Liz Truss is facing a rural revolt against her plans to prioritise a “dash for economic growth” over nature protection and the environment.
Senior party figures, including ministers under Boris Johnson’s premiership and former Tory leader William Hague, have joined the National Trust, the RSPB, the Angling Trust and Wildlife Trusts in criticising what they see as environmental vandalism.
It follows concerns Truss is treating the leading nature charities as part of a so-called “anti-growth coalition” that she claims to be confronting.
On the one side, those who say that restrictions on what may be done where reduce growth. They’re clearly correct.
On the other side, those who say that the removl of restrictions might well improve growth – but the cost falls upon them, those directly affected by the loosening of restrictions.
Both are right of course.
But the growth has general effects right over all in the country. So, we shouldn’t not have it because of the disproportionate effects on a minority. It’s also true that not allowing the development has costs to those who are not allowed to develop their own property. Which is bad – those costs must be weighed against those who would prefer not the development.
We need a system of balancing all of these. Which, fortunately, we have. Remove the process from the political system and dump it with the markets. Those who demand no development can buy up the place and not develop it. Those who would develop get to do exactly the same.
Simples…..
Since the UK is facing an energy crisis, it’s obvious that the restrictions are too severe – says I who live in Oz.
So I’d argue that they need to be lifted at least until the environment is vandalised by frackers and nukes.
“Senior party figures, including ministers under Boris Johnson’s premiership and former Tory leader William Hague, have joined the National Trust, the RSPB, the Angling Trust and Wildlife Trusts in criticising what they see as environmental vandalism.”
One good thing about Truss is that its smoking out the fact that the majority of the Tories have no right to be in the party. They should be in the Lib Dems or Labour, they obviously share more in common with them than actual Conservatives. Why did they join the Tories in the first place?
The National Trust is in no position to preach about vandalism and how vocal is RSPB in opposing the avaian vandalism of wind farms?
However, only a simpleton meerkat would argue that the markets can sort it out: who’s going to buy Stonehenge? Because a dual carriageway on that section of the A303 is overdue.
Why did they join the Tories in the first place?
They wanted to get elected and didn’t fancy their chances with the real loons running labour.
So the leeches are objecting to reducing the amount of blood on which they gorge.
Truss’s job seems to pulling the Tories nuts out of the fire without touching the nuts.
“who’s going to buy Stonehenge?”
A group of people who collectively put their hands in their own pockets. They could put it in trust. They could do it nationally across the whole country. In Trust for the Nation.
@ jgh
+1
The key word being “own” before “pockets”.
However, only a simpleton meerkat would argue that the markets can sort it out: who’s going to buy Stonehenge?
Nigel Tufnel, of course.
Problem is, Tim, that whole thesis is based on monetary value. Which is a rejected concept these days. The popular idea is that giving things monetary value is immoral. Look at all the things they can’t value.
Trouble is, of course, that people think money’s a thing. Which it isn’t. It’s abstract. A tool to facilitate barter. It has no value itself. It’s value is what you can exchange it for.
So let’s try using it as abstract. You can’t buy love. Now look at opportunity cost. Look at all the things you could have been doing if you hadn’t gone looking for love. Worked instead? You can put a monetary value on what you would have earned. So, therefore you could give love a monetary value.
The problems with all these things that people say you can’t put a price on. Undeveloped land for instance. You can price. The problem being the people who want undeveloped land are unwilling to pay the price.
My dad taught me that there are three things you can’t buy with dollars: happiness; the love of a good woman; and the respect of your colleagues. “Of course,” he would add, “this is only true if we’re talking about Zimbabwean dollars.”
Money can’t buy you love…
… but it can get you pretty acceptable substitute!
(anon).
@Jim
One good thing about Truss is that its smoking out the fact that the majority of the Tories have no right to be in the party. They should be in the Lib Dems or Labour, they obviously share more in common with them than actual Conservatives. Why did they join the Tories in the first place?
Hear, hear. Brexit then 2019 election should hae seen a purge of woke, remainer, socialist fake Tory MPs. Instead CCHQ parachuted more of them into constituences
CCHQ & MPS are in a never ending war with realist party members, I left many years ago
Voting for years has been “Who is least worst”
Why did they join the Tories in the first place?
Left’s ‘march through the institutions’ prime example being ex PM May
I wonder how many of those who claim to speak for the rurs (rural people) actually reside in rural areas? The genuine, voiceless rurs probably don’t give a rat’s backside either way.
We need to protect the environment. There need.to be regulations. Otherwise someone could dump toxic chemicals nuclear waste or burn chemicals to their hearts content. There needs to be environmental laws to protect humans and animals.
How would you like it if someone dumped radioactive waste by your house or in your water supply.
Rules are needed.
What if someone blew up a nuclear power plant in northern Scotland or south east England?
Wazzer
What if someone blew up a nuclear power plant in northern Scotland or south east England?
Well, which is it?
Does pf stand for pumping furiously and I would not want anywhere to be destroyed by nuclear waste.