Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

We're still not done removing asbestos from buildings, so I'll shut up.

I think it's generally agreed that if it's not actively causing problems it's best to just leave asbestos in buildings alone.

It's actually the removal and breaking up of asbestos that's risky, as far as I have been told.

Yes. The difficulty arises when a last name reputable contractor starts doing work in a building that has asbestos, but does not take the appropriate abatement measures.

[Valmy]

Apropos of nothing, every time asbestos is brought up I cannot help but hear that lawyer ad from the 1990s.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. Call now.

[Barrister]

Apropos of nothing, every time asbestos is brought up I cannot help but hear that lawyer ad from the 1990s.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. Call now.

Yeah (from afar) it sounded like a lot of shady shit was happening back in the 90s over asbestos litigation, including claimants being coached on specific name brands of products to mention ()since other asbestos companies were bankrupt), but that's all third hand so what do I know.

[Tamas]

Oh, that creative enterprise, so dependent on in-person contact and flow of creative ideas: accounting.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/sep/05/pwc-to-start-tracking-working-locations-of-all-its-uk-employees

[Valmy]

Apropos of nothing, every time asbestos is brought up I cannot help but hear that lawyer ad from the 1990s.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. Call now.

Yeah (from afar) it sounded like a lot of shady shit was happening back in the 90s over asbestos litigation, including claimants being coached on specific name brands of products to mention ()since other asbestos companies were bankrupt), but that's all third hand so what do I know.

All I know is we were being constantly bombarded with ads on TV telling us to call lawyers about it...which suggests you are right. And all those ads seemed to be narrated by the same guy.

[HVC]

My best friends worked through college with his dad in company that specialized in removing asbestos. Pressurized suits in sweltering heat. Not fun. As an aside I learned a lot of hospitals are littered with asbestos from tiles to walls and pipes.

[Admiral Yi]

All I know is we were being constantly bombarded with ads on TV telling us to call lawyers about it...which suggests you are right. And all those ads seemed to be narrated by the same guy.

The one I saw over and over featured a blonde woman with weird hair and an angry expression.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Asbastos and the eternal case of Eternit for Belgium...

[Tamas]

ALERT ALERT, some grass and bushes may be affected to meet housing targets, The Guardian can reveal:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/sep/06/england-green-belt-at-risk-amid-pressure-to-meet-housing-targets

[Josquius]

To be fair, there definitely is a legitimate risk that amidst the slackening of green belt protections to build on the grey belt and barren fields, that some unscrupulous developers with political links might decide its more profitable to just build on an actually nice bit of green belt.
The protections are way too over the top but they're not completely useless.

[Tamas]

To be fair, there definitely is a legitimate risk that amidst the slackening of green belt protections to build on the grey belt and barren fields, that some unscrupulous developers with political links might decide its more profitable to just build on an actually nice bit of green belt.
The protections are way too over the top but they're not completely useless.

I am just not sure how that works in practice. If it's arable land used by agriculture or forestry etc. there's an owner/user to not let it be built on. If it's a public park etc. same. A patch of random greenery is nice to look at no doubt bur perhaps shouldn't trump the need for people to have somewhere to live without being in a neo-feudal system.

[crazy canuck]

To be fair, there definitely is a legitimate risk that amidst the slackening of green belt protections to build on the grey belt and barren fields, that some unscrupulous developers with political links might decide its more profitable to just build on an actually nice bit of green belt.
The protections are way too over the top but they're not completely useless.

I am just not sure how that works in practice. If it's arable land used by agriculture or forestry etc. there's an owner/user to not let it be built on. If it's a public park etc. same. A patch of random greenery is nice to look at no doubt bur perhaps shouldn't trump the need for people to have somewhere to live without being in a neo-feudal system.

The problem is that the economic incentive for the owner of arable land to sell that land for development is much stronger than the economic incentive to keep the arable land for growing food.

If arable land is not protected by government regulation, then Solyent Green is our future.

[Josquius]

To be fair, there definitely is a legitimate risk that amidst the slackening of green belt protections to build on the grey belt and barren fields, that some unscrupulous developers with political links might decide its more profitable to just build on an actually nice bit of green belt.
The protections are way too over the top but they're not completely useless.

I am just not sure how that works in practice. If it's arable land used by agriculture or forestry etc. there's an owner/user to not let it be built on. If it's a public park etc. same. A patch of random greenery is nice to look at no doubt bur perhaps shouldn't trump the need for people to have somewhere to live without being in a neo-feudal system.

They might own the land already, awaiting the chance to crop up to build on it- I'm reminded of this pretty shitty story.
 
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/devastated-south-london-residents-in-27120977

Which is far from uncommon. Just the other day read of a site near my hometown getting the same treatment of being sold off for pennies.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24559091.consett-industrial-victorian-site-auction-5000/

I'm somehow doubtful the person to buy it will be completely chill with the conditions that it can only be used for recreation and instead will be looking for an opportunity to redevelop. With the current council and the way housing tends to work in County Durham I fear the worst- which is painful as its not like the site couldn't be sympathetically used for housing,.

[Sheilbh]

ALERT ALERT, some grass and bushes may be affected to meet housing targets, The Guardian can reveal:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/sep/06/england-green-belt-at-risk-amid-pressure-to-meet-housing-targets

Well it's the job of campaigners to do this stuff (and the Guardian is an easy mark). The key is the government ignores them. Now it's a Labour government we're going to hear so much about the environmental impact of building, damage to our net biodiversity, challenges to mental health because of the lack of access to green spaces (London at least is one of the greenest big cities in the world in terms of area of green space). I just hope the government's ready for it (and I slightly worry about that).

Of course the former President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is, inevitably, Sir Simon Jenkins

The problem is that the economic incentive for the owner of arable land to sell that land for development is much stronger than the economic incentive to keep the arable land for growing food.

If arable land is not protected by government regulation, then Solyent Green is our future.

I don't think that's an issue in the UK. We've not produced our own food in a very long time (the only time we even got over 50% domestic production was briefly when we were in the EU with CAP) - and it's not a priority for governments now. The UK's re-designed subsidies for farmers post-Brexit aren't based on farming but land use and environmental concerns - the subsidy regime is aimed at improving biodiversity (so not big fields of crops), gently moving towards re-wilding etc.

Also you need to go back 150 years for more than 10% of British workers to be involved in agriculture. The British public's attitudes to the countryside reflect that distance - I think it's a very picturesque version of the countryside. If we were serious about food production we'd need far more industrial and modern farming techniques (not unlike the Dutch) and I suspect there'd be even more opposition to that type of development than for housing

And the Green Belt is an incredibly effective policy - it's not about the protection of nature, or food production, or protecting farmland (on all of those accounts its record is mixed). It was designed to constrain the growth of England's industrial cities and it has been astonishingly effective at that. This is the map of the Green Belt - but also other protected areas which, in my view, are protected for better reasons (National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest etc):


I also think that constraint has helped reinforce London (because it started bigger). So I think, for example, the Green Belt has basically stopped metropolitanisation of the North West and Yorkshire. With Greater Manchester and Merseyside, or the urban centres around Leeds or Sheffield you have suburbs and pretty low quality Green Belt land which prevents them developing into metro-areas. I think that is part of London's dominance that the Green Belt stops other urban centres conglomerating in the way London did.

[Josquius]

Yes, the green belts tied neatly into the car focussed thinking of the mid 20th century. Purposefully sending people out from the cities to new developments in other towns. Wrong in so many ways.


Looks like Germany is considering doing the Rwanda policy we should have done. Using British facilities

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyl5p2zd50o.amp