Refreshing British Democracy

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Globalisation and international treaties have tied the hands of government to represent the will of its people on one hand, and also the perception that government decisions are more influenced by corporate lobbies than the people they're supposed to represent.

 

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Globalisation has improved wealth equality globally  by allowing poorer parts of the world to sell into wealthier parts. It has largely gone off the rails since 2008, when disposable income stopped rising year on year and levelled off; now it's starting to go backwards because of pushback in wealthier nations where people are seeing their living standards drop

 

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

our own society collapses from distrust in our own institutions, which is why actual electoral reform is far and away the most important topic for the UK in terms of its survival as a civilised nation

Selected points here where I find most agreement LYB. Clear to me too that voters of Brexit also felt a disconnect and in many cases the vote in areas like the North East indicate how capitalism (global, big capitalism) was an indication of the same. I've read that the structural problems (can't think at the moment of a better encompassing term) were all there in the country pre Brexit too. And I believe that is the case because living and working as I have in Bradford district over decades has demonstrated to me how an area has lost its purpose. An identity. A meaning. Big things really. In fact the centre of Bradford now is such a sorry place. You can see a faded glory but I'm overwhelmed by the poverty and sadness. We (the UK) has been one of the first to industrialise but we now suffer not just because of a lack of imagination but also greed.

 Also I totally agreed with Wolf that democracy is ( more) local and capitalism is global. Meaning, identity, belonging can be found locally. Even if that is found in a community centre (or at the bottom of a pint glass at closing time!). I like his general solution too. And he knows there is no easy answer.

What I often wonder though, is why anybody would ever vote Tory! Their answers are always that the market will provide. And we've seen that markets favour the rich, the well off. They barely trickle down. That families have suffered is strongly evidenced. Surestart was beginning to help with childcare, education and health matters but guess who scrapped it!

We just get levelling up sh*t from Johnson. It boils my p155 to hear and read such vacuous and insincere stuff like that. The worst and most disingenuous policy I've ever known? Maybe.

Wolf also made a point about the quality of our government ministers in the last 20 years. He feels we have more of a culture of the celebrity and show business. Too many MPs don't know what they don't know! Not up to the brief of the complexity of running a nation.  Not up to the responsibility required. He promoted paying better as a means to get serious people in. Complexity needs folk to understand long term problems, on how to work in collaboration with others. And that brings into central view your points about the electoral system.

Let's face it, many politicians are of questionable or poor standard. And leaders keep putting them in positions of responsibility. Look at Hancock, Zahawi (were we ever fooled?), Raab, Patel, Dorries, Lee Anderson today (what an utter idiot). There was that idiot given the Education brief by Johnson who flicked a V sign. There are jokers like Johnson. Truss! Let's not go on. I have selected folk in today's administration but the Tories aren't the only party, just the worst one in my opinion.

What's the answer in our own little worlds? Dig your own garden (Voltaire), act locally (volunteer, help others), read and disengage with social media, enjoy walks and nature, listen to lots of music and enjoy lots of art. Of course we then have our families. Still, the idea of a hermit like existence in the Hebrides or west coast of Ireland does appeal greatly.

Rant over. Back to my books and perhaps daytime TV. The pleb in me needs my daily ether fix☺️

Edited February 9, 2023 by sonyc
Mobile doesn't help in seeing grammatical issues

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

Interesting piece from someone who left the Greens to join Corbyn's Labour, and has now returned to the Greens, specifically mentioning PR in there and noting the disconnect between the Labour membership and the leadership with regard to supporting electoral reform for the Commons.

https://bright-green.org/2023/01/21/after-six-years-in-labour-ive-now-re-joined-the-green-party/

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

The 2019 election was supposed to be my last vote in a UK election, as 2020 marked 15 years since I left the UK.

I hadn't noticed that my right to vote had been restored by the 2022 election act, so I will once more be able to vote in a UK election for the parliamentary representative for Norwich North.

I will exercise my right to vote on principle, but I must be honest that I'm unhappy that I'll be voting in a race to represent a constituency that is largely irrelevant to my life. This is yet another reason for reform for the Commons in my view. At the very least, there should be MPs dedicated to representing overseas voters.

Edited February 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

https://www.ft.com/content/5cfd7f86-9670-4e91-bcb4-8bbbc28359a3

Here's a good article underlining how Labour's self-interested attempts to brush internal calls for PR for Westminster under the carpet is hurting efforts to raise environmental concerns up the agenda.

[Creative Midfielder 2,004]

On 09/02/2023 at 15:36, sonyc said:

What's the answer in our own little worlds?

Perhaps to follow @littleyellowbirdie's approach and move to France?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

To what extent are the requirements of domestic politics and representation on the international stage different?

A train of thought I've had the last few days is that the representative needs of a country on the domestic plane does not relate that strongly to those on the international plane. Yes, there are consequence of the needs on the domestic plane to policy on the international plane, but there's a significant difference in the character of the two areas of governance to make an argument there should be different bodies for the respective competences due to conflicting demands.

I think the domestic area needs more pluracy, but the international plane does not lend itself to transparency, which does therefore make the argument for a 'back them or sack them' approach to this for international policy but possibly with a more pragmatic edge than an ideological one.

It's notable that both main parties clearly make all effort to pool their notes on the international debates, in contrast to the domestic ones.

Reading all of this through, I think I've accidentally reinvented a presidential system, where the presidency is limited to diplomacy, military and international trade.

The final thought that there's an argument to make presidents non-party affiliated and make it part of the role to be non-partisan with regard to domestic politics, although with the freedom to take positive stances on domestic issues.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

https://twitter.com/Rob_Kimbell/status/1672858411703357440

Looking at the latest polls, it looks like the Conservative vote is splitting off heavily to reform UK, which begs the question if the Conservatives will find it increasingly difficult to get a majority under FPTP and whether that will change their view on electoral reform.

Edited June 25, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,004]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://twitter.com/Rob_Kimbell/status/1672858411703357440

Looking at the latest polls, it looks like the Conservative vote is splitting off heavily to reform UK, which begs the question if the Conservatives will find it increasingly difficult to get a majority under FPTP and whether that will change their view on electoral reform.

Ummm, think it will take a lot to shift the Tories on that topic but who knows, if they take a real hammering in the next GE maybe it will.

Unfortunately, even if it does alter the Tories' view it will probably re-inforce Labour's resistance as they will be in power and with an even bigger incentive to keep the current completely unfair system as they will then be the sole benefactors of it.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://twitter.com/Rob_Kimbell/status/1672858411703357440

Looking at the latest polls, it looks like the Conservative vote is splitting off heavily to reform UK, which begs the question if the Conservatives will find it increasingly difficult to get a majority under FPTP and whether that will change their view on electoral reform.

But you yourself said that they know every decade they will be in Government again under the current system. You will not break the system until the voters demand it and considering only 60% of people bother to vote, apathy is the enemy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

 

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But you yourself said that they know every decade they will be in Government again under the current system. You will not break the system until the voters demand it and considering only 60% of people bother to vote, apathy is the enemy.

I did, but Reform UK's a new factor on the right that I wasn't factoring in. 10% is a big chunk to take, and it's clearly off of the Conservatives. Whereas UKIP complicated matters across the spectrum, Reform UK looks to be doing for the Cosnervatives exclusively, in a similar way to the way the Lib Dems and Greens have historically been more on Labour's turf than the Conservatives'.

30 years ago, people only really talked about Labour and the Conservatives, with a little bit of attention to the Lib Dems. Now it's Labour, the Conservatives, Greens, Lib Dems, Reform UK, SNP, Plaid Cymru. The political landscape is too fragmented for Westminster to sustain things without it doing further damage to the sense that the conversation in Westminster is not adequately representing the public as a whole.

Edited June 25, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,059]

I'd be a little hesitant with polls at this stage as when manifestoes are formed and when people come to vote, they will vote much more tactically under our current crappy models. I do not dispute that more parties are in the discussion when it comes to correlation with the political beliefs of individuals, but you'd basically be asking for a new party to take so many votes off one main party that they flip the seats.

What I suspect is more likely is a UKIP 2015 scenario where they get a lot of second (or maybe third) places but with a number of seats disproportionate to the number of votes they get. 

[Canary73 167]

The problem is the level of division within parties and the electorate, which increases the possibility of Independent candidates and new parties e.g. Reform, UKIP, English National party etc. which are basically BNP lite. Militant/far left supporters aren't getting a look in in Labour nor are centrist Conservatives. If you create parties to fill this void you dilute the vote further.

Add the issue of Brexit, Republic, Environmental issues, Parliamentary reform (including the Lords), devolution alongside the geographic and demographic disparities and you have a melting pot. That's without the reflecting on the Government's mishandling of Covid and its conduct when matters of compliance are brought to the fore. They have done everything in their power to gerrymander the voting system. They will probably get booted out and rightly so but I doubt parties will be putting in any clear policies and timescales on which they can be held to account in their manifestos which speaks volumes.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

I did, but Reform UK's a new factor on the right that I wasn't factoring in. 10% is a big chunk to take, and it's clearly off of the Conservatives. Whereas UKIP complicated matters across the spectrum, Reform UK looks to be doing for the Cosnervatives exclusively, in a similar way to the way the Lib Dems and Greens have historically been more on Labour's turf than the Conservatives'.

30 years ago, people only really talked about Labour and the Conservatives, with a little bit of attention to the Lib Dems. Now it's Labour, the Conservatives, Greens, Lib Dems, Reform UK, SNP, Plaid Cymru. The political landscape is too fragmented for Westminster to sustain things without it doing further damage to the sense that the conversation in Westminster is not adequately representing the public as a whole.

I don't really see the alternatives being able to put much of a dent in the two main parties at a GE. Indeed there may well be too many of them to make a difference. And despite the sound bytes, we all know full well that Labour and LibDems will be tactically tied to each other come 2024 and definitely will be with the 3 by elections coming up. Wounding the Tories is their only ambition right now.

Has Dorries waited to see what happens in these elections? Would it be really embarassing and fatally injuring to lose her seat to the LibDems?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I don't really see the alternatives being able to put much of a dent in the two main parties at a GE. Indeed there may well be too many of them to make a difference. And despite the sound bytes, we all know full well that Labour and LibDems will be tactically tied to each other come 2024 and definitely will be with the 3 by elections coming up. Wounding the Tories is their only ambition right now.

Has Dorries waited to see what happens in these elections? Would it be really embarassing and fatally injuring to lose her seat to the LibDems?

Dorries has missed the deadline for a by-election before the summer recess. In my opinion, she has held on to maximize the damage from by-elections. More negative headlines if they happen separately.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 09/02/2023 at 15:36, sonyc said:

 

What I often wonder though, is why anybody would ever vote Tory! Their answers are always that the market will provide. And we've seen that markets favour the rich, the well off. They barely trickle down. That families have suffered is strongly evidenced. Surestart was beginning to help with childcare, education and health matters but guess who scrapped it!

 

Still writing your usual ballox. Compare the standard of living in the UK in 1923 to the standard of living in the UK in 2023, and tell me how the markets haven't provided you with a very comfortable lifestyle with lots of possessions that your grandparents could only dream of. You're a lunatic. Quit smoking that stuff, it's turned your brain to mush.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Still writing your usual ballox. Compare the standard of living in the UK in 1923 to the standard of living in the UK in 2023, and tell me how the markets haven't provided you with a very comfortable lifestyle with lots of possessions that your grandparents could only dream of. You're a lunatic. Quit smoking that stuff, it's turned your brain to mush.

You are the one talking bollox. Until the early thirties the UK used the Gold Standard for a start.

Have you never considered that the success of Trade Unions, the end of Imperial dependence and the onslaught of technology that was fostered by WWII have not contributed to the growth of the UK in the 50s and 60s which led to the emergence of the market which was strengthened by Thatcher and Reagan as well as Glasnost in the 80s?

When the markets collapsed, who suffered the most? Did the markets suffer austerity as most people did? No, they got bailed out and now they are acting as if nothing happened and they are back to their selfish ways.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Refreshing English Democracy with a massive Tsunami washing everything away might be a good idea.

Today is dead Justice day, Mrs. Justice Thornton decided to dismiss the case of Dr. Andrew Boswell. It would mean that new roads and improvements to 4 road schemes are not required to account for the cumulative carbon impact this would create, a decision that agrees with the lies and ignorance of this and previous Governments that they are reducing the CO2 in our transport planning.

Now this wretched local and national Government can just ignore their own continuous lying and carry on with creating more pollution, whilst ignoring the needs for a reduction by shoving their irresponsible actions down the throat of our children  and the following generations.

What does Justice Thornton know about the impact thousands of scientists are warning us about, for decades now, what is her expertise in this field and why do our lying politicians deserve her support for wrong doing?

Please support Andrew Boswell's case which is going to appeal, somebody has to be held to account and educated as to what is really needed to reduce pollution congestion and environmental destruction.

http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/mk/cl/f/wA-NQDJLWVy25TOUiagBAGDE2CKDlM_XVBixZxiQtk4rYnt09Gz9YYN5mhAaTP74q5i72jGe2gCymhdjnufZnpTTootZpy10L2xqrwkr745K9kfrQpR99rtB-5dz0kJ7y2XjV87qkCcKK8xHOL8fNj48_votuKN2vkRloAb3knLrThXBJ_jV85--C28vPPvsc-IV5OazR0O4UFXL5bqHv_1lBq-ZDojvD9cKRIdx0pJCgHJ3JE4r83677G8I4DxIBQR316hYBhHqiNsLj0jA9Aa7a-EolAE7CTV92j2DkE3JDmKok5mEPr7bZ_uY5LCIWhNe-Ct3Jkuv-G5m7_jaIlqmM2jHNENROBRM5FXkjVE3sfcP0mPFRdsrdPDqMM4gz1rsEf89TZqf1Eb5fchYgX0Qvekh_AwIQYuQftkgHix4kKILAstyQsJwKLwNgyMwWow52wOa4bQSKRljvFLzF-LKbCg2nS9jIKnTPwHQJAsDdb-0TQEHl7z-suVbYDI-9JlkZZ-qQzcobxmEoex8IoC5vNhHzw

 

here is the full press release from today

Climate Emergency Planning and Policy

± SCIENCE ± POLICY ± LAW ±

Dr Andrew Boswell

For immediate release 07.07.2023

 

 

Scientist to take the carbon impacts of new roads to the Court of Appeal

Mrs Justice Thornton has dismissed Dr Andrew Boswell's [2] challenge against three road schemes, part of a larger proposed programme, on the A47 in Norfolk in a judgement [1] handed down at the High Court today.  Dr Boswell challenged each planning approval decision on the basis that respective Secretaries of State had not properly considered the cumulative impact of the carbon emissions across all related roads schemes and developments when making their decisions. 

Dr Boswell's lawyers [3] are commencing immediate legal proceedings to appeal the judgement.  Critically, the Court was given clear evidence that no lawful cumulative assessment had been produced for the carbon emissions which would be generated by the schemes together.  Evidence was also provided that no lawful assessment of the impact of the cumulative emissions on meeting the UK carbon budgets existed.  In the light of this, Dr Boswell does not agree the legal interpretation by the Court and will mount a robust legal case for the Court of Appeal that the Judge made legal errors in reaching her decision.

Dr Boswell says:

"This case is extremely important as it addresses issues of pressing public importance including how the environmental impacts of new infrastructure are assessed and whether the UK can deliver its climate targets.   I am going to the Court of Appeal to safeguard the clear and wide-ranging legal protections which do exist in UK law.  The relentless drive from Government and developers, in cases such as these schemes, to turn a blind eye to the true environmental impacts of the scheme in order to avoid facing up to the true climate impacts of their decisions is astonishing. It is remarkable that the Government has fought tooth and nail merely to avoid having to face up to the cumulative climate impacts of one part of their road-building programme.  

"Over 1500 people who given me fundraising support[4] recognise that it is vital to uphold such protections, and put a stop to this deregulation by stealth, and I am very grateful to them for their backing. 

"The case is of wide importance as the same methodology which systematically ignores cumulative emissions is used to assess nearly all road schemes in the UK.  And as each road scheme is only assessed on its own individual impact, it is approved on the false conclusion that there is no combined material impact, from the many new roads being planned, to the delivery of the UK Net Zero targets. 

"Yet just last week, the risks to delivery of the Net Zero targets from the combined effects of ever-expanding traffic were set out in stark terms by the Government's own official Climate advisors (the Climate Change Committee)[5] when they advised the Government to conduct a systematic review of current and future road-building projects against delivering climate targets.   Each new scheme in the Government's endless pursuit of new roads amounts to taking a significant and dangerous backward step in the transition to a low carbon world.  Instead, the Government should be moving forward to implement  genuine transport decarbonisation policies. 

"Today, the Net Zero Strategy itself has also been taken back in Court[8] because the Government has not demonstrated that it can deliver, or has risk assessed delivery of, the relevant carbon budgets.  This also highlights how crucial it is for the impacts of carbon emissions from every new piece of infrastructure, including roads, to be lawfully assessed where they currently are not.

"The climate emergency is very urgent: we cannot afford unnecessary emissions.  This last month has seen temperature records are being broken around the globe, with scientists expressing concern at extremely concerning trends[6].  Today the United Nations has said climate change 'out of control' after likely hottest week on record[9]. The climate stakes are high for us, our children and grandchildren.  I embarked upon this legal action for future generations, and I am humbled to now be taking it to the Court of Appeal."

Recently, Norfolk County Council and some local MPs indicated that they are lobbying central Government for funding for many more A47 schemes and for the full dualling of the A47 from Great Yarmouth to Peterborough[7].  In respect of this, Dr Boswell makes this further statement:

 

"The A47 Alliance have always wanted to turn the A47 into a near motorway across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.  The plans are for at least nine more destructive road schemes, and up to 80,000 more houses, increasing traffic and environmental impacts across the region including on the Broads National Park between Acle and Great Yarmouth.

 

"At no stage have the A47 Alliance properly assessed the environmental and climate effects of their grotesque proposals.   The Alliance is out of synch with reality and the times.  It could have be taken as irony when they announced their latest lobbying push to Government in the same week that the Government's Climate advisors (Climate Change Committee)[5] warned of the combined effects of ever-expanding traffic and set out in stark terms the risks of new road building to the delivery of the Net Zero targets.  

 

"My legal case on these three A47 schemes comes at the right time to put a halt to this needless road building spree across Norfolk.  Such attempts to cover concrete and tarmac, air pollutants and carbon emissions, across Norfolk belongs to another era, now long gone.  My lawyers [3], today, are starting proceedings to take my case on the first three A47 schemes to the Court of Appeal as there clear and wide-ranging environmental protections at risk which must be upheld, especially in this Climate and Nature Emergency.  I hope for future generations that my campaign will put an end to the A47 Alliance's outdated ambitions."

 

 

 

 

Notes:

1. The judgement will be available after 1100 on Friday July 7^th.  It will be available at https://tinyurl.com/A47judgement shortly after this.

 

2. Climate Emergency Policy and Planning (CEPP) is a consultancy, founded by Dr Andrew Boswell, specialising in bringing science-based approaches to policy and law for ecology and climate change.  Its mission purpose is "consultancy to promote the necessary rapid response to the Climate Emergency in mainstream institutions, such as local authorities and government, through the lenses of science, policy, and litigation".    

 

Dr Boswell has a background in computer modelling of complex phenomena, including climate change. Between 1995 and 2006, he ran the high-performance computer service at the University of East Anglia.  He also has 17 years' experience working on planning and climate change issues as both a councillor on Norwich City Council and on Norfolk County Council, and as an environmental consultant.

 

3. Dr Boswell's legal team are specialist environmental lawyers comprising Matthew McFeeley and Lewis Hadler from Richard Buxton Solicitors of Cambridge, Peter Lockley and Ben Mitchell from 11KBW, with lead Counsel being David Wolfe, KC of Matrix Chambers.  

 

4. The crowdfunder for the legal action is at: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-road-building-wrecking-climate-nature/

 

5. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Progress-in-reducing-UK-emissions-2023-Report-to-Parliament.pdf (see pages 109 and 420)

 

6. Read climate scientists discussing the latest weather events around the world here; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/03/a-perfect-storm-scientists-ponder-if-climate-has-entered-a-new-erratic-era?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

7. https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23625379.fears-norfolk-miss-millions-a47-dualling/

 

8. https://actions.goodlawproject.org/net_zero_2?utm_source=NB&utm_campaign=NetZeroII&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=CFDonate

 

9. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/07/un-climate-change-hottest-week-world

[Yellow Fever 3,847]

4 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Refreshing English Democracy with a massive Tsunami washing everything away might be a good idea.

Today is dead Justice day, Mrs. Justice Thornton decided to dismiss the case of Dr. Andrew Boswell. It would mean that new roads and improvements to 4 road schemes are not required to account for the cumulative carbon impact this would create, a decision that agrees with the lies and ignorance of this and previous Governments that they are reducing the CO2 in our transport planning.

Now this wretched local and national Government can just ignore their own continuous lying and carry on with creating more pollution, whilst ignoring the needs for a reduction by shoving their irresponsible actions down the throat of our children  and the following generations.

What does Justice Thornton know about the impact thousands of scientists are warning us about, for decades now, what is her expertise in this field and why do our lying politicians deserve her support for wrong doing?

Please support Andrew Boswell's case which is going to appeal, somebody has to be held to account and educated as to what is really needed to reduce pollution congestion and environmental destruction.

http://r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/mk/cl/f/wA-NQDJLWVy25TOUiagBAGDE2CKDlM_XVBixZxiQtk4rYnt09Gz9YYN5mhAaTP74q5i72jGe2gCymhdjnufZnpTTootZpy10L2xqrwkr745K9kfrQpR99rtB-5dz0kJ7y2XjV87qkCcKK8xHOL8fNj48_votuKN2vkRloAb3knLrThXBJ_jV85--C28vPPvsc-IV5OazR0O4UFXL5bqHv_1lBq-ZDojvD9cKRIdx0pJCgHJ3JE4r83677G8I4DxIBQR316hYBhHqiNsLj0jA9Aa7a-EolAE7CTV92j2DkE3JDmKok5mEPr7bZ_uY5LCIWhNe-Ct3Jkuv-G5m7_jaIlqmM2jHNENROBRM5FXkjVE3sfcP0mPFRdsrdPDqMM4gz1rsEf89TZqf1Eb5fchYgX0Qvekh_AwIQYuQftkgHix4kKILAstyQsJwKLwNgyMwWow52wOa4bQSKRljvFLzF-LKbCg2nS9jIKnTPwHQJAsDdb-0TQEHl7z-suVbYDI-9JlkZZ-qQzcobxmEoex8IoC5vNhHzw

 

here is the full press release from today

Climate Emergency Planning and Policy

± SCIENCE ± POLICY ± LAW ±

Dr Andrew Boswell

For immediate release 07.07.2023

 

 

Scientist to take the carbon impacts of new roads to the Court of Appeal

Mrs Justice Thornton has dismissed Dr Andrew Boswell's [2] challenge against three road schemes, part of a larger proposed programme, on the A47 in Norfolk in a judgement [1] handed down at the High Court today.  Dr Boswell challenged each planning approval decision on the basis that respective Secretaries of State had not properly considered the cumulative impact of the carbon emissions across all related roads schemes and developments when making their decisions. 

Dr Boswell's lawyers [3] are commencing immediate legal proceedings to appeal the judgement.  Critically, the Court was given clear evidence that no lawful cumulative assessment had been produced for the carbon emissions which would be generated by the schemes together.  Evidence was also provided that no lawful assessment of the impact of the cumulative emissions on meeting the UK carbon budgets existed.  In the light of this, Dr Boswell does not agree the legal interpretation by the Court and will mount a robust legal case for the Court of Appeal that the Judge made legal errors in reaching her decision.

Dr Boswell says:

"This case is extremely important as it addresses issues of pressing public importance including how the environmental impacts of new infrastructure are assessed and whether the UK can deliver its climate targets.   I am going to the Court of Appeal to safeguard the clear and wide-ranging legal protections which do exist in UK law.  The relentless drive from Government and developers, in cases such as these schemes, to turn a blind eye to the true environmental impacts of the scheme in order to avoid facing up to the true climate impacts of their decisions is astonishing. It is remarkable that the Government has fought tooth and nail merely to avoid having to face up to the cumulative climate impacts of one part of their road-building programme.  

"Over 1500 people who given me fundraising support[4] recognise that it is vital to uphold such protections, and put a stop to this deregulation by stealth, and I am very grateful to them for their backing. 

"The case is of wide importance as the same methodology which systematically ignores cumulative emissions is used to assess nearly all road schemes in the UK.  And as each road scheme is only assessed on its own individual impact, it is approved on the false conclusion that there is no combined material impact, from the many new roads being planned, to the delivery of the UK Net Zero targets. 

"Yet just last week, the risks to delivery of the Net Zero targets from the combined effects of ever-expanding traffic were set out in stark terms by the Government's own official Climate advisors (the Climate Change Committee)[5] when they advised the Government to conduct a systematic review of current and future road-building projects against delivering climate targets.   Each new scheme in the Government's endless pursuit of new roads amounts to taking a significant and dangerous backward step in the transition to a low carbon world.  Instead, the Government should be moving forward to implement  genuine transport decarbonisation policies. 

"Today, the Net Zero Strategy itself has also been taken back in Court[8] because the Government has not demonstrated that it can deliver, or has risk assessed delivery of, the relevant carbon budgets.  This also highlights how crucial it is for the impacts of carbon emissions from every new piece of infrastructure, including roads, to be lawfully assessed where they currently are not.

"The climate emergency is very urgent: we cannot afford unnecessary emissions.  This last month has seen temperature records are being broken around the globe, with scientists expressing concern at extremely concerning trends[6].  Today the United Nations has said climate change 'out of control' after likely hottest week on record[9]. The climate stakes are high for us, our children and grandchildren.  I embarked upon this legal action for future generations, and I am humbled to now be taking it to the Court of Appeal."

Recently, Norfolk County Council and some local MPs indicated that they are lobbying central Government for funding for many more A47 schemes and for the full dualling of the A47 from Great Yarmouth to Peterborough[7].  In respect of this, Dr Boswell makes this further statement:

 

"The A47 Alliance have always wanted to turn the A47 into a near motorway across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.  The plans are for at least nine more destructive road schemes, and up to 80,000 more houses, increasing traffic and environmental impacts across the region including on the Broads National Park between Acle and Great Yarmouth.

 

"At no stage have the A47 Alliance properly assessed the environmental and climate effects of their grotesque proposals.   The Alliance is out of synch with reality and the times.  It could have be taken as irony when they announced their latest lobbying push to Government in the same week that the Government's Climate advisors (Climate Change Committee)[5] warned of the combined effects of ever-expanding traffic and set out in stark terms the risks of new road building to the delivery of the Net Zero targets.  

 

"My legal case on these three A47 schemes comes at the right time to put a halt to this needless road building spree across Norfolk.  Such attempts to cover concrete and tarmac, air pollutants and carbon emissions, across Norfolk belongs to another era, now long gone.  My lawyers [3], today, are starting proceedings to take my case on the first three A47 schemes to the Court of Appeal as there clear and wide-ranging environmental protections at risk which must be upheld, especially in this Climate and Nature Emergency.  I hope for future generations that my campaign will put an end to the A47 Alliance's outdated ambitions."

 

 

 

 

Notes:

1. The judgement will be available after 1100 on Friday July 7^th.  It will be available at https://tinyurl.com/A47judgement shortly after this.

 

2. Climate Emergency Policy and Planning (CEPP) is a consultancy, founded by Dr Andrew Boswell, specialising in bringing science-based approaches to policy and law for ecology and climate change.  Its mission purpose is "consultancy to promote the necessary rapid response to the Climate Emergency in mainstream institutions, such as local authorities and government, through the lenses of science, policy, and litigation".    

 

Dr Boswell has a background in computer modelling of complex phenomena, including climate change. Between 1995 and 2006, he ran the high-performance computer service at the University of East Anglia.  He also has 17 years' experience working on planning and climate change issues as both a councillor on Norwich City Council and on Norfolk County Council, and as an environmental consultant.

 

3. Dr Boswell's legal team are specialist environmental lawyers comprising Matthew McFeeley and Lewis Hadler from Richard Buxton Solicitors of Cambridge, Peter Lockley and Ben Mitchell from 11KBW, with lead Counsel being David Wolfe, KC of Matrix Chambers.  

 

4. The crowdfunder for the legal action is at: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-road-building-wrecking-climate-nature/

 

5. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Progress-in-reducing-UK-emissions-2023-Report-to-Parliament.pdf (see pages 109 and 420)

 

6. Read climate scientists discussing the latest weather events around the world here; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/03/a-perfect-storm-scientists-ponder-if-climate-has-entered-a-new-erratic-era?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

7. https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23625379.fears-norfolk-miss-millions-a47-dualling/

 

8. https://actions.goodlawproject.org/net_zero_2?utm_source=NB&utm_campaign=NetZeroII&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=CFDonate

 

9. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/07/un-climate-change-hottest-week-world

The dismissal sounds straight forward enough to me!

I'd even go so far to say Dr Boswell was vexatious.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

19 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The dismissal sounds straight forward enough to me!

I'd even go so far to say Dr Boswell was vexatious.

And you are? a scientist? lawyer? or just somebody who does not care about what is left for your children here in Norfolk to sort out? Did they demise of yellow fever, by any chance, that you can nae be bothered? vexatious my backside.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

On 07/07/2023 at 16:27, Yellow Fever said:

The dismissal sounds straight forward enough to me!

I'd even go so far to say Dr Boswell was vexatious.

If you're going to bring into question people's ability to make a judgement based on level of expertise, who are you to question whether the judge was fairly appraising the evidence presented by each side or not according to the law of the land?

Edited July 14, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 08/07/2023 at 10:53, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

And you are? a scientist? lawyer? or just somebody who does not care about what is left for your children here in Norfolk to sort out? Did they demise of yellow fever, by any chance, that you can nae be bothered? vexatious my backside.

The quality of my children's lives will be greatly improved by an upgrade of the A47 to motorway standard plus the building of the Western Link Road. You seem to be suggesting we return to horse and cart.

[ricardo 7,433]

At the moment the NDR is a road to nowhere. Not Completing the final piece that makes sense of the whole would be wasteful idiocy.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 07/07/2023 at 11:31, keelansgrandad said:

You are the one talking bollox. Until the early thirties the UK used the Gold Standard for a start.

Have you never considered that the success of Trade Unions, the end of Imperial dependence and the onslaught of technology that was fostered by WWII have not contributed to the growth of the UK in the 50s and 60s which led to the emergence of the market which was strengthened by Thatcher and Reagan as well as Glasnost in the 80s?

When the markets collapsed, who suffered the most? Did the markets suffer austerity as most people did? No, they got bailed out and now they are acting as if nothing happened and they are back to their selfish ways.

Thanks for the history lesson but none of this refutes the point I made that we in 2023 are way better off than our grandparents were in 1923. If Sonyc thinks life in Bradford is now much worse than before perhaps the fact that he spent forty years fcking it up might have something to do with it.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Thanks for the history lesson but none of this refutes the point I made that we in 2023 are way better off than our grandparents were in 1923. If Sonyc thinks life in Bradford is now much worse than before perhaps the fact that he spent forty years fcking it up might have something to do with it.

You never heard of progress? And attacking Sonyc just shows you are really Mark Francois and I claim my five pounds.

[Herman 9,849]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

You never heard of progress? And attacking Sonyc just shows you are really Mark Francois and I claim my five pounds.

I presume Sonyc and Vanwink are having a pre-season break?!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

21 hours ago, Herman said:

I presume Sonyc and Vanwink are having a pre-season break?!

Sonyc said he was taking time off but WInky has gone missing.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 22/07/2023 at 20:28, ricardo said:

At the moment the NDR is a road to nowhere. Not Completing the final piece that makes sense of the whole would be wasteful idiocy.

we have a history of 'wasteful idiocy' on the NDR, NCC software and computer systems, the incinerator and much more ,hundreds of millions wasted on our 'preferred contractors'. It is not an argument to advance more wasteful idiocy to pretend that these polluters are doing anything right. Not going by past experience or going by the staffing crisis at NCC at the moment.

Spreading false hopes is not the solution, taking note of past mistakes and waste, as well as accounting for the CO2 we accrue from planned projects and developments. If you know how to stop a continuous rise in transport pollution, ill health then dogive us your alternatives. why don't you?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

Labour Leader Keir Starmer actively opposes a move to proportional representation for the House of Commons – putting him at loggerheads with the party membership and trade unions, Byline Times can reveal.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

this outdated way of building roads around Citys and towns, the donut design, just as the ring and loop systerm that was adopted is taken from a car mad US model. It does not bode well for historic centers in Cities such as Norwich. To argue that more roads are good for your children and that we do not need the thousands of trees being cut down, as we are 'promising' to grow twice as many new tree saplings, 1 in 10 who survive, will mitigate the pollution dished up for our children, then you are arguing for higher council tax, more potholes and the polluting of rare chalk rivers, of which we are blessed to have most in this county.

And you argument is that we will have to travel by horse and cart.

we can't keep up with repairs of the existing road network and you want to add ever more? once potholes become the new normal supplies by road will become more risky and dangerous, how about thinking of alternatives rather than joining the blinkered minds who can't build anything except roads?