up its surprising what value people put on pets.

And the jobs that go with them......

Coastal town relocation might be better for those with health issues or the retired, for whom private coastal town properties might be desirable but In affordable, and jobs not the same issue.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

lostinrates wrote: »

And the jobs that go with them......

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that LIR, being more closely connected to the 'equine economy' than most around here.

A couple of questions.....

I usually see just a couple of horses in a giant field. Sometimes I'll see more, a dozen or so, but it's normally just one or two. Whereas I'd normally see 100 or more cows or 200 sheep in a similar sized field. Why is that?

Wouldn't it be possible (broadly speaking, I understand there will always be some exceptions) to keep 100% of the horses in 90% of the land currently used?

If you did have to reduce horse headcount by 10%, how much would that decrease 'equine employee' headcount?

lostinrates

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that LIR, being more closely connected to the 'equine economy' than most around here.

A couple of questions.....

I usually see just a couple of horses in a giant field. Sometimes I'll see more, a dozen or so, but it's normally just one or two. Whereas I'd normally see 100 or more cows or 200 sheep in a similar sized field. Why is that?

Wouldn't it be possible (broadly speaking, I understand there will always be some exceptions) to keep 100% of the horses in 90% of the land currently used?


If you did have to reduce horse headcount by 10%, how much would that decrease 'equine employee' headcount?

Actually, I think its a really stupid historic hangover that you see a couple of horses in a field that you'd see a hers of cows in....but I used to shout this in conferences and other scientists would agree with me....and those ...in the field so to speak continue to ignore me. :rotfl:

Ideally I'd turn horses out with cows, or at least in rotation that would go cows, then small number of horses , then sheep. All eat differently as have different dentition, and mostly the parasites each get are not transferable and are killed in the guts of the others, so it would be much better land use....... As you cannot convince others to do that with you the next best thing to do for health is a lower stock rate and keeping land clean as a horse owner. Of the three species horses have the lowest stocking rate for more then one reason.....but its actually not that they need better grass. Quite the contrary in fact.

Keeping horses in less land (as most in suburbs and green belts are kept in too small plots for behavioural optimum certainly, and parasite control ) would have mixed impact. Most importantly it could have negative impact for native species of wild flowers in older grass meadows (something we need to take more seriously ecologically). Many horse keepers like small land as its EASIER for them and lets them more easily control something called laminitis, But easier isn't always better. In my own little way here in very poor experimental design we have been comparing larger turnout with particular design compared to smaller and found the larger area is BETTER for that too on our statistically ridiculous number of test horses ( two:D) but the two controls also kept slim eating more and walking more.


(That's the potted version which I guess you want right)?


Jobs....yes.....because things would be impacted. Costs would go up, and the land in those areas already is not enough ( despite what it looks like). Some horses would go. The ones who go first tend to be the ones I think, who ge things done for them most properly. If not gone entirely services would be cut back. While I am not a countryside alliance but, they are quite right that the equine industry and parts of countryside industry are tremendously services based. Any knock on that inevitably is a knock on jobs.

Incidentally, its often jobs that aren't well recorded and should be better monitored, an industry where far too much is cash in hand and payment in kind.

Actual numbers? Not my field hamish! I'd be pulling numbers out of a hat. Not ten percent of jobs. Countryside alliance might well have stats if you are interested. Not sure how comprehensive they are. If we were to look at a particular geographical area as a case study it would be easier for me to consider and think how I would more reasonably form a sensible answer to your question. But...I 'm not prepared to say. .....this many....when I cannot be reasonably sure of being within a stones throw of accuracy.


Edit....sorry...so long, and it was meant to be potted version.....short and long is that equine economy is not one economy, its many interconnecting, and even then doesn't stand alone. Impact is not just financial, but ecological, like farming, you have people who consider the now, but better land keepers consider the future and land custodian ship, impact on drug life (anti worm drugs are rarely brought out and resistance is a big problem, so stocking rates and field cleanliness are huge problems, increasingly so.....since moving we have had had a horse fromuk who has been infected with an American parasite I /my vets had never heard of or seen) because of over stocking and poor husbandry.....and probably poor anthelmintic use at previous yards. Since have heard of it at a handful of other yards......

John_Pierpoint

CLAPTON wrote: »

you can do your own research but you will find we only need a relative modest amount of land to be made available in the SE to meet our housing needs

yes you are thinking just like central and local government, salivating over all the tax income this should create:
18,500 by 2026
2,600 Going through this year?
500 for A.......green belt village.
350 on green belt golf course on Western edge of S & C town.
362 on site of former further education campus.
350 on green belt island site created by building a bypass.
800 on green belt to the North of S & C including school playing fields.
350 to fill a gap to the South of O...H....
320 on land originally zoned as retail/industrial [not a lot of such demand these days].

No prizes for noticing that the old school in the centre of town was closed down n the 1970's and sold at a huge profit to developers, however the costs are being carried by the need to run buses and choke the roads with kids being ferried to school instead of walking. The new school and its playing fields have been built as "an exception" on cheap green belt land. Roll forwards 30 years and the school is falling down and needs re-organising ! Well it is not really green belt any more is it ? Giving permission for development puts millions into the coffers of the local authority. But now we have another special case and the cycle can start again; building the next generation of schools in the green belt.

So show me the new roads, hospitals, schools, sewers, village halls, extra bus routes, medical centres, etc. etc. all paid for by the community levy ?
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil#Whatwillmoneyraisedbespenton

So why are we going through this pantomime?
To house the continually increasing numbers of individuals with no intellectual capital and no financial capital, that continue to arrive here or be born here. In spite of spending well into 6 figures raising each and every one of our children, there still seems to be a problem making many of them economically self supporting .
How persons arriving here with none of the 6 figure investment are an asset to our economy escapes me.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or better yet use just 10% of the land currently assigned to claiming pillar one payments from the EU, so there is some useful free money to finance ponies for little Henrietta and Tarquin.

Only 10% of the land we currently use just for grazing horses would be enough to build several million new houses and take care of people's needs for the next few decades. But if that land is earning its owner £50 - £100 an acre, it is only fair that the rest of us should pay 10 - 20 times its former value to Henrietta and Tarquin's dad for being paid to keep it in good heart awaiting this release. With good advice he should be able to roll over the gain and pull the same trick again in a matter of years, in the mean time the grand children can keep their subsidised ponies on the land to keep down the weeds.
You don't need to touch any of the land used for food production, or any of the areas of outstanding beauty, or indeed even 90% of the land currently used for horses.I will eat them provide they are not pumped full of nasty antibiotics

There we are I have filled in a bit of the detail.

grizzly1911

lostinrates wrote: »

Actually, I think its a really stupid historic hangover that you see a couple of horses in a field that you'd see a hers of cows in....but I used to shout this in conferences and other scientists would agree with me....and those ...in the field so to speak continue to ignore me. :rotfl:

Ideally I'd turn horses out with cows, or at least in rotation that would go cows, then small number of horses , then sheep. All eat differently as have different dentition, and mostly the parasites each get are not transferable and are killed in the guts of the others, so it would be much better land use....... As you cannot convince others to do that with you the next best thing to do for health is a lower stock rate and keeping land clean as a horse owner. Of the three species horses have the lowest stocking rate for more then one reason.....but its actually not that they need better grass. Quite the contrary in fact.

Keeping horses in less land (as most in suburbs and green belts are kept in too small plots for behavioural optimum certainly, and parasite control ) would have mixed impact. Most importantly it could have negative impact for native species of wild flowers in older grass meadows (something we need to take more seriously ecologically). Many horse keepers like small land as its EASIER for them and lets them more easily control something called laminitis, But easier isn't always better. In my own little way here in very poor experimental design we have been comparing larger turnout with particular design compared to smaller and found the larger area is BETTER for that too on our statistically ridiculous number of test horses ( two:D) but the two controls also kept slim eating more and walking more.


(That's the potted version which I guess you want right)?


Jobs....yes.....because things would be impacted. Costs would go up, and the land in those areas already is not enough ( despite what it looks like). Some horses would go. The ones who go first tend to be the ones I think, who ge things done for them most properly. If not gone entirely services would be cut back. While I am not a countryside alliance but, they are quite right that the equine industry and parts of countryside industry are tremendously services based. Any knock on that inevitably is a knock on jobs.

Incidentally, its often jobs that aren't well recorded and should be better monitored, an industry where far too much is cash in hand and payment in kind.

Actual numbers? Not my field hamish! I'd be pulling numbers out of a hat. Not ten percent of jobs. Countryside alliance might well have stats if you are interested. Not sure how comprehensive they are. If we were to look at a particular geographical area as a case study it would be easier for me to consider and think how I would more reasonably form a sensible answer to your question. But...I 'm not prepared to say. .....this many....when I cannot be reasonably sure of being within a stones throw of accuracy.


Edit....sorry...so long, and it was meant to be potted version.....short and long is that equine economy is not one economy, its many interconnecting, and even then doesn't stand alone. Impact is not just financial, but ecological, like farming, you have people who consider the now, but better land keepers consider the future and land custodian ship, impact on drug life (anti worm drugs are rarely brought out and resistance is a big problem, so stocking rates and field cleanliness are huge problems, increasingly so.....since moving we have had had a horse fromuk who has been infected with an American parasite I /my vets had never heard of or seen) because of over stocking and poor husbandry.....and probably poor anthelmintic use at previous yards. Since have heard of it at a handful of other yards......

Fascinating stuff.


Any chance of a yes it would be possible to condense the equine stock or no - it wouldn't be a good idea?

I guess it is possible but presumably the question is do people involved actually want to. I would have thought jobs would be linked to actual animal numbers aren't they fairly labour intensive? Geographic spread for things like vets, farriers wouldn't change much.

I like the idea of a restful seaside location - Bournemouth, Christchurch and Eastbourne used to be popular -but I doubt they are any more affordable now. The downside being that spreading the oldies out to the periphery causes issues for things like healthcare, just when you probably need to make more visits for more chronic and urgent cases. Modern centres of excellence are now being concentrated in fewer city central locations. Not to mention a younger population needed to housed to provide care services.

John_Pierpoint

"Poole for the Continent - Swanage for the incontinent".

Don't forget that Sandbanks has the most expensive housing outside of London - there won't be much Grannie dumping in Bournemouth and Poole and the other wealthy suburbs in that corner of Dorset/Hampshire.

Just putting Bournemouth elderly care home brings up a Google map offering over a dozen possibilities - most of them look like £500 - £1000+ per week.

John_Pierpoint

Horses do not have fermenting stomachs like the cud chewers. This means they cannot extract all the "food" value of the grass they eat and need extensive grazing.

Obviously all these animals require feed in a proportion to how hard they are "worked".
http://adlib.everysite.co.uk/adlib/defra/content.aspx?id=000IL3890W.198AWLDOHJ69F3

lostinrates

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Horses do not have fermenting stomachs like the cud chewers. This means they are only able to extract a fraction of the "food" value of the grass they eat and need extensive grazing.

Not quite the whole picture.....because they extract more from less quality grass than cows do. But...also, they could just eat hay.

The question further is is it ethical to do that? My answer would be no.

In answer to grizzly.....

I see potential for saving space All over, certainly not just within farming and rural industry, and yes, I certainly see it in equine industry, scientifically, but, yes......but not in a a way I think would make uk a place so many people wanted to live. Maybe that in itself would help reduce pressure on housing stock. My particular interest is more on ethics and welfare relating to quantifiable measures (like physiology) and I'd argue most large animals have too little space in actual fact.