 reacted with an imbecilic outburst to a government proposal to ease restrictions on housebuilding. To give you the potted version, the EU recently reinterpreted its Habitats Directive in a way that prevents farming and construction in many rural areas. In the Netherlands, that ruling led to a new farmers' party and upended the political system. Here, the rules are being applied even more heavy-handedly, so that 145,000 prospective homes are being blocked. The housing shortage in Britain is one of the two chief constraints (along with the inefficiency of the NHS) on economic growth. Quite rightly, ministers announced that they would disapply the EU rule and instead address the problem upstream (that word for once is apposite) by tightening restrictions on sewage and eliminating phosphates and nitrogen from waste water. The RSPB is of course free to argue that the balance should be drawn differently. But this is not what it did. Instead, it took to The Platform Formerly Known As Twitter and declared: 'LIARS! @RishiSunak @michaelgove @theresecoffey you said you wouldn't weaken environmental protections. And yet that's just what you are doing. You lie, and you lie, and you lie again. And we've had enough.' Naturally, this response riled Conservative MPs, who pointed out that the RSPB received more than £10 million in government grants last year. Why, they asked, was a Tory government funding an outfit that repaid it with juvenile insults? Why should an organisation whose members think their subs are funding conservation be devoting its resources to partisan campaigning? I echo such sentiments. I'm as blissful as the next fellow when I hear birdsong again after the August lull. But even if the R){kind=link}
Lobby groups, like the public, will never thank a party for subsidies – only criticise for not doing more to help them
Why does the government fund organisations which habitually bite the hand that feeds them?
It’s a good question. But here is a better question. Why does the government fund lobby groups at all? A row blew up last week when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) reacted with an imbecilic outburst to a government proposal to ease restrictions on housebuilding. To give you the potted version, the EU recently reinterpreted its Habitats Directive in a way that prevents farming and construction in many rural areas. In the Netherlands, that ruling led to a new farmers’ party and upended the political system. Here, the rules are being applied even more heavy-handedly, so that 145,000 prospective homes are being blocked.
The housing shortage in Britain is one of the two chief constraints (along with the inefficiency of the NHS) on economic growth. Quite rightly, ministers announced that they would disapply the EU rule and instead address the problem upstream (that word for once is apposite) by tightening restrictions on sewage and eliminating phosphates and nitrogen from waste water.
The RSPB is of course free to argue that the balance should be drawn differently. But this is not what it did. Instead, it took to The Platform Formerly Known As Twitter and declared: “LIARS! @RishiSunak @michaelgove @theresecoffey you said you wouldn’t weaken environmental protections. And yet that’s just what you are doing. You lie, and you lie, and you lie again. And we’ve had enough.”