Building for the future or building on the future? by Ian Tattersall

I can think of no better way of introducing this article than the quotation, “the beauty of our landscape; the particular cultures and traditions that rural life sustains, these are national treasures, to be cherished and protected for everyone’s benefit. It is not enough for politicians to say that – we need leaders who really understand it and feel it in their bones”. In light of these words from the Prime Minister, it seems surprising that David Cameron is advocating a planning system where the default answer is yes. Most alarming of these proposals is the threat to the greenbelt.

Currently covering around 6000 square miles of the country, the benefits of the greenbelt are clear; it constitutes a protective barrier preventing expansion of the town into the countryside, known as urban sprawl. If this threat is not enough, the reasons for it are even more problematic.

The first reason claimed is that weaker planning restrictions will lead to improved economic performance in the construction sector. After the catastrophic global economic crisis, where a lack of regulation led to free rein, the so-called “cutting of the red tape” cannot be a good thing. This is evidenced by the countries with the weakest planning control (Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland) all being hit the hardest by the crisis. Surely this shows that deregulation is not appropriate.

The second reason claimed is that housing demand requires relaxation of planning laws. However, at the time of writing, there are 740,000 empty homes and 400,000 plots already with planning permission in the UK. There is also enough brownfield land to build over 1,000,000 homes. The reason why houses are not being built is not a planning system where 80% of housing proposals are approved; it is the economic conditions. These are of severely restricted credit, householders finding themselves cash-strapped and a lack of confidence and demand. To put it simply, until the economic position picks up, building will not.

The knee jerk reaction by the Government to increase economic performance and satisfy housing demand achieves neither. Instead it threatens the countryside like never before. Just as alarming, it shows a complete failure of the Government to understand the reasons for the lack of building and economic problems. As the Government announces this week that it has not met deficit targets, it is further evidence that they are clueless as how to solve the economic situation in this country.

Ian Tattersall

Law Student 

BPP University College

Great Expectations by James W Monroe

Iraq- Iran- North Korea- and now Syria. The same pattern emerges: a ‘rogue state’ with a madman dictator ruling a repressive, brutal regime. Add human rights abuses, suspicions (founded or not) of WMD, and the regime posing a potential genuine threat to the West. The West shows genuine, deep, moral and political outrage, with impassioned speeches at the UN and similar bodies. Sweeping economic and political sanctions follow, as well as ‘pariah state’ status for the nation in question, in a diplomatic response evocative of Abyssinian and appeasement in the 1930’s.

The story changed, however, with Syria. Mediation efforts have been, to an extent, successful, and, upon evidence of potential use of chemical weapons against Syrians, President Obama gave his stern warning that ‘there would be consequences’ if President Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Such a warning was echoed By William Hague: ‘[Obama] warned of serious consequences and he means it’. While such a stance is admirable, it is regretfully unlikely to be backed up by strong action by either Obama facing up to the Republicans over the fiscal cliff of US debt, or the Conservative front bench dealing with the political fallout from the Autumn Statement and the Leveson report- another inevitability.

Many commentators predicted the main recommendation of the report (statutory regulation underpinned by statute). Cameron’s total endorsement of Leveson in one sentence, but not backing the key recommendation in another, was similarly predictable of Coalition politics. Subsequent actions, such as productive meetings with senior media officials, drafting legislation and starting to devise a new regulatory body are also a hallmark of the Coalition; definite forward progress with one hand, but the other hand giving nothing definitive, swift and far reaching (but once again, admittedly matters are a lot more complicated, making such affirmative action hard to implement). However, with such strong cross party consensus in Parliament, the media anxious to put things right, and a groundswell of public support, the hope is there that mechanisms can be put in place to prevent another comparative phone hacking episode.

Both internationally and domestically, the same old stories emerge, PG Wodehouse style. The difference for both Syrians being killed in Damascus and the victims of phone hacking is that this time there is the potential for a different outcome, turning a Wodehouse story into an unpredictable Saki story (without the dry humour).

James W Monroe
Law Student

BPP University College

The dereliction of the Justice and Security Bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/25/secret-courts-the-essential-guide

Why after hundreds of years does British law need to be so radically changed to the detriment of its citizens, could it be in the last few decades the citizens have become so criminalised,disloyal or just so lacking in empathy to the state that it needs these powers to keep the residents of these Isles in check or is it that the importing of so many people of disparate cultures that it needs these powers to keep the peace.  What a lot of the immigrants over the last few decades should reflect on is, did you really come here to end up with laws somewhat harsher than the ones you left behind, or are you the cause because you could not leave the venal parts of your culture or religion behind.