Oxfordshire ordered to build 55,200 homes by 2026 (From Oxford Mail)

Mr Turner, having 3 or 4 children sharing a room is God's way of telling mum and dad that they never had the kind of jobs that could justify starting a family-that's why you can take a litle tablet and not have children. "Affordable" means subsidised and "development" means concreting. Maybe if we stopped using weasel words everyone would know what we are talking about
We can't afford to concrete our countryside and we can't afford to let floods of aliens into our country to fill Mr Turner's "affordable" public housing and most of all we've got more than enough public housing now.

So says William Bonnie who probably has his own home and is sitting comfortably. Not everyone has that pleasure. I'm a single mum and I have to rent privately, I am on the housing list but in the words of the housing office "you've no chance of getting a house, there are people far worse off than you". I do not claim benefits and work extremly hard to keep a roof over my children's heads. Whilst I agree all the scenery and greenery is beautiful we are in DIRE need of affordable housing and I applaud the decision for more houses to be built. Those who are against it do not live in the real world and should get real !!

We cannot allow our green-belts to be breached. This is a DISASTER.

Janny, Green-belt land isnt for 'beauty', its to stop urban sprawl. Infrastructures get overloaded and Surface run-off increases causing more flooding in a very prone area.

If you are in DIRE need of affordable housing, may i suggest you look elsewhere than Oxford????(5th most expensive property prices in England)

I cant emphasise enough how sick reading this news has made me feel.

Should not Oxford(shire) start looking at the number of properties occupied by Students of both Universities and examine the possibilities of seeking legislation to restrict the growth of this transient population within the City in favour of the work force.
How many prime sites for the building of houses has swallowed up by student halls of residence being built on them in the last few years.
The further that the population is dispersed from the main economic centre of the County the more the infrastructure has to be increase the more green land is placed under tarmac to transport that work force to where it is needed..

The greenbelt is one of the things I love about Oxford, and how you can feel in the "countryside" within minutes of leaving the city.

Whoever agreed to this should be castrated!

Are they going to expand the southern bypass to accommodate the extra traffic?

If Oxford is too expensive, then move elsewhere.

Green belt is far more important than affordable housing.

I never said oxford was too expensive for me and why should I move elsewhere just because some selfish, self centred people say so. We need more affordable property FACT!!

By wanting to protect something as precious as a green-belt is being self-centred? Let me guess, you demanding someone to build you a house isnt?

janny I had 4 children and my wife and I worked to bring them up . Why won't your husband or ex husband help the chilren by helping with the rent? Did you think you could rely on him when you started having the children? Perhaps what you're saying is that courts should be much more aggressive with absentee parents. I couldn't agree more.

The fact is the government have fudged up and let to many europeans and futher afield into this country...if we had a policy the same as Australia implemented years ago housing would be available for all U.K citizens. Yes its a shame to go into our greenbelt but ppl need housing and its not going to dissapear..

The fact is the government have fudged up and let to many europeans and futher afield into this country...if we had a policy the same as Australia implemented years ago housing would be available for all U.K citizens. Yes its a shame to go into our greenbelt but ppl need housing and its not going to dissapear..

The fact is the government have fudged up and let to many europeans and futher afield into this country...if we had a policy the same as Australia implemented years ago housing would be available for all U.K citizens. Yes its a shame to go into our greenbelt but ppl need housing and its not going to dissapear..

William Bonnie wrote:
janny I had 4 children and my wife and I worked to bring them up . Why won't your husband or ex husband help the chilren by helping with the rent? Did you think you could rely on him when you started having the children? Perhaps what you're saying is that courts should be much more aggressive with absentee parents. I couldn't agree more.

William I suppose u lived in a big house or housing was available to you at the time ? It does not matter whether u a single parent or not with children the housing availability is non exsistent unless u earn a small fortune to buy a house..

Green Belt land is just that, Green, not brick and mortar, its sacrilidge to build on open countryside. besides, nobody can afford to buy them as our little darlings have kids so young now and expect the local authority to pay for them, thats why there is no cash about. If you can afford to have kids, DONT, keep your legs together.

William Bonnie wrote:
janny I had 4 children and my wife and I worked to bring them up . Why won't your husband or ex husband help the chilren by helping with the rent? Did you think you could rely on him when you started having the children? Perhaps what you're saying is that courts should be much more aggressive with absentee parents. I couldn't agree more.

Personally I don't think getting personal with Janny is helping this debate. People find themselves in difficult circumstances, for all you know her partner could have passed away.

The issue here is that housing across the country is still prohibitivly expensive for people even on average wages, whether in a couple, single, with kids, without kids. Wage rates are slowly falling and people who have worked for their families for years are starting to find themselves in vulnerable situations.

I don't believe that people should have to leave the part of the country they are from and I don't really like the undertone of some of these comments which is that it's perfectly acceptable to verbally bash those that 'don't have' on this page.

To William Bonnie, Has it occured to you that maybe Janny is not a single mother out of choice - maybe she is widowed?
Have some decency and think before typing!
I agree that there needs to be more affordable housing made available and to repeat what mechcol said, there are too many people from outside Britain being handed houses as soon as they land here. Would their countires treat us the same???? NO I didn't think so

To William Bonnie, Has it occured to you that maybe Janny is not a single mother out of choice - maybe she is widowed?
Have some decency and think before typing!
I agree that there needs to be more affordable housing made available and to repeat what mechcol said, there are too many people from outside Britain being handed houses as soon as they land here. Would their countires treat us the same???? NO I didn't think so

Didn't take long for this to become a racist rant did it?

Thank you for your support eveyone. I wont go into my personal circumstances here, however the truth of the matter is we do need more housing and if that means cutting into the beautiful Oxfordshire countryside, then so be it, Yes it will be a shame but at the end of the day the fact is we need more houses not only for now but for future generations. People living in their ivory towers need to realise this!
This debate can and probably will rage on, I've had my say and stand by my words.

Regardless of where the houses are built, for them to be affordable they need to be subsidised, and who will be doing the subsidying?? Surely not the taxpayer as our taxes are stretched thin enough as it is.

I look back on my childhood and seem to remember a global population quoted as 4.5bn. Now it's in excess of 6bn. This country when I was at school was listed as 55m, the last census was 65m? I guess folks need to realise humans need to live some place,... or do we start culling them as we would any other pest!? Further the quality of life has improved both in its amplitude and magnitude for the overall populace. additional to that realise this civilisation is running on batteries, coal and oil were laid down over millenia, we've nearly spent them in a few centuries. Everyone has to realise and take responsibility for their life style and reproduction of a species already running rampant destroying it's own environment. We have here the latest moves to stem the inevitable disaster we'll be facing, I trust it's delayed long enough to get round it / not be around to suffer it.
So yes, living in the area I'm agrieved that we have this massive expansion, but accept it'll happen essentially because it has to.

English Homes for Foreign Migrants.

NuLabour have destroyed our sense of community and shared culture by their policy of flooding the UK with foreigners (regardless of the Lords report summarising that this provides NO net economic benefit) and now they are destroying our very land.

I have no problem with SKILLED workers, or GENUINE asylum seekers, but there is no doubt that the UK is now full and the levels of migration under Nulabour have had serious negative impacts locally and nationally.

A total disgrace that will affect generations to come.


'According to official projections, the population of the UK will increase by nearly 10 million by 2028. Immigration accounts for 7 million of this increase - or seven times the population of Birmingham. Nearly all of this increase will be in England.

Even this number does not include illegal immigrants. About 50,000 illegal entrants are detected every year but nobody knows how many succeed in entering undetected.

Legal immigration at the present projected rate will lead to a requirement of about 1.5 million houses in the period 2003 – 2026. England is now nearly twice as crowded as Germany, four times France and twelve times the US. In 2008 England overtook Holland as the most crowded country in Europe. Of major countries we are now fourth most crowded in the world - after Bangladesh, Taiwan and South Korea.

Asylum claimants only account for 10% of net foreign immigration. However, asylum has been allowed to become a back door to Britain. In recent years over 60% have been refused permission to stay here but only 1 in 4 of those who fail are ever removed.

The pressure on our borders continues. Demand for visas has risen by 33% in 5 years and is now 2.5 million per year. No one is recorded as they enter or leave the country.'

http://www.migration
watchuk.com/outline_
of_the_problem_09.as
p

English Homes for Foreign Migrants.

NuLabour have destroyed our sense of community and shared culture by their policy of flooding the UK with foreigners (regardless of the Lords report summarising that this provides NO net economic benefit) and now they are destroying our very land.

I have no problem with SKILLED workers, or GENUINE asylum seekers, but there is no doubt that the UK is now full and the levels of migration under Nulabour have had serious negative impacts locally and nationally.

A total disgrace that will affect generations to come.


'According to official projections, the population of the UK will increase by nearly 10 million by 2028. Immigration accounts for 7 million of this increase - or seven times the population of Birmingham. Nearly all of this increase will be in England.

Even this number does not include illegal immigrants. About 50,000 illegal entrants are detected every year but nobody knows how many succeed in entering undetected.

Legal immigration at the present projected rate will lead to a requirement of about 1.5 million houses in the period 2003 – 2026. England is now nearly twice as crowded as Germany, four times France and twelve times the US. In 2008 England overtook Holland as the most crowded country in Europe. Of major countries we are now fourth most crowded in the world - after Bangladesh, Taiwan and South Korea.

Asylum claimants only account for 10% of net foreign immigration. However, asylum has been allowed to become a back door to Britain. In recent years over 60% have been refused permission to stay here but only 1 in 4 of those who fail are ever removed.

The pressure on our borders continues. Demand for visas has risen by 33% in 5 years and is now 2.5 million per year. No one is recorded as they enter or leave the country.'

http://www.migration
watchuk.com/outline_
of_the_problem_09.as
p

janny1960 wrote:
Thank you for your support eveyone. I wont go into my personal circumstances here, however the truth of the matter is we do need more housing and if that means cutting into the beautiful Oxfordshire countryside, then so be it, Yes it will be a shame but at the end of the day the fact is we need more houses not only for now but for future generations. People living in their ivory towers need to realise this! This debate can and probably will rage on, I've had my say and stand by my words.

For future generations of people born overseas you mean.

This is the biggest scandal I can imagine- a Country destroyed to provide NuLabour voters from overseas.

This will NOT help the housing crisis for local Oxford or even British born people.

Does building an extension on your garden help your kids have a room each if you then invite the neighbours to live in it?

No- your kids still don't have enough room and don't have a garden to play in, but the neighbours are laughing.

oxman wrote:
Regardless of where the houses are built, for them to be affordable they need to be subsidised, and who will be doing the subsidying?? Surely not the taxpayer as our taxes are stretched thin enough as it is.

Inclusionary zoning - basically means that developers must include deed-restrictions on a % of new houses they build. Of course developers see this as an indirect tax on them as they have to shoulder the cost, while the remainder of the development is sold off at market rates. So no, unless you include the slightly reduced income from corporation tax paid by developers to the government this type of scheme does not get subsidised by 'tax-payers'. Your comment does seem to imply however that the people who might benefit from these schemes (which are used world-wide) aren't tax payers themselves. And also worth remembering that people will be liable for council tax on these properties and may be liable for stamp duty too, depending on value.

DanOxford - Ah yes, Migration Watch - that very well respected bastion of statistical accuracy.

UN 2005 - Netherlands 395 per Sqkm, Belgium 341 per Sqkm, India 336 per Sqkm, UK (at number 50 in the list of countries and dependancies) at 246 per Sqkm.

I really doubt that the UK is anywhere near the Netherlands in just 4 years. And before you scream illegal immigrants at me - the netherlands has an issue with this too, and this won't be reflected in their figures.

bigaldublin wrote:

oxman wrote:
Regardless of where the houses are built, for them to be affordable they need to be subsidised, and who will be doing the subsidying?? Surely not the taxpayer as our taxes are stretched thin enough as it is.

Inclusionary zoning - basically means that developers must include deed-restrictions on a % of new houses they build. Of course developers see this as an indirect tax on them as they have to shoulder the cost, while the remainder of the development is sold off at market rates. So no, unless you include the slightly reduced income from corporation tax paid by developers to the government this type of scheme does not get subsidised by 'tax-payers'. Your comment does seem to imply however that the people who might benefit from these schemes (which are used world-wide) aren't tax payers themselves. And also worth remembering that people will be liable for council tax on these properties and may be liable for stamp duty too, depending on value.

Gotcha, hadn't thought of that. The problem with it, however, is thata lot of people don't like buying newer houses if they can help it. Not too put too fine a point on it, BUT, why spend 200k on a house if there is even the remote possibility that the house next door to you will be populated by noisy scumbuckets, who immediately knock at least 20k off the price of your house. Perhaps my language isn't very PC, but a lot of people will be thinking along those lines.

You dont go and buy a porche if you can afford one do you. You look for a cheaper car.

So if you cant afford to live in the area as it is too expensive why not just go somewhere else, coutnies are so small these days moving outside of oxfordshire is never really that far away.

You dont go and buy a porche if you can afford one do you. You look for a cheaper car.

So if you cant afford to live in the area as it is too expensive why not just go somewhere else, coutnies are so small these days moving outside of oxfordshire is never really that far away.

Building houses is a commercial enture and should not place any burden on the tax paying public. If the council want to build a few houses for people who for one reason or another dont want to buy one like the rest of us then thats there perogitive but dont tax me for the cost. If i am unable to afford something i dont buy it, i'd love a Ferrari but alas i dont earn enough, so those who chose to have kids should bear the burden. DOnt build houses you wont sell.

Building houses is a commercial enture and should not place any burden on the tax paying public. If the council want to build a few houses for people who for one reason or another dont want to buy one like the rest of us then thats there perogitive but dont tax me for the cost. If i am unable to afford something i dont buy it, i'd love a Ferrari but alas i dont earn enough, so those who chose to have kids should bear the burden. DOnt build houses you wont sell.

oxman wrote:

bigaldublin wrote:

oxman wrote: Regardless of where the houses are built, for them to be affordable they need to be subsidised, and who will be doing the subsidying?? Surely not the taxpayer as our taxes are stretched thin enough as it is.

Inclusionary zoning - basically means that developers must include deed-restrictions on a % of new houses they build. Of course developers see this as an indirect tax on them as they have to shoulder the cost, while the remainder of the development is sold off at market rates. So no, unless you include the slightly reduced income from corporation tax paid by developers to the government this type of scheme does not get subsidised by 'tax-payers'. Your comment does seem to imply however that the people who might benefit from these schemes (which are used world-wide) aren't tax payers themselves. And also worth remembering that people will be liable for council tax on these properties and may be liable for stamp duty too, depending on value.

Gotcha, hadn't thought of that. The problem with it, however, is thata lot of people don't like buying newer houses if they can help it. Not too put too fine a point on it, BUT, why spend 200k on a house if there is even the remote possibility that the house next door to you will be populated by noisy scumbuckets, who immediately knock at least 20k off the price of your house. Perhaps my language isn't very PC, but a lot of people will be thinking along those lines.

At least you aren't likely to be displaced by vicious conflict, forced to spend months or years in an internally displaced peoples camp on the edge of cholera hell in Eastern Congo or lose half your family and all your tools for a livelihood after an earthquake that devestated an area the size of England.

Lets put your noisy neighbours and £20k loss into a bit of perspective. Things aren't so bad are they?

Jolene wrote:
To William Bonnie, Has it occured to you that maybe Janny is not a single mother out of choice - maybe she is widowed? Have some decency and think before typing! I agree that there needs to be more affordable housing made available and to repeat what mechcol said, there are too many people from outside Britain being handed houses as soon as they land here. Would their countires treat us the same???? NO I didn't think so

Plainly not widowed, as any responsible father would have put a life insurance policy in place to secure the future of his widow and children should he prematurely pass away.

In fact, Jolene, it doesn't require too much thinking to sucessfully conclude that Janny just expects to be housed by the taxpayers and doesn't care too much whether the quality of life for the residents of Oxford is adversly affected at all.

Mickey

Before the homes are built, let's get the infrastructure in to support them.

A light-rail/tram scheme from Wantage, through Diddyland, up to Abingdon alongside the Railway to Oxford then up to Witney would bring massive benefits to the communities.

Just demand a £1000 premium per property from the developers payable to the county. That should raise £55M towards a permanent way.

Mickey D, how DARE you suggest such a thing, you know absolutely nothing about me, my life or my circumstances. I expect nothing from anyone nor do I receive anything from anyone. HOW VERY DARE YOU

And Mickey D am I also a resident of Oxford? Oh yes I am and do I pay taxes? Oh yes I do; alot and have always done so. Though why I feel I need to justify myself to you or anyone else for that matter I do not know. I am entitled to an opinion just as everyone is and I should not be berated for having one

What do you expect from a society where somebody in our government uses our tax pounds to buy **** and keeps their job?.

Also 100,000+ murdered in Iraq based on a lie.

In your opinion. People should really write that at the end of everything they write (in my opinion) we are all entiled to our opinions and if it is made clear that it is an opinion and not an attack alot of arguements would be prevented. Like this entire joke of of comments. You are no longer commenting on the article (the point of the comments page) but just arguing with each other and not even with any justification. Non of you know each other or cicumstances. Please just focus on what is at hand. The article, if you want to dicuss there are forums for this.

In your opinion. People should really write that at the end of everything they write (in my opinion) we are all entiled to our opinions and if it is made clear that it is an opinion and not an attack alot of arguements would be prevented. Like this entire joke of of comments. You are no longer commenting on the article (the point of the comments page) but just arguing with each other and not even with any justification. Non of you know each other or cicumstances. Please just focus on what is at hand. The article, if you want to dicuss there are forums for this.

Hear hear Williamhordle.

Williamhordle wrote:
In your opinion. People should really write that at the end of everything they write (in my opinion) we are all entiled to our opinions and if it is made clear that it is an opinion and not an attack alot of arguements would be prevented. Like this entire joke of of comments. You are no longer commenting on the article (the point of the comments page) but just arguing with each other and not even with any justification. Non of you know each other or cicumstances. Please just focus on what is at hand. The article, if you want to dicuss there are forums for this.

Why should i use "my opinion" for what i said?,it is public fact and not just my opinion.

My article is very relevent to the topic here.

It is about total government disregard for what the electorate wants,whether it be Iraq or the 55,000 homes that we are being TOLD will have to be built.

Government (particually this murderous regime) have to be held to account,otherwise we risk another Nazi Holocaust.

well New Labour will be gone in 12 months, and we'll have another bunch of incompetant idiots in charge

I don't want the green belt built on whilst there is space on brownfield sites. Don't forget Didcot Power Station will be razed in a few years, and that will free up space for thousands of homes.

But we do need better infrastructure. A replaced rail link between Didcot, Abingdon and Oxford would be a huge help as the roads just won't take much more traffic.

The trouble is housing is still far too expensive. Young people have been totally priced out of the market by deliberate government policies which have restricted supply of housing, the almost total destruction of social housing and the relaxation in lending regulation has created many amatuer buy to let landlords who have further increased demand. The Government has pursued policies that are age discriminatory and unfair creating vast inequality in our society. Unfortunately a lot of people prefer to ignore reality, they claim that the only reason people can't afford housing is that they don't work hard, aren't deserving, should live somewhere else etc. Most people commenting on this story who are against the new homes are already home owners and they couldn't afford to buy their current home at current market rates, they have benefitted from an unfair housing system and don't want equlity because their hard 'earned' wealth in their properties will decline.

bigaldublin wrote:

oxman wrote:

bigaldublin wrote:

oxman wrote: Regardless of where the houses are built, for them to be affordable they need to be subsidised, and who will be doing the subsidying?? Surely not the taxpayer as our taxes are stretched thin enough as it is.

Inclusionary zoning - basically means that developers must include deed-restrictions on a % of new houses they build. Of course developers see this as an indirect tax on them as they have to shoulder the cost, while the remainder of the development is sold off at market rates. So no, unless you include the slightly reduced income from corporation tax paid by developers to the government this type of scheme does not get subsidised by 'tax-payers'. Your comment does seem to imply however that the people who might benefit from these schemes (which are used world-wide) aren't tax payers themselves. And also worth remembering that people will be liable for council tax on these properties and may be liable for stamp duty too, depending on value.

Gotcha, hadn't thought of that. The problem with it, however, is thata lot of people don't like buying newer houses if they can help it. Not too put too fine a point on it, BUT, why spend 200k on a house if there is even the remote possibility that the house next door to you will be populated by noisy scumbuckets, who immediately knock at least 20k off the price of your house. Perhaps my language isn't very PC, but a lot of people will be thinking along those lines.

At least you aren't likely to be displaced by vicious conflict, forced to spend months or years in an internally displaced peoples camp on the edge of cholera hell in Eastern Congo or lose half your family and all your tools for a livelihood after an earthquake that devestated an area the size of England.

Lets put your noisy neighbours and £20k loss into a bit of perspective. Things aren't so bad are they?

In reality then, if you have 5 kids when you can't afford a place outright and you have to depend upon the charity of others to help you out, THEN you should just put up and shut up and accept where you are put, even if that is a one bed high rise flat, as " At least you aren't likely to be displaced...an area the size of England."

So, let's put your lack of bedromms, garden etc into perspective, things aren't so bad are they?

bigaldublin wrote:
DanOxford - Ah yes, Migration Watch - that very well respected bastion of statistical accuracy. UN 2005 - Netherlands 395 per Sqkm, Belgium 341 per Sqkm, India 336 per Sqkm, UK (at number 50 in the list of countries and dependancies) at 246 per Sqkm. I really doubt that the UK is anywhere near the Netherlands in just 4 years. And before you scream illegal immigrants at me - the netherlands has an issue with this too, and this won't be reflected in their figures.

Britain is set to have the largest population in Europe in the next 50 years because of high birth rates and immigration, a survey has revealed.

The UK will overtake Germany and France to become the largest country in the European Union with 77m people, it said.

(Sky News)

UK to have Europe's biggest population: Migration will force us ahead of Germany, says UN

Immigration rates have pushed up population figures in the UK
Britain will overtake Germany as the country with the highest population in Europe, the United Nations predicted yesterday.
The gap of more than 20million people between this country and Germany will be closed by 2050, its analysts said.
By then Britain will also have outstripped France to be home to more people than any other EU nation.
Germany has been the most populous country in Europe since its establishment as a nation 139 years ago.
Britain's population growth comes because of immigration rates that mean this country is and will remain the third greatest destination for migrants in the world, the UN said.

(Daily Mail)

Britain 'biggest in EU by 2050'

Workers from new EU countries seeking UK jobs is down, says Mr Woolas
Britain could have the biggest population in Europe by 2050 and be the third biggest recipient of migrants in the world, UN projections suggest.

They predict net immigration will average 174,000 a year up to 2050, swelling the population to 72 million.

(BBC News)


Still in denial?

I suppose it'll take the Country to be concreted over for you to realise the true scale and cause of the problem.

Williamhordle wrote:
You dont go and buy a porche if you can afford one do you. You look for a cheaper car. So if you cant afford to live in the area as it is too expensive why not just go somewhere else, coutnies are so small these days moving outside of oxfordshire is never really that far away.

So British people who are too poor to buy a house in Britain should go and live somewhere cheaper?

Exactly the same logic that says British people undercut by foreign labour should move somehere they CAN afford to house and feed their families.

It is fundamentally unfair for people to have to move away from their family, cultural and community ties because they have been priced out by outsiders.

This is equally true for people who cannot afford a home in the Dordogne due to Enlish 'second homers' as it is for local British people forced out by the housing stock increasingly being taken up by foreign migrants.

This movement of labour suits businesses as they get cheaper labour, it suits NuLabour as migrants are more likely to vote for them, it suits foreigners as they earn more than at home.

The cost- as ever- is borne by the average British worker and their family.

We already have chronic congestion, water shortages, flooding etc- we simply CANNOT keep concreting over green space to house Third World overspill.

A total disgrace.

May I recommend an excellent site for some of the houses. There is an empty site at the end of Mill St (Trajan House) which would provide an ideal plot for a small scale development. It would also prevent a daft plan to build a mega-probation centre there instead - come on builders buy it quick!

DanOxford wrote:

Williamhordle wrote:
You dont go and buy a porche if you can afford one do you. You look for a cheaper car. So if you cant afford to live in the area as it is too expensive why not just go somewhere else, coutnies are so small these days moving outside of oxfordshire is never really that far away.

So British people who are too poor to buy a house in Britain should go and live somewhere cheaper?

Exactly the same logic that says British people undercut by foreign labour should move somehere they CAN afford to house and feed their families.

It is fundamentally unfair for people to have to move away from their family, cultural and community ties because they have been priced out by outsiders.

This is equally true for people who cannot afford a home in the Dordogne due to Enlish 'second homers' as it is for local British people forced out by the housing stock increasingly being taken up by foreign migrants.

This movement of labour suits businesses as they get cheaper labour, it suits NuLabour as migrants are more likely to vote for them, it suits foreigners as they earn more than at home.

The cost- as ever- is borne by the average British worker and their family.

We already have chronic congestion, water shortages, flooding etc- we simply CANNOT keep concreting over green space to house Third World overspill.

A total disgrace.

Why not.

I am sorry as this post is going against what I said early about not dicussing in comments. However the forums are no longer taking more people regstering ><

Just becuase your british does not mean you should be entiled to get a house you can afford.

Ultimatly we choose our salary, we choose our jobs. We have made the deicisions along the way in our lives meaning that the end result is of our own doing.

I understand there are people in this country that are more fortunate than others but that moeny had to come from somewhere to start with and it came from making the right decision in the begining.

You have to think logical, if you cant afford to live in Britain. Either get a job that pays better or move. (yes I know not eveyone can get any job) study do night courses, think out side the box.

Yes there is a recession but there are many companies thriving from the recession such as computer games comapnies, online entertainment.

We all make our beds you either make the decision to lie in it or get up and make the changes your self. No-one is going to nor should they have to do that for you.

In my opinion of course

Williamhordle, wantage says...
10:26pm Thu 7 May 09

'Just becuase your british does not mean you should be entitled to get a house you can afford.'


Affordability is a product of relative supply to demand and availability of funds to make a purchase- either 'real' money you have, or access to credit.

Obviously, if you continue to increase demand (by allowing these levels of immigration) and supply cannot increase to match (scarcity of suitable land) then houses become 'unaffordable'

The current economic crisis has occurred because the government failed to regulate bank lending, meaning that people could borrow 10x their earnings, as opposed to traditional mortage levels of 3x average earnings.

Clearly these repayment levels were unsustainable, hence the banks suddenly finding that these were 'toxic' assets that they could not be repayed by the borrowers, hence could not be realised as assets against bank lending.

When you factor in the extra tax burden placed on British workers by this government, and the undercutting of wages (a British worker with a family paying an inflated mortgage cannot compete with a foreign migrant sharing several to a rented house) then you have a massive betrayal of the British people by NuLabour.

There is NO reason why an AVERAGE British worker should not be able to afford an AVERAGE British house.

NuLabour have DELIBERATELY flooded the UK with migrants to create an illusion of economic prosperity (completely disproved by a Lords report that summarised that migration contributed virtually NOTHING to the UK economy on balance) and to keep themselves in power on foreign votes.

This report is from a POLISH news site:

The UK’s Labour party appeals to Poles to vote in the European elections and see off the nationalist threat.




One of the largest of the UK’s trade unions, Unison, and the Labour Party are encouraging Poles who live in Great Britain to take part in elections to the European Parliament.




They claim Polish voters will help prevent the far-right British National Party, which stands against immigration, from entering the European Parliament.




Critics, however, claim that the Labour Party is desperate for any votes it can get as it languishes far behind the opposition Conservative Party in the polls.




Yesterday British trade unionists and politicians met in the House of Commons with Polish organizations, including Poles to Polls, Poland Street and the Federation of Poles in Great Britain to discuss the participation of Poles in EP elections.




European Minister Caroline Flint urged Polish nationals to register to vote in the European elections. She warned that the British National Party (BNP) is using the elections to try and stir up anti-immigration sentiments among the electorate.




“Polish people have contributed their skills to our economy, paid taxes and worked hard here, so we should respect them,” said Flint and added that Poles and the Labour Party have a common aim.

http://www.polskiera
dio.pl/thenews/news/
artykul107637_new_la
bour_wants_poles_at_
polls_.html


So the deal is- come to the UK, earn more than in your home Country, send money home to set you and your family up, the UK economy gets no net benfit, but we want you to vote Nulabour to keep the gravy train rolling for foreigners and corrupt politicians.

It is NOT racist to oppose this selling out of the UK- I don't blame anyone for wanting to do better for themselves, but I want everyone to see WHY this is being done, and to know that the cost to British people is undercut wages, higher house prices, strains on public services and the destruction of our Countryside.

If Tibetans have a right to live in Tibet, if Native Americans have a right to live in the USA, if Maoris have a right to live in New Zealand, then British people have a right to live in Britain, and not as second class citizens or scraping by in a Country with unaffordable housing, poor services, shortages and no green space for future generations.

All these things are happening- now.

Williamhordle wrote:
I am sorry as this post is going against what I said early about not dicussing in comments. However the forums are no longer taking more people regstering &gt;&lt;

Just becuase your british does not mean you should be entiled to get a house you can afford.

Ultimatly we choose our salary, we choose our jobs. We have made the deicisions along the way in our lives meaning that the end result is of our own doing.

I understand there are people in this country that are more fortunate than others but that moeny had to come from somewhere to start with and it came from making the right decision in the begining.

You have to think logical, if you cant afford to live in Britain. Either get a job that pays better or move. (yes I know not eveyone can get any job) study do night courses, think out side the box.

Yes there is a recession but there are many companies thriving from the recession such as computer games comapnies, online entertainment.

We all make our beds you either make the decision to lie in it or get up and make the changes your self. No-one is going to nor should they have to do that for you.

I don't agree with you regarding choices, young people have had their future blighted by previous generations. The reason why house prices are so high is because the government has deliberately decided to restrict supply and increase demand artificially. They've done this to buy votes of a certain age group who were existing home owners even though this had a detrimental affect on younger ages group and is an unsustainable policy.
For me personally I went to poor secondary school but managed to work hard and get a masters degree from a good university. I then got a 'good' job, that pays significantly above average. Added to this I've been saving for several years and have nearly 1 years salary put aside towards a deposit. Yet I still cannot buy any where to live.
Lots of people who already own homes like to think that the only people who can't afford to buy don't work hard enough, aren't smart enough etc. But that they fail to realise that if they were 1st time buyers now they couldn't afford to buy.
The big trouble for the UK is that many high earning young people are going to move abroad where they can buy somewhere to live. However they'll be taking their tax, national insurance and pension contributions with them.

We need to stop building at some point, afterall when you have built on the last dot of green land, and have to show children of the future what a tree was by showing them via a book because there is nothing left, what happens then? I have always thought that the 'Mad Max' films were well ahead of their time, sadly depicting the future you choose now for future generations. There will be no green, no gardens, no parks, no riverside ambles, no farms with fields, no sanctuary, so no animals, no plants, no trees, just urban decay. Everyone needs to sip up and really think about the impact they are having on this planet. Do you really need to keep on breeding? Afterall its your children that are the ones that will suffer in the long term. Where I live, 1 family own 15 yes 15 houses via the council because their kids, the youngest at 14 just had another baby -keep getting houses - we are a really stupid bunch of humans to think we can carry on like htis forever.

I just hope that once this bloody government get kicked out that this destructive development of our lovely county will be stopped. Leave our greenbelt alone!! If the university had any morals they wouldn't be falling over themselves to sell the land for millions to developers.

And as for the Oxford City councillors and Andrew Smith, your legacy will be turning Oxford into a concrete jungle.

Nail + Head Foxy Lady.

I would hate to be the one to suggest something as draconian as population control like in China, but c'mon. This is not sustainable.

How about tax relief for married couples not procreating?

janny1960 wrote:
Mickey D, how DARE you suggest such a thing, you know absolutely nothing about me, my life or my circumstances. I expect nothing from anyone nor do I receive anything from anyone. HOW VERY DARE YOU

Janny

Sorry, I assumed that as a working single mother, you would be claiming either;

Working tax credits?

Childcare vouchers?

Housing benefit?

Council tax relief?

Child support?

But as you have assured me that you are not claiming *any* benefits whatsoever, then I must admit to being wrong about my claim that you are a net taker from society rather than a net contributor, and must also accept that you have the right to describe me as a self-centred person for not wanting to lose the green belt of Oxford.

Best Regards.

Mickey

Peat wrote:
Nail + Head Foxy Lady. I would hate to be the one to suggest something as draconian as population control like in China, but c'mon. This is not sustainable. How about tax relief for married couples not procreating?

The problem is not indigenous Western European birth rates, which had been stable or falling until recently.

Bribing married British couples not to have children would simply speed up the extinction of the British, only to be replaced by those born overseas.

One in five babies born in the UK is now born to a foreign mother, and 'British' citizens of foreign extraction have larger families on average.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/1
572145/One-in-five-b
abies-born-to-foreig
n-mother-in-UK.html)


Blaming single mothers, indigenous British people with large families and even pensioners for living longer for the need to build this number of houses is a smokescreen.

The simple fact is that immigration will account for 70% of UK poulation growth over the next 20 years- all of whom wil need to be housed.

March 13, 2009
Immigration to account for a new household every 6 minutes

Government projections issued this week confirm that net immigration is now the largest single influence on household formation in England, accounting for very nearly 4 in 10 new households (39%).

The projections show that, over the 25 years from 2006 to 2031, immigration will account for an extra 99,000 households a year - or one every six minutes. This means an extra 2.5 million households by the end of the period out of a total of 6.3 million new households, or nearly 40%. These households would not be formed if immigration was in balance with emigration.

(http://www.telegrap
h.co.uk/news/uknews/
1572145/One-in-five-
babies-born-to-forei
gn-mother-in-UK.html
)

GaryOxford wrote:

Williamhordle wrote:
I am sorry as this post is going against what I said early about not dicussing in comments. However the forums are no longer taking more people regstering &gt;&lt;

Just becuase your british does not mean you should be entiled to get a house you can afford.

Ultimatly we choose our salary, we choose our jobs. We have made the deicisions along the way in our lives meaning that the end result is of our own doing.

I understand there are people in this country that are more fortunate than others but that moeny had to come from somewhere to start with and it came from making the right decision in the begining.

You have to think logical, if you cant afford to live in Britain. Either get a job that pays better or move. (yes I know not eveyone can get any job) study do night courses, think out side the box.

Yes there is a recession but there are many companies thriving from the recession such as computer games comapnies, online entertainment.

We all make our beds you either make the decision to lie in it or get up and make the changes your self. No-one is going to nor should they have to do that for you.

I don't agree with you regarding choices, young people have had their future blighted by previous generations. The reason why house prices are so high is because the government has deliberately decided to restrict supply and increase demand artificially. They've done this to buy votes of a certain age group who were existing home owners even though this had a detrimental affect on younger ages group and is an unsustainable policy.
For me personally I went to poor secondary school but managed to work hard and get a masters degree from a good university. I then got a 'good' job, that pays significantly above average. Added to this I've been saving for several years and have nearly 1 years salary put aside towards a deposit. Yet I still cannot buy any where to live.
Lots of people who already own homes like to think that the only people who can't afford to buy don't work hard enough, aren't smart enough etc. But that they fail to realise that if they were 1st time buyers now they couldn't afford to buy.
The big trouble for the UK is that many high earning young people are going to move abroad where they can buy somewhere to live. However they'll be taking their tax, national insurance and pension contributions with them.

I do sympathise with you. You appear to have worked hard to get where you are still cant get the house. What I am saying is not that only hard working people should get houses. That is not what I am saying.

I am just getting anoyed with some people in this country who have chosen to take a particular path in life and then complain for eternity that they dont have enough money.

And yes alot of young people are moving abroad and yes taking pensions with them, however moving abroad was the best thing I ever did.

I am earning more than ever. Own my own house and have saved more money than a state pension would ever give me. Also I dont have to put up with the english anymore. The majority of the country is ok and i am not attacking anyone in this thread everone seems nice, but its the 18 year old mothers just living on benifits and in a council house (just becuase its cheap with no intensions to work) or the 20 somethings that claim the dole and spend it on canabis sitting in the park.

You get out of life what you put into. I do what I have to to keep my family in a comfortable life and if that means moving then so be. I care enough about my family to do that for them.

What i am saying to people is there is always a choice, if you really want something enough then take the steps to do something about it.

Lazy citizens not encouraged to go to work.

That is the root cancer in our society.

Come on, lets get rid of all those blasted trees and hedges once and for all, they will keep getting in the way of making MONEY. Whats the countryside for after all - concrete it over.Soon everwhere will be one big suburb, how LOVELY

Come on, lets get rid of all those blasted trees and hedges once and for all, they will keep getting in the way of making MONEY. Whats the countryside for after all - concrete it over.Soon everwhere will be one big suburb, how LOVELY

Come on, lets get rid of all those blasted trees and hedges once and for all, they will keep getting in the way of making MONEY. Whats the countryside for after all - concrete it over.Soon everwhere will be one big suburb, how LOVELY