NBTA - Which Planet Are They On ?

[James T Berk]

Blast! I'm not supposed to post here am I as you were

[carlt]

Blast! I'm not supposed to post here am I as you were

 

It's Fridaaay...Shouldn't you be at work?

[Murflynn]

ignore button comes in handy for effectively removing pompous know-alls from the discussion.

[magictime]

What's up? Has someone come into the 'lounge bar' that you think should be in the public bar.

 

Yes, down with snobbery, elitism and 'us and them' attitudes...

 

you don't know much about what goes on as you don't live on your boat

 

...unless they're my own snobbery, elitism and 'us and them' attitude, of course, in which case they're the only reasonable response to the ignorant bleatings of the common herd.

 

What a Grade A hypocrite.

[matty40s]

ignore button comes in handy for effectively removing pompous know-alls from the discussion.

Thats not a very nice way to greet JamesTBerk

[tree monkey]

 

You don't need to be omniscient, or flippant, you either know about the area of interest of which you speak or you don't

 

I think, perhaps, as with many on here, your 'attitude' precludes your understanding.

You are a funny man

[MtB]

Who is pearlygeoff? He seems to be a rather rude and unpleasant character. I thought this was quite a good discussion up to post 22.

 

 

Geoff Mayers.

 

In most of the threads in which he posts, he eventually mentions his website and invited people to have a read. Then says he doesn't have the computer skills to post a link. So to assist Geoff as best I can, here is a link to his website where you can get a better flavour of what Geoff is about.

 

http://canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

Geoff Mayers.

 

In most of the threads in which he posts, he eventually mentions his website and invited people to have a read. Then says he doesn't have the computer skills to post a link. So to assist Geoff as best I can, here is a link to his website where you can get a better flavour of what Geoff is about.

 

http://canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/

There aren't any pictures.

Edited November 4, 2016 by ditchcrawler

[carlt]

There aren't any pictures.

 

[Richard10002]

With the cost of land, materials and labour no house will be affordable for many. The answer was to have stopped Maggie selling off council houses.

 

Too late now! It is social housing that is required not affordable housing, as has been said all houses are afforded by somebody.

Maggie was ousted in 1989, almost 30 years ago. There has been lots of time, and 13 years of Left Wing government, to do something about social housing, so it's probably a bit much to be blaming what Maggie did, for what is happening now.

 

In addition, if we are after "affordable" owner occupied housing, what Maggie did released a large number of properties onto the market, thus increasing supply, which must have had the effect of slowing price increases... so you could argue that house prices would be higher than they now are if Maggie hadnt done what she did.

 

The sole solution to solving any difficulties within the housing market, and housing in general, is to build many more houses, (millions!!!).

 

However, there is massive resistance to this, and not just by NIMBYs. A plan for Manchester has just been released which seems to allocate land for about 200,000 houses over the next 20 years. Lots of people are complaining on social media that there will be a negative effect of air quality, traffic congestion, and all kinds of other stuff which cant really be avoided if we want more houses for more people.....

 

Seems that the whole thing is a series of Catch 22's ???

[carlt]

Maggie was ousted in 1989, almost 30 years ago. There has been lots of time, and 13 years of Left Wing government, to do something about social housing, so it's probably a bit much to be blaming what Maggie did, for what is happening now.

 

John Major didn't last 13 years surely? (The most left wing government since 1979)

 

I can't believe you're talking about Tory Blair and his Thatcherite New Labour Party...

[Jerra]

Maggie was ousted in 1989, almost 30 years ago. There has been lots of time, and 13 years of Left Wing government, to do something about social housing, so it's probably a bit much to be blaming what Maggie did, for what is happening now.

 

In addition, if we are after "affordable" owner occupied housing, what Maggie did released a large number of properties onto the market, thus increasing supply, which must have had the effect of slowing price increases... so you could argue that house prices would be higher than they now are if Maggie hadnt done what she did.

It was simply Maggie who started the sell off of social housing. I admit other govts could have stopped it but it is like an avalanche the blame lies with whoever started it.

 

As I said there are parts of society who will not be able to afford houses even if sold at cost with no profit. Building houses for sale isn't the total answer particularly for them, even if it were to be millions of houses.

 

The answer then is social housing which gives people somewhere to live while they save if they want to get on the property ladder. When I was a boy (in a council house) owning property wasn't seen by everyone as either necessary or even by some as desirable. I know of council houses occupied by the same family for 60 years.

 

The desire to become property owners was sparked in many by the selling off dirt cheap council houses. At least that was the case in the areas both my wife and I come from.

[Richard10002]

It was simply Maggie who started the sell off of social housing. I admit other govts could have stopped it but it is like an avalanche the blame lies with whoever started it.

 

As I said there are parts of society who will not be able to afford houses even if sold at cost with no profit. Building houses for sale isn't the total answer particularly for them, even if it were to be millions of houses.

 

The answer then is social housing which gives people somewhere to live while they save if they want to get on the property ladder. When I was a boy (in a council house) owning property wasn't seen by everyone as either necessary or even by some as desirable. I know of council houses occupied by the same family for 60 years.

 

The desire to become property owners was sparked in many by the selling off dirt cheap council houses. At least that was the case in the areas both my wife and I come from.

 

Perhaps the blame lies with everyone who did it, including the person who started it....

 

I agree that, of the millions of houses that should be built, there should be a lot of social housing as well as a lot of "truly affordable" to buy.

 

It requires a government who is willing to ride a bit roughshod over the objecting electorate, in order to do good in the long term - unfortunately unlikely

 

Jeremy Corbyn would probably do it, but he's not likely to get the chance.

[Jerra]

 

It requires a government who is willing to ride a bit roughshod over the objecting electorate, in order to do good in the long term - unfortunately unlikely

 

Going by the way people are getting hot under the collar about the government doing what it is legally required to do i.e. pass Brexit in parliament, they are unlikely to take kindly to a government riding rough shod over their objections.

[Chertsey]

Oi, keep this stuff in the pub so I can avoid it!

[Murflynn]

 

 

I agree that, of the millions of houses that should be built, there should be a lot of social housing as well as a lot of "truly affordable" to buy.

 

 

where do you propose to build them?

 

 

 

 

............ just askin'

Edited November 4, 2016 by Murflynn

[Jerra]

Oi, keep this stuff in the pub so I can avoid it!

Whoops I hadn't realised thread drift had been banned. Sorry!

[FadeToScarlet]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the NBTA are basically calling for the Council to (1) enforce their own rules by revoking the licences of people using their boats as buy-to-lets or holiday homes rather than main residences, (2) apply basically the same rules when allocating these residential moorings as they'd apply when allocating other forms of housing (in terms of basing priority on social need), and (3)... well, I'm not clear on (3). What are the NBTA talking about when they talk about 'empty mooring spaces'? Presumably they mean spaces that could (in their opinion) be designated as residential moorings, rather than spaces that have been designated as residential moorings but haven't been allocated to anyone?

 

In any case, (1) and (2) don't seem unreasonable on the face of it... do they?

Enforcing their existing agreements and contracts isn't controversial. We've been trying to work with the council for years on this, of finding ways for people to prove to the council they live aboard without being placed under surveillance - a receipt for 20 bags of coal, for example, means someone's quite likely to live aboard.

 

Allocating moorings as social housing is very unpopular. Quite a few single men for example have moorings - who'd be either removed, or more wouldn't have the chance to get one. And prioritising families wouldn't be fair either. There are plenty of people who're either holding off on having children, or who are in same sex partnerships or marriages- not very fair on them... A simple, chronological waiting list is the fairest way, as long as it is administered correctly- and, in Cambridge, it hasn't always been.

 

The "empty mooring spaces" argument is pretty futile. The locations of the moorings are pretty constrained by navigation concerns- not least from the 4000 or so rowers on the river, who not unreasonably don't want more moorings where the river is narrowest. And the majority of existing moorings are in public parks; the council want there to be a little bit of space between boats, so members of the public can fish, feed the ducks, etc. Not unreasonable, rather than squeezing in two or three more boats and having everyone moor fender to fender.

Edited November 4, 2016 by FadeToScarlet

[MtB]

Going by the way people are getting hot under the collar about the government doing what it is legally required to do i.e. pass Brexit in parliament, they are unlikely to take kindly to a government riding rough shod over their objections.

 

Referenda are not legally binding. Or can you show otherwise?

where do you propose to build them?

 

 

In your back yard, I'd imagine!

[peterboat]

 

Could we not have a sort of hostage exchange arrangement? We could send Pearly to Thunderboat and then we could have someone like Loafer back here in exchange?

 

..............Dave

dont think loafer wants to come back

[peterboat]

 

Referenda are not legally binding. Or can you show otherwise?

 

In your back yard, I'd imagine!

All householders were given a bit of paper saying it would be and they passed an act of law 6 to 1 in favour of it so I would say its legal and I an sure the supreme court will agree in december

[Richard10002]

where do you propose to build them?

 

 

 

 

............ just askin'

 

My immediate response would be, "how on earth would I know!?"

 

There is the thing going about social media in Manchester complaining that sites appropriate for 200,000 houses have been identified, and this seems to be part of a 20 year plan - so there's 200,000 which could actually be sorted and built on as fast as a government chose to make it happen.

 

Let's say the goal was to build 200,000 houses a year for 5 years, UK wide, total a million. You could select the top 20 cities, (by population, or area, or whatever), and identify 50,000 plots that could be built on, (might mean a few playing fields, some parks, a bit of canal side land, and maybe a bit of green belt, plenty of brownfield), at the rate of 10,000 per year. Perhaps, in order to plan and organise, the first year could be 2018, and planning restrictions would be relaxed as much as necessary, and some compulsory purchase of land, development sites, as needed.

 

Even if the government did all the building, and all the houses were social, 200,000 houses at £80,000 build cost each, is £16 billion... a small percentage of annual government spending, and it could be borrowed without too much concern on the basis that it would be much needed job creating and GDP increasing capital expenditure.

[MtB]

All householders were given a bit of paper saying it would be and they passed an act of law 6 to 1 in favour of it so I would say its legal and I an sure the supreme court will agree in december

 

Most 'bits of paper' are not legally binding whatever they say.

 

Which 'act of law' is this you speak of?

[Bewildered]

I really can't see what moorings have got to do with the National Baton Twirling Association anyway

http://www.nbta.org.uk/

[Mac of Cygnet]

I really can't see what moorings have got to do with the National Baton Twirling Association anyway

http://www.nbta.org.uk/

 

I was honestly bewildered to find that Athy hadn't written this. You're not his doppelganger are you?