Im losing my marbles, this was the one fucking thing they couldn’t fuck up and the fucking environmental groups are so fucking mentally done for, I hate them, I HATE THEM. The only thing I can enjoy if reform wins is seeing them SUFFER. I will ensure that every inch of it IS FELT IN FULL.
you're mental. What will deliver reform is pretending the same private sector first policy that's failed for 40 years will somehow turn out differently this time!. When reform get in it'll be red tory mentalists like you that put them there.
Why do you refuse to respond to the environmentalist argument that mitigation is usually more effective than attempting to create new habitat? Why is your only argument threatening a Reform government?
I think the point is that it cannot be all mitigation. Otherwise you get over engineered solutions that don’t serve anyone well and in these cases - usually bigger projects it could well be best to do something different and more effective just *elsewhere*. I don’t know where that grey zone starts or ends but I know it exists and we should at least acknowledge it rather than being dogmatic.
I do think infrastructure projects like HS2 creating enemies where none was needed by refusing to build any intermediate stations is part of the problem here.
If big high profile government projects were trying harder to be good for people affected by them people would have more confidence I think.
Im losing my marbles, this was the one fucking thing they couldn’t fuck up and the fucking environmental groups are so fucking mentally done for, I hate them, I HATE THEM. The only thing I can enjoy if reform wins is seeing them SUFFER. I will ensure that every inch of it IS FELT IN FULL.
you're mental. What will deliver reform is pretending the same private sector first policy that's failed for 40 years will somehow turn out differently this time!. When reform get in it'll be red tory mentalists like you that put them there.
Why do you refuse to respond to the environmentalist argument that mitigation is usually more effective than attempting to create new habitat? Why is your only argument threatening a Reform government?
I think the point is that it cannot be all mitigation. Otherwise you get over engineered solutions that don’t serve anyone well and in these cases - usually bigger projects it could well be best to do something different and more effective just *elsewhere*. I don’t know where that grey zone starts or ends but I know it exists and we should at least acknowledge it rather than being dogmatic.
I do think infrastructure projects like HS2 creating enemies where none was needed by refusing to build any intermediate stations is part of the problem here.
If big high profile government projects were trying harder to be good for people affected by them people would have more confidence I think.