*** GB News *** (stay on topic!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
VincentHanna said:
The conservatives were the ones who cut all those services!

The party that GB news loves so much.
Click to expand...

GB news is massively funded by the Tories (big Tory supporters) so of course they will love them.

Interesting to see the plan for GB News is that once they are established they plan to have a £5 per month subscription service and 100,000 superfans paying it.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
Well its you who said we should spend that money on housing for British people instead. We never have so why would we start now?
Click to expand...

Its the same thing as Farage saying we should spend the money on the NHS instead, it simply a better idea on where to spend that money.

Maybe they could do one of those referendum things to vote what to spend the money on instead.
 
BallistixOnZ490 said:
Whether or not they would, that's simply my opinion on the issue.

We are over full and haven't had space left for a long time now.
Click to expand...

Only 8% of the land in the UK is urbanised. If we are "over full" it's not because of a handful of asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, it's because successive Governments have refused to invest in infrastructure. Instead of building houses for those that need them they elected to allow the situation to worsen and when the system started to creak under the pressure because of their actions, they convinced people like you that it was all down to immigrants. It's populism 101 and it baffles me that people aren't able to employ some objectivity and see through the nonsense.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Only 8% of the land in the UK is urbanised. If we are "over full" it's not because of a handful of asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, it's because successive Governments have refused to invest in infrastructure. Instead of building houses for those that need them they elected to allow the situation to worsen and when the system started to creak under the pressure because of their actions, they convinced people like you that it was all down to immigrants. It's populism 101 and it baffles me that people aren't able to employ some objectivity and see through the nonsense.
Click to expand...

This 8% figure is nonsense, the places where people actually live are significantly more urbanised, take away all the moorland, mountains etc the overall figure is significantly higher, now if you would like to concrete over the countryside, make us even more reliant on food imports then by all means dig up all the fields, doesn't make any sense though.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Only 8% of the land in the UK is urbanised. If we are "over full" it's not because of a handful of asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, it's because successive Governments have refused to invest in infrastructure. Instead of building houses for those that need them they elected to allow the situation to worsen and when the system started to creak under the pressure because of their actions, they convinced people like you that it was all down to immigrants. It's populism 101 and it baffles me that people aren't able to employ some objectivity and see through the nonsense.
Click to expand...

Go live on mountains or in the lake district then, and hey lets stop growing any food and import everything.

All new housing is always trying to go up on protected greenbelt or farmland. More people and less food is surely a wonderful idea!

Oh and they wanted to build another estate in my town on a swamp thats always flooded. That got unanimously rejected by the council fortunately.
 
200sols said:
This 8% figure is nonsense, the places where people actually live are significantly more urbanised, take away all the moorland, mountains etc the overall figure is significantly higher, now if you would like to concrete over the countryside, make us even more reliant on food imports then by all means dig up all the fields, doesn't make any sense though.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that you're fundamentally incorrect. The figures generally work in the opposite direction, higher values of urbanisation relate to lower values of urban land use across the country as a greater share of the population congregate in a smaller area.

For example, the UK has roughly the 8% of land use urbanised but only around 84% of the UK population live in urbanised areas. Contrast this with Japan who's urban land use is only 4% but 92% of the population live in urbanised areas. So if anything the UK is significantly more spread out than somewhere like Japan and that the urbanised areas already in use have significant space to grow. The reasons for this are generally pretty obvious (Green belt and NIMBYism) plus the Tories wouldn't want to upset their core voters who live on the fringes of these urban areas.

Somewhere like Cornwall would benefit massively from an increase in infrastructure spending and urbanisation. But the locals (in most towns down there) resent any kind of building, then also get angry when the only people buying houses down there are second holiday home owners or retirees. There's no jobs or companies willing to set up down there because there are no young educated workers or decent transport links, there is a reason it's one of the poorest areas of the UK (and the EU) and its fundamentally inflicted by the government and the local residents.
 
Last edited:
Mr C said:
I'd like to point out that you're fundamentally incorrect. The figures generally work in the opposite direction, higher values of urbanisation relate to lower values of urban land use across the country as a greater share of the population congregate in a smaller area.

For example, the UK has roughly the 8% of land use urbanised but only around 84% of the UK population live in urbanised areas. Contrast this with Japan who's urban land use is only 4% but 92% of the population live in urbanised areas. So if anything the UK is significantly more spread out than somewhere like Japan and that the urbanised areas already in use have significant space to grow. The reasons for this are generally pretty obvious (Green belt and NIMBYism) plus the Tories wouldn't want to upset their core voters who live on the fringes of these urban areas.
Click to expand...

Are you even aware of how many more mountains Japan has than the UK???

Theres literally nowhere else left to build there. That's why they need closet sized accommodation in most urban areas.

More people live in urbanised areas in Japan because there is nowhere else they can live.
 
Mr C said:
I'd like to point out that you're fundamentally incorrect. The figures generally work in the opposite direction, higher values of urbanisation relate to lower values of urban land use across the country as a greater share of the population congregate in a smaller area.

For example, the UK has roughly the 8% of land use urbanised but only around 84% of the UK population live in urbanised areas. Contrast this with Japan who's urban land use is only 4% but 92% of the population live in urbanised areas. So if anything the UK is significantly more spread out than somewhere like Japan and that the urbanised areas already in use have significant space to grow. The reasons for this are generally pretty obvious (Green belt and NIMBYism) plus the Tories wouldn't want to upset their core voters who live on the fringes of these urban areas.
Click to expand...

Not a good comparison, most of Japan is unsuitable for urbanisation so the population is crowded onto the small parts that are suitable.
 
Well it seems you both have misunderstood the obvious point, it wasn't on the reasons for urbanisation, it was the fact that the UK can EASILY increase its population (housing) in urban areas without building OUTWARDS as other countries have managed to do so. But as i mentioned above, the planning laws and local residents balk at any attempt to increase urbanisation in their back yard.
 
Mr C said:
Well it seems you both have misunderstood the obvious point, it wasn't on the reasons for urbanisation, it was the fact that the UK can EASILY increase its population (housing) in urban areas without building OUTWARDS as other countries have managed to do so. But as i mentioned above, the planning laws and local residents balk at any attempt to increase urbanisation in their back yard.
Click to expand...

You just want to cram people into high-rise buildings. No thanks.
 
Mr C said:
Well it seems you both have misunderstood the obvious point, it wasn't on the reasons for urbanisation, it was the fact that the UK can EASILY increase its population (housing) in urban areas without building OUTWARDS as other countries have managed to do so. But as i mentioned above, the planning laws and local residents balk at any attempt to increase urbanisation in their back yard.
Click to expand...

You do know it's not just housing that is required to support and increased population, right?
 
Mr C said:
Well it seems you both have misunderstood the obvious point, it wasn't on the reasons for urbanisation, it was the fact that the UK can EASILY increase its population (housing) in urban areas without building OUTWARDS as other countries have managed to do so. But as i mentioned above, the planning laws and local residents balk at any attempt to increase urbanisation in their back yard.
Click to expand...

Sorry offtopic. Only point is they charge more for 1 bed flats than they do for 2-3 bedroom affordable houses. Two flat towers near me were demolished because no one wanted them, and the target population couldn't even afford them. £99 a week for 1 bed flat vs £63 a week for 2 bed semi, hmm, which one should I apply for?

More population needs more housing, more food, more health services, more recreation, more transport, more road congestion, last I checked we are struggling with at least a few things on that list.

And yes we have a lot of selfish people that still want to make a lot of babies, like 4+. They also tend to be the same race as me which isn't white. UK is going to crash at this rate with overpopulation just like China previously did.
 
Last edited:
This thread has gone off topic too many times now - we've tried to keep it open as long as possible but it's getting too much to keep moderated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom