National News Rishi Sunak

bashamwonderland said:
My concern is that Oxfordshire is one of the only counties left in the South East (other than maybe Sussex and Hampshire?) which has not been completely stripped of its character and ruined by development. The South East is crowded and struggling under its own weight.

If housebuilding projects were joined up, Danish affairs with roads, schools, trains/trams and infrastructure built in, then I would not be opposed to development but as it stands, the development of Oxfordshire would mean huge expanses of land swallowed up for characterless, completely paved and concreted, 2-car drivewayed housing estates with absolutely no infrastructure. That would just clog the roads and ruin it even more than it already has been.

If housebuilding was controlled by government with tight controls on environmental and infrastructure benefits then maybe I would change my opinion.
Click to expand...

Why is it huge expanses? About 700,000,peope live in Oxfordshire at the moment, have a look at the map and see how little land that number lives on, its tiny compared to the green spaces, you have to zoom in to make most of it visible. Not going to be building housing for anywhere near that number of people so you will barely be touching the green spaces, it will still be what it is now, a mostly rural county.

How you go about doing that is a different question, can't disagree that the way it is done at present is unsatisfactory, building a few small housing estates in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure and services is idiotic but probably still preferable to not building anything and the huge problems that will bring to society in the future. It requires proper long term planning though, sadly something that we don't seem to want to do anymore in this country.
 
Essexyellows said:
At last, the right way of thinking.
Consumerism requires endless population growth and not just on this crowded island.
Global population control is the best answer to many of the globes problems. :)

Government should control the allocation of land for development and ensure the developers put the infrastructure in first. Too often the developers take the S106 "fine" because its cheaper to break their promises and then they move on to the next estate.

As for build quality ............. as long as the box lasts 25 years and some poor soul can get a mortgage on it that`ll do.

Although I`ll take a shot that some won`t last 25 years.
Click to expand...

You would be at the front of the queue to be culled though at your age as you are coming to the end of your usefulness?
 
SteMerritt said:
If 'usefulness' is the defining criteria for the great cull, boy am I in trouble...
Click to expand...

I can't think of any other criteria than age though, if we are going to be treated as cattle in Essex yellows dystopian society their have to be some rules? Perhaps train up to work in the human slaughterhouses to increase the benefits you bring to society? Bit of a grim job but you will only be following orders.
 
holdsteady said:
Why is it huge expanses? About 700,000,peope live in Oxfordshire at the moment, have a look at the map and see how little land that number lives on, its tiny compared to the green spaces, you have to zoom in to make most of it visible. Not going to be building housing for anywhere near that number of people so you will barely be touching the green spaces, it will still be what it is now, a mostly rural county.

How you go about doing that is a different question, can't disagree that the way it is done at present is unsatisfactory, building a few small housing estates in the middle of nowhere with no infrastructure and services is idiotic but probably still preferable to not building anything and the huge problems that will bring to society in the future. It requires proper long term planning though, sadly something that we don't seem to want to do anymore in this country.
Click to expand...
Well, to build space for 130,000 at a population density similar to Blackbird Leys (which I would say is too dense), you'd need 86 square miles of land. That's about 2 Disney Worlds. Or, just smaller than Edinburgh.

So, we build on 86 square miles of land in Oxfordshire. What then? What happens when it is immediately flooded with ex-Londoners? House prices won't drop, infrastructure won't improve, there will be an influx effect.

Studies show that building roads simply encourages more traffic onto them, which solves the problem in the very short term but then exacerbates the problem in the mid to long term. What happens in 10 years when people want even more housing? Do we just build more and more? When do we stop?

"Character" is a finite resource - when it's gone, it's gone.
 
bashamwonderland said:
Well, to build space for 130,000 at a population density similar to Blackbird Leys (which I would say is too dense), you'd need 86 square miles of land. That's about 2 Disney Worlds. Or, just smaller than Edinburgh.

So, we build on 86 square miles of land in Oxfordshire. What then? What happens when it is immediately flooded with ex-Londoners? House prices won't drop, infrastructure won't improve, there will be an influx effect.

Studies show that building roads simply encourages more traffic onto them, which solves the problem in the very short term but then exacerbates the problem in the mid to long term. What happens in 10 years when people want even more housing? Do we just build more and more? When do we stop?

"Character" is a finite resource - when it's gone, it's gone.
Click to expand...

Oxfordshire is 1006 square miles so I don't think an extra 88 square miles lost is the end of the world.

What's the alternative? Mass homelessness? People living 25 to a house so you can have an area with character?

You can't solve a current problem because their might be a problem in the future? You can use that as an argument against anything, plus by then you and Essex will have bought in your mass cull so it won't be a problem, shame he won't be around to see it.
 
I'm a firm believer in 'small government' but there are things that call for stronger governance - housing is one of them.

As a young person I would *never* buy a new build no matter how pretty and modern they try to make it look. Pretty much all of my mates who have have had awful problems. First time one of them tried to run a bath, they left it for a few minutes and came back to the whole bathroom floor flooded because the water pipes weren't connected properly!

Having good quality, affordable housing should be an absolute given.
 
MustardYellow said:
As a young person I would *never* buy a new build no matter how pretty and modern they try to make it look. Pretty much all of my mates who have have had awful problems. First time one of them tried to run a bath, they left it for a few minutes and came back to the whole bathroom floor flooded because the water pipes weren't connected properly!
Click to expand...
There is always a snagging list to be worked through when you buy a new house, but not connecting pipes is a bit of a biggie! It does appear that the houses are being thrown up a little too quickly with too much emphasis on profit at the moment.
 
holdsteady said:
Oxfordshire is 1006 square miles so I don't think an extra 88 square miles lost is the end of the world.

What's the alternative? Mass homelessness? People living 25 to a house so you can have an area with character?

You can't solve a current problem because their might be a problem in the future? You can use that as an argument against anything, plus by then you and Essex will have bought in your mass cull so it won't be a problem, shame he won't be around to see it.
Click to expand...
It's not the end of the world, until we need to do another 86 square miles, and then another, and then another.

The alternative is that people can't get into houses and need to go elsewhere.

It's astonishing that your outlook seems to be "just build until the demand is met" - perhaps this mindset explains why we are faced with so much low quality building and shortsighted development in this country.
 
bashamwonderland said:
It's not the end of the world, until we need to do another 86 square miles, and then another, and then another.

The alternative is that people can't get into houses and need to go elsewhere.

It's astonishing that your outlook seems to be "just build until the demand is met" - perhaps this mindset explains why we are faced with so much low quality building and shortsighted development in this country.
Click to expand...

Current demand is met, I am not talking about future demand.

So people that are born here who can't get housing need to go elsewhere? Where?
 
holdsteady said:
Current demand is met, I am not talking about future demand.

So people that are born here who can't get housing need to go elsewhere? Where?
Click to expand...
But by the time we meet current demand, the future demand will become current demand! It will never end!

The people born here will have to work hard and get a partner who is also working hard (which is what I have done in a different, but also popular part of the country), or wait to inherit, or rent, or move to an area of the country where there is plentiful housing, or move to a different country, or find temporary or alternative accommodation, or live with family.

They could also consider voting for parties which will commit to preventing a Coventry-sized population from arriving in our country every year, who also need housing.
 
bashamwonderland said:
But by the time we meet current demand, the future demand will become current demand! It will never end!

The people born here will have to work hard and get a partner who is also working hard (which is what I have done in a different, but also popular part of the country), or wait to inherit, or rent, or move to an area of the country where there is plentiful housing, or move to a different country, or find temporary or alternative accommodation, or live with family.

They could also consider voting for parties which will commit to preventing a Coventry-sized population from arriving in our country every year, who also need housing.
Click to expand...

So you want people to move abroad to live but you don't want people to move here to live?

That middle paragraph, you are a Sue McIvor esque nimby, all that rather just accept that we need to build some houses.

I also found a partner, moved to a different area, bought a house etc, but I don't want to pull the ladder up after me.
 
bashamwonderland said:
It's not the end of the world, until we need to do another 86 square miles, and then another, and then another.

The alternative is that people can't get into houses and need to go elsewhere.

It's astonishing that your outlook seems to be "just build until the demand is met" - perhaps this mindset explains why we are faced with so much low quality building and shortsighted development in this country.
Click to expand...
As @Essexyellows hero Caroline Lucus once said 'You can't have infinite growth in a world of finite resources'. (Albeit probably plagiarized).
 
holdsteady said:
So you want people to move abroad to live but you don't want people to move here to live?

That middle paragraph, you are a Sue McIvor esque nimby, all that rather just accept that we need to build some houses.

I also found a partner, moved to a different area, bought a house etc, but I don't want to pull the ladder up after me.
Click to expand...

I’ve heard Rwanda is very nice.
 
holdsteady said:
So you want people to move abroad to live but you don't want people to move here to live?

That middle paragraph, you are a Sue McIvor esque nimby, all that rather just accept that we need to build some houses.

I also found a partner, moved to a different area, bought a house etc, but I don't want to pull the ladder up after me.
Click to expand...
Won't pull up the ladder but you'll advocate for a significant decrease in your living standards and the living standards of those around you. Not quite as generous an outlook as you might think.

I want people to move abroad (or just to a cheaper area in the UK) if they are that passionate about homeownership but cannot afford to live in their local town. It's what the cockneys had to do between 1960 and 2000 and guess what, now London has been totally developed they're still outside of their ancestral homelands.
 
bashamwonderland said:
Won't pull up the ladder but you'll advocate for a significant decrease in your living standards and the living standards of those around you. Not quite as generous an outlook as you might think.

I want people to move abroad (or just to a cheaper area in the UK) if they are that passionate about homeownership but cannot afford to live in their local town. It's what the cockneys had to do between 1960 and 2000 and guess what, now London has been totally developed they're still outside of their ancestral homelands.
Click to expand...

People moved out of London because it made them a lot of money, they got old and to get away from all the brown faces, I know this because where I live is where a lot of people from west London moved to, even the in laws, they are not shy on telling you if you ask.

Building more houses will lead to a decrease in yours and mine living standards? At least you are being honest on what this is really about even if you are wrong. How will an increase in spending lead to your standard of life crashing down? If anything your attitude of everyone living 25 to a house waiting for great, great granny to die or f*****g off abroad will do that, leaving just old people like Essex yellows and old in the head people like yourself here., cracking economy that will be.
 
holdsteady said:
Oxfordshire is 1006 square miles so I don't think an extra 88 square miles lost is the end of the world.

What's the alternative? Mass homelessness? People living 25 to a house so you can have an area with character?

You can't solve a current problem because their might be a problem in the future? You can use that as an argument against anything, plus by then you and Essex will have bought in your mass cull so it won't be a problem, shame he won't be around to see it.
Click to expand...

Just don't use tents for this.
 
Last edited:
holdsteady said:
People moved out of London because it made them a lot of money, they got old and to get away from all the brown faces, I know this because where I live is where a lot of people from west London moved to, even the in laws, they are not shy on telling you if you ask.

Building more houses will lead to a decrease in yours and mine living standards? At least you are being honest on what this is really about even if you are wrong. How will an increase in spending lead to your standard of life crashing down? If anything your attitude of everyone living 25 to a house waiting for great, great granny to die or f*****g off abroad will do that, leaving just old people like Essex yellows and old in the head people like yourself here., cracking economy that will be.
Click to expand...
25 to a house? You seem to have lost it.

Ah yes, the Londoners moved out of East London because they were racist. Of course. Madness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom