Sunday, September 03, 2023
Those Tory lies
The RSPB may well have apologised for accusing Tory ministers of lying, saying that they should have focussed on the policies, not the individuals concerned, but the Guardian is not so quick to let the government off the hook.
The paper points out that at the time of publication,. RSPB England's tweet has been viewed by more than five million people. As the screen shot above shows, that is now in excess of ten million. They then look in some detail at the six lies the government has been accused of.
On the claim that in the 2019 Tory party manifesto you all pledged to deliver ‘the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth’, they point out that the quoted words were written by Boris Johnson in his manifesto introduction.
They add that his intro also likened Britain to a lion trapped in a cage and a super green supercar stuck in traffic, while promising at least two things that definitely are not happening: 40 new hospitals by 2030 and the banning of live animal exports. And he did not actually say “deliver” – he simply vowed to “get on with our work” of making Britain a place with that ambitious environmental programme. On the basis that 'ambitious' is a slippery word, they conclude that this was a naive scan of the former prime minister’s words.
On the claim that in his first speech as prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said he would deliver on this manifesto promise of protecting the environment, they say that this was one of a number of classically vague political slogans, alongside “a stronger NHS” and “better schools” and as such it is unprovable as a 'lie'.
On the claim that Rishi Sunak lied on 17 August 2022, when he said he was committed to protecting our environment for future generations, they argue that this was a specific commitment, implying that today’s environment will not be made worse by the government’s actions. They say that even taking a “net zero” approach to environmental damage, allowing some destruction to be offset by positive action, it is difficult to see how Sunak has delivered net “protection” over the past year, having issued new North Sea oil and gas licences, opposed low-traffic neighbourhood schemes, and fuelled an anti-environmental culture war in an attempt to win votes. In other words, this is a clear lie.
On the claim that Thérèse Coffey wrote to the OEP [Office for Environmental Protection] on 25 July 2023, and said she was clear in parliament about the government’s ‘commitment to uphold environmental protections’, the paper also concludes that this was a lie:
The policy U-turn that triggered the RSPB’s outburst was the government’s amendment to the levelling up bill ordering local authorities to ignore “nutrient neutrality” rules. These ensure new houses that potentially add nitrates and other pollutants to rivers are offset by developers funding nearby riverine improvements. In a letter to Coffey and Gove, Dame Glenys Stacey, the OEP chair, says: “The proposed changes would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression. Yet the government has not adequately explained how, alongside such weakening of environmental law, new policy measures will ensure it still meets its objectives for water quality and protected site condition.”
On the claim that Michael Gove, as environment secretary, pledged to ‘do all we can to protect our precious natural environment’, they say this is not a lie but it is difficult re-reading for Gove:
The words spoken by Gove immediately before that quote, delivered in 2019, were: “We know we must”. This classic political evasion has got him off the lie hook here. But given Gove’s record of launching potentially far-reaching environmental reforms as environment secretary for two years to July 2019 (before the re-election of this government), his recent undermining of environmental protections as housing secretary is puzzling. More than anyone else left in government, Gove “knows he must” do all he can to protect the environment – but isn’t doing so.
Finally, on the claim that Michael Gove spoke in July 2019 of how protecting the environment was a critical duty of government, the paper says this is more uncomfortable reading for Gove:
The RSPB is actually under-egging this lavish rhetoric. In this speech, Gove said: “And what more critical duty can government have than to protect our nation and, so far as we can, our planet from those forces that will deprive future generations of their birth right and leave them a world dirtier, more degraded and more divided?”
Once again, this is unlikely to be judged a lie if tested in a court of law but it reveals a government failing to live up to claims that protecting the environment is a genuine priority. Some might say such extravagant green rhetoric belongs to the previous Johnson administration but it is the same Conservative party in government, bearing the same responsibility to fulfil its 2019 manifesto.
For Gove, it appears to reveal a level of cognitive dissonance which the former minister Zac Goldsmith identified after resigning from government over its environmental failings. Gove “understands these issues”, said Goldsmith, adding: “I don’t think you can understand and care about the gravity of this issue, and at the same time, be willing to take your foot off the accelerator for political expediency. I just think that would require you to be a monster.”
The RSPB had nothing to apologise for.
On the claim that in his first speech as prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said he would deliver on this manifesto promise of protecting the environment, they say that this was one of a number of classically vague political slogans, alongside “a stronger NHS” and “better schools” and as such it is unprovable as a 'lie'.
On the claim that Rishi Sunak lied on 17 August 2022, when he said he was committed to protecting our environment for future generations, they argue that this was a specific commitment, implying that today’s environment will not be made worse by the government’s actions. They say that even taking a “net zero” approach to environmental damage, allowing some destruction to be offset by positive action, it is difficult to see how Sunak has delivered net “protection” over the past year, having issued new North Sea oil and gas licences, opposed low-traffic neighbourhood schemes, and fuelled an anti-environmental culture war in an attempt to win votes. In other words, this is a clear lie.
On the claim that Thérèse Coffey wrote to the OEP [Office for Environmental Protection] on 25 July 2023, and said she was clear in parliament about the government’s ‘commitment to uphold environmental protections’, the paper also concludes that this was a lie:
The policy U-turn that triggered the RSPB’s outburst was the government’s amendment to the levelling up bill ordering local authorities to ignore “nutrient neutrality” rules. These ensure new houses that potentially add nitrates and other pollutants to rivers are offset by developers funding nearby riverine improvements. In a letter to Coffey and Gove, Dame Glenys Stacey, the OEP chair, says: “The proposed changes would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression. Yet the government has not adequately explained how, alongside such weakening of environmental law, new policy measures will ensure it still meets its objectives for water quality and protected site condition.”
On the claim that Michael Gove, as environment secretary, pledged to ‘do all we can to protect our precious natural environment’, they say this is not a lie but it is difficult re-reading for Gove:
The words spoken by Gove immediately before that quote, delivered in 2019, were: “We know we must”. This classic political evasion has got him off the lie hook here. But given Gove’s record of launching potentially far-reaching environmental reforms as environment secretary for two years to July 2019 (before the re-election of this government), his recent undermining of environmental protections as housing secretary is puzzling. More than anyone else left in government, Gove “knows he must” do all he can to protect the environment – but isn’t doing so.
Finally, on the claim that Michael Gove spoke in July 2019 of how protecting the environment was a critical duty of government, the paper says this is more uncomfortable reading for Gove:
The RSPB is actually under-egging this lavish rhetoric. In this speech, Gove said: “And what more critical duty can government have than to protect our nation and, so far as we can, our planet from those forces that will deprive future generations of their birth right and leave them a world dirtier, more degraded and more divided?”
Once again, this is unlikely to be judged a lie if tested in a court of law but it reveals a government failing to live up to claims that protecting the environment is a genuine priority. Some might say such extravagant green rhetoric belongs to the previous Johnson administration but it is the same Conservative party in government, bearing the same responsibility to fulfil its 2019 manifesto.
For Gove, it appears to reveal a level of cognitive dissonance which the former minister Zac Goldsmith identified after resigning from government over its environmental failings. Gove “understands these issues”, said Goldsmith, adding: “I don’t think you can understand and care about the gravity of this issue, and at the same time, be willing to take your foot off the accelerator for political expediency. I just think that would require you to be a monster.”
The RSPB had nothing to apologise for.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
