Britain - The Official Thread

[UKMikey]

I suppose I should post this in the immigration thread but to be honest it seems like a bit of a cesspit over there.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-in-run-up-to-brexit-vote-latest-figures-show

Marc Stears, of the New Economics Foundation, said: “This isn’t bad news for the economy: to take one example, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, a possible reduced immigration as a consequence of ending free movement – Brexit – would translate into lower GDP and lower tax receipts, resulting in an increase of public sector debt by £16bn to 2020-21. The fact immigration hasn’t gone down means more money to spend on things like the NHS, pensions and welfare.”

At least he's putting a positive spin on it since leaving the EU isn't going to help our NHS or welfare state any despite what the leavers told us.

 

[x3ra]

Some by-election excitement unfolding tonight in Richmond Park - the count is still underway but Labour sources are saying they think the Lib Dem candidate Sarah Olney has defeated Zac Goldsmith. Zac resigned the seat and left the Conservatives over the government's decision to approve the Heathrow 3rd runway, recontesting as an independent.

If Zac has lost it'll be a colossal cock-up on his part - he supported Leave whilst Richmond was heavily Remain which wouldn't have helped, but he was defending a 39% majority he won just last year, and both the Tories and UKIP didn't even put up a candidate to give him a clear run..............but given his shoddy campaign for London mayor earlier this year, maybe this isn't such a surprise.

A Lib Dem win will boost their representation in parliament overnight by a cool 12.5%.........from 8 to a whopping 9 MPs. But with a potentially close vote on triggering Article 50 coming next year, one extra MP who is likely to vote against it could make all the difference.


EDIT: Confirmed, Olney wins with a fairly stunning 20%+ swing.

In the referendum Richmond voted 69% - 38% to stay in Europe. If the figures for election yesterday were about Brexit then the vote to stay has gone down.


More people in Richmond-upon-Thames voted to remain a member of the EU – a 38.59% majority.
69.29%
75,396
30.71%
33,410


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...un/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis

 

[Liquid]

Andrew "Born in Berlin to a part-Jewish family and fled Germany to escape Nazïsm" Sachs died yesterday. The Heil was as unrepentant as ever:

The flabbergasting irony leaves me mesmerised.

 

[Scaff]

In the referendum Richmond voted 69% - 38% to stay in Europe. If the figures for election yesterday were about Brexit then the vote to stay has gone down.


More people in Richmond-upon-Thames voted to remain a member of the EU – a 38.59% majority.
69.29%
75,396
30.71%
33,410


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...un/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis

Which would be dependent on two things for it to be true.

That the by-election was just about Brexit, which it wasn't.

That the voting turnout was exactly the same, which I'm not aware that it was.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

If the figures for election yesterday were about Brexit

As Sarah Olney insisted it was - whilst Zac just happened to decide it was actually a referendum on his favourable issue, Heathrow...........neither issue, of course, would have appeared on the ballot paper.

To be honest I don't have much truck with any argument that an election is actually a referendum on this or that issue, because if people (particularly politicians) are able to redefine what a ballot paper says - the only thing that says what you're specifically voting for - then the ballot becomes meaningless and democracy starts to erode away quite quickly in my view.

I'm not saying those issues didn't play their part in the election, they absolutely did, I just don't think anyone can declare that's what people definitively voted for, without heading down a dangerous path. Same deal with the EU referendum - heard enough times now "when people voted to Remain/Leave what they actually meant was this....", to determine the referendum was invalid/Leave really won by 1000%/whatever. It's nonsense to me.

 

[x3ra]

First of all Sadiq Khan said that this vote was a rejection of a "hard Brexit", whatever that means. My contention is that it is total BS. “It’s for others to analyse why these voters rejected Zac Goldsmith. I’m quite clear, though, that the voters of Richmond Park have rejected hard Brexit.” -Sadiq Khan. That constituency had a massive remain majority. I was pointing out the fact that as a percentage of the votes, we should have expected more votes for the Lib-Dems. Otherwise Khan's argument doesn't hold water, which it doesn't.

 

[Lizard]

First of all Sadiq Khan said that this vote was a rejection of a "hard Brexit", whatever that means. My contention is that it is total BS. “It’s for others to analyse why these voters rejected Zac Goldsmith. I’m quite clear, though, that the voters of Richmond Park have rejected hard Brexit.” -Sadiq Khan. That constituency had a massive remain majority. I was pointing out the fact that as a percentage of the votes, we should have expected more votes for the Lib-Dems. Otherwise Khan's argument doesn't hold water, which it doesn't.

Of course Khan will say that. What else is he meant to say?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Of course Khan will say that. What else is he meant to say?

Well nothing really, unless he can read the voters' minds

 

[Sprite]

These have found their way in to my local bus shelter.

Not sure why the No Smoking signs have been targeted but I suspect kids as it was done over night.

I removed the images as wasn't good taste.

 

[Keef]

How do you guys feel about the fact that virtually all your housing is exactly the same? No offense - and by that I mean a bit of offense - but the UK definitely has he mos boring housing of any of the Euro countries I've streetviewed. I kind of like the nonchalant culture, at least as far as I can tell. Basically everything I know about British society I got from Monty Python and Top Gear.

Anyways, how do you explain this? Is there a reason for that? Or more appropriately, an excuse? Is nobody bothered by this? Nobody wants to live in their own little house with their own little design? I realize space is tight but still. The Netherlands is way more interesting architecturally, and all that crap was built in the last 5 years.

 

[McLaren]

How do you guys feel about the fact that virtually all your housing is exactly the same? No offense - and by that I mean a bit of offense - but the UK definitely has he mos boring housing of any of the Euro countries I've streetviewed. I kind of like the nonchalant culture, at least as far as I can tell. Basically everything I know about British society I got from Monty Python and Top Gear.

Anyways, how do you explain this? Is there a reason for that? Or more appropriately, an excuse? Is nobody bothered by this? Nobody wants to live in their own little house with their own little design? I realize space is tight but still. The Netherlands is way more interesting architecturally, and all that crap was built in the last 5 years.

I'm assuming maybe the culture plays a bit into it; they know how to make the most out of everything and get what they need. Since everything is so close together and has been for a long time, they're used to living just feet away from their neighbors. Personally, it just seems like a neighborhood full of town houses.

Or it's expensive trying to live in something like this over there.

 

[Sprite]

How do you guys feel about the fact that virtually all your housing is exactly the same? No offense - and by that I mean a bit of offense - but the UK definitely has he mos boring housing of any of the Euro countries I've streetviewed. I kind of like the nonchalant culture, at least as far as I can tell. Basically everything I know about British society I got from Monty Python and Top Gear.

Anyways, how do you explain this? Is there a reason for that? Or more appropriately, an excuse? Is nobody bothered by this? Nobody wants to live in their own little house with their own little design? I realize space is tight but still. The Netherlands is way more interesting architecturally, and all that crap was built in the last 5 years.

As @McLaren says. We live close to each other due to being a small island and lots of people. We also have had a love affair with the red brick since the industrial revolution it seems and haven't given up since. Some places have nice housing but as you quite rightly pointed out most of it is a little dull.

If you have a small amount of land these days your house can be worth a lot more. Even a basic terraced house can cost a fortune depending where you are.

Also a lot of the housing, especially in the north are workers cottages made from sandstone or brick so were all built to the same form factor. Where I live we have some interesting homes but at a price.

Look for Horbury in Yorkshire.

Typical stone workers cottage in Yorkshire

Typical brick terraced house with bay window

A larger and nicer stone / brick villa double fronted.

 

[PeterJB]

It's not really a cultural thing so much as a practicality. Most of the houses you see that all are joined together in one long row are in big cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff, all of who's populations exploded during the industrial revolution, so there was demand for houses that could be built quickly and cheaply. The housing market is not particularly friendly at the moment, fully-detached houses or ones that have their own land around them or are of a unique design are gonna be horrendously expensive.

 

[TheCracker]

Nobody wants to live in their own little house with their own little design? I realize space is tight but still. The Netherlands is way more interesting architecturally, and all that crap was built in the last 5 years.

Land is so expensive, very few can afford to buy a plot of land to develop their own house to their own tastes. Only property developers can afford to buy land, and even then, they have to cram as much housing as they can on that land for it to turn a profit.

This derelict farm house and small plot of land near where i live was sold a few years back for just under the equivalent of (at the time) $1m. The main farm house has been renovated, the outbuildings too, and on the remaining land six modern houses were built, the cheapest - a 4-bedroom house is the only one still for sale and that's on the market for $610,000. This isn't in London, this is Sheffield which as a city, has some of the cheapest housing in the country.

Or it's expensive trying to live in something like this over there.

But that's really gross. Who'd want to

 

[Touring Mars]

Yeh, building your own house is simply not a realistic option for the vast majority in the UK, although some people can afford to and have the necessary time and skills to do so. There's a few TV programmes in the UK all about people (usually wealthy architects and/or property developers) who have built their own homes (or 'unique spaces' as they like to call them) and it is one of the most irritating shows on TV. For the rest of us there is Minecraft.

 

[PeterJB]

In short, no-one here can afford anything anymore.

 

[axletramp]

Yeh, building your own house is simply not a realistic option for the vast majority in the UK, although some people can afford to and have the necessary time and skills to do so. There's a few TV programmes in the UK all about people (usually wealthy architects and/or property developers) who have built their own homes (or 'unique spaces' as they like to call them) and it is one of the most irritating shows on TV. For the rest of us there is Minecraft.

We found the most cost-effective way of getting close to this was to alter an existing property. Over the years we have entertained the option of a new build but the costs of doing this have increased almost at the rate of house prices in general. So that's what we're doing now, buying a property in the right location and changing it's interior configuration to how we want it. But believe me, I'm still trying to get over the fact that the cost of doing this would have bought an entire house 15 years ago. Crazy.

 

[Dotini]

In short, no-one here can afford anything anymore.

Happily, electronic gadgets have turned out to be an effective substitute for homes, cars and good jobs.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I won't be lectured on housing by a nation that builds homes using matchsticks and plasterboard, on top of piles of wood!

 

[Keef]

I won't be lectured on housing by a nation that builds homes using matchsticks and plasterboard, on top of piles of wood!

Everything built these days is wood. Basically all McMansions (like the one @McLaren posted, although his pic is more architecturally interesting than a typical McMansion) are wood-framed with thin stone veneers on the outside. They don't have the structural integrity of stone. You can build a stone or brick house, and a lot of really old ones are, but after WW2 we basically resorted to mass producing wood structures. It's how developers make a 3,000 square foot house cost only $200,000, while still making a hefty profit - the entire neighborhood is modular with only a few different designs and all the sections are mass produced.

That sort of monotony exists here, mostly in middle or upper-middle class, new suburban neighborhoods. I suppose the biggest difference between that and Britain is that Americans seem to value space pretty highly, thus suburban sprawl. Gotta have your big dog and big back yard so he can run. This street view from here in Columbus is a good example. But head down on the south side to what is now a historical inner-city suburb, German Village, and you'll find a lot more 100+ year old brick buildings. You'll notice that all the newer construction is, of course, wood-frame.

It seems like our construction styles come in waves. The current wave is the McMansion.

In Canada, they have some weird trends going on. Look at this house...

...now turn around and look at the 30s/40s/50s houses behind it. I've spent way more time Streetviewing Edmonton and Calgary than I should have, and from what I can tell, people are tearing down these old houses and filling neighborhoods with brand new neo-modern architecture. If you turn left and go north to the next block you'll find another modern house. I've never seen anything like this in the US. Everything here is neo-eclectic. That's like the hallmark of McMansion architecture, that it's basically "traditional" American housing, but new. I like what Canada is doing but I don't understand why they went that direction.

 

[DG_Silva]

We do have interesting little villages, such as this one near where I lived:

Brockhampton, nr Cheltenham

 

[ExigeEvan]

@Keef - I think you're confusing the issue by saying the UK doesn't value space. We do. But it costs a lot. And often that puts property prices out of reach of ordinary folk.

 

[PeterJB]

More to the point is that we have 1/5th the population of the US but 1/40th of the area. There isn't space for everyone to have huge gardens.

 

[Wiegert]

There's a trend here and almost certainly elsewhere in the country where pedestrian-friendly developments incorporate an assortment of different designs within a small area, mixing detached private homes and affordable terraced housing with little in the way of duplication like so many other builds in the UK. If you're lucky you can get one with an unreasonably small garden or single garage.

It can looks a bit disorderly having typically old-style British houses built alongside those with more continental cues, but I can dig it. Also not the first time they've toyed with similar European themes in our town.

You can build a stone or brick house, and a lot of really old ones are, but after WW2 we basically resorted to mass producing wood structures. It's how developers make a 3,000 square foot house cost only $200,000, while still making a hefty profit - the entire neighborhood is modular with only a few different designs and all the sections are mass produced.

Cheap prefab terraced housing boomed here for a time in the '60s and '70s. New towns sprang up as nearby cities reached capacity and suburban areas began connecting various villages together to create a single built-up area. Obviously tempting city dwellers with modern homes available for less than half the price of the home they'd be selling. Trouble was that they didn't consider the long-term prospects of these homes along with the areas they're in quickly became as undesirable as those endless red-brick terraced streets previously mentioned. Even with the effort to properly insulate their cavity walls in recent years, they'd probably struggle to make the grade in terms of energy efficiency and fire resistance. The only things going for them is decent internal space and the fact that they're still selling for less than £100k in today's market.

The system we've helped developed for prefab housing at our place is actually higher than the average 'Code for Sustainable Homes' rating. Though most of what we work with will end up in British school developments and overseas housing projects.

 

[TheCracker]

Everything built these days is wood. Basically all McMansions (like the one @McLaren posted, although his pic is more architecturally interesting than a typical McMansion) are wood-framed with thin stone veneers on the outside. They don't have the structural integrity of stone. You can build a stone or brick house, and a lot of really old ones are, but after WW2 we basically resorted to mass producing wood structures. It's how developers make a 3,000 square foot house cost only $200,000, while still making a hefty profit - the entire neighborhood is modular with only a few different designs and all the sections are mass produced.

Wood-framed houses would likely cost more to produce here than in the states or Canada. Deforestation during the industrial revolution, and before, mean access to cheap wood is limited. We'd probably have to import from Scandinavia which would bump the price up to a point where it's little or no cheaper than the traditional breeze/cinder block (inner wall layer) and brick (outer) construction.

 

[TenEightyOne]

after WW2 we basically resorted to mass producing wood structures

"Interestingly" enough that's been around since Tudor times - building yards would prefab whole timbers (and smaller frames) for assembly on site. It'll never catch on!

 

[Sprite]

Yes houses with land cost a lot. If you've got a back garden or even a front and back garden then get out that cheque book and sell a kidney because it's going to cost.

For example houses in this new development started at £290,000 ish for one of the small 4 bed ones with a small bumper garden and a small back yards gown here. They also made some larger ones with a garage and slightly bigger gardens (not by much) and these touched £325,000.

Now to make way for these they tore down one house which had historical value as it was the home of a local photographer who was the first person in the Village to buy a car.

The next development was build of a lovely bit of field with some lovely trees etc but has lots of new ugly houses going up to around £600,000+

As you can see though these were built surrounded by houses of a large size and lots of land which are over a million easy. For the north that's quite pricey.

 

[axletramp]

I think it's more down to the British people taking the tale of The Three Little Pigs way too literally.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Wood-framed houses would likely cost more to produce here than in the states or Canada. Deforestation during the industrial revolution, and before, mean access to cheap wood is limited. We'd probably have to import from Scandinavia which would bump the price up to a point where it's little or no cheaper than the traditional breeze/cinder block (inner wall layer) and brick (outer) construction.

I don't believe that's the case, as timber houses can be fabricated off site and assembled rapidly on smaller foundations. Greater material costs but far lower labour costs. You might spend a bit more on your insulation sytem too.

The biggest obstacle is a mortgage. British society and industry just isn't sold on non-standard (brick and tiled roof) construction so whilst value isn't affected the ability to get a mortgage is!

Wood treatment and weathering have all come a long way, but wood still rots and brick has very few issues through life.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

So looks like Mcdonald's is lovin some GB

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...at-from-brussels-over-tax-then-move-to-london