In defence of political backbone

I think we can all agree that warfare is bad for the environment. Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare would be utterly disastrous, but conventional warfare is massively destructive too.

Just look at the vast amounts of oil being burned or spilled in current conflicts. Look at the huge swathe of eastern Ukraine – Europe’s bread basket – destroyed by the Russian invasion, now visible as a grey belt from space. Look at the destruction in Sudan, Palestine or Lebanon.

Some environmentalists have long been attracted to pacifism for this reason. I respect their view, but I think they’re wrong. Personally, I believe strong defences and a firm attitude are what prevent wars and it’s only when tyrants like Hitler or Putin sense weakness they’re tempted to attack.

But what’s all this got to do with sustainable planning of land? It matters because, as I’ve long argued, the threats we face mean we need to widen the Smart Growth approach.

We currently advocate planning policies that address:

• Climate change
• Food Security
• Water security
• Depletion of nature, landscape & heritage
• Etc..

That “etc.” covers multiple challenges, of course, but one that’s been creeping up the agenda for some years is the threat of international conflict, particularly aggression against the United Kingdom, our allies and the friendly countries with which we trade. Currently we’re seeing the price of oil, foodstuffs and other products climbing thanks to wars which aren’t specifically aimed at our country.

Numerous experts have recently warned us, however, that we are effectively in the early stages of a conflict with the Russian Federation. Just as World War II began long before September 1939, that country is already waging aspects of hybrid war against us – cyber attacks, assaults on our communications satellites, active scoping of our underwater communications infrastructure etc..

Former NATO secretary-general George Robertson has warned in several speeches that the very low level of defence spending by the UK and our allies since the collapse of communism are grossly inadequate, even for peacetime needs. During the first Cold War we often spent more than 5% of GDP on defence and we urgently need to raise spending to those levels again.

“We’re simply not ready and we need to rebuild war readiness in order to deter any possible adversity,” he told an audience in Salisbury recently. “Deterrence is far cheaper than war.”

Attacking “corrosive complacency” in government, one of his main targets will be familiar to anyone trying to protect our environment– vandalism  by “non-military experts in the Treasury” – just like the non-environmental experts in Whitehall’s Great Wen who promote car-dependent sprawl.

But how to pay for all of this, at a time when a half century of destruction of much of our public services needs urgent treatment?

Robertson and others have tentatively suggested an assault on the nation’s huge welfare bill. But anyone involved in social care or regeneration will be all too well aware of the inequality and poverty which drag much of the country down.

We stand at a crossroads when we urgently need our politicians to begin having an adult conversation with the electorate. That conversation will need to be about taxation.

Half a century of low, stealth taxes by politicians terrified of populist media have left us with no political party – not one – prepared to have the adult conversation with electors we urgently need about taxation. They are scared witless about it – and popular media feed on their carcasses as a result.

Security, as they used to say, needs endless vigilance. It also needs politicians with the backbone to advocate unpopular policies. Our future depends on it.

Jon Reeds