It seems that David Cameron and his colleagues in government are doing everything they can to alienate their natural supporters. Hard on the heels of gay marriage comes some priceless nonsense from Nick Boles, the "planning minister." As an aside, the very idea of having a "planning minister" sounds horribly Stalinist in and of itself, but more to the point, when anyone claims, as Mr Boles did recently, that "homes create more happiness than fields", you have to question their sanity, let alone their competence to be in the government of a democratic nation.
In Britain, we are privileged to enjoy some beautiful and varied landscapes. I can recall my journeys back from Brussels when I worked as a researcher in the European Parliament, and how I used to appreciate the scenery between Rye and Hastings on the final leg of my journey - far better than anything I saw in the flat countryside of Flanders or Northern France. I hate the idea of any more of it being concreted over, and organisations like the Campaign for Rural England feel the same, judging by their reaction to Mr. Boles' comments.
As for happiness, I doubt if Mr Boles has ever lived on the edge of a town, as I did for 15 years. You feel a constant sense of threat - that the pleasant view of the nearby fields is one day going to be replaced by the spectacle of some hideous modern housing estate. Do houses REALLY create more happiness than fields for people in that situation, Mr Boles? I think not.
It's not only confirmed country bumpkins like me who value our countryside. My current home is within walking distance of a beauty spot in Gloucestershire that people visit from miles around. I have met a number of town and city dwellers who appreciate the chance to escape their urban environment and enjoy a walk in the tranquility of the countryside. Would they really enjoy the same satisfaction from a stroll round a development of 100 modern box-like houses?
A further example of Mr Boles' crass stupidity is his threat to "bully" developers into making their houses "more beautiful" Is this the role of government? Certainly not, according to the Bible. If builders turn out houses that are regarded as too ugly, they will either not sell or command a mediocre price. Alternatively, there may be plenty of people who don't regard them as ugly, in which case they will sell without any government "bullying." Personally, I have very little faith in most modern architects and builders to build anything with any real style, whether the government bullies them or not.
It's not just Mr. Boles who is being misguided with regards housing. George Osborne's "funding for lending" scheme was meant to kick-start the housing market. What is has done is push prices up higher in areas like London where they are already astronomical - just as Osborne had been warned. Again, we see the triumph of political expediency over common sense. House prices may have fallen from their peak in 2007, but the median income/median house price ratio still remains at a much higher level across most of the country than in 1997. In my part of Gloucestershire, it stands at 7.53 compared with 3.58 16 years ago. In my former home in East Sussex, it has jumped from 5.15 to 9.66. In Kensington and Chelsea, an already absurd 11.69 has risen to 27.78!! These figures are crazy and unsustainable. While house prices crashes and the ensuing negative equity trap will always be bad news for a government, it is manifestly absurd (and morally wrong) for a government to do anything that will further push up house prices. George Osborne seems to think that higher house prices are the panacea for our economic ills Last Friday, I was listening on the radio to Merryn Somerset-Webb of Moneyweek, who disagreed, saying that house prices are 20% too high as things stand. Osborne's property bubble, she said, will lead to a disaster. For those who didn't hear the interview, you can read the gist of it in the attached link:- http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8915781/osbornes-bubble/ Basically, for all the government's atttempts to manipulate the market, sooner or later, the market wil reassert itself, and the longer this takes, the more people will be hurt when the crumch finally comes.
Finally, the government shows no sing of stemming the housing demand by cutting immigration. OK net migration has fallen to its lowest leve in a decade, but do we need 153,000 more people in the UK? We need to ensure that the brightest and best are available to run our top companies or work as city high-fliers, and healthcare would struggle without importing nurses from overseas, but do we need to import more fruit pickers? or plumbers? or hotel receptionists? We already have over 2.5 million people out of work. In such circumstances, boosting the population by the equivalent of a city the size of Gloucester every year is absolutely crazy.
So let's face it, the root of the problem isn't so much a housing crisis as an immigration crisis. This is why our countryside is under threat, and once again, it is the fault of New Labour. According to Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for Tony Blair, "Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration". (see http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/pressArticle/83) Why aren't the Tories crucifying Labour for this? Why aren't they making more use of the wealth of data in Anthony Browne's excellent paper for Civitas: Do we need mass immigration? http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs23.pdf which proves that immigration has not boosted per capita GDP, and that many immigrants with low skills will take more from the economy than they put into it. In such circumstances, why is the Monday Club still beyond the pale in today's Conservative Party? Admittedly, this organisation does not wield the impact which it did 20 years ago, but nonetheless, what on earth is wrong with the proposal that people who come to Britain and don't like it should be given help to return to their country of origin? What is racist about this idea? It may just be that someone brought up in sunny Africa can't handle our British weather (and who can blame them after the deluges of 2012?). Helping them return is a win/win situation, surely?
UKIP don't seem to have highlighted the link between immigration and the threat to our countryside. Its outline immigration policy does include a welcome promise to introduce a five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement until UK borders are under control. I am sure that many people living on the edge of towns or in the countryside would welcome this. il All three established parties, it seems, have become dominated by a metropolitan élite. They seem to have forgotten that some of us don't live in big cities, don't want to be surrounded by urban sprawl, but do want someone to speak on our behalf - someone who will ensure that our beautiful countryside will be conserved for future generations to enjoy. Once again, the Conservatives are failing to live up to their name.
In Britain, we are privileged to enjoy some beautiful and varied landscapes. I can recall my journeys back from Brussels when I worked as a researcher in the European Parliament, and how I used to appreciate the scenery between Rye and Hastings on the final leg of my journey - far better than anything I saw in the flat countryside of Flanders or Northern France. I hate the idea of any more of it being concreted over, and organisations like the Campaign for Rural England feel the same, judging by their reaction to Mr. Boles' comments.
As for happiness, I doubt if Mr Boles has ever lived on the edge of a town, as I did for 15 years. You feel a constant sense of threat - that the pleasant view of the nearby fields is one day going to be replaced by the spectacle of some hideous modern housing estate. Do houses REALLY create more happiness than fields for people in that situation, Mr Boles? I think not.
It's not only confirmed country bumpkins like me who value our countryside. My current home is within walking distance of a beauty spot in Gloucestershire that people visit from miles around. I have met a number of town and city dwellers who appreciate the chance to escape their urban environment and enjoy a walk in the tranquility of the countryside. Would they really enjoy the same satisfaction from a stroll round a development of 100 modern box-like houses?
A further example of Mr Boles' crass stupidity is his threat to "bully" developers into making their houses "more beautiful" Is this the role of government? Certainly not, according to the Bible. If builders turn out houses that are regarded as too ugly, they will either not sell or command a mediocre price. Alternatively, there may be plenty of people who don't regard them as ugly, in which case they will sell without any government "bullying." Personally, I have very little faith in most modern architects and builders to build anything with any real style, whether the government bullies them or not.
It's not just Mr. Boles who is being misguided with regards housing. George Osborne's "funding for lending" scheme was meant to kick-start the housing market. What is has done is push prices up higher in areas like London where they are already astronomical - just as Osborne had been warned. Again, we see the triumph of political expediency over common sense. House prices may have fallen from their peak in 2007, but the median income/median house price ratio still remains at a much higher level across most of the country than in 1997. In my part of Gloucestershire, it stands at 7.53 compared with 3.58 16 years ago. In my former home in East Sussex, it has jumped from 5.15 to 9.66. In Kensington and Chelsea, an already absurd 11.69 has risen to 27.78!! These figures are crazy and unsustainable. While house prices crashes and the ensuing negative equity trap will always be bad news for a government, it is manifestly absurd (and morally wrong) for a government to do anything that will further push up house prices. George Osborne seems to think that higher house prices are the panacea for our economic ills Last Friday, I was listening on the radio to Merryn Somerset-Webb of Moneyweek, who disagreed, saying that house prices are 20% too high as things stand. Osborne's property bubble, she said, will lead to a disaster. For those who didn't hear the interview, you can read the gist of it in the attached link:- http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8915781/osbornes-bubble/ Basically, for all the government's atttempts to manipulate the market, sooner or later, the market wil reassert itself, and the longer this takes, the more people will be hurt when the crumch finally comes.
Finally, the government shows no sing of stemming the housing demand by cutting immigration. OK net migration has fallen to its lowest leve in a decade, but do we need 153,000 more people in the UK? We need to ensure that the brightest and best are available to run our top companies or work as city high-fliers, and healthcare would struggle without importing nurses from overseas, but do we need to import more fruit pickers? or plumbers? or hotel receptionists? We already have over 2.5 million people out of work. In such circumstances, boosting the population by the equivalent of a city the size of Gloucester every year is absolutely crazy.
So let's face it, the root of the problem isn't so much a housing crisis as an immigration crisis. This is why our countryside is under threat, and once again, it is the fault of New Labour. According to Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for Tony Blair, "Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration". (see http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/pressArticle/83) Why aren't the Tories crucifying Labour for this? Why aren't they making more use of the wealth of data in Anthony Browne's excellent paper for Civitas: Do we need mass immigration? http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs23.pdf which proves that immigration has not boosted per capita GDP, and that many immigrants with low skills will take more from the economy than they put into it. In such circumstances, why is the Monday Club still beyond the pale in today's Conservative Party? Admittedly, this organisation does not wield the impact which it did 20 years ago, but nonetheless, what on earth is wrong with the proposal that people who come to Britain and don't like it should be given help to return to their country of origin? What is racist about this idea? It may just be that someone brought up in sunny Africa can't handle our British weather (and who can blame them after the deluges of 2012?). Helping them return is a win/win situation, surely?
UKIP don't seem to have highlighted the link between immigration and the threat to our countryside. Its outline immigration policy does include a welcome promise to introduce a five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement until UK borders are under control. I am sure that many people living on the edge of towns or in the countryside would welcome this. il All three established parties, it seems, have become dominated by a metropolitan élite. They seem to have forgotten that some of us don't live in big cities, don't want to be surrounded by urban sprawl, but do want someone to speak on our behalf - someone who will ensure that our beautiful countryside will be conserved for future generations to enjoy. Once again, the Conservatives are failing to live up to their name.