Rogstanley Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 Article in the BBC this morning, 'how much of your area is built on'. Shows how only 5.9% of the country is built on, and some say we're overpopulated and have no space for much needed infrastructure! I don't want the whole country converted over obviously, but 5.9% is nothing, there is massive amounts of space.
Strokes Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 10 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Article in the BBC this morning, 'how much of your area is built on'. Shows how only 5.9% of the country is built on, and some say we're overpopulated and have no space for much needed infrastructure! I don't want the whole country converted over obviously, but 5.9% is nothing, there is massive amounts of space. How much of it can you build on though?
Carl the Llama Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Article in the BBC this morning, 'how much of your area is built on'. Shows how only 5.9% of the country is built on, and some say we're overpopulated and have no space for much needed infrastructure! I don't want the whole country converted over obviously, but 5.9% is nothing, there is massive amounts of space. We need farms for our food and we need to keep green spaces intact for environmental reasons, in England there's only 14.5% of land unaccounted for by human activity. The figure you quoted covers all of the UK so it includes the vast amount of unused but nigh-impossible to build on land up in the Scottish Highlands, moors and islands. In fact, looking at the country by country breakdown makes it obvious that that's exactly what's skewed the figures so massively: Edited 9 November 2017 by Carl the Llama 1
Fox Ulike Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 11 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Article in the BBC this morning, 'how much of your area is built on'. Shows how only 5.9% of the country is built on, and some say we're overpopulated and have no space for much needed infrastructure! I don't want the whole country converted over obviously, but 5.9% is nothing, there is massive amounts of space. That is surprising. However, Farmland is not much better (ecologically speaking) than urban. We do need farmland! Also, although 35% is considered 'natural', it looks like the vast majority of this is the Higlands and Snowdonia. So I don't think this equates to 'massive amounts of space'. I think we're full up.
Carl the Llama Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 Looking at individual regions makes it even more interesting, for instance I'm living in South Cambs and we only have 1% green land because all the green space around here is being used for agriculture (90%). We're a lot more crowded than the initial, sum total figures suggest.
Fox Ulike Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 Pretty crowded I would say, compared to the rest of Europe:
Rogstanley Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 (edited) I might be in the minority but I think being able to get around the country without having to suffer the worst congestion in the developed world is worth sacrificing a few farms for. Innovation in agriculture should allow farmers to produce more with less space anyway, so the high percentage of farmland won't always be necessary at all. In England only 8.8% is built on, that's hardly anything. Increasing that by a couple of percent to provide space for better infrastructure is an easy decision, you'd barely notice the difference. Edited 9 November 2017 by Rogstanley
Strokes Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: I might be in the minority but I think being able to get around the country without having to suffer the worst congestion in the developed world is worth sacrificing a few farms for. Innovation in agriculture should allow farmers to produce more with less space anyway, so the high percentage of farmland won't always be necessary at all. In England only 8.8% is built on, that's hardly anything. Increasing that by a couple of percent to provide space for better infrastructure is an easy decision, you'd barely notice the difference. They need to get on and invent teleportation, I’m not sure what they are messing about tbh.
Guest Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 12 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: I might be in the minority but I think being able to get around the country without having to suffer the worst congestion in the developed world is worth sacrificing a few farms for. Innovation in agriculture should allow farmers to produce more with less space anyway, so the high percentage of farmland won't always be necessary at all. In England only 8.8% is built on, that's hardly anything. Increasing that by a couple of percent to provide space for better infrastructure is an easy decision, you'd barely notice the difference. I'd rather we found a way to not have the country all traveling to jobs at the same time when a massive chunk of employees do jobs they could do from a laptop at home. Get rid of petrol engines and build infrastructure to support clean methods of travel.
Rogstanley Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 27 minutes ago, toddybad said: I'd rather we found a way to not have the country all traveling to jobs at the same time when a massive chunk of employees do jobs they could do from a laptop at home. Get rid of petrol engines and build infrastructure to support clean methods of travel. Yeah I think that should be looked at but in my experience most companies can't organise a basic video conference without something going wrong, so moving towards a proper work from home culture seems a long way off. We've been making excuses for not investing for long enough and while we've been doing so we've fallen miles behind literally every other comparable country. It's time we stopped the excuses and actually got on with making this a country that works for people and for businesses again, and that really ought to be an idea that people of all political persuasions can get behind.
Guest Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 Good to see Tory MPs finally realising the truth about the economy Nick Boles, a Conservative former minister, has said the government should stop trying to balance the budget. Boles said the government should accept that “the age of austerity” is over and that, while said austerity was the right policy when the annual deficit stood at 10% of GDP, but it was “absolutely fine” for it to remain at its current level of around 2.6% indefinitely. He told the programme: We should stop trying to cut [the deficit] any further. We should drop our surplus target because the urgent priority now is to get productivity up and to get real wages up. The only way to get productivity up is by increasing investment. I think we now need to make that the focus of government. Many governments run deficits of that sort of level [ie, around 2.6%] year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down. What matters is the target to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP. I think we should keep that target but we can do so and massively boost public investment.
Izzy Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 22 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Yeah I think that should be looked at but in my experience most companies can't organise a basic video conference without something going wrong, so moving towards a proper work from home culture seems a long way off. The big Silicon Valley Tech companies do this very well (funnily enough) I do a bit of facilitation and coaching work with the likes of Google, LinkedIn & Twitter and all from my laptop at home. They all use hangout, Skype, blue jeans, Zoom calls etc. and have mastered the art of it. I often have sessions via VC with managers all over the world where most of the participants are at home not the office. The big difference for me is these companies trust their employees to get the job done however and wherever they see fit. In the UK we’re still a million miles away from this culture in most businesses.
Rogstanley Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 6 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: The big Silicon Valley Tech companies do this very well (funnily enough) I do a bit of facilitation and coaching work with the likes of Google, LinkedIn & Twitter and all from my laptop at home. They all use hangout, Skype, blue jeans, Zoom calls etc. and have mastered the art of it. I often have sessions via VC with managers all over the world where most of the participants are at home not the office. The big difference for me is these companies trust their employees to get the job done however and wherever they see fit. In the UK we’re still a million miles away from this culture in most businesses. They put pressure on in different ways though, don't they? Some of those companies like LinkedIn allow unlimited annual leave, as long as you get the job done. Of course then expectations for what getting the job done means increase and peer pressure means nobody takes much leave. Similarly some of them don't have fixed working hours and for similar reasons the number of hours worked skyrockets. I think we need to take care not to go too far when it comes to blurring the lines between home and work. In many ways, although the idea of working from home or from a nice beach appeals, I prefer the structure of having a place of work and knowing that as soon as I've left my working day is over and I'm into free time. I just wish so much of that free time wasn't wasted sitting in traffic jams!
Izzy Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 12 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: They put pressure on in different ways though, don't they? Some of those companies like LinkedIn allow unlimited annual leave, as long as you get the job done. Of course then expectations for what getting the job done means increase and peer pressure means nobody takes much leave. Similarly some of them don't have fixed working hours and for similar reasons the number of hours worked skyrockets. I think we need to take care not to go too far when it comes to blurring the lines between home and work. In many ways, although the idea of working from home or from a nice beach appeals, I prefer the structure of having a place of work and knowing that as soon as I've left my working day is over and I'm into free time. I just wish so much of that free time wasn't wasted sitting in traffic jams! You’re right. And I agree there’s a balance to be had and that some businesses do dictate the need for employees to be on the premises at all times - I get that. Working from home isn’t for every employee and every business but I see examples of people living in the same neighbourhood, driving to the same office (on their own) and then having a series of ‘back to back’ meetings together all day. Many of these meetings could be done remotely and at home via VC but old school ‘command and control’ cultures mean people have to be ‘seen’ to be working hard. It’s nuts that businesses spend time and money recruiting good people and then keep them on a tight leash. If more people were trusted to do the job they’re paid to deliver and how they think best, I’m sure we’d cut down on traffic congestion and pollution (providing the technology works of course!) 1
Guest Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: You’re right. And I agree there’s a balance to be had and that some businesses do dictate the need for employees to be on the premises at all times - I get that. Working from home isn’t for every employee and every business but I see examples of people living in the same neighbourhood, driving to the same office (on their own) and then having a series of ‘back to back’ meetings together all day. Many of these meetings could be done remotely and at home via VC but old school ‘command and control’ cultures mean people have to be ‘seen’ to be working hard. It’s nuts that businesses spend time and money recruiting good people and then keep them on a tight leash. If more people were trusted to do the job they’re paid to deliver and how they think best, I’m sure we’d cut down on traffic congestion and pollution (providing the technology works of course!) Absolutely. Our culture seems to prefer the idea of somebody being sat at their desk for 8 hours delivering little to somebody getting the job done in 2 hours then finishing. We should be outcome focus instead.
Fox Ulike Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 1 hour ago, Rogstanley said: I might be in the minority but I think being able to get around the country without having to suffer the worst congestion in the developed world is worth sacrificing a few farms for. Innovation in agriculture should allow farmers to produce more with less space anyway, so the high percentage of farmland won't always be necessary at all. In England only 8.8% is built on, that's hardly anything. Increasing that by a couple of percent to provide space for better infrastructure is an easy decision, you'd barely notice the difference. I'm not sure what infrastructure you're talking about. Roads? Sacrificing a few farms isn't going to make any difference to the congestion in the Cities. Or Towns. Or anywhere for that matter! You can get from London to Edinburgh in less than 4.5 hours by train. Not fast enough for ya? You're trying to solve a problem that's not really there. Actual numbers of humans on the planet is the problem - to pretty much everything probably... 1
Rogstanley Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 Just now, Fox Ulike said: I'm not sure what infrastructure you're talking about. Roads? Sacrificing a few farms isn't going to make any difference to the congestion in the Cities. Or Towns. Or anywhere for that matter! You can get from London to Edinburgh in less than 4.5 hours by train. Not fast enough for ya? You're trying to solve a problem that's not really there. Actual numbers of humans on the planet is the problem - to pretty much everything probably... We have the worst traffic congestion in the developed world. Very much a problem that needs solving.
leicsmac Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 13 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: You’re right. And I agree there’s a balance to be had and that some businesses do dictate the need for employees to be on the premises at all times - I get that. Working from home isn’t for every employee and every business but I see examples of people living in the same neighbourhood, driving to the same office (on their own) and then having a series of ‘back to back’ meetings together all day. Many of these meetings could be done remotely and at home via VC but old school ‘command and control’ cultures mean people have to be ‘seen’ to be working hard. It’s nuts that businesses spend time and money recruiting good people and then keep them on a tight leash. If more people were trusted to do the job they’re paid to deliver and how they think best, I’m sure we’d cut down on traffic congestion and pollution (providing the technology works of course!) This is spot on. I really long for the day where more flexibility in working from home or in another location becomes a real choice. Would be more environmentally friendly, too. 2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: We have the worst traffic congestion in the developed world. Very much a problem that needs solving. If folks want hints about how to get a lot done in terms of infrastructure in really little space, then have a look at Korea. Population of England (not quite GB), about the same land area as England, living in about 10% of the available space England has for building infrastructure (because 70% of the country is so mountainous nothing can be done and 20% is used for agriculture), so they've had to get really creative with their transport and building solutions. But...it works. Most people in the UK really don't know what truly crowded is.
Guest Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 (edited) The spectator has pointed out that the letter from Teresa May to the rather lovely Priti Patel gives the PM's name as, er, Priti Patel... If you're going to pretend she voluntarily left her job you really need to cover the tracks of you writing the letter she had to sign! Edited 9 November 2017 by Guest
Fox Ulike Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: We have the worst traffic congestion in the developed world. Very much a problem that needs solving. By sacrificing a few farms? How is that going to help London's congestion problem?
Guest Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 Last one from me but after Michael Gove was the worst education secretary in memory I assumed he was incapable of doing any job well. He's actually turning out to be quite good at environment secretary though. UK will back total ban on bee-harming pesticides, Michael Gove reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/uk-will-back-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides-michael-gove-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Rogstanley Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: By sacrificing a few farms? How is that going to help London's congestion problem? Who said anything about London?
Fox Ulike Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Who said anything about London? Well now you're just being difficult. But OK OK. Let's do it your way. The difficult way. So where is it that you feel traffic congestion is an issue that would be resolved by building over a few farms? Clearly not London. Oakham? Getting rid of Farmer Brown's turnip field just past the Upper Hambleton turn-off would surely shave a good 30 seconds off the journey to Rutland Water.
Guest MattP Posted 9 November 2017 Posted 9 November 2017 24 minutes ago, toddybad said: Last one from me but after Michael Gove was the worst education secretary in memory I assumed he was incapable of doing any job well. He's actually turning out to be quite good at environment secretary though. UK will back total ban on bee-harming pesticides, Michael Gove reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/uk-will-back-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides-michael-gove-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Looking at the exam results from this year you could argue he did a good job in education, just because teachers didn't like him (which Tory would they like) didn't mean he did a bad job. He tried to raise standards at least and may have done so. Penny Mordaunt is the new IDS, probably a wise choice for equality reasons, I would have picked Rory Stewart.
Recommended Posts