What they say when there is a general election only five months away, and when their constituent is clearly interested in wildlife conservation, 15 December 2014:
‘Like you I value the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives, and in my view the best way to defend them is to ensure that the obligations they apply are being discharged. That’s why we reviewed the way these Directives are implemented in England: we found that generally they are working well, but identified 28 measures that would make compliance simpler, 25 of which had already been implemented as of last summer.‘
What they say soon after they have been elected and playing to the anti-EU wing (and body?) of their party, November 2011:
‘We will make sure that gold-plating of EU rules on things like habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses.‘
and the same MP was worried about
‘the combined impact of the green policies adopted not just in Britain, but also by the European Union‘
and said
![M. Holland [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0), CC-BY-SA-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5) or CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](https://markavery.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/400px-George_Osborne_0437.jpg)
Yes, this MP, sending out the standard response crafted by Tory Central Office (I presume) last week claiming to ‘value’ the Nature Directives was indeed the MP for Tatton, and Chancellor of the Exchequor, one Gideon Osborne (majority, 14000+ votes).
Well, a remarkable turnaround based on the evidence of the review, or…? You decide.
[registration_form]
‘The Environment’ is also what floods people’s houses, runs them out of water in hot summers and it all impacts business – to the tune of £ billions through events like the July 2007 floods. Slashing protection for our best sites is all part of the depressing slide that will leave this country a nastier and poorer place to live. We can do better than this: combining environmental protection, increased resilience to climate change and increasing biodiversity is the real way ahead – cross the channel and you’ll find the Dutch, Germans and Belgians working together to re-model their rivers for resilience against flooding – with wildlife the gainer from less intensively managed environmental protection land.
Here’s a quote from Mark Cocker’s book, Claxton, Field Notes from a Small Planet, talking about the decline in song thrush numbers:
The thrush is typical. The British Trust for Ornithology discovered that half of them have gone in thirty years. Why are we so complacent about our loss of wildlife? What price should we put on the song thrush’s priceless song? How dare we not make that song a political issue? Yet I doubt the subject of regional wildlife extinction in Britain will even be mentioned at the forthcoming general election.
The date? 29 March 2004! Have we made any progress in ten years? You’re doing your best Mark, keep at ’em.
This government is a model for reductionist thinking, it’s always either business or environmental protection, when in fact the cost to business in the longer term for destroying the environment, is massive, from a financial perspective; add to this, that recent psychological studies have shown that, lack of access to high quality nature, is linked to stress, leading to more sick days for the working populous. Environmental protection isn’t standing in the way of business, it’s almost imperative for it and not forgetting the continuing survival of our species, on our finite planet.
Ah, but what government, or indeed political party, thinks in the ‘long term’? They cannot see, and are not interested in anything beyond the next election. I hope the electorate can, but on past experience I’m not too hopeful.
Short term thinking (generally in five year chunks), sadly Natural England reduced to establishment lap-dog (sympathies with grass roots staff), NGOs in general gagged through grant aid all helps to reduce any potential challenge.
Serious Parliamentary reform desperately needed, keep up the pressure Mark.
Osborne has been quoted in the past of complaining about ‘feathered obstacles’ to development. The logic of this way of thinking was followed when Medway Council approved the destruction of the Nightingale-rich Lodge Hill SSSI which if it goes through will herald the destruction of more SSSI’s in future. Or will Osborne with his new electioneering outlook step in and have the development rescinded?