UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[Wolfmanne2]

There is a housing crisis. If the options are between doing nothing, building affordable houses, or building houses nobody can afford, the choice should be obvious

If you have a functioning heart yes, but I get the impression Lamadia might need a heart transplant.

[Wolfmanne2]

All the better for Labour. A large rented sector is a petri dish for Labour voters. Heck if there were enough Corbyn could win .

[Valaran]

Fantastic. And yet the Mayor of London thinks that this is a 'bad thing' for Londeners.

You don't speak for this city. Practically no one I know would be agreeing with your comments.

[Minzerland II]

There is a housing crisis. If the options are between doing nothing, building affordable houses, or building houses nobody can afford, the choice should be obvious

If you have a functioning heart yes, but I get the impression Lamadia might need a heart transplant.

Now, isn't that a little uncalled for?

[Great Nepal]

There is a housing crisis. If the options are between doing nothing, building affordable houses, or building houses nobody can afford, the choice should be obvious

You allow others to build houses nobody can afford, use taxes from that houses to build affordable houses owned by government. You don't stop others from building their houses which no ne else can afford.

[Wolfmanne2]

If you have a functioning heart yes, but I get the impression Lamadia might need a heart transplant.

Now, isn't that a little uncalled for?

I'm just quoting my favourite hero.

[Valaran]

If you have a functioning heart yes, but I get the impression Lamadia might need a heart transplant.

Now, isn't that a little uncalled for?

It might be against site rules (not sure), but I'm not exactly surprised to find that this thread has a decidedly negative view of many of Lamadia's proclamations.

[Wolfmanne2]

Now, isn't that a little uncalled for?

It might be against site rules (not sure), but I'm not exactly surprised to find that this thread has a decidedly negative view of many of Lamadia's proclamations.

There are also the numerous times where Lamadia is constantly rude to people subtly (an example is her constant demeaning of anyone with anything to do with Liverpool or the university there). Frankly she's given too much of an easy time by the moderation. If I said she was 'heartless' as opposed to needing a heart transplant that's ok right?

[Minzerland II]

Now, isn't that a little uncalled for?

I'm just quoting my favourite hero.

Your 'hero' sincerely needs a lecture in proper manners and politeness.

Now, isn't that a little uncalled for?

It might be against site rules (not sure), but I'm not exactly surprised to find that this thread has a decidedly negative view of many of Lamadia's proclamations.

That is fine, but, they do nothing but undermine and sully their character by insulting their opposition, it is petty, tbh.

Also, it is rather unnecessary.

EDIT: Additional writings.

[Great Nepal]

So that EU contributions savings, which is now going to ensure same subsidies for farmers and sciences, almost all of which would need to be used to cover the tax losses from tax base reduction in London; Nissan is calling dibs on share of that pie if it doesn't get tariff free access to Europe or Sunderland plant might not be built, at least Sunderlanders don't have to put up with Poles taking their jobs^tm...

[Wolfmanne2]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/s ... 55466.html

Sadiq Khan working on introducing a London-only visa. I'm supportive of this; London needs talent that other regions in the UK simply don't need, as they lack the unique economy that necessitates such a need. Plus the areas of deprivation that voted for Brexit and lack prosperity do not require any openness and need to be closed off so that the working class people of the region are protected.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Fantastic. And yet the Mayor of London thinks that this is a 'bad thing' for Londeners.

From the second article you listed

Earlier this year, the Guardian revealed how a 50-storey block of 214 luxury apartments by the river Thames in Vauxhall was more than 60% owned by foreign buyers. In one of the starkest examples of the impact of foreign investment, it found that a quarter of the flats were held by companies in secretive offshore tax havens, and many were unoccupied.

What's the point in building new flats if many of them will be unoccupied?

350k from GLA brownfield, 430k from GLA greenfield (forgot about that first time), 3mil from non-GLA but London greenfield; getting central government to transfer the last one might be tricky but once we build in first two, it'll be politically impossible for them to refuse.

Traditional homes as detached/semi/terraced houses genetically designed to house one or two families only; that land under the house just got entirely wasted. By building vertically, we make much better use of the space.

So there will be no greenfield, even beyond greater London. I'm no Londoner but a city without greenfield spaces is horribly depressing and to be honest it would damage the city. I agree with building vertically to make most use of the space, however I would begin this work within the city as it currently stands.

I propose we build downwards, to the centre of the earth.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-confirms-plans-for-separate-london-work-permits-to-stop-postbrexit-exodus-of-skilled-a3355466.html

Sadiq Khan working on introducing a London-only visa. I'm supportive of this; London needs talent that other regions in the UK simply don't need, as they lack the unique economy that necessitates such a need. Plus the areas of deprivation that voted for Brexit and lack prosperity do not require any openness and need to be closed off so that the working class people of the region are protected.

London is basically it's own country by this point, the visa idea does not surprise me.

[Ifreann]

We could always build more homes, using the tax revenue from FDOs; but no lets crack down on investments instead.

Yes, lets just build more homes... With all the free space we have to do so...

Build them in the Thames Estuary.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Yes, lets just build more homes... With all the free space we have to do so...

Build them in the Thames Estuary.

Lets get some more fast flowing ideas about property development in here.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fantastic. And yet the Mayor of London thinks that this is a 'bad thing' for Londeners.

Yes, it is a bad thing for Londoners.

It is a good thing for the economy, at the expense of Londoners, ie, the people who live in London, where property prices are obscenely high and pushed continually out of reach of Londoners, ie the people who live in London, by foreign investors and property speculators. In parts of London where foreign-owned apartments dominate, the occupancy rate is about a quarter.

This is catastrophic for Londoners.

Yes, lets just build more homes... With all the free space we have to do so...

Yes, we're totally running out of free space, not like we have land area for 3,350,000 homes in London, nor that traditional houses are incredibly wasteful land wise.

"Incredibly wasteful".

Not in practical terms, because people (sadly) don't want to live in high rises anymore, except as rented apartments, unless they're absurdly wealthy.
So building affordable high-rises would probably be a waste as, outside of the necessity of "I need somewhere in London", demand will be low.

[Vassenor]

Fantastic. And yet the Mayor of London thinks that this is a 'bad thing' for Londeners.

From the second article you listed

Earlier this year, the Guardian revealed how a 50-storey block of 214 luxury apartments by the river Thames in Vauxhall was more than 60% owned by foreign buyers. In one of the starkest examples of the impact of foreign investment, it found that a quarter of the flats were held by companies in secretive offshore tax havens, and many were unoccupied.

What's the point in building new flats if many of them will be unoccupied?

So there will be no greenfield, even beyond greater London. I'm no Londoner but a city without greenfield spaces is horribly depressing and to be honest it would damage the city. I agree with building vertically to make most use of the space, however I would begin this work within the city as it currently stands.

I propose we build downwards, to the centre of the earth.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-confirms-plans-for-separate-london-work-permits-to-stop-postbrexit-exodus-of-skilled-a3355466.html

Sadiq Khan working on introducing a London-only visa. I'm supportive of this; London needs talent that other regions in the UK simply don't need, as they lack the unique economy that necessitates such a need. Plus the areas of deprivation that voted for Brexit and lack prosperity do not require any openness and need to be closed off so that the working class people of the region are protected.

London is basically it's own country by this point, the visa idea does not surprise me.

Geofront when?

[Great Nepal]

Fantastic. And yet the Mayor of London thinks that this is a 'bad thing' for Londeners.

Yes, it is a bad thing for Londoners.

It is a good thing for the economy, at the expense of Londoners, ie, the people who live in London, where property prices are obscenely high and pushed continually out of reach of Londoners, ie the people who live in London, by foreign investors and property speculators. In parts of London where foreign-owned apartments dominate, the occupancy rate is about a quarter.

This is catastrophic for Londoners.

Almost all things which are good for the economy is good for the people there.

Yes, we're totally running out of free space, not like we have land area for 3,350,000 homes in London, nor that traditional houses are incredibly wasteful land wise.

"Incredibly wasteful".

Not in practical terms, because people (sadly) don't want to live in high rises anymore, except as rented apartments, unless they're absurdly wealthy.
So building affordable high-rises would probably be a waste as, outside of the necessity of "I need somewhere in London", demand will be low.

People always hate change, they'll moan for a while then adapt.
Demand won't be low because necessity drives demand, especially when combined with regulatory framework which can work towards making non-flats expensive by adding regulatory costs. When choice becomes between buying a flat for £150k or buying a house for £400k, most people will go for the former thus driving up demand.

[Wolfmanne2]

Yes, we're totally running out of free space, not like we have land area for 3,350,000 homes in London, nor that traditional houses are incredibly wasteful land wise.

"Incredibly wasteful".

Not in practical terms, because people (sadly) don't want to live in high rises anymore, except as rented apartments, unless they're absurdly wealthy.
So building affordable high-rises would probably be a waste as, outside of the necessity of "I need somewhere in London", demand will be low.

The reality is that to address London's housing crisis we are probably going to have to implement a 'build-up' strategy in some partial form. As demand in London is so high people are just going to have to suck it up and get over it; different sorts of affordable housing can be built, affordable high-rise flats are just going to be some of them.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Some positive growth figures out today. Nice to see.

Editorial note:
Remember that all good news happens in spite of the referendum result and all bad news is because of the referendum result.

[Imperializt Russia]

Some positive growth figures out today. Nice to see.

Editorial note:
Remember that all good news happens in spite of the referendum result and all bad news is because of the referendum result.

We're in a nether state of nothing between "oh God they actually want to leave jfc" and "oh God we're actually leaving", so it's reverted to business as usual while it can.

[Wolfmanne2]

Labour experiences a (relatively speaking) huge post-Conference bounce.

[Imperializt Russia]

Labour experiences a (relatively speaking) huge post-Conference bounce.

Doesn't that (-) indicate either no change or a dip in share?

[Wolfmanne2]

Labour experiences a (relatively speaking) huge post-Conference bounce.

Doesn't that (-) indicate either no change or a dip in share?

Yes. It could have been worse. We could have lost support, so overall I am very happy that we've maintained support.

Some positive growth figures out today. Nice to see.

Editorial note:
Remember that all good news happens in spite of the referendum result and all bad news is because of the referendum result.

We're in a nether state of nothing between "oh God they actually want to leave jfc" and "oh God we're actually leaving", so it's reverted to business as usual while it can.

I'm predicting that the sheer scale of think tank reports, threats from the financial sector and the general omnishambolic nature of a hard brexit will lead to a soft brexit of sorts.

Plus why has no one realised that we can just negotiate a soft brexit and then decide a year down the line to renegotiate the terms without the limitations of Article 50 imposes on us? We don't have to do a hail mary in negotiating terms by pushing for that miracle of no free movement and access to the single market.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why can't we just see how pissing omnishamblic the entire sodding thing has been and decide not to do it?

If 52% of the country voted to nuke Middlesborough, we'd refuse to do that because it was dumb.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

From the second article you listed


What's the point in building new flats if many of them will be unoccupied?


I propose we build downwards, to the centre of the earth.


London is basically it's own country by this point, the visa idea does not surprise me.

Geofront when?

Sooon*

*probably a few decades from now.

Some positive growth figures out today. Nice to see.

Editorial note:
Remember that all good news happens in spite of the referendum result and all bad news is because of the referendum result.

We still haven't signed article 50 yet. That is when the real fallout of the decision will be felt.