Francesca R
Girl
Why don't you move somewhere else if things are too crowded for you?
UK - Election 2015
- Thread starter The Don
- Start date
anglolawyer
Banned
Why don't you move somewhere else if things aren't crowded enough for you? Where I live is fine - now. In a democracy, I think I am allowed to have an opinion about what it should be like in the future. Plus, population density is one of several factors material to my decision about where to live, not the only one.
Not state owned. You know as well as I do that HAs are in the private sector, and that the new term "social rented sector" has been coined to accommodate them as non profit seeking entities.
People in SR housing, if they have the money to buy, can buy at the market like anyone else. What's stopping them? They are less likely to be on housing benefits, on any particular level of income, than are private tenants, because SR. rents are more affordable than PR for a given quality.
Building affordable rented housing keeps people off state benefit. They are not in a benefit trap if they can afford the rent from their wage. They are not trapped, but have the same freedom to move as anyone else, to any tenure they can afford.
So if this was honest, it would be directed at liberating PR tenants from their high rent, poor quality, benefit funded accommodation. It isn't. It's an assault on the social sector in defence of private property investment.
It's not so frightening here in Glasgow South Side. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/32m-bid-to-end-slum-hell-in-glasgows-govanhill-144324n.22824353
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/309...t-in-bid-to-address-glasgow-housing-problems/
Last edited:
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it supports the scourge of buy-to-let landlords, who have disproportionately contributed to dire state of the housing market in London.
Last edited:
Is that really your response to people identifying problems? Suppose, to take an example, I object to pollution of air and water in the UK? I must simply go somewhere else: I have no right to stay here and demand that political leaders do something about it?
Given the extremely reactionary nature of the generality of your views, I have been wondering why you favour immigration (I have no objection to it either, by the way) Is it because it keeps wages down or something?
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
It's a bizarre position to take, to be sure. As it happens, I did move out of London in 1997 very largely because the quality of life there had diminished beyond a point I considered tolerable. Travelling anywhere in the overcrowded city became a recurring source of aggravation. Things have not improved since then. On the contrary.
Darat and Francesca R seem to think there is no such thing as over-crowding at all and that, being crammed onto a stuffy, clapped out, commuter train to stand crushed up against someone else's unfragrant armpit for an hour or two is somehow ameliorated by the knowledge that there are some nice mountains up in Scotland or Wales to even out the density percentage.
anglolawyer
Banned
By this argument, there is nothing wrong with building over the entire country until we reach 100% concrete and 0% green space. We could aim for a population of 2-3 billion and be a super power again.Francesca R said:
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,994
What would be the most likely coalitions assuming a Hung Parliament?
Labour plurality of seats
Lib Dem Wipeout = SNP/Labour/Green?
LDW = SNP/Labour/Green/Lib Dem?
Tory Plurality:
LDW = Tory/Ukip or Tory/Labour (National Unity)?
No LDW = ConDem or ConDem/Ukip?
Labour plurality of seats
Lib Dem Wipeout = SNP/Labour/Green?
LDW = SNP/Labour/Green/Lib Dem?
Tory Plurality:
LDW = Tory/Ukip or Tory/Labour (National Unity)?
No LDW = ConDem or ConDem/Ukip?
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Grandparents lived in the same private tenement flat in the south side (not that area, but not too far away) for more than fifty years. Amongst other things they paid for the electricity to be put in (probably late 40s/early 50s). Owner not interested in helping upgrade it, decades later (mid 90s). So I've little sympathy for private landlords.
That means you did not read the article, I.E.No, not being wrong doesn't matter but whether it's 2% or 10% (your two guesstimates) doesn't matter if, in the region in which I live, it is vastly higher.
If the percentage were, say, 50%, in the SE but 1% everywhere else, it would be no answer to someone in the SE complaining of overcrowding to say, 'don't worry about another 10% in your area because the rest of the country will still be 1%!'
Obviously, I have simplified for the purpose of exposition so please don't start hacking away at the above with literalism.
ETA and now I've seen your link I see not worrying about being wrong is an affliction to which you had succumbed when you announced the coverage was 2%
Seems my recollection of 2% was pretty much spot on.
If you want to know my opinion perhaps you could try asking me rather than fantasising what they may be?
anglolawyer
Banned
Who says I want to know it? I may be just fine extrapolating it from what you say here
But OK. What is your opinion?anglolawyer
Banned
So your 2% and 10% were about different things - one counting gardens and one not, roughly speaking. Sorry if I didn't pick that up. No doubt you carefully explained it and I lazily didn't read what you said. So, where I might count the whole of a housing estate when working out the percentage you would want to omit all the gardens and grass verges, ponds and such. Fair enough. I consider my approach the more apt but it does;t matter. 10% is already way too much even if evened out across the entire country. IMO. Your turn.
We are too crowded in some places, and we need more homes and the solution to that is to build more homes. It really is a social problem that has a simple solution.Who says I want to know it? I may be just fine extrapolating it from what you say here
Last edited:
You seem to be confused, it's not my research, it seems to have been a well received piece of research.
anglolawyer
Banned
Forgive me, but this will not quite do. Allow me to recap.
You brought percentages into it. You announced 10% or 2% as if these were self-evidently low percentages that would take me aback somehow and settle the question whether the UK was over-crowded. I lampooned your position by suggesting you would be happy with 100% concrete coverage and you invited me to ask your opinion rather than make it up. So I did. Your opinion turns out to be so bland as to be void of any actual content.
At one point, if any, will you turn from building more homes to wondering whether there are too many people. 10%, 15%, 50% what? You are the one claiming percentages are relevant. So what's your ideal percentage?
Never said it was.
No it hasn't. All our timber framed Elizabethan/ Tudor cottages were "mass housing". A lot of the 1930s mass housing was/ is rather attractive. Victorian alms houses and workers cottages were often delightful.
That is a classic fallacy. Not sure which one, but just because I suggest that houses could be better designed (I am an architect, after all) you suggest that (my) aesthetics shouldn't be blocking the building of new houses. That's pretty silly, really, isn't it, because it is perfectly possible to build much better new houses than the anonymous characterless brick boxes currently in the developers' portfolios. My biggest bugbear with them is the lack of any regional references. There is no sense that a Wimpey estate in Devon or north Yorkshire has any links with the vernacular of those two wildly different building traditions. The ubiquitous brick box is trotted out using the same ghastly stretcher bond brickwork and plastic windows whether it be in the north of Scotland or in Cornwall.
If you are wrong it doesn't matter.I find that astonishing. If you would like some evidence for the figures I've been recalling from memory - good overview starts with this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 looks like my memory wasn't too bad in this case, makes a change.
I think that article makes a case for 11% being the relevant figure as opposed to 2%. After all, you don't normally build new development, nor go for a ramble or scenic vista, in the back garden of other peoples houses.
Using the bbc's chosen 2% definition, I wonder if a block of flats with a small surrounding lawn would count as majority open and undeveloped land?
anglolawyer
Banned
Personally, I don't see how the percentages come into it. If I feel my space is crowded, I am not going to feel any better by being told the percentage. It's subjective. My opinion on this issue may not be common or it may predominate. That's what we have elections for. If Darat proved it was 0.0001% I would still say it was too much, based on my own experience.