So planning does cause constipation in the viscera of the body economic then?

We have people telling us that it’s all the planning system:

Zero onshore wind plans submitted in England since de facto ban was ‘lifted’

So, erm, if they’re now allowed to why aren’t they? We have, after all, had it insisted at us that onshore wind is the cheapest form of electricity generation. Electricity prices are still high, there should therefore be vast profits to be had from building onshore wind. So, why isn’t there a rush?

Greenpeace UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said: “As predicted, the government’s futile planning tweaks amounted to absolutely nothing and the de facto ban is still well and truly in place. Why would a developer risk putting their cash behind a project that remains beholden to woolly guidelines and the unworkable decisions made by some local councils?

“Onshore wind is the cheapest, quickest and greenest way to produce energy. Ramping up production would lower energy bills, slash emissions and bolster the UK’s energy security. We should be building them everywhere it makes sense to generate. But as things stand, you’ve got more chance of spotting a flying pig than a new onshore windfarm in the UK.”

Now, yes, we do know that it’s a category error to take Greenpeace at their word. But let’s just indluge ourselves for a moment and accept what they say.

So, what else are we short of? Houses. What else is also affected by the planning system? The supply of houses.

If the planning system causes that constipation in the viscera of the body economic over onshore wind - the cheapest, quickest and greenest way to increase electricity supply - then does anyone really want to be caught insisting that this affects just that and not also housing?

We do tend to think that that would be illogical.