In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws.
"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
That is in due in part because our National Parks are pretty much the envy of the world. That and some parks or protected areas are bigger than some countries. You can easily find some place to camp and enjoy the scenery and hike etc. In the UK you can't really do that(I've read that some land where camping in allowed is actually owned by one person or a family and they can and will kick you out for any reason. Other places can have you arrested if they even think you are planning to hike etc. Which is mind boggling to me.) So I guess there is a pro and con to being a old country with history and a young country with not rooted Aristocracy which claimed every major portion of the countryside.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
Still missing the pointttttttt :3 Thats ok, I didn't really expect anything better
Then you mustn't have the best reading comprehension in the world, because I expressed myself quite clearly.
You were very clear. Still missed the point though. I can talk very coherently about DOTA 2 right now, but it doesn't make it relevant to the argument I originally made
On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote: [quote]"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
That is in due in part because our National Parks are pretty much the envy of the world. That and some parks or protected areas are bigger than some countries. You can easily find some place to camp and enjoy the scenery and hike etc. In the UK you can't really do that(I've read that some land where camping in allowed is actually owned by one person or a family and they can and will kick you out for any reason. Other places can have you arrested if they even think you are planning to hike etc. Which is mind boggling to me.) So I guess there is a pro and con to being a old country with history and a young country with not rooted Aristocracy which claimed every major portion of the countryside.
It's not only history. Let's not forget the UK has 7.5 times the population density of the USA. No matter how we distribute the land, we're never going to adjust for a difference of that magnitude in crowding.
What makes this discussion I'm having with Zealos even dumber is that he's not even calling for fairer distribution of land. He's a hardcore right-winger who's presumably quite at home with the land aristocrats and the profound inequality in distribution.
Due to the "Zeal" part of his name, which captures him down to a tee, I think he might actually be trolling in this thread. I won't feed him any more.
On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote: [quote]"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
That is in due in part because our National Parks are pretty much the envy of the world. That and some parks or protected areas are bigger than some countries. You can easily find some place to camp and enjoy the scenery and hike etc. In the UK you can't really do that(I've read that some land where camping in allowed is actually owned by one person or a family and they can and will kick you out for any reason. Other places can have you arrested if they even think you are planning to hike etc. Which is mind boggling to me.) So I guess there is a pro and con to being a old country with history and a young country with not rooted Aristocracy which claimed every major portion of the countryside.
Eh, we have out own version of the Aristocracy. Protecting the National Parks is a perpetual battle, at least this generation still gets to enjoy them for the most part (edit: also Ken Burns did a good series on the history of the National Parks that illustrates this as well).
Bidder 70 is a stand-up-and-cheer documentary about an activist who made waves while sitting down. Shortly before the Bush regime left office W. leased vast swathes of federally-owned pristine acreage to developers for drilling and mining — an exploitation of public property intended to enrich energy companies. But there was an unexpected fly in the ointment: Due to what this documentary indicates was a case of mistaken identity by the authorities, Tim DeChristopher managed to infiltrate the December 19, 2008 Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Lease Auction in Salt Lake City. Acting, he says, “on the spur of the moment,” the 27-year-old became “bidder 70,” proffering almost $2 million for 22,000 acres of wilderness in the red rock country near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks.
There was only one problem. Far from being an energy or mining industry representative, DeChristopher was a University of Utah economics student who did not have the money to lease the dozen or so parcels he successfully bid upon. But by doing so in an effort to save the public land from being developed and exploited, he gummed up the works of the auction process.
For “disrupting” the auction, DeChristopher was indicted on two felonies and faced up to 10 years behind bars plus an almost $1 million fine. After Obama moved into the White House his new Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, directed the BLM and Interior Department not to accept the bids for 77 parcels near environmentally sensitive land. But the charges against DeChristopher weren’t dropped.
PS- sorry for bringing US politics into the UK thread lol.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
That is in due in part because our National Parks are pretty much the envy of the world. That and some parks or protected areas are bigger than some countries. You can easily find some place to camp and enjoy the scenery and hike etc. In the UK you can't really do that(I've read that some land where camping in allowed is actually owned by one person or a family and they can and will kick you out for any reason. Other places can have you arrested if they even think you are planning to hike etc. Which is mind boggling to me.) So I guess there is a pro and con to being a old country with history and a young country with not rooted Aristocracy which claimed every major portion of the countryside.
It's not only history. Let's not forget the UK has 7.5 times the population density of the USA. No matter how we distribute the land, we're never going to adjust for a difference of that magnitude in crowding.
Odd post stealth, and usually you source so well.
It is true that British national parks are owned and run by the National Trust and they don't allow camping except on designated sights. I think you can camp anywhere on Dartmore commons though and in parts of Scotland. Honestly this seems fairly reasonable to me given how much less wild space we actually have. As Ghastly says 7.5 times the population density makes a difference. It's possible things might be different in the U.S. if you had a population of over 2 billion.
If a family or person owns some land which they chose to rent out for camping I believe they can eject you if they wish. Is it different in the U.S.? I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have of people being arrested for thinking about planning a hike somewhere.
It really is a very strange idea of Britain you seem to be incubating there.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
That is in due in part because our National Parks are pretty much the envy of the world. That and some parks or protected areas are bigger than some countries. You can easily find some place to camp and enjoy the scenery and hike etc. In the UK you can't really do that(I've read that some land where camping in allowed is actually owned by one person or a family and they can and will kick you out for any reason. Other places can have you arrested if they even think you are planning to hike etc. Which is mind boggling to me.) So I guess there is a pro and con to being a old country with history and a young country with not rooted Aristocracy which claimed every major portion of the countryside.
It's not only history. Let's not forget the UK has 7.5 times the population density of the USA. No matter how we distribute the land, we're never going to adjust for a difference of that magnitude in crowding.
What makes this discussion I'm having with Zealos even dumber is that he's not even calling for fairer distribution of land. He's a hardcore right-winger who's presumably quite at home with the land aristocrats and the profound inequality in distribution.
Due to the "Zeal" part of his name, which captures him down to a tee, I think he might actually be trolling in this thread. I won't feed him any more.
Lol. You're such a dumbass. I literally have not debated the fact of whether or not the green land is gone. I've never mentioned land aristocrats or anything similar. I'm saying you're a fucking idiot to quote a statistic about the benefits of green areas in an attempt to prove that green areas in the country are being effected by increased housing.
Also, I would really appreciate it if you didn't tell me when I believe or what I am "Calling for" I am very capable of doing that myself, my good friend.
I am far from right wing, and very keen to reduce inequality.
I think the definition of dumbass is a hell of a lot closer to advocating a vision of anarcho-capitalism which makes the Tea Party look mild, and trying to pass yourself off as someone who is "far from right wing, and very keen to reduce inequality".
The research I quoted on green space is a lot more relevant than your thing about 2% of the land being built on. It concerns the importance of city planning and the effects of urbanization. Here's a hint: this research doesn't lend support to your notion that millions of extra immigrants would hardly put a "dent" in the environment, or that we should do away with "green belts and restrictive planning laws".
If you're not a troll, then I have to congratulate you on unwittingly choosing a name that could hardly be more apt. You're the most dyed-in-the-wool and devout free-market libertarian that I have ever encountered. (And believe me, I've had encounters...)
On September 19 2013 03:29 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On September 18 2013 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.
But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.
Money is being provided for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to emulate the English scheme, but as education is a devolved issue, it is up to those running schools there to decide whether to spend the money on free lunches.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "We are committed to expanding this provision further and, once we see the financial implications of this announcement for Scotland, we will examine how best to deliver that expansion."
I disapprove of this. It should be a parents job to finance their childs life at least until the point where the child is suffering as a result of the parents neglect or poverty, in which case I'm okay footing that bill. So basically the system had before was the correct one in my opinion.
Should this financing include healthcare and education?
I would actually be fine with education being a mandatory cost taken from the wages of parents to finance or part finance their childrens education. With the same safety net as school meals have. Obviously I have no details of the costs involved of administrating it and so on but I'm defintely not against it in principle.
On September 20 2013 02:15 Zystra wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are peoples views on the UAF???
One thing that stands out in my mind is that the single most racist, fascist and violence-disposed group in the UK is not targeted by UAF. I'm referring to the fundamentalist Islamist fringe which identifies with terrorists including Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of all the world's Jews. Indeed, there have been numerous reports of a significant escalation in anti-Semitic attacks, linked to the Gaza conflict. "Unite Against Fascism" indeed.
On September 20 2013 02:15 Zystra wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are peoples views on the UAF???
One thing that stands out in my mind is that the single most racist, fascist and violence-disposed group in the UK is not targeted by UAF. I'm referring to the fundamentalist Islamist fringe which identifies with terrorists including Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of all the world's Jews. Indeed, there have been numerous reports of an escalation in anti-Semitic attacks. "Unite Against Fascism" indeed.
Do you want to know why the UAF do not target fundamentalist islamists. It is because the UAF is a communist organisation that is tied in with the Socialist Workers Party. The leader of the UAF, a man called Martin Smith, described the British flag as disgusting. The UAF and fundamentalist islamists are working together to get what they want and that is a totalitarian government where free speech is disregarded. Just look at the way they attacked UKIP recently. They hate anyone who does not agree with their policies and they are very dangerous. They often call their members to be violent towards anyone who disagrees with them. One of the three main leaders of the UAF is a man called Azad Ali who has been quoted as saying that he would kill can british soldiers if he were to come across them in Iraq. He also says that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Another is a man who has been arrested several times for racially aggrivated assaults against white people.
Here is UAF leader hating on the British Flag
Here is UAF members trying to intervene in free speach
Here is the UAF affiliated George Galloway licking Sadam Hussains butthole
Here is UAF islamists throwing memorial flowers of the murdered soldier Lee Rigby
Here is a question for you. Why do we have to put up with these communist traitors. Absolutely disgusting.
On September 20 2013 02:15 Zystra wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are peoples views on the UAF???
One thing that stands out in my mind is that the single most racist, fascist and violence-disposed group in the UK is not targeted by UAF. I'm referring to the fundamentalist Islamist fringe which identifies with terrorists including Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of all the world's Jews. Indeed, there have been numerous reports of an escalation in anti-Semitic attacks. "Unite Against Fascism" indeed.
Do you want to know why the UAF do not target fundamentalist islamists. It is because the UAF is a communist organisation that is tied in with the Socialist Workers Party.
This is a non sequitur. In the 20th century there were frequent wars between communism and radical Islam. It makes little sense to argue "Islamophilia because communist". The root cause of Islamophilia must be something else.
I can well believe, however, that UAF is an organization which has no concern for even-handedness and no concern for the truth. Or indeed their stated purpose of opposing fascism.
On September 20 2013 02:51 Zystra wrote:Here is a question for you. Why do we have to put up with these communist traitors. Absolutely disgusting.
Lol, slightly anachronistic here. Maybe you'd do better in 1970s USA.
In my mind UAF et al are just as bad as the EDL, BNP or whoever it is they target. They don't do any favours for themselves, turning up at EDL rallies and such. There are better ways to oppose narrow minded bigots than stooping to narrow minded bigotry yourselves.
I suspect however that you're going to tell us about the merits of organisations such as the EDL next... I do hope not though!
Actually what's wrong with this? He raises many valid points here. It is a terribly bad thing to treat your country as infallible. Maybe you should think about what he says, and what terrible things our country has done in the past and still does today. A little bit of introspection never hurt anyone.
I for one am not automatically proud of my country just by being born here - there are many things wrong with this country - and personally I'm not a zealous flag waver myself.
EDIT: Just for reference, he says the front page of the Sun is disgusting, not the flag itself. Maybe that softens the blow a bit? I mean it is a bit vomit-inducing, a full page spread with the Union Jack and "FLY IT WITH PRIDE" or whatever.
On September 19 2013 03:29 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On September 18 2013 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.
But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.
Money is being provided for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to emulate the English scheme, but as education is a devolved issue, it is up to those running schools there to decide whether to spend the money on free lunches.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "We are committed to expanding this provision further and, once we see the financial implications of this announcement for Scotland, we will examine how best to deliver that expansion."
I disapprove of this. It should be a parents job to finance their childs life at least until the point where the child is suffering as a result of the parents neglect or poverty, in which case I'm okay footing that bill. So basically the system had before was the correct one in my opinion.
Should this financing include healthcare and education?
I would actually be fine with education being a mandatory cost taken from the wages of parents to finance or part finance their childrens education. With the same safety net as school meals have. Obviously I have no details of the costs involved of administrating it and so on but I'm defintely not against it in principle.
With healthcare, it should probably stay free.
So there is a limit to how financially culpable a parent is for the life of their child and you place that limit at healthcare. Your initial statement seemed fairly absolute. Just curious, why include healthcare but not education?
Have you considered that having only those who have children pay for children's education is a subsidy for the childless when it happens a welfare state? Those children who are being educated will eventually pay taxes themselves. Is a state investment in education not an investment in the future financial well being of the state?
On September 20 2013 02:15 Zystra wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are peoples views on the UAF???
I think that fascists should have the right to assemble and talk about how great fascism is as long as others have the right to assemble and protest against it.
On September 20 2013 02:51 Zystra wrote: Here is a question for you. Why do we have to put up with these communist traitors. Absolutely disgusting.
What alternative do you propose to putting up with them?
About these absurd calls to privatize children's education. We tried that prior to 1870 and it didn't work so well. Just who the hell do you Tories think you are, and where did you get the idea that you have a mandate for these things? You don't even have a majority in the current government, yet you propose some of the most radical reforms in British history. One is reminded of the attitudes and the propaganda of the other right-wing, revolutionary party that took Europe by storm by tapping into the fear and the desperation that came in a time of hardship.
On September 20 2013 08:58 GhastlyUprising wrote: About these absurd calls to privatize children's education. We tried that prior to 1870 and it didn't work so well. Just who the hell do you Tories think you are, and where did you get the idea that you have a mandate for these things? You don't even have a majority in the current government, yet you propose some of the most radical reforms in British history. One is reminded of the attitudes and the propaganda of the other right-wing, revolutionary party that took Europe by storm by tapping into the fear and the desperation that came in a time of hardship.
I think i'm the only one who called to privatise childrens education and i'm definitely not a Tory, and now isn't 1870 the income of the average and poorest people is much much higher, we also have a welfare state, people would be able to afford it assuming taxes were reduced corresponding with the £90 billion in education costs. Also pre 1870 got us to 1870 inventing the industrialised world etc. and children were still widely educated especially by the church.
I don't really care what majority there is or isn't I and everyone are free to believe and want whatever they wish, and if ur talking about the nazis that took europe by storm then a) I will invoke godwin's rule and b) they were left-wing not right-wing, clue in the name being national socialists.
EPT
