reducing congestion
 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:33 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

As with all things it depends on the start and end points. In this instance
Charing Cross was cited as the reference point from which a one hour commute
by car will take the individual a maximum of ten miles, on a good day.


Which is all well and good, but I suggest reading my posting again and try
to find where I mentioned anything about cars.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

reducing congestion
 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:28:45 GMT, Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Greg
Hennessy wrote:
Try the nationalised planning system courtesy of the town and
country planning act 1947.

A spiteful piece of legislation whose only purpose was to
outlaw the mechanism by which 1.5+ million privately built,
financed and *affordable* houses in the 20s and 30s. Couldn't
have that doncha know.

But, as you imply, the Conservatives, far from scrapping it,
have embraced and extended it for their own ends.

You'll get no argument from me on that score.
Politicians dont like surrendering centralised power.


You'll hear
them harp on about the need to accept the discipline of market
forces when you are shutting down a mine or steelworks, but not
when someone wants to replace a suburban bungalow or two with a
block of flats.

I want a return to the pre war situation where local authorities and local
authorities alone decided that is was in the best interests of their rate
payers to grant permission to build high quality affordable housing at
densities of 8-12/acre for the equivalent of 20-25k in todays money.


greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

reducing congestion
 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:29:14 -0000, "Purditer"
wrote:




Well you don't want the poor to move in and lower the tone of the area.


Its not 'the poor', its one doesnt ones unspoilt and unpaid for chocolate
box views spoiled by horrid oiks.




greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

reducing congestion
 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:23:49 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:


It does if you just build one or two new houses. However if we did not have
such tight planning regulation and VAT disincentives for renovating old
buildings,

Exactly, Belgium has a higher population density than the allegedly
overcrowded SE, however one can buy a site within commuting distance of
brussels and have planning consent sorted in around 12 weeks I am reliably
informed.

Total cost of building a large detach house from scratch including site
purchase, about 120K.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

reducing congestion
 

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

wrote:


It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied
housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.

[ ... ]

So it wasn't a Thatcher government the introduced the
"Right to Buy" legislation then?

No.
As you would know (if you were not simply motivated by
unthinking knee-jerk socialism - if you'll forgive the
tautology), the RTB:

(a) was introduced under the Edward Heath government of
1970-1974

Whether you choose to believe it or not some people in this world are
not driven by ideology or dogma but are cpable of establishing the
facts for themselves and making up their own minds.

You can't just "make up your own mind [sic]" to fabricate history. The RTB
council houses (for tenatnts of councils) was established in the early 1970s
under the Heath government. That's a fact. Stamping your foot won't make it
untrue.

Wrong (again)
"The statutory Right To Buy was introduced on the 3rd October 1980 in
England, Wales and Scotland."
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-036.pdf

Don't believe everything you believe in Labour government propaganda. Even
the paper you have cited makes it clear that this was a *statutory* scheme
(my emphasis). There are other sorts of scheme.

The RTB was introduced under Edward Heath, but with a (major) flaw -
councils didn't *have* to comply (they could adopt a policy of not selling).
Of course, this was still better than the previous situation, where a
council couldn't sell even if they wanted to. In effect, it was mainly
Conservative councils that allowed their tenants to buy under the Heath
legislation. Changes in council control could mean a change in sales policy
(either way) - very unsatisfactory for tenants wishing to buy. That flaw was
corrected under Thatcher, but the RTB was first established under Heath (and
believe me, the Labour Party squawked enough about it at the time).

and (b) only applied to council houses - and
certainly not to tied cottages on farms.

Your evidence is from?

Re-read your own citation - you will see (if you read it) that it applies
only to council properties (there has never been a right to force a private
landlord to sell - leaseholds of certain blocks of flats excepted). Even
housing association tenants find that the RTB (rather unfairly, IMHO)
doesn't apply to them.

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:


Really? I suppose the railways are better than they used to be?
Especially in respect to track maintenance.

What's that got to do with Thatcher?

reducing congestion
 

Conor wrote:


I seem to remember getting my arse truly reamed by Thatchers policies
in the late 80's.

Perhaps you deserved it.

reducing congestion
 

Oliver Keating wrote:


but the working class have
remained pretty much static, they haven't shared in the growth at all.

That's probably because they're lazy whingebags.