Well, no, not really

We have a duty to build more homes, Robert Jenrick tells Tory heartlands

Government might have a duty to allow more homes to be built. Or a duty to bugger off out of the way so that more may be.

But the idea that government should actually build the things, where government decides they should be, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

6 thoughts on “Well, no, not really”

  1. This is just politician-speak for the country building more houses while the politicians take all the credit.

  2. I am imposing on you a duty to welcome more homes and look cheerful while you do it, Robert Jenrick tells those whose votes he will need at the next General Election. That’s a cunning plan worthy of Baldrick. If there should be a half credible Opposition by 2024 he should avoid getting too close to any toasters.

  3. The government might have a duty to control our borders so we don’t need to build as many houses.

  4. The debate about development and growth seems to have evolved in these stages:

    – We shouldn’t build anymore because it is sprawl and development is bad and we’ll never grow enough food if we build on flat land, and our lives will be diminished if we let others live like us.
    – Looks like we’re going to have to build something, but we still don’t like single family homes or sprawl so we’ll mandate that most new housing be densely built affordable apartments in current urban cores.
    – Damn, not enough developers are stepping up to build those dense apartments because they are unprofitable and the price of single family homes are shooting through the roof because that’s what too many people want.
    – Government needs to build the homes we think people should live in.

  5. I’m with dearieme on Jenrick’s jib. It seems to me that the bulk of Tory MPs these days are oily ticks who were not bullied anywhere near enough at school.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *