Labour’s affordable homes now at $550,000!

January 28th, 2013 at 9:06 am by David Farrar

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

leader David Shearer has conceded his party’s affordable housing policy will only be able to deliver small apartments or terraced housing in Auckland for the $300,000 price tag – while standalone family homes are more likely to cost up to $550,000.

This is what critics have been saying for months. The idea that you can wave a wand and build a home on a section for under $300,000 is a con.

Tags: ,

52 Responses to “Labour’s affordable homes now at $550,000!”

  1. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Seems labour wants everyone to live in shoeboxes. This wont get my kids back from Aus, they arent going to pay over $300000 for what Shearers offering. No one comes home to live like they did in London
    What a fool this is making out of them both (him and Len)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Socialists have never cost their ambitions,because other people are paying for them.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (9,503 comments) says:

    “The idea that you can wave a wand and build a home on a section for under $300,000 is a con.”

    Sure its a con, but so are most ideas espoused by politicians.

    They almost always subside into despair and dereliction under the cold hard rigours of commercial reality.

    In spite of which a still large number of NZers are seduced by such clear deceit.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Just as well the people were not in a position to vote on a Labour policy which has suddenly increased by about 83% while they are still just thinking about it -let alone the acid test of actually building any homes anywhere in Auckland.
    See? – it’s a nice day out, I didn’t use any swearwords for Labour’s effart

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (14,029 comments) says:

    What a fuckwit comrade Mumbles Shearer is. No wonder his troops are unhappy with his dismal performance.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. burt (8,306 comments) says:

    OK, so rather than making housing more affordable this will monopolise the tradies and create a shortage of materials pushing house prices even higher… Great that other people are paying for it – nobody in their right mind would do this sort of nonsense with their own money….

    Oh, perhaps Clark could sell a few of her properties for 50% of their market value to prove that socialists are not just capitalists pretending to care while building their own empires with other peoples money……

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fox (206 comments) says:

    I think for most people who are financially bleeding to death paying exorbitant rents, with no prospect of ever being able to afford their own home, the idea of owning a section is well down on their priority list.

    Appartments and terraced housing are simply today’s reality of living in a modern metropolitan area, and I have no doubt the demand for them will be there.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hj (7,061 comments) says:

    The Savings Working Group put the blame for highhouse prices squarely on sucessive governmentd, citing tax breaks for investors and high immigration. There’s a deafening silence on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Komata (1,196 comments) says:

    I’ve not seen an answer to this anywhere, so…

    Given that housing is the problem, that Labour introduced the original State Housing concept back in 1935, and that:

    ‘The State Advances Corporation was set up in 1936 to provide cheap, long-term, urban and rural financing on first mortgages. It was also provided with the powers to lend to local authorities for the construction of workers’ housing and to make advances for developing existing industries and for setting up new ones’ (1).

    What is to stop Labour from returning to their original state and private housing policies as quoted above? IMHO, to do so wouldn’t be ‘retrograde’ but rather a return to the NZLP’s founding and basic principles and so meet the desire to provide for those who cannot do so themslves.

    As their favourite party is always deriding the Nats for supposedly doing nothing in this area, while doing nothing themselves (odd that) despite having nine years of opportunity, , perhaps the Labour supporters here can explain why this is not an option?

    ((1) (Geoffrey W. Rice, edn., The Oxford History of New Zealand, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [n.d]), [n.p.n])

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    The chinese are advertising auckland houses back in china …. i imagine those 500k homes could go for a lot more than that once the chinese really start to notice.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. pq (728 comments) says:

    can’t afford it Farrar, they want the best to afford the rest , it will not work,
    see you in Spain, or Morocco, but not at
    http://garethmorgantaz.blogspot.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Mags (38 comments) says:

    What is this obsession with trying to make housing in Auckland, in particular, more affordable? It’s simple economics with supply and demand. The supply is constrained so why not work on the demand?

    Why not build these ‘affordable’ houses anywhere else except Auckland and reduce the demand there? This will take the pressure off the Auckland market, help other centres through the building of the houses and increase in population, and could broaden the economic growth across the country rather than being centralised in Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    So Shearer’s affordable homes policy has been relaunched as an affordable rooms policy???

    The pity of this embarrassing admission from the inarticulate one is that he’s gotten plenty of mileage out of the initial announcement, creating an impression amongst the more gullible voters that Labour can deliver while National doesn’t care.

    This backdown is prettied up by Trevett as a small concession, and not as an expose of the outright lies in the original empty promise.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bill (94 comments) says:

    Yet again Shearer’s “colleagues” and “advisors” have let him down.

    They spin a Major Speech, get the members enthused and then disappoints them again. Mallard, King and Robertson are a disgrace.

    Those frustrated members want to see Shearer put himself forward for endorsement by the whole party: Members, Affiliates and Members.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    … breaking news … Labour announces affordable portaloo.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    mags

    If there is an obsession with Auckland then it’s because that’s where the votes are. These pollies don’t give a shit about democracy or representation,they crave power. And they will spend your money to get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hannity (152 comments) says:

    Youre right DPF , your idea of waving a wand to build cheap houses is a con.
    Is it the same wand the vacuous John Key has been using to magic up “170,000 jobs, 5% growth, when we roar out of the recession ,now that the GFC is over”.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fisiani (1,047 comments) says:

    100,000 shoeboxes, one built every 27 minutes by the Oompaloompas.
    Unbelievable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    Labour will build NZ’s own Coronation Street!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    No, wait… It’s not a problem – their coalition partner will fix it by extending the lower cost of credit for govt to the home buyers on a 25 year ‘rent to own’ scheme. That’ll make it affordable for them.

    And no net debt increase, ’cause the value of the assets will balance out the borrowing, right?

    To ensure this works, and to mitigate externalities, the coalition will nationalise all industry and set equitable pricing for all goods and services.

    Centralised planing – that’s what is needed! After all, as far as failure is concerned: you don’t plan to fail, you fail to plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    It is disingenuous to talk about apartments as Labour is doing and ignore NZ’s rather stringent body corp rules.

    Living in your own Auckland or Wellington apartment can turn out to be very expensive with body corp fees, rates, land rents, earthquake strengthening, insurance etc etc. You can see your outgoings quadruple in three years.

    In your own home, you have some control over some of the costs. There are plenty of affordable home on the outskirts of our major cities and in less desirable suburbs – and in cities like Hamilton. Young people need to do what we all did – buy something cheap to start off and gradually renovate or shift to something better.

    Our own parents generally lived in the same house all their lives, even when the house was far too big for them. As baby boomers downsize, their large family homes will start to come on to the market. Then the pressure might be on providing smaller homes for the baby boom oldies.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Wait – isn’t the median akl price more or less $550k?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    If Shearer, is to boldly put his Leadership to the vote of all Labour members, will he – Chinese style – be the only name you can vote for, or will David Cunliffe and a couple of others be there too, like if you were being truly democratic?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    Shearer said on the radio this morning that $300,000 is the ‘average’ price. What on earth is he proposing for the cheap ones? And how cheap is he intending to go?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Doc (92 comments) says:

    Good point BeaB. If we assume a ‘normal’ distribution where they will build ‘mostly’ 300k places with fewer 550k places, then there will also need to be as many $50k places as there are $550k ones for 300 to be the average… Perhaps they have got a deal lined up for 20ft containers at the Ports of Auckland? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. skyblue (212 comments) says:

    Ah, I enjoy my 1160m2 section with a nice 3 bedroom house in Greenhithe (North Shore of Auckland).
    I have seen the houses in Hobsonville on small sections, there is no way these can be built for $300K.
    $300K will only be an apartment in Auckland. However, would a 3 bedroom unit cost under $300K. As stated, fees to live in these places will be significant in Body Corp Fees. These companies do not do the maintenance for nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    thedavincimode at 9.50 am – don’t talk shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Fisiani (1,047 comments) says:

    The Labour Oompaloompas work a 40 hour week, They get 3 weeks annual leave and 10 days lost to public holidays and sick leave, so they work 47 x 40 hours a year (1880 hours) They are told to build 10,000 shoeboxes each year. They have to build a shoebox every 0.188 hours . That is one shoebox to be built from start to finish approximately each and every 12 minutes.

    This will be the ” Show me the Money” moment of Election 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. pacman (51 comments) says:

    What someone (John Key or NP?) should do is put some money in an account (charitable) and give Labour till the election to build their Auckland showhome (with open book accounting). Either they will 1) build something nice enough to prove their policy or 2) go over budget building some crappy thing somewhere no-one wants or 3) not even be able to build one house before the election… Lose,win,win

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (894 comments) says:

    I think Shearer is planning to tax rich pricks for the short fall of 250K per house and subsidise the 550K house for 300K. Now that is a vote catcher!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hannity (152 comments) says:

    Fisiani, 10,000 houses divided by John Keys 170,000 jobs = 17 per house, 12 minutes should be plenty of time to build a house to Maurice Williamsons’ standards.

    “show me the money” You mean the $300 mil per week of interest bearing printed money that National are currently borrowing .
    Bound to be a show stopper that one,

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (11,552 comments) says:

    Houses for less then 300k can be built, just not in Auckland or other main centres.
    The issue here should be, how do we distribute the population to other area’s so both housing, transport and living costs become sensible.
    There are lots of great places to live in NZ other than Auckland, Wellington(subject to an earthquake in waiting), Christchurch (had there’s). A decent rapid rail from Bridgemart to Hamiliton, Cambridge ,Te Awamutu would be a good start. Have a customer who travels from Gosford by the sea to Newcastle every morning and return each night. Works at the port and lives in a great village by the sea. Takes and hour and he reads or works each way. Why can’t we do this instead of building a motorway that will never achieve the same service.

    Indeed Auckland isn’t even a nice place to live anymore. Well compared to Bangkok or Mumbai or Bejing it probably is.
    With Broadband ramping up and much better roads, there are plenty of places better to live and work and if the Govt. stopped subsidizing Auckland and Aucklanders had to pay for their own costs then you would all move.

    Most goods and tradeable export product is produced well out side of Auckland. Auckland is NZ’s overhead and should be trimmed down. ( note here that just because your office is in Auckland that doesn’t entitle you to claim the exports from other centre’s as yours. Which you do.) If it weren’t for shipping companies being bribed into using your inefficient wharf and air freighters being held to ransom by Airlines you would export stuff all.

    What’s required. Better future thinking.
    Oh and much less political power.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nick K (1,253 comments) says:

    I think Shearer is planning to tax rich pricks for the short fall of 250K per house and subsidise the 550K house for 300K.

    Yip, via a Capital Gains Tax. What will be interesting is how much Labour intends to spend from the revenue gained by the CGT. Of course, the revenue might never be as much as they are hoping. Then again, Labour never really gave a shit about lies and chequebook politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    If Labour are going to keep spending like Greeks, I shall have to start calling the leader David Shearerpisos.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    slightlyrighthy, now that is funny!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nick K (1,253 comments) says:

    I’m going to use that slightlyrighty if you don’t mind. Brilliant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RF (1,443 comments) says:

    I hear that Labour are buying WW2 Army Surplus tents in the event their housing reforms fall over. Be in quick as they will soon be a hot item.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    And will Shearerpisos live in one?

    Of course not.

    Shearerpisos will live in the big house on the hill.

    Because cheap apartments aren’t places anyone in their right mind would want to live, much less “invest” their “life savings” in.

    A vertical slum full of people who couldn’t save money if their live depended on it. Sure as hell the body corp fees will be in regular default. Then the lift breaks down, and because there was no sinking fund, no money to repair it.

    Don’t go out in the corridor late at night.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dave Stringer (188 comments) says:

    Shearer said on the radio this morning that $300,000 is the ‘average’ price.

    Guess that means for every house in AKL, WLG or CHC they’ll have to build 10 in Invercargill – should be OK, as long as they don’t need anyone to live there. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Fisiani (1,047 comments) says:

    Anyone care to try to explain how NZ workers can possibly build a liveable house every 12 minutes? It is just a sick joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Steve (North Shore) (4,587 comments) says:

    If you give Labour $600K to build one cheap house as an exercise it still will not fly.
    The first $100K will be spent on what type of house and the other$500K will be stolen for Electioneering!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    This was inevitable – land prices are just so variable around the country.

    Expansion of land available for building does need the development and the building of houses on them to have an impact on property values.

    The real value of building 100,000 new homes is the downward impact on overall property values.

    For the first half of the programme – the only ones affordable for those struggling now will be the terraced housing.

    There will still be some dependent on the Green option throughout the roll out.

    Doing nothing but making more land available (not the same as development or building on the land) leads to the problem of what to do about all those who retire without owning property and who need accomodation supplements throughout retirement. That would be deferrring a rather large blow out in the budget for a time when super costs are rising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Viking2 (11,552 comments) says:

    seems that council want to get right in there and fiddle with renting …

    http://www.propbd.co.nz/afa.asp?idWe…&SID=569083355

    Published 28 January 2013
    Auckland Council is looking at a betterment levy & inclusionary zoning as 2 options in its housing strategic action plan.

    The council’s Auckland Plan committee approved the first stage of the action plan on 17 December and the council will post more information about the plan on its website at the end of this week.

    The plan contains 12 priority areas & 32 council actions.

    Deputy mayor & committee chairman Penny Hulse said on Friday the council was working closely with the Government and a range of external housing-sector parties through the plan to improve housing supply & affordability.

    The 12 priority areas are:

    1. Driving housing opportunities on council-owned land & property
    2. Encouraging take-up of existing development capacity that is available to be used
    3. New money, new thinking to secure investment and improve housing supply
    4. Financing infrastructure, increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability
    5. Value capture through a betterment levy
    6. Inclusionary zoning options to be tested through the draft unitary plan consultation process
    7. Regulatory processes
    8. Improving the quality of existing & new housing
    9. Papakainga & housing for Maori
    10. Housing for Pacific peoples
    11. More secure rental tenure
    12. Removing legislative barriers

    The betterment levy would apply where new infrastructure has raised the value of surrounding property. Inclusionary zoning can be complicated, but is essentially a mechanism to ensure some lower-priced housing is included in the development of more expensive homes.

    The action plan has gone through a long year of consultation & debate. The council organised 10 workshops for the governing body & local boards from March-December, had a multi-sector external housing reference group, 2 wider external housing forums and an Auckland Council/central government working group, plus other one-on-one discussions with individuals in the housing & development sectors.

    So you aucks. your council is out to theive from you if you own a house.

    Approval of the action plan will result in issues such as inclusionary zoning & value capture being included in a March addendum to the draft unitary plan, which is to be released in February.

    The scope of stage 2, to complete the plan, will be reported to the council’s Auckland Plan committee in March.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    The policy should be know as ‘Tomorrow’s Slums’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (8,157 comments) says:

    Why dont the bastards stop locking up land in stupid attempts to control how we live
    The smeging council is there to provide the services to us not manipulate things so they control the demand for services.
    It sums it up when you have to walk meters to get from the car park to the council building past all of the management car parks. Fuck off we are the owners and you bastards are working for us. What we want is Not the problem it is councils making us change to suit their plans for the city that is the problem. Zoning creates the high price of land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (13,343 comments) says:

    It is estimated that the ETS has cost businesses $350 million a year since it was introduced in 2010. Once the transition phase is over, it will cost over $700 million a year. The scheme is designed to pass these costs on to households.

    To date the cost burden on the average family of four has been estimated to be around $750 a year. This is expected to double over the next three years to around $1,500 a year.

    Of course the overall cost of the government buying into the AGW industry is far higher, but they are careful to hide the true cost from those who have to pay it. Us.

    So how is that international effort going, I hear you ask?

    Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires December 31 – and several countries may withdraw their consent. That means the new agreement is legally non-binding and covers only at best 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Griff (8,157 comments) says:

    Dear dear squawk if you want to be taken as an adult you need to provide links to your source else its just another made up quote mined piece of rubbish.

    Carbon price
    https://www.commtrade.co.nz/
    $0.80
    The state of our present ETS
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/newzealand-carbon-idUSL3E8LP1E220121102

    Some of us can tell the difference from last decades attempt to derail the ETS and the reality as it stands now. your numbers are a wost case scenario of $25 a tonne Not the present $0.8 two for the price of one

    The weather will continue to get more extreme just as the extreme warmth of 1998 is the new Global normal.
    100 year floods in Aussie 2011 2013
    100 year drought in the usa 2012 2013 These events will be considered normal weather in twenty years.
    100 year wet in the uk 2012 2013

    Glaciers retreating, sea ice melting, seasons changing,sea rising,extreme weather rising,global heating,permafrost melting, rainfall patterns changing,

    If we dont save the remaining amount of safe co2 emissions now when we do finally try to stop global warming we will have far less options available to us. it is better to have gradual mitigation now than to have to stop all carbon usage dead in twenty years.

    It is not my problem as I dont have children or the life expectancy to be around when the shit really hits the fan.

    Ps Griff has lived of grid using wind and solar for six of the last seven years.
    1 not a hypocrite.
    2 has a better understanding of costs and down sides of both wind and solar in real world conditions than most
    3 understands and has built and used modern electrical usage reduction methods like highly efficient h2o cooled refrigeration led lighting and Hybrid alternative energy systems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (13,343 comments) says:

    Griffy welcome back. Big [hugs] :)

    I am increasingly indifferent about links. We can all find a link on the net to support any position we choose to take. You either attack the credibility of the source, or the person providing the link. Usually both. That gives you three well worn tricks to avoid addressing the actual content or substantive points.

    Ps Griff has lived of grid using wind and solar for six of the last seven years.
    1 not a hypocrite.
    2 has a better understanding of costs and down sides of both wind and solar in real world conditions than most
    3 understands and has built and used modern electrical usage reduction methods like highly efficient h2o cooled refrigeration led lighting and Hybrid alternative energy systems.

    Good on you and I mean it !

    I am all for lessening our environmental impact and trying new forms of energy production and conservation. One of my concerns is that if (when) AGW is more widely discredited, people will be less likely to engage other environmental concerns. We do have problems with the way we are living and we need to address those issues urgently. I just object to those goals being promoted on the unsound platform of AGW theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (8,157 comments) says:

    Kea as pointed out to you
    13900+ scientific papers in disciplines related to climate change support the current theory of AGW
    24 dont

    Yes a link to the denial echo chamber or a newspaper opinion piece that does not link to a source or paper is not valid science.
    They are merely made up anti science and spin.

    The science Of AGW goes across chemistry, physics, paleontology, biology, cosmology, as well as untold more specialized fields
    To discredit the present consensus would mean the discovery of new information that would change the whole bases of Modern science

    There are multiple lines of research that all back the consensus view global warming is happening it is man made and it is going to be a major problem in the not very distant future.

    There is no flat line for sixteen years there is a steady rise in temperature see Foster and Rahmstorf The scientist and law makers dont go to the daily mail to learn about climate.http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

    The current best estimate is we will warm by 3 degrees c by 2100 The impact of this is major disruption to agriculture, species distribution, rainfall, drought, health, economics , infrastructure, national and international security. You will see whole countries abandoned as no longer viable

    Here is all common denial talking points refuted with proper links and rational discussion.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

    You will not stop believing you rubbish
    mother nature is not listening to your denial
    It may not be this year or next but in time your views will be as unsupportable in political discourse as they are in scientific circles now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (13,343 comments) says:

    To be fair Griff, that is just what someone would say who “lives off the grid” & smokes weed while waiting for the end of the world. ;)

    I & others have provided links to numerous suitably qualified scientists. A number have written papers for the IPCC. They are not nutters and are not being paid by off by the oil industry. The IPCC is being paid to promote AGW. It is the entire reason for their existence and is the basis for an enormous global industry.

    One thing I have been meaning to ask is : Do you personally profit from public concern over AGW ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Griff (8,157 comments) says:

    “numerous suitably qualified scientists. A number have written papers”
    24 papers and how many scientist?That are not paid by the oil industry?
    I have linked to 13900 papers by 30,000 scientists
    the ipcc is not climate science it is a un body that gathers all the scientific material to try to understand the over all picture
    Your blinkers stop you seeing the truth
    as you said every time you link I destroy your source By linking to often more than one reputable source
    you attempt to destroy mine by stupid statements with no content
    Go do DPFs science information discernment test You would be lucky to get over 12/28 :lol:

    The off grid was not because I am a green nutter it was because you can not run a power cable to a boat on a swing mooring!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    When it comes to home availability and affordability this country has been there and done that. The state housing boom post war is an indication of what is possible as well as the private public partnerships in the 60’s that created many of the homes the current generation live in today.
    Nothing is impossible, shoebox or not, a home is home. Stop sitting on your hands and get on with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote