Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

Who do you currently intend to vote for in the next UK general election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 14 63.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • DUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,403
I see the BBC is giving more air time to that lazy useless cunt Farage.
Indeed, no fire without oxygen and they just can't help themselves
 

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,720

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Some greenbelt land isn't really green, says Rachel Reeves. :(

As predicted Labour is now going to build where we've not built since the 1960's. Land which might not be amazingly visually pleasing, but is still a store for nature and amenity for many, is going to get trashed.

Meanwhile, developers will still sit on what they've got. True progressive Labour government would have enacted a 10% tax per year on development land that developers have sat on for more than 10 years. That would have opened up more land than we could build on and stopped the rich hoarding swathes of land, forcing up it's price. Independent builders or people who wanted to buy a plot of land and build their own house would have a shot.

Ah well. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. They know land isn't really the problem. It's hoarding land that's the problem.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,279
There's a big hill near me that's greenbelt. It's a hill formed purely from fly ash from a former coal power station. It has a thin layer of grass growing on it.

Not all greenbelt land is green, she's right.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
There's a big hill near me that's greenbelt. It's a hill formed purely from fly ash from a former coal power station. It has a thin layer of grass growing on it.

Not all greenbelt land is green, she's right.
Much of Bestwood Park in Nottingham is an old slag heap.

It's also where everyone goes to walk their dogs, ride their bikes, walk in the green that's right next to the housing estates that butt up next to it.

If they build on that, then the kids in the housing estates will have to walk 20 minutes to get to the next greenery, at the ponds they created out of the old water mills. They've obviously been previously built on too, btw.

The idea that greenbelt = "green" is bullshit. But that's the linguistic loophole that they're using to justify building on long-protected "green" space. If it's not actually green, it's got no value, right?
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,365
There was an expert on Politics Live today and he said Greenbelt isn't what most people think/believe it is, he also said there had been studies that show that brownfield sites won't accommodate any where near enough houses.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Melenchon is a Frexiteer and Putin sympathiser so not a million miles from the right to be honest.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,858
Developers sat on over a million plots of useable land and not developing them.

We don't need to open up green belt. We just need to make these cunts build, or tax their land.

This would be the better option, but in my experience all the 'working class' green spaces have already been built on - the copy and paste council estates already have had their green spaces built upon, in places where it's already overcrowded, which further strains infrastructure and schools, who already dont have any money. Plus Leicester is already expanding into the countryside at a considerable pace.

Do yes, I like the idea of building new market towns in appropriate areas.

Hopefully we see further protection of certain places and less of others.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Melenchon is a Frexiteer and Putin sympathiser so not a million miles from the right to be honest.
Other than being far left, you mean.

This whole left-right thing is bullshit tbh. It doesn't even make an adequate stab at explaining the basics. I prefer the Political Compass way of seeing things.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Other than being far left, you mean.

This whole left-right thing is bullshit tbh. It doesn't even make an adequate stab at explaining the basics. I prefer the Political Compass way of seeing things.
Nationalist, authoritarian-leaning and not big on the jews isn't all that different to Le Pen. They just use different words to describe similar goals.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Turns out Bernie's a fucking dirty full-on commie!:

1720527892589.png
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Sure but not so much as Tulsi Gabbard who *checks notes* is a Putin-sympathetic MAGA-convert.

I call bullshit on that.
When'd she convert? :)

I guess if you've generally left/liberal leanings but hold some of views that are disgracefully rightwing/authoritarian, it moves the needle to the centre, not straight to "wants to nuke jews".

I'm very leftie and liberal. I'm in the bottom left quadrant of the bottom left quadrant. It's an interesting test - give it a go. It's way more interesting and useful than "left - right".
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
The proposal I've pointed at has been assessed as a critical wildlife corridor, has badgers, deer, bats and is farmland and woodland.

The place has some of the worst air quality in brum, they need more trees, not less. And the locals use the green space - it's their only easily accessible green space.

This doesn't even come close to Labour's bullshit "grey belt" frig.

Labour is resorting to environmental vandalism in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Nature is going to pick up the bill for their "growth" agenda.

People can justify it however they like - but successive labour and Tory governments haven't touched green belt for very good reasons. Labour's green credentials are increasingly wobbly - they u-turned their funding commitment and are not rowing back on the raft of new oil and gas licences that were granted by the tories, for example.

But critically, it more proof Starmer is authoritarian - he doesn't give a fuck about the concerns of local people and hasn't even blinked at the nature and amenity loss of reversing a popular 80-year old cross-party development consensus.

He's gonna do whatever he wants and fuck anyone who gets in his way. We've seen it in his stalinist handling of the left in his party. Now we're in his way.

Developers are rubbing their hands in glee - prime development land that was hitherto untouched. A massive gift to them. And they don't have to eat into their massive land banks.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,440
And they don't have to eat into their massive land banks.

You keep saying that. Any data to back it up?

NB. London has pretty much used up it's spare brownfield capacity; about 1.5% of London is still classed as brownfield available for development.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
You keep saying that. Any data to back it up?
I posted a couple of articles that referenced the Competition & Market's Authority review that said just that. Gove also set his crosshairs on them after the review.

So yes. Already provided. They're sat on enough land to provide all of Stalin's housing targets without building on any green belt.

I've not been saying this since the election btw - I've been saying it for years - levelling the same accusation of a lack of balls at the tories.

But the tories aren't going to tear up nature and deprive people of their much needed green spaces - Starmer's Labour is.

Edit: How can they even think of building on greenfield if we've still got brownfield left to build on? Surely the rule should be fill up all the brown before being allowed anywhere near green?

(That sounds vaguely sexual for some reason :()
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
NB. London has pretty much used up it's spare brownfield capacity; about 1.5% of London is still classed as brownfield available for development.
Quick maths says that if you're building houses, not flats or high rises, that's enough for over 100,000 in London alone. :)
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Report by the housing association trade group - you know, the sort of people responsible for grenfell - saying that brownfield sites can site a million houses. (Not flats). So 2/3rds of what Labour have committed to build in the next 5 years.

Add to that, the rest of the 1.5 million's worth of houses (minus the overlap) that private housebuilders have got in their land-bank (that doesn't include building on green-belt land, and according to government figures). It's pretty safe to say that there's enough land to build to target without building on green belt (including if we build houses and not flats - which we certainly will in cities, massively increasing the number of homes built).


So far, so whatever. Putting that argument aside, there's this: Labour say are going to complete in the next 5 years the same number that has been completed in the last fifteen. Fair enough.

Why do we need so many houses? The total fertility rate for women in the UK is 1.49 (in 2022). That's less than 3/4ths the replacement rate. So why the population explosion?

Net migration. It's been responsible for more than half of the population increase for quite a long time now. With the UK population predicted to meet 74 million with 6.1 million more migrants coming to the UK (and not EU migrants btw - from the rest of the world).

You have to ask yourself - is this never ending round of housebuilding even desireable? Especially given our attitudes to migration. (And mine, personally, that there's already too many fucking people on planet earth).

We could massively densify London - some bits of Paris have 40,000 people per square kilometer, whereas West London has only 20,000. And we could do that fantastically sympathetically to the enviroment - in the place that we want people - in cities (water use, energy use, impact on nature & carbon footprint etc. etc. are all massively better and more easily optimisable in cities).

But no, we'll keep fucking all the migrants into poor places where there's hardly any housing and even less jobs. We'll keep creating ghettos and then one day, when the far-right actually DO make it into power, we'll somehow feign surprise and outrage.


Meanwhile. We'll keep building over our nature, in a country where we've already killed 70% of our animal life, and where 1 in 6 UK species are at threat of extinction.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom