Reply to: Queen's Speech: Infrastructure Bill

[darmstadt]

Actually a Ukip MEP has found the answer to housing immigrants, a bunkhouse

I suspect that he also used a recruitment agency that employs right wingers as well

[darmstadt]

Quite. he should have put them up in decent council houses

Bulgarian family of nine target UK and get council house and benefits in 3 weeks, but is this the norm?

Not only that but to please all the Europhiles he should have given them benefits and not make them work

No he's just doing what any right winger does, one rule for them, one for us and while we're about it, lets exploit the masses. I'd also like to know how he could give them benefits? Surely he was doing that by providing them with employment at just above minimum wage and only charging them a minimum of 50GBP a week to sleep in a bunkhouse when they only earnt 200-300GBP a week (I like his comment about that!)

Its quite interesting how he goes on about that Ukip are not against all immigration, just some (when it suits them!) I thought they only wanted skilled immigrants and not manual such as the ones he hired. He obviously didn't try very hard in finding indigenous labour, sorry but he is a hypocrite...

[Mich the Tester]

It's a major philosophical issue with democracy - people sometimes need to be saved from themselves.

If everyone votes for somebody else to pay more tax and for something that somebody else does to be banned, regulated or taxed, then before long everybody pays lots of tax to a government that bosses them around and stops them doing the things they like to do.

[Smartie]

The thing is, everyone's a NIMBY.

I don't think there's a person in the country who wouldn't object to a proposal to build a housing development that backs onto their back garden resulting in loss of privacy, peace and quiet, view etc. Oh, not to mention the attendant erosion in the value of the house.
Would anyone, seriously, roll over and have their tummy tickled and say it's for the greater good in that it will help to solve our housing crisis?
No. Of course not.
Not saying it's always the right attitude but just that anyone faced with the dilemma would do the same thing. I guess people who go on about NIMBYs are urban folk who are never going to find themselves in the situation.

Of course everyone's a NIMBY ;-) Everyone acts out of self-interest. It's like people voting for politicians who promise lower taxes AND higher spending though.
It ****s up the country eventually.

The problem is that it's much easier for people who are rich to fend off things that will negatively affect them which is increasing inequality. Like a good education being more related to wealth now since houses in the catchment area of the best schools are 40% higher than the local average (and education is key to social mobility).

Some things have to be done for the good of society as a whole because, with the exception of the amazingly wealthy, everyone is affected by problems in society. Many have kids who will suffer the consequences and parents who won't get good care.

China is building a huge amount of infrastructure because it has the will to do it. In the UK we struggle to build anything even vaguely comparable to the wonders of the Victorian engineers because individuals won't accept it and politicians take the easy way out and allow problems to pile up, generation upon generation.

It's a major philosophical issue with democracy - people sometimes need to be saved from themselves.

We need more homes, or fewer people, or a more balanced economy (away from London). Guess which solution is the easiest here.

[Mich the Tester]

You are quite right. The important fact remains that it was OUR government that did this and we made the choice.

That's true, and the EU did nothing and could do nothing to stop them, and rightly so IMHO. Would you have preferred the EU to step in and tell the slithering warmongering liar to desist?

[DodgyAgent]

No, to please the Europhiles he should return to the old distinction of contribution based (unemployment benefit, disability benefits), and residence based benefits (income support), thereby allowing denial of benefits to those who haven't paid into the benefit system for some number of years (3 for unemployment benefit in NL), and then tell people to go and get a ******* job or leave, as the Belgian government (probably the most Europhile of all governments) have just said to 2000 Dutch citizens who've tried to claim residence based benefits, and as the Dutch government will say to me if I ever turn up at the council asking for free money or a council house.

Your problem is not caused by the EU; there are more generous social security systems, like the Belgian, Dutch, Danish and German systems which are NOT being overrun by whole families from Bulgaria who've never paid in. Your problem was caused by the British government who removed the distinction between benefits for which you qualify by contributing, and benefits you get by being resident. I think, if I'm not wrong, it was the government led my a Mr Anthony B Liar, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

You are quite right. The important fact remains that it was OUR government that did this and we made the choice.

[Mich the Tester]

Quite. he should have put them up in decent council houses

Bulgarian family of nine target UK and get council house and benefits in 3 weeks, but is this the norm?

Not only that but to please all the Europhiles he should have given them benefits and not make them work

No, to please the Europhiles he should return to the old distinction of contribution based (unemployment benefit, disability benefits), and residence based benefits (income support), thereby allowing denial of benefits to those who haven't paid into the benefit system for some number of years (3 for unemployment benefit in NL), and then tell people to go and get a ******* job or leave, as the Belgian government (probably the most Europhile of all governments) have just said to 2000 Dutch citizens who've tried to claim residence based benefits, and as the Dutch government will say to me if I ever turn up at the council asking for free money or a council house.

Your problem is not caused by the EU; there are more generous social security systems, like the Belgian, Dutch, Danish and German systems which are NOT being overrun by whole families from Bulgaria who've never paid in. Your problem was caused by the British government who removed the distinction between benefits for which you qualify by contributing, and benefits you get by being resident. I think, if I'm not wrong, it was the government led my a Mr Anthony B Liar, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

[DodgyAgent]

Actually a Ukip MEP has found the answer to housing immigrants, a bunkhouse

Quite. he should have put them up in decent council houses

Bulgarian family of nine target UK and get council house and benefits in 3 weeks, but is this the norm?

Not only that but to please all the Europhiles he should have given them benefits and not make them work

[darmstadt]

Actually a Ukip MEP has found the answer to housing immigrants, a bunkhouse

[Gittins Gal]

Why doesn't your local community collectively buy up whatever land it can, and attempt to buy agreements (in the form of some kind of covenant) with local land-owners that they won't be developed for housing purposes without a majority vote?

It seems to me that if you want to suppose that people shouldn't be able to sell their land for development, simply because it's in your neighbourhood, then your property was probably VERY under-priced when you

The issue isn't just immigration, though that's worthy of some attention. It could also be argued that a significant part of the problem has been the rise in the number of women working, making the purchase of a property requiring two incomes rather than just one average working man's income.

Whatever the causes, the rate of house price growth over the past 50 years has been nuts and this is effectively a transfer of wealth from the young to the old and from the poor to the wealthy.

The problem is simply too much demand and not enough supply - we need to have more supply, urgently.
This needs to be provided where the demand is, which is to say mostly in London and the South East.

Unfortunately, our NIMBY culture is very much "I have my house now thanks, you can piss off".

Yes, we need infrastructure upgraded to support the population as well but new accommodation MUST be built and forced through if necessary. The current planning system doesn't work.

The thing is, everyone's a NIMBY.

I don't think there's a person in the country who wouldn't object to a proposal to build a housing development that backs onto their back garden resulting in loss of privacy, peace and quiet, view etc. Oh, not to mention the attendant erosion in the value of the house.

Would anyone, seriously, roll over and have their tummy tickled and say it's for the greater good in that it will help to solve our housing crisis?

No. Of course not.

Not saying it's always the right attitude but just that anyone faced with the dilemma would do the same thing. I guess people who go on about NIMBYs are urban folk who are never going to find themselves in the situation.

[DodgyAgent]

Why doesn't your local community collectively buy up whatever land it can, and attempt to buy agreements (in the form of some kind of covenant) with local land-owners that they won't be developed for housing purposes without a majority vote?

It seems to me that if you want to suppose that people shouldn't be able to sell their land for development, simply because it's in your neighbourhood, then your property was probably VERY under-priced when you purchased it.

What you want sounds reasonable, but a reasonable person would also recognise that that kind of privilege would come with a price.

You will find that in areas of the country such as Lincolnshire the wealthy locals are buying the land surrounding their towns for the sole purpose of stopping any development

[vetran]

Well how about utilising some empty ones:

looks like we are :

The government introduced an empty homes program, providing grants and incentives for councils, housing associations, community groups and owners to bring empty homes into affordable use. This program is now delivering results.
In our view the major factor is the changes to council tax charging on empty homes introduced by the government in 2013. This has created strong incentives for owners to get their empty properties back into use quickly to avoid incurring additional council tax. It is possible that these changes have also influenced the way in which properties are reported. We note that the number of properties liable for council tax dropped in 2013, whereas the housing stock actually increased. This may indicate that some owners may be removing their properties from charging altogether by for example removing bathroom and kitchen facilities. More research is needed before conclusions can be drawn on this point.

[SpontaneousOrder]

For about £1 or something silly? Seems to be a standard quirk of English housing law.

I think it only cost me £25. Basically the church used to own most of the land around the town, and it was sold (a long time ago i think) on with a covenant that said that the land owners were obliged to pay up to a certain amount (which I can't remember) in case of a fire, in order to repair the cathedral roof.

[darmstadt]

I was watching Britains Oldest building business last night. They stated the nation started a massive house building plan 1950 - 1960 they built a million houses . It was apparently unprecedented.

with 400,000 (half arriving and half born to immigrants) new people from immigration a year we need probably 200,000+ houses to cover immigration.

Well how about utilising some empty ones:

There are 79,971 empty homes in London

635,127 empty homes are currently empty in England

[vetran]

The fact is that we need more houses - lots more houses and we need them now. A quarter of a million every year for the next 20 years would be a decent start.

The issue isn't just immigration, though that's worthy of some attention. It could also be argued that a significant part of the problem has been the rise in the number of women working, making the purchase of a property requiring two incomes rather than just one average working man's income.

Whatever the causes, the rate of house price growth over the past 50 years has been nuts and this is effectively a transfer of wealth from the young to the old and from the poor to the wealthy.

The problem is simply too much demand and not enough supply - we need to have more supply, urgently.
This needs to be provided where the demand is, which is to say mostly in London and the South East.

Unfortunately, our NIMBY culture is very much "I have my house now thanks, you can piss off".

Yes, we need infrastructure upgraded to support the population as well but new accommodation MUST be built and forced through if necessary. The current planning system doesn't work.

I was watching Britains Oldest building business last night. They stated the nation started a massive house building plan 1950 - 1960 they built a million houses . It was apparently unprecedented.

with 400,000 (half arriving and half born to immigrants) new people from immigration a year we need probably 200,000+ houses to cover immigration.