HOUSE OF LORDS: Exempt forests from Infrastructure Bill!

[Groucho]

I know, what are they playing at?

It just makes me sycamore they go on about it.

Oak-K

 

[Boss_Blue]

Why do they think that this is oakay?

Oak-K

Already done that one mate.

Must try harder...






...actually don't bother - I need to get a life really.

 

[Groucho]

Already done that one mate.

Must try harder...






...actually don't bother - I need to get a life really.

Fir enough

 

[Boss_Blue]

Fir enough

Haha!

FFS

 

[ToffeeMark]

I wooden of expected that

 

[Kurt.]

Acorn not believe it .

 

[Kurt.]

We shall fight them on the Beaches.... And shall conker all enemies.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

To be fair to them like, the UK's land at the moment is concentrated in a ridiculously small number of hands, which coupled with the NIMBY'ish planning system, has contributed hugely to the property boom, as it's very hard to actually build new homes.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

To be fair to them like, the UK's land at the moment is concentrated in a ridiculously small number of hands, which coupled with the NIMBY'ish planning system, has contributed hugely to the property boom, as it's very hard to actually build new homes.

Sorry, I didn't get with the spirit of the thread, I'll leaf.

 

[orchard]

To be fair to them like, the UK's land at the moment is concentrated in a ridiculously small number of hands, which coupled with the NIMBY'ish planning system, has contributed hugely to the property boom, as it's very hard to actually build new homes.

So, if i'm reading your argument rightly, because a lot of our country is owned by a limited number of people, it's therefore okay to permit corporations and large lobby groups that can get the ear of the Home Secretary to permanently pollute groundwater and soil/sub-soil, take and destroy land held in trust for all of us in perpetuity, raze property valuations of those thought expedient, leave swathes of brown-field as it is --- in short, remove any notion of long-term husbandry of our land upon the whim of a short-term profit seeking minister is okay, because you're a bit envious about land distribution, but not capital, is absurd.

Oh, and i'm not sure why you never translate your argument regarding 'land' to 'capital'.

I'll leave the long-term implications of this to your imagination mate.

 

[SailorBlue]

This should be investigated more by Special BRANCH

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So, if i'm reading your argument rightly, because a lot of our country is owned by a limited number of people, it's therefore okay to permit corporations and large lobby groups that can get the ear of the Home Secretary to permanently pollute groundwater and soil/sub-soil, take and destroy land held in trust for all of us in perpetuity, raze property valuations of those thought expedient, leave swathes of brown-field as it is --- in short, remove any notion of long-term husbandry of our land upon the whim of a short-term profit seeking minister is okay, because you're a bit envious about land distribution, but not capital, is absurd.

Oh, and i'm not sure why you never translate your argument regarding 'land' to 'capital'.

I'll leave the long-term implications of this to your imagination mate.

I'm not advocating anything, merely saying that the current state of things isn't really working. I think the land value tax campaign is an interesting option - http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

 

[orchard]

I'm not advocating anything, merely saying that the current state of things isn't really working. I think the land value tax campaign is an interesting option - http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

I have no idea what that is mate, nor how they attempt to evaluate land (for example, where do companies that hold polluted brown-field in inner cities stand?). Surely those generating profit from their land/property should be paying taxes like everyone else ? Anyway, this has little to do with the 107 page bill that's, quite frankly, shocking mate