Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)


    That’s a decent point and one we’d definitely need to consider when actually deciding which greenfield sites we go for. It’s not necessarily a reason to hold back on going for greenfield sites in general though. It just needs to be carefully managed by people who understand it more than any of us do.

    So in other words, the plan is 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it'. That just isn't good enough when we're talking about a vital issue like how to solve the housing crisis without trashing our natural heritage. Let's face it, it isn't possible or realistic to solve the housing crisis using primarily greenfield sites without causing enormous damage, and there are literally masses of brownfield sites ready and waiting to be used. Of course we are going to need to build on a couple of greenfield sites - potentially areas of farmland belonging to large companies the loss of which won't have too much of an impact if lost - but the way forward is to buy up brownfield sites and sell them off at dirt-cheap prices with the stipulation that blocks of affordably-priced flats are built on them.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    So in other words, the plan is 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it'. That just isn't good enough when we're talking about a vital issue like how to solve the housing crisis without trashing our natural heritage. Let's face it, it isn't possible or realistic to solve the housing crisis using primarily greenfield sites without causing enormous damage, and there are literally masses of brownfield sites ready and waiting to be used. Of course we are going to need to build on a couple of greenfield sites - potentially areas of farmland belonging to large companies the loss of which won't have too much of an impact if lost - but the way forward is to buy up brownfield sites and sell them off at dirt-cheap prices with the stipulation that blocks of affordably-priced flats are built on them.
    I'd like to point out that Jarred never said we'd be primarily using greenfield sites. We would of course be prioritising brownfield sites, but we accept that we may have to build on some greenfield sites too.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But, as in my response to Petros, there is currently believed to be capacity for about 1m homes on brownfield sites that can currently be used for development, that is sufficient for getting on fort a decade of population growth at current rates, even longer if we are to leave the EU in 2 years and cut population growth, and that's before considering land that becomes available.




    The point being made was that, if I recall your initial answer correctly, you said something along the lines of the state should only provide what the private sector cannot do reasonably well, but as my reply states, is this not restricted to the civil service, and even then not really, thinking about it, only because it is part of government; does the statement being referred to not run contrary to the suggestion that we should have just a smaller state, to me it suggests there should be, for all intents and purposes, no state beyond legislature.
    If 1 million homes can actually built on brownfield sites, then we of course would not need to build on greenfield sites. I'd be interested in a source though. We would prioritise building on brownfield sites, but would build on some greenfield sites if it is absolutely necessary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'd like to point out that Jarred never said we'd be primarily using greenfield sites. We would of course be prioritising brownfield sites, but we accept that we may have to build on some greenfield sites too.
    The Liberal answer to Q1 says that you want to make it much easier to build on greenfield sites and doesn't actually mention brownfield sites at all. That heavily implies that the preferred method of solving the housing crisis is to build on greenfield sites.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    The Liberal answer to Q1 says that you want to make it much easier to build on greenfield sites and doesn't actually mention brownfield sites at all. That heavily implies that the preferred method of solving the housing crisis is to build on greenfield sites.
    Then we apologise for it being implied that way. We simply meant that we would build on greenfield sites if necessary

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Then we apologise for it being implied that way. We simply meant that we would build on greenfield sites if necessary

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's indicative of the shambles that a Liberal-including government would be that the Liberal Party can't even articulate its own policies on vital issues like housing in a way that does not lead one to believe that they are the exact opposite of what they actually are.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    It's indicative of the shambles that a Liberal-including government would be that the Liberal Party can't even articulate its own policies on vital issues like housing in a way that does not lead one to believe that they are the exact opposite of what they actually are.
    I find that notion hilarious. For one, it is not the exact opposite. Our point could have been made more clearly but that is all.

    The whole point of this debate is to articulate our views on vital issues and we feel like we have done that via our answers and responses to follow up questions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    If 1 million homes can actually built on brownfield sites, then we of course would not need to build on greenfield sites. I'd be interested in a source though. We would prioritise building on brownfield sites, but would build on some greenfield sites if it is absolutely necessary.
    I'll try to find the source again in the morning
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'll try to find the source again in the morning
    Thank you. Appreciated.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    James Milibanter. Since we have now come to the explicit words 'British Values', I think it's time to quote Hannan:
    "Name a British Value? Easy: liberty."
    There's nothing inherently British about Liberty, just like the USA and freedom. Most countries have both have and value liberty.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    In My opinion its hard to totally define what British Values are .everyone has their own family and personal values. However what turly makes us " British" ( aside from our Nationality) as as a Conservative I have not afraid to say I love my Country

    I think the values and principles we as a country hold dear are
    - Democracy
    - Individual Liberty ( Freedom)
    - Rule of law
    - Freedom of Expression and speech

    This Values make other countries want it makes other countries look up to the green and pleasant land we call are home
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    In My opinion its hard to totally define what British Values are .everyone has their own family and personal values. However what turly makes us " British" ( aside from our Nationality) as as a Conservative I have not afraid to say I love my Country

    I think the values and principles we as a country hold dear are
    - Democracy
    - Individual Liberty ( Freedom)
    - Rule of law
    - Freedom of Expression and speech

    This Values make other countries want it makes other countries look up to the green and pleasant land we call are home
    These are in no way specific to Britain though, to call them "british values" is a bit absurd, I'm fairly certain the French also value these things, are you claiming because the French probably value the rule of law they uphold British values?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the first ever Big Leader's Debate.
    I hope people found this useful.

    Following the announcement of an exit poll and provisional results, I will now close the debate.
    Please continue the discussion in the election thread.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 19, 2015
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.