Yes, I surprised myself with that one too. But thanks to ConservativeHome, I am now aware of something the old organ player said that made sense:
“The alternative to expansion is not, as some occasionally seem to suppose, an England of quiet market towns linked only by steam trains puffing slowly and peacefully through green meadows. The alternative is slums, dangerous roads, old factories, cramped schools, stunted lives.”
Materialism is a dirty word, like “profit”, “ambition” and “wealth”. Aspiration, it seems, must only be expressed in altruistic terms within a framework of “social justice” – although as has been shown many times before, altruism is far more effective when delivered through private means, resourced ultimately by profit and private wealth.
Not having had the time to leaf through the Goldsmith-Gummer report, I am only going to comment on one some of the headlines points so far reported, such as the assertion that:
“… beyond a certain point – a point which the UK reached some time ago – ever increasing material gain can become not a gift but a burden. As people, it makes us less happy, and the environment upon which all of us, and our economy, depend is increasingly degraded by it.”
Sorry guys, you’re wrong. This sounds like the sort of socialist claptrap that Grauniad readers have been pushing for years in support of, first, state collectivism then, more recently, the (dominant) left wing brand of green politics. You seem to have fallen for it hook line and sinker and you’ve got an uphill task ahead of you to persuade the party to follow you, regardless of what David Cameron decides to take forward from the report.
Money can’t buy happiness, but it certainly helps with the instalments. People are more likely to be happy when they have financial security, when they can provide properly for their family, when they don’t have to scrimp and save in the last week of a long month and when they don’t dread the credit card bill’s arrival. We should never denigrate the desire to better oneself or the lot of your family and loved ones by disparaging references to “material gain” or worse, as so often, “greed”.
On the subject of the environmental impact of material gain, technology and the market hold the key to combating climate change (if it’s actually happening as a result of human activity), and holding back the economy will do little to generate the wealth that will be required to invest in green technology. It certainly won’t make much difference anyway unless China, India and the other new powerhouse economies are on board. (More relevant, of course, are the issues of energy security and self-sufficiency and general pollution reduction, concerns over which there is more consensus than man-made global warming.)
With this policy group John and Zac had a golden opportunity to demonstrate how we can take environmental interests forward using sound right-wing principles of choice, self help and trust in the people, rather than the tired old formula of statist do-as-we-say-it’s-for-the-children breast-beating eco-fascism.
In some instances, of course, they have come up with some good ideas – tax breaks for energy-efficient homes, for example, but then they go and spoil it.
For instance, let’s take a couple of examples so far highlighted (from the BBC):
The Quality of Life Group said it was “illogical” cars and trains were taxed more than flights, adding the UK should be a “world leader on green growth”.
Well, then , that sounds to me like an argument for taxing cars and trains less – reducing petrol duties, VAT and at last making fares from home to work deductible for tax, for example.
Cap on energy use by domestic appliances
Enforced how, and at what additional cost to the taxpayer? Surely if it’s going to cost the treasury anyway, then it’s easier to have a reduced rate of VAT on low energy appliances.
No further airport expansions for now
Rethink Heathrow’s proposed runway
No new runways at Gatwick or Stansted
This is based on the same flawed logic of reducing the parking provision in new housing and commercial developments. Unfortunately, what actually happens is people then either go elsewhere (in their cars) or clog up the existing areas with parking. In airport terms, once the London airports reach capacity, then more flights will be pushed to other airports outside the South East, meaning longer car journeys to reach them (particularly if it’s an early morning flight or you just don’t want to risk missing it by taking the train).
I’m sure I could go on, but without an Executive Summary (something Tim Montgomerie has noted with suspicion) , it’s going to take time to plough through the report. Until then, you could have a go at it yourself (pdf 3.37Mb).
