While there are few people I would rather not have as Prime Minister than Keir Starmer, many of the policies to get houses built are long-needed efforts to tackle problems which have been unaddressed for decades.
Throughout that time, the Green Belt has been talked about as though it was designated sunlit uplands when, in reality, it’s just a gap between settlements – and much of it is poor quality.
So, in the PR battle, Grey Belt is an excellent description of land which could be built on. Whoever coined the phrase must have been taking advice from whoever came up with the term ‘brownfield land’.
That one conjures up images of derelict pre-war factories being replaced by much-needed homes, distracting those who might otherwise think of it as our manufacturing heritage being swept away for expensive flats because we don’t make anything anymore. A masterful way to sell a concept.
Nowadays everyone wants brownfield land built on and I’ve little doubt they’ll soon want Grey Belt land built on too. Once that’s all gone, they’ll need to think hard about another colour with negative connotations.
While these policies will likely get houses built, the Government’s emboldened status, backed by its huge majority, is being reflected in the approach of developers and their representatives.
Take a look at the July 9th meeting of Thurrock Council’s planning committee and note the tone of the applicants in each of two proposed, major housing developments.
These two three-minute speeches can be seen in the webcast here starting at 00:29:23 and 01:16:58.
Rather than try to persuade the committee, representatives from Mulberry Strategic Land and Grasslands cared little for what the councillors thought and basically challenged the committee to refuse their schemes. Their basic theme was, ‘the Government is on our side’.
As it happens both were refused and committee chair, Cllr. Michael Fletcher (a Labour member), ended up calling for more respect from applicants. But my money is on the developer at any subsequent appeal.
Where the concept of emboldened developers takes us is hard to predict, but emboldened politicians are rarely a good thing.
And few people in Government are as drunk on their new power as the Energy Minister, Ed Miliband. A lifelong ideologue, Miliband has already waved through the Sunnica solar farm – the U.K.’s biggest so far – banned new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and scrapped the ban on onshore wind farms in England.
How anyone took seriously his election campaign pledge to cut energy bills by £300 is hard to grasp.
In Miliband’s Net Zero obsession, the gigantic cost is not a factor, nor is the countryside, the loss of farmland or the people who live near the swathes of photovoltaic panels and wind turbines that will likely characterise open space in the U.K. in the next few years.
Nothing gets in the way of his single-minded drive to rely upon unreliable energy. Nowhere in his head is the thought that the U.K. is not the most sun-soaked country in the world, so solar panels here might not be the most efficient.
As for what happens to wind energy when the wind doesn’t blow seems almost too obvious a question, but this is 2024. What passes for an opposition in the U.K. would never ask anything so impertinent. Switching to air source heat pumps and electric vehicles has no downside for these people. Nor would they suggest the rising U.K. population is adding to the housing crisis.
They will just continue to admire the Emperor’s new clothes until the ideology and reality come face to face.
Historian Morris Berman once said: “An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you.”
We might get more houses built, but when the ideologues are in charge, the cost may well outweigh the benefits.
Alan Bunce is the Editor of regional property website Thames Tap. This article was first published on the U.K. Property Forums website.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Seems obvious to me that, for once, the Captain Sensibles have won. Sport started it, especially Sharon Davies, by having the guts to ban Blokes In Frocks from competing.
What the non-Sensibles relied on was everybody being cowed into saying nothing. Now that started with a perfectly normal word “Nigger” as used for the name of a very famous dog, and a rather nice colour. Now everybody says “You can’t use that word”. Well why can’t I? It is a legitimate word and the racist tag simply does not fit: it’s a routine word amongst those I, allegedly, offend. Words are all fine when used in context.
One has to draw a line on some of these things and Trans is clearly The Line. It is absurd to say a hulking 6′ 2″ swimmer with a rather full crotch in Its swimsuit is Female. If it has meat and veg it’s male. It really is that simple. Dress how you want, call yourself Brer Rabbit and don pointy ears but don’t tell me you are a rabbit.
Listen to Joe Rogan and Riley Gaines. He (fully intact Lia) was actually dating women at the time he was participating in women’s sports. Then he was parading around the women’s changing rooms with his fully intact anatomy showing as bulges in his costume.
Another massive injustice was that Riley actually drew in a race with him, but they decided to award the medal to Lia for the ceremony and Riley would get hers later by post.
But clearly Riley is the bigot for objecting to this.
I remember that one, absolutely disgusting in all ways you can think of it.
Well I’m happy to see guys up in arms about this and calling out the obvious unfairness, lack of ethics at play and the trampling of females’ sex-based rights. Usually we just get the ”It’s their own fault…what do they expect after they supported this?….Well it’s obviously down to the feminization of the nation…It’s those pesky feminazis….This would never have happened had women never got the vote!”….yadda, yadda kind of bollocks on here.
Of course, any father of a daughter should be calling this out, not that that is a prerequisite, obviously. It does just boil down to human rights at the end of the day, of the female kind, in this context. Trans people? Just give them their own category, then everyone’s happy.
And the penis-owners go in the Mens’ changing rooms, vaginas in the Ladies’. It’s really not that complicated.
Lia? rather give him his full name – “wilLIAm Thomas”
Incidentally, I think Sharon Davies should get a Damehood and be in the Lords. Also, J K Rowling.
If all that’s required to be a trans woman – and be allowed into women’s private spaces, such as changing rooms, etc – is to say that you are a trans woman, then it is literally impossible to tell the difference between a trans woman and a man pretending to be a trans woman. Anyone who claims not to see this huge loophole for perverts is either incredibly foolishly naive or a pervert themselves.
What is a “trans woman” if it’s not a man pretending to be woman?
Yes, that’s your opinion (and my opinion) but many people believe that a trans woman is actually a woman. However, nobody, not even the people who believe that a trans woman is a woman, can deny that it is literally impossible to tell the difference between a trans woman and a man pretending to be a trans woman.
Sorry, what is the difference between a “trans woman” and a “man pretending to be a trans woman”?
Full removal of their meat-and-two veg would be one indicator.
Not a halfway ‘transition’ but all-in. Balls in the fire.
I guess that’s one definition. I prefer to keep it simple. There are males and females, and “trans” and “gender” are bullshit terms designed to cause confusion (at which they are succeeding). There are males who have had their genitalia removed, who say they are women, and other males who are intact who say they are women – both sets of people seem equally mad to me, and equally wrong.
I’ll explain again then: You and I don’t think there is any difference between a trans woman and a man pretending to be a trans woman, but there are people who believe there is a difference, yet even those people cannot deny that it’s literally impossible to distinguish a trans woman from a man pretending to be a trans woman if all that’s required is for a man to say he is a trans woman – which is a huge loophole for any pervert who wants to be allowed into women’s spaces such as changing rooms.
I think the phrase “trans woman” should be avoided at all costs. There are men and women. Men should not be allowed into women’s changing rooms.
I don’t see how you can talk about people believing there is a difference between two things that don’t actually exist. I wouldn’t get into a discussion with someone about the “difference”. Men are men and women are women. Everything beyond that is just a rabbit hole.
Well you yourself have just used the phrase “trans woman” while stating that the phrase “trans woman” should be avoided at all costs! Which just goes to show how impractical your suggestion is.
I agree with you that trans women are not women, but which is the more persuasive point in arguing that merely saying you are a trans woman doesn’t mean you should be allowed into women’s spaces when speaking to someone who believes that trans women are women: that it’s literally impossible to tell the difference between a trans woman and a man pretending to be a trans woman, or that trans women are not women?
Step 1 is to establish that there are men and women, and that’s it. The point has to be hammered home. I don’t think we should engage on the enemy’s terms.
No, they do not believe it, they choose their truth. There is a big difference. I’ve mentioned this point many times in the last 10 years or so. We live in a world where people choose their truth like they once went to a shop and chose a bar of chocolate and chose to believe it was the best bar ever.
Sadly they are enabled by fools in positions of authority. I read not so long ago about a child who “decided” to self-identify as a cat. The teachers reinforced her choice of belief.
You say “they choose their truth”, but it’s not the truth, trans women are not women. People believe things that are not the truth. If you’re going to argue that people don’t believe things that are not true, count me out of such a stupid argument.
“many people believe”??———–People believe all kinds of nonsense. Believing things is religion, faith, emotion and ideology. It is NOT fact.
Well said.
Who said it was a fact? You appear to be missing the point.
Yes I know someone ‘trans’ who serves beer in my favourite pub (so I won’t rock that boat by debating with him) who’s so utterly offended by the suggestion that all ‘trans’ are sexual predators.
Whereas the opposite argument is being made. If you make it so easy to change on a whim, then all the pervs will see that as a perfect opportunity, as we’ve seen many times. This point was well made by Jk Rowling in her mocking tweet to Humsa Useless when the Scottish ‘hate’ law came into effect.
They’ve taken this way too far. They claim violence when someone raises any questions, no matter how kind their intentions. And yet they’re so horribly nasty to ‘terfs’ but somehow that’s okay. The backlash is beginning.
I’ve no idea whether all “trans” are “sexual predators” but I would think it unlikely. I think they are all mad, and they are all the sex they started life at conception with. I don’t think it’s necessary to identify them as sexual predators in order to think that they need help to accept reality rather than help to do the opposite, and they should stay out of spaces that have for a long time being single-sex.
It is no longer the ‘fad de jour’ having been overtaken by the Pally supporters in their black & white scarves. Much cheaper outfit to buy and the potential to meet more like minded people on the marches and sit ins.
‘Culture—-Pro-Trans’. Something of an oxymoron is it not?
Whilst I loathe the creature Blair, I feel obliged to report what he said on the matter (as reported in the DT)
“a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis.”
It would appear that Blair has, effectively, instructed Starmer to drop the Trans-Bollocks.
What’s that lying, murdering b’stard after now? Took him long enough to admit it – mind you, have you seen his hideous cow of a wife? Funny how she’d already setup a Yuman Wights practice six months before he announced it isn’t it?
Did you see an article the other week about a trans banned from swimming who used to prowl round the changing room as the girls got undressed? One girl said he was stood in boxers with holes in them and persistently telling her to get changed. That is sexual harassment at minimum and Police should have pulled It up. The fact they did nothing screams volumes: “Mustn’t upset the Trans or the Musies, after all, it’s only women and Jews”.
But even if the trans person isn’t a predator “HE” cannot be in our daughters changing room or toilet.
Delighted to hear from a (female) friend in the squad that rowing – one of Britains best medal hopes and most traditional sports – has stopped trans people from rowing in female crews, despite all pressure from the lobbyists. I assume the same rules will apply at the Olympics?
If it was my daughter or granddaughter I’d ask them to consider organising a protest leading to an outright refusal to compete. Why should a woman have to get changed in front of a bloke? Why should they be ordered to compete against It because of sheer lunacy? I’d certainly consider making It somewhat less of a man: I’m good with big sharp knives!
Refusal to compete is the only solution. Without competitors there can be no sporting events. The message will get through after a very short time and we can all return to normal where women compete against women and men against men. I remember some years ago Serena Willimas was asked how she thought she would do against men. Her reply was informative and she said “If I played Andy Murray I would lose 6-0 6-0.
Another girl, only last week, stated that it was good he was banned but it didn’t make up for having to change in front of him 18 times a week!
Similar story in the U.S, according to a recent Pew poll. They use the nonsensical ”sex assigned at birth” here too. Unsurprisingly there’s a stark contrast between Republicans and Democrats;
”President Joe Biden has done more to promote transgender ideology than any president, ever. A scroll through the White House archives shows statement after statement, proclamation after proclamation, speech after speech, in which the president praises what he calls the “extraordinary courage and contributions” of transgender Americans.
Last year, the White House, as part of its observation of Transgender Day of Visibility — an event that included the White House Roundtable on Affirming Transgender Kids — the Biden administration released a list of 42 actions and policy initiative it has undertaken to support transgender Americans. The list included Justice Department civil rights enforcement actions, “intervening legally when states violate the rights of transgender youth and their families,” signing a “historic executive order to advance equality for LGBTQI+ people,” expanding access to “gender-affirming care,” and much, much more. On that last subject, the Biden White House has gone all-out even at a time when doctors in Europe have expressed growing concern about the lasting damage caused by the irreversible medical treatments known in some circles as “gender-affirming care.”
The data is in a new poll by the Pew Research Center. Pew found huge political differences in opinion on the subject. Among Republicans, 91% said sex is determined at birth, with just 8% saying it can be different from birth. Among Democrats, just 39% said sex is determined at birth, while 59% said it can be different. But even among Democrats, the number who say sex is determined at birth has grown over the last seven years, while the number who say it can be different has shrunk.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/push-to-promote-transgender-ideology-is-backfiring/
I am happy for some transgender people if they have had “extraordinary courage”. But I still don’t want them in my daughters toilet.
Sex assigned at birth aka the evidence of the eyes of the midwife.
With a very few exceptions all the rest is a mental disorder.
Indeed, though sex is determined at conception and observed at birth (or earlier via scans).
YES———Live and let live is fine. But when living and letting live interferes with other peoples freedom to live and let live then it cannot happen. The Liberal Progressive Virus tried to coerce us into accepting men in our daughters toilet and we reject it I am afraid.
There seem to be glimmers of home but I am not overly optimistic.
For example, I would bet a small amount of money that in most workplaces and other organisations, especially in larger ones, if you refuse to use the pronouns that someone pretending to be the opposite sex demands you use, or you express any view that they are not the sex they pretend to be, or that “gender” is bullshit, you will be had up on charges pretty sharpish and if you persist in this you’re history.
I am never rude or nasty when asked but I have joined the FSU because of the attitude of the idiots in HR who seem to be the main drivers.
Yup that’s pretty much where I am, though of course one man’s “rude or nasty” is another man’s “I will not go along with you pretending to be a woman”
I wonder if I’d get into hot water at work if I told the man in a dress to “Just quit whining and grow a pair/man up” after telling him to get the hell out of the Ladies.
I’d probably be found guilty of “macroaggression”. He’d probably accuse me of genocide. 
Fortunately I’ve never had this scenario in real life and I spend a lot of time in gym changing rooms. No trespassing schlongs spied yet anyways.
Indeed – a tiny number of people about whom much noise is made.
This is one of many examples of the lunacy behind this sort of shite:
“Reports have emerged of an ongoing Government investigation, ordered by Gillian Keegan at Rye College, a state secondary school in East Sussex, where a teacher was recorded telling a pupil it was “despicable” not to accept that her classmate was a cat.”
https://care.org.uk/news/2023/06/children-in-schools-allowed-to-identify-as-animals