Please feel free to delete 'is' or 'not' - whichever you find appropriate!
According to this article from yesterday's Guardian Unlimited central government is planning to torpedo the Merton rule; a rule under which local councils sign up to an agreement whereby 10% of all energy requirements on any new development will be met by using renewables.
"housing minister Yvette Cooper, who last year wanted all local authorities to adopt a Merton rule, will soon publish a new draft planning policy statement which outlines the abolition of the rule."
So it appears that our government is reverting to a regressive mode yet again.
But ........ today's Daily Mail reports an entirely different perspective.
"Contrary to fears expressed by some environmentalists, Ms Cooper will not be abolishing the Merton Rule"
"A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government denied the planning guidance would ditch the Merton approach."
Now I know that the media always want to portray their stories as the most up-to-date and correct, but here there are two entirely poles-apart comments on the same subject.
OK, so which one represents the truth and which is a load of porkies? Or is it all intended to add to the plethora of obfuscation? I give up! I really don't know who to believe now!
ADDENDUM from Junkk Male
Recycling Waste World - Lib Dems slam plans to abolish Merton Rule
Guardian - Don't scrap green housing rule, urge campaigners
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
1 comment:
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.
Maybe it should be the 'Mrs Merton' rule, if I recall the scatty character so named.
ReplyDeleteActually, if your trawl the Guardian CiF posts today some more you will see a rather telling piece with some equally predictable comments on why the Guardian and Daily Mail can be rather relied upon to be poles apart on just about anything: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nick_angel/2007/08/my_daily_hell.html
(I really must go back and see how to do the links thing)
I also note, sadly, that this issue got about 3 times more attention than anything else.
I was going to suggest that one goes to the source before any belief in what is said kicks in, but as we are talking a Minister of this Goverment even then...
I guess rules are made to be, er, made what you want of them, it seems.
So long as you get a headline (accuracy not essential) as a medium and deniablity to get you to GPP (gold-plated pension) time, then all is well in the Westminster village.