Vocal Voices

His latest stunt is to build three "Garden Cities", as he calls them, each with 15,000 houses - all affordable.

He does not know where they will be built or whether they will be in addition to the other 221,000 houses we need annually. He has no idea who will live in them or what work they will do. He does not say whether they wil lbe alowed to grow, as happened with the last Garden Cities or New Town urban sprawls, or if they will be constrained, somehow.

New Milton Keynes anyone?

Sorry but the bloody man is an idiot like the rest of his party. How in Gods name do these people get these positions.

Milton Keynes is not too far out. I gather they are proposed for the arc between there and Oxford, thus on the east-west rail line that is due to be reopened in stages in the next five to ten years. Commuter-belt London.
Clegg, of course, is the arch-European. These affordable homes are required for all the fresh EU immigrants needed in the next decade or so in order to keep the capital functioning.
Lynching would be too good, IMHO. That's not a change of view, by the way, that's been my stance on him and his ilk for many years now.

TheOstrich wrote:Milton Keynes is not too far out. I gather they are proposed for the arc between there and Oxford, thus on the east-west rail line that is due to be reopened in stages in the next five to ten years. Commuter-belt London.

Ah, I thought that I had heard mention of Winslow and Steeple Claydon in earlier rumblings, so that will be half of beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside concreted over. No wonder the coalition was so keen on the "nuclear option" of giving developers powers to push though applications over the heads councils or environmental concerns when it introduced new planning laws.

What a wallie

We've been here before. Milton Keynes, Skelmersdale, Cwmbran, Peterlee..
In all after the second world war 27 new towns were built, meant to "cure" the housing crisis.

Well, as things stand you can't cure the housing crisis. It is always going to be there until someone devises an economic system that does not depend on a bigger and bigger population. This situation is made worse by sheer out and out greed, which is where we are now.

There are plenty of brownfield sites in cities that can be redeveloped, but doing that is dearer than just concreting over a field. So the rush is on to find beautiful parts of the country and sling houses up on them asap.
ETA - Like this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... light.html

As for Clegg, God help us. I know he had a very expensive education but he doesn't seem to have a brain in his head. His electoral appeal seems to rest on being youngish, photogenic and erm.. that's it. As was shown in the Farage debate all he seems able to do is repeat slogans.

Photogenic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hohohoho.

I was born in what was in those days the quaint country town of Bedford, it is unrecognisable today, the family still live in villages surrounding the town that has become a no go area in many parts.
My niece lives in Milton Keynes. The changes to the countryside are unrecognisable.

I think we need fewer people not more housing. More people + more housing =- more flooding.

pederito1 wrote:I think we need fewer people not more housing. More people + more housing =- more flooding.

Also more building means less land to grow food on.

Going back to Nick Clegg, I have no time for him but now the Daily Mail seems to be running some sort of campaign to say that Clegg should have known about former Liberal MP Cyril Smith allegedly being a paedophile. This seems to be very unfair. Smith was supposed to have been doing this back in the 70's and 80's. How has this got anything to do with Clegg?

I can't even see any "cover up" allegations being fair because I remember reading allegations about Smith in the papers back in the 1970's.