news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

Meanwhile this is what the PM is saying. Millions of people renting would like to be able to own their own home and supply is a massive issue. Yet the Tories are purposely making that more difficult. 

[cellar]

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

famous last words.

Can you imagine if Labour didn't win. That would actually be more depressing than them winning. It's all very depressing.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes that is a problem but I have confidence that Labour will sort out their issues too. For example they have a plan for people to see a family Dr etc.

We need to build more houses, without increasing the supply we won’t even start to address the problems and yes that does mean building on parts of the green belt.

All in all the announcements made by Starmer this week are quite exciting and show he gets the problems. I think he’ll turn out to be a good PM. 

Sunak ruling out building on greenbelt...so that is definitely a dividing line at next election...don't know how well ir will work out for labour..destroying our beautiful countryside for houses for snowflake youngsters who should stop complaining so much.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, cellar said:

Can you imagine if Labour didn't win. That would actually be more depressing than them winning. It's all very depressing.

if they don't win I'm going to give up and go full NatCon.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Sunak ruling out building on greenbelt...so that is definitely a dividing line at next election...don't know how well ir will work out for labour..destroying our beautiful countryside for houses for snowflake youngsters who should stop complaining so much.

The areas Labour are talking about aren’t really beautiful countryside though, the green belt has some areas that aren’t amazing.

We need a frontline politician talking about this though as none have so far and it’s a major issue. 

[steviewevie]

polls leading up to 1992 election...

[Guest]

Here’s a decent thread on some green belt areas compared to non-green belt areas. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Sunak ruling out building on greenbelt...so that is definitely a dividing line at next election...don't know how well ir will work out for labour..

it won't work out well for labour, tories have the vote winning line on this subject.

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, Neil said:

it won't work out well for labour, tories have the vote winning line on this subject.

yeah...maybe. U-turn?!

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[mattiloy]

8 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Here’s a decent thread on some green belt areas compared to non-green belt areas. 

That the green belt is misused is not en excuse to pave over it. The dereliction on those sites is reversible, putting a sprawling mass of new housing estates is not.

If there is no plan for alternatives to the green belt, then once its gone, its gone.

In this thread the author shows a load of sheep destroyed landscapes and holds these up as the example to be emulated.

Also all these landscapes appear to be very rural, national parks, or in one case coastal. i.e. quite obviously not green belt, which is specifically the green space around urban conglomorations designed to limit sprawl and offer some natural respite and recreation to city dwellers.

Its the same as saying, well the NHS isnt working so we need to turn to the private sector.

The green belt as a concept is a century or so old. It is fair to challenge whether the laws around it need reform or whether it it the optimal way to preserve nature and urban communities’ access to it. But it doesnt need to be zero sum. Nature vs houses. And thats how its being framed. Do both.

Edited May 18, 2023 by mattiloy

[Neil]

25 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

If there is no plan for alternatives to the green belt, then once its gone, its gone.

they could create new ones, a bit further out, they came into being to stop two different towns merging into one big town.

[steviewevie]

32 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

That the green belt is misused is not en excuse to pave over it. The dereliction on those sites is reversible, putting a sprawling mass of new housing estates is not.

If there is no plan for alternatives to the green belt, then once its gone, its gone.

In this thread the author shows a load of sheep destroyed landscapes and holds these up as the example to be emulated.

Also all these landscapes appear to be very rural, national parks, or in one case coastal. i.e. quite obviously not green belt, which is specifically the green space around urban conglomorations designed to limit sprawl and offer some natural respite and recreation to city dwellers.

Its the same as saying, well the NHS isnt working so we need to turn to the private sector.

The green belt as a concept is a century or so old. It is fair to challenge whether the laws around it need reform or whether it it the optimal way to preserve nature and urban communities’ access to it. But it doesnt need to be zero sum. Nature vs houses. And thats how its being framed. Do both.

Tree houses?

[steviewevie]

Maybe they could do it like in Hobbiton?

[steviewevie]

What we need is a proper war or pandemic, that will get demand down.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Tree houses?

I don’t think he really knows, he seems to think people are talking about building homes all over the green belt when that’s not the case at all. He’ll always find a reason to criticise a Labour policy even if it will benefit loads of people. 

[Rufus Gwertigan]

9 hours ago, Ozanne said:

The areas Labour are talking about aren’t really beautiful countryside though, the green belt has some areas that aren’t amazing.

We need a frontline politician talking about this though as none have so far and it’s a major issue. 

Countryside doesn't have to be pretty to have some value especially ecologically. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

What we need is a proper war or pandemic, that will get demand down.

war is also likely to get the houses down too.

[Neil]

Just now, Neil said:

war is also likely to get the houses down too.

looking at ukraine its good work for glazers. 😛 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

Countryside doesn't have to be pretty to have some value especially ecologically. 

Oh yeah I understand that, I was talking more generally that some parts of the green belt can be built on.

[Neil]

13 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Meanwhile this is what the PM is saying. Millions of people renting would like to be able to own their own home and supply is a massive issue. Yet the Tories are purposely making that more difficult. 

only w\ay govt can make a meaningful difference with housing is with a massive public housing building plan.

[steviewevie]

4 hours ago, Neil said:

only w\ay govt can make a meaningful difference with housing is with a massive public housing building plan.

build them on golf courses.

[steviewevie]

some areas obviously need protecting, and there always needs to be room for green spaces within urban environments...but as Ozanne says not all greenbelt is that green. I guess it would all be done case by case with local authorities as it is now, but there would be less greenbelt restrictions.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if this policy disappears...middle england  up in arms...

[steviewevie]

This is kind of same but different issue with HS2...apart from cost many people were upset about ecological damage, and a fair few just not wanting it going nearby where they live...but on the whole I support it because we need fewer cars, better trains, and this would be part of that (but yes we need current train lines and rolling stock improving and better buses etc).