The Guardian view on Labour targeting nature: the problem isn’t snails, but a broken housing model | Editorial
IIt started with gastropods. Last Tuesday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves told a conference of tech executives that she had stepped in to help a developer build around 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “snails… a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic…you can’t even see them.”
No one could ignore the direction in which the chancellor was heading. The snail in question, the little swirling ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of places and very sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves described it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged about fixing the problem – after a friendly developer called her. It’s a bad image for a Labor politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for cronies.
The project was given the green light a day before drought was declared in Sussex, which could give water companies cover to breach their licensing obligations – including measures to protect snails. Ms. Reeves won’t like to be compared to Liz Truss, but the analogy works. Three years ago, Ms Truss spoke out against an “anti-growth coalition” of environmentalists, lawyers and regulators who she said were blocking Britain’s path to prosperity. Ms. Reeves presents the problem in the same way: growth is the priority, nature the obstacle.
But the public disagrees. Luke Tryl of More in Common told a fringe meeting of a Conservative conference that most Britons cannot be categorized as “nimble” or “yimby”. They want to both: build and also protect the landscape. However, when asked whether wildlife should be protected even if it delayed or increased the cost of infrastructure, all groups of voters – including Labour, Conservatives and UK Reform – chose wildlife. Among the general public, 62% prioritize nature protection while 18% are in favor of construction at all costs.
The Treasury reportedly plans to scrap green rules by amending its Planning and Infrastructure Bill – abandoning the precautionary principle, reducing species protection and limiting legal challenges. The bill, currently before the Lords, already allows developers to circumvent environmental obligations by paying into a fund to offset damage elsewhere. Under his “environmental delivery plans”, ministers could drop environmental protections in exchange for vague promises of ecological improvement within 10 years.
Labor, significantly, is turning its back on the work of Dasgupta. This argues that nature is not a constraint on growth but its foundation, a form of capital on which the economy depends. Not only does Labor reject this view, it also deludes itself into claiming that house building will be accelerated by rejecting conservation concerns. The Wildlife Trusts points out that more than a million homes have already had planning permission since 2015, but remain unbuilt. The real obstacles to housing construction are lack of skills, land hoarding and slow deliveries. You have to sort them. It would seem easier to blame the snails.
Many young Labor voters are already tempted by the Green party, which combines environmentalism and left-wing economics. Now, by mocking environmental protections and cozying up to developers, the chancellor is giving these voters more reasons to jump ship. The problem is not the planning system. This is a broken, profit-driven housing model that banks land and starves supply. Removing natural protections will not allow 1.5 million homes to be built, but will simply destroy public and rural confidence.
