Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tory members want Badenoch but will she make the final two? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited September 29 in General
imageTory members want Badenoch but will she make the final two? – politicalbetting.com

When polled against other candidates head to head, Kemi Badenoch leads in every contestvs Cleverly: 47% – 38%vs Jenrick: 48% – 33%vs Tugendhat: 49% – 31%vs Patel: 55% – 26%vs Stride: 61% – 14%not shown are those who answered don’t know/would not vote… pic.twitter.com/HdJNpueArF

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234
    Well. Quite a difference from the previous polling.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646
    2nd like Kamala Harris.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,209
    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    edited August 23
    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,056
    Labour and Tories blame each other for energy bill rise
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce814gz08n8o
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    edited August 23
    Yes, Badenoch remains Conservative members favourite but I can't see Tory MPs putting her in the last 2 anymore than they did in 2022. I think more likely it will be Jenrick v either Tugendhat or Cleverly which on the Yougov members' poll Jenrick would narrowly win against Tugendhat but Cleverly could win against Jenrick. Jenrick leads Tugenhat 38% to 36%


    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50368-kemi-badenoch-leads-in-first-yougov-poll-of-tory-members-for-2024-leadership-contest

    One thing we can certainly say is Stride or Patel are not going to win given their poor polling with members
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,754
    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    Who is James Esses?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,056
    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    Leon's been on Substack for five minutes and already the others are scrabbling for cover.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,861
    If Badenoch isn't in the final two and Jenrick wins this then I will see you in the poorhouse @TSE !!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,861
    HYUFD said:

    Yes, Badenoch remains Conservative members favourite but I can't see Tory MPs putting her in the last 2 anymore than they did in 2022. I think more likely it will be Jenrick v either Tugendhat or Cleverly which on the Yougov members' poll Jenrick would narrowly win against Tugendhat but Cleverly could win against Jenrick.

    One thing we can certainly say is Stride or Patel are not going to win given their poor polling with members

    Do they drop out in exchange for some goodies?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    Sandpit said:

    2nd like Kamala Harris.

    "This fall Donald Trump will finally know what it's like when you get left for a younger woman."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    Jenrick has a better net approval rating with the public than Badenoch on -1% to her -8%

    https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/james-cleverly-tops-list-who-would-make-good-tory-leader-3-in-5-say-they-dont-care

  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The housing crisis is indeed really complicated. In addition, as we live in a democracy, whatever gets done has to bring enough of the people along with it. The cry of frustration of, "Sod 'em, impose this and be done with it," simply can't work - at least not for more than one or two election cycles at best, and solving the issue won't be done in that timescale.

    The simplistic "build more and prices come down" approach runs into the problem that whilst it may be true to an extent nationwide, it's not true locally (and that's cantering past the fact that actually it's "Build more and price rises won't be as great as otherwise but won't necessarily go into reverse"). Induced demand is a thing - build a load of expensive four and five bedroom houses and people will come into the area from more expensive areas outside of it. As long as other aspects of the area are sufficiently attractive. You can build loads of new houses - as we have done in the Vale - continually in the top five LAs in the country for rate (as per Pulpstar), but house prices have continued to climb. Because our population has climbed to match the housing, as we've pulled people into these new houses from elsewhere.

    This makes it hard to sell to the local population. We've used the argument that housebuilding means lower house prices than otherwise, and they naturally point to the fact that houses are more unaffordable than ever, leaving us to have to argue "Yes, but they'd be even MORE unaffordable if we hadn't, honest."

    Meanwhile schools get more and more oversubscribed, no-one can get into a GP surgery locally, roads jam up, the sewerage system is utterly unfit for purpose and people literally end up wading through shit (in one ward, during the storms over winter, we had the unedifying spectacle of seeing a literal shower of shit), developers continually fail to provide what was promised, Neighbourhood Development Plans get ignored as unenforceable, previously loved green spaces get concreted over... and your children STILL can't get anywhere near affording a house.

    Telling people they're being unreasonable and NIMBYs just doesn't cut the mustard at that point.

    There are solutions, but because they're not ultra-simple, and can involve compromises and costs, they're difficult to sell and not quick to explain.

    There isn't an LA in the country that is building sufficient houses, as per Pulpstar's data.

    Building not enough, but being less bad than elsewhere, is simply failing less badly not succeeding.
    Nope.

    Pulpstar's data showed us increasing our housing stock by more than 10% over the past five years. At that rate, that's five million new houses per decade. If everyone else had done what we'd done over the past five years, we'd be half way to being out of the housing crisis already.

    A single LA can't provide all the housing you need for the entire country.

    As we don't have North Korea-style borders about the district, it simply means we absorb a tiny fraction of the issues from elsewhere. It's literally impossible for us to build enough houses to satisfy your simplistic cry: we'd have to build the five million or so houses ourselves (on top of the 50,000 with which we started a decade ago).

    Meanwhile our residents are suffering all the infrastructure issues I described (and you ignore).

    So - how many houses should the Vale of White Horse be building?
    How does five million over a decade remotely address a ten million shortage?

    You're right it doesn't all have to come from one LA, but no LA is doing remotely enough.

    I'd suggest a minimum of 3,500 completions per annum per authority as a starting point - more could of course be better but that should be the bare minimum per annum.

    Looking at it, Vale of White Horse had just over 2000 completions in a seven year period, unless I'm misreading the data, so they've not even hit the minimum we need per year over a seven year period.

    Dismal failure.
    Why ten million?
    To have the same ratio of houses per population as France, we'd need 3.9 million more houses than we currently have.
    (we're at 434 per thousand; they're at 590 per thousand).

    And yes, you're massively misreading the data. We had over a thousand completions last year alone.
    7,330 over the past seven years (from Pulpstar's table).
    Bear in mind that a decade ago, we had just over 50,000 to start with.

    For someone who purports to dislike NIMBYs, you seem to aim to go out of your way to create more of them.
    I'm literally very active in trying to sort this problem out, we're one of the leading LAs in the country, and you're calling our rate and attempts "dismal failures" - partly because you can't even read a spreadsheet.

    God, the keyboard warriors who just complain, spout simplistic crap, and do nothing to actively help. Meanwhile, I've been active in promoting a 4000+ development that crosses into my ward, working hard to get a Graven Hill style development in my ward, pushing policies to streamline development, helped with an LDO for technical building development in my ward, and done my damndest to get enforcement on developers to mitigate the inevitable backlash against further development.

    What have you done?
    Getting to the same as France is insufficient. It would be an improvement, but France has a housing shortage and expensive housing too. 4 million would make us less bad than we are today, but not good enough.

    Plus we have ongoing population growth and demographic changes.

    As for the Vale of White Horse data, I got it from the Vale of White Horse website, based on what came up from Google: Vale of White Horse District Council
    https://www.whitehorsedc.gov.ukPDF
    Housing Summary

    Page 7 put the figure on completions as 2338 in a 7 year period.

    Now if you've got a better figure I'd be interested but either way it's not enough. There are 317 authorities so just 1000 per authority would not get us anywhere near the millions needed.
    The link's broken.

    Vale of White Horse has had 7330 completions in the previous 7 years (I've checked and I've correctly copied the ONS data from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/housebuildingukpermanentdwellingsstartedandcompletedbylocalauthority , and is clearly pulling it's weight so far as housing is concerned. Where are you getting this 2338 figure from ?
    This is what came up on Google. It is to be fair for 2011-2018, but is what came up so went with that data.

    7330 completions in 7 years is barely over a thousand completions per annum, which is better than most authorities but is completely insufficient to address the millions of homes shortage we have. That would average at ~332k homes per annum if replicated across the country in every LA. 7338 / 7 * 317 (number of LAs) to get to that figure.
    You're aware local authorities are of differing size ?

    Birmingham is a single local authority and so are the Isles of Scilly.
    Of course they are.

    Vale of White Horse according to Google has an area of 578.6 km^2 while Birmingham has an area of 267.8 km^2.

    So Vale of White Horse should if we are averaging it by area be doing roughly double the completions of Birmingham.

    Either way you slice it, its insufficient.
    You think North Yorkshire should be required to produce 31 times more dwellings than Birmingham ?!

    It's a view.
    Where are you getting 31x from?

    I averaged at saying they should be required to produce the same. I averaged at a minimum of 3500 per annum per LA to close the housing shortage, that's the same for Vale as it is for Birmingham.

    Even though Vale has much, much, much more space to be building new homes and new towns than Birmingham, so its considerably easier for Vale to do so.
    North Yorkshire has much more land available. On your logic that it should be done on land area, of which they have 31 times as much as Birmingham, they should produce 31 times as many dwellings as Birmingham.

    Just doing it on "per LA" means that you have a huge variation on land area, existing housing stock, and population size. Meaning that it would be trivially easy for North Yorkshire, and incredibly difficult for the Scilly Isles (which would be building 1.5 houses every year per existing person (man, woman, and child) living there at the moment)
    My logic was not that it should be done by area, my logic is that it can be done by area, and absolutely I have no qualms with a lot of development happening in Yorkshire. There is plenty of space for new towns in Yorkshire.

    New towns are a good thing and can be built easier where towns don't exist than where they already do.

    Have you any good reason why Vale can't fit one or more new towns in its 578 km^2 area?
    Three:

    Infrastructure.
    AONB.
    Safeguarded land.
    Infrastructure can be built. Indeed if you're going to build a new town, its pretty much going to be coming with new infrastructure, that's rather the point!

    How much area is undeveloped in land that is neither AONB nor safeguarded?
    You may be interested in this interactive map: https://www.planning.data.gov.uk/map/?dataset=ancient-woodland&dataset=area-of-outstanding-natural-beauty&dataset=conservation-area&dataset=flood-risk-zone&dataset=green-belt&dataset=local-authority-district&dataset=site-of-special-scientific-interest#51.65277149291191,-1.3717119710836414,10.298518591478354z

    I've set it to AONB, Green Belt, Flood zone, Ancient Woodland, SSI as these tend to squeeze out development.

    Safeguarded land isn't readily available, but off the top of my head, about two thirds of my ward by area is safeguarded by Thames Water for their megareservoir proposal, and there's safeguarded land south of Abingdon for a proposed bypass that never seems to be coming.

    The Local Plan (which contains those safeguardings) is here: https://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/vale-of-white-horse-district-council/planning-and-development/local-plan-and-planning-policies/local-plan-2031/

    Have fun.
    Had a play with the map. I'll grant you AONB, Ancient Woodland and SSI. Flood risk is questionable - risk means actions need to be taken to minimise risk, it doesn't mean zero potential, but even left that on against my better judgment.

    Green Belt should be abolished entirely. It should not exist at all. If we are to encourage more sprawl so we can have more developments for people to live in, as I think we should, then the Green Belt just gets in the way of that for no justifiable reason.

    Playing with the map, I can see whole swathes of undeveloped land in Vale, which are ripe for potential development, that are not in AONB or Woodland etc.

    If you're going to build entire new towns, or large sprawling developments, then placing them in places like Vale where there is open land available to be developed is better than placing them on top of pre-existing buildings in places like Birmingham that have already been developed.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,171
    edited August 23

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,293
    HYUFD said:

    Yes, Badenoch remains Conservative members favourite but I can't see Tory MPs putting her in the last 2 anymore than they did in 2022. I think more likely it will be Jenrick v either Tugendhat or Cleverly which on the Yougov members' poll Jenrick would narrowly win against Tugendhat but Cleverly could win against Jenrick. Jenrick leads Tugenhat 38% to 36%


    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50368-kemi-badenoch-leads-in-first-yougov-poll-of-tory-members-for-2024-leadership-contest

    One thing we can certainly say is Stride or Patel are not going to win given their poor polling with members

    If you take the 2022 final order and cross out those who are tragically unavailable, Badenoch is top of the list. What might do for her is the perception that she's just too awful a person, even to be leader of the opposition.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,581
    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    JENRICK
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,581
    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    I reckon you are the chief Goodwinner on PB. Something like 70% of all Goodwins can be laid at your door Andy.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,581

    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    Who is James Esses?
    Who cares?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,030
    ...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    JENRICK
    Jenrick's policies in full:

    - Ozempic for all
    - New National Chivvying Service to get everyone out of bed at 6am for their morning exercise
    - Fines for Fatties - on the spot penalties for being out in public while overweight
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,411
    edited August 23
    I'm going to FPT this, as I think it is important though quite niche. And even quite on-topic :smile: .
    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    That recording of Jan 6th is indeed brutal. But it is not new. How can anyone support Trump after that, let alone nearly 45% of Americans?

    I genuinely find it bewildering. How can any elected official of any part of the party think this is ok?

    Many Americans see a very different picture of events, they’re fed a stream of propaganda on Fox News etc. They see a different reality, they’re told lies. They’re in a Facebook bubble where they believe that Harris slept her way to the top, lies about her ethnicity and her family, and is a communist. They’ve absorbed a message that the country is in a crisis because of immigrants and anyone who isn’t white.

    These beliefs don’t spontaneously emerge. They are rehearsed, over and over again, by traditional and social media on the right.
    It's why we should close down GB News.

    Prevention is better than cure.
    What calumnies are you alleging GBNews have been guilty of?
    Spreading antivax bollocks for starters such as

    GB News broke Ofcom rules with presenter’s Covid vaccine claims

    Regulator says Mark Steyn’s use of data to draw misleading conclusions breached content guidelines


    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/06/gb-news-broke-ofcom-rules-presenter-covid-vaccine-claims-mark-steyn

    and

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/13/gb-news-turbo-cancer-conspiracy-theories-ofcom-bias-anti-vaxxer
    GB News is an entertainment channel for right wing morons and Farage supporters masquerading as a bona fide news channel.
    On GB News, I don't understand how Gloria de Piero is still there. I'm surprised she hasn't jumped ship for somewhere like Times Radio.

    Unlike Lee Anderson, she hasn't gone loopy, and still does interesting work.

    Her twitter feed is civilised and interesting, as opposed to Anderson's constant dog whistles.
    https://x.com/GloriaDePiero

    On GBNews itself, it is owned by Sir Paul Marshall and investment firm Legatum. Paul Marshall also owns Unherd, and is in the running to buy the Spectator and the Telegraph.

    https://archive.ph/K4Y0S

    He's also behind a big academy chain, and is involved in the Church Revitalisation Trust, which relaunches Anglican churches in a very specific way;

    The article I linked talks about that, and about how he attends HTB, but it is by a Political Correspondent - and imo has little clue about that church, or Church of England evangelicalism. Some accurate stuff in there, but no real knowledge.

    Your linked piece by Andrew Graystone is better in it's reporting, but he is in my view far too conspiratorial in his analysis. This review of Graystone's book by Dr Ian Paul is a good foil to that article:
    https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/does-bleeding-for-jesus-help-resolve-abuse-issues/

    All of these need to be taken with our own pinch of salt.

    I have yet to get a handle on how I understand Paul Marshall; I think his motivations and expressed objectives are OK, but I question his judgement, and I do wonder whether he has been put out of balance by exposure to something like the ideology of Nat Con.
    HTB one of the wealthiest and largest C of E churches in the nation and also where Welby was brought to faith and very much linked to the evangelical block he as Archbishop has championed. 'Holy Trinity (universally known as HTB) is no ordinary church. It has a budget of around £10m a year and a staff of 118, making it larger than several Church of England dioceses. Most parishes in the Church of England struggle to afford a curate. HTB has 28. In addition, there are no fewer than 14 ordinands—people in training to be priests or ministers. Together with four ministers, that totals 46 in leadership or training roles for one parish.

    HTB is the home of the evangelistic Alpha course, and a centre of the charismatic church movement. Charismatic Christians believe that God intervenes personally in their lives through direct encounters with the Holy Spirit, sometimes in the form of ecstatic experiences. They may believe that God’s approval is expressed in their increasing numbers, wealth and influence. Over recent decades, HTB’s impact has extended into every corner of the Church of England. It is the engine room that now drives the Church—much to the resentment of many faithful clergy in poorer, more doctrinally diverse and less influential churches. HTB is the only parish church with its own caucus on the General Synod, the Church of England’s lawmaking body. The view from Brompton Road is that the Church is divided between those who champion the true faith and those who do not, and that God is blessing the faithful.

    HTB is also the church that formed Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury. He was baptised there, married there and attended consistently until his mid-thirties...'
    Even in that quote there's quite a lot that is exaggerated, mischaracterised or shorn of context - which is why I added the link I did.

    I don't think we want to do the detailed history of HTB, or the Diocese of London's approach to mission / diversity developed under Bishop Richard Chartres, in the comments at PB !

    If anyone really wants to read into the recent (ie since 1980) history of HTB and linked movements the place I would recommend to start is the blog of Rev Richard Moy, who wrote a thesis about HTB Network, and has gems such as an account of an interview with Rev John Collins, who laid many foundations as the Vicar of HTB before Sandy Millar - a seminal figure:

    https://yournameislikehoney.com/2021/09/13/part-1-what-am-i-writing-and-why/

    (There may be a couple of typos in my post here.)
    Interesting though on the politics front that Richard Tice, Farage's Deputy and now a Reform party MP and before a wealthy businessman and CEO of CLS Holdings attended the same Iwerne muscular Christian camps Welby did led by John Smyth QC, now with abuse allegations made against Smyth.

    As well as funding HTB with millions, Sir Paul Marshall also has given millions to GB News and helped fund Gove's leadership bid.
    He was also once an Orange Book LD before defecting to the Tories due to backing Brexit

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news
    Yes - agree that there is much that of interest.

    One of the things that I find interesting is how many try to use Archbishop Welby as a blank slate / straw man to use in their politics as a fake-up icon of things they oppose.

    On one end Andrew Graystone who wrote that piece is trying to in a way paint him as a Muscular Evangelical something something taking over the Church of England for the HTB tendency - HTB being defined as the heart of CofE evangelicalism (it isn't, and CofE evangelicalism is far more complex).

    If you look at the National Conservative types (Truss, Braverman, Rees-Mogg possibly shading into Tice, Bridgen, Carl Benjamin type rhetoric) they attempt to portray Welby as representing liberal toleration of gay marriage and 'transgenderism' being imported wholesale into the CofE. Those are themes also being deployed by the near-edge of the far tight, shading into Tommy Robinson's "Patriotic Christian" allies / useful idiots.

    (There I'm using Tommy Robinson as my own icon.)

    Both of those positions are caricatures of where Welby stands, one trying to link him to a harder edged conservative evangelical tradition that is more accurately defined by Reform (evangelical movement not political party) movement linked to Rev David Holloway / Evangelical Times or even James Anderton (the Manchester anti-gay policeman) type emphases, the other trying to make him a liberal icon.

    Reality is much more subtle, as I am sure we agree.

    One of my concerns is UK Natcons adopting more simplistic / dogmatic ideas from some US Evangelical traditions. Neither UK conservatives or the UK itself will swallow that except at the margins. There imo lies a wrecked future if the Conservative Party goes in that direction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.

    In 2016 the Tory PM of the time David Cameron led the Remain campaign but it was 52% of British voters who voted for Brexit, then they gave Boris a landslide majority to deliver it in 2019.

    Even now the majority of Tory voters still back staying outside the EU and EEA and even most voters overall would reject rejoin if it required the Euro for instance
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313

    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    Who is James Esses?
    Joey Essex's long lost, more brainy brother?
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 435
    edited August 23

    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    JENRICK
    Jenrick's policies in full:

    - Ozempic for all
    - New National Chivvying Service to get everyone out of bed at 6am for their morning exercise
    - Fines for Fatties - on the spot penalties for being out in public while overweight
    (a) Who would be your pick?
    and
    (b) Who d'y'recon gets the gig?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    edited August 23

    HYUFD said:

    Yes, Badenoch remains Conservative members favourite but I can't see Tory MPs putting her in the last 2 anymore than they did in 2022. I think more likely it will be Jenrick v either Tugendhat or Cleverly which on the Yougov members' poll Jenrick would narrowly win against Tugendhat but Cleverly could win against Jenrick. Jenrick leads Tugenhat 38% to 36%


    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50368-kemi-badenoch-leads-in-first-yougov-poll-of-tory-members-for-2024-leadership-contest

    One thing we can certainly say is Stride or Patel are not going to win given their poor polling with members

    If you take the 2022 final order and cross out those who are tragically unavailable, Badenoch is top of the list. What might do for her is the perception that she's just too awful a person, even to be leader of the opposition.
    Currently 10 Tory MPs openly back Jenrick, Badenoch is tied for second with Tugendhat on 6 each

    https://conservativehome.com/2024/08/21/next-tory-leader-which-mp-is-backing-whom-cleverly-surges-ahead-to-two-supporters/
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,389
    The Conservative Party is still allowing members to pick a leader?

    Hmmm....they don't exactly have a great track record.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    If @TheScreamingEagles wants an alternative for his favourite Farage pic, I offer this, from Trump's Arizona visit yesterday.
    https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1826817115526951416
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    JENRICK
    Jenrick's policies in full:

    - Ozempic for all
    - New National Chivvying Service to get everyone out of bed at 6am for their morning exercise
    - Fines for Fatties - on the spot penalties for being out in public while overweight
    (a) Who would be your pick?
    and
    (b) Who d'y'recon gets the gig?
    Not sure but not Cleverly, Tugendhat or Stride.

    Badenoch will probably win.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    edited August 23

    The Conservative Party is still allowing members to pick a leader?

    Hmmm....they don't exactly have a great track record.

    Conservative members voted for Cameron in 2005 and Johnson in 2019, the only Conservative leaders this century to win a GE majority.

  • Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,433
    HYUFD said:

    The Conservative Party is still allowing members to pick a leader?

    Hmmm....they don't exactly have a great track record.

    Conservative members voted for Cameron in 2005 and Johnson in 2019, the only Conservative leaders this century to win a GE majority.

    But they also voted for Truss, while Labour members voted for Jeremy Corbyn...

    The prosecution rests their case
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,171
    edited August 23

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775
    edited August 23

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    And how on earth do we plan for sewage, water, reservoirs, roads, mains electricity, school places, GP surgeries etc etc on that basis? Planning is not just about the use of the individual plot, its not even mainly about that. We simply cannot have people randomly adding to the demand on essential services without some form of control.
  • Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,293

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    What people want is a big house with a big garden with all the amenities of a big city within walking distance. After all, there are houses like that, and they are bonkers expensive.

    But we can't all live like that; too many big gardens and the amenities stop being within walking distance. Even if you liberalise planning, you can't change geometry. So we have to make tradeoffs. Looking at prices, most people prefer a smaller gaff with life they don't have to drive to to something bigger and remoter.

    Keep building the second for those who really want it, sure, but choice points to building more urbia than suburbia. The downside is that it needs more thought and (trigger alert) planning to make it work.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
  • DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    And how on earth do we plan for sewage, water, reservoirs, roads, mains electricity, school places, GP surgeries etc etc on that basis? Planning is not just about the use of the individual plot, its not even mainly about that. We simply cannot have people randomly adding to the demand on essential services without some form of control.
    We don't, we adapt and react and people pay for their own connections as required.

    Just as if people have kids in a house that was previously owned by pensioners, or if a house that was owned by people with kids is sixty years later still owned by the same family who now don't have kids but do need care instead, then we need to adapt to those changes too.
  • Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    I'm not proposing people get the land for free, I'm proposing they can do what they want with their own land and that people can buy and sell land to do with what the prospective new owner wants to do with it.

    If someone owns land and wants to sell it to someone who wants to build houses on it, why should that not be allowed?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,515

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    Have you tried to mow 10 acres of land?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,411
    edited August 23
    For my today's photo quota, I'm very tempted by Farage Black Shorts, but I'll go for another Accidental Renaissance Painting.

    The Morning After The Night Before. Beautiful natural side-lighting.


    The decor is a good example of Modern Hipster style which is on-trend in student houses.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion...
    Yes but it's essentially a reductio of your argument.
    The simple amount of land available in the UK isn't, of course, the only practical constraint on housebuilding.
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 435
    edited August 23

    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    JENRICK
    Jenrick's policies in full:

    - Ozempic for all
    - New National Chivvying Service to get everyone out of bed at 6am for their morning exercise
    - Fines for Fatties - on the spot penalties for being out in public while overweight
    (a) Who would be your pick?
    and
    (b) Who d'y'recon gets the gig?
    Not sure but not Cleverly, Tugendhat or Stride.

    Badenoch will probably win.
    Thanks.

    I think the situation is still somewhat existential for the party, but the odds of fading into electoral irrelevance are lower than they were, not all that long ago.

    That's probably a good thing for the country and our politics.

    Could be a long road back to power, though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,861

    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    Who is James Esses?
    No idea but I'd wager he is obsessed with some kind of mythical elite who are flooding the country with migrants whilst spending every evening at n london dinner parties waxing over the joys of migrant labour and multi-cultural cooking.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,019

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    Have you tried to mow 10 acres of land?
    Why would I mow it when the gov will pay me to plant trees on it?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,775

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
  • Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion...
    Yes but it's essentially a reductio of your argument.
    The simple amount of land available in the UK isn't, of course, the only practical constraint on housebuilding.
    Its not a constraint at all.

    Prior to the awful introduction of the planning act in the UK land was worth a meagre 2% of the cost of a house.

    Today land is typically worth 33% of the cost of houses.

    That's not because land is magically higher demand now, its because of planning.

    Land without consent that gains it can see 100x increase in its value. Again not due to the land actually being worth more or greater or lesser supply, all artificial due to the planning system.

    Deregulation would solve the problems here.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,411
    edited August 23

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    Have you tried to mow 10 acres of land?
    ----------------- Quotes buggered.
    I'd do something sheepish, then have a lamb sandwich.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    I'm not proposing people get the land for free, I'm proposing they can do what they want with their own land and that people can buy and sell land to do with what the prospective new owner wants to do with it.

    If someone owns land and wants to sell it to someone who wants to build houses on it, why should that not be allowed?
    So you would be in favour of a consortium of people against development buying up 90% of the land and letting people who want housing to make do with the rest?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    Is it true that if you invest in gold sovereigns you don't have to pay capital gains tax?
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,433

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    Have you tried to mow 10 acres of land?
    Fleet of 5 robotic mowers and you won't have a problem...
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,171
    edited August 23

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    I'm not proposing people get the land for free, I'm proposing they can do what they want with their own land and that people can buy and sell land to do with what the prospective new owner wants to do with it.

    If someone owns land and wants to sell it to someone who wants to build houses on it, why should that not be allowed?
    So you would be in favour of a consortium of people against development buying up 90% of the land and letting people who want housing to make do with the rest?
    If they want to pay for the land and pay the taxes on the land (I equally think we should income less and tax land more and tax it based on its undeveloped value so those holding undeveloped land pay the same as those holding developed land) then that's their choice. Free market.

    Voting to tell other people they can't build on their land, that I do not support.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    And how on earth do we plan for sewage, water, reservoirs, roads, mains electricity, school places, GP surgeries etc etc on that basis? Planning is not just about the use of the individual plot, its not even mainly about that. We simply cannot have people randomly adding to the demand on essential services without some form of control.
    We don't, we adapt and react and people pay for their own connections as required.

    Just as if people have kids in a house that was previously owned by pensioners, or if a house that was owned by people with kids is sixty years later still owned by the same family who now don't have kids but do need care instead, then we need to adapt to those changes too.
    It really honestly doesn't work that way. The first stage is a structural plan. That plan forecasts demand for an area depending on likely development and growth. It then considers the likes of sewage in a location. If the existing sewage plants don't have sufficient capacity, and they often don't, then a decision has to be made as to whether or not to increase that provision. This will involve the spending of tens of millions. Those that gain from that additional provision may be asked to pay some of that back as a condition of any consent.

    Once you move from the structural plan you can move to a more detailed plan. That helps determine where in the area the additional housing supply is best placed for reasons of the existing roads, schools, etc. If I owned 10 acres and built 30 houses on it I may cause serious logjams in the local roads or a very difficult to deal with surge in membership of the local primary school.

    These are the issues that cause planning delay. And we simply cannot operate a society without them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion...
    Yes but it's essentially a reductio of your argument.
    The simple amount of land available in the UK isn't, of course, the only practical constraint on housebuilding.
    Its not a constraint at all.

    Prior to the awful introduction of the planning act in the UK land was worth a meagre 2% of the cost of a house.
    And nothing else has changed since 1947 ?

    I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate the practicality of your libertarian utopia, which almost no one else is advocating. A few rhetorical points aren't going to do it.
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,405

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    I like a house with a big garden, but I suspect most people don't, these days.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion...
    Yes but it's essentially a reductio of your argument.
    The simple amount of land available in the UK isn't, of course, the only practical constraint on housebuilding.
    Its not a constraint at all.

    Prior to the awful introduction of the planning act in the UK land was worth a meagre 2% of the cost of a house.
    And nothing else has changed since 1947 ?

    I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate the practicality of your libertarian utopia, which almost no one else is advocating. A few rhetorical points aren't going to do it.
    Its been done elsewhere and works.

    https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,837
    I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    How big would London be if everyone lived in a house?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,389
    HYUFD said:

    The Conservative Party is still allowing members to pick a leader?

    Hmmm....they don't exactly have a great track record.

    Conservative members voted for Cameron in 2005 and Johnson in 2019, the only Conservative leaders this century to win a GE majority.

    So by that very narrow criterion it's a fifty percent success rate.

    Is that a pass mark?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Truss was 'unambigiously pro growth' but it led to disaster as she pushed through massive tax cuts while keeping spending high but her heavy demand and growth increasing policies just led to high inflation and interest rates as debt rose and there was no accompanying supply side productivity increases.

    In 2016 the Tory PM of the time David Cameron led the Remain campaign but it was 52% of British voters who voted for Brexit, then they gave Boris a landslide majority to deliver it in 2019.

    Even now the majority of Tory voters still back staying outside the EU and EEA and even most voters overall would reject rejoin if it required the Euro for instance
    Indeed the author should really have pointed out that the PM unambiguously pro growth is not sufficient on its own. They should also be both sane and competent enough to last longer than a lettuce. Please bear this in mind for the Tory leadership election.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion...
    Yes but it's essentially a reductio of your argument.
    The simple amount of land available in the UK isn't, of course, the only practical constraint on housebuilding.
    Its not a constraint at all.

    Prior to the awful introduction of the planning act in the UK land was worth a meagre 2% of the cost of a house.
    And nothing else has changed since 1947 ?

    I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate the practicality of your libertarian utopia, which almost no one else is advocating. A few rhetorical points aren't going to do it.
    Its been done elsewhere and works.

    https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60
    Japan also has a declining population. What works there would have different effects here when combined with mass immigration.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452
    An interesting analysis.

    Terms used in Harris speech:

    America, American, Americans: 34 times.
    Country or nation: ~ 20 times.
    Democrats or Democratic Party: 0 times.

    Freedom: 12 times.
    Family or families: 8 times.
    Opportunity: 6 times.
    Race or gender: Once ("regardless of party, race, or gender").

    https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1826950713622036770
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    How big would London be if everyone lived in a house?
    What difference does that make?

    There's plenty of land in the South East that those who want a house could sprawl into.

    And I never advocated that we should only have houses, merely that everyone who wants one should be able to build one.

    People who prefer a flat in a city centre should have that choice too.

    I'm pro-choice.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion...
    Yes but it's essentially a reductio of your argument.
    The simple amount of land available in the UK isn't, of course, the only practical constraint on housebuilding.
    Its not a constraint at all.

    Prior to the awful introduction of the planning act in the UK land was worth a meagre 2% of the cost of a house.
    And nothing else has changed since 1947 ?

    I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate the practicality of your libertarian utopia, which almost no one else is advocating. A few rhetorical points aren't going to do it.
    Its been done elsewhere and works.

    https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60
    Japan also has a declining population. What works there would have different effects here when combined with mass immigration.
    Tokyo does not have a declining population.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832
    Nigelb said:

    An interesting analysis.

    Terms used in Harris speech:

    America, American, Americans: 34 times.
    Country or nation: ~ 20 times.
    Democrats or Democratic Party: 0 times.

    Freedom: 12 times.
    Family or families: 8 times.
    Opportunity: 6 times.
    Race or gender: Once ("regardless of party, race, or gender").

    https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1826950713622036770

    She's copying the Starmer strategy of going big on nationalist symbolism and rhetoric.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,915
    Sean_F said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    20 million mansions with 10 acres each is 200 million acres. Do you see the problem?
    Yes, the problem is you were being absurd with the 10 acres each suggestion.

    You can easily fit five detached houses within an acre. 20 million of those would take 4 million acres then, which the UK easily has available undeveloped.

    So no, absence of land to build on is not our problem. Everyone could live in a detached house, no problem. Let alone a semi-detached house.
    But people prefer more land. If you had a choice of an estate of 5 acres or 10 acres, you'd want the 10 acres, wouldn't you?
    I like a house with a big garden, but I suspect most people don't, these days.
    Whats my remaining budget like for gardeners?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    Well I made a big mistake in deciding to go to watch the cricket tomorrow instead of today. Looks like tomorrow is now more likely to be washed out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    We don't want a concrete jungle either, new homes should be focused on brownbelt land and high rise first if possible
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,005

    I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…

    I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty).
    Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,176
    Andy_JS said:

    Is it true that if you invest in gold sovereigns you don't have to pay capital gains tax?

    (opens Microsoft Edge browser, clicks on Copilot symbol)

    You
    Hello Copilot. Is it true that if you purchase British gold sovereigns you don't have to pay capital gains tax when you sell them?

    Copilot
    Yes, that’s correct! British gold sovereigns, along with other bullion coins produced by The Royal Mint such as Britannia coins, are exempt from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) in the UK. This is because they are considered legal tender123. This makes them a popular choice for investors looking to avoid CGT on their gold investments.

    Are you considering investing in gold sovereigns?

    1 https://www.royalmint.com/invest/discover/invest-in-gold/all-that-investors-need-to-know-about-gold-and-tax/
    2 https://cheshiregoldxchange.co.uk/gold/do-you-pay-tax-when-selling-gold-in-the-uk-2024-25-capital-gains-tax
    3 https://www.gold.co.uk/info/capital-gains-tax/
    4 https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/how-to-buy-gold/paying-capital-gains-tax-on-gold/
    5 https://www.royalmint.com/gold-price/capital-gains-tax-on-investments/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    edited August 23
    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    And how on earth do we plan for sewage, water, reservoirs, roads, mains electricity, school places, GP surgeries etc etc on that basis? Planning is not just about the use of the individual plot, its not even mainly about that. We simply cannot have people randomly adding to the demand on essential services without some form of control.
    Bart's policy seems to be build all over the greenbelt but with no guaranteed infrastructure with it and no reduction in immigration either, which would make Rishi 2024 or Clegg 2015 or Brown 2029's policies look insanely popular!
  • HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    We don't want a concrete jungle either, new homes should be focused on brownbelt land and high rise first if possible
    Shitty high rise flats is a concrete jungle.

    Suburban spawl of pleasant [semi-]detached houses with gardens is the precise opposite of a concrete jungle.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    How big would London be if everyone lived in a house?
    They already tried this in the capital of Ireland and the city just kept Dublin.
    The problem with all these cowboy builders is that they never build towns that are big enough for the both of us.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    Nigelb said:

    An interesting analysis.

    Terms used in Harris speech:

    America, American, Americans: 34 times.
    Country or nation: ~ 20 times.
    Democrats or Democratic Party: 0 times.

    Freedom: 12 times.
    Family or families: 8 times.
    Opportunity: 6 times.
    Race or gender: Once ("regardless of party, race, or gender").

    https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1826950713622036770

    Her speech, in my opinion, bordered on the banal. Sweeping generalities about what she hopes to achieve, no specifics at all about how that might be done. It was perhaps sufficient for the occasion but this lack of detail is becoming troubling. It helps, a lot, that her opponent is a mad, old, corrupt, sociopath with a predilection for law breaking, indeed it might even be enough. But the lack of clarity about her objectives or her means as President is going to make actual progress difficult.
  • I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…

    I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty).
    Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
    I did engage with it.

    I said I support the idea of building out infrastructure in advance of building houses as one element of boosting construction, but that it should not be a barrier to allowing people to build whatever they want elsewhere because the problem is that NIMBY politicians won't build enough infrastructure.

    You have been active but you've been actively wanting nothing like the amount of construction I support and you reacted with utter horror at the suggestion there should be considerably more houses in your area than you wanted. Which is classic NIMBYism.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,176
    Andy_JS said:

    An important announcement from James Esses about a new collaboration with Matt Goodwin.

    https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exciting-announcement

    I'm not quite sure what the synergy is here. Esses gets a reputation for being being anti-immigrant and Goodwin gets a reputation for being gender-critical? Although it does have a whiff of the Dark Avengers...he's putting together a team :open_mouth:
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,138

    I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    Are you suggesting the argument is just going round the houses?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,832
    edited August 23

    I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…

    I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty).
    Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
    I did engage with it.

    I said I support the idea of building out infrastructure in advance of building houses as one element of boosting construction, but that it should not be a barrier to allowing people to build whatever they want elsewhere because the problem is that NIMBY politicians won't build enough infrastructure.

    You have been active but you've been actively wanting nothing like the amount of construction I support and you reacted with utter horror at the suggestion there should be considerably more houses in your area than you wanted. Which is classic NIMBYism.
    You've expressed horror about having considerably more housing in a given area than you want. You call it "piling them on top", "shitty flats", "concrete jungles", etc. Perhaps you're the real NIMBY.
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,440
    edited August 23

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    Given that about 80% of farmland is used to raise animals: grazing, barns and agricultural land used to grow crops to feed the animals, you being a carnivore shouldn't be keen to concrete over the countryside.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    We don't want a concrete jungle either, new homes should be focused on brownbelt land and high rise first if possible
    Shitty high rise flats is a concrete jungle.

    Suburban spawl of pleasant [semi-]detached houses with gardens is the precise opposite of a concrete jungle.
    There are some beautiful high rise flats for young people with great views over London now even in Sratford with private balconies etc. Some come with on site gyms, pools, concierges, porters etc too

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/146603273#/?channel=RES_BUY


    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/144952808#/?channel=RES_BUY
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/140947838#/?channel=RES_BUY
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452

    I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…

    I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty).
    Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
    I gave it a like.
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 435
    edited August 23

    FF43 said:

    One thing Kemi Badenoch has going for her. She's not Robert Jenrick.

    JENRICK
    Jenrick's policies in full:

    - Ozempic for all
    - New National Chivvying Service to get everyone out of bed at 6am for their morning exercise
    - Fines for Fatties - on the spot penalties for being out in public while overweight
    (a) Who would be your pick?
    and
    (b) Who d'y'recon gets the gig?
    Not sure but not Cleverly, Tugendhat or Stride.

    Badenoch will probably win.
    Thanks.

    I think the situation is still somewhat existential for the party, but the odds of fading into electoral irrelevance are lower than they were, not all that long ago.

    That's probably a good thing for the country and our politics.

    Could be a long road back to power, though.
    A fairly immediate problem the new leader/party will have is developing a by-election strategy fit for the new political context. Greens/LD's/Reform and even independents have professionalised and will fancy their chances, depending on the seat.

    I forsee an interesting challenge for Starmer, but perhaps even more of a challenge for the new tory leader - just to stay relevant.
  • I see PB is still in the middle of this circuitous discussion on housing.

    It must now surely have replaced cash (or the lack thereof) as the perennial debate on here…

    I'm quite disappointed that no-one bothered engaging with my five solution elements (least of all Barty).
    Given that I am, after all, on a planning committee and have been very active in development, Local Plan creation, and engaging with the issues actually coming up with development and infrastructure, I might be expected to have had some thoughts of use on it.
    I did engage with it.

    I said I support the idea of building out infrastructure in advance of building houses as one element of boosting construction, but that it should not be a barrier to allowing people to build whatever they want elsewhere because the problem is that NIMBY politicians won't build enough infrastructure.

    You have been active but you've been actively wanting nothing like the amount of construction I support and you reacted with utter horror at the suggestion there should be considerably more houses in your area than you wanted. Which is classic NIMBYism.
    You've expressed horror about having considerably more housing in a given area than you want. You call it "piling them on top", "shitty flats", "concrete jungles", etc. Perhaps you're the real NIMBY.
    Except for the fact I've said every time if people want to build or live in shitty flats, that would be their choice and I'm pro-choice and would respect their right to make that choice if that's what they want.

    What I oppose is forcing people to live in urban slums piled on top of each other when they want a house of thei own, not to live in a slum, because those who live in houses are saying no more houses near me.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,293

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    I would like a mansion personally.

    Please cater for me too.
    Good.

    You should be able to build a mansion wherever you want in my eyes, so long as its your land.

    If that's what you want, then what's stopping you?
    All the other selfish arseholes trying to build their own mansions
    No that's not a problem, there's plenty of land out there that's not been developed.
    You're not really interested in housing people at all. For you it's all about how much of the countryside you can cover in concrete.
    I couldn't care less how much of the countryside gets covered in concrete.

    I want everyone to be able to have a house of their own. Not a shitty flat.

    Countryside is a secondary concern. Its a place that houses could be built on, that haven't been.
    There is a total contradiction between your aesthetic dislike of "shitty flats" and your advocacy of indefinite population growth.
    Not really since we have the entire population in less than 5% of England's land and over 80% of people live in houses, not flats.

    Everyone could afford a house and we could quite literally double our population and we still wouldn't have covered most of the countryside with housing.
    How big would London be if everyone lived in a house?
    There are houses and houses.

    But let's suppose you wanted to house everyone in London at the density of Havering (and that's about fifty percent green belt).

    Havering is 2300 people per square km. London's population is about 9 million. So you would need about 4000 square kilometres or a radius of about 35 km. That's not much more than London already is, going East/West, though a fair bit bigger North/South. Croydon is about 15km from central London.

    TLDR: Most of London already is houses, and is pretty low density for a capital city.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,411
    Video with some analysis suggestion how Bayesian may have sunk from a 50-year career yacht designer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFOpw5UCn8s
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Wherever has the most green land can support more new homes.

    The idea of scaling by population is insane, so you want to pile new homes on top of existing ones do you?

    Building futuristic cities would be a better objective than allowing suburban sprawl all over the countryside.

    image
    If people want that, then great, and they will choose that. But if people want a house and garden of their own then why should we force people high into slums with no open spaces and no private gardens of their own?

    Sprawling into the countryside is far superior, it means everyone can have a house of their own, with a garden of their own.

    Remarkable how many people propose this who live in a house with a garden themselves. Really mean they want plebs to be in cities and not spoiling their view.
    If you compare the cost of a one-bed tenement in Edinburgh with a detached house in Bathgate, it's clear what people want.
    Not really, that's just comparing Edinburgh with Bathgate.

    Comparing like for like, its clear that everywhere people prefer detached houses over semis, semis over terraces, and terraces over flats. That's consistent everywhere.

    Let people build what they want and let them choose. If they choose flats then great and if they choose homes then great, let them have what they want.
    And people prefer mansions with 10 acres of land over detached houses, but not everyone can have one. Your problem is that you don't recognise the reality of scarcity.
    I recognise the reality of scarcity and have a solution to it.

    Abolish planning consent and allow people to build what they want wherever they want it.

    See how long scarcity lasts then.

    If 20 million mansions get built, then everyone can live in a mansion and the housing crisis is over.
    And how on earth do we plan for sewage, water, reservoirs, roads, mains electricity, school places, GP surgeries etc etc on that basis? Planning is not just about the use of the individual plot, its not even mainly about that. We simply cannot have people randomly adding to the demand on essential services without some form of control.
    Bart's policy seems to be build all over the greenbelt but with no guaranteed infrastructure with it and no reduction in immigration either, which would make Rishi 2024 or Clegg 2015 or Brown 2029's policies look insanely popular!
    Sorry, Brown 2010
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,176
    MattW said:

    Video with some analysis suggestion how Bayesian may have sunk from a 50-year career yacht designer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFOpw5UCn8s

    I will view that video and update my internal estimate of the probabilities accordingly. :)
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,019
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it true that if you invest in gold sovereigns you don't have to pay capital gains tax?

    (opens Microsoft Edge browser, clicks on Copilot symbol)

    You
    Hello Copilot. Is it true that if you purchase British gold sovereigns you don't have to pay capital gains tax when you sell them?

    Copilot
    Yes, that’s correct! British gold sovereigns, along with other bullion coins produced by The Royal Mint such as Britannia coins, are exempt from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) in the UK. This is because they are considered legal tender123. This makes them a popular choice for investors looking to avoid CGT on their gold investments.

    Are you considering investing in gold sovereigns?

    1 https://www.royalmint.com/invest/discover/invest-in-gold/all-that-investors-need-to-know-about-gold-and-tax/
    2 https://cheshiregoldxchange.co.uk/gold/do-you-pay-tax-when-selling-gold-in-the-uk-2024-25-capital-gains-tax
    3 https://www.gold.co.uk/info/capital-gains-tax/
    4 https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/info/how-to-buy-gold/paying-capital-gains-tax-on-gold/
    5 https://www.royalmint.com/gold-price/capital-gains-tax-on-investments/
    Security might be an issue so it's a good job I'm going to have 10 acres of land to bury them in!
This discussion has been closed.