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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,613
Location
Co Durham
The conservatives were the ones who cut all those services!

The party that GB news loves so much.

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:
Associate
Joined
4 Jun 2020
Posts
2,401
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?

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
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.

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jan 2018
Posts
14,656
Location
Hampshire
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.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Jun 2020
Posts
2,401
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.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2006
Posts
1,741
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.

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:
Associate
Joined
4 Jun 2020
Posts
2,401
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.

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jan 2018
Posts
14,656
Location
Hampshire
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.

Not a good comparison, most of Japan is unsuitable for urbanisation so the population is crowded onto the small parts that are suitable.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2006
Posts
1,741
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jan 2018
Posts
14,656
Location
Hampshire
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.

You just want to cram people into high-rise buildings. No thanks.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
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.

You do know it's not just housing that is required to support and increased population, right?
 
Associate
Joined
4 Jun 2020
Posts
2,401
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.

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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom