Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
It's always worth doing your first fight against fascism using eggs, if you can!

Throw enough eggs, and you might not have to throw punches.

Through enough punches, and you might not have to throw 50 million people into a horrific meat grinder of a World War!

Go eggers!

It is alright until it goes wrong. Lets say someone throws an egg at Trump, but misses and hits his aide who has a serious allergy to them and dies. The BBC would be 'Live on the scene' for the next 100 days and the Daily Mail would run a headline 'Liberal Terrorists assassinate Trump Aide'. And from that point on the police top priority is to crack down on these protesters with riot or gear or armed squads for egg throwers...

It is incredibly unlikely but could go oh so wrong.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
It's always worth doing your first fight against fascism using eggs, if you can!

Throw enough eggs, and you might not have to throw punches.

Through enough punches, and you might not have to throw 50 million people into a horrific meat grinder of a World War!

Go eggers!

It is alright until it goes wrong. Lets say someone throws an egg at Trump, but misses and hits his aide who has a serious allergy to them and dies. The BBC would be 'Live on the scene' for the next 100 days and the Daily Mail would run a headline 'Liberal Terrorists assassinate Trump Aide'. And from that point on the police top priority is to crack down on these protesters with riot or gear or armed squads for egg throwers...

It is incredibly unlikely but could go oh so wrong.

That is a bit of a peek under your hood so to speak, I can see where your ideas about Brexit have come from. A fertile, and slightly off the wall imagination.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To suck up to Trump is to suck up to the minority of Americans who support him. They are by and large older, whiter, lower uneducated and living in economically depressed areas, afraid of immigrants because they haven't had the life experiences that would open their minds to the good things about immigration.

These people ought to be supported, helped and brought out of their slough of despond, but it cannot be done by pandering to their leader's mad ideas.

Well in some ways at least it gets them noticed, I imagine if you spoke to any they would say that have been disillusioned by the political system and their voices not heard, that and that Hillary focussed more attention on pleasing so-called minority voters that made her look good rather than on the key populations that won Donald the election. You could draw a complete parallel comparison to what happened here with the Referendum result. I would hope that if Mr Trump has any sense he will be investing to help the communities in these areas to maintain his popularity and hold swing in these states for another key Republican victory in 4 years time. That is to say if he still wants to be President by then.

Trump has invested in a rapid programme of issuing executive orders to show he is carrying out the election promises that made him popular with his constituency.

One of these was to give a lot of government subsidies to big oil companies to develop new pipelines through environmentally sensitive areas. It is not clear now these infrastructure projects will help reactivate the coal mining industry in West Virginia.

 r_squared wrote:


That is a bit of a peek under your hood so to speak, I can see where your ideas about Brexit have come from. A fertile, and slightly off the wall imagination.

If you say so, I tend to have an opinion on most things, because they are either black or white to me. Very rarely do I get stuck in a grey area on a topic where I can't decide what to think. I am a creative person and general optimist which is a lot better than being a 'gloomy moaner' that appears to often with people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump has invested in a rapid programme of issuing executive orders to show he is carrying out the election promises that made him popular with his constituency.

One of these was to give a lot of government subsidies to big oil companies to develop new pipelines through environmentally sensitive areas. It is not clear now these infrastructure projects will help reactivate the coal mining industry in West Virginia.

He should put a subsidy on coal mining and then make industry that needs it i.e steel and metal works or buying coal reserves for power stations. Either that or make US coal more exportable to places which have given up digging it, but still require it. He will at least being doing more than Hillary who basically said 'I will close this industry down and I don't care about your votes'. Yep that turned out well... As for the pipeline business, I haven't heard about this, I'm sure the US EPA wouldn't allow an environment disaster in the making so if it is sensible it should work.

Then it would be a real shame if Trump was looking to shut down the EPA......

Oh wait, it was leaked that he was going to try and do that!

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:


That is a bit of a peek under your hood so to speak, I can see where your ideas about Brexit have come from. A fertile, and slightly off the wall imagination.

If you say so, I tend to have an opinion on most things, because they are either black or white to me. Very rarely do I get stuck in a grey area on a topic where I can't decide what to think. I am a creative person and general optimist which is a lot better than being a 'gloomy moaner' that appears to often with people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump has invested in a rapid programme of issuing executive orders to show he is carrying out the election promises that made him popular with his constituency.

One of these was to give a lot of government subsidies to big oil companies to develop new pipelines through environmentally sensitive areas. It is not clear now these infrastructure projects will help reactivate the coal mining industry in West Virginia.

He should put a subsidy on coal mining and then make industry that needs it i.e steel and metal works or buying coal reserves for power stations. Either that or make US coal more exportable to places which have given up digging it, but still require it. He will at least being doing more than Hillary who basically said 'I will close this industry down and I don't care about your votes'. Yep that turned out well... As for the pipeline business, I haven't heard about this, I'm sure the US EPA wouldn't allow an environment disaster in the making so if it is sensible it should work.

The problem with subsiding coal and increasing imports is that a lot of the places to which the USA exports coal are moving away from coal long term and don't want even subsidised coal. In other words the coal mining industry is contracting from structural changes in the world economy affecting demand, not because Clinton is a heartless bitch.

Thus, any attempt to increase usage is doomed to failure, so it doesn't look a clever idea to try it. The money involved would be better spent on other plans, such as encouraging the green energy industry to set up shop in West Virginia by retraining ex-miners as solar panel production staff. Or something else that actually pushes against an open door.

Subsiding coal is swimming against the tide.

Nice to see Bercow, the man who waved in the Emir of Kuwait and Xi Jinping of China for Parliamentary addresses, suddenly growing a backbone for democracy. Such a shame he didn't do it in time to protest someone who's actually indulged in some substantial human rights abuses.

Good grief.

 Ketara wrote:
Nice to see Bercow, the man who waved in the Emir of Kuwait and Xi Jinping of China for Parliamentary addresses, suddenly growing a backbone for democracy. Such a shame he didn't do it in time to protest someone who's actually indulged in some substantial human rights abuses.

Good grief.

That man just loves the spotlight. I think he is worried Trump may take away some of his shine.

"Housing Market broken, say ministers" promising a white paper to address the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38884601

In my view on of the main problems is the idea of building where people want to live, which often are already overcrowded, meaning that development must happen on Green Belt land and even then may simply cause more congestion in local transport.

Instead, we should be trying to get people to live where there is more space for building. I don't mean necessarily the sheep-filled hills of deep Wales, etc. I mean places like Liverpool, where the population now is significantly lower than 50 years ago. In fact, Liverpool's population has begun to increase in the past 10 years, reflecting various urban renewal and job creation schemes.

Trouble is, I can't commute to London from Liverpool - not even with HS2 if it's ever built.

Hence I'm stuck in the Home Counties (Kent, to be specific) because I also can't afford to live in London.

Needs a two tiered approach. Build more homes (NOT BUY TO LET HOMES, GOVERNMENT) and start taxing Buy to Let Greed Merchants more heavily, to the point they stop snapping up the cheapest homes and then subdividing.

More jobs in Liverpool = more demand for houses in Liverpool.

John Bercow voted to invade Iraq and he had no problem with the Chinese Premier visiting parliament. He's a disgusting hypocritical bastard of the very worst kind and is no doubt only doing this to get attention.

Now that we have this admission that Britain's housing system is broken, is this another nail in the coffin of Thatcher's legacy?

When she began her great council house flog off 30 odd years ago, many experts warned of this.

The chickens have well and truly came home to roost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
John Bercow voted to invade Iraq and he had no problem with the Chinese Premier visiting parliament. He's a disgusting hypocritical bastard of the very worst kind and is no doubt only doing this to get attention.

Yeah, he's going to end up falling from that high horse of his.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Housing Market broken, say ministers" promising a white paper to address the problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38884601

In my view on of the main problems is the idea of building where people want to live, which often are already overcrowded, meaning that development must happen on Green Belt land and even then may simply cause more congestion in local transport.

Instead, we should be trying to get people to live where there is more space for building. I don't mean necessarily the sheep-filled hills of deep Wales, etc. I mean places like Liverpool, where the population now is significantly lower than 50 years ago. In fact, Liverpool's population has begun to increase in the past 10 years, reflecting various urban renewal and job creation schemes.

Official Green Belts surround our major cities and former industrial areas. The rest of the country has no Green belt status (that I can find).

Looking at Liverpool and the surrounds, Greenbelt status will hamper development and keep land prices at all time highs. I'm not suggesting housing should be built on meadows and areas where great crested newts live but consideration has to be given to release some land and get it back elsewhere.

It is probably high time we looked at going upwards instead or outwards. Living tower blocks are a thing and proper planning would see flats as a real alternative. We need a sea change of thinking though. A generation has been taught that they need 4 beds, two bathrooms and a large garden with parking for two cars.

Could a land tax work?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, I can't commute to London from Liverpool - not even with HS2 if it's ever built.

Hence I'm stuck in the Home Counties (Kent, to be specific) because I also can't afford to live in London.

Needs a two tiered approach. Build more homes (NOT BUY TO LET HOMES, GOVERNMENT) and start taxing Buy to Let Greed Merchants more heavily, to the point they stop snapping up the cheapest homes and then subdividing.

Since last year buyers seeing properties to rent have more hoops to jump through when seeking finance and a heavier tax burden. There is a limit to what you can do to keep the house market moving (in a positive way).

Council Housing should be a priority. Alongside infrastructure so new housing developments and townships dont become lost.

Councils should absolutely be building some significant quota of social housing, which they can't sell until, say, 20 years into residency. If done properly, it should result in a small profit from the rental, as well as making the housing situation a lot better.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

It is probably high time we looked at going upwards instead or outwards. Living tower blocks are a thing and proper planning would see flats as a real alternative. We need a sea change of thinking though. A generation has been taught that they need 4 beds, two bathrooms and a large garden with parking for two cars.

And with more people staying at home until later, they potentially need 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and parking for 2+ cars (more likely 4+ cars).

I think we should be looking at building down as well as up, and trying to push for smaller footprints. Why not have the cars parked under the house? Why aren't houses split over 3 floors? Why are most roof/loft spaces unusable?

I mean, we could fit a lot more houses if there was a double garage in the basement, with utility room and whatnot, then a 3-story house with 4 bedrooms, and a rooftoop terrace/garden.

I see lots of compressed new-build houses, with 3+ tiny rooms, a front garden that's essentially a gravel parking space, and a tiny garden, but that's too much of a compromise.
Come to think of it; I haven't seen any mention of any 1-bedroom places being built in a long time, it's all 2-3 bedroom luxury apartments, so there's very little in the way of cheap starter properties.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could a land tax work?

That would still price people out of the housing market 75% of costs for house building can be associated with purchasing land.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could a land tax work?

That would still price people out of the housing market 75% of costs for house building can be associated with purchasing land.

Would it not free up more land for housing, though?

Herzlos wrote:
Councils should absolutely be building some significant quota of social housing, which they can't sell until, say, 20 years into residency. If done properly, it should result in a small profit from the rental, as well as making the housing situation a lot better.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

It is probably high time we looked at going upwards instead or outwards. Living tower blocks are a thing and proper planning would see flats as a real alternative. We need a sea change of thinking though. A generation has been taught that they need 4 beds, two bathrooms and a large garden with parking for two cars.

And with more people staying at home until later, they potentially need 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and parking for 2+ cars (more likely 4+ cars).

I think we should be looking at building down as well as up, and trying to push for smaller footprints. Why not have the cars parked under the house? Why aren't houses split over 3 floors? Why are most roof/loft spaces unusable?

I mean, we could fit a lot more houses if there was a double garage in the basement, with utility room and whatnot, then a 3-story house with 4 bedrooms, and a rooftoop terrace/garden.

I see lots of compressed new-build houses, with 3+ tiny rooms, a front garden that's essentially a gravel parking space, and a tiny garden, but that's too much of a compromise.
Come to think of it; I haven't seen any mention of any 1-bedroom places being built in a long time, it's all 2-3 bedroom luxury apartments, so there's very little in the way of cheap starter properties.

Nimbysism, council regs and costs. Most 3 story housing are ugly blocks (first house I brought was one) Not that there aren't ways around that though. And as for two cars, Ill suggest infrastructure again (Its something that I bang on about a bit).

Flats are the go to for 1 bed locations. So long as their was value in them a 1 bed flat would be adequate to seve as a stepping stone to a larger property. Again, it would take change in perceptions.

You would think that councils could make a long term profit out of rented homes. THAT would take a change of mentality I would love to see!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could a land tax work?

That would still price people out of the housing market 75% of costs for house building can be associated with purchasing land.

Would it not free up more land for housing, though?

It could, but then you need regulation to stop landbanking. And there is the question of leasing the land for building.

Leaseholds are the new go to for pension funds and asset management portfolios. There's a new generation of rent to buy families being priced out of buying their properties because their leaseholds have suddenly gone up £10 or £15k in price.

Its probably better to allow more land to be available for building.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/exclusive-theresa-may-poked-fun-size-donald-trumps-hands/

Applauded as she stood to speak at a reception with Tory donors on Monday, Mrs May said:

Thank you very much for that wonderful reception.

I don’t think I have received such a big hand since I walked down the colonnade at the White House.

who'da thunk WW III would actually be caused by a joke at a tory fundraising dinner !?

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
...? Why aren't houses split over 3 floors? Why are most roof/loft spaces unusable?

I mean, we could fit a lot more houses if there was a double garage in the basement, with utility room and whatnot, then a 3-story house with 4 bedrooms, and a rooftoop terrace/garden.

I see lots of compressed new-build houses, with 3+ tiny rooms, a front garden that's essentially a gravel parking space, and a tiny garden, but that's too much of a compromise.
Come to think of it; I haven't seen any mention of any 1-bedroom places being built in a long time, it's all 2-3 bedroom luxury apartments, so there's very little in the way of cheap starter properties.

Nimbysism, council regs and costs. Most 3 story housing are ugly blocks (first house I brought was one) Not that there aren't ways around that though. And as for two cars, Ill suggest infrastructure again (Its something that I bang on about a bit).

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And as for two cars, Ill suggest infrastructure again (Its something that I bang on about a bit).

I agree entirely, but realistically there's always going to be some things you can do in a car that doesn't make sense with public transport infrastructure without ludicrous investment.

Herzlos wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And as for two cars, Ill suggest infrastructure again (Its something that I bang on about a bit).

I agree entirely, but realistically there's always going to be some things you can do in a car that doesn't make sense with public transport infrastructure without ludicrous investment.

I do mean roads as well as public transport that uses them. I believe that we have a situation where the economy is rather helped by car sales, taxation and of course people being able to get to work and get to places to spend money while car owners are somewhat demonised and have to deal with clogged and degraded roads for the daily commute.

Spending appears to have gone on pedestrianisation which usually entails a few benches to allow shoppers to sit and admire long ques of traffic.

I believe there should be a complete overhaul of the housing industry, not just build X amount year after year. Affordable housing needs to be built with equal measures of infrastructure as follows:

1) When giant housing estates are built onto existing towns and villages there should be an increase in spaces available for dentistry, GPs and schools either with extensions to local facilities or new schools, surgeries etc in addition to what is there. It would also make sense to build new strategic hospitals which are situated in relative distance between communities.

2) I do not agree with the 'back-handers' developers give to local authorities to help improve the local infrastructure and services. These companies should be forced to build a new school or surgery as part of their deal because the money they give as a bonus is never enough.

3) In the case of 'we need 30,000 homes in this area' it would make more sense to build a new purpose built town like they have done previously in the 20th century. That way there is adequate roads, schools, surgeries, public spaces, sewage lines, broadband/phone line, electricity etc to meet demand rather than put strain on an already overburdened area. The last major development where I live was in 1999 and no consideration was made for the following list. People found sewage coming up through there toilets because the old pipeline couldn't cope and a new power station had to be built because they didn't realise the grid couldn't cope and subsequently there was continuous blackouts. I hope this never happens again for people.

4) Its about time there was a big tax on holiday homes ruining those seaside communities, perfectly good homes empty most of the year, whilst generating a continuous housing shortage whilst our pricing the local community. Secondly that should go to for foreign investors! *cough* I mean nice Chinese, Arabs and what not who buy those lovely apartments in the cities and forget to live in them, but then remember to sell them when the price increases

5) All this housing should not be rushed, I think we can all agree no one wants to see those horrid 70s and 80s cheap housing estates that are architecturally revolting and usually situated next to grade 1 listed buildings...

6) There should be a scheme whereby affordable housing is only allowed to be sold to local people, not people 'moving up north' because the housing is cheaper or they are on a jolly in retirement. Secondly said housing should only be allowed to be sold by first occupants to again local people.

7) Government control and regulation of housing prices for first time buyers in areas where the general house price is ridiculous. I.e when affordable housing is ready for sale there is an upper limit to what a developer can charge e.g. lowest national average for affordable housing and not just to mark it up against the rest. This should help those seaside communities.

8) If 'going-up' with housing blocks is the plan, don't make the mistakes of the 60s and 70s. The last thing this country needs is more tower block slums! Tower blocks should have dedicated employed staff to look after them and security on the gorund floor levels or before you know it gang culture, graffiti on the corridors and urinating homeless people will be on the stairs!

7) If we are in such a crisis the government should just issue a national prefabricated housing policy like the Conservatives did at the end of WW2.

As you can see I have a strong view and clear plan of what I think the UK housing initiative should be. Your thoughts?

 Ketara wrote:
Nice to see Bercow, the man who waved in the Emir of Kuwait and Xi Jinping of China for Parliamentary addresses, suddenly growing a backbone for democracy. Such a shame he didn't do it in time to protest someone who's actually indulged in some substantial human rights abuses.

Good grief.

As an American, Trump should demand entrance or we will immediately attack Zimbabwe.
Alternatively we could have a giant Army of the Tennessee vs. Royal Army LARP and settle who was bestest once and for all.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Nice to see Bercow, the man who waved in the Emir of Kuwait and Xi Jinping of China for Parliamentary addresses, suddenly growing a backbone for democracy. Such a shame he didn't do it in time to protest someone who's actually indulged in some substantial human rights abuses.

Good grief.

As an American, Trump should demand entrance or we will immediately attack Zimbabwe.
Alternatively we could have a giant Army of the Tennessee vs. Royal Army LARP and settle who was bestest once and for all.

I don't think an eyebrow would be raised if anyone invaded Zimbabwe The somehow still ticking leader, Robert Mugabe has to rank as the number 1 racist leader in the world at the minute. People in the US and around the world think Trump is an egotistical racist, but they forget their is Robert Mugabe! A leader who has ruined his country by illegally arresting all non black Zimbabweans without charging them, stealing all their possessions, freezing and seizing their life savings and also taking away all land and homes they owned. Zimbabwe is the one place in the world where it is pretty much illegal to be a white skinned person.

Yeah....I think he was kidding.

I don't think Fraz could anything outside of Texas with an entire Regiment of Weiner Rangers to show him the right way round on the map.

 Frazzled wrote:

Alternatively we could have a giant Army of the Tennessee vs. Royal Army LARP and settle who was bestest once and for all.

The army of Tennessee would easily win as there has never been a Royal Army

Well at least not a British one...