When I was selected by my party nearly a year ago I did so because I offered youth, localism and, hopefully, a different perspective.
These facets that made my candidature back in Feb '07 appealing may lead to conclusions that jar with conventional wisdom in our villages. One of these is housing. The Government want Rugby Borough to provide 24,000 additional homes over the coming years. This is because of a changing residential usage and spiralling housing prices. We need to engage in these problems and decide where these additional properties should go.
The changing pressures on housing are basically due to two factors. An increase in population because people are thankfully living longer and that we are experiencing increased immigration is one reason. A second reason is that housing usage is changing, more residences only contain 1 person and so more houses are needed.
Housing supply is a national issue that is hurting the young and aspirational more than anyone else. What I notice around our villages is that rural living has become the preserve of the affluent and more mature members of society. It is all well and good paying lip service to this, the real test of understanding the problem is to do something about it.
This Government has been a failure on many counts, but their recent promise to build more houses is addressing an issue head on. Tinkering with Inheritance Tax and Stamp Duty won't change prices a jot. Supply is the issue, but in accepting that we can't adopt the self-preservational step of refusing to accept our fair share of the burden.
Village life and community needs young couples and young families. The proportion of properties filled by these people is falling, it's happening all over the country. Unfortunately it has been an insidious problem and trying to put it right in one fell swoop looks clumsy.
By increasing the urban housing and keeping village housing supply neutral the problem will be exacerbated.
In the coming weeks and months the Borough Council will be consulting with Parish Councils and residents themselves. There are three Options that are on the table. I will make the point that we need to make long term decisions and not needlessly adopt selfish positions that will damage our villages in the long time.
Please join me in reading the Consultation paper, setting it in a national context and avoiding possible scare stories that could be flying about the place. As I said at the start, this might not be expedient for me but I have been elected to offer unconventional points of views where necessary.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
Saturday, 5 January 2008
A long way away...
A Hapy New Year to everyone.
Yesterday was the Iowa Caucus, the first step in the long process of the Democrats and Republicans choosing their respective candidates for the November Presidential election. This is probably as far from the Borough Council issues facing Dunchurch and Knightlow as could possibly be imagined, but it will have a bearing on the world for at least another 4 years.
The two aspects of the race unfolding before us that are particularly interesting for an outsider are those of money and religion in politics. Money, in British politics, is a dirty word. We try to forget that often who has the most money makes a difference; undoubtedly is does though. In America the opposite is true. Obama, Clinton and Romney have raised plenty. Huckabee hopes to start to rake it in now he has won in Iowa. In Britain the desperate scrabble for money is a much more subtle and underground process as has been demonstrated by "Donorgate".
To most in Britain, religion and politics are seperate entities. I think this is a good thing. Whaever my beliefs, they're never going on an election leaflet! Yet it shows how the two electorates are different in how they look at candidates. Religion in America is tied to some of their most electorally explosive issues, while we take our religion around in a reticence manner that usually never disturbs how we vote.
Despite the common language, the two countries are very different. Our history in intertwinned, but our politics is not. I am a Conservative in Britain, I have no idea what that makes me in US politics! What I do know is that I will remain an interested observer over the coming months!
Yesterday was the Iowa Caucus, the first step in the long process of the Democrats and Republicans choosing their respective candidates for the November Presidential election. This is probably as far from the Borough Council issues facing Dunchurch and Knightlow as could possibly be imagined, but it will have a bearing on the world for at least another 4 years.
The two aspects of the race unfolding before us that are particularly interesting for an outsider are those of money and religion in politics. Money, in British politics, is a dirty word. We try to forget that often who has the most money makes a difference; undoubtedly is does though. In America the opposite is true. Obama, Clinton and Romney have raised plenty. Huckabee hopes to start to rake it in now he has won in Iowa. In Britain the desperate scrabble for money is a much more subtle and underground process as has been demonstrated by "Donorgate".
To most in Britain, religion and politics are seperate entities. I think this is a good thing. Whaever my beliefs, they're never going on an election leaflet! Yet it shows how the two electorates are different in how they look at candidates. Religion in America is tied to some of their most electorally explosive issues, while we take our religion around in a reticence manner that usually never disturbs how we vote.
Despite the common language, the two countries are very different. Our history in intertwinned, but our politics is not. I am a Conservative in Britain, I have no idea what that makes me in US politics! What I do know is that I will remain an interested observer over the coming months!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
