As you say, most people aren't going to want pylons. Either you accept that a legitimate authority can make unpopular decisions in the national interest, or you establish a framework where companies can (swiftly and transparently) buy off opposition - e.g. local vote by residents on accepting a certain cash payment offered by the company - and if accepted, no further challenges.
On your last point, I'm afraid I do think this culture and these attitudes are endemic in the civil service.
And even aside from the problem of something not getting built at all, it's also surely a very bad idea to create incentives in which increasing the volume of NIMBY activism succeeds in moving a scheme from one place to another. You're right that some people will be upset by a Decision From On High that affects their life, but if the reasons are laid out transparently and clearly, I think that would do much more good psychologically vs the implied hint that "if you organise the locals well enough against this, you might succeed in getting us to move the thing" to Place B (whose locals then know that the only solution is to shout even louder)
Those areas that successfully move a scheme are probably those who are better connected and have more resource than the location the scheme gets dumped on to. Principal 5 of 'Principles for navigating the social aspects of grid transformation' covers inequality, but doesn't specifically call out the inequality of how persuasive different groups can be.
The inequality and fairness angle is a good reason why we should ignore nimby activism or perhaps weight the activism based on the population that it is claiming to represent relative to the affected population if the scheme were to not go ahead.
Excellent piece….. and, as always, the late Brian Clough springs to mind. He got the best out of his players by never, ever focussing on their weaknesses. Defenders? Head it and kick it. Holding midfielders? Get the ball, give it to someone who can actually play etc.
Point being that trying to make every player do everything is pointless - all you do is demoralise an attacking player by making him focus on improving weaknesses, not strengths.
And here we are. Build stuff. The whole housing/ fix rivers thing is utterly bonkers. As a housing developer, the stuff I’ve come up against in planning is mind boggling - but all terribly *worthy* isn’t it? Meanwhile in my village, they’re building a small block of flats. Trying to get an extra storey added to it but, sigh, it’s back out for public consultation. Needless to say, nobody is hearing the voices of, for example, the two young ladies who have just opened a brilliant little bakery (incredible cakes) who would love to also live here but can’t afford it.
Love the piece. Frustratingly for officials, there is a certain variety of politician who likes to think that the solution to a lack of consensus is simply more consultation.
This clip from the Australian satire Utopia will make you laugh (and cry,in frustration).
Trying to steel man this document a bit, it would seem obvious that that some additional consultations happen at the point where we’ve decided that a power line is needed, but we haven’t done the work to plan the exact route. Factor in some of these things upfront. In principle this could cut the number of last minute objections and reduce the cost. And presumably done well everyone comes away feeling informed and consulted even if they aren’t delighted with the result.
Trouble is that in practice I think your fears are right.
I do wonder how we ever managed to build the canals, railways and factories that powered the industrial revolution.
I guess, trying to engage everyone and get agreement is simply the wrong way to go about this?
Also leads me to wonder whether the inability of any government (Tory/Labour) to get stuff done, is what is pushing some people towards Reform and Farage's simple solutions to difficult
If you have ever wondered why the routes of canals or railways often have an odd kink in them, or why stations are so often quite a long way from the settlement they serve, it’s because of 19th century NIMBYs.
If you read Stephen Smiles’s rather interesting autobiography on Stephenson who invented the locomotive, essentially the answer is that they had acts of parliaments which superceded local control - they would read something like “we grant all the land here to here to this company to build a track which must be built by x”. This is the proper solution in a democracy and arguably what parliament is for - making hard decisions in the national interest that would make local interests unhappy, with the argumentation happening prior to the act, during the debates. For some reason, parliament has forgotten that it can pass acts that entirely supersede any form of bureaucracy at all, for in the end, Parliament is Sovereign.
They haven't forgotten. Parliament is just responding to different incentives. In, say 1825, the only people voting were those who directly benefited from the railway. No one cared if the "peasants" (sic) were inconvenienced.
Now though you have two issues - 1) the "peasants" don't directly benefit from the infrastructure, or more precisely the infrastructure being in that exact location as opposed to a mile down the round and 2) the peasants vote, so the incentives are different.
There's an interesting PhD subject on the impact of constituency-based voting (as opposed to pure PR) on rates of infrastructure development.
This is another good reason for a Land Value Tax. Yes, you will have pylons, but if that makes the land under your house less valuable, then you will have a commensurate reduction in tax. If it doesn't reduce the value, then other people don't find it as offensive as you - maybe you should move.
Problem is, this isn't a vote winner. The more infrastructure that happens, the more voters feel they're not being listened to, and then the more votes for the nimby parties. As much as I want more infrastructure built, I can see the political risk of doing so.
Great piece.
As you say, most people aren't going to want pylons. Either you accept that a legitimate authority can make unpopular decisions in the national interest, or you establish a framework where companies can (swiftly and transparently) buy off opposition - e.g. local vote by residents on accepting a certain cash payment offered by the company - and if accepted, no further challenges.
On your last point, I'm afraid I do think this culture and these attitudes are endemic in the civil service.
And even aside from the problem of something not getting built at all, it's also surely a very bad idea to create incentives in which increasing the volume of NIMBY activism succeeds in moving a scheme from one place to another. You're right that some people will be upset by a Decision From On High that affects their life, but if the reasons are laid out transparently and clearly, I think that would do much more good psychologically vs the implied hint that "if you organise the locals well enough against this, you might succeed in getting us to move the thing" to Place B (whose locals then know that the only solution is to shout even louder)
Those areas that successfully move a scheme are probably those who are better connected and have more resource than the location the scheme gets dumped on to. Principal 5 of 'Principles for navigating the social aspects of grid transformation' covers inequality, but doesn't specifically call out the inequality of how persuasive different groups can be.
The inequality and fairness angle is a good reason why we should ignore nimby activism or perhaps weight the activism based on the population that it is claiming to represent relative to the affected population if the scheme were to not go ahead.
Excellent piece….. and, as always, the late Brian Clough springs to mind. He got the best out of his players by never, ever focussing on their weaknesses. Defenders? Head it and kick it. Holding midfielders? Get the ball, give it to someone who can actually play etc.
Point being that trying to make every player do everything is pointless - all you do is demoralise an attacking player by making him focus on improving weaknesses, not strengths.
And here we are. Build stuff. The whole housing/ fix rivers thing is utterly bonkers. As a housing developer, the stuff I’ve come up against in planning is mind boggling - but all terribly *worthy* isn’t it? Meanwhile in my village, they’re building a small block of flats. Trying to get an extra storey added to it but, sigh, it’s back out for public consultation. Needless to say, nobody is hearing the voices of, for example, the two young ladies who have just opened a brilliant little bakery (incredible cakes) who would love to also live here but can’t afford it.
Love the piece. Frustratingly for officials, there is a certain variety of politician who likes to think that the solution to a lack of consensus is simply more consultation.
This clip from the Australian satire Utopia will make you laugh (and cry,in frustration).
https://youtu.be/VXUlxeKQuGo?si=TVTP1cuSl9El7nac
This is also my attempt to enrol you in my campaign (more of an unexpressed wish) for more Australian satire to be available in the UK.
Oh god that was almost too real. Loved it though - I take it no one is streaming it here?!
Sadly no.
High speed rail gets a mention too
https://youtu.be/ZxZvpCSJxXA?si=2q8OXhU0Zy51glAF
Trying to steel man this document a bit, it would seem obvious that that some additional consultations happen at the point where we’ve decided that a power line is needed, but we haven’t done the work to plan the exact route. Factor in some of these things upfront. In principle this could cut the number of last minute objections and reduce the cost. And presumably done well everyone comes away feeling informed and consulted even if they aren’t delighted with the result.
Trouble is that in practice I think your fears are right.
I do wonder how we ever managed to build the canals, railways and factories that powered the industrial revolution.
I guess, trying to engage everyone and get agreement is simply the wrong way to go about this?
Also leads me to wonder whether the inability of any government (Tory/Labour) to get stuff done, is what is pushing some people towards Reform and Farage's simple solutions to difficult
problems.
If you have ever wondered why the routes of canals or railways often have an odd kink in them, or why stations are so often quite a long way from the settlement they serve, it’s because of 19th century NIMBYs.
If you read Stephen Smiles’s rather interesting autobiography on Stephenson who invented the locomotive, essentially the answer is that they had acts of parliaments which superceded local control - they would read something like “we grant all the land here to here to this company to build a track which must be built by x”. This is the proper solution in a democracy and arguably what parliament is for - making hard decisions in the national interest that would make local interests unhappy, with the argumentation happening prior to the act, during the debates. For some reason, parliament has forgotten that it can pass acts that entirely supersede any form of bureaucracy at all, for in the end, Parliament is Sovereign.
They haven't forgotten. Parliament is just responding to different incentives. In, say 1825, the only people voting were those who directly benefited from the railway. No one cared if the "peasants" (sic) were inconvenienced.
Now though you have two issues - 1) the "peasants" don't directly benefit from the infrastructure, or more precisely the infrastructure being in that exact location as opposed to a mile down the round and 2) the peasants vote, so the incentives are different.
There's an interesting PhD subject on the impact of constituency-based voting (as opposed to pure PR) on rates of infrastructure development.
This is another good reason for a Land Value Tax. Yes, you will have pylons, but if that makes the land under your house less valuable, then you will have a commensurate reduction in tax. If it doesn't reduce the value, then other people don't find it as offensive as you - maybe you should move.
Problem is, this isn't a vote winner. The more infrastructure that happens, the more voters feel they're not being listened to, and then the more votes for the nimby parties. As much as I want more infrastructure built, I can see the political risk of doing so.