|
The problem people have in this thread is seeing Brexit voters as reasonable human beings and not violent animals that want anyone not white and english dead.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
jabby posted:Fields are great when they're growing crops or full of cows/sheep/etc. Most green belt land isn't like that. I'm sure I've had this argument here before but [citation needed] because most of London's Green Belt is farmland, and in the case of Essex and Kent is some of the most intensively-farmed land in the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Pantsuit posted:The problem people have in this thread is seeing Brexit voters as reasonable human beings and not violent animals that want anyone not white and english dead.  That's either an awful lot of turkeys voting for Christmas, or maybe politics is a lot more nuanced than WE GOOD THEY BAD
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Nah, it isn't. Time to dehumanize your political opponents and face to bloodshed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
They pretty bad, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:
First off, sample size of the non-white portions of that survey is awful. Secondly, those communities were hopeful ahead of Brexit that it may improve relations with their countries of origin, or by the lies told about the NHS (and before anyone steps in
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Pantsuit posted:The problem people have in this thread is seeing Brexit voters as reasonable human beings and not violent animals that want anyone not white and english dead. Tess.....
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
mehall posted:First off, sample size of the non-white portions of that survey is awful. I know, I was simply pointing out that there were reasons beyond KILL THE DARKIES why people voted Leave. They might not have been good reasons, but treating all Leave voters as an homogenous morass made from 100% recycled Daily Mail headlines is exactly the sort of thinking that got us into this position in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
mehall posted:Secondly, those communities were hopeful ahead of Brexit that it may improve relations with their countries of origin, or by the lies told about the NHS (and before anyone steps in Which given the coverage of PEGIDA marches, Marine Le Pen and burkini bans, and the governments in Hungary and Poland, and that guy from Eastern Europe who came over and murdered a Muslim pensioner and tried to bomb mosques to start a race war, it wasn't the hardest sell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Sorry, yes, I know Aberdeen is not the absolute cheapest place, but it's the cheapest reasonable sized city with reasonable facilities and services with a good quality of life. Last time I looked, Aberdeen was literally the most expensive place to live in the UK outside of London. Source: living in Aberdeen since 1990. I will also attest that Roseberry Topping is not a mountain, having walked up it then walked a further 34 miles in the same day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I will also attest that Roseberry Topping is not a mountain, having walked up it then walked a further 34 miles in the same day. What are you, a Roman legion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
JFC, again, it's the place that gathers these conditions: - Cheapest to *buy real estate in*, not necessarily live in (I live in London already) - Has a decent QOL/Safety index (so, not Glasgow or Birmingham) - Is a city with decent infrastructure and facilities I mean if you know of a place with cheaper real estate that also has a better safety/QOL rating, I'm all ears I won't buy real estate in the UK anyway - you guys already want my filthy EU rear end out, so it'll probably be Berlin or Amsterdam or who knows. In most cases you can't even buy the actual property - it's that leasehold poo poo. Pochoclo fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
I unironically want to win the lottery and retire to live in a renovated castle or fort in Cumbria, where I can eat Kendall Mint Cake and Grasmere Gingerbread for every meal of every day and throw eggs off the parapets at poor people passing by. Also, I would paint the whole thing pink with yellow polkadots just to ruin the view for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Richard Seymour has done a little on the figures behind that infographic about Labour voters on Brexit; turns out that it's still complicated! http://www.leninology.co.uk/2017/02/brexit-labour-voters-and-working-class.html Anyway, there's don't knows all over the place no matter what ends up happening so it's up to Labour to make their case to the public rather than any course dooming them to oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Labour does not have a case to make. Edit:  Abbott has recovered from her migraine
Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
jabby posted:As people have pointed out, there's still plenty of countryside elsewhere for people who want to go see it. I have no personal attachment to the green belt, but I have two objections to this. One is that countryside that's further away is harder for poor people to enjoy. And the other is that habitat loss is a leading cause of our environmental impoverishment. If we replaced the green belt with better protection for biodiversity and popular access, I'd be happy. But as things are - is giving property developers more power really the best solution to our housing problem? It looks awfully like the sort of solution people propose because better ones involve inconveniencing the rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
For the people in this thread parroting the tired old "Concreting over the countryside!" meme: The proportion of Britain that's "ruined" by being covered by houses, roads etc. is..... less than 2.5%. No, not 25%. Two-point-five percent. See 'the great myth of urban Britain': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 And no, the Green Belt is not being "nibbled away". In the last 20 years, how much do you think the green belt has shrunk? 10%? 30%? No, less than 1%. 1997: 1,652,310 hectares designated green belt. 2015: 1,636,620 hectares designated green belt. About 13% of all the land in Britain is green belt; in some places it's expanding. Sources: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-green-belt-statistics-for-england-2010-to-2011 http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00934 No we are not concreting over the countryside, no we are not running out of land, no we are not going to disappear under a carpet of suburban sprawl if we ever relax our vigilance for one single second. The widespread and deeply felt belief that this IS happening, in the face of the most basic and easily available evidence to the contrary, is one of the things that I find most baffling about 21st century Britain. That many people who are in a desperate housing situation themselves hold these beliefs is just incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
The other statisitc I heard that may be wrong is that there is more land in Surrey that is used as golf course than is used as housing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I have no personal attachment to the green belt, but I have two objections to this. One is that countryside that's further away is harder for poor people to enjoy. And the other is that habitat loss is a leading cause of our environmental impoverishment. You're absolutely right that having the countryside further away makes it harder for poor people who already live in the city to enjoy. It's just that having houses, especially houses closer to the city, is more important for a greater number of people. As for giving property developers more power, I would be far happier if councils built social housing on the green belt. I have no love for developers. But we can't solve our housing crisis without massive housebuilding and there simply aren't enough brownfield sites for that to be realistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The other statisitc I heard that may be wrong is that there is more land in Surrey that is used as golf course than is used as housing. I believe that is actually true if things like grounds/gardens and the necessary road infrastructure weren't included. Something that occurred to me while listening to all this stuff on the radio. What would happen if the government decried that all land currently with planning permission but not being built upon had a 5 year time limit before defaulting to the government, and that any houses built on said land would be barred to sale for a period of 15 years to anyone who wasn't a first time buyer? I mean it would never happen, but... serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:The proportion of Britain that's "ruined" by being covered by houses, roads etc. is..... less than 2.5%. That is a really dishonest figure. Over 10% of England is urban. Yes, urban areas contain many thousands of little bits of greenery, but this is not countryside. It is limited in the species it can sustain. Many species require a range of contiguous land and having it broken up by human roads etc threatens their existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Higher density housing around mass transit hubs would make suburbs more practical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Basically would my idea gently caress the country by causing a house price crash or would it actually have the opposite effect of making the remaining housing stock skyrocket as hungry landlords pillage it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:JFC, again, it's the place that gathers these conditions: You post like you have more money than sense. I'm sorry our countries decent into horror is making ruining your real estate plans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Starmer withdrawing the Labour amendment was well stupid
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
The whole enterprise has been a farce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
mehall posted:First off, sample size of the non-white portions of that survey is awful. Well, more specifically that if white people coming over from the EU couldn't get here so easily, people would chill out about immigration from outside the EU (which my wife has done this and no poo poo it's hard/expensive) and the government would stop cracking down on non-EU immigration quite so hard (as it has been doing since that's all it can control) and let more brown people in from the Commonwealth. Lol if you think this will actually happen in rainy fascist 'friend of the family for a neighbour' Britain, but that's where a lot of them were understandably coming from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:The proportion of Britain that's "ruined" by being covered by houses, roads etc. is..... less than 2.5%. Oh dear me posted:That is a really dishonest figure. Over 10% of England is urban. Yes, urban areas contain many thousands of little bits of greenery, but this is not countryside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Pantsuit posted:The problem people have in this thread is seeing Brexit voters as reasonable human beings and not violent animals that want anyone not white and english dead. Nah, I know loads of people who're just credulous idiots who believe anything that's printed is true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
There was a man at work today haranguing everyone in the shop about how everything he didn't like was because it wasn't British and if it was British it would all be better. Which I'm not sure is true in the case of the POS machine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There was a man at work today haranguing everyone in the shop about how everything he didn't like was because it wasn't British and if it was British it would all be better. Well er, hopefully he wasn't referring to the staff at least?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
is it bad i keep looking at just how hosed up things are in america right now and being glad we're not quite that awful?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
I used to encounter "the mad spar Lady". She used to come in once a week and rant and rave all this heavy Nazi stuff for half an hour and walk out again while everyone in there completely ignored her. They used to call the police but the response time was an hour and she would preach for longer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
namesake posted:Well er, hopefully he wasn't referring to the staff at least? I hope not. We don't have many people who aren't from round here though so I didn't get to test the hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think both of these figures might be true. No. 6.8% of the UK’s land area was classified as urban in 2012. 8% was under "artificial surfaces" in 2015. And quote:"roughly every decade an area the size of Rutland is taken out of agricultural and forestry land use – or converted from a wetland, although this is not one of the dominant changes in area – to artificial surfaces" Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The first concession is in I don't think so. She promised to bring the final Brexit deal to a vote in parliament, but the vision she had for this was a fait accompli after ratification by the European parliament, where there was no opportunity for meaningful change. The concession here is that parliament now has the authority to agree or reject her negotiated position before it gets voted on by Europe, which means changes to her negotiated position can still be demanded by parliament. The timing is still going to restrict the scope of the changes, but it's a significant concession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Tess..... *rises from the sewers* rruuauuarrgh
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No. 6.8% of the UK’s land area was classified as urban in 2012. If I might be permitted to quote further, from the VERY link that you posted..... quote:“6.8% of the UK’s land area is now classified as urban”. It should also be noted that they include all rural development and roads as “urban” in their assessment! Broken down across the UK the urban landscape comprises 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.The report breaks this down further and suggests that over half the land classed as urban is in fact greenspace (54% in England), comprising of sports fields, urban parklands, allotments etc. The report goes on to suggest that for England “78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built” when one includes domestic gardens, roadside verges, canals, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. This then leaves only 2.27% of the English landscape actually being built on, a staggering figure which runs contrary to all popular perceptions of the United Kingdom as possessing largely over-urbanised, post-industrial landscapes. My "less than 2.5%" stands 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
*takes the dog for a walk down the riverside and around the local reservoir* "Gosh, I hate these urban environments!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
What's wrong with post-industrial landscapes, I live in one and I like it fine 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:53
|
|