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

cells

N1AK wrote: »

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.

The occupancy rate should indeed head towards 2.0
Spain and Germany have already rwached that figure and France is heading there quickly

If the uk hits 70m by 2030 and we want to be at 2.1 heads per home we would need 33.3million homes. We currently have 27.3m or we need 6 million more homes by 2030 to have an occupancy rate of 2.1

6 million homes over 14 years is 429k a year

Milibands idea of upto 200k a year ans only starting in 2020 will not do much to help

He needs to promise 400k a year

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

That isn't an issue of people but infrastructure

Build more tube or teain lines if you think they are needed no need to force ridiculous home prices as a solution becuase if for nothing else high house prices don't seem to discourage population growth. Germany has far more homes per capita abd far lower prices per sqm yet her population is static


BTW part of the solution is to build more homes in London so not aa many beed to commute into London.

Also why should mr and mrs average care about the plight od those qho choose to live 50 miles from where they live. Its akin the to HS2 rail line proposal. Lumber everyone with £50B bill so a few commuters can shave 10mins off tjeor trip while the 99% of the rest of us will never benefit

cells

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.

Indeed

However note that we would need more homes even if the population wasn't increasing so the occupancy rate the highest out of france Spain irwlabd Germany and the uk can fall to a nukber below 2

The uk would still need 5 million more homes even if the population was static and not growing. Those 5 million additional homes qould alloq oir occupancy rate to fall from about 2.35 to 2.0

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

That isn't an issue of people but infrastructure

Build more tube or teain lines if you think they are needed no need to force ridiculous home prices as a solution becuase if for nothing else high house prices don't seem to discourage population growth. Germany has far more homes per capita abd far lower prices per sqm yet her population is static


BTW part of the solution is to build more homes in London so not aa many beed to commute into London.

Also why should mr and mrs average care about the plight od those qho choose to live 50 miles from where they live. Its akin the to HS2 rail line proposal. Lumber everyone with £50B bill so a few commuters can shave 10mins off tjeor trip while the 99% of the rest of us will never benefit

Building more homes in London is a good idea but where, there is no point in building more homes if people can't move around efficiently.

nickj_2

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.

Compulsory purchase of the toffs paddocks that they use for grazing would make a big difference as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/oct/25/green-belt-london-boris-johnson

how much of that land can you actually build on , we've seen places where houses have been buitl on flood plains , you build more houses you'll have more flooding
on the other hand the south east water supply come mostly from underground qualifiers , concrete over the fields means that there's less land to soak uo the rain , but at the same time you are increasing demand , at the last water shortage it only took a few months without rain and the aquifiers and reservoirs were seriously depleted
where i live there's lot's of construction work going on at the local town , the centre of the town is the equivalent of being at the bottom of a funnel , there are hills surrounding the town which are gradually being built over and then everyone is surprised when after a heavy down pour there's flooding

chewmylegoff

spacey2012 wrote: »

The population is estimated to be heading for 85 million by 2020 and as high as 100 million by 2030.
The majority of this will be immigration from EU countries and awarded dependant status as those outside EU with dual nationality marry abroad.
There is nothing in present legislation that can be done to even influence, let alone control this.

Mr Milliband is indeed correct, people have voted for untethered immigration and given blessing by the ballot box, the country is going to have to start building now and not stop, we are going to need 30,000 homes a WEEK.

This is the side of immigration nobody wants to talk about, well hats off to milliband for at least attempting to tackle the oncoming storm.

The ONS prediction is that the population will grow to about 73.3 million by 2037...

Loughton_Monkey

cells wrote: »

...Build more tube or teain lines if you think they are needed no need to force ridiculous home prices as a solution becuase if for nothing else high house prices don't seem to discourage population growth....

cells wrote: »

...Those 5 million additional homes qould alloq oir occupancy rate to fall from about 2.35 to 2.0

Never a truer word.....

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Building more homes in London dispersed idea but where, there is no point in building more homes if people can't move around efficiently.

There are plenty of places in London with the space

About 700km2 inside the m25 is empty fields rhat alone is enough space to build 3 million homes (london currently has 3.5m homes)

also the transport issue is a red herring.
Build a million homes and add a million people to London. Those million people aren't all going to work in central London. Adding a million people will add close to zero additional jobs to central London becuase central London caters for the whole nation and even other parts of the world. Hence doubling London does not double the jobs in centeal London.

Also a big reason for the peak time teavil blues is exactly because there isn't enough homea in centeal London. Centeal Paris is built at a home density of 20k people per sqkm while inner London ia built at a figure less than half of that.

Add a million homes to inner London and you can cut train bus and tube miles by billions of miles a year as people walk or rake shorter journeys

cells

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Never a truer word.....

Hazards of smartphone two inch virtual keyboards

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

I generally get the train to London when I go for work but I regularly use the M25 to get around London to visit sites.

I'm all for trying to drive growth in other areas (though frankly it's naive to think London won't still need some housing growth). The question is how and who has the political will to do it? So for example a plan might include:

• A new large international airport between Birmingham and Manchester
• HS2 pushed through ASAP with links to the new airport and Heathrow
• A new mega port in or near Liverpool
• Major rail and road investment between Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham
• A new economic development zone with cut taxes for businesses coming there

It'll cost a couple of hundred billion pounds, take a decade or two and be incredibly unpopular to the rural areas involved.

A similar plan could be considered for Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield with a port on the humber. With Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough.