ECCOnoob

Based on what?

In theory, yes, it's a wonderful idea. But as has been discussed before, where exactly its supposed to go is a far more difficult thing to achieve given our roads and natural geography. Let's take the Hallamshire for example. Obviously there would need to be some spur off the existing tram tracks but where is it going to go? Are we going to get some tracks along both sides of Weston Bank fighting with the already manic traffic. A modern day supertram system is 35m long and certainly won't fit down something like Beech Hill Road or Claremont Place. Even if it went along Glossop Road it will still hit a barrier of trying to cross over something like Fulwood Road. The northern general is similar. It might be feasible to bring the tram up and over Herries Road but you certainly would not be able to get it onto the NG site itself as theres not enough room and where would it carry on to because I can't see it fitting down the already narrow residential streets in firvale. It's very different these days to be old-fashioned at tram system which was nothing more than the size of a bus with tram stops precariously shoved in the middle of the road on narrow island kerbing. Now everything has to be low level, wide access, disabled friendly... In a ideal world the whole thing should have been put underground but 30 years on is far too late for that. Whilst I would like to see the network expand, I think the mayor's dreams are just that. It's all an ego and publicity exercise like the airport. If any routes were developed it's going to take decades. We all know the hassle, complaints, disruption when the thing was first built and all the expense and effort just to try and get a tiny extension out to Rotherham using existing railway. To start seriously majorly expanding it across residential areas and narrow streets will barely get off the drawing board before the Mayor is out of office and long gone. That's before we even talk about the budget, which as we all see all the time is as totally fickle could disappear tomorrow at the stroke of a civil servants pen.

Let me try and break it down into simple steps for you. The current in National minimum wage for people over 21 years old has just had a 9.8% increase to £11.44 an hour. So any unskilled worker doing the most menial of tasks could potentially be earning equivalent full-time of over £22,000. So, if an envelope stuffer and floor cleaner is earning potentially £22k how much more do you think is reasonable for a skilled Administrator to earn? An office manager? A qualified analyst or planner? A social worker? A department manager? A qualified lawyer?..... Do you see where this is going.... Like I said, a chief executive in charging an entire sector or division of a large organisation comes with a certain salary.

Just because you shout it doesn't automatically make it correct.

Bull. As I have tried to get into your thick skull, there are mid-level service managers on nearly £60k project managers and HR advisors earning nearly £50k. Even pen pushing business support officers earning over £30k. You serious to think a head of a division with responsibility for high level policy, strategy, legality, compliance, overseeing hundreds or thousands of staff and a multi-million pound budget is going to be paid £5k - £10k more than some mid-tier manager employee??? Join the real world.

It's not "a few quid". Taking the example that was discussed earlier, that extra 10% is equivalent to £50,000. Buying back bulk amounts of properties or constantly applying that extra 10% you think is so trivial, could equate to millions. You really haven't a clue.

Nothing absurd about it. Just how much in your world do you think they should be paid then? Within the council there are pen pushers and administrators earning high £20,000s. There are business support officers and analysts and even security guards earning mid-high £30,000s. There are HR advisors and project managers earning almost £50,000. So therefore, is it really that 'outrageous' for an executive of an entire division to be expecting a salary £100k plus? Hardly.

Are you going to magically pull the money out of your backside to cover the cost of that 10% extra? They are working to a budget. They're not plucking some figure out of thin air.

What adult does? that's why there are a verity of apps used plenty by grown adults as well as kids which make fart noises, play games with cartoon birds blowing up and create selfies with silly distorted characterises or animated filters on top. That's why people can get smartphone covers/cases/decoration in anything from barbie pink, to dinosaur green to furry dice or little jewelled trinkets hanging off them. The device is just a tool. Like I said earlier kids shouldn't need a 'special phone' all of the things you mention above are already available. Parents can choose to download and/or block any app they choose. They dont need a bespoke 'intranet' because facility already exists to make internet access child friendly. Nearly all Internet Service Providers have had such facilities for decades and schools do it all the time. What parents need to do is pull their heads out of their backsides and actually take responsibility to understand the tech, set it up properly and continually monitor it before they give it to their child. I can guarantee having two tier types of mobile phones will not solve the issue. Kids are not stupid. If one phone is a mocked as a toy and the other is deem a 'proper phone' its obvious what peer pressure and bullying will follow.

Maybe. But don't forget with any big project like this, there's lots of prep work in the background before any spades start hitting the ground. There's all the costs of consultancy, design, planning, architects, plant, utilities, surveyors, insurances, legal fees, project management, contracting, procurement.... That 200k per house is not simply for materials and labour.

But a lot of this seems to stem from parents demanding legislation and finger pointing towards the actual companies rather than taking self-responsibility for their own failures. Many of the barriers on age restricting access or accessing harmful content or 'accidently' making some ludicrous purchases on mummy's credit card 'without knowledge' of the parents.... Can all get set at the click of a button if the actual parents took responsibility to set the phones up properly, set the parent called controls, put data blocks on, set passwords and took the perfectly sensible step not to have their credit card information stored on a phone being given to their kid! All of those security functions exist and have for at least two decades if mummy and daddy actually bother to read the instructions and did a bit of research before handing a device to their little Britney or Dwayne. A recent BBC article highlighted issues with multiple social media companies (who all have at least a 13 or above age minimum) being blamed for having many kids underage on their services. There were the sorts of usual crying about why are the companies not doing more to protect children and on about how kids signing up were blatantly lying about their age, but nobody seemed to be asking the question about what the hell the parents were doing. Why were the parents not checking their phones or even stopping the apps being download in the first place. As others have said, it's not the children walking to a shop buying these devices. The device is nothing more than a tool. It can be as useful, useless, necessary, unnecessary, perfectly safe or dangerous as the fleshy end user wants to make it.

What has any of that crap got to do with a private developer investing their private money into building something on private land. It is THE STATE who has responsibility for mandatory housing for those in genuine destitution, not private business. Stop turning every thread into one of your anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, anti-neoliberalism rants.

Interesting. Maybe the tide will eventually turn then. However, these corporations dont usually make such investments likely. The £150m is a lot of money but lets say those 390 axed or potentially axed workers were all earning current national minimum wage level (obviously some roles likely to be above this anyway) that would give a full time equivalent bill of over £8.7m in just base wages alone. That's before the additional costs of training, supervision, holidays, sick pay, other benefits. Given the NMW usually has increments every year too, it soon adds up. A decade ago it was at £6.50 for a adult. Its now £11.44. A 75% increase. I guess any cost/benefit will depend on the outlay for ongoing maintenance, repair and life expectancy of the machinery but one wonders if costs of the physical objects over human wages would increase 75% over 10 years...

But again, what's that supposed to mean? The one bedroom ones will be cheaper than the two bedrooms with the three bedrooms being the most expensive. If someone wants one but can't quite stretch through a two-bedroom, they have a choice to go for a smaller one bedroom one or find somewhere else. Just like my purse doesn't stretch to a eight-bedroom mansion so I have to make do with my smaller three-bedroom semi. If you are seriously suggesting that a private developer spending their private investment money to build properties on premium land in a city centre should then be somehow forced to sell a portion of it to people who otherwise couldn't afford to get one, I totally disagree. Why should they? They're a business not a charity. Mandatory provision of housing is a state responsibility. If the council wanted to force some clauses upon the developer of this present scheme, they could have done so in the planning application or the terms of permission or granted them some public funding to compensate the cost of it or build it themselves directly from public funds for specific public housing purposes. Other than that, it should be up to private business what they want to build and sell it at what the market will dictate. Don't see Gucci being forced to sell off half of their stock discounted just so 'poor people' can access it? Waitrose don't get compelled by the government to dedicate 4 or 5 aisles of food at poundland prices just to accommodate those who can't afford market rate for their gugs Everyone who buys or rents a house (unless they are extremely privileged or lucky) generally finds it one of the most expensive purchases they ever make. Most people I know including myself have all had to start somewhere and struggle and scrimp and save to get a deposit and afford the mortgage or the rent This is not a new story. It's life. None of that is the fault of private businesses.

I'm afraid it's nothing earth shattering. It's what is being driven by the ever increasing shift in us consumers demanding instant this, instant that, at the click of a button and all at rock bottom prices. Those fleshy parts previously fetching and carrying cost continual wages. They take sick days. They take holidays. They need constant supervision and management and discipline and training which costs even more money. They are subject to National insurance payments and pension payments and demand annual increases.. Doesn't take much for the number crunchers to work out the investment/maintenance cost of the machinery versus the benefits versus cost of X number of human staff and do the maths. If people want to cling on to human touch, they have to be prepared to pay more on the price tag.