Morality of the Green Belt
Moral Maze
BBC
4.5 • 609 Ratings
🗓️ 29 March 2017
⏱️ 57 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
When it comes to talking about home ownership in this country it quickly divides in to the "have's" and "have not's." According to the OECD fewer than half of low to middle income families are now able to afford to buy a house and some campaigners estimate that, by 2020, families earning the National Living Wage would be unable to afford to buy homes in 98 per cent of the country. The answer, according to many, is radical deregulation of the planning laws and building on the greenbelt. 8 million new family homes could be built if just 2% of the greenbelt was handed over to developers. To those threatened with the prospect of bulldozers arriving in a field near their home, it will mean urban sprawl and the destruction of large swathes of natural countryside so that builders can make a quick profit. Economists argue that when the greenbelt was created in 1955 it arbitrarily distorted the market for building land. But the current housing crisis is about moral issues too and in such a polarising debate it's vital that we're able to identify them to get the root of the issue. How do we draw the line between legitimate self-interest and Luddite nimbyism? People talk a lot about inter-generational justice, but do we have an absolute moral duty to provide for the next generation whatever the cost? How do we choose between conflicting moral goods? We all love a beautiful pastoral scene, but does the physical landscape have a moral value beyond how it can be used in the service of mankind? Obviously, having somewhere to live is a fundamental need, but is home ownership a moral good and even a human right? Panellists George Buskell, Poppy Cleary, Maddie Groeger-Wilson and Jane Fidge.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | You're listening to a program from BBC Radio 4. |
| 0:10.0 | Good evening. And welcome to a very different moral maze, not live from our Bear Pit |
| 0:14.9 | Pit Studio and Broadcasting House, but recorded at Queen Elizabeth Grammar School at |
| 0:18.7 | Favisham in Kent, and not just doing the programme in front of pupils and staff of this and the Abbey School next door, |
| 0:26.4 | but we're actually replacing our regular panel with four six-formers. |
| 0:31.4 | Why here? |
| 0:32.4 | Well, Tom Fin Kelsey is head of social sciences at the school. |
| 0:35.7 | What part does the Mor maze program play in the |
| 0:38.6 | school curriculum? Well, it plays a part in a number of our subjects. As a politics teacher, |
| 0:43.3 | particularly I tend to use clips in the moral maze quite often in my lessons, particularly |
| 0:47.1 | when unpacking things like ideologies. The way A levels work, they have to learn certain |
| 0:51.8 | material for the exam, but it's another to bring it to life. |
| 0:54.3 | And I think one of the wonderful things that the maze does is it brings to life real world issues, |
| 1:00.0 | but with that deeper philosophical, ideological kind of strand running underneath. |
| 1:04.8 | And I think students really learn from that well, and I think it really enriches the curriculum. |
| 1:08.7 | Is it more than just illuminating the issues that you're dealing with academically as well? Is there something also about the nature of argument? Oh, I think so. I think it creates better people. And actually one of our jobs is to get this lot through exams and obviously that's a rather big focus at this time of year, but actually just as bigger job is to help them become rounded adults who are going to go and live in the real world and bump up against people they disagree with and have to find ways of reconciling and dealing with that. So all of that aspect of this kind of thing is a wonderful experience for them to have. We haven't pensioned off our regular panel, or at least not yet. They've been here mentoring the students who'll take their places |
| 1:44.7 | tonight. Let's just eavesdrop on Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas, Amber Kellevoy of |
| 1:49.6 | The Economist, the priest, Giles Fraser, and Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA. |
| 1:56.1 | Before we start, just one tactical thing. One of the things that you have to do in the program |
| 2:00.5 | is decide what you want the dividing line to be. |
| 2:03.6 | So I think what we want to get to here is the broader principle of the balance between nature and human beings. |
| 2:08.6 | And that the Green Belt is a rule, and it may have its weaknesses, all rules have got weaknesses, but the issue here, the principled issue here is do we need rules which preserve nature or do we just say, well, actually, you know, kind of utilitarian basis or whatever's best for human beings will do. |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of BBC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.

