Comments on: Brown’s vision: live next to a nuclear power station, a new housing estate or a larger airport?

By: Steven Baker

Steven Baker — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:51:18 +0000

Back in July, The Economist published an article discussing the tension between people wanting to live in large houses with gardens, agreeing that more should be built, and peoples desire that these should be built far away.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9526996

And I was prompted to blog the awful development at Wroughton, where a revolting modern development has been squeezed onto itself, on an old airfield, in the middle of fallow farmland. Moreover, it is adjacent to the old officers’ quarters for the now-closed hospital (another story!) which, though old, amount to living in parkland:

http://www.stevebaker.info/wp/?p=131

I’d like to believe it would be possible, with careful thought, to arrange matters so that people lived in attractive surroundings, in sustainable homes, in the midst of a worthwhile community, and with the sacrifice of just a little greenbelt. Maybe it’s possible to have attractive office space within walking distance too.

So, let’s not rebuild Milton Keynes, but let’s figure out how to sweep aside failing planning law and enable the market to deliver attractive, sustainable communities.

By: APL

APL — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:08:44 +0000

Bazman: “The country would have to become a fortress.”

You are aware that the United Kingdom is an island? It does not make sense to compare the situation of the UK with that of Germany which has a very large land border.

By: Bazman

Bazman — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:03:56 +0000

It’s not about stopping immigration, but controlling the numbers of people here, identifying where they are and who they are. ID cards are not the answer for many obvious reasons. More clever method must be deployed with incentives not to be illegal. Countries like Germany have borders so long that if a person was to be stopped they would just walk further down the fence and climb over.
It’s not physically possible to stop anyone entering this country. Illegal immigrants by definition are ‘illegal’! The country would have to become a fortress.
I do believe that green issues In Britain are linked to the total population. The right wing should not be allowed to hijack environmental issues that they often do not want to believe ( removed last few words as I think them unfair).

By: Iain

Iain — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:54:49 +0000

“I wondered how long it would take the right to link green issues with immigration for there own agenda.”

Aren’t all agendas ‘peoples own agendas’ ? But objecting to Labour’s mass immigration policy, whether right or left must come in the end down to sustainability of the situation, which its not!

The left are also in denial of the situation, in effect guilty of a schizophrenic view of the two issues of immigration and global warming, for on the one hand they are to be found waxing lyrical about the wonders of immigration, and on the other painting the blackest of black pictures about sustainability and the environment .

The fact is the two issues are directly linked for sustainability in the end comes down to population sustainability and in our case immigration, for we would have a gently declining population to a more sustainable population size if it weren’t for Labour’s mass immigration policy which has tipped us into population growth. This isn’t a serious problem for a country with environment to spare, but England as a country which has one of the highest levels of population density and dependent on food imports for 50% of its needs its a disaster, especially when we are told the effects of global warming is likely to make agriculture marginal, and the energy shortage has countries with agricultural surpluses redirecting their crops to bio ethanol production.

But please dont delude yourself in believing that action by world bodies like the UN will come to our aid as the left usually does, for the UN is a pretty useless organisation, and cant get any worthwhile agreements on climate change. The fact is even if in the unlikely event the UN gets an agreement for a 50% cut in energy consumption in the West, a combination of increasing demand in developing countries and their massive populations ( 4times that of the West) and the massive increase in population growth which is taking place there, (50 years ago Africa had a population of 250 million, it now has a population of over a billion and exponentially rising) will actually result in a 50% increase in energy consumption by 2030. Yes a 50% increase in the worlds energy consumption.

So IF the global warming theory is true, then it is going to happen. This makes sustainability key to any countries survival, regretfully we are right up the creek on that score, and getting worse by the day with Labours insane mass immigration policy. So Labours insane mass immigration policy has to make global warming denialists of all of us, for we must hope that all the scientists have go it wrong, for that is the only hope our children will have any future to enjoy.

By: apl

apl — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:37:09 +0000

JR:

By: Bazman

Bazman — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:02:25 +0000

Looks like Brown is taking the bull by the tail. Strange how there is a housing shortage when house prices have never been higher? Rubs me suspicious. I am a Nimby in the sense near to where I live, just off the A1. A local pub has closed down. Locals never went there, very respectable and exceptionally clean. Daft flats or well Known burger chain is the dilemma faced by the local council.
I wondered how long it would take the right to link green issues with immigration for there own agenda.

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:36:57 +0000

The reason why nuclear energy is considered better than “renewables” is because it costs a mere 3 pence per kilowatt hour whereas the cheapest forms of “renewables” cost double that. So called “renewables”such as wind-turbines also rarely offset the total amount of input energy required during thier construction and transport so are infact not renewable at all. Although both nuclear power stations and wind-turbines are exceptionally ugly, the difference is that a nuclear power station is in a single place and will perhaps be a problem to those within a ten mile radiuis of it, whereas wind-turbines will blight a much larger section of coast and also produce a rather irritating noise. The environmental destruction that renewables cause is therefore unacceptable due to the realtively minute amount of electricity generated. The government may have a ludicrous centralzed approach to planning, but surely you must accept that nuclear is the only form of viable electricity generation for the foreseeable future?

By: Iain

Iain — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:19:39 +0000

I am glad to read that one Conservative is looking to challenge Brown, but I am sorry to say the Shadow Treasury team has been absent from the fray when they should be out there pinning this economic mess on Brown, and not letting him get away with blaming it on the US’s sub-prime problems, a point I have been making many times on the Conservativehome web site.

As to house building, I feel the Conservatives have strategically messed up, for what ever they say when objecting house building it will be categorised as Nimbyism unless they can come up with a better argument than just no. The argument and debate in my opinion is the need for a population policy, for as most of Brown’s house building is driven by the expanding population Labour have engineered, and most of this expanding population is the result of their mass immigration policy, to put forward the need for a population policy would neatly tie in many stands into a cohesive narrative of policies, for not only would it tie in immigration, house building, public service planning, but also sustainability, global warming and Camerons green agenda, for the biggest global warming denialists must be those who promote mass immigration into an already over crowded country.

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:27:22 +0000

“He thinks he can make himself more popular by announcing unpopular decisions. It is an unusual approach.”

If he sticks to it it will show some courage & will earn respect which may be better than popularity (Thatcher was respected rather than popular). Certainly building new houses, airports or nuclear power stations (or windmills) in your own backyard is not something which will be individually popular but something which most of us will recognise has to happen somewhere. There are reforms which we could not accept if they only applied to us but could if applied fairly across the board.

Certainly Britain’s planning system is horribly bureaucratic & expensive. It seems, for example, to be the main reason why Scotland’s new Forth Bridge is being costed at

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:29:34 +0000

1. I predicted, on this very blog, that Harriet Harman would be the next Governor of the bank of England. In yesterday’s Telegraph, it said that the Chancellor was going to take on responsibility for most of the bank’s duties and that the FSA was going to have more input. The Governor, apparently, was to be given an “advisory” role. I suspect that what the Chancellor knows about the banking system could be written on the back of an envelope and that goes for most of his advisors too. Being a bureaucracy, the FSA is the last set of people who ought to be in charge of anything - far too slow and ponderous. I think, myself, that Northern Rock is going to be just one of many to come.
2. What would happen if the housing shortage was simply abandoned and the market left to sort itself out? Wouldn’t people start to realise that life, even in Milton Keynes, was preferable to living in London? Maybe people would come to move up North if the Police there were allowed to do their job? London seems to be getting so unpleasant nowadays.