Riedquat

Perhaps the only real solution left is to destroy it and rebuild from scratch.

I don't think what they're doing is right either, therefore I will blame them. My view on what people do is far more shaped by whether I think it's right or wrong than legal or illegal (so I wouldn't blame someone who was doing something I thought was right even if it was against the law either). People who stick to the letter of the law instead of having a moral compass are scum and vermin, simple as, and deserve no respect. As others have said there are others who share the blame too, but that doesn't exonerate any one player.

I.e. people who do useful stuff? Hmm. Not much of an immigration impact on my job, I've heard a couple of each but most people don't seem terribly interested in talking about it (or don't want to start arguments).

Then the sooner they get hurt the better, although whether they'll learn anything or not is another question. Whilst I agree that there's been a massive failure to educate the solution to that isn't to shield people from the consequences of their actions, it's to either remove them from society altogether or let them learn the hard way, and if enough do the message might sink through to the rest.

"Apart from negativity." And what's the problem with that? I've noticed this elsewhere, the ludicrous idea that a supposed positive view is somehow more valid, and that therefore it's a valid criticism to accuse someone of being negative. Someone who takes such a strange view of the world shouldn't talk about reality.

Automation is cheaper and more efficient still in many cases, so once again you have economics trumping common sense with heaven knows what long term implications.

Just one of the more blatant examples of the pursuit of wealth and economics above everything not actually making life better.

And those who suddenly realise that they can now buy a larger place even though theirs has fallen, and BTLers forcing a glut on the market as they try to shift before they lose too much.

Sounds like you do follow my logic.It's providing the means by which the businesses leave the area (although as you point out from many places that happened years ago, towns and even small cities are now going the way of the villages). Opening places up as first homes, not just second, will put even greater price pressure on the desirable places. I suppose you're saying that battle was lost long ago though. I'd also fear that working from home will increase the pressure for employees to spend more of their time working. Plus I like my home being entirely separate from work, no work pressure there. You're probably right actually, it's preferable to second homes at least, still doesn't feel like much of a solution though.

That's exactly the sort of thing that helps cause it, there's no longer any need for the business to remain in the area if its staff can be anywhere. So it does as you say push up house prices if it's somewhere desirable, drives the less well off away, and the village becomes merely a bunch of houses with little in common. I don't want to go too far in the other direction (everything in common and almost everyone having a pretty tough life) but it often looks like it's tipped the wrong way.

It's useful but hardly essential, the idea that anything of such recent invention can be is ludicrous. That it enables work in locations where it wouldn't be otherwise viable is a symptom of a problem, not a solution to anything (the ever more centralised economy).

Dialup would be enough for both of those, and I've been places that have no road connection or mains water and electricity (odd bit of Scotland with people who deliberately want that) but they're still on the phone. I feel a bit ashamed that I'd find just dialup a bit frustrating these days, and whilst I'll take the fastest I can get I don't find I'm missing out much having gone down from about 50 or 60 (can't recall now exactly how fast it went) to 7 mbps. I'll take the faster speed if I could but it's hardly essential.

Where's your argument for staying? The less control, large scale, and beaurocracy the better. That's just how I prefer things to be. Perhaps you prefer things the other way around. Leaving the EU moves in the former direction, that's a compelling enough argument. All we get from the other direction are some insults and frankly superficial economic argument that appear to massively over-value the importance of money.

Lots of free time in London sounds even worse. Lots of free time somewhere quiet and attractive is bliss, whilst there might be lots to do in London (if you like that sort of thing, I get bored in cities very easily) it mostly sounds like a distraction from living in London. Still, I guess some people like it, although I can't see it myself.

I suppose the car has become, if not essential, then it's rather harder to do without one since it's the means by which most local services have vanished (can be more efficiently provided by centralising, since everyone can get there easily enough now). Broadband isn't directly harmful but could be having indirect unpleasant effects, but even if it doesn't it's really just a luxury. If it's liberating people from the office then there's no sign of that on decreasing traffic (and some of us can't work from home anyway, although to be honest I'm not sure that it would be much better, I prefer it that my work is totally disconnected from my home, and it means there's no pressure on me to work in my own time).

Where has no transport infrastructure (other than the middle of nowhere, not that there's much of that)? Less is more anyway, far too much crap around that only makes everyone's lives busier. Bring on little investment, because investment mostly just makes things noisy, ugly, rushed and unpleasant.

That's going too far in providing more than what's needed to survive, and in any case being stuck in London is a greater motiviation to find a job so you can leave the place.

Rather sad when something that didn't even exist until pretty recently is now viewed as so important, terrible without it etc. The only grumble I've got is being given too wide an estimate for going off ADSL, from a mere 12 mbps (I get 7 on the ADSL) to 33. 12 isn't worth paying more for, 33 would be, but there's no way of telling without going ahead and being stuck with it. It's about a mile back to the box so 12 is probably them being over-cautious but it's a bit offputting.

I'll just settle for not using as much electricity as everyone else, and according to my energy provider's website I'm about 66% less than average for my size house etc. Not entirely sure why though, it's not as if I'm doing much to avoid using it (some bulbs being LED is about all, and that's only because they work nicely).

All going well there until the last paragraph.

Will be? Thought it already was. But don't expect it to get any better, speed and ease of transport will push that problem outwards (IMO "better" transport just means people end up travelling more and kills off those places not connected to it, it offers little), and have been doing for a while (it probably started when the raiways were first built). Are the nearby commuter towns that much better? To ease the London situation decentralisation is required, but all the pressurs area against it, and why would anywhere else want to become more like that anyway?

That really is a depressing figure. I'm assuming that's a net figure, not just immigrants+births but also -(emmigrants+deaths)? But whether it is or not, please, please stop it! That brings us back full circle to the "it's not a lack of supply" argument. I think there's a pretty bad vicious circle going on there. The modern economy is highly centralised and large-scale, which means jobs are too - so it's either pay a fortune to live nearby, or commute (and the easier the commute is the higher the prices). Yet making the commuting easier just puts up the demand for centralisation and makes ever longer-distance commuting viable (via pretty obnoxious means like motorways and high speed electric railways). And as more places get viable for commuting to distant centres the price goes up, the less well off get driven out (building more just opens it up to more commuters), what local business there was can now clear off and join the masses in the centre (or die), and the places that aren't near such a big centre look even less appealing to business and get abandoned, unless they've got tourist appeal. Has that strayed from house prices? I don't think so, since it's at least partially responsible for high prices where it's practical to live thanks to opening up that location to a much wider area.

Who are you saying is bonkers? 0.72 per head sounds like a reasonable number (only 1.4 per house) and really makes the "not building enough" argument sound pretty feeble. 2.45 in an already over-supplied market on the other hand... Still find those increases downright depressingly large though.

No no no! Money / finance / the economy are the only things that matter! I therefore assume that that somehow translates to a more satisfying life (presumably because since it helps provide what you need to survive without struggling extending it to buying cheap tat also matters just as much). I've not quite figured that out myself though, but I'm sure that it'll come to me some day,

And no population increase, of which immigration is a big contributing factor, would remove the need to even build more infrastructure, even better.