General Election July 2024
Discussion
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.blueg33 said:
He dealt with that too. It was all sensible stuff, you know like using land near transport hubs. There is way more land than people think, much greenbelt is aesthetically and agriculturally poor, underused land in urban areas owned by the state could be released if they got their act together, planning need total reform etc
The purpose of the greenbelt is not to be beautiful, it is to prevent towns from growing into each other to produce an LA-style urban sprawl across parts of the UK.Ed is keeping it entertaining, for want of a better word.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp6871w1lzko
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp6871w1lzko
dbdb said:
I suspect you are right and that he would struggle to be covered by the media if he did not do them.
Definitely. More than one in three LibDem voters don't know who he is.(YouGov).YouGov said:
Looking at the responses of those who intend to vote Liberal Democrat at the next election, the majority (59%) are able to identify Davey, and a further 5% are able to identify him as ‘the Lib Dem leader’. Nevertheless, this leaves 35% who are planning on backing the party without knowing who he is at all.
Farage pipped Starmer.ETA link https://yougov.co.uk/poliics/articles/49836-one-in...
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 2nd July 11:27
dbdb said:
blueg33 said:
He dealt with that too. It was all sensible stuff, you know like using land near transport hubs. There is way more land than people think, much greenbelt is aesthetically and agriculturally poor, underused land in urban areas owned by the state could be released if they got their act together, planning need total reform etc
The purpose of the greenbelt is not to be beautiful, it is to prevent towns from growing into each other to produce an LA-style urban sprawl across parts of the UK.Who is going to build those houses?
The policies suggested by labour will have an affect on property values, which will surely suppress house building?
Similarly the policies with regards to the private rental sector will affect this, as well as causing the recent large sell off of rental properties (and the the subsequent damage to the private rental sector).
Im not sure that their policies are cohesive.
There's too much ideological crap in there.
The policies suggested by labour will have an affect on property values, which will surely suppress house building?
Similarly the policies with regards to the private rental sector will affect this, as well as causing the recent large sell off of rental properties (and the the subsequent damage to the private rental sector).
Im not sure that their policies are cohesive.
There's too much ideological crap in there.
Countdown said:
A minor point - "the large sell-off by Landlords" won't reduce the supply of housing. In fact, it might help to improve affordability for 1st time buyers.
Yup. Of course increased home ownership helps the Torys. Thatcher encouraged home ownership and created Tory voters by the million. Labour won't want to effectively gerrymander against themselves.Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 2nd July 11:49
Countdown said:
A minor point - "the large sell-off by Landlords" won't reduce the supply of housing. In fact, it might help to improve affordability for 1st time buyers.
All this loops back to the boomers. Old boys rattling around in easlly managed, paid off houses & generous pensions can't countenance more building they think will despoil the country & simultaneously can't work out why great swathes of the country, trapped in ever spiralling rents with practically no chance of ever cobbling together a deposit for their own place don't feel particularly well disposed towards a government who have at the very least exacerbated the situation.Drawbridge pullers everywhere.
President Merkin said:
All this loops back to the boomers. Old boys rattling around in easlly managed, paid off houses & generous pensions can't countenance more building they think will despoil the country & simultaneously can't work out why great swathes of the country, trapped in ever spiralling rents with practically no chance of ever cobbling together a deposit for their own place don't feel particularly well disposed towards a government who have at the very least exacerbated the situation.
Drawbridge pullers everywhere.
If boomers are the problem, nature is rapidly solving it, as we speak, without any action from the government.Drawbridge pullers everywhere.
President Merkin said:
All this loops back to the boomers. Old boys rattling around in easlly managed, paid off houses & generous pensions can't countenance more building they think will despoil the country & simultaneously can't work out why great swathes of the country, trapped in ever spiralling rents with practically no chance of ever cobbling together a deposit for their own place don't feel particularly well disposed towards a government who have at the very least exacerbated the situation.
Drawbridge pullers everywhere.
That is some proper word salad.Drawbridge pullers everywhere.
Anyway, I don’t think it matters if people are renting or purchasing. The amount of housing available stays the same and I would think that currently monthly payments are high either way.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff