You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Pete, I've read all of this stuff. Just to give you an example:

    John Bibby from the charity Shelter explains that this is usually for economic reasons, such as local industries closing down.

    "Often its because the houses are in places where there aren't enough jobs, where actually those homes aren't really needed that much," he says.

    The feeling is that there is little point spending money on empty properties if no-one wants to move to the area where they are.

    "So this is not just a problem with needing more homes," John adds. "We need to have more homes where people actually want to live."

    This is, quite simply, a fallacy.

    My point stands.

    Also, my point about Shelter isn't even tangentially related to the point of view attributed to Michael Gove on 'experts'.

  • You're arguing opposite points. Housing needs are centered around where the jobs are, in this case predominantly London. You're saying we should spread the need around to where there's more empty and affordable housing, Fox is saying that isn't realistic.

    Anyone struggling for housing in the South can't just move to Country Durham to buy a place for £60k cos they may not be able to find work there and they may not particularly want to move to a village on the opposite end of the country.

  • It is related because you're doing exactly what Gove does - you have a fixed ideological view then ignore the facts on an issue and keep telling other people they are wrong and so are the experts.

    This isn't the first time either, it's a pattern.

    Your point doesn't stand because I could link to 50 articles on how the solutions you propose are the solution aren't the solution, but I can't be bothered and you'd ignore them anyway.

    Much easier to ignore you.

About