Re Sustrans; and right wing housing policies.

[Simon Fairlie]

It is true that my life expectancy would be increased by a   
footbridge over the A303 where I have to cross it every time I go to  
the shops,  by widening it to give me a cycle lane, and by bringing  
back the bus stop which they scrapped because the cars go too fast    
— but at the expense of hundreds of tons of concrete.  The green  
solution is to reduce traffic and slow it down. The calamitous  
mistake has been to build infrastructure which makes peoples'  
everyday lives dependent  upon driving fast,  far and frequently.

Re houses:  which green groups are allying with which part of the  
right wing on the housing issue?

  The libertarian right  — Adam Smith Institute, Institute of  
Economic Affairs., Matt  Ridley etc  — are all gung-ho for  
housebuilding, and it is here that Kate Barker has her spiritual  
home. The BNP on the other hand think we don't need more houses built  
because we should get rid of immigrants
  There are no doubt quite a few old Shire Tories who support CPRE in  
keeping a tight rein on housebuilding, but there are some lefties in  
CPRE as well. FOE sides with the CPRE on this issue, and is probably  
more left than right. Other groups which support more housebuilding  
are the Town and Country Planning Association (mildly left) and the  
Henry George Association (hard to classify).  A bit of a muddle really.

Chapter 7, which I work for, supports more self-built affordable  
housing, more council housing,  and  fiscal policies which penalize  
owners of  oversized and second homes. We do not support the  
construction of 3 million mainly market homes, either crammed into  
every spare patch of brownfield land, or sprawling over the green  
belt. I hope this distinguishes us sufficiently both from the neo- 
liberal right and from the BNP.

Simon



On 2 Dec 2007, at 09:32, Peter Hack wrote:

> .my father remembers the pre WW 11 debates in the
> cycling union.. the views re responsible driving won
> the day and cyclists wanted to be on the roads because
> of it for 60 years no new road had a cycle track put
> alongside it...while holland did.
>
>  he regards it as a calamitous mistake that over 60
> years has cost hundreds and hundreds of lives and now
> deters people from cycling because the roads are
> dangerous.
>
> sustrans has created wonderful safe cycling routes
> such as the Bristol bath path, your ideas are great
> but impractical
>
> re houses .. green groups are aligning with the right
> on this and it is a tendancy i deplore. the conditions
> for fascism to again march are ripe.
>
>            Peter Hack
>
>
>
> --- Simon Fairlie <chapter7 at tlio.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with Peter that this response to George
>> Monbiot is a pretty
>> poxy article, and if I were moderator I would have
>> had doubts about
>> posting it— after all its already up on Indymedia.
>> But that's the
>> moderator's prerogative. The reason why the diggers
>> site is moderated
>> is the same reason why a magazine is edited, so that
>> it's not full of
>> shite. There are tons of unedited interactive blogs
>> like that and
>> hardly any are worth going to. Obviously one never
>> agrees with
>> everything an editor selects or rejects, but, on the
>> whole,  I think
>> the moderator of Diggers 350 does a pretty good job.
>>
>> As for George's article, its not one of his best
>> either. Can this be
>> the same G Monbiot who two weeks ago was so
>> eloquently arguing on the
>> BBC World Service why we should have zero economic
>> growth? George
>> doesn't seem to have grasped that the way capitalism
>> pursues growth
>> is to create a wide difference between rich and poor
>> and then get the
>> socially concerned to argue that the poor should
>> have what the rich
>> have — whereas ecological socialism works out what's
>> sustainable and
>> shares it out.
>>
>> Between the second homes, and the empty office
>> blocks, and the homes
>> that are being demolished up north, and the stately
>> mansions, and the
>> oversized homes for greedy bastards, and the family
>> homes that are
>> currently occupied by one person, and the numbers of
>> people who would
>> happily live in a self-built shack if they only were
>> allowed to,
>> there is plenty of available accommodation in the
>> UK, and no need for
>> anything like 3 million new Barratt homes. Anyway,
>> even if they are
>> built, it won't solve the problem. The rich will
>> snaffle them all up.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2007, at 12:42, Peter Hack wrote:
>>
>>> i support the call for more housing and find this
>>> contribution poor; the brutal fact is that UK
>>> population is growing and so has immigration but
>> no
>>> one knows by how much... but all you have to do is
>>> walk down the street and know that its a
>> lot.People
>>> are getting older and also single people are
>> living in
>>> larger units which before might have housed a
>> whole
>>> family..the waiting list for social housing stands
>> at
>>> over one and a half million while Global
>> population is
>>> growing and a lot of people are on the move.
>>>
>>> Hardly any houses are being built by past
>> standards.
>>> House building will of course cause GHG emissions
>> to
>>> rise but whats the alternative increased wealth
>>> division through a shortage of housing?
>>>
>>> it would seem from this that the convenor of this
>> list
>>> is content with homeslessness and overcrowding for
>> the
>>> UK working class and wealth division(for that take
>> a
>>> whole generation): that is the inescapable
>> conclusion
>>> from this posting.
>>>
>>> facts are the bais of debate and if you dispute
>> the
>>> Office of National Statistics or the 9/11 then
>> facts
>>> or some critique not opinion are the basis of
>>> arguement.
>>>
>>> Anyway why does this list have to be moderated?
>> Why
>>> are ones views filtered? it smacks of control and
>> i
>>> for one am not happy with this.
>>>
>>> Peter Hack
>>>
>>> --- Gerrard Winstanley <office at evnuk.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We build 3 million homes - or leave these
>> families
>>>> in Dickensian misery
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2217573,00.html
>>>> (full article copied below)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But could this mean the destruction of much of
>> the
>>>> rural environment
>>>> and urban open space George holds so dear, and
>> an
>>>> unacceptable
>>>> increase in greenhouse gas emmissions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Unrestrained Globalism-Monbiot agrees to 3
>> million
>>>> new homes
>>>>
>> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386717.html
>>>>
>>>> Unlimited immigration-Who benefits?
>>>>
>>>> Having been feted and promoted by the SWP
>> Monbiot is
>>>> clearly placing
>>>> his views with Big Business. As with 9/11 where
>> he
>>>> defended the Bush
>>>> line unconditionally years after almost everyone
>>>> makes fun of it he
>>>> has now come up with why Britain needs
>> unrestrained
>>>> building.
>>>> At the same time the next day an article
>> appeared
>>>> whereby the
>>>> population of the UK will allegedly reach 108
>>>> million. If anyone can
>>>> believe official figures then one must take the
>>>> lates figure with a
>>>> pinch of salt and probably reduce the timescale
>> of
>>>> 75 years to a third
>>>> of that and add another half to the figure they
>>>> quote. Only 13,000
>>>> allegedly were predicted to arrive when EU
>> borders
>>>> opened up. Now they
>>>> are talking of the entrance of Turkey and the
>>>> Ukraine another 110
>>>> million added to the EU population!
>>>> In other words the Japanesation of Britain
>> whereby
>>>> millions will live
>>>> in even more cramped conditions and travel will
>>>> become even more
>>>> intolerably as investments in infrastructure
>> grind
>>>> to a halt after the
>>>> collapse of PFI schemes like Metronet with
>> billions
>>>> in debts.
>>>> Morissey of the Smiths summed up it appears what
>>>> many already feel is
>>>> happening but are unable to say anything due to
>> the
>>>> unrestrained
>>>> globalism of the so-called 'anti-racist' left.
>>>>
>>>> Morrissey vs NME: Mozgate Part II
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/11/mozgate.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We build 3 million homes - or leave these
>> families
>>>> in Dickensian misery
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2217573,00.html
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
>