There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the non-reappointment of Baroness Morgan to Ofsted. Once a political party is in power then it is likely, and well-advised, to appoint like-thinking people to positions of power and influence. They need to be hard-working and able people, and people with other qualities than simply ‘one of us’, but it would be a little odd to appoint someone to such a position who wasn’t more or less signed up to government policies.
If a political party has an agenda – and I rather hope that each does – then it should be pursuing that agenda with vigour once in power. That is, provided it has been honest and open about its agenda in the run-up to being elected.
That’s why this blog encourages you to ask politicians about what they think and believe. Once they are elected it’s usually too late. And it is us, you and me, who do the electing – provided you don’t opt out completely.
I’m more worried that the political parties might enter the next general election without their own clear agendas than that they will pursue them with enthusiasm and vigour.
What would be the environmental things that you would like politicians to do to gain your vote in the next UK election?
Set out your ideas here and then use the ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ buttons to express your preferences.
[registration_form]
A clear understanding that our environment is not a separate entity to the rest of government business, but it is integral to it all. We need to move away from current government thinking that the ‘environment’ is something that is costly and just gets in the way of business and a growing economy.
The flip side is that we have to put up a strong argument to ensure the environment is indeed a high priority. To do that though I think we need to work collaboratively with other areas including health, social and business sectors – maximising positive environmental change.
Pete – I suppose the question is how do we achieve that integration of environmental thinking through the whole of government? You suggest that collaboration is one route – and it certainly is. It does, however, require two (or more) to collaborate and that might be the problem. the environment doesn’t have that many champions in the government departments whose job it is to champion the environment, let alone those departments who see there job as being something else entirely.
Thanks for your comment.
Well said Mark. But I’m not sure that I fully agree with you. As you know, I am someone who doesn’t always agree with you (eg our disagreement with each other in your blog of 26th July 2012 regarding the importance of chick productivity for breeding waders). To my mind, the first qualification for heads of quangos is that those appointed should have exceptionally good sense and good judgement.
I guess that someone like you who is intensely political tends to think that all others make decisions for reasons that are primarily political. But that is not always the case. For example it was the last Labour Govt that set up our farmer-owned, farmer-managed Elmley National Nature Reserve. And it was your Labour Party that gave me my gong. And to be honest, I am unlikely to vote for your Labour Party at a general election.
I hear on the news this morning that Lord Smith as chairman of the Environment Agency has written a lengthy article in today’s Daily Telegraph. Even I can remember that he used to be a very influential Cabinet Minister in the Labour Govt, so I doubt that he is too likely to follow the current Govt’s line as the head of a quango.
Coming on to your question (eventually!), the one thing that I would like politicians (and Defra/NE) to do for the environment is to take decisions that are based on creating pragmatic, really practical environmental outcomes rather than at the moment creating agri-environment prescriptions for breeding waders that are politically correct but biologically perverse. This is the unhelpful effect that media and political influence has on real environmental outcomes.
Philip – you misrepresent my views here – perhaps because you misunderstand them.
First, I’d rather say that I am ‘intensely environmental’ and that leads me into being interested in politics because political power has a huge influence on wildlife and the environment (ask any badger). I didn’t say that political allegiance should be the primary means of choosing people for important roles what I wrote was ‘it would be a little odd to appoint someone to such a position who wasn’t more or less signed up to government policies’. That’s all i wrote – you seem to have read something else into it. that’s rather political of you, perhaps?
As far as Lord (Chris) Smith is concerned I’m not sure what your point is. He was appointed to his role as Chair of Ea by a LAbour Government and reappointed by Caroline Spelman in 2011 soon after the general election. he will come to the end of his term in July this year. maybe you are thinking of standing as EA Chair, Philip? Go on, throw your hat into the ring! If you did you might find out that the term ‘quango’ is now rather mis-applied as there is little ‘a’, let alone ‘qu’ ‘a’ in the way that EA or EN run these days. They are delivery bodies of Defra.
As to your wish – would you like to define those environmental outcomes for which you yearn?
Is it in fact harder to get into prison than into the Lords?
Some manage both !
A commitment to take nature conservation seriously and restore Natural England’s independence from Defra would be essential. I understand that the organisation only survived at all because it was realised that the Wildlife & Countryside Act/CRoW Act had to be serviced by somebody. Adequate funding for this beleaguered organisation is essential and it’s peanuts compared with government spending elsewhere.
Diana – welcome and thank you.
& what a mess they’ve made of that so far. As they were the Govt. they (including beleaguered local staff) didn’t bother adhering to EU Habitats Regs. by undertaking an Appropriate Assessment (created a new tool instead to get round compliance). Nor did they consult with local expertise and knowledge as promised and published in Senior Director’s correspondence. All part of the drive to cut red tape &c. Walshaw Moor is another example of loss of vertebrae &c.
I would like there to be a fundamental understanding that, whilst only humans are involved in the voting system, whole populations of other species are often negatively effected by the decisions of politicians AND that there are moral ethical and environmental obligations to ensure that decisions made for the benefit of humans, are not critically harmful to those species or to the planet we cohabit with them.
John – I’d like that too. How should we persuade everybody else, do you think?
Its the debate that is being played out before our very eyes right now:
On the one side, single purpose land use driven by the assumption humans can dominate nature and that maximising profit from a single product is the goal;
On the other hand, outcome led, often multi-purpose management that goes with the ecological flow.
The sectoral approach – especially farming, but with conservation forestry, urban and others tending to follow – is epitomised by traditional flood control where heavy engineering has been the immediate and obvious answer.
The outcome led, multi-purpose approach with an unlikely champion in Owen Paterson – is epitomised by the current debate on alternative ways of dealing with flooding – which may well include elements of the old, engineering, approach – but would combine with slowing the flow, holding water to a plan rather than chance, removing drainage that speeds the flow and re3storing habitat like bogs.
It is a vital debate: on flooding alone, the Foresight project estimated a maximum annual bill of £40 billion per annum, whilst the 2007 summer flood cost the country as much as the whole of that year’s agricultural subsidies.
Ok Mark, I take your point. Sorry if I misrepresented you. I guess I was led to my conclusion on your interest in politics by the many number of times that you have said on your blog that you are a paid up member of the Labour Party.
No fear. I will leave the EA job to those who enjoy that sort of thing – a former politician perhaps? My interest is with the application of practical action that results in a better future for wildlife on the ground.
To answer your third question, what I would most like to see is a better future for breeding waders especially lapwing and other farmland birds. Hence my wish for more biologically valid Defre/NE agri-environment prescriptions for breeding lapwing. Prescriptions that take due regard for the crucial importance of the negative effects of breeding failure ie the current lack of chick productivity on many if not most most breeding lapwing sites. And for AES prescriptions that do something about that truly tragic conservation situation.
Philip – fair enough, thanks.
I’d agree with you, broadly, in wanting better agri-environment schemes that deliver better for a range of wildlife. i wonder who will give us that – or at least promise it? of course, these schemes would have to work for a wide range of species – not just lapwing.
Well, it will be the EA’s loss, of course. And at £60kpa for 3 days a week it’s quite a nice little earner isn’t it?
Maybe I over-mention my membership of the Labour Party (a frustrating party for anyone passionately interested in wildlife and the countryside), but if so it’s because I wouldn’t want anyone to imagine that this blog is attempting complete political neutrality. Although the interesting test of that will be, after May 2015, when the Labour Party sweeps into power, how hard a time will I give them for their manifold sins and wickedness? We’ll have to see, won’t we! I look forward to it.
I want a gubmint that will not indulge in ganderflanking with more environmental legislation to give the impression that it is doing something until the mechanism and funding is in place to enforce those instruments that already exist then we might actually get something done about the issues which are the subject of interminable discussion on blogs which achieve nothing but if monetised would be equivalent to the economy and elecatricity consumption of a small Baltic state.
And one which never utters “hardworking” again
‘ganderflanking’
I must admit to having to look it up on google…what an excellent word.
I spent today day offline with no Google it was Hell
I would like the political parties to take notice of science and the experienced naturalists when it comes to decision making about our Environment and the Wildlife that live there, instead of taking notice of Commerce. Commercial “planners” destroy Bio-diversity and replace with lawns and trees and claim that they are doing great things for us and wildlife. That kind of policy was used in the 1920s and thirties or before. The planners have not improved since.
I would like a Government that both believes and practices the following across all departments:
1. Evidence led policy.
2. The precautionary principle.
3. The immediate sacking of any Minister who declares themselves to be an ‘expert’ in a subject relevant to their department.
It’s not much to ask is it?
Not much to ask, certainly not, but …. will any of them sign up particularly if I ask that we add in open, transparent and accountable please to EM’s list.
The mainstream parties are hopelessly behind on the science of just about every serious issue facing us in terms of the environment. To expect anything different from them than that which we’ve seen before is much more than wishful thinking.
Doing the same thing yet expecting a different result is the definition of stupidity according to Einstein. And he wasn’t daft.
Vote Labour, Liberal or Conservative. No real difference.
Mark, why Labour? They’re now just another party of free-market capitalism and have lost any sense of social responsibility that they used to have. The real labour party was stolen from us by charlatans like Mandelson and Blair in their obscene rush to follow Thatcher’s agenda, and they’re often more right wing than the Tories now. The Iraq War alone is enough reason never to vote for them again.
Steve – for once, you have a point. Who do you suggest I/we do vote for then?
PS and why?
For once?
No need to get cheeky.
We need to change our lifestyle, not who we vote for. That’s how we make a difference.
And yes. I have. Massively.
So, why Labour? How are they going to improve the environment for us?
Steve – you haven’t suggested for whom I/we should vote.
My choice appears to be between Labour, LibDem and Green – and I have voted for all three of them at various times, in different elections and in different places where I have had the vote.
As you will have gathered, if you read these posts regularly, I wonder what Labour has to offer on the environment and a rural agenda too.
In the last Labour government we did get the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (which did a good job for both access and Sites of Scientific Interest), the Climate Change Act (a world-leading response to the dangers of climate change) and the Marine Act (setting the scene for real protection of marine wildlife). That’s not a bad record considering Labour so often doesn’t appear to have a clue on these issues. All three areas have withered under this coalition government. But I don’t see a great deal of hope for future impressive initiatives although I will keep on arguing within the Labour Party and outside it in the hope that we might see some progress.
For whom would you recommend I vote?
I would recommend not voting but changing your lifestyle instead. That will have more of an impact. I thought I had made that clear.
But vote Green if you must – at least they have green policies and are taking climate change seriously.
A world leading response to climate change from Labour? You are totally deluded. Look at what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
And that illegal war with untold dead. They should be in jail.
Steve – you weren’t clear. I have changed my lifestyle. You are suggesting I don’t try to change the political climate too. That’s a bit defeatist. Your solution to slavery would, I presume, have been not to own a slave yourself? If you really don’t vote then you are opting out of trying to make a big difference. having said that, it’s not easy to chose a political party one can trust to make a difference.
Mark,
You need to look at what has happened. How did Labour actually combat climate change? What effect did their policies actually have on emissions? By supporting them you are contributing to and giving validity to an approach that has been effectively wilfully negligent in terms of climate change.
I am not opting out of making a difference by not voting. I have made the biggest differences that I can possibly make already. Voting for a major party will add to the problems we are facing as they are not seriously addressing any of them and I am not willing to be party to that or many other socially irresponsible policies held by ALL major parties.
Change will happen through changing attitudes of people and the politicians will then follow what is happening, as always. Change our lifestyles and spread the message to others by personal example. That’s the way real change happens.
Change is happening but it’s slow and independent of the political process. Whether we will grasp the nettle and make the changes we need to make as individuals, nations, societies and a planet in good time, is the million dollar question that scientists are asking
Steve – interesting, although I don’t fully agree. I do agree about changing lifestyles and I’ve done quite a bit of that (a man came round to fix (I hope) the solar panels on the roof a few days ago. But I can’t choose green energy unless the economic and political climate favour it. We need political change too – not instead. whereas you advocate not voting – i can’t agree with that. It hardly costs an arm or a leg – even though it sometimes feels like a quixotic gesture. We get the politicians we deserve – let’s get good ones (and some of them are already).
The Climate Change Act committed the UK to drastic emissions reductions. they will not be possible by people like you (and me) reducing their carbon emissions alone. We need to influence (in fact, dramatically change) industry, farming, alnd use, transport etc. That means politics.
But good luck to you in what you are doing. I feel you are not giving it your all unless you try to change the system too.
Mark – sorry to be late to this. Here are some ideas. Licencing grouse moors and other shooting, vicarious liability and withdrawal of said licence and firearms licence for anyone convicted of wildlife crime, commitment to recover HH and other BoP populations & specific commitments to show they meant business, specific measures to improve legal protection of trees & woodland, greater restrictions on inappropriate tree planting esp non-native species outside formal gardens, (Env Impact Assessment would have to show nat regen had been properly considered as an alternative), support EU proposals to try to halt invasive non-natives (and control what invasive non-natives we export), ban the mechanical hedge trimmer, actually do something about climate change instead of blethering about extreme weather, looking ashen faced and hugging a bl***in’ husky…