Friday, 22 May 2009

Compare and contrast

On my return from leafletting just now (three hundred in under two hours - that was Good Leafletting Territory!) I found the one from the Tory candidate on the doormat, in amongst the boasting about £285 million of 'extra' spending, oops 'investment', is this from the front page:

"My priorities are ... Challenge inappropriate intrusion into the Green Belt and preserve our local heritage and culture"

and this from the reverse:

"We will fight to give communities the right to decide how much housing they need"

So what's it to be? If people in a small flat in her 'community' want to move to a bigger house in the area, the only possible place that it can be built is The Hallowed Green Belt (by definition). She caveats the first priority with the word 'inappropriate', which is either a meaningless flourish to make an unreasonable priority seem reasonable, or the most important word of all - so it would be helpful if she could state, quite clearly, what she means by "appropriate".

But she wouldn't of course, because she needs the votes of the NIMBYs and the votes of the people stuck in small flats, who could easily afford a house if the council were less illiberal with planning permission. Or perhaps she squares the circle by believing that cramming people into small flats in a borough surrounded by miles of Green Belt is in fact part of the 'local heritage and culture' that she wants to preserve?


neil craig said...

Yep - it is inappropriate that the working classes be allowed into the countryside. Who says politicians of all parties can't reach agreement?

Also that they be allowed to fly on holiday to places they just spoil for refined people.

Mark Wadsworth said...


Housing for the masses is just 'urban sprawl' and air-travel for the masses is 'non-essential flights'.