The Green Belt and the carrying capacity of England

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 31 August 2007 00:30.

In October 2005 the UK government Actuary released forecasts for medium-term population growth:-

The United Kingdom population is projected to increase by 7.2 million over the period 2004 to 2031, according to a new set of UK population projections released today. The increase is equivalent to an average annual rate of growth of 0.42 per cent, or 12 per cent over the 27 years. In the longer-term, the projections suggest that the population will continue rising beyond 2031 but at a much lower rate of growth.

The UK population will increase gradually from an estimated 59.8 million in 2004, passing 60 million in 2005 and 65 million in 2023,
to reach 67.0 million by 2031.

... The projected total population of the United Kingdom at 2031 is 1.3 million (2.0 per cent) higher than in the previous (2003-based) projections. This is due to a combination of higher
assumed levels of net migration, higher short-term birth rate assumptions and slightly higher life expectancy assumptions.

Perhaps the first point to make here is that the government actuary has apparently missed some factors trending to a shortfall in housing supply, among them the later age of marriage and the trend towards smaller houses. However, the picture was bad enough. It backed up the long and largely failing struggle John Prescott has had to force a major housebuilding programme on councils in the South-East (which, with London, receives 75% of all migration to the UK). Gordon Brown made it clear earlier this month that there would be no more failure.

Gordon Brown has set out his ambition to build three million more homes across the country by 2020 to address a crisis in the supply of affordable homes.

The figure was 250,000 higher the Government’s previous target and reflects Mr Brown’s determination to make housing a top priority.

And this morning the papers carried the news that the Green Belt, that stubborn, beautiful rural abutment to urban sprawl, must begin to be sacrificed:-

A panel of inspectors commissioned by ministers said the overcrowded South-East must build more homes for a soaring population. They said leaving the Green Belt untouched “cannot be consistent with Government policy”. Gordon Brown wants to build three million more homes by 2020.

... Among the report’s key recommendations is that the Green Belt around both Oxford and Guildford should be redrawn to allow new housing.

It also calls for a re-examination of the Green Belt around a series of towns including Woking, Redhill, Reigate, Esher, Dorking and Oxted in Surrey; the Blackwater Valley on the borders of Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire; on the fringes of London and around Tunbridge Wells in Kent.

Well, here is a little of what the Green Belt protects.

Countryside to the north of Redhill.
Ditto to the north of Riegate.
Here’s a view south of Riegate.
The view towards Oxted from the east.
A view of Frensham Ponds, near Guildford.

It should be self-evident even to a government quango that dismantling our protection against the city is an irreparable error. The re-population of Britain with alien peoples produces some half of the current housing shortage. With this clearing away of the obstruction to building on pasture and wood the government demonstrates its priorities very clearly. Materialism and anti-racist vandalism trump preservation of the spirit of England.

What impoverished minds control the political levers and the public purse - men who might never look up from their perfectly shined shoes and their political obsessions to reflect on the simple good of communion with self and the gentle southern English countryside.

We may well ask where it will all end. I am reminded of Frank Salter’s definition of carrying capacity, given in On Genetic Interests:-

A territory’s carrying capacity is the population beyond which further population growth results in some value being lost. Lost values include privacy, access to open space and sustenance. When the last value is lost, exceeding a territory’s carrying capacity results in die-offs.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:09 | #

It’s not to house all the non-white immigrants. They could do that by building more high-rise monstrosities in the cities. No, it’s deliberate targeting of the final hold-outs against forced race-replacement, the rural and semi-rural areas. At some point these have to be eliminated, otherwise they’ll be white refuges where furious whites can plan their counterattack. We’re to be deprived of all possibility of refuge. That’s what this is: the methodical, systematic elimination of a country’s white people. Only blind fools can for so much as a second believe this isn’t carefully planned behind the scenes with the explicit goal in mind of turning Englishmen into a minority in England in the shortest time.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:18 | #

Or, as Top said in another thread yesterday, it isn’t being done behind the scenes, because they’re saying openly how they plan to make whites a minority in Britain. It only feels as if it’s behind the scenes because no one is permitted to frankly discuss its implications or protest against it, on pain of criminal prosecution or other means of ruination.

Posted by Joe on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:37 | #

Why are you guys still talking about this? If whites refuse to use brutal violence to defend their territory, what’s left to discuss? If a creature refuses to physically fight to defend its territory from intruders, then its genes are faulty and it is a GOOD THING that they will be eliminated from the natural world, to make way for creatures that actually want to live. The vast majority of white people want to die. They are happily conceding living-space, resources, and fertile females to non-whites. You can’t reverse this strange suicidal behavior with words! The tiny minority of non-suicidal whites just need to take care of themselves and learn to be thoroughly immoral, unjust, and violent (three very good survival traits).

Posted by Bill on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:34 | #

I am frequently reading on the blogospere that our technological miracle Western civilisation is entering (within 10 years) a terminal phase of declining energy and raw material resources, which begs the question has this housing project connected all the dots?

Where is the energy coming from to power all of this construction (let aside materials, infrastructure, water, jobs etc.etc.) I am told oil has peaked and the availability in 2020 will revert back to production levels of the 1980’s, there’s still plenty of coal left (so I’m told) but then there’s the carbon emission problem, so I suspect it will be left to nuclear (how many more power stations?) and renewables to fill the resultant gap of lack of oil.

I am also told, by seemingly well informed doom-mongers, that our civilisation and the human race is tanking fast, Peak Oil alone will take out billions before the end of this century. In other words, it’s back to the stone-age. All of which, leads me to Joe’s post, Friday 31st August, 4.35am. Maybe it’s the subliminal recognition of this fact that our race is simply not bothered about being replaced - they’re saying (subconsciously) why bother? it’s all over anyway.

Seriously though, when discussing Western civilisation (MR) it is like peeling an onion, before you know it, your way past decline, financial disaster, energy crisis, war, race replacement, die off, infinite growth, it suddenly becomes all about the survival of the human race, which reduces all else to insignificance. Being a fly on the wall observing events unfold, is fascinating - indeed, we are living in interesting times.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:11 | #

Bill, you can see. That’s the point. The others, the ones who can’t be bothered to save our people, the defeated, the complacent ... none of them can see. All we ever do here is talk about the faculty of sight and what it clarifies for us. Those like Joe who say it’s not enough to talk are suffering from impatience, and that’s perfectly understandable, even inevitable. But to take us forward a critical mass of the sighted must be formed, most especially among intellectuals, and that will take considerably more time yet - even with all the dystopia about us pressing at the sleepers’ eyelids.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:30 | #

GW: What is your opinion of Ferbus O’Connor’s Land Corporation?

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:40 | #

Ferbus -> Fergus

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:19 | #

It’s a long time since I did my History A-Level, James. I don’t remember anything much about O’Connor now, though a few very shadowy forms shuffled around inside my head when I read this:-

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/chartism/landplan.htm

I understand, of course, that smallholdings may, in a post-Hubbert, post-liberal scenario, offer a stable basis for survival. But given the level at which such ventures operate - at or near subsistence - urban life would have to be very grim indeed, or the required generation of new smallholders simply will not materialise.

In addition to being a not very capable 19th Century historian, I am not a sufficiently skilled “guesser” to say how we will adjust to the Peak. The high-tech fish farm will surely be nearer the mark than simple dirt-farming (the means to buy land is required just the same, of course).

Anyhow, adjust we shall. That is the niche that cold-climate peoples best exploit.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:21 | #

Well, I am asking about the Land Company specifically in the context of the maintenance of green belts.

It is much harder to pave over land that people are organically linked to and they, themselves, own.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:42 | #

Probably four-fifths of the land which comprises the Green Belt around London is already farmed by private owners. But ownership is not the issue since, once it has been de-listed for protection, development value of land is perhaps five times higher than agricultural value. I don’t think an “organic connection” between the owners of the land would be strong enough to prevent very much.

The government has, in fact, been pretty cute about this. First, it has moved the boundaries of the Green Belt by de-listing certain areas, then transferred powers to its unelected regional assemblies to drive through redevelopment. Second, it has selectively failed to react to planning applications in Green Belt areas.

The general flow is all in one direction, and it’s the wrong direction.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:29 | #

How large is the typical estate in the Green Belt?

Are there any land tax exemptions for small holders?

PS: I watched the process of green belt destruction take place in San Diego from within the very Sierra Club that had been successfully opposing the degradation of the city plan. The technique was simple:

1) Identify the lonely old widows who inevitably end up in charge of things (what I have come to call “The Church Ladies of Holocaustianity”).

2) Wine and dine them with brunches overlooking the La Jolla Cove during meetings supposedly regarding “enhanced” planning, and

3) Via them veto any committee actions within the Sierra Club opposing the “enhanced” city plan.

I’ve written up my experience on this elsewhere. I’ll see if I can dig it up. It was truly one of the more nauseating experiences of my life.

Posted by Laura Freel on Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:16 | #

Wow, you are all so completely racist. Why don’t you just throw slander against anyone who isn’t English. You’re worried about “non-whites” taking over. Alright so what if I a Canadian started bringing over my families full of whites because a war happens in Canada? Would you turn us away just because we’re Canadian or would you accept us because we’re white? What then is the difference between a black, brown or asian person coming to England to try and forge out a better life. I’m thoroughly dissapointed I came across this blog online today. I’m am utterly appalled and disgusted that there are still people out there who think this way. Developed country….I don’t think so. Once you learn to develop your minds you are still just as ready to die as the rest of the world.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:05 | #

Alright so what if I a Canadian started bringing over my families full of whites because a war happens in Canada? Would you turn us away just because we’re Canadian

No.

or would you accept us because we’re white?

Yes.

What then is the difference between a black, brown or asian person coming to England to try and forge out a better life.

What happens if their arrival here, or in Canada, degrades our life. They get a better life, we get a worse one. So, why does their right to a better life trump our right to a better life? Given that its our people who made Canada and Britain places they want to live in. Why wont they turn Canada or Britain into the places they left behind? They will of course, in sufficient numbers.

I’m am utterly appalled and disgusted that there are still people out there who think this way..

Still? I think you will find there are more of us all the time. Reality tends to have that effect. Once I used to think just like you but I woke up. You might wake up too one day, who knows one too many horrible real world examples might intrude into your life. You run the risk of turning into me at any time, but I wont be changing back into you.