Today Keir Starmer has been talking to people like me, carrying on the crusade to “back the builders, not the blockers” and I have to say I’m all for it.
As far as I can see, the NIMBYs I’m familiar with fall into two categories. The kind who see no benefit, and plenty of downside, to building, changing or growing things, and the kind who either will benefit a little or see no real impact on their lives, who get swept along with the idea that anything “they” want to do must be bad.
The former, of course, have usually done very well for themselves: their life, and the time they were born, has left them with their own home (including spare bedrooms, perhaps), a nice pension and plenty of free time at an age where they can apply themselves quite liberally to fighting the change.
It’s the logical thing to do: more houses, or a new industrial estate, power plant, electricity transmission tower or whatever, will only reduce house prices, take up already-stretched GP appointments and increase the cars also on the way to Sainsbury’s. That field they take the dog for a walk on every Sunday – it’ll be gone, and how can that be good for animals? It doesn’t sound good for the dog, and anyway – what would Jane Austen think?
Fighting the change, whatever it might be, is a challenge: finding the loopholes, standing up for the “little man” (or orchid) and – increasingly – using the legal system to do it. Judicial review. Enquiry. Investigation. Reports. Findings. Independent. Environmental restrictions. Expert advice. It’s all rather occupying and productive when you’ve got nothing to lose, and nothing to gain.
It’s understandable even if it’s not agreeable.
So while I can align my mind with why the chief NIMBYs might participate in such activities, it baffles me – and clearly also now the Government – that Parliament doesn’t seem to have the final say on development projects, even when it develops the balls to actually decide to do something “concrete”.
We currently have a democratically elected Government which, in its manifesto, stated it would back the builders not the blockers. It committed, and was elected on, a promise of increasing development and on encouraging growth. It is, therefore, the “will of the people” that the country gets building houses, power stations, grid upgrades, and – if it wants – runways.
Therefore it seems ludicrous to me that the Government might need to legislate to prevent courts, and judges, being used by anyone, to prevent the delivery of that manifesto pledge.
Whether the proposals are bad, good or indifferent are for the electorate to decide at the next election. Not for a judge.
Parliament isn’t a quango. Or the civil service. Or a local authority. It’s the sovereign parliament. As we were reminded, regularly.
So when Parliament makes a decision, it must be the final decision, and it seems to me that it’s only for Parliament to revoke.
Keir’s new limits on legal challenges aren’t wrong, but it feels so wrong that they’re needed.
