On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
"News" wrote:
discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to two
children per family and reducing immigration to
below the emigration rate.

Cue mass wailing from Liberty and similar human rights bed wetters.

Another Hitler fan.

I see Godwin is called upon already today.

You muppet.

B2003

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:40 +0100
"News" wrote:
Optimist wrote:

"The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it."

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as concreting over
the countryside and urban sprawl. With only about 7.5% of the land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from? Do farms not count as settled?

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

Are you trolling? You can't get across london in an hour never mind Toyko
or mexico city.

rest of drivel snipped

I'm guessing you work for a developer and/or estate agency or have some
other vested interest in building sprawl.

In Medieval times 100% of all taxes came from taxes on land. Up until the
late 1600s 3/4 of all taxes came from land taxes. The aristocracy peeled
back taxes on land and put it onto individual people's efforts, income tax.
By the mid 1800s, only 5% of taxes came from land. The shift away from
comprehensively taxing land created the scourge of the modern world's
economy - boom and bust.

Right, because there was never crop failure or animal disease which meant
peasents couldn't pay the tax was there, back in those bucolic times you
apparently hark back to.

B2003

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:40:46 +0100
"News" wrote:
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.

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

An interesting rewrite of recent economic history.

B2003

d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
"News" wrote:
discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to
two children per family and reducing immigration to
below the emigration rate.

Cue mass wailing from Liberty and similar human rights bed wetters.

Another Hitler fan.

I see Godwin is called upon already today.

You muppet.

You are senile.

d wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:40 +0100
"News" wrote:
Optimist wrote:

"The green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on
it."

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as concreting
over the countryside and urban sprawl. With only about 7.5% of the
land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from? Do farms not count as
settled?

Urban, villages, towns, cities. Kate Barker report. This may help you:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html
The Supporting Links are excellent.

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

Are you trolling? You can't get across london in an hour never mind
Toyko or mexico city.

Central Line will take you acroos London and also the new Crossrail even
quicker. Now you know.

I'm guessing you work for a developer and/or estate agency or have
some other vested interest in building sprawl.

We can't sprawl anywhere as there is just too much land in the UK. The
place is empty.

In Medieval times 100% of all taxes came from taxes on land. Up
until the late 1600s 3/4 of all taxes came from land taxes. The
aristocracy peeled back taxes on land and put it onto individual
people's efforts, income tax. By the mid 1800s, only 5% of taxes
came from land. The shift away from comprehensively taxing land
created the scourge of the modern world's economy - boom and bust.

Right, because there was never crop failure or animal disease which
meant peasents couldn't pay the tax was there, back in those bucolic
times you apparently hark back to.

The peasants never paid any taxes, only landowners. You must try to get the
points.

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.

What the f**k are you on about oh senile one? Duh!!!!!

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

An interesting rewrite of recent economic history.

The root of the recent bust was because of LAND SPECULATION. Debt after debt
was poured into tax free land. Your knowledge of economics is zero.

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, and then later local government
reorganisation came along and fused them together. It's somewhat different
from a town expanding outwards until it hit its limit.

One could have a more than semantic discussion about what "London" is - very
few people use "Manchester" to mean the whole Greater Manchester area, and
try applying "Birmingham" to the West Midlands county, but with London it's
somewhat more confused with the two terms frequently used interchangeably
(look for instance at the current government arrangements with the "Greater
London Authority" consisting of the "Mayor of London" and the "London
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.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:23:23 +0100
"News" wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:56 +0100
"News" wrote:
discourage the growth of population by limiting child benefit to
two children per family and reducing immigration to
below the emigration rate.

Cue mass wailing from Liberty and similar human rights bed wetters.

Another Hitler fan.

I see Godwin is called upon already today.

You muppet.

You are senile.

Wow, killer putdown there. Did you think that up all by yourself or did you
have a team to help you?

B2003

In message , at 10:37:59 on Thu, 30 Aug
2012, d remarked:

With only about 7.5% of the land settled,

7.5%? Where did you get that figure from?

I'd like to know that as well. Seems a bit high to me.

Do farms not count as settled?

In this context, only the part with the farmhouse on it.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:10 +0100
"News" wrote:
Urban, villages, towns, cities. Kate Barker report. This may help you:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html
The Supporting Links are excellent.

# Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
# Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
# Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares. 29.78
% of the land mass.
# Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
# Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
# Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the land m
ass.

I'd count agricultural as settled but thats by the by. So where would you
build on then?

Central Line will take you acroos London and also the new Crossrail even
quicker. Now you know.

You ever been on the central line in rush hour?

I'm guessing you work for a developer and/or estate agency or have
some other vested interest in building sprawl.

We can't sprawl anywhere as there is just too much land in the UK. The
place is empty.

Perhaps when you've finished being a know it all student get yourself a proper
job by a car and drive around this country like I have then you see how empty
it isn't. Sure , the highlands and central wales are pretty sparse but thats
about it.

Right, because there was never crop failure or animal disease which
meant peasents couldn't pay the tax was there, back in those bucolic
times you apparently hark back to.

The peasants never paid any taxes, only landowners.

*boggle*

History not your strong point I see. I would suggest you google the peasants
revolt.

B2003