Thursday, 2 August 2007 - 5:56 PM BST

1) I guess you didn't hear about the flooding in the news? Spare land has important uses other than housing and farming. Flood plains.

Gorgeous Gordon is going to build you another 3 million homes. Buy one in the Thames Gateway if you are desperate. But make sure you buy a wet suit too. XXXL.

2) Yes, the UK can import all the food it needs. That assumes that it has the money to afford to do so in the future. It also assumes the cost of transporting globalised food doesn't go through the roof with the record oil prices.

Every country in the world wants to be western. That also means importing food so that they can develop their farmland. What happens when every country wishes to import rather than grow food?

Still as selfish as ever.

Friday, 3 August 2007 - 2:40 PM BST

The world according to Young

- Food is grown in poor countries. The UK must not grow food but import it from poor countries. The UK must ensure that there are always poor countries in which to grow food.

- Oil comes from Arab countries. Jumped-up wars to protect the supply of oil to the UK are required when needs be.

- UK land is solely for building upon. All UK land to have houses, shops and casinos upon it. Those of David's class and above to be housed in luxury. Those below David's class to be housed on the flood plains.

- Animals are to be viewed in poor countries or on TV. Trees are for hippies. There are to be no more animals or trees in the UK. Animals and trees to be exterminated to make way for more houses, shops and casinos. 

Could anyone be more stupid than David Young?

Friday, 3 August 2007 - 3:03 PM BST

I'm disappointed by the poor quality of the above posts. I'll answer them later, but before I do, are there any intelligent arguments that readers would like to make?

 DY

Friday, 3 August 2007 - 4:08 PM BST

YOUR lack of intelligence is the problem. Every article you type is bereft of intelligence and understanding.

Thankfully, yours is a voice in the wilderness. You have no idea how the world works. Nature, human interaction, economics, politics and so on are all mysteries to you.

Sunday, 5 August 2007 - 9:59 AM BST

I think your readership has commented. All one of them.

Face facts, you have no readership.

Better get on the mobile and phone a "friend" or just make up a comment yourself. 

Sunday, 5 August 2007 - 4:39 PM BST

I was deterred from posting by the request for ‘intelligent’ comments – I can’t work under that kind of pressure. But after reading the last comment I can see how low the bar is, so now I feel comfortable enough to speak. What I was going to say was that a couple of years ago I had to put together a map of Britain showing which parts of the country would be under water due to global warming in 50, 100, 150 years. I thought that this would be an easy job, since surely the Met Office would publish a map of places at risk of flooding? Indeed they do. The problem is that the map covers just about everywhere that isn’t at the top of a steep hill.

This is not because rising sea levels and freakish precipitation are putting the entire nation at risk, but because there is hardly any agreement on which areas are ‘flood plains’ at all. If the definition includes anywhere with a reasonable risk of flooding once in a century then yes, there are plenty of flood plains throughout England. The Government plans to build more housing on them in the future because this is an acceptable level of risk – especially with beefed up flood defences to limit the damage. Would I buy a new house on a so-called flood plain? Sure. With the market the way it is it’s unlikely I’ll be able to buy one anywhere else.

As it happens, I was lucky enough to be able to get on the property ladder two years ago, and for the price of a two bed flat in central London we made someone rich enough to retire to his own hamlet in Spain. But if we’d waited a year we’d have been priced out of the centre. If we were buying today we’d be priced out of the outskirts too. This is for two professional people with decent jobs and a cumulative 20 years of savings. I thank God that I was not born three or four years later and shudder to think what it must be like to leave college today with £30,000 of debts and no prospect of ever affording a bedsit in Hackney for your trouble.

Monday, 6 August 2007 - 12:18 PM BST

Build up, not out. No cheap and cheerful 60s blocks but modern ones. Corporations get the best in skyscrapers. Desperate city dwellers should too.

Monday, 6 August 2007 - 5:50 PM BST

Great to have some better thought out contributions. Hope to get a few more.

Building upwards is fine by me, provided account it taken of the shadow that tall buildings cast over their surroundings. The idea of high-rise accommodation has taken a battering in the UK, because of the poor quality of so much that went up in the 1960s.

But other countries seem to be able to do it. I've visited family friends in Germany who lived in high-rise blocks and been impressed by it. It doesn't have to mean squalor.

DY