The real reason behind eco towns

Eco towns will be built regardless of whether local communities want them. They aren’t being built because they are environmentally friendly or offer sustainable living. Most of the new towns will leave residents’ car dependent and most are not even within walking distance of a train station. Eco towns have never been about sustainable living. They are about something completely different.

Labour knows that soon they will be out of the job unless they do something. Immigrants need homes and these homes are being built to accommodate them. These new immigrants are going to owe their places in this country to Labour and they will know that so will vote accordingly which is why Labour are going to force the proposals through before the Conservatives can even attempt to stop them. The government can’t have anyone wrecking their plans. They want this to happen so badly that they are going to sell Ministry of Defence land for the ecotowns to be built on. To ever have a chance of getting in power again they have to import more voters. It’s the only way and they know this.

Eco-towns will not help environment

Eco towns look more and more dubious as time goes on and they look as though they will constrain the freedom to move about. You could even be fined for driving out of the town limits. You will also be stopped from parking your car near your own home but don’t worry there will be a car park at the edge of town which you will have to pay for

The government have a reason for this. They hate freedom and cars give you freedom to go anywhere you want at anytime. They say that it is because the towns are supposed to be green but if that was the case why are the towns being built to lower environmental standards than other towns? Why are they being built to level 3 instead of level 6 even though after 2016 all homes have to be built to level 6 meaning they are zero carbon. Why not just build them to that standard now if it is to protect the environment?

Wouldn’t it make sense to build eco towns as most environmentally friendly?

Not even Labour would do this

Homeowners face having to pay a specialist to inspect their trees under a safety regime drawn up by one of Britain’s most respected watchdogs.

The British standard for tree safety inspection would require all trees to be checked by a “trained person” every three years, with a still more rigorous “expert inspection” by an arboriculturist every five years.

Tree owners will also be obliged to conduct a “walk-by” inspection themselves once a year.

The drive to make all trees subject to inspection is being led not by the Health and Safety Executive - which opposes the move - but by the British Standards Institution (BSI). Highly respected in the building and engineering industries, it is better known for its views on the composition of cement than on the health of trees.

I don’t think even the government would go for this. It would lead to even higher taxes and could be bad for the environment. There will be tens of thousands of trees under the authority of each local council. Could you imagine the bill councils would have to pay? All it would lead to is councils paying to have trees knocked down because they would be unable to afford the maintenance without substantially increasing taxes.

The government would be mad to go along with this. It would damage them during a time where they are trying to look like a green and environmentally friendly party.

Less food and energy because of EU rules

If you were the European Union fanatic and you were faced with the prospect citizens of a member state wanting to leave what would you do to make them want to stay forever? The answer would be to make them need you for all sorts of things like electricity and food and that is exactly what the EU is trying to do.

A proposed EU directive could force our coal-fired power stations to shut down earlier than planned. Our government is already going to close down nuclear power stations.

The EU already has a law in place which has been blamed for the recent blackout which resulted in 500,000 homes going without power. The European Union’s Large Combustion Plant Directive sets strict limits on the number of hours that some of Britain’s largest and most heavily polluting coal and oil-fired power stations can operate before they have to close in 2015. The time is measured in “stack hours” — the length of time that chimney stacks, rather than individual generation units, are in use.

It is clear what is going to happen if this is allowed to continue. We will rely more and more on foreign nations to power our country giving us every reason to stay in the EU because we will suddenly need them to heat our homes even though they are the ones that caused the power shortages. The same is true for our food. Once they control our food supply they decide whether we live or starve to death.

A new EU proposal would outlaw four fifths of the chemicals used by UK farmers and cut crop yields by between a quarter and a half meaning that we will have to rely more and more on imports to feed our country.

The EU knows what they are doing. They know that their actions will result in less food and energy for us and could result in us starving or freezing if we left it too late to leave, that’s if we ever left at all.

Our water is being poisoned

CONTROVERSIAL plans to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply have been condemned by a green MEP.

Just weeks after Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted water fluoridation would benefit the city's residents, Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas, pictured above right, paid a personal visit to health chiefs to condemn the proposals.

In February Health Secretary Alan Johnson pledged an extra £14m for health authorities that want to add fluoride to their water supplies to boost dental health and the Prime Minister said he had "seen the benefits of fluoridation".

Dr Lucas has demanded the proposals to add the chemical to Southampton's water be dropped.
She said: "Water fluoridation has simply not been proven to be effective for teeth, particularly when the bad effects of dental fluorosis are taken into account.


If the government would like to give us better dental health they should be focusing on dentistry but instead 800,000 fewer people have access to NHS dentists.

Putting dangerous medication into the water supply is not the answer. The answer is to actually invest in dental health and give more people access to an NHS dentist.

Being like Fritzl

People who fail to tackle climate change are acting like an Austrian man who locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, an Anglican bishop has said.

The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, wrote in a parish letter that not confronting global warming meant people were "as guilty as" Josef Fritzl.

It meant future generations would be left in a futureless world, he said.

Doe this man even know what he is talking about? If he actually did the research he would find out that he is a lunatic to believe what he believes. He should stick to his day job of trying to get people to believe in god and not even attempt to talk about something he has no understanding over. Tens of thousands of scientists have already signed a petition denying that man is responsible for climate change. Does he think that he knows more than people who have PHDs in science?

Climate change doesn’t necessarily have to be bad as Greenland has found. In Greenland it is being seen as an opportunity for independence and prosperity. If man was responsible for global warming wouldn’t the Bishop of Stafford be more like Josef Fritzl to Greenland for trying to deny them the opportunity to prosper?

Government caught lying over bin collections

The government has been caught lying yet again. This time they have been caught lying about fortnightly bin collections. The government have been saying that there is no health risk to the public from fortnightly bin collections but a report showed different.

The report found that ending weekly collections would "significantly alter the pest infestation rates and hence the disease transmission at source", while vermin and insects could be "encouraged into the home environment".

The government didn’t just lie to the public, they also misled Parliament. When asked by the Conservatives about the bin collections they responded by saying there was "no evidence in published studies" to indicate a link between cutting collections and increased risks to health. The government weren’t lying because they refused to publish the study so while there was no evidence in published studies there was in studies which the government didn’t want to publish because it would show they were incompetent and wrong.

17,000 homes built on flood planes

Great Britain is running out of space to build any more homes but because of government incompetence we have to find ever more homes for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that come into this country every year.

Councils are finding it difficult to find suitable places to build homes which is why they are having to build 17,000 homes on flood plains every year increasing the risk that there will be more devastating floods that the country has to deal with.

Dealing with immigration is also the reason why eco towns are being pushed through. Any sane person would tell you that the more you build the greater the environmental damage and more people equal more environmental damage. Areas where eco towns are finding this out and Labour could suffer a backlash from even more people turning against them. People don’t want the countryside to be spoiled so that houses can be built. They want to be able to go for a walk in the countryside or just admire the views. You can’t do any of that when it is concreted over.

British countryside being destroyed

Thirty years from now the English countryside will be all but lost.

In Thirty years the landscape will be blotched with housing, while that which remains of open land will be riddled with fairways, paddocks and shimmering polythene.

The report by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England is based on a series of damaging trends.

Among them are a greatly expanded house-building programme, a huge growth of freight distribution, major expansion of airports and a decline in farming.

It says that traffic is growing faster on rural roads than in urban areas and that about 21 square miles of countryside, an area the size of Southampton, is lost to development every year.

Why is Labour making this worse? Anyone with even half a brain knows that more immigration=more housing=more of our countrside lost. Why is Labour doing nothing about the issue and just making things worse? Shouldn't we be stopping immigration so we can save what we have left of our countryside?

Why would we need to expand airports? Why can't the Labour government find ways to reduce air travel such as taxing aviation fuel like they tax other fuel? This would increase the cost of flying thus reducing demand thus reducing the need for bigger airports. This would then stop the countryside from being concreted over. Why hasn't Blair thought of this? If he actually cared for the environment he would do this but as we can see Blair just doesn't give a crap. In about two more years he can quit as prime minister and retire in a foreign country.

We can't wait much longer. Thirty years isn't that long of a time. We need to start doing things about it now. It is obvious that Labour doesn't care enough to do it.

Another problem that taxing aviation fuel would solve is fuel protests that are due to happen tomorrow. Campaigning group Fuel Lobby has already vowed to blockade every refinery in the country if the Government fails to cut petrol tax.

Why not cut petrol tax and make up the financial shortfall by taxing aviation fuel? This would solve both problems without losing the tax money which the country needs.