Let's keep building until we have nothing left.

#21
Unfortunately I'm going to disagree with @thegimp
The unfettered immigration to the UK has resulted in a large and unsustainable burden on schools, NHS and other council services.

At the same time there is a large immigrant underclass who are happy to live in relative (to the UK norm) poverty in order to send money to their home countries in order to (in many cases) build mansions for their families in their own countries. I particularly cite Romania and Bulgaria in this case but other Eastern European basket cases are available, but I extend this to Bangladesh, Pakistan and India other sub-continent basket cases....

I do have knowledge of this area as SWMBO worked in social services for over 20 years (NHS and local authority) until last year. We also have a couple of friends who are social workers in inner-city areas.

A controlled level of migration to the country would be good with some sort of set entry criteria. Instead what we have is a large number of immigrants working on or close to the breadline and contributing next to nothing to the economy other than working e.g. as waiters in Afghan restaurants.

Don't believe me? Take a trip to Slough, particularly the area around Chalvey.

As for having imported Eastern European crime gangs, Pakistani rapists etc -- I will leave this now.

Edited for fat finger speeeelllin'
 
Last edited:
#23
The first part rings true here, but our biggest local planning problem is a committee that seems he’ll bent on approving mega developments with no parallel improvement in infrastructure.
That's the biggest issue. Developers are happy to build profitable housing but local and National budgets don't necessarily support the requirements. TBH budgets aren't supporting current requirements

This is called Austerity
 
#24
Unfortunately I'm going to disagree with @thegimp
The unfettered immigration to the UK has resulted in a large and unsustainable burden on schools, NHS and other council services.

At the same time there is a large immigrant underclass who are happy to live in relative (to the UK norm) poverty in order to send money to their home countries in order to (in many cases) build mansions for their families in their own countries. I particularly cite Romania and Bulgaria in this case but other Eastern European basket cases are available, but I extend this to Bangladesh, Pakistan and India other sub-continent basket cases....

I do have knowledge of this area as SWMBO worked in social services for over 20 years (NHS and local authority) until last year. We also have a couple of friends who are social workers in inner-city areas.

A controlled level of migration to the country would be good with some sort of set entry criteria. Instead what we have is a large number of immigrants working on or close to the breadline and contributing next to nothing to the economy other than working e.g. as waiters in Afghan restaurants.

Don't believe me? Take a trip to Slough, particularly the area around Chalvey.

As for having imported Eastern European crime gangs, Pakistani rapists etc -- I will leave this now.

Edited for fat finger speeeelllin'
can you give some statistics to show what this is costing the country

having re-read your poster I realise it came off the Daily Mail headline generating machine:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
#25
As one example Mark Carney trousered the fat end of a mil last year. I presume his tax is pretty squeaky clean so factoring VAT the nation might expect to get about half that.

Stick him in a pot with 250 useless twunts paying nothing et voila, these fine folk chuck in £2k a year each on average to pay for your grannys hip replacement you big racist.

The significant numbers of well paid immigrants we have mask the utter non contribution of vast numbers of them.

My general response to those who suggest immigration is an overall benefit is fine, lets make it even more benifical by hoofing out the ones who aren't contributing.
 
#26
I wrote to the ONS last year asking for statistics on the numbers of immigrants receiving benefits and also regarding the amount of money being sent out of the country by migrants. I received the answer that "there are currently no statistics collated by the ONS which relate to [either of these] matters".

I can, however, point you to this:

Births by parents’ country of birth, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

PS: slightly offended by your DM reference, which is a paper I read only for laughs.
 
#27
it doesn't need outrageous solutions.

for example, limiting child benefit and other state payments to two children. Having to pay your own way for three and above.

or rewarding the moderation of children.

Child benefit at the moment is £20.70 for the first, and £13.70 per child thereafter.

just pay £34.40 straight off the bat. For any number of kids. (Children by multiple births in first or second pregnancies could still attract an extra £13.70).

making a responsible choice of one, two, or more kids.
It's funny that some countries are begging for people to have kids and paying for them while others are doing the opposite. If only there was someway to balance it out...
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#29
There is a really easy solution to the housing issue in the UK.

First, get rid of corrupt planning officials, of which there are many.

Secondly, for every private house a developer builds on any site other than brownfield, means they must build two on a brownfield site.

Where I stay, there is a deprived area a few miles away with swathes of empty brownfield site ideal for housing, but they keep trying to flatten the forest behind me for it instead.

Either force something like the above suggestion or simply make it that no Greenfield can be built on until all brownfield is used first.
 
#30
It's funny that some countries are begging for people to have kids and paying for them while others are doing the opposite. If only there was someway to balance it out...
Unfettered breeding has been espoused by several religious groups and is also the cultural norm across the Indian sub-continental area and the large majority of African nations. None makes even the slightest attempt at population control and indeed Anjem Chaudhary (one of several) espouses the deliberate population increase of muslims to overpower the white Christian nations.
 
#31
Reverse the system and pay people to have irreversible sterilisation ,offer £5k and you`d haver every chav slag and fcukwit queuing at the door win win win , with £5k in their pocket a lot would kill themselves with smack and the likes win win .....I should run for PM..
I totally would take up on that scheme. Honest. I know I would/will never want to bring another soul on to the planet. If I really feel like having a kid, I would adopt one.
 
#32
Unfettered breeding has been espoused by several religious groups and is also the cultural norm across the Indian sub-continental area and the large majority of African nations. None makes even the slightest attempt at population control and indeed Anjem Chaudhary (one of several) espouses the deliberate population increase of muslims to overpower the white Christian nations.
And yet many of the religions make allowances for contraception, though culture and upbringing has a big part to play. Here is one overview: What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
 
#33
I agree. But what about those migrants who are contributing sweet fa to the country, but are claiming everything they can?

Migrants can be very good for the UK.
Unrestricted migration though, personally I think we need to get a grip of this rather rapidly.
@Old Stab ...I am unemployed now, could you please point me in the direction of this sweet sweet benefit world? I will buy a couple of pints when I get that first check in. Ta.
 
#34
you try living in a national park, like it or not there is a need for housing for the people that live there, they are not just retirement areas for retirees to spend out the last bits of their lives
 
#35
you try living in a national park, like it or not there is a need for housing for the people that live there, they are not just retirement areas for retirees to spend out the last bits of their lives
Very good point. Many, in some cases virtually all, young people from such areas leave and can never move back. No available affordable housing, limited infrastructure, poor or no mobile and internet coverage affects existing businesses and deters those considering working from home. Second homers bring a lot of food and supplies with them rather than shopping locally. Local shops can't compete with supermarkets 20+ miles away. Limited or no bus services. The list goes on. Centralising services in to ever growing major towns and cities doesn't help rural communities. If farmers are driven out or the countryside, food will have to be imported or produced in the cities (There are a few existing city farms and indoor veg farms are being trialled).
 
#36
it doesn't need outrageous solutions.

for example, limiting child benefit and other state payments to two children. Having to pay your own way for three and above.

or rewarding the moderation of children.

Child benefit at the moment is £20.70 for the first, and £13.70 per child thereafter.

just pay £34.40 straight off the bat. For any number of kids. (Children by multiple births in first or second pregnancies could still attract an extra £13.70).

making a responsible choice of one, two, or more kids.
Child benefit has been restricted to 2 children since April last year. Exemptions are in the case of rape and multiple births (if you have twins and already have one child you can claim for all 3).

Of course, those right-on folks now claim that this has put people in poverty (why have another one if you can't afford it?) and leaders of all the religions in UK have condemned it (so it must be doing something right).

Then again, the benefit to the taxpayer won't kick in for a long time as those with over 2 children before April last year can still claim for all the sprogs which means it'll be about 16 years before it all comes to fruition.
 
#37
The housing shortage within national parks is at least partly the result of many people wanting to leave urban areas. Certainly, I have chosen to live in a rural area having previous lived in urban Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham. I would never ever want to live in an urban area again and having experienced the decline in the area of some of my previous homes, i can understand anyone wanting to leave.

Several of my customers have previously been developers, several of these wishing to build housing in areas which abut sites which fall into the Control of Major Accident Hazards, in spite of HSE objections on safety grounds. My experience is that developers don't give a sh!t about anything other than maximising profits for themselves.

Environment? No, not important, build on any piece of flat land.
Flood plan? Who cares, council planning permission can be bought.
Greenfield site? Section 106 sop to the council. Negligible cost.
Prime farmland? No sweat, bribe an environmental assessor to call it low-grade.

Environmental assessors are easily bought. I know this for fact as I have had the misfortune to work with several who will skew the results to favour the person who pays on the basis that they will get paid to do the next whitewash.

But avoid brownfield sites at all cost. Ground analysis is expensive and time consuming and you may well find things like asbestos, waste oils, chemical contamination which will require expensive remediation and possibly clay capping before they can be built on.

The environmental "industry" are the second biggest bunch of shysters after the property developers and most are a shower of parasites.

[Off rant]
 
#38
There is a really easy solution to the housing issue in the UK.

First, get rid of corrupt planning officials, of which there are many.

Secondly, for every private house a developer builds on any site other than brownfield, means they must build two on a brownfield site.

Where I stay, there is a deprived area a few miles away with swathes of empty brownfield site ideal for housing, but they keep trying to flatten the forest behind me for it instead.

Either force something like the above suggestion or simply make it that no Greenfield can be built on until all brownfield is used first.

People can build their own houses on brownfield sites like thousands do or they can complain that someone else should do it all.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#39
People can build their own houses on brownfield sites like thousands do or they can complain that someone else should do it all.
Now come on, that's a silly statement.

Not everyone has the funding, business acumen or capability to figure out all the complexities involved in buying land, designing and building a house. Plus a lot of brownfield may either require decontamination, or substantial groundworks to make it suitable.

Companies like Cala are hell bent on developing Greenfield as it commands big price tags. Make the ******* build on brownfield first. Or for this 15% of social housing that's required per development - let them build it on the brownfield sites rather than mixing it with the private.
 
#40
Now come on, that's a silly statement.

Not everyone has the funding, business acumen or capability to figure out all the complexities involved in buying land, designing and building a house. Plus a lot of brownfield may either require decontamination, or substantial groundworks to make it suitable.

Companies like Cala are hell bent on developing Greenfield as it commands big price tags. Make the ******* build on brownfield first. Or for this 15% of social housing that's required per development - let them build it on the brownfield sites rather than mixing it with the private.
Plenty of people do it, even those without much money. Its just that some people seem to consider its their right to hand over some money (preferably as little as possible) and have someone else do all the graft.

Why should big companies be forced to build on brown field site when individuals clearly cant be arsed?

If they have to add 15% social housing they will just pass the cost on to the customer.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top