I live in east London and I don't take offence because I realise he is using the term ironically to characterise a certain snobbish element which sees any encroachment into the country by town/city dwellers as undesirable. We moved from the outskirts of London to a village in Suffolk when I was in my teens, and I recall several disparaging remarks suggesting that Londoners were a rather grubby and disreputable bunch of people whose city ways would spoil the rural idyll.
He is not suggesting building in London or any other parks. But there is a belief that not all green belt land is particularly useful or attractive. And when there is more land in Surrey devoted to golf courses than housing it seems to contradict the alarmist reports that the whole of the UK is covered in buildings. In fact, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment produced these results showing the percentage of land covered by buildings, roads, railways, canals and other man made structures:
10.6% England
1.9% Scotland
3.6% Northern Ireland
4.1% Wales
As for the rather dismissive tone re the LSE and the comments of Professor Paul Cheshire - in 2015 The London School of Economics and Political Science was ranked second in the world for social sciences for the third year in a row, according to the global university league table.
Wrong side driving social media stunt
Ann Droid, anyone watched this? BBC 1




