Yes Mr. Porritt, this is the point

I used to think that those who describe the Coalition Government as ‘Maoist’ in its overall approach were just a little over the top. Now I’m not so sure. Even after one year in power, its continuing contempt for anything that worked before, and its readiness to get rid of things long before it’s got any idea what might take their place, are truly impressive.

Having identified a pedigree herd of sacred cows whilst still in opposition, it is now intent on slaughtering them just as speedily and bloodily as possible – before the usual cohort of special Cow Preservation Societies start to fight back.

From that perspective, therefore, one can’t help but be impressed that Ministers have now included the whole body of UK environmental legislation in their ‘red tape challenge’ – a crowd-sourcing, Big Society initiative to gauge levels of public enthusiasm for axing any regulations that are deemed to be most irksome to our wealth-creators.

That means 278 different environmental Laws under consideration, including the very foundations on which the UK’s legislative framework is built, such as the Clean Air Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Quite. After 13 years of ever more layers of regulation, largely created by you and your ilk, it is indeed necessary to stop, think, and work out which, if any, of these layers of regulation we actually need and which we\’d like to get rid of.

Sure, it\’s annoying to you to see your life\’s work undone, all those restrictions you managed to navigate through the bowels of the bureaucracy, but this is indeed the very point of considering all of these regulations.

To undo your life\’s work, if such can be shown to be mistaken. It\’s why the Sustainable Development Commission was abolished: because much of what you have been working for is indeed wrong and needs to be reversed.

And yes, I am enjoying seeing it happen and you squirm as it does.

5 thoughts on “Yes Mr. Porritt, this is the point”

  1. I used to think that those who describe Jonathan Porritt as ‘Progressive’ were correct. Now I’m not so sure. Even after suspending his claim to a baronetcy, his continuing contempt for anything that might work better, and his readiness to stop technological progress long before he has any idea what benefits they may achieve, are truly impressive.

  2. Yes, quite the reactionary isn’t he.

    Perhaps we should institute an annual Colonel Sibthorp Award, for the most reactionary ‘progressive’?

    Think of Sibthorp’s campaigns, and how they fit with the modern Greens:

    – opposed to modern forms of transport (Sibthorp railways, Greens cars & aeroplanes);

    – opposed to free trade (Sibthorp supported the Corn Laws, Greens campaign against ‘food miles’);

    – opposed to democracy (Sibthorp opposed the Reform Act, Greens love EU regulation).

  3. …..That means 278 different environmental Laws under consideration…..

    Is there anyone who can really read that sentence without feeling that we might have too much environmental legislation?

    ….Two Hundred & Seventy Eight….

  4. Whenever I read anything from Porritt I always filter it through the knowledge that he is a member of the Optimum Population trust. i.e. He wants to, at best, sterilise me and mine or, at worst, cull us.

    This helps me put anything he says in the proper perspective. That is, anything he’s for, I’m against.

    It is quite interesting to bing various of the great and good – Beddington for instance, or Nurse – and seek out their views on population control. It is sobering to reflect that the government’s Chief Scientific advisor wants us culled.

  5. Both the left and the right are misreading this. If regulations were seriously up for scrapping it would be being done. This is Whitehall’s cunning plan to avoid anything important being done, by encouraging the government to indulge itself in the trendy crowdsourcing that it believes in, while making it a fathomless consultation exercise which can be ignored.

    Remember Nick Clegg’s “Freedom Bill” website fiasco? What we eventually got in the Protection of Freedoms Bill (note the title does not any longer pledge to restor any), was actually a huge bureaucratic boondoggle, nailing down most of the gains of the state under Blair/Brown, cunningly making room for some more by creating empty order-making and regulatory structures, and only trimming away those few small items that had made big headlines in the papers or got HMG in trouble in Strasbourg.

Leave a Reply

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