Millipede promises to drive stake through heart of Middle England support base

ruggedtoast

IronWolf wrote: »

Finally a decent policy that I would consider voting for.

Yes IronWolf, never a truer word. Millions of young people are sick to death of housing policies specifically designed to shovel money out of their pockets and into the the pockets of the fortunate old.

At some point the demographic shift will simply make it pointless trying to campaign on platforms that vastly disadvantage the majority of the electorate.

Most of us would be quite happy with an affordable house and a garden big enough to build a granny annexe.

Loughton_Monkey

IronWolf wrote: »

Finally a decent policy that I would consider voting for.

You don't get to vote for the individual policy.

200,000 homes a year in England by 2020 doesn't mean much. How many for each of the 6 preceding years? 150?

Dave can promise 250,000 by 2019 if he likes. Then you'd vote for him?

When only 21% of people think Miliband is a good leader, then he's got to try and do something. Sacking Ballsie would be a good start!

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

......Most of us would be quite happy with an affordable house and a garden big enough to build a granny annexe.

Try Bulgaria. I'm told there are bargains to be had.

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Which would be terrible, if it weren't complete hogwash.

Less than 10% of England is even built on. London is surrounded by almost 100,000 hectares of (predominantly) brown field and green belt land, just 25% of which turning into houses would solve the capital's housing crisis.

This is the oldest line in the book but fails for me because I already sense the Human footprint where ever I go in the South East especially with the road congestion and building ever more housing and roads will solve nothing as you'll just attract even more people to Britain.


How far do you want to go? Will you be happy when the south east is grid locked even more than it is now?


Where's the limit to the expansion of the Human pest?


We are custodians passing through, we do not own the planet.

N1AK

Road_Hog wrote: »

Yes, and when every spare bit of green land is concreted over and not a tiny bit of fresh is left, you'll all be happy that the country looks like a builder's yard.

So what's your cunning alternative? Our budget is already unsustainable even with the planned levels of immigration etc. We have people and they want housing. Can we cut your house in two and give half to someone else? At least you'll have your countryside, though it might take some getting use to half a living room.

An occupancy rate of around 2:1 (two people per property) is, roughly, the level you would expect to see (and people want) in a country like the UK. By 2025 we'll have 70,000,000 people in the country which means we would need 35,000,000 properties. We have about 25 million homes so in 12 years we need to build 12,000,000 homes to match that.

I'd have more time for the NIMBY or "but countryside!1!!11!!" brigades if I met one every once in a while who had an alternative better than "stop immigration and everything will be fine" which is patent economic nonsense.

MFW_ASAP

They some how found enough brownfield land in London to build an Olympic Stadium and village, yet they have to bulldoze greenbelt to throw up a few houses. Marvellous.

N1AK

Conrad wrote: »

How far do you want to go? Will you be happy when the south east is grid locked even more than it is now?

So what's your alternative? There's a reason why none of the major parties are pro-active in limiting immigration even though it is a hugely popular idea: We can't afford to.

The UK population is increasing and the increase is helping us remain solvent. I personally don't care if the population increases or not, but I do think it's better than the alternatives. If the population is increasing then they are going to live somewhere and I would like to provide viable housing.

ruggedtoast

Conrad wrote: »

This is the oldest line in the book but fails for me because I already sense the Human footprint where ever I go in the South East especially with the road congestion and building ever more housing and roads will solve nothing as you'll just attract even more people to Britain.


How far do you want to go? Will you be happy when the south east is grid locked even more than it is now?


Where's the limit to the expansion of the Human pest?


We are custodians passing through, we do not own the planet.

I suppose you are aware that the reason you live in in a house is that because at some point someone decided building a dwelling was more important than not bulldozing a field.

If you are that worried about the pristine countryside then by all means lead by example and re-convert your plot of land to whatever it was before.

Otherwise, the hypocrisy of the nimby rings like a cracked bell.

ruggedtoast

DIIIINNNGGG.

Diiiiiiiing!

Dooooong!

Don't build any houses!

Apart from ones I want to live in.

Doooong.

Not houses for other people!

Ding.

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

So what's your alternative? There's a reason why none of the major parties are pro-active in limiting immigration even though it is a hugely popular idea: We can't afford to.

The UK population is increasing and the increase is helping us remain solvent. I personally don't care if the population increases or not, but I do think it's better than the alternatives. If the population is increasing then they are going to live somewhere and I would like to provide viable housing.

They could try moving some of the demand from the south east I wonder if the people who are calling for all this building have ever tried to drive into London in the rush hour from these green belt areas or driving around the M25. Not to mention that its standing room only on most of the trains.