Labour has denounced me as ‘deeply misleading’ on its planning reform. I wish that were true | George Monbiot

R.A precedent is strange, and the failure to learn from it is confusing frankly. Kerr Starmer is delightfully rushing towards the Boris Johnson disaster that he had attached to himself in 2020. If he set out to the chances of his re -election, he could not do it better.

In 2020, Johnson promise England is a new new planning system, which claimed to enhance “economic growth”. He said he wanted to see 300,000 new homes every year. He sought “construction, construction, construction”, however Falsely claim That his plans were Nights frustrated himIt was used as a reduction for environmental protection. He was sweeping this protection away.

Initially, the response was silent. Those who sought to explain the problems of their proposals were ignored or rejected. But we can feel a slow wave of anger, as people began to realize that the remainder of our green and enjoyable land will be delivered on a dish of harsh companies.

In June 2021, in an election in the most conservative Party, the conservatives suffered from a massive conservative party Electoral shockLoss to the LIB Democrats. A large part of the cause, such as Conservative Party confessedIt was angry at the proposed assault on Johnson on the planning system.

In Parliament in the following week, the Minister of Shadow Environment at the time, Steve Reed, Argue The lack of popularity of the Conservative Party’s proposals “not because voters Nimbise, as ministers, love them somewhat in their description, but because the residents really want and deserve an opinion on how to develop their neighborhoods.” Why, Ask“Will the government do something unpopular with its voters, not to mention the rest of the voters?”

He said that the problem in building homes, “is not the planning process; it is developers who do not build homes as soon as I agree.” While nine out of 10 planning requests are approved, “more than 1.1 million homes have been built on the past decade.” He explained that the reason is “land services for lands. The developer gets approval to request to build new homes, but instead of construction, it is expected that land values ​​will rise so that they can sell them without setting a single brick.” there He wasAnd remainsA lot of certificate For this dispute.

Conservative Party She retreated in a feverishCancel the proposals that ignited the general anger. But their talisman has been broken – no longer seems unprecedable. Now Reed is the Minister of Environment, and he heads the government Infrastructure and infrastructure billWhich will strip the protection of wildlife, habitats, gardens and play, cancel the organization of the planning system and retreat from our democratic rights. The bill, as the government claims, will enhance economic growth and enable the construction of 300,000 new homes every year.

Kiir Starmer says he wants it.Building, child, building“I justified the bill By insisting That Nights and the bats impeded development, although this is still not true as it was when Johnson said. the government He confessed There is almost no evidence that nature protection prevents development. Starmer classified people who wanted an opinion on how to develop their neighborhoods as. “Time growth nimbys“,”BlockersAnd “fanatics.”

When I first wrote about the threat of the bill Wildlife and green placesDeputy Reed, Mary Craig, Minister of Nature, condemned my article in the name of “” “Deeply misleadingThere was no evidence.

Two days after the publication of its message, the Green Control Authority issued the Environmental Protection Office, Her special analysisWhich was very similar to the situation it provided: the draft law “will have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection … the rulings are a decline.” This was barely surprising: a wide range of Environmental scientistsGovernment Advisors And leadership Lawyers It has already came to The same conclusion. I asked Cregh to apologize, but I did not receive any response.

Partially in response to my article, the Red Administration held a press conference, and its purpose was to tell everyone that they had sinned. I asked the brilliant Guardian correspondent Helena Horton about a ruling on the draft law that allows developers to surround local habitats, gardens and play, as long as they were pushed to create an alternative ruling elsewhere. Doesn’t this mean that people will be denied reaching nature and green spaces, because the new judgment will not need to be in the same boycott? She was told: “This is not the intention of the bill.” But it continued, it’s impact From the bill? responsible I confess This is it. It does not matter what the government’s “intentions”: what matters is what the legislation says.

However, its intentions cannot be more clear. Starmer and Rashil Reeves say they want it. “clear“Rolling”, “demolitionAnd “Sweep Away” planning and laws of nature. Language violence tells us everything we need to know.

Just as my article, “The Misletened”, would pressure the government Declare Amending the draft law, and closing consultations to specialization Infrastructure projects In the decisive pre -application stage. This brings her closely with the Johnson 2020 disaster.

In the endeavor to justify the amendment, the government was martyred with a support Lobby Britain called for reshaping. It turns out to run a former private Advisors To Johnson and Les Tars, and the first Chief of research At the Adam Smith Institute, it is very mysterious Noolbair Junktank. He calls himselfAn independent popular organization“, Which always prevents alarm bells. Especially when it also tells us that” Britain is currently unable to accept funding at the base level. “

It asked Britain to reshape how it could call itself a “popular” organization, which it funds, what is its budget, and whether it has a plate and who sits on it. He sent me a coherent answer that only takes one of these questions: “All our current financiers are listed online.” But its website is only called two, while it is mentioned that it receives “grants from a group of organizations”. I asked another three times, but I haven’t heard anymore. Not only that similar groups revolve around Johnson. In some cases, these are the same people.

The draft law may not cause any difference in the prospects of the Electoral Labor Party, such as Starmer, betraying one of the hope after another, and removing toxins from reform at the same time and Expanding the Labor PartyIt is likely that they have already given them. But if that’s not yet, this may be the final rupture. Ask again, what is playing?