Thursday, 8 January 2009

Goodbye Greenbelt

It is being reported that Bradford is going to have to add to the 50,000 homes its already being forced to build. Bradford will be taking extra housing that was allocated to the rest of the region, and i'm sure we all know where this housing is going to end up being built on.

The Regional Assembly is overseeing this Regional Spatial Strategy, an unacountable, bureaucratic and very expensive talkingshop which can tell elected councils what to do. (Much like the Regional Development Agency and the Odeon fiasco)

Of course the Conservative led council won't stand up to the regional bodies for the people of Bradford or for our greenbelt, and must have a hand in these rules because Tory leader Kris hopkins gets a nice little earner for sitting on the Regional Assembly.

So thanks to Labour not being able to control migration to the country (especially EU migration which is unrestricted), more houses are needed and guess what it's going to be built on? Our already disappearing greenbelt.

T&A report:


  1. Whats wrong with EU migration? If 50,000 homes have to be built then why can't they be built as flats? Flat Building is the only way to save greenbelt and create more homes.

  2. First of all, thanks for the comment.

    There's nothing wrong with EU migration if it was controlled, thanks to the EU 450 million people have the right to settle and theres nothing the UK can do about it. Also, Labours point based immigration system for non-EU people is borderline racist. If you're European you can do what you like, if your non-european sorry but you're the wrong race. What we say is that there should be a fair system for all.

    Just to make the link between population growth and the reason we need new houses is:

    "A blueprint for regional development is being revised by the Government to take account of the latest population growth projections." (the linked T&A report)

  3. Flats do seem to be the only way to provide 50,000 homes (this figure is set to increase by the way) but even so, just for the sheer amount of housing that the council is being forced to build, some greenbelt must have to go.

    Lets not forget this has been dreamt up by the unelected and secretive Regional Assembly, which of course has the New Labour seal of approval. Not by the people we elect, who have no say over the plans and must just simply comply.

  4. Except in War time the UK has always allowed free movement of people. Isn't the free movement of people within the EU just a larger version of this? Granted it is unfair to those outside the EU, but isn't this a step in the right direction for freedom. I disagree with you on the points based system. Its not racist, its xenophobic. Being European is not a race, its a nationality.

  5. Thanks for the post.

    "Its not racist, its xenophobic. Being European is not a race, its a nationality."

    Splitting hairs a little bit I feel, but we come to the same type of conclusion.

    I think most people would agree a fair immigration system that applies to everyone (whether EU or not), is the only reasonable way forward for economic, security, and wellbeing of the nation. The problem we have is that the government cannot have controls over EU immigration, but yet it discriminates everyone else.

    I think a fair, respected system, helps the citizens feel secure and feel the government is protecting their interests, while having new people come in to fill holes in the economy and provide a flexible workforce that is necessary.