Emissions, Global warming or a scam

[Mark Bolam]

Why should he Eggs? The man has a point.

 

Half of the 'local needs, affordable housing' round here is populated by young lasses who couldn't keep their knickers on long enough to find out the name of the father of their kids.

[eggsarascal]

7 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Why should he Eggs? The man has a point.

 

Half of the 'local needs, affordable housing' round here is populated by young lasses who couldn't keep their knickers on long enough to find out the name of the father of their kids.

Afforable housing is needed, young lasses that can't keep their knickers on would be a God send around these parts, do you know how I could contact a few?

Edited April 5, 2019 by eggsarascal

[Mark Bolam]

PM sent.

[Big J]

1 hour ago, tree-fancier123 said:

The Times article I linked to says otherwise and I beleive what Migration Watch have presented. I would like to see a similar article, using national statistics and not just guesswork to illustrate your point. The sheer number of new arrivals and their offspring once settled must account for whole cities by now. Look at Birmingham for example.

The census data shows that from 1911 to 2011, the average size of a household declined from 4.3 to 2.4 with the decline steady inbetween. On that basis, you'd need almost twice as many houses to accommodate the same number of people. 

 

http://www.lse.ac.uk/social-policy/Assets/Documents/bsps/events/Explaining-changes-in-family-size.pdf

[tree-fancier123]

The declining size of a houshold does add to the problem, but the Uk poulation has nearly doubled since 1911, wouldnt have been anything like that without immigration. Graph shows just Polish, let alone all the Romanians, Bulgarians and others from far away lands. Those 400 odd thousand Poles even if packed in 20 to a house is a lot more land gobbled up

 

[Big J]

16 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

The declining size of a houshold does add to the problem, but the Uk poulation has nearly doubled since 1911, wouldnt have been anything like that without immigration. Graph shows just Polish, let alone all the Romanians, Bulgarians and others from far away lands. Those 400 odd thousand Poles even if packed in 20 to a house is a lot more land gobbled up

 

Population 42m in 1911, 66m now. A little way off doubling. Without immigration, we'd be population decline at this stage, with a birthrate of 1.8 babies per woman. As such, immigration is required to ensure we don't fall into population decline. 

Net immigration has averaged about 150000 per year since the mid-70s, so it only responsible for a total of about 7.5m of population increase in the past 50 years. That's another 3 million households. The demographic change in the makeup of households (3.3 to 2.4 people per household) over that same time period (had the population remained static at 56m) would require an additional 6.4m houses. So social changes in trends regarding cohabitation are responsible for more than twice the demand on the housing market than immigration. Taking into account the population increase, the UK required just under 17m houses in 1971 as opposed to 27.5m now.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Big J

[Ratman]

If a hard right party came to power with a commitment to ban immigration that would also help in the quest for houses with bigger gardens. Sure you will have some success in your area making a few nice homes, but the overall picture is bleak.
'Net migration to the UK, the difference between immigration and emigration, was estimated to be 282,000 in 2017. This is down from a peak of 336,000 in the year ending June 2016, immediately before the EU referendum'
Of course land is going up - more than an extra 2 million people here now, compared to 10 years ago.
If the politicians can't manage to cut immigration right down, then what we need is a plan to make the UK land area larger. For example a few trillion tonnes of rocks and soil from some far off land brought here on a big sailing boat and dumped around the coastline

Christ!.... you want some rope?!!!
Your very pessimistic towards BigJ’s ideas. I hope he proves ya SO wrong!

[Big J]

Improving the quality of our housing stock is one of the most significant ways that the UK can improve it's environmental footprint. So, not only the running costs over the building's lifespan, but the embodied energy in it's construction, and how easy it is to recycle at the end of it's lifespan.

 

So using methods such as straw bale (grown locally) with timber frame (grown locally) in conjunction perhaps with box profile steel roofs (used widely in northern climes, and recyclable), lime render, clay plaster and locally sourced timber cladding, you can hugely reduce the CO2 cost of the building, and ensure that the construction is inexpensive, and the recycling at the end of the building's life, simple. 

 

I've always thought that the public in the UK need to take a bit more control over their house building. Very few people are happy with the direction that building companies have been going with the construction of new housing stock, or indeed the planning laws that govern them. We need to use the example that many of our European neighbours exhibit with regards to self build. I don't mean literally building it yourself, but rather the whole system needs to be much more straightforward for normal families to commission their own house builds, getting exactly what they want and need, rather than what is prescribed to them by the likes of Barratt, Wimpy and Persimmon.

[tree-fancier123]

4 hours ago, Ratman said:

Christ!.... you want some rope?!!!
Your very pessimistic towards BigJ’s ideas. I hope he proves ya SO wrong!

I did learn the knot - handy for tidying a lanyard.

I don't doubt BigJs ability to build a superior dwelling to what the PLC builders offer - what I am pessimistic about is the idea of taking less profit and offering a bigger garden. You can do that locally, but the idea can't be scaled because of the sheer number of people coming to live in the Uk. If the figures are right net migration since 2000 is average of a quarter million per year, so surely that means another 100 000 new  homes approx, just to house new arrivals. Now the issue is with the size of plot for these new arrivals. The countryside has no say in it, only humans do.

[tree-fancier123]

5 hours ago, Big J said:

Population 42m in 1911, 66m now. A little way off doubling. Without immigration, we'd be population decline at this stage, with a birthrate of 1.8 babies per woman. As such, immigration is required to ensure we don't fall into population decline. 

Net immigration has averaged about 150000 per year since the mid-70s, so it only responsible for a total of about 7.5m of population increase in the past 50 years. That's another 3 million households. The demographic change in the makeup of households (3.3 to 2.4 people per household) over that same time period (had the population remained static at 56m) would require an additional 6.4m houses. So social changes in trends regarding cohabitation are responsible for more than twice the demand on the housing market than immigration. Taking into account the population increase, the UK required just under 17m houses in 1971 as opposed to 27.5m now.

I liked the quantitative analysis and you do have a point about the impact of having fewer people per house, but when you talk of population decline - it's like you're recoiling in horror at the thought of it. What are the dangers of population decline? Not enough money to pay pensions etc? Danger of being invaded by a more densely populated nation?

So I was exaggerating saying the population has nearly doubled since 1911, but it is still an extra 24m. Quite some acreage of building been going on. Can you extrapolate the growth into coming decades without tower blocks on the village green?