Genuine areas of natural beauty should definitely be protected, but that's not always the same as the green belt - the problem we have is:
Most pathetic crash I've ever seen:
Currently 13% of UK land is designated as green belt, versus just 2.5% for actual buildings.
www.centreforcities.org
The size of the Green Belt is absolutely enormous and has long passed it's original purpose. Some element of reduction would help the housing shortage enormously and the original concept (and original area) of The Green Belt would still be protected.
Nah, speeding Braverman again.
It appears because the housing situation is so fraught, any decent homes are snapped up by those able to afford and so those left behind are the ones most in need. This escalates prices so builders keep maxing profit, and anywhere nice objects to development because they don't want the riff raff and or the value of their houses being diluted. Add in strain on local infrastructure and it's a recipe for tensions between factions of the haves and have nots. And it's not like the tories to amplify along those lines is it.
Yes mate. As I mentioned in a previous post, England has far fewer homes per head of the population than France, which contributes to a growing number of young adults staying at home.
Supply does not meet demand. If houses are unaffordable for some then there might as well not be any because the ones that are there are unaffordable.
No it isn't. She has no licence to treat vulnerable people badly. They are not an invasion. She and her party are incompetent and have failed to process applications, causing a massive backlog. Numbers coming are not high historically. The Tories failed in Brexit to maintain arrangements to return asylum seekers to the first EU country they were processed in. Asylum seekers are not illegal
