On 31/08/2012 10:53, d wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:43:22 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 11:41, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
"News" wrote:
d wrote:

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to
mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an
extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony
Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions.

Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher reinforced this

Thanks, but I'd prefer to settle for not welcoming all the scum of the world
onto this island. And don't even bother pretending the majority are hard
working intellectuals keeping our economy afloat. Thats utter BS.


No, they are hard working East Europeans who are doing the jobs the
Anglo-Saxons and the descendants of earlier immigrants will no longer
do. Shame on you, sir.

Oh not this fatuous old argument again. There were plenty of british
workmen before the flood gates were opened but guess what - a lot of them
had families to pay for and didn't fancy living 6 to a flat. If you're some
20 something single male sharing rent with a lot of mates of course you
can undercut the indigenous competition.

B2003

So the state can pay for their families. I would have thought that
someone of your political inclination would be against that. The three
Polish and one Russian family on my suburban street seem to be able to
live on the husbands' wages.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 10:14, News wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:40, News wrote:
d wrote:

If the previous government hadn't deliberaly flung the doors open to
mass immigration we wouldn't now be having to cope with housing an
extra 2 million people. If there was any justice in the world Tony
Blair would be forced to rent out the rooms in his mansions.

Or scrap the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher
reinforced this act. Why? To keep house price high to appeal to
owner/occupiers to gain votes, while the country as whole suffered.
The state of the nation was throw out of the window.

The knock-on was that debt after debt was poured into land which
resulted in the Credit Crunch - a collapse.

Thatcher was a fan of Uncle Joe? I don't think so.

Get the point...."the Stalinist Town & Country Planning act. Thatcher
reinforced this act." Read it again.

So it was passed by Stalin and reinforced by Thatcher? When did Stalin
rule the UK?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 09:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 31/08/2012 07:45, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 10:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 08:57, Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:00:04 +0100, Roland
wrote:

In , at 07:37:29 on Thu, 30
Aug
2012, Martin remarked:
Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns",
the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

Unfortunately the policy for most of the country seems to be to
build
new estates on largely brownfield and rural sites, in places where
they
get the least objection. Correlating it with workplaces is the last
thing on the agenda.

An added irony is that they are often paraded as "eco" towns, when
the
residents would all need cars to get to jobs.

The aim of eco-towns is to get car journeys down to 50% of all trips.
I'm not sure if that counts very local trips, but they should be
provided with enhanced public transport in order to qualify for the
name.

Policy should be to get the hundreds of thousands of empty homes back
into use, rather than consuming more countryside.

Very laudable in theory. In practice many of those empty properties are
in areas no one wants to live.

Outer city estates, yes, but many are in inner city areas where there is
a market.


Define many.

A lot. Next?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 09:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 31/08/2012 07:57, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 13:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted
limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.


London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and
villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another
before
the limits of the greenbelt were set,

Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are
"London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local
identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather
than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.

Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way.



As long as they were RTs.


Most of the RTs in Watford were green, as I remember, and I am fairly
sure it is a town.


But, at that time, not London.

Nor now.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 10:55, d wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:00:03 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 14:25, d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:14:06 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
d wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Tough )

Apart from about 3 fields the built up part of watford is contiguous all the
way to central london.

B2003


Crap, there is farmland on both London Road and Oxhey Lane.

There's something called google maps - try using it. If you do you'll see
that as I said , aprt from a few fields watford is contiguous with central
london by way of south oxhey , hatch end and harrow.

B2003


The jurisdictional boundary is between South Oxhey and Hatch End.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 13:53, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

Where I lived as a small child was well outside what people generally
recognised as London. It is now well inside what people generally
recognise as London. Even the county has been absorbed into London.

Probably the most accurate definition today would be any built up area
within the M25.

Cue howls of protest from the likes of Epsom and Watford...

Just so, and even places like Bushey which are in Herts but in the Met
Police area.

Wasn't the MPA realigned to the Greater London boundary in 2000? Epsom was
certainly transferred to Surrey Police around then.

Possibly. Thanks for the update.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 10:17, News wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

Viz the Northern belief that the whole population from Milton Keynes
to Brighton are cockneys.

They are. They all say "Fink" instead of think. "Fireen" instead of
thirteen. Then they bust out with songs like "Boiled Beef and Carrots".

This rather makes my point, I think.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 31/08/2012 10:25, News wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:

Social engineering. Hitler did that. It is best to have a self
controlling economic system - Geonomics.

Like in the Middle Ages, when the population was controlled by hunger,
disease and hanging.

You are very confused.

No, only a little.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

"Peter Campbell Smith" wrote

Thanks for the map info. Ashford, aka Spelthorne, seems to have a
reservoir outside the M25 and Elmbridge has a few bits including the new
Downside M25 service area. So far as I can see nothing other than Epsom
and Ewell of district or unitary authority status is wholly inside.

Which London boroughs have bits outside the M25? Havering seems to, but are
there others?

Peter

To get to the other side of the Chilterns?