Congratulations sir kier
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
As yet, I've no idea. Each council has to build an average 1000 homes per year? That would more than cover it.
The article appears to support a Labour initiative. Are you saying that the 'Wail' is now a Labour rag? I thought you always said it was a Tory one?
Do Labour? They haven’t said. That was my question.
Even the BBC have their doubts. Is that better than the Daily Mail?
What is the 'grey belt' and how many homes could Labour build?
Labour has announced plans to build on the "grey belt", as it tries to meet its pledge for 1.5 million homes.
www.bbc.co.uk
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
No, I wasn't very clear there. Councils build say 250 per annum and make sure they release/identify 750 plots for new build, per annum (on average). The Labour pledge is less than the Tory one, which I don't remember anyone doubting at the time.
But the Toy party are no longer in power. Labour have made commitments, and they will be held to account for them but a bit longer than 4 days.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
That's what it's all about. Building houses will always have implications but that need not rule it out. We need them,
Surrey don't build on our WWII airfield was interviewed. She used the usual arguments but having walked on these airfields elsewhere I'd say hang on. The interviewer tells her she is a Not In My Backyard person. She looked a bit surprised. He then said your kids need to be able to buy houses. She says they couldn't afford them here.
Their aim appears to be to train people we need. Initially they have identified 3 areas where they intend to get building going that are stalled.
So if nobody builds on the released/identified remaining 750 MANDATORY plots, do the council get fined?
When ever ideas crop up there will always be detractors. Fact is that over a period of time we will find out. Planning approvals are at an all time low.
I think builders are a problem
In fact I would go further than that. It pays them to build in more expensive areas and more expensive properties. Detail are likely to be around on the web.
I think builders are a problem
In fact I would go further than that. It pays them to build in more expensive areas and more expensive properties. Detail are likely to be around on the web.
Although lack of labour is often cited by housebuilders as a reason for consented sites not being built out, I've always suspected it is at least partly driven by profit, particularly in a rising market where demand is highWhen ever ideas crop up there will always be detractors. Fact is that over a period of time we will find out. Planning approvals are at an all time low.
I think builders are a problem
In fact I would go further than that. It pays them to build in more expensive areas and more expensive properties. Detail are likely to be around on the web.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
There was a sugar tax introduced a few years ago. But this will only force more and more artificial sweeteners into food.
They are just as bad or even worse for the body.
Read Chris Van Tulleken's book "Ultra Processed People"
Basically, anything on a food label that you don't find in your kitchen at home is most probably an Ultra Processed Food and is bad for you.
Even things that sound harmless like vegetable oil can be highly processed and treated.
Not only are UPFs bad for you, but you crave more of the bad food.
Get hold of it if you can. It's a really good read
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
So you looked between her legs and said, "What happened there?"
She replied, "That's where the cowboy hit me with an axe."
And you said, "Cor! Right in the ctnu!"