If You Could Vote Again (Brexit)

[carryfast]

Rjan:
To be honest Carryfast I struggled to understand how it supported your point.

We all accept that enforcement staff haunt the ports. But neither people nor goods are systematically checked. You cannot be denied entry simply because you don’t have a passport, for example. An immigration officer can ask you questions, but the burden is on him to prove that something is out of order, not for you to show that things are in order.

Typical remainer zb.So are you saying that we’ve got border agency staff at the Isle of Wight ferry terminals as in the case of Cairnryan and Portsmouth and Southampton and Dover European ferry terminals or not.If not why not.

Exactly what UK immigration procedures are you supposedly going by which would allow anyone,except UK and Irish citizens,into the UK at Cairnryan or Heathrow without a passport.Or even proof of their UK or Irish citizenship.

For the umpteenth time it’s all about the status of the traffic crossing the borders,as in the case of US car parts brought into UK via Shannon and Cairnryan,or non CTA travellers entering UK via Eire or vice versa,not the fact that the Irish border isn’t the iron curtain nor ever was and Brexit will make no difference whatsoever to that fact.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Winseer:
The best solutions to all this - would be the simplest ones. “Turn the clock back” if no one can come up with a better idea.
Whatever solution might eventually dawn on our useless politicians - it’ll still be ■■■■■■■ millions of people off, either way.

Best then, we put back the original ■■■■-off then.

Bring back the Hard Border, and if need be - tear up the Good Friday Agreement.

If we cannot move forward to leave the EU, then let us at least slam into reverse - and back out.

At present, the Lords have now told May we cannot leave the EU with “No Deal” which means all the EU have to do to scupper Brexit - is never offer us a deal.

But where’s your democratic mandate for tearing up the Good Friday Agreement and going back to war? And don’t bother to argue that the British people voted for that in the referendum - the people of NI certainly didn’t. The implication of the referendum result is just as consistent with ceding “special status” and having a border in the Irish Sea, but in truth people simply hadn’t considered the issue beforehand.

It was never considered because the so called ‘border’ that you’re referring to ‘already’ exists on both sides of the Irish sea and the Irish land border for ‘non CTA status’ traffic just as it will exist after Brexit.With the border in question actually being strengthened as an EU member state.But you already know that.

express.co.uk/news/uk/267834 … r-migrants

While you and your liar remainer cronies are effectively saying that the Good Friday agreement was effectively dependent on the UK staying within the EU or the EEA and that non EU membership by either Eire or UK also means an iron curtain at the Irish border by default.Exactly where is that written within any of the relevant treaties ?.

[rjan]

Mazzer2:
Can we stop the patronising about the Good Friday Agreement, this idea that without we would return to the killing of the 70’s is just scaremongering BS. Yes there are still people in NI who want violence no matter what deal is put on any table unless it is for a united Ireland, but they are now very much in the minority have no support from any of the major political parties and are roundly condemned by all sides when they commit an act of violence.
The economic situation in NI has changed massively and people are now used to peace I have yet to meet anyone who wants a return to violence or thinks it would be a good idea.
I appreciate that solving the border issue is going to be difficult not helped by the change in attitude from the Republic since Varadkar took over but he has his own problems and Brexit is a good way of diverting attention from them

I don’t doubt that nobody wants a return to violence and killings, but by the same token I very much doubt that Sinn Fein would take lying down the unilateral “tearing up” of the Good Friday Agreement by a Tory government at Westminster and the reimplementation of a hard border, particularly when 80-90% of the Catholic/nationalist community voted for Remain, Ulster as whole voted Remain by an appreciable margin, and neither community supports a hard border with Eire - in fact, the statistics I’ve seen suggest that ordinary unionists are more in favour of an Irish Sea border than they are of an Ulster-Eire border! The whole place has calmed down precisely because all the bad practices have been cleaned up and there is no longer any reason for upset.

You will have your ear to the ground in a way that I don’t, but have things really moved so far along in NI that the British government could throw up a hard border with Eire, tear the GFA in two, and drag NI out of the EU - all as proposed by Winseer - and there would be no fuss?

[franglais]

To reinstate a hard border between NI and Eire would be, apart from any political aspects, Extremely expensive to set up and maintain/patrol/administer. It isn’t a real solution.
Hard border in the sea means NI is effectively a part of Eire. Even if everyone in NI agreed to that I suspect the citizens of the Home Counties would object to an extent that it would suicide for any Government and any political party.
A political “fudge” could appear out of the mist, but you can guarantee that it’ll be short lived and end badly.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

[carryfast]

Franglais:
To reinstate a hard border between NI and Eire would be, apart from any political aspects, Extremely expensive to set up and maintain/patrol/administer. It isn’t a real solution.
Hard border in the sea means NI is effectively a part of Eire. Even if everyone in NI agreed to that I suspect the citizens of the Home Counties would object to an extent that it would suicide for any Government and any political party.
A political “fudge” could appear out of the mist, but you can guarantee that it’ll be short lived and end badly.

NTSA.You ain’t going to get those US car parts or bus load of illegal Somali immigrants into UK via Shannon or Rosslare and Cairnryan without paying any duty or getting busted for people trafficking.That’s as hard a border as it gets and needs to get.No need for any bs iron curtain across Ireland.While your logic is as zb stupid as saying that the ‘hard’ border at the Portsmouth-Cherbourg ferry terminal makes the bleedin Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands a part of France.

[carryfast]

Franglais:
Even if everyone in NI agreed to that I suspect the citizens of the Home Counties would object to an extent that it would suicide for any Government and any political party.

So what are you going to do about the referendum vote ‘including’ the Leave vote in the home counties like myself bearing in mind that this is a national matter not a County Council one.(Ironically if only we could have local referendum at county level on ‘local’ matters like development policy ).

Oh wait Fedralists and Socialists don’t do democracy.No surprise you don’t seem to give a zb about the fact that the majority of the ‘UK’ electorate want to leave the ‘EU’.As for the Irish wanting to hand their country over to the EU they are a Socialist led insult to all those who gave their lives for its independence.

[franglais]

Dear CarryFast,
Thanks for your responses again. I honestly can’t find another angle to come at this from. Anything else woukd just be repetition. You haven’t convinced me that there is no issue here, I’m sure that there is but I won’t repeat amy arguments thst have already failed.[emoji3]

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

[winseer]

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” (Sun Tsu, “The Art of War”)

It is still very apparent that our parliament didn’t expect to ever have their bluff called on the whole ■■■■-up-to EU bubble they have created for themselves at Westminster.

How can one otherwise explain why after 2 years - we still have a parliment that is resisting Brexit, and a senior cabinet full of Remainers?

What happens at the next election if Labour gain some seats, the Tories lose some more, and they end up neck-and-neck with NO third party with enough seats to go into coalition with?

Isn’t the very worst of possible future governments - one of so-called “National Unity”? - with a 75%+ Remainer content - we’d then lose our voted-for Brexit - outright.

It’s slipping away from us, and all the Remainers can do is gloat, as if WE brexiteers made the “mistake” of trusting Public Democracy over so-called “Parliamentary Democracy”, joke that it’s now become.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
It is still very apparent that our parliament didn’t expect to ever have their bluff called on the whole ■■■■-up-to EU bubble they have created for themselves at Westminster.

How can one otherwise explain why after 2 years - we still have a parliment that is resisting Brexit, and a senior cabinet full of Remainers?

What happens at the next election if Labour gain some seats, the Tories lose some more, and they end up neck-and-neck with NO third party with enough seats to go into coalition with?

Isn’t the very worst of possible future governments - one of so-called “National Unity”? - with a 75%+ Remainer content - we’d then lose our voted-for Brexit - outright.

It’s slipping away from us, and all the Remainers can do is gloat, as if WE brexiteers made the “mistake” of trusting Public Democracy over so-called “Parliamentary Democracy”, joke that it’s now become.

No bluffs have actually needed to be called by the EU and the remain orientated Cons are obviously happy to compromise their own seats and even majority if it means weakening the hand of its Leave faction and increasing that of the remainers,in alliance ( effectively co alition ) with the remainer ‘opposition’ MP’s.May already having done that in calling an unnecessary election which she knew would reduce her majority.I’d guess that they’d see losing a lot more to the point of a Lab/LibDem/SNP majority and effectively remain Con ‘non opposition’ ( effectively four party remain coalition ) would be a price well worth paying from the point of view of remainers May and Hammond.

While it was always a good bet that the remainers would use the referendum to cement us into the EU if it went their way,and calling it nothing more than an ‘opinion poll’,which they didn’t need to honour,if it didn’t.It’s anyone’s guess how supposed Leave voters don’t see a massive swing to UKIP as being the only possible credible way of saving Brexit in that toxic environment.The problem as always being that the UKIP vote,like the Leave vote itself,doesn’t really reflect Parliamentary constituency vote boundaries.

So Brexit sunk and European Federal rule imposed on us by a rogue UK Parliament and a military and its ultimate command unable or unwilling to step in to stop a clear case of treason.In our own government exceeding its powers in handing over the country to a foreign power/government anyway.Regardless of whether it’s 1973 or 2016 .You couldn’t make it up.While future generations of Brits ( rebels ),possibly trying to take their country back from the,by then,USE Federal monster and its Federal forces,won’t judge this kindly.

[winseer]

Maybe Remainer Tories need to be reminded of the trend now, along with Remainer anyone else of course…

Nick Clegg (Libdem, Arch Remainer) - Loses Seat.

Anna Soubry, Amber Rudd (Tory, Arch Remainers) - Crushed to wafer thin majority.
Tim Farron (Libdem, Arch Remainer) - Crushed Majority.

Graham Stringer, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Roger Godsiff (Labour, Arch Brexiteers) - Massive increase to their majorities.
Boris Johnson (Tory, Pretend Brexiteer) - Majority Halved.

I suggest that to be one of the 75% Remainer MPs - is slowly but surely becoming toxic.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Maybe Remainer Tories need to be reminded of the trend now, along with Remainer anyone else of course…

Nick Clegg (Libdem, Arch Remainer) - Loses Seat.

Anna Soubry, Amber Rudd (Tory, Arch Remainers) - Crushed to wafer thin majority.
Tim Farron (Libdem, Arch Remainer) - Crushed Majority.

Graham Stringer, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Roger Godsiff (Labour, Arch Brexiteers) - Massive increase to their majorities.
Boris Johnson (Tory, Pretend Brexiteer) - Majority Halved.

I suggest that to be one of the 75% Remainer MPs - is slowly but surely becoming toxic.

Don’t underestimate the LabLibCon remain agenda.

Remainers May and Hammond still well in charge of Brexit.David Davis and Rees Mogg at best waverers who can talk a good fight and BoJo a remain plant.

Naive UKIP voters believing the establishment self fulfilling prophecies that UKIP is finished and Cons and/or Labour will deliver Brexit.

LibDem London vote resurgence based on the idea that they can reverse Brexit obviously with support of the cross Party Lab/Con/SNP and even DUP remain alliance.

Corbyn pretending to support Brexit.While putting Starmer in place as shadow Brexit minister,not Hoey and Socialism being ideologically opposed to the idea of the Nation State and therefore by definition secession from the EU,saying everything.

Also bearing in mind a local election here ‘fought’ between LibDems and Cons both on a Green Belt protection ticket.While then cooperating with each other to vote down independent councillors to impose May’s housing targets on the Green Belt in Tandridge at least,says everything about the capacity of these lying zb’s to stitch up the country and the electors,on the basis of effectively fraudulently misleading the electorate.There’s no reason to think that May’s bs Brexit plans are any more believable than her party’s claims to be for protection of the Green Belt.

The only bit which we can be absolutely sure of is that they are all for remain, except for UKIP.

[winseer]

It still baffles me how so many remainers can be calling for such a reversal of a largest poll in UK history - when at other times, it’s always been “Oh well never mind” by the losing public who voted for the losers at any general election…

I always vote, and 2010 was the first time the party I voted for got a piece of that next incoming government.
I don’t recall crying into my beer, wailing myself to sleep for months after the election, and telling everyone who voted different from me “how much I hate them all”…

But that’s EXACTLY what we are seeing, two years on now - from hardline Remainers, which appear to include an alarmingly large number of the general public, who don’t get anywhere near as much out of “being in the EU in the first place” as those actually being backhanded by the EU in some fashion.

To read even some of the posts on this board, made by Remainers - we’re led to believe that the reason they voted Remain was because of “Tory Lies” as if Brexit was some Right-Wing ideal, rather than something that’ll inject money back into the British Parliament to spend how the government of the day sees fit…

My suggestion to such “Liberal-Left” opposition to Brexit would be "Get Brexit done FIRST, and then whip the rug out - when the Tories try and squirrel that money gained away, rather than use it to re-float public services as “Labour would and could do IF they are the ones who end up putting the finishing touches to Brexit.”

If they DON’T though? - What does Labour do? Accept the ‘bribe with our own money’ from the ECB who’ll very kindly offer an incoming future Labour government “All the borrowing it could ever need, for it’s spending plans” putting Britain so far into debt, that we’d need WWIII to disintergrate all the money on earth - to get these islands out of hock!

Release the Magic Money Trees:

£12bn per year wasted on foreign aid. A year. Each year. Every year.

£18bn per year to Brussels, which they’ve rather carelessly admitted just this past week - “as what the EU budget input funds will reduce by, once Britain leaves the EU”.

That’s the NHS fully funded, and who knows how many other worthy projects on top of that?
It’s just there… and yet 75% of our politicians plus even more civil servants not accountable to public opinion REFUSE to get on with it.

We don’t pay their wages directly, alas. The EU does. Bribes them. Cheats and lies to the British Public, and then pretend anyone coming up with some actual plans for that money is somehow the Villain and Liars of the piece instead.

I don’t care much about Immigration, only that we should get rid of all the criminals here under false pretences. That means the criminals in society, rather than just those who’ve made it to these Islands, unmolested by our non-existent border guards, looking-the-other-way police, and libertardi fools who think we should help those trying to kill us, before saving the lives of those paying to be protected. It’s a crackdown on Law and Order I want to see - rather than an electric fence and pill boxes constructed all around our coastlines.

The main reason for me voting Leave was to get our mits on that money we’re currently using to send EU bureaucrats all around the world with a bigger expenses account than a Double-O Agent!
You’d think our hospitals, farmers, scientists, schools, public buildings, arts, social care, housing, and taxes - would all WANT the boost that taking away upto £30bn per year from people who then abuse us back, laugh at us, and squander the money on politically correct follies that don’t even benefit the millionaires in Britain in the long run.
(Private Income for Millionaires - is at the lowest levels for well over a century)

The risk-adverseness of the general public is staggering. They’d rather, on the whole - vote to be ‘shafted gently, stiched up with neat stitches’, and ‘punched in the face every damned day with mittened fists’ - rather than take the gamble that our own goverments cannot throw more than a double 1 on a pair of dice - and rake it in at any other country’s expense other than THIS ones any longer.
That’s not “Nationalism” it is a common-sense “Charity Begins At Home” approach, which should have been the main thrust of the Leave campaign - all along.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Winseer:
[…]

Don’t underestimate the LabLibCon remain agenda.

Remainers May and Hammond still well in charge of Brexit.David Davis and Rees Mogg at best waverers who can talk a good fight and BoJo a remain plant.

Naive UKIP voters believing the establishment self fulfilling prophecies that UKIP is finished and Cons and/or Labour will deliver Brexit.

The overall impression I get Carryfast is that you’re out of touch. You either have no clear Brexit programme, or to the extent that you do, it is a divisive agenda that as a result has insufficient democratic support.

Corbyn pretending to support Brexit.

Why would he spend 35 years in Parliament being a Eurosceptic, even when he was in a dead-end career as a backbencher and had total freedom of his own views, if he was merely pretending? What would he be pretending for?

While putting Starmer in place as shadow Brexit minister,not Hoey and Socialism being ideologically opposed to the idea of the Nation State and therefore by definition secession from the EU,saying everything.

You’re right that socialism has little to do with “secession” in the way that you use it as an overriding political principle - that concept has more echoes of the American civil war, where the confederate opposition to the union was primarily because they were being told that they couldn’t exploit slave labour anymore.

Also bearing in mind a local election here ‘fought’ between LibDems and Cons both on a Green Belt protection ticket.While then cooperating with each other to vote down independent councillors to impose May’s housing targets on the Green Belt in Tandridge at least,says everything about the capacity of these lying zb’s to stitch up the country and the electors,on the basis of effectively fraudulently misleading the electorate.There’s no reason to think that May’s bs Brexit plans are any more believable than her party’s claims to be for protection of the Green Belt.

But again, there’s simply no (or no longer) democratic support for protecting the Green Belt at the expense of people having somewhere to live. That’s why single-issue extremists are being overridden, because there is a perversion of political priorities amongst misanthrope environmentalists or wealthy rural homeowners who prioritise their pristine views over basic issues like housing.

[rjan]

Winseer:
To read even some of the posts on this board, made by Remainers - we’re led to believe that the reason they voted Remain was because of “Tory Lies” as if Brexit was some Right-Wing ideal, rather than something that’ll inject money back into the British Parliament to spend how the government of the day sees fit…

But it won’t inject money back - that’s a lie. It will give the British government the option not to spend money on the things that they are compelled to spend on by the terms of EU membership, but there is no exploration, no honesty, about which things are going to be cut back. The Leave campaign did not, for example, say “we’re going to cut farmers’ subsidies to zero so we can plough money back into the NHS” - or even “we’re going to cut farmers’ subsidies so that we can cut corporation tax”.

So all the farmers might well have had a different view on Leave if the Tories had been clear about why they were seeking this freedom from EU membership.

Release the Magic Money Trees:

£12bn per year wasted on foreign aid. A year. Each year. Every year.

Are you able to talk me through in detail what “foreign aid” spending actually involves?

I don’t care much about Immigration, only that we should get rid of all the criminals here under false pretences.

And what are the numbers of such “foreign criminals here under false pretenses”? Have you met or encountered such a criminal?

The main reason for me voting Leave was to get our mits on that money we’re currently using to send EU bureaucrats all around the world with a bigger expenses account than a Double-O Agent!

But what if we simply replace EU bureaucrats (many of whom are British) with British bureaucrats? Such as Liam Fox flying around the world begging for free trade? What of all the trade negotiators that Britain will have to hire, if indeed there was any prospect of free trade deals (whereas the cost of the EU negotiators is split between all members)? It’s not a saving if the British government simply has to reimplement the same bureaucracy for itself, and pay all of the fixed costs ourselves.

(Private Income for Millionaires - is at the lowest levels for well over a century)

What planet are you on man? What Big Book of Statistics are you using for your source? Unearned income is at extremely high levels. Inequality has soared!

That’s not “Nationalism” it is a common-sense “Charity Begins At Home” approach, which should have been the main thrust of the Leave campaign - all along.

But does charity being and end at home in your view? Because the original meaning of the phrase is akin to “we are more likely to be charitable to others if we can first learn to be charitable amongst ourselves”, rather than an exhortation that “we should only be concerned for ourselves”.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
It still baffles me how so many remainers can be calling for such a reversal of a largest poll in UK history - when at other times, it’s always been “Oh well never mind” by the losing public who voted for the losers at any general election…

I always vote, and 2010 was the first time the party I voted for got a piece of that next incoming government.
I don’t recall crying into my beer, wailing myself to sleep for months after the election, and telling everyone who voted different from me “how much I hate them all”…

But that’s EXACTLY what we are seeing, two years on now - from hardline Remainers

That’s not “Nationalism” it is a common-sense “Charity Begins At Home” approach, which should have been the main thrust of the Leave campaign - all along.

I’d guess that again you’re way underestimating the depth of the division which seperates the two sides.

Make no mistake the argument between Remain v Leave is the same age old Federalist v Secessionist/Nationalist ideological battle which historically both sides have fought and died over.

On that note define what you’re referring to as ‘home’ if not your home Nation State ?.Assuming home means UK not EU then for the purposes of this discussion you’re a Nationalist and a Secessionist.If you regard the EU as ‘home’ then you’re a Remainer and a Federalist it’s that simple.

While remainers would define the EU as their ‘home’ including their flag and their anthem in which case their loyalty is to the EU not what you probably define as ‘home’ obviously that includes any charity going being for the EU to distribute as it sees fit.

On that note if they had the slightest intention of settling this democratically we’d now be out of the EU as of July 2016.While having discussed the issues of Federalism v Secession with secessionists/nationalists from Slovenia ( before the Yugoslav war of secession ) to the US Southern States ( The South’s gonna rise again ) and family background which fought and died for the Irish secessionist cause.Trust me we’ve seen nothing yet and I’d be very surprised if this will be settled within the lifetime of present generations let alone by 2019.Let alone be settled democratically or unfortunately peacefully.

youtube.com/watch?v=8XtNTJhyEYo

youtube.com/watch?v=Rj1gx4MazwM

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Also bearing in mind a local election here ‘fought’ between LibDems and Cons both on a Green Belt protection ticket.While then cooperating with each other to vote down independent councillors to impose May’s housing targets on the Green Belt in Tandridge at least,says everything about the capacity of these lying zb’s to stitch up the country and the electors,on the basis of effectively fraudulently misleading the electorate.There’s no reason to think that May’s bs Brexit plans are any more believable than her party’s claims to be for protection of the Green Belt.

But again, there’s simply no (or no longer) democratic support for protecting the Green Belt at the expense of people having somewhere to live.

If you’re right then the lying zb’s would obviously have no problem in saying that they support Green Belt development on their local election leaflets because they’d view that as a vote winner not a vote loser,as opposed to vice versa.As it stands the Lib Dems and the Cons have fraudulently mislead the electorate here in the local elections by standing on a totally opposite manifesto than their actual policies in that regard and not for the first time either.

Also bearing in mind that providing housing isn’t dependent on wrecking the Green Belt.It’s more a case of people from other parts of the country and immigrants all wanting to live near to London but not in London because they’ve already turned that into an over developed zb hole and now they want to do more just as throughout history and which has solved nothing.To the point where the resulting demand,if met,makes the resulting quality of life untenable for everyone.Not to mention as usual creates more population growth which exceeds the ability of the place to sustain it.So what happens when Greater London reaches the Channel.Let me guess then you’ll build on the French countryside and call the Pas de Calais even Greater Even Greater London.

On that note you do know that zb Labour actually got no where here.Probably because everyone knows what they all about regarding yet more stinking urban estates built in the surrounding Counties and expanding Kahn’s rule.Democratic support bs.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Also bearing in mind that providing housing isn’t dependent on wrecking the Green Belt.It’s more a case of people from other parts of the country and immigrants all wanting to live near to London but not in London because they’ve already turned that into an over developed zb hole and now they want to do more just as throughout history and which has solved nothing.

Then take measures to redistribute employment around the country. We are not appreciably more populous than most other EU members, and there are huge swathes of green areas all over the country - just building another 10 houses at the edge of every village or on every rural street, would create hundreds of thousands of extra homes without detracting from the rural nature of the countryside.

My point is that whatever the answer is to your demands, it cannot be depriving those who already live here of housing.

To the point where the resulting demand,if met,makes the resulting quality of life untenable for everyone.

City living is far from “untenable”.

[franglais]

What’s with “stinking urban estates”?
Provide the vast majority of people with housing of a good enough standard and they’ll be happy to look after it. Collect rubbish once a month instead of once a week, stop street cleaning and make a dirty environment and those living there won’t take any pride and won’t look after the place.
Failing to repair broken windows in buildings makes breaking the next one less of a deal. Leaving spray paint graffiti on buildings gives a level of acceptance and encourages more.
So yes, we need more housing, and not just basic boxes either.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

[carryfast]

Franglais:
What’s with “stinking urban estates”?
Provide the vast majority of people with housing of a good enough standard and they’ll be happy to look after it. Collect rubbish once a month instead of once a week, stop street cleaning and make a dirty environment and those living there won’t take any pride and won’t look after the place.
Failing to repair broken windows in buildings makes breaking the next one less of a deal. Leaving spray paint graffiti on buildings gives a level of acceptance and encourages more.
So yes, we need more housing, and not just basic boxes either.

Stinking not meant in the literal sense.

Over development creating an urban hell breeds the type of contempt you’re referring to.As does so called ‘affordable’ housing only ghettoes.IE development needs to be done sympathetically on the basis of maintaining the character of and close access to the rural environment and not wrecking that environment.By that standard of housing the counties surrounding London have reached their limit if not very close to it.

While whatever the arguments over the so called need for ‘more’ housing ( have you ever seen an estate agent over run with more customers than available houses for sale ).When it’s the wages and decent jobs needed to afford the available housing stock that’s the problem.Not forcing ever more amounts of urbanisation into the South Eastern corner of the country while others parts remain an underdeveloped wasteland.

While it’s clear that the present housing policy is based on developers taking advantage the greed of ‘first time buyers’ looking for a cheap house with an inbuilt profit margin so that they can trade up to a better place at the next buyer’s expense.

Also the inference that the government intends to over supply the housing market with more urbanisation,especially in the south east,to the point where they’ll collapse it causing a house price deflation spiral.What could possibly go wrong.Massive urbanisation creating over supply of housing and turning semi rural areas into more City suburbs if not inner city environments.Where only the lowest paid really want to live and an exodus of the existing population to less developed areas of the country and resulting house price crash of the existing housing stock and the new estates.Leaving their builders with a load of new now virtually worthless stock to offload and the banks with a massive negative equity mountain ■■■■■■■ in the existing stock.Isn’t that something like what happened in Spain and Ireland.That’ll work.

[rjan]

Franglais:
What’s with “stinking urban estates”?
Provide the vast majority of people with housing of a good enough standard and they’ll be happy to look after it. Collect rubbish once a month instead of once a week, stop street cleaning and make a dirty environment and those living there won’t take any pride and won’t look after the place.
Failing to repair broken windows in buildings makes breaking the next one less of a deal. Leaving spray paint graffiti on buildings gives a level of acceptance and encourages more.
So yes, we need more housing, and not just basic boxes either.

Agreed. The main problem in the past with “stinking urban estates” (and, I would mention in passing, low-quality tower blocks) is that in some cases housing was built on the cheap and poorly maintained, and then stuffed with low-income families who bore the brunt of long-term unemployment in the late 70s and 80s, meaning not only did people have no money to maintain their surroundings but also that apathy and degeneracy sets in, people’s sense of social responsibility erodes, and youths with no jobs and no money end up roaming idly and making their own fun.