• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Gutter Boy said:
You are only talking about the 7% of the landmass of the UK that everyone is squeezed into though. The other 93% is private aristocratic estates that no-one is able to access.
Click to expand...
Can we get facts right before debating? Quick google:

30% of land in England is owned by private family estates and aristocracy.
30% owned by public bodies
18% owned by companies
15% unregistered (no owner)
7% owned by other private individuals

Scotland is more extreme where 50% of land is owned by family estates and aristocracy.

Also: farmland accounts for the huge amount of land owned by private family estates, but is vital to food production so you're not wanting to build houses on it surely?
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Can we get facts right before debating? Quick google:

30% of land in England is owned by private family estates and aristocracy.
30% owned by public bodies
18% owned by companies
15% unregistered (no owner)
7% owned by other private individuals

Scotland is more extreme where 50% of land is owned by family estates and aristocracy.

Also: farmland accounts for the huge amount of land owned by private family estates, but is vital to food production so you're not wanting to build houses on it surely?
Click to expand...

Doesn't public bodies mean the King and royal family?

Doesn't companies include the Church of England?

And unregistered just mean an aristocrat with so many shell subsidiaries that no one can follow the trail?

It's basically all the same. Guy Shrubsole's Who Owns England is an essential read, as is The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes
 
LutonSpurs said:
We've got a genuine birth rate crisis and Silly wants less people.
Click to expand...

It seems population is about to start falling (it's already there in Japan and Italy). I would say in light of that it's actually important to hold our nerve and not do big housebuilding/protect the natural environment, as we're going to end up with huge ghost towns in a few decades.

I would actively set immigration levels at a number that ensures a gentle decrease in net population. And focus housebuilding on renovating and replacing existing houses, with a complete ban on any greenbelt development.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Doesn't public bodies mean the King and royal family?

Doesn't companies include the Church of England?

And unregistered just mean an aristocrat with so many shell subsidiaries that no one can follow the trail?

It's basically all the same. Guy Shrubsole's Who Owns England is an essential read, as is The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Unregistered actually defaults to the Crown by law. The crown meaning something different to private ownership by the Mountbatten-Windsors FYI.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It seems population is about to start falling (it's already there in Japan and Italy). I would say in light of that it's actually important to hold our nerve and not do big housebuilding/protect the natural environment, as we're going to end up with huge ghost towns in a few decades.

I would actively set immigration levels at a number that ensures a gentle decrease in net population. And focus housebuilding on renovating and replacing existing houses, with a complete ban on any greenbelt development.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
LutonSpurs said:
You read this some where and thought it was a cool thing to pretend you believe as I don't think any rational human could decide this was clever all by themselves. Just stop digging
Click to expand...
It isn't a cool thing to pretend to believe. The population size of any country is linked by numerous studies to the standard of living and levels of poverty in said country. There are exceptions, but for example China had to get a handle on its exponential population growth before it could raise living standards.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Well without population control the math isn't mathing. I mean just for example the population of the UK is increasing by about 500k-800k a year. Whereas 200k-250k new homes are built every year. This is the primary driver of unaffordable housing. It is basic supply and demand/competition.
Click to expand...
The conversation was about AI, UBI and low pay.
Your point on its own is correct; countries cannot be run by single policy strands.
You're correct to say there needs to be a better balance housing stock and population - that's why we are looking to build a few new cities

Population control should be, and is, part of the solution. As should better control of taxation so public services are funded, and incentivisation for building.

There will never be a surplus, even with population control. If a Govt was silly enough to do so, it would reduce house prices, but case inflation elsewhere, which wouldn't solve the issue, it would just create higher interest rates and fewer lines of credit - making the problem worse, not better.
 
monkeybarry said:
The conversation was about AI, UBI and low pay.
Your point on its own is correct; countries cannot be run by single policy strands.
You're correct to say there needs to be a better balance housing stock and population - that's why we are looking to build a few new cities

Population control should be, and is, part of the solution. As should better control of taxation so public services are funded, and incentivisation for building.

There will never be a surplus, even with population control. If a Govt was silly enough to do so, it would reduce house prices, but case inflation elsewhere, which wouldn't solve the issue, it would just create higher interest rates and fewer lines of credit - making the problem worse, not better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is no reason for a government to maintain a significant surplus. Any "unexpected" revenues should be reinvested into the economy. The government does not need to horde money, it has actually got a "magic money tree" if needed in the Bank of England.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Yeah, there is no reason for a government to maintain a significant surplus. Any "unexpected" revenues should be reinvested into the economy. The government does not need to horde money, it has actually got a "magic money tree" if needed in the Bank of England.
Click to expand...
I was referring to a housing supply surplus - your point was about a population Vs supply imbalance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back