General Election July 2024
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
blueg33 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
blueg33 said:
Interesting programme on tv last night with Tim Harper looking at growth and how it has been delivered in the past.
In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
Have we got anywhere we want to put that infrastructure? There's literally no empty land within tens of miles of me that people want developed. In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
Infrastructure is a doddle if you live in a sparsely populated desert. It's not in the UK.
And green belt needs to be sacrosanct. Almost all load outside of towns and cities needs to be sacrosanct.
If there's more land than we think then draconian protection of land will be very easy indeed and we can start really protecting land for ourselves and our decendents. Everyone will be happy.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 2nd July 08:32
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
BikeBikeBIke said:
If that were politically feasable the Torys would have already done it.
The Tories have a different core vote to Labour so no, that doesn't follow. I can see many who vote Labour cheering if higher rate tax relief were withdrawn on pension contributions for one example.
turbobloke said:
On the 'more land' is that undeveloped land? UK land by area is 8% built-on, but that uses a definition with 'any improvement' including mere drainage as well as roads / rail / buildings. With a more realistic definition around infrastructure it's 6% leaving 94% undeveloped. 37% of that is protected against development by one designation or another.
The EU average is around 95% undeveloped, including countries which are far less densely populated. On the face of it there's room for more development without infringing on e.g. green belt
There was a Radio 2 prog years ago discussing this which asked listeners for their opinion on what percentage of UK land was built on, of those broadcast one reply was in single figures, many 'answers' they read out came in between 60% and 80% totally unrealistic.
Statistics. The EU average is around 95% undeveloped, including countries which are far less densely populated. On the face of it there's room for more development without infringing on e.g. green belt
There was a Radio 2 prog years ago discussing this which asked listeners for their opinion on what percentage of UK land was built on, of those broadcast one reply was in single figures, many 'answers' they read out came in between 60% and 80% totally unrealistic.
I suspect that much of the Uk's undeveloped land is mountain in Scotland and the densely populated areas are the places that need the infrastructure. You only have to droive through France to see how much space they have and why there are fewer people who object to development.
But ether way that's great. The more spare land we have the more land we can protect. I'm all for building on land nobody cares about. Just change the law so any land can be built on unless there are 10 or more people who submit planning objections. That way all the land nobody cares about can be built on and none of the land people care about. You're happy becaise you think there's plenty of land to develop. I'm happy beciase I keep (the remnants of) my Rural idyll.
JagLover said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
If that were politically feasable the Torys would have already done it.
The Tories have a different core vote to Labour so no, that doesn't follow. I can see many who vote Labour cheering if higher rate tax relief were withdrawn on pension contributions for one example.
Which is one more reason why, in office, both parties behave roughly the same.
turbobloke said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Puzzles said:
How’s hs2 going?
Well, there is way more land than people think, so I imagine it's finished by now.The EU average is around 95% undeveloped, including countries which are far less densely populated. On the face of it there's room for more development without infringing on e.g. green belt
There was a Radio 2 prog years ago discussing this which asked listeners for their opinion on what percentage of UK land was built on, of those broadcast one reply was in single figures, many 'answers' they read out came in between 60% and 80% totally unrealistic.
You have to remove land that is economically active, such as agricultural and forestry. Then factor in rainwater and river catchment areas, upland that is undevelopable, flood plain and then protected space.
That narrows it down somewhat.
One thing the Tories did get right, was the Development Corporations. Very much the product of Heseltine's own little fiefdom in the party, these are a great case study of what we need to do going forward. It was very much of its time - a cross party supported programme, which coalesced around a number of reports such as Faith in the City and various ground level movements. For the CT'rs in the room, this was based to an extent on Australian models, which were the precursor to the 15 minute city.
It was an unusually Keynesian project for the government of the time, and I would argue, successful.
Levelling Up tried to mimic this, was was really a half arsed attempt.
What Labour needs to do is work with the rump of the Conservatives to programme in future urban development. this will bring money, people and investment into conurbations, especially post industrial towns and cities, rather than just building satellite developments, which strain transports networks and social infrastructure.
Sway said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
blueg33 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
blueg33 said:
Interesting programme on tv last night with Tim Harper looking at growth and how it has been delivered in the past.
In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
Have we got anywhere we want to put that infrastructure? There's literally no empty land within tens of miles of me that people want developed. In summary we need to spend on infrastructure at about 5x the amount we currently do. Short term tax increase or borrowing for long term growth.
Not sure either of the main parties has that policy.
Tim Harper is my choice for PM
Infrastructure is a doddle if you live in a sparsely populated desert. It's not in the UK.
And green belt needs to be sacrosanct. Almost all load outside of towns and cities needs to be sacrosanct.
If there's more land than we think then draconian protection of land will be very easy indeed and we can start really protecting land for ourselves and our decendents. Everyone will be happy.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 2nd July 08:32
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
Don’t panic about the A27 though, The Secondbest Miliband has found a better thing to invest in
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/20...
ben5575 said:
JagLover said:
No that is not what they are thinking. We are where we are because of the agenda that has been followed, which Labour both started and will be a continuation.
Moaning about high housing costs, high energy costs, high taxes and deteriorating public services while blindly supporting either Conservatives or Labour is very ironic. All are an inevitable consequence of the agenda which both parties serve.
Yes, this was definitely my take from the Pie video; that it’s all Labour’s fault…Moaning about high housing costs, high energy costs, high taxes and deteriorating public services while blindly supporting either Conservatives or Labour is very ironic. All are an inevitable consequence of the agenda which both parties serve.
BikeBikeBIke said:
They can take their core for granted. Its the floating voters they have to appeal to and floating voters *do* care about that.
Which is one more reason why, in office, both parties behave roughly the same.
10 years ago I probably would have agreed with you that the differences between governments were largely superficial. Now there is a marked difference.Which is one more reason why, in office, both parties behave roughly the same.
The Labour party has always been more willing to rebel if they disagree with their leader or party, the Tories on the other hand have been enforcing loyalty with ever increasing strictness. So much so that ministers are now selected for their loyalty rather than talent or even electability.
I think Labour has the right of it. If Kier Starmer screws up he should have to worry about the knives to his back as well as the barbs of the opposition. This is one of the main problems of the Tories, especially in the last 6 years, they're not willing to stand up to the party if the party is wrong.
No one in power should feel secure. The fact the sword of Damocles has been removed from over the Tory PMs head is how we ended up in this position.
We should be sceptical of any government and no one should be more sceptical than a sitting member of that government.
Sway said:
It just needs to happen.
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
Arundel in particular has a very organised & vocal opposition to pretty much any A27 proposal that's been punted over the years. NIMBYism is ime not a Labour/Tory thing but a vested interest lobby one. And I am local & suffer the A27 daily, for the record.The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
Sway said:
It just needs to happen.
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
It's not just Lord March. There's strong opposition to going North. And strong opposition to going South. In each case for very good reasons.The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
If average wages are lower then great! The locals don't want to be richer in ££££s we want the South Downs left undisturbed and we want the Coastal plane to be left alone. If I have to have a slightly worse car and in exchange I get to run over fields from my house I'll 100pc take that.
As others say there's no shortage of land to develop so we can totally protect this bit, and build infrastructure elsewhere.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 2nd July 09:45
BikeBikeBIke said:
Sway said:
It just needs to happen.
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
It's not just Lord March. There's strong opposition to going North. And strong opposition to going South. In each case for very good reasons.The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
If average wages are lower then great! The locals don't want to be richer in ££££s we want the South Downs left undisturbed and we want the Coastal plane to be left alone. If I have to have a slightly worse car and in exchange I get to run over fields for my house I'll 100pc take that.
As others say there's no shortage of land to develop so we can totally protect this bit, and build infrastructure elsewhere.
The point is, that despite that, an improvement in the road is necessary - so take the least worst, and make it happen.
You're being horrifically obtuse. The South Downs aren't going to be ruined by a new proper bypass any more than they were when the first bypass went in. If you want the Coastal Plain left alone, you're already too late. Vast amounts of housebuilding being required via the Local Plan. Which puts even more pressure on a hopelessly outdated East-West road network.
President Merkin said:
Arundel in particular has a very organised & vocal opposition to pretty much any A27 proposal that's been punted over the years. NIMBYism is ime not a Labour/Tory thing but a vested interest lobby one. And I am local & suffer the A27 daily, for the record.
Sounds like you also have a vested interest! You want road and are happy to sacrifice woodland. They want woodland and are happy to sacrifice road.Sway said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Sway said:
It just needs to happen.
The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
It's not just Lord March. There's strong opposition to going North. And strong opposition to going South. In each case for very good reasons.The A27 is a great example - the section in West Sussex around Chichester and Arundel into Worthing is utterly awful, what was supposed to be a bypass really isn't as it's wedged between Chichester and the coastal towns to the south.
There's an obvious answer, an actual bypass to the north that takes non-local traffic. Lord March isn't a fan...
Yet, when looking at average wages in this area, they're lower than the neighbouring areas. Even Chichester, which is far wealthier than Portsmouth, has lower average wages.
The only reason can be due to the awful logistics. There's no reason to setup business that relies on transport in the area.
If that isn't an incentive to push through the barriers and find a way, I don't know what is. Labour have decided to drop it completely.
If average wages are lower then great! The locals don't want to be richer in ££££s we want the South Downs left undisturbed and we want the Coastal plane to be left alone. If I have to have a slightly worse car and in exchange I get to run over fields for my house I'll 100pc take that.
As others say there's no shortage of land to develop so we can totally protect this bit, and build infrastructure elsewhere.
The point is, that despite that, an improvement in the road is necessary - so take the least worst, and make it happen.
You're being horrifically obtuse. The South Downs aren't going to be ruined by a new proper bypass any more than they were when the first bypass went in. If you want the Coastal Plain left alone, you're already too late. Vast amounts of housebuilding being required via the Local Plan. Which puts even more pressure on a hopelessly outdated East-West road network.
I agree housebuilding is catastrophic for the area, but "already ruined" is a poor reason to do more damage.
Mr Penguin said:
This is a great example of why planning has been a mess for years and won't be easy for Labour (or anyone) to fix. It maybe even the hardest part of their platform to deliver.
Or will be the easiest? Labour is popular in urban areas. So have a planning free for all on Rural areas, p
s off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.BikeBikeBIke said:
Mr Penguin said:
This is a great example of why planning has been a mess for years and won't be easy for Labour (or anyone) to fix. It maybe even the hardest part of their platform to deliver.
Or will be the easiest? Labour is popular in urban areas. So have a planning free for all on Rural areas, ps off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.BikeBikeBIke said:
Or will be the easiest? Labour is popular in urban areas. So have a planning free for all on Rural areas, ps off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.
That's pretty much Labour's attitude to everything see also "rubbing the Right's nose in diversity"s off Tory voters who were never gonna vote Labour anyway and create an environment that generates Labour voters.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff