Gentoo.

[itscoldinhere]

Gentoo have done a lot of good for Sunderland mind. If you've got an issue with social housing provision, I'd suggest pointing your guns at the government. They're the one who've ramped up the right to buy discounts and applied this to social landlords (like Gentoo) rather than just local authorities.

Re government, they have slashed the funding available to Social Landlords to build rented properties, so, Gentoo etc have to build privately to reinvest profits into rented sector.

Morning Mr walls

2 different businesses , one manages the old council stock , the other builds new homes. They’ve actually got about twenty different business identities but they’re the two main ones. Worked for them for a while and got to visit quite a few of their new developments and the properties were great

That wasn't what the people voted for though was it

 

[Lord Alfred]

Are they ever going to build on the land in Pennywell where they pulled all the houses down? I drive past there on the way to the match and it's been empty land for years now.

Just starting I think...there’s been some recent activity I’ve noticed.

We built shit for years, building tiny houses makes no sense.

I missed this point in my original reply but it’s worthy of a separate response. Surely the exact opposite is the reality. We haven’t even built enough houses to tackle the net immigration flow each year let alone tackle the shortage already accrued. IF we don’t want to swamp green belt land then putting a dozen executive houses on a plot that could take three times as many apartments isn’t going to solve the housing crisis....and with 5m more people due in the country by 2030 that’s an awful lot of extra houses needed. But then you fully advocate unregulated immigration...in just surprised you also advocate housing for the well off as a priority.

 

[Hep]

Just starting I think...there’s been some recent activity I’ve noticed.



I missed this point in my original reply but it’s worthy of a separate response. Surely the exact opposite is the reality. We haven’t even built enough houses to tackle the net immigration flow each year let alone tackle the shortage already accrued. IF we don’t want to swamp green belt land then putting a dozen executive houses on a plot that could take three times as many apartments isn’t going to solve the housing crisis....and with 5m more people due in the country by 2030 that’s an awful lot of extra houses needed. But then you fully advocate unregulated immigration...in just surprised you also advocate housing for the well off as a priority.

Good point. I advocate building high quality housing that gives a high standard of living, not tiny rooms and no gardens.

We currently live on 3% of the land, I'd happily treble that to build enough houses and good ones.

It's not priority for the well off, it's building enough to go around.

 

[Lord Alfred]

Good point. I advocate building high quality housing that gives a high standard of living, not tiny rooms and no gardens.

We currently live on 3% of the land, I'd happily treble that to build enough houses and good ones.

It's not priority for the well off, it's building enough to go around.

It’s an interesting philosophical discussion. Some, like me, value our green spaces and don’t wish to see them built over. Inevitably what happens is that even with the best of intentions it’s the wealthy who get the green belt homes and they’re all £400k upwards....there certainly won’t be any social housing on these estates. I suppose the chain effect means that eventually a cheap small house is released at the bottom of the chain as the upwardly mobile do just that. Far from convinced that the answer is building nice homes on green belt land....ultimately it ends up with even more cars blocking even more roads as new builds feed into the existing road network.

Sorry, but for me it’s restricting population growth and improving existing housing while adding new homes where appropriate.

 

[Hep]

It’s an interesting philosophical discussion. Some, like me, value our green spaces and don’t wish to see them built over. Inevitably what happens is that even with the best of intentions it’s the wealthy who get the green belt homes and they’re all £400k upwards....there certainly won’t be any social housing on these estates. I suppose the chain effect means that eventually a cheap small house is released at the bottom of the chain as the upwardly mobile do just that. Far from convinced that the answer is building nice homes on green belt land....ultimately it ends up with even more cars blocking even more roads as new builds feed into the existing road network.

Sorry, but for me it’s restricting population growth and improving existing housing while adding new homes where appropriate.

Cars will not exist in their current form in 10 years time, we'll all just have subscriptions to car service for a fraction of the price. This will deal with congestion significantly.

As for restricting population growth, their is clear evidence that tackling poverty does this anyway. So it we want to stop immigration, fix the countries where people are coming from.

I do agree the world has a finite limit of sustainable humans, not sure the UK is anywhere near that yet.

 

[Bob Fleming]

If they build high quality housing, it makes the area better and houses elsewhere get freed up.

We built shit for years, building tiny houses makes no sense.

Indeed. A good quality executive housing estate in Seaburn or South Bents would be perfect. If only there was land available that could be used but with the current demand for somewhere for people's dogs to have a shit it's not likely.

 

[Lord Alfred]

Cars will not exist in their current form in 10 years time, we'll all just have subscriptions to car service for a fraction of the price. This will deal with congestion significantly.

As for restricting population growth, their is clear evidence that tackling poverty does this anyway. So it we want to stop immigration, fix the countries where people are coming from.

I do agree the world has a finite limit of sustainable humans, not sure the UK is anywhere near that yet.

A side effect of automation will be a far reduced need for low skilled staff...and even medium to high skill will be affected too. We might need burger flippers and Uber drivers now to boost the god of GDP but as you say, in 10 years time we won’t.... but we’ll be stuck with the cost of supporting all those we let in with a BMI and access to services.

 

[Hep]

A side effect of automation will be a far reduced need for low skilled staff...and even medium to high skill will be affected too. We might need burger flippers and Uber drivers now to boost the god of GDP but as you say, in 10 years time we won’t.... but we’ll be stuck with the cost of supporting all those we let in with a BMI and access to services.

That's always been true through history. We don't need people harvesting the crops by hand anymore, or thousands down the mine. However, new jobs come along and I expect that to happen, however AI and automation will disrupt this, to what extent I'm not sure.

If only 50% of humans need to work in the future, will the other 50% be looked after?

 

[Lord Alfred]

That's always been true through history. We don't need people harvesting the crops by hand anymore, or thousands down the mine. However, new jobs come along and I expect that to happen, however AI and automation will disrupt this, to what extent I'm not sure.

If only 50% of humans need to work in the future, will the other 50% be looked after?

Got to be via a basic minimum income. It’s already being trialled around the world and all the big swinging dicks in Silicon Valley plus a few nearer to home are calling for it. The Swiss even had a referendum on it back in 2016. The way I see it is let’s say each adult member of society gets a BMI of £1,000/month, obviously two adults could probably exist on that and the time freed up could see a massive increase in voluntary work, particularly in the care of the elderly.


Richard Branson calls for universal basic income because robots are taking people's jobs

 

[Hep]

Got to be via a basic minimum income. It’s already being trialled around the world and all the big swinging dicks in Silicon Valley plus a few nearer to home are calling for it. The Swiss even had a referendum on it back in 2016. The way I see it is let’s say each adult member of society gets a BMI of £1,000/month, obviously two adults could probably exist on that and the time freed up could see a massive increase in voluntary work, particularly in the care of the elderly.


Richard Branson calls for universal basic income because robots are taking people's jobs

I like that idea too, but it would need to be implemented with some protection against inflation just rendering it useless.

Also, there is a lot of good work we can do as humans, just today not much of it makes economic sense.

 

[Lord Alfred]

I like that idea too, but it would need to be implemented with some protection against inflation just rendering it useless.

Also, there is a lot of good work we can do as humans, just today not much of it makes economic sense.

I really believe that if automation takes over the way I expect it to do it could do a lot of good for society.....IF we make the right choices. Keeping all the wealth generated in the hands of the multinationals and mass unemployment will lead to serious unrest.