Damage Limitation

A rich seam on Breakfast News this morning.

Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!

I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.

I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.

A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.

And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).

It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.

Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?

ADDENDUM:

To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS

Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?

I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.

But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.