Homeless crisis?

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Under no circumstances should more green belt be set aside for housing!  98% of the UK is not Green Belt, nor is it viable farmland! Most green belt being eyed by government and developers is FARMLAND! Where we grow food! and given we can now only produce 58% of the food needed in this country, (figures today on the BBC News), the last thing we should do is take more out of production!  You cannot make farmland, once  it,s gone, it,s gone! And developers don,t want to build on difficult ex- industrial sites, or up in the Welsh or Scottish mountains, they want easy flatland. The answers are not easy, but one would be to put a complete halt on immigration. With  thousands leaving this country each year, we might slow down or halt the population increase. People turning up here, mostly uninvited DO NOT have the right to a roof over their heads! A roof provided by the taxpayer.

+1

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Under no circumsyances should more green belt be set aside for housing!  98% of the UK is not Green Belt, nor is it viable farmland! Most green belt being eyed by government and developers is FARMLAND! Where we grow food! and given we can now only produce 58% of the food needed in this country, (figures today on the BBC News), the last thing we should do is take more out of production!  You cannot make farmland, once  it,s gone, it,s gone! And developers don,t want to build on difficult ex- industrial sites, or up in the Welsh or Scottish mountains, they want easy flatland. The answers are not easy, but one would be to put a complete halt on immigration. With  thousands leaving this country each year, we might slow down or halt the population increase. People turning up here, mostly uninvited DO NOT have the right to a roof over their heads! A roof provided by the taxpayer.

Green belt policy is responsible for the loss of virgin land to housing. Reviewing green belt policy to make way for more housing will protect green land. Our children need homes.

The reason that we only produce 58% of our food is not because of a lack of land.

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

Green belt policy is responsible for the loss of virgin land to housing. Reviewing green belt policy to make way for more housing will protect green land. Our children need homes.

The reason that we only produce 58% of our food is not because of a lack of land.

Giving politicians  the chance to "review" Green Belt land will almost certainly mean a loss of good farmland! "Our" children may well need homes, but the rest of the world can whistle! And the reason we only produce 58% of our food IS because of the loss of farmalnd, as most on here will agree! We have lost a huge amount of farmland since WW2, and virtually all of it was used for food production! We can no longer feed ourselves! Why make it woese!! You don,t see estates spring up on Romney Marshes, the Penines, or the Scottish Mountains!  Be real !

Edited August 3, 2018 by pinfireman
additional information

[old man]

22 hours ago, ehb102 said:

*shrug* It's the free market. So long as people are buying into the fiction that the market will adjust to provide for all then it will go on. Hello, slums and workhouses. 

Yep, coming sooner than expected.

Driving the general populace down?

[Vince Green]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

The reason that we only produce 58% of our food is not because of a lack of land.

No indeed its not. Hundreds of small growers in Cornwall who grew salad items under glass for years were made bankrupt by the EU Common agricultural policy and dumping of surpluses by Spanish farmers in the UK. A lot of those smallholdings are just standing idle today.

I travel by train regularly, once a week sometimes, to either Bristol or Cardiff. On the journey you pass thousands and thousands of acres of land that just appear to be unused. I don't know why, I would love to know the answer. It troubles me every time.

Two years ago, well up into the Scottish Highlands where my cousin and her husband live on the side of a god forsaken hill in what they call a Croft and I call a Hovel, I asked the question, "where are all the sheep? "

"no sheep now, they can't sell the wool and the cost of feeding them through the winter is higher than they fetch at auction in the spring"

Well, bring the sheep down in the winter off the hills, and put them on the empty fields alongside the railway out to Bristol, from London you only have to put an extra truck on the back of an existing train. Lack of joined up thinking, that's our problem. 

[oowee]

5 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Giving politicians  the chance to "review" Green Belt land will almost certainly mean a loss of good farmland! "Our" children may well need homes, but the rest of the world can whistle! And the reason we only produce 58% of our food IS because of the loss of farmalnd, as most on here will agree! We have lost a huge amount of farmland since WW2, and virtually all of it was used for food production! We can no longer feed ourselves! Why make it woese!! You don,t see estates spring up on Romney Marshes, the Penines, or the Scottish Mountains!  Be real !

Lol. Please read my earlier post slowly.  Green belt was dreampt up by planners and endorsed by politicians. It results in us loosing more farm land than if we did not have the policy. If we had no such thing as green belt we would have more farm land!!!!!! Read the post from Vince above. We have a massively inefficient food production processes (with exceptions) in the UK. We have acres and acres of unproductive land. If as you say that most on here agree ( i suspect not) then most on here would be wrong. We could easily feed ourselves if we chose to. Only 2% of the UK is built upon. 

The reason our children cannot buy homes is because they cannot afford them. The reason for that is a combination of nimby voters and the economics of supply and demand. We as a country would not allow our politicians to solve the housing problem because of our own vested interest. I suggest you get real (whatever that means).

 

[das]

22 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Under no circumsyances should more green belt be set aside for housing!  98% of the UK is not Green Belt, nor is it viable farmland! Most green belt being eyed by government and developers is FARMLAND! Where we grow food! and given we can now only produce 58% of the food needed in this country, (figures today on the BBC News), the last thing we should do is take more out of production!  You cannot make farmland, once  it,s gone, it,s gone! And developers don,t want to build on difficult ex- industrial sites, or up in the Welsh or Scottish mountains, they want easy flatland. The answers are not easy, but one would be to put a complete halt on immigration. With  thousands leaving this country each year, we might slow down or halt the population increase. People turning up here, mostly uninvited DO NOT have the right to a roof over their heads! A roof provided by the taxpayer.

Very well said Pinfire, my sentiments exactly?

[pinfireman]

13 hours ago, oowee said:

Lol. Please read my earlier post slowly.  Green belt was dreampt up by planners and endorsed by politicians. It results in us loosing more farm land than if we did not have the policy. If we had no such thing as green belt we would have more farm land!!!!!! Read the post from Vince above. We have a massively inefficient food production processes (with exceptions) in the UK. We have acres and acres of unproductive land. If as you say that most on here agree ( i suspect not) then most on here would be wrong. We could easily feed ourselves if we chose to. Only 2% of the UK is built upon. 

The reason our children cannot buy homes is because they cannot afford them. The reason for that is a combination of nimby voters and the economics of supply and demand. We as a country would not allow our politicians to solve the housing problem because of our own vested interest. I suggest you get real (whatever that means).

 

The vast majority of acres NOT in food production are UNSUITABLE for growing crops!  You clearly have very little knowledge of farming!  We failed completely to completely produce food during WW2,  at best it reached 90% (and that was using parks, gardens,  golf courses etc...With a population of 45 MILLION! Today it,s 67.8 MILLION!  You are clearly being lead by the political claptrap of the Left, who see farmers as  being the super rich! And it,s not 2% built on, urban areas  are estimated at 8%. ! In excess of that 70% of the total land mass is a form of agriculture, of that only 36% will grow crops (to put it another way, only 25% of the total  land mass!)

[oowee]

93% of UK is not urban. In Urban England 54% is green space (parks allotments) 18% gardens, 6.6 % water. The proportion of 'England' built on 2.27%.* Report copied below for information. 

Farming today has changed from that in WW2. If you go out into the countryside you will see many more machines, larger fields and more intensive farming practice. Farmers now use more advanced seed, fertilizer and have better routes to harvest and market. Long gone are the WW2 methods. WW2 was over 70 years ago, things have moved on a lot since then. You really need to get out into the countryside more and take a look, you will not believe the changes that have been made.

Not withstanding the far better production methods our penchant for certain types of agriculture results in some non food crops, or inefficient food crops being prioritised. This together with vast tracts of land not being used (See Vince's comments above) largely for economic reasons, results in a very inefficient use of the land for food production. Look at bio crop, wildlife planting, woodland (12.7% of UK) set aside and so on. As an example, one of my farmers has just planted 15 acres of 'wild bird and bumble' it will remain for two years and then be ploughed in. Last year it was planted with clover.

Not sure where your comment about farmers being super rich comes from? For fear of stating the obvious some clearly some are and some clearly not. I now spend all of my time shooting, largely on behalf of a large seed company so have some idea of what is happening. 

My original point being that green belt protection is resulting in the loss of farm land rather than protecting it. If you want to protect more of Britains farm land remove the policy which at the same time with Government intervention will provide more housing for our children.

 

*UK National Ecosystem assessment report 2011

[hambone]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

93% of UK is not urban. In Urban England 54% is green space (parks allotments) 18% gardens, 6.6 % water. The proportion of 'England' built on 2.27%.* Report copied below for information. 

Farming today has changed from that in WW2. If you go out into the countryside you will see many more machines, larger fields and more intensive farming practice. Farmers now use more advanced seed, fertilizer and have better routes to harvest and market. Long gone are the WW2 methods. WW2 was over 70 years ago, things have moved on a lot since then. You really need to get out into the countryside more and take a look, you will not believe the changes that have been made.

Not withstanding the far better production methods our penchant for certain types of agriculture results in some non food crops, or inefficient food crops being prioritised. This together with vast tracts of land not being used (See Vince's comments above) largely for economic reasons, results in a very inefficient use of the land for food production. Look at bio crop, wildlife planting, woodland (12.7% of UK) set aside and so on. As an example, one of my farmers has just planted 15 acres of 'wild bird and bumble' it will remain for two years and then be ploughed in. Last year it was planted with clover.

Not sure where your comment about farmers being super rich comes from? For fear of stating the obvious some clearly some are and some clearly not. I now spend all of my time shooting, largely on behalf of a large seed company so have some idea of what is happening. 

My original point being that green belt protection is resulting in the loss of farm land rather than protecting it. If you want to protect more of Britains farm land remove the policy which at the same time with Government intervention will provide more housing for our children.

 

*UK National Ecosystem assessment report 2011

While I agree with most of your comments on this post (strange but true ?) I feel the need to point out this demand for housing is just not (remotely) for only our children

[oowee]

10 minutes ago, hambone said:

While I agree with most of your comments on this post (strange but true ?) I feel the need to point out this demand for housing is just not (remotely) for only our children

You are right of course but this is true of the world over. Whilst we might want to restrict future migration, from the EU, evidence suggests that where we have control over non EU migration, we still seem to have large population movements despite these control. You could say these are ineffective tools (and i would not disagree) but maybe they point to the way that controls are likely to operate (ie not effective) going forwards? I am still amazed how we are able to import footballers from any country we wish on the basis we need the skills  let alone many other areas of the economy where we cannot seem to fulfill needs locally. 

Unfortunately the largest driver for new homes is new household formations in particular single dwellers (Data from Homes and Communities). I guess its not all bad that people are living longer 

[henry d]

Quote

The biggest single cause of the increase in demand for housing is over population caused largely by mass immigration.

On 03/08/2018 at 09:52, Newbie to this said:

There you go I fixed it for you.

The quicker our government accepts that fact and acts on it the better, if they keep burying their heads in the sand, the problem will only get worse.

Sorry but for some reason I can`t reply below???

This has nothing to do with homelessness, it has a lot to do with who is willing to work. Almost 220K people migrated to the UK in 2013 to work, 180 to study, compared to the 60k who either did not state or had other reasons (ONS stats and widely available if you care to look rather than an unsubstantiated assertion by pinefireman, but I await his refutation), so if the workers or students are the cause of the lack of housing then I woyuld like to see the figures not just the assertion that my wife/friend/someone I know is the holder of the truth.

[PPP]

Holy thread derailment Batman...

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, PPP said:

Holy thread derailment Batman...

He had a mansion to live in. 

[Bigbob]

We in Fife had over 50,000 houses built on  farmland i used to shoot on  called Edinburgh's Rural  Expansion Scheme  because people cant afford to live in the capital so they think they can  move over here and a 20 minute commute over the new bridge will see them earning better money working in Edinburgh ,  But the 20 minute commute is now 2 hours plus at rush times twice a day and the speed limit on the bridge is 70 MPH its classed as a motorway but your lucky to be doing 10 mph and stopping and starting  all the time the new bridge just cant cope they didnt put the roadworks in to deal with it . I've a feeling its going to be the same for years to come unless they do something like Cumbernauld  take over farmland and completely build a new town and put in the road infrastructure  but that going to cost 100s of millions and while still called the new town cumbernauld is 20 years old and all ready bursting at the seams . It all comes down to the pound but government unless its there pay doesn't seem to want to spend money for the longtime benefit of anybody homeless or affordable housing they just want to put a patch on and try to look good for there time in office 

[Vince Green]

Since Britain is one of the most densely populated pieces of ground on the planet the cause of the problem is self evident. We don't have a housing shortage we have a population surplus. That's not contentious, that's a fact

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Vince Green said:

Since Britain is one of the most densely populated pieces of ground on the planet the cause of the problem is self evident. We don't have a housing shortage we have a population surplus. That's not contentious, that's a fact

+1

[PPP]

I’m not convinced shortage of housing is the only homelessness driver, I think we have an enormous mental health time bond and this is the tip of the iceberg 

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Since Britain is one of the most densely populated pieces of ground on the planet the cause of the problem is self evident. We don't have a housing shortage we have a population surplus. That's not contentious, that's a fact

Prove it please, where is the evidence for Britain? Or can you see it with your own eyes? ? Maybe very high in some London Boroughs but otherwise see the report above. On what basis do you think we have a population surplus? What should the number be? 

 

1 hour ago, Bigbob said:

We in Fife had over 50,000 houses built on  farmland i used to shoot on  called Edinburgh's Rural  Expansion Scheme  because people cant afford to live in the capital so they think they can  move over here and a 20 minute commute over the new bridge will see them earning better money working in Edinburgh ,  But the 20 minute commute is now 2 hours plus at rush times twice a day and the speed limit on the bridge is 70 MPH its classed as a motorway but your lucky to be doing 10 mph and stopping and starting  all the time the new bridge just cant cope they didnt put the roadworks in to deal with it . I've a feeling its going to be the same for years to come unless they do something like Cumbernauld  take over farmland and completely build a new town and put in the road infrastructure  but that going to cost 100s of millions and while still called the new town cumbernauld is 20 years old and all ready bursting at the seams . It all comes down to the pound but government unless its there pay doesn't seem to want to spend money for the longtime benefit of anybody homeless or affordable housing they just want to put a patch on and try to look good for there time in office 

This is my point entirely re protecting green. If we allow cities to expand at the boundries rather than leap frog to new areas we make better use of the land we have. It would reduce the urban sprawl and traffic growth as it would be more contained. Build to higher densities as residents can be better served by public transport reducing the need for cars. Greater density allows for more social housing within the mix. It can't be right to allow Edingburgh to expand in Fife with the associated traffic movements. 

 

1 minute ago, PPP said:

I’m not convinced shortage of housing is the only homelessness driver, I think we have an enormous mental health time bond and this is the tip of the iceberg 

I agree. As populations grow there are inevitably more people at the margins. There is also a view that as the rich get richer the poor get poorer. It's easier to feel alienated when the speed of growth is so rapid. It really needs a concerted effort at Local Authority level to start to tackle the problem but they would need some money to pay for it. At present its not often a priority given its a problem that is easy to ignore.

[Bazooka Joe]

21st century & we have people living on the streets, truly shameful for the UK.

The recent wedding at Windsor was an example how this government like to cover up their short comings.

Police Remove Sleeping Bags From The Homeless.

Quote

There is also a view that as the rich get richer the poor get poorer.

IMO that's a fact not a view.

[bruno22rf]

In my local area (10 miles outside MK) there seems to be a lot of older people living as a couple in large 3 bedroom houses - it's a harsh thing to do but these people should be forced to move to more suitable housing and accept the fact that it might be in a different area, surely this is just a fact of life if you live in social housing. 

[Newbie to this]

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

[hambone]

1 hour ago, bruno22rf said:

In my local area (10 miles outside MK) there seems to be a lot of older people living as a couple in large 3 bedroom houses - it's a harsh thing to do but these people should be forced to move to more suitable housing and accept the fact that it might be in a different area, surely this is just a fact of life if you live in social housing. 

You may have a point regarding social housing but the first thing I thought about reading you post was "Logans Run" ?? 

[oowee]

59 minutes ago, hambone said:

You may have a point regarding social housing but the first thing I thought about reading you post was "Logans Run" ?? 

 no doubt more availability would better meet the social housing need but the homeless component has more to do with alienation, drugs, and mental health issues than availability. 

[scobydog]

3 hours ago, bruno22rf said:

In my local area (10 miles outside MK) there seems to be a lot of older people living as a couple in large 3 bedroom houses - it's a harsh thing to do but these people should be forced to move to more suitable housing and accept the fact that it might be in a different area, surely this is just a fact of life if you live in social housing. 

Is this social or private housing ?