The UK Labour government, led by a former human rights lawyer, has now announced that it is going to ride roughshod over the human rights of anyone objecting to national infrastructure projects. The Guardian headline tells us that “Legal challenges to infrastructure plans to be blocked in Starmer growth push”. More specifically, the Prime Minister is quoted thus:
“For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth,” he said.
“We’re putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation.”
It’s interesting that he has never, to my knowledge, made similar comments regarding the multifarious and endless legal challenges to the proposed Cumbrian coal mine and to various attempts to produce oil or gas. The two tier Keir jibe has always seemed to me to be a little cheap, but perhaps not if he adopts a different stance to opposition to different types of infrastructure developments.
Given all those challenges to the coal mine and to oil and gas projects, this is eyebrow-raising, to say the least:
Government officials said the approach would ensure access to justice and protection against genuine issues of propriety, while pushing back against a “challenge culture” where small pressure groups used the courts to obstruct decisions taken in the national interest.
Nothing, it seems, is to get in the way of the government’s dash for growth, even if many of its policies (increasing employers’ national insurance, expensive energy policies) seem calculated to cripple any chance of the economy growing. So much is this the case, that airport expansion is now the thing. The Guardian, again, reports that:
Reeves will give her firm backing to the long-mooted plan to build a third runway at Heathrow, which is Britain’s busiest airport….along with bringing a second strip at Gatwick into full-time use and increasing the capacity of Luton, according to Bloomberg, which first reported the move.…
…The government trumpeted the expansion of Stansted airport at last October’s investment summit, when the prime minister welcomed a £1bn commitment from its owner, Manchester Airports Group, as a sign of getting “our economy moving … through the shock and awe of investment”.
Presumably all this has the backing of the Prime Minister. Despite the fact that:
In February 2020, Starmer tweeted “congratulations to the climate campaigners” when plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport were ruled illegal by the Court of Appeal after a judicial review.
“There is no more important challenge than the climate emergency. That is why I voted against Heathrow expansion,” he said then.
The operative word being “then”. Perhaps (and I reserve judgement, because he is so far playing his cards close to his chest about the possible Heathrow expansion) things look different when you’re in government. Maybe the “climate emergency” (sic) isn’t quite so important after all. The Sir Flipflop jibe might have some merit too.
And that’s also true with regard to non-doms. Now we are told that “Rachel Reeves to soften non-dom tax changes to woo rich for growth push” despite the express provision in the Labour Party manifesto before the last general election that “We will abolish non-dom status once and for all…”. According to the Guardian:
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where she has been meeting business leaders and entrepreneurs, Reeves said: “We have been listening to the concerns that have been raised by the non-dom community.”
Non-doms are a community, are they? Who knew? It’s just a shame that the communities opposed to the destruction of their precious neighbourhoods by wind and solar farms that will drive up energy prices and reduce the UK’s energy security apparently aren’t worth listening to. There was a time when the Labour Party represented ordinary working people. The clue’s in the name.
Climate Scepticism 
Mark H, I have just one apparently minor quibble which, in reality, goes to the heart of the problem with the current Labour label/brand that you, in your final two sentences, highlight.
The clue was in the name, and the clue should still be in the name. However, as far as I can tell, the current Labour Party has, as you imply, little to do with “ordinary working people” but plenty to do with elite media/university/renewables types and their luxury beliefs. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It has been a notable feature of several iterations of the Greater Norwich Local Plan that they focus on carbon dioxide emissions on the one hand, and airport expansion on the other. This seems absurd to me, but in some minds it makes sense. I would say: what do you want? Growth, or carbon dioxide emissions reductions? You can only pick one. I never got around to responding to this contradiction in the consultation period.
Checking now, the schizophrenia still seems to be present in the final draft. Under transport:
Under employment:
That will be the post-carbon economy with the expanded airport.
https://www.gnlp.org.uk/adoption-strategy/5-strategy-including-policies
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
You forgot to mention the winter fuel payment duplicity. I’ll admit, this government scares me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I won’t resign over Heathrow expansion, Miliband insists
Energy Secretary is accused by green campaigners of ‘disappointing’ hypocrisy”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/23/i-wont-resign-over-heathrow-expansion-ed-miliband-insists/
Ed Miliband has refused to resign if the Government publicly backs a third runway at Heathrow, just days after he said the rise of net zero was “unstoppable……
LikeLike
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/rachel-reeves-efforts-to-win-business-confidence-analysis
...“It is of deep concern that the UK chancellor is making concessions to the super-rich at Davos, while the appeals of those struggling to afford the essentials back home are being ignored,” said Anna Marriott, the inequality policy lead at Oxfam.
Some economists are questioning whether ordering watchdog bosses to “tear down regulatory barriers”, without making significant changes to regulations, would even deliver the economic growth the chancellor wants to prioritise.
“She’s fiddling while Rome burns,” said David Blanchflower, a former Bank of England policymaker. “She looks like a deer in the headlights, lacking a coherent plan. She sounds like a Tory chancellor. Where is the alternative?”…
LikeLiked by 2 people
As for the government’s “laser-like focus on growth”:
“‘Costs just keep rising’ – jump in firms in trouble”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vmrpdrk4eo
And that’s before the national insurance changes come into force in April:
...Ric Traynor, executive chairman of Begbies Traynor, said the figures showed it was “clear that many distressed UK businesses are finding it almost impossible to navigate the challenges they face as we start 2025”.
“For many businesses which were already dealing with weak consumer confidence and higher borrowing costs, the increase in National Insurance contributions and the national minimum wage, announced at the last Budget, could be the last straw,” he added.
He said sectors like retail and hospitality could be impacted in particular because they typically “operate on razor-thin margins“.
Business are set to bear the brunt of tax rises coming into effect in April, with hikes in the National Insurance rate and a reduction to the threshold for employers.
Firms have warned the extra costs could impact UK economic growth – the government’s main goal – with employers expecting to have less cash to give pay rises and create new jobs.
Lloyds Bank, the UK’s biggest lender, released research this week suggesting business confidence had “waned further”, with cost rises for firms to slow activity this year.
“I fear 2025 could end up being a watershed moment where thousands of UK businesses ‘call time’ after struggling to survive for years,” Mr Traynor said….
LikeLike
Simon Jenkins is one of the few Guardian journalists (there are a few) who continues to earn my ongoing respect:
“Starmer wants the economy to grow, baby, grow. Woe betide the ‘blockers’ who get in his way
By sweeping aside everyone from local planners to defenders of the green belt, Labour is handing a gift to Reform UK”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/starmer-economy-nimbys-blockers-labour-growth
...Hardly had Trump ended his inaugural rant than Starmer launched another assault on his pet hates, “nimbys” and “blockers”. They join a burgeoning parade of his selected victims such as farmers, private schools, planning committees and any defender of the green belt or countryside. But with these latest scapegoats, he seems to be assembling a gallery of people to blame if growth fails to happen.
Like many a populist, Starmer has made large infrastructure projects his favourite toy….
…As for nimbys, Starmer is right that planning rules can stifle new building, but there is no case for his patent assumption that every planning application merits approval. Bad planning decisions can waste resources, destroy beauty and deny the importance of reusing old buildings. The appeal process should be shortened. One appeal, properly conducted, should be enough. But that should not mean insulting anyone objecting to a forest of wind turbines in their village or another Labour project for giant pylons in East Anglia.
Delays in planning, especially of grand infrastructure, are more because of central rather than local government. Whitehall is the imposer of many of the most onerous environmental surveys, “bat corridors” and impact assessments. The city of Leeds had to wait 11 months for the government to decide even whether it would decide on an expanded Leeds Bradford airport.
Now Angela Rayner, as secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, intends to go further. To punish local planning committees for their failure to do the government’s bidding, she is disbanding the majority of them in favour of larger units of local government, those of half a million people or more. These will be under a new breed of regional mayors, working to central targets.
North Yorkshire was stripped of all eight of its county, borough and district councils, which were combined into one authority. Hull is to be submerged into “Hull and East Yorkshire”. Mayors throughout history have been identified in the minds of voters with towns or cities, not territorial regions. Political accountability for compact cities is the essence of mayoralty in France, Germany, the US and elsewhere. English democracy is being eroded.
Rayner’s evisceration of English local government will disrupt and impoverish an already blighted sector of public life. Her department previously oversaw 15 years of unprecedented cuts in local services under the Conservatives. Day-to-day spending was slashed by a quarter to a third between 2010 and 2021. Youth clubs and old people’s services have vanished. Police stations, care homes, galleries and museums seem to close by the week.
No democracy should strip its villages and towns of control over their environs. Planning has been the last area in which local people – combined in an identified town or “district” – have enjoyed some genuine discretion over the character of where they live. They have been able to conserve what they want to conserve, welcome what they want to welcome. This freedom has been crucial in retaining a sense of contrast between rural and urban areas, even in so crowded a country as Britain. I am sure even Trump would not mess in this way with the map of US democracy….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark H, after commenting above on the current state of the Labour Party compared to its traditional policy goals, I re-read an article [Ref. 1] by John Gray from 30 years ago about the state of the Tory Party at that time – remarks that still resonate all these years later, as a few quotes will illustrate:-
“It is difficult to see how in any near future the Conservatives can recover from the unintended consequences of a neo-liberal project that has hollowed out legitimacy from many British institutions and fractured and dislocated their party machine.”
“… it is now wholly unclear what, if anything, British conservatism can realistically or coherently set itself to conserve.”
“The enduring human needs which conservative philosophy once acknowledged are not now addressed by conservatives …”
With both the Labour and Tory parties (i.e. the two wings of the uniparty) in profound disarray, it is no wonder that British politics and British society in general reeks of dysfunction and decay – although the Establishment seems to protect itself most effectively as it staggers from one long-running crisis to the next. The stage is, in principle, set for a Phoenix-like rebirth … or for further decline. [But, I fear, based upon recent experience, it will not be, in that awful phrase, “managed decline”, but rather a “wilful, directed decline” as our neo-colonialist leaders strut upon the world stage claiming, for example, climate leadership for Britain … whatever the cost.]
Reference 1. ‘The Strange Death of Tory England’ in “Grey’s Anatomy”, Penguin, new ed., 2016, pages 161 – 171.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You may recall that I have always been sceptical of the concept of universal human rights. In essence, that which a government gives, another government can take away. So, we have a human rights’ lawyer, whose major successes were in cases that sought to prevent deportation of killers and thugs to their “dangerous” countries of origin. He became prime minister as a result of detailed gaming of the system – where necessary getting the female pensioner vote about the WASPI issue, at other times assuring pensioners about the cost of fuel in winter, at other times out flanking the Greens by backing protests against runways and building on toad pastures, at other times promising to rid this country of wealthy non Doms.
It wwould take a heart of stone not to laugh at his disconfiture now that the bills are coming in. He needs growth to cover the costs of his spending plans but the wealthy non Doms are fleeing and the tax rises are throttling the country. He needs to build infrastructure to enable growth but this will let the Greens infiltrate back into the constituencies he hollowed out. He needs to reign back on human rights in order to get things built.
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the position he and MacSweeney have backed themselves and US into. I enjoy watching these idiots squirm but the effects of their stupidity, dishonesty and ineptitude are horrific. And we all suffer. I hope Starmer ends up rotting in a prison somewhere
LikeLike
MIAB, I don’t go so far as to hope that Starmer ends up rotting in a prison, but I share your pleasure at his discomfiture. It’s just over 6 months since his government came to power, and the shambles, incompetence, back-tracking, and general cluelessness are truly terrifying.
Perhaps it’s something to do with getting older, but as each Prime Minister succeeds the last, I find myself thinking that we must have hit rock bottom by now, only to concede shortly afterwards that it just keeps getting worse. I used to think that David Cameron would go down in history as the UK’s worst Prime Minister ever, but each of his successors seems determined to go lower and to be worse. Desperate times.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If only there were people in the UK who did not think of politics as a game to make themselves wealthy. However, would the UK public vote for a Millei?
LikeLike
MIAB,
I would vote for anyone who just offered basic competence, especially if combined with honesty and integrity!
LikeLike
John C, we live in interesting (albeit profoundly depressing) times. A Uniparty, comprising Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and Greens, with the Lib Dems and Greens providing the fanatical branches of the Uniparty, and the Labour and Tory parties offering complacency, incompetence and more of the same. I’d like to think Farage and Reform might offer an alternative, and while they’re sound on Net Zero, I have no enthusiasm for them generally.
I voted SDP at the last general election. A wasted vote, perhaps; definitely an act of self-indulgence, but I feel I voted with my conscience. A vote for pretty much any of the others, and I’m not sure I could have looked at myself in the mirror.
LikeLike
“Planning bill ‘throws environmental protection to the wind’, say UK nature chiefs
Heads of 32 charities warn proposals could push species towards extinction and lead to irreversible habitat loss”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/09/planning-bill-throws-environmental-protection-to-wind-uk-nature-chiefs
The heads of 32 UK nature organisations have written to the government warning that the planning bill “throws environmental protection to the wind”.
The planning and infrastructure bill, which is at committee stage in parliament, aims to streamline regulations for developers so they can speed up their projects.
Nature bosses have written to the environment and housing secretaries warning that the bill is “one-sided” and could allow developers to ignore environmental protections.
The bill includes measures such as removing guidance around conducting bat surveys before building a structure, for example.
Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “The government is right that a win-win is possible for nature and development, but the planning bill is completely one-sided. It throws environmental protection to the wind, with little to offer future generations or communities fearful for the future of nature.
“It would leave vulnerable species and irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams and ancient woodlands more exposed than ever to unsustainable development. Promises of nature recovery efforts in return are thin and uncertain.”…
…Beccy Speight, the RSPB chief executive, said: “We were promised legislation that would deliver a win-win for nature and economic growth, but by stripping out essential protections for nature this bill offers neither. Unamended, it will supercharge the decline of our most precious habitats and wildlife.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Win-win” in development is possible, but it isn’t rational to make it a condition. The point about an approved development should be that we value the development more than the damage it causes so on net it is socially agreeable. By trying to turn this equation into win-win, the development usually gets turned into a pretzel, and even then the biodiversity claims are exaggerations or mere numbers on spreadsheets.
That’s the same Beccy Speight who’s in favour of wind farms.
I haven’t read the proposed legislation yet, but must do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Labour has denounced me as ‘deeply misleading’ on its planning reform. I wish that were true
George Monbiot
Even it now admits that brick by brick, these proposals will wreck habitats. This could be Starmer’s most damaging mistake”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/15/labour-planning-reform-government-proposals-habitats-keir-starmer
For once I agree with George. But what a pity he doesn’t make the connection with the environmental destruction associated with wind farms, solar farms, BESS, and other energy infrastructure associated with it, such as mega-pylons, all of which – unless I misunderstand him – a re developments of which he approves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Planning bill will ‘push public towards Reform’: Labour’s Chris Hinchliff on standing up for nature
MP says draft law will let developers ‘pay cash to trash’ habitats and urges colleagues to back his amendments”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/17/planning-bill-will-push-public-towards-reform-labour-chris-hinchliff-nature
An interesting read. However, as with the Monbiot piece, it’s all about house-building. There is never any recognition that this applies very much to the drive to construct more and more wind and solar farms, pylons, BESS and all the rest of the paraphernalia associated with “de-carbonising” the grid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Mark. I haven’t read the bill yet, but should do so.
LikeLike
“Wage war on nature to build new homes: that’s Labour’s offer, but it’s a con trick
The government’s new planning bill is tearing down environmental protections to benefit developers. This nation of nature lovers won’t stand for it”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/16/labour-england-nature-housing-planning-bill
...The planning and infrastructure bill being rammed through parliament is a full-spectrum assault on nature protection, the worst in England in living memory. It was rushed out, without consultation or evidence, under an “urgent measures” procedure, a device usually reserved for a defence or public health emergency. In other words, the government has used another Trumpian gambit to get its way: emergency powers.
The bill will enable developers to bulldoze precious wild places, as long as they pay into a fund that may create alternative habitats or green spaces somewhere else. Irreplaceble ecosystems will be sold for cash. This outrageous measure is even worse than it first appears: a closer reading of the bill shows that the money could be diverted into any form of government spending, from prisons to debt repayments. Alternatively, the payments could be used by Natural England to fund its administration and operations. You don’t need to be clairvoyant to see how that develops: as its funding is steadily privatised, the regulator comes to depend on developers for its survival.
And it gets worse still. Clause 90 enables governments to use “Henry VIII powers” to change any act or law to meet the objectives of the bill without full parliamentary debate: another “emergency” measure that could threaten any remaining protections. Reform UK must be licking its lips….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Silly flippancy around the thread title…..
Two wrongs can’t make a right, but….
Two (W)rights can make an aircraft 🙂
LikeLike
Good old George, he likes to throw in “Trumpian & Trump” to bolster his case.
But if this is correct – “Clause 90 enables governments to use “Henry VIII powers” to change any act or law to meet the objectives of the bill without full parliamentary debate“
It’s a new one to me & why has it never been used before?
LikeLike