Hi, Both (or All, depending on whether you see three makes a crowd and I've had a 50% increase in readership)You’ll be aware by now that there's a somewhat parlous time ahead for the majority of the populace vis-a-vis the present monetary crisis that is hitting all developed countries; the populace in undeveloped countries have had this situation since, well, forever really, so I guess they don’t know the difference and thereby don’t count...so that’s alright then ("Ha, Doris! We'll make a Conservative voter out of you yet!"). One of my comforters that has taken the place of the thumb I suck at night in order to get to sleep in my present concerned state as to where the next penny is coming from, has been the knowledge, in the words of our past Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, that those in power ‘feel our pain’; that and the considered words of our present Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, when he told us....in all seriousness mind.... that we were, ‘all in this together’; bless.... I’ll bet all of the present government as well as all those millionaire supporters of theirs and the self-styled ‘captains of industry’ on wrecking bonuses all lie awake nights fretting over whether to use their remaining money to pay the gas bill, the rent or for the kids school meals.
So, it may come as surprise to some that the retailers, those folk who own the shops on our high street, had a bit of a moan about the drop in sales over Christmas and how they'd been hoping that the January/February sales might have allowed them to recoup a little of this ‘lost revenue’. This is, of course, a yearly bleat that we hear; never enough sold; never enough profit made; "Oh, woe, woe, thrice woe....! etc..."...move on.... Now, there are several things that come out of this and are worthy of comment (don’t worry, I’m only going to address three of them; relax) and they are below, however I would just like to say that our illustrious and gently scented Chancellor (he of the name Osbourne) confirmed much about his ability to be in his present post, together with his level of understanding of the people of this country and their plight, when he announced not long ago that a significant factor, in fact the overriding factor he quoted in the interview he gave, was that the British people had not spent so much money at Christmas ‘because of the weather’. So the fact that the money they'd put away into pension funds had been squandered by the city boys (that fuckin' arch bastard 'Cap'n Bob for one) that the banks were guilty of a level of robbery that would put the Brinks Mat gang to shame, that the level of unemployment was over 2 million and was set to rise significantly after the full impact of the shit we were in as a country was spelled out in the budget, and just how deep the cuts allied to that were going to be (and we all knew that wrist-slashing depth wasn’t even in it) that besides the fact their savings were reduced in value overnight and that every and all cost of living, food, water, gas, electric, VAT, fuel.....that it was ‘the weather’ which had stopped them spending. Hmmmm…..thanks for that, Georgie-Boy....
Disregarding the lunatic Osbourne’s statement just for a moment, with all my listed poo hitting the propeller at one-and-the-same-time, you’d think that shopping would be the last thing on most people’s minds, as indeed it was. Over the Christmas period, folk sort of cut back on the expenditure and, ergo, the shopkeepers complained about the lack of sales... Now, and as with every Christmastime (which starts in about September here in the good ole’ U of K...just as, when I went into the local M&S in January – 20th to be exact – they had the hanging boards, pop-up-cardboard cut-outs and frippery in place and pushing Easter) after the glut of gimmickry thrust at the populace is deemed to have sold insufficiently to fill-the till, the 'SALES' started, only this year there was an edge to it as the pre-sales-sales were pissy according to the sellers and manufacturers, and this (at last) brings me to the thrust of this chat.
What I fail to work out, just as I’ve yet to understand how a 250,000 ton steel warship can float or a 200 ton metal airplane can fly, is why the article in the shop, which before Christmas was worth £250, can, in the space of three days, now only be worth £75? OK, OK, I’m confused; let’s break it down.
The price is irrelevant, as is the article’s pedigree. It can be anything; a dress, a pair of shoes, a board game, a car, whatever. In all these things there’s either a fair price to pay for it or not. I mean, c’mon, EVERYONE involved in this article’s manufacture, sales, advertising, packaging, ALL of them will have costed in their profit margin; that’s the first thing they do. So, when VAT, the various profit levels, transport, shipping and storage costs have been worked out, accounted for and added together to give a retail price and the seller can offer that article, which they originally offered for £250, for £75 and, seemingly, still make a profit (a fair profit 'cos let's face it they never sell anything and not make a profit) then what's £250; daylight robbery, possibly? Is £250 a fair price to pay for this article and everyone make a reasonable living off'f its manufacture and sale or is the article overpriced and are you all a bunch of greedy buggers? Discuss. If and article priced at £250 can be sold for £75 and a profit still made then don't charge two-hundred-and-fifty quid for it; charge seventy-fuckin'-five!
I’m sure that no one involved in this article’s construction and eventual sale, in its elements of design and eventual arrival on the shelf, I’m sure none of them lost out, so how come, when it was £250 two days ago (one of which, Christmas Day no less, was not a day that calculations could have been gone in to and a realistic price arrived at for the 'SALE', so that means the 'SALE' price had been agreed several days before this....so...?...why wasn't it sold at that price then....? I'm getting confused.....sorry) I mean, how can a £250 article now be off the shelf, after just two days, for £75? That’s a loss of £175 on the original price! Now, I’m not a retail expert (“You don’t say, Doris?!”) but I don’t know of a high street shop, manufacturer or shipper that could withstand that sort of percentage loss for more than a week before going out of business. So, what this boils down to is that someone, somewhere is making a killing on everything we buy...ah, I'm catching on.....so that’s as in ‘everything’...so, taking the ‘SALE’ ideology to its natural conclusion, everything is overpriced and could be sold at a far more realistic price if only (as with most things in life) if there weren’t a queue of greedy fuckers in the line that is. In a fair democracy this would be the way forward...but we aren’t in a fair democracy in the UK; haven’t been for what seems like forever. The interviewed factory owners try and fool us into believing that they are all "just" making a living, "scraping by" and asking a fair price for their goods but, as with you, I guess, my sense of cynicism gallops to the fore with a “Yeah? Fair for who? Who’s making the profit on gold mined, cloth woven, steel manufactured…? Not the poor sods at the arse-end of the chain, that’s for sure."
Fairness would say; OK. People shied away from it when it was at its full price yet queue up to buy it in the sale...erm... Thinks; "This must give everyone involved in the article’s lifeline a very good idea of the article’s worth that would still allow us to make a fair profit. So, if we price the article at this sale level at the outset then we’d shift more ‘units’ wouldn’t we...and so our turnover would be the greater and we’d make more money, wouldn’t we? Then the manufacturing industries involved in the article’s creation (mine) would boast fuller employment because more units were being sold at a fair profit, wouldn’t they? The people that work in these industries (my workers) would have safer employment futures, wouldn’t they? So, they could earn more money than if they were having to be supported by the state or go on the streets begging or selling their bodies; they'd be making me more profit through the number of fair-priced articles I'd be selling....and if they were making more money they too would go out and buy other articles produced by other manufacturers, me included, as long as the price was fair....!!!!!!!"
Fuck me, I've solved the problems of the manufacturing world, unemployment and global poverty in one go; pay people a fair and living wage for their work and charge the people a fair price for the goods they buy......wha-hey!!!!................... Or am I missing something?
Bugger; yup, I am. First up is those involved at the final profit end of the mark-up chain i.e. US, the high street folk, together with the councils who charge the rent and rates for the premises being willing to take less in profit...(you know, buying only three bottles of scotch for the week rather than four; that sort of deprivation...?)Yup, the aggravating section from this, admittedly over simplification of the way manufacturing and fiscal policies are run globally at present, is our good old 21st century friend; greed. Gotta have the yacht, the speedboat, the seats at Monaco, the tickets to the…whatever, and so it goes on. Amazing the number of people who make money from just having money and fuckin' the rest of us over, aint it……….?
No resolution to problems here, folks, just a general confusion as to the status quo and how the riots in London over the week-end ain’t gonna change a thing; really, trust me, I know ‘bout these things. Anarchy is just another way of grabbing an unfair share of what’s available, trashing it and scrubbing out anyone else that gets in the way of that goal; greed and capitalism by another name; definitely not democracy. Be very afraid of stupid people in large numbers, folks.
Byee…..!
Monday, March 28, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Great British Forest Sell-Off
Ha! Just when you thought it was safe to come out the toilet.......or to come out....? Yes, yes, I know, "My God, Doris, where the hell have you been?!" I'd just like to say, in my defence, that I've been really, really, really busy; honest; I have. I've published my first novel (Ladies of the Shire) completed the second draft of my next (The Quarry) productiona managed two theatre shows and performed in one, so I'd be grateful for a little leeway on this....thank you....
As you, all my many millions of readers (?) know, I tend to make infrequent visits to this blog-site, but only because it usually takes a significant event to rally me to comment. I'm like the majority of 'ordinary joe's' out in the normal world; I get on with what I have to do and, providing I don't, "Bump into the set and dressing or wave to anyone in the audience" I reckon the day has been a success. However, there have been a couple of things going on that have rattled the bars of my particular cage. One is to do with things 'theatrical' and will be the subject of a second blog in the next week..."Oy-vey! Lie down, take a Seltzer,Peter!" The other is one of urgency and I felt the need to share it with you in the hope that it'll, a) amuse you. b) feed you with information. c) cause you to follow it up and respond too. OK. Background.
The British Government is on the verge of selling off large tracts of forest to "interested parties" and 38Degrees (website) is opposing this and organising a petition. Things are moving apace and the signing of the petition is well into the 5m. There has also been a larger than average postbag at the local MP's office and I thought I'd share my correspondence with my MP (Andrew George - Lib-Dem) so that you can see BRITISH DEMOCRACY AT WORK! Read on, have patience and I'll keepyou all (?) informed as to the progress......
My first E-mail: -
We are writing to you to register our displeasure and to say how disappointed we were to discover you had not supported the vote against selling off English forests. You have no mandate from the people to take this step but it is now seemingly a "policy", a policy not mentioned in either the election manifesto or the coalition agreement made by either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties; this smacks of a buy-off for support granted.
The forests are not one of the government's personal assets to be traded and sold to the highest bidder, and you have no right to sell off our country by the slice to the interested few; a few who's only interest is how much they can make on the deal. Conglomerates, large institutions and foreign investors will be the main purchasers and we will be presented with a list of companies who wish to control large tracts of land for their own, often questionable ends; selling the woodland off as building plots (already happened in Surrey and Norfolk) closing off access with spurious "health and safety" orders placed on them (which is another word for allowing the woodland free-reign to choke off bridle and footpaths). The management of woodland takes time and expertise, something that is already available in the present system (talk about re-inventing the wheel). It also takes money of which we are sure the vast majority of English people would be happy to part with (in fact already do) in order to maintain the status-quo....but of course, your government, not having had the courtesy to consult the people about this major step...well, you wouldn't know, would you? It would also seem the present thinking on the cost-benefits of the sell-off would cost more than it would accrue (and in these 'straitened times' that seems very much like poor fiscal-management skills).
We therefore register our feelings on this matter in the strongest possible fashion that democracy allows by assuring you that, should this measure go through it will be the very last time we will register support for your party through the ballot box. We look forward to reading your response and seeing it matched by action.
Doris
Short-Concise-To-The-Point....huh?
Andrew George's secretary's reply: -
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me about the Government's recently published proposals which are out for consultation until Thursday 21st April this year. You also asked about an Opposition debate put forward by the Labour Party in Parliament on 2nd February 2011.
That debate didn't end in a vote to decide whether or not to sell off the Forestry Estate. It was merely an ill timed (though politically opportunistic) debate on whether a Government consultation should continue until its conclusion in a couple of months time.
In fact, I was surprised that neither the Labour Party, nor those who had been campaigning about the consultation proposals said much about Government plans announced last autumn to sell off approximately one fifth of its Estate (40,000 hectares of the 200,000 hectares it owns (the Forestry Commission also leases 58,000 hectares)) on the same basis - i.e. with fewer restrictions - as the Labour Government had sold off parts of the Estate throughout the period of the last Government.
As you are so concerned about the Government's proposals, I attach a copy of the consultation document (in case you have not already obtained one). You can respond to the consultation online by going to http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation. I would very much appreciate it if you were kind enough to send me a copy of the response which you prepare by the deadline. I will also prepare a response which reflects the views which are put to me by constituents regarding the consultation.
I should also point out that although the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition Government, there are no Liberal Democrat MPs appointed to Ministerial positions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, I am the Liberal Democrat's lead on DEFRA matters and therefore seek to work with DEFRA Ministers as closely as possible, and in order to seek a more acceptable approach to policy coming from this Department.
In respect of the consultation proposals I thought it might help if I set out some background to the policy. I am sure that you will have read that the Government believes that the Forestry Commission are 'conflicted' because it is both the regulator of as well as a major producer of timber in this country.
To reduce that potential conflict of interest, the Government is consulting on proposals to lease parcels of the whole Estate, where such a model would maintain the management of the woodland whilst protecting the public interest. Where possible charities and local communities or enterprises with innovative ideas to make best use of the nation’s woodland will be given an opportunity to take on the role of managing local woodland. This will give individuals, organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing their local forests.
Around 70% of the Country's woodland is privately owned. The Forestry Commission controls 18%. The Government's consultation proposes a long-term managed programme of reform enabling the Forestry Commission to make better use of its extensive experience and allowing those who live closest to our forests greater powers to protect them.
As proposed in the consultation document, the forests owned by the Forestry Commission will not be sold off to the highest bidder but leased. Community and charitable ownership will be encouraged. Where that is impractical the Estate would remain in public ownership. Leases would contain robust access, public benefit, historic rights and biodiversity conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders. Heritage forests, like the New Forest and the Forest of Dean will be protected, for example, by permitting their transfer to charitable trusts, if that proves feasible.
The bottom line must be, as many suggest, that the essential role that forests play in British life is retained. Ministers have sought to emphasise that these plans would not lead to a free-for-all of golf courses and housing developments. If the Government presses ahead with this after the consultation, priority should be given to environmental trusts and local communities to secure these forests and then work to protect their local environment, and not private companies making irreparable changes.
It is also important to note that the proposals include measures to prevent any diluting of the current safeguards protecting forest and woodland; including the protection of biodiversity and laws relating to replanting. Proposals for development would of course still require planning permission and licenses will still be required from the Forestry Commission when planning to fell more than five cubic metres of growing trees.
Following a number of inaccurate reports in the media, the Labour Party chose to call a debate on the Government's policy on forestry on a date when they knew the Government had only just launched its proposals for consultation which it could not bring to an abrupt halt. Whilst they were taking the full opportunity to criticise the Government for its consultation, by contrast, over the last thirteen years Labour sold off 25,000 acres of woodland with barely any protection and sought to go even further in finding ways to exploit the forestry estate for commercial gain as recently as 2009.
The vote taken was therefore inconsequential. The consultation should continue and I strongly advise you to respond, but to also use it as an opportunity to raise questions about the 40,000 hectares of forest announced for sale last autumn and which, as you will see on page 13, is not part of the consultation!
Finally, as you may already be aware, the Government has announced a significant tree planting campaign which will see one million extra trees planted across England - especially in urban and suburban areas - in the next four years; the first of its kind since the 1970s. The campaign will be carried out by the Government and the Forestry Commission and will bring together charities and conservation organisations, such as The Tree Council, Woodland Trust and Trees for Cities.
Thank you for raising this matter with me and I look forward to receiving your comments and response to the consultation.
With good wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Hm.....Long-Rambling-And-Sometime-Difficult-To-Follow
My Second E-mail reply: -
Dear Ms. ,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my E-mail which covered my deep concern over your Government’s arbitrary decision to sell off the nation’s forests; I trust I can reply in detail as you have done?
Contrary to your information, though not, seemingly, to your electronically generated reply’s information, I did not ask about an Opposition debate put forward by the Labour Party in Parliament on 2nd February 2011; mainly because I had no knowledge of it; thank you for that. I, too, was surprised that neither the Labour Party, nor those who had been campaigning about the consultation proposals, said much about Government plans announced last autumn to sell off approximately one fifth of its Estate on the same basis as the present incumbents’; secrecy and lack of disseminated information to the people is not the sole preserve of the present coalition methinks. I would guess the reason you introduced this subject was to be able to take an uninvited stab at the Opposition, as if, because I'm calling into question your motives and mandate that I'm somehow a Labour supporter. That's very ‘opportunistic’ of you...and wrong as it happens; after many years of watching all colours of government in action, I have a very, very jaundiced view of them all.
That the Labour Government has sold off parts of ‘our’ estate throughout the period of their last period in Government is beside the point. ANY government seeking to sell off large areas of woodland to outside, private interests, woodland that is welded to this country’s history and its people, would have received the same response from me, and I suspect from the vast majority of right-thinking people, as your policy suggestion has done...but only after we were informed of it. As intimated above, I was unaware of this fact (thank you once again for bringing it to my attention) and can only requote my feelings about the operation of secrecy and subterfuge that all governments operate under as the reason for my laxity in following it up. I can only comment on what I am informed of; my not responding until now only advertises that fact....oh, and “two wrongs....” etc probably apply here too). I would also add that you are seeking to make illusion (talking about the best way to proceed with a policy that has no mandate) seem more real than reality by this subterfuge.
Your phrase, “I should also point out that although the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition Government, there are no Liberal Democrat MPs appointed to Ministerial positions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs” is also beside the point. You cannot evade the issue with such childish approaches as “it’s not my fault, they told me to do it”; you are IN GOVERMENT and no amount of sidestepping and wriggling will disassociate you from that fact nor stop you from being welded to the decisions taken. As far as I am aware from your published manifesto, and that of the Conservative party too, there is no mandate, no consultation and no policy announced in these documents concerning this opportunistic and underhand effort to ‘make a few quid’ by flogging off the nation’s woodland. Furthermore, were I a believer in political dishonesty, it would seem to look like payback for ‘services rendered’ to the rich and powerful who supported your ascent up the greasy pole. You were voted into office on your manifesto, as was the Conservative party and this woodland sell-off was not on it so, enough of the bleating, please.
Your paragraph about possible conflict of interest is as interesting as it is duplicitous. The Forestry Commission has been the regulator of, as well as a major producer of, timber in this country for YEARS. How come, all of a sudden it has become such a "pressing case"? Explanation, please. Conflict over what? The Forestry Commission is a government body; are we implying that there is a possible conflict of interest with the Ministers and Civil Servants involved in the running of this organisation? And if here, of other organisations too...? Surely not... Furthermore, your saying there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean that there is one. Why was it that the diligence, research and foresight to uncover this “conflict of interest” you flag up now, after only a few months in office, was sadly lacking for twenty years and was only uncovered after diligence, research and foresight by the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and resulted in the “Expenses Scandal.”? There is no need to re-invent the wheel by the ‘Government consulting on proposals to lease parcels of the whole Estate, where such model would maintain the management of the woodland whilst protecting the public interest’. The public interest is served now, with the forests belonging to the country, and ipso-fact its people as a whole, and not to selected parties. How it is run and operated may have some room for improvement, but much of what you propose will be to throw out the baby with the bath-water and doing it without a mandate from the people.
You say that ‘Where possible, charities and local communities or enterprises with innovative ideas’ will be given an opportunity to take on the role of managing local woodland.’ The proviso here is that statement’s opener; ‘Where possible...’ Who decides this? Ministers? Not acceptable, not if you want to avoid a 'conflict of interest'. And why do we need innovative ideas for what is already a rich environment? Why can't something just be wonderful for its naturalness? This constant striving for everything to be innovative, exciting, thrilling.... The very beauty and pleasure is in the woodland’s history and connection with the land and its people, in its very naturalness if you like; pleasure does not need the word "park" after it to become wonderful. Our woodland is rich because it is real, not bent, twisted and manufactured to become a parody of reality; reality is OK, trust me on that. All you have to do is put in the correct funds (that’s your job as a government) stop tinkering with it; leave it to those who understand it and our woodland will continue to be in fine fettle. They may not house the serried ranks of timber that those in Whitehall want to see (one of the reasons they cannot be trusted with its management) the rows of timber whose 'value' can be assessed, ready-reckoned, have a price put on it per capita hour of human input required to gain the best price for it; turned into pleasure parks where the natural environment (emphasis on 'natural' here) instead of being a catalyst for reflection and personal development becomes a fractured and twisted reflection of reality. Our woodland environment and its diversity is the very reason why it should be allowed, wherever possible and suitable, to grow at its own pace so that change within it is gradual and not enforced; that the species living within it also get time to adapt to changes and develop at a pace to suit them, their surroundings and so guarantee their continued survival. Where this is not possible, sensitive felling and replanting should be undertaken....oh...er...much like we have now, in fact. Nature thrives in a level of chaos, this is what gives its inhabitants the space and place to grow, diversify and develop and along with that, the people of this country have an historic affinity with their forests and woodland. Your ill-thought-out 'policy with no mandate' gives us a direct line through to the enclosures act of 1750 and onward where the division of land was in favour of the rich and powerful and denied the people of this country a fair share of its bounty.
To your statement, ‘Around 70% of the Country's woodland is privately owned. The Forestry Commission controls 18%. The Government's consultation proposes a long-term managed programme of reform enabling the Forestry Commission to make better use of its extensive experience and allowing those who live closest to our forests greater powers to protect them.’ I can only say; “What are you talking about?” Explanation please.
All of the facts in your statement about ‘leases containing robust access, public benefit, historic rights and biodiversity conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders’ we have in place already...so, we’re now proposing to re-invent the reinvention of the wheel, an excellent use of government time and money; our woodlands play an essential role in British life as it is. That you truly and honestly believe that, ‘Ministers have sought to emphasise that these plans would not lead to a free-for-all of golf courses and housing developments’ is also a deeply troubling statement. If you honestly believe that, then you should not be in government. Do you honestly mean to tell me that, if an owner of a tract of land, an owner who had supported the Conservative or Lib-Dem government to the tune of millions to get them into government in the first place and who wanted to fell areas of woodland, or shut them up to general access and build log cabins for holiday-makers, do you honestly think that government would step in and stop them? On past record (education, health, pensions, the Conservative Government's treatment of the miners, votes for sale, Lords for sale, ministers second-jobbing and acting as 'consultants' and 'lobbyists' for the very people who have a vested interest in the passing of certain laws and the delaying of others, the expenses scandal) you are not to be trusted with the care of our major institutions. And you have no need to ‘press ahead with this after the consultation’ as you have no mandate from the people, so this begs the question; “Why do you want to change it? There's something rotten in the state of Denmark, methinks. So far you have proved one thing only; that you are spending tax-payers money on re-inventing the re-invention of the re-invention of the wheel and I also repeat, whenever this 'policy' had come to light and in whatever political party guise, it would have been resisted vigorously. Yes, your tree-planting ‘announcement’ is OK; we’ll give it credence when it’s actually achieved, but, so? What do you want, a round of applause? Just for doing your job? OK, well, well-done, but don't think this is anything special. This is what you should be doing; safeguarding our nation, its people, their history and their legacy. You are our government and should be the guardians of our heritage and well-being, not preparing to sell off these precious national assets to the highest bidder as you have done and are doing with health and education.
Thank you for offering me the opportunity to respond to the consultation. I will, rest assured. What you have to understand is that the people can only respond to information given them. The subterfuge and smoke-screen diplomacy that has gone on in this move to sell forests only gives credence to the belief that ALL politicians are deceitful and untrustworthy, not true, I'm sure but the feeling is that they hide the truth behind a false reality and only allow sifted information to get through, that they speak of half-conversations as fact; and I think I may not be alone in this belief...?
Thank you again for your interest in my E-mail. I await your considered reply to this one with interest and anticipation.
Yours sincerely,
Doris
Let them send an electronically produced reply to that little sucker....
See you soon......Byeeee!
As you, all my many millions of readers (?) know, I tend to make infrequent visits to this blog-site, but only because it usually takes a significant event to rally me to comment. I'm like the majority of 'ordinary joe's' out in the normal world; I get on with what I have to do and, providing I don't, "Bump into the set and dressing or wave to anyone in the audience" I reckon the day has been a success. However, there have been a couple of things going on that have rattled the bars of my particular cage. One is to do with things 'theatrical' and will be the subject of a second blog in the next week..."Oy-vey! Lie down, take a Seltzer,Peter!" The other is one of urgency and I felt the need to share it with you in the hope that it'll, a) amuse you. b) feed you with information. c) cause you to follow it up and respond too. OK. Background.
The British Government is on the verge of selling off large tracts of forest to "interested parties" and 38Degrees (website) is opposing this and organising a petition. Things are moving apace and the signing of the petition is well into the 5m. There has also been a larger than average postbag at the local MP's office and I thought I'd share my correspondence with my MP (Andrew George - Lib-Dem) so that you can see BRITISH DEMOCRACY AT WORK! Read on, have patience and I'll keepyou all (?) informed as to the progress......
My first E-mail: -
We are writing to you to register our displeasure and to say how disappointed we were to discover you had not supported the vote against selling off English forests. You have no mandate from the people to take this step but it is now seemingly a "policy", a policy not mentioned in either the election manifesto or the coalition agreement made by either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties; this smacks of a buy-off for support granted.
The forests are not one of the government's personal assets to be traded and sold to the highest bidder, and you have no right to sell off our country by the slice to the interested few; a few who's only interest is how much they can make on the deal. Conglomerates, large institutions and foreign investors will be the main purchasers and we will be presented with a list of companies who wish to control large tracts of land for their own, often questionable ends; selling the woodland off as building plots (already happened in Surrey and Norfolk) closing off access with spurious "health and safety" orders placed on them (which is another word for allowing the woodland free-reign to choke off bridle and footpaths). The management of woodland takes time and expertise, something that is already available in the present system (talk about re-inventing the wheel). It also takes money of which we are sure the vast majority of English people would be happy to part with (in fact already do) in order to maintain the status-quo....but of course, your government, not having had the courtesy to consult the people about this major step...well, you wouldn't know, would you? It would also seem the present thinking on the cost-benefits of the sell-off would cost more than it would accrue (and in these 'straitened times' that seems very much like poor fiscal-management skills).
We therefore register our feelings on this matter in the strongest possible fashion that democracy allows by assuring you that, should this measure go through it will be the very last time we will register support for your party through the ballot box. We look forward to reading your response and seeing it matched by action.
Doris
Short-Concise-To-The-Point....huh?
Andrew George's secretary's reply: -
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me about the Government's recently published proposals which are out for consultation until Thursday 21st April this year. You also asked about an Opposition debate put forward by the Labour Party in Parliament on 2nd February 2011.
That debate didn't end in a vote to decide whether or not to sell off the Forestry Estate. It was merely an ill timed (though politically opportunistic) debate on whether a Government consultation should continue until its conclusion in a couple of months time.
In fact, I was surprised that neither the Labour Party, nor those who had been campaigning about the consultation proposals said much about Government plans announced last autumn to sell off approximately one fifth of its Estate (40,000 hectares of the 200,000 hectares it owns (the Forestry Commission also leases 58,000 hectares)) on the same basis - i.e. with fewer restrictions - as the Labour Government had sold off parts of the Estate throughout the period of the last Government.
As you are so concerned about the Government's proposals, I attach a copy of the consultation document (in case you have not already obtained one). You can respond to the consultation online by going to http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation. I would very much appreciate it if you were kind enough to send me a copy of the response which you prepare by the deadline. I will also prepare a response which reflects the views which are put to me by constituents regarding the consultation.
I should also point out that although the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition Government, there are no Liberal Democrat MPs appointed to Ministerial positions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, I am the Liberal Democrat's lead on DEFRA matters and therefore seek to work with DEFRA Ministers as closely as possible, and in order to seek a more acceptable approach to policy coming from this Department.
In respect of the consultation proposals I thought it might help if I set out some background to the policy. I am sure that you will have read that the Government believes that the Forestry Commission are 'conflicted' because it is both the regulator of as well as a major producer of timber in this country.
To reduce that potential conflict of interest, the Government is consulting on proposals to lease parcels of the whole Estate, where such a model would maintain the management of the woodland whilst protecting the public interest. Where possible charities and local communities or enterprises with innovative ideas to make best use of the nation’s woodland will be given an opportunity to take on the role of managing local woodland. This will give individuals, organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing their local forests.
Around 70% of the Country's woodland is privately owned. The Forestry Commission controls 18%. The Government's consultation proposes a long-term managed programme of reform enabling the Forestry Commission to make better use of its extensive experience and allowing those who live closest to our forests greater powers to protect them.
As proposed in the consultation document, the forests owned by the Forestry Commission will not be sold off to the highest bidder but leased. Community and charitable ownership will be encouraged. Where that is impractical the Estate would remain in public ownership. Leases would contain robust access, public benefit, historic rights and biodiversity conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders. Heritage forests, like the New Forest and the Forest of Dean will be protected, for example, by permitting their transfer to charitable trusts, if that proves feasible.
The bottom line must be, as many suggest, that the essential role that forests play in British life is retained. Ministers have sought to emphasise that these plans would not lead to a free-for-all of golf courses and housing developments. If the Government presses ahead with this after the consultation, priority should be given to environmental trusts and local communities to secure these forests and then work to protect their local environment, and not private companies making irreparable changes.
It is also important to note that the proposals include measures to prevent any diluting of the current safeguards protecting forest and woodland; including the protection of biodiversity and laws relating to replanting. Proposals for development would of course still require planning permission and licenses will still be required from the Forestry Commission when planning to fell more than five cubic metres of growing trees.
Following a number of inaccurate reports in the media, the Labour Party chose to call a debate on the Government's policy on forestry on a date when they knew the Government had only just launched its proposals for consultation which it could not bring to an abrupt halt. Whilst they were taking the full opportunity to criticise the Government for its consultation, by contrast, over the last thirteen years Labour sold off 25,000 acres of woodland with barely any protection and sought to go even further in finding ways to exploit the forestry estate for commercial gain as recently as 2009.
The vote taken was therefore inconsequential. The consultation should continue and I strongly advise you to respond, but to also use it as an opportunity to raise questions about the 40,000 hectares of forest announced for sale last autumn and which, as you will see on page 13, is not part of the consultation!
Finally, as you may already be aware, the Government has announced a significant tree planting campaign which will see one million extra trees planted across England - especially in urban and suburban areas - in the next four years; the first of its kind since the 1970s. The campaign will be carried out by the Government and the Forestry Commission and will bring together charities and conservation organisations, such as The Tree Council, Woodland Trust and Trees for Cities.
Thank you for raising this matter with me and I look forward to receiving your comments and response to the consultation.
With good wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Hm.....Long-Rambling-And-Sometime-Difficult-To-Follow
My Second E-mail reply: -
Dear Ms. ,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my E-mail which covered my deep concern over your Government’s arbitrary decision to sell off the nation’s forests; I trust I can reply in detail as you have done?
Contrary to your information, though not, seemingly, to your electronically generated reply’s information, I did not ask about an Opposition debate put forward by the Labour Party in Parliament on 2nd February 2011; mainly because I had no knowledge of it; thank you for that. I, too, was surprised that neither the Labour Party, nor those who had been campaigning about the consultation proposals, said much about Government plans announced last autumn to sell off approximately one fifth of its Estate on the same basis as the present incumbents’; secrecy and lack of disseminated information to the people is not the sole preserve of the present coalition methinks. I would guess the reason you introduced this subject was to be able to take an uninvited stab at the Opposition, as if, because I'm calling into question your motives and mandate that I'm somehow a Labour supporter. That's very ‘opportunistic’ of you...and wrong as it happens; after many years of watching all colours of government in action, I have a very, very jaundiced view of them all.
That the Labour Government has sold off parts of ‘our’ estate throughout the period of their last period in Government is beside the point. ANY government seeking to sell off large areas of woodland to outside, private interests, woodland that is welded to this country’s history and its people, would have received the same response from me, and I suspect from the vast majority of right-thinking people, as your policy suggestion has done...but only after we were informed of it. As intimated above, I was unaware of this fact (thank you once again for bringing it to my attention) and can only requote my feelings about the operation of secrecy and subterfuge that all governments operate under as the reason for my laxity in following it up. I can only comment on what I am informed of; my not responding until now only advertises that fact....oh, and “two wrongs....” etc probably apply here too). I would also add that you are seeking to make illusion (talking about the best way to proceed with a policy that has no mandate) seem more real than reality by this subterfuge.
Your phrase, “I should also point out that although the Liberal Democrats are in Coalition Government, there are no Liberal Democrat MPs appointed to Ministerial positions in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs” is also beside the point. You cannot evade the issue with such childish approaches as “it’s not my fault, they told me to do it”; you are IN GOVERMENT and no amount of sidestepping and wriggling will disassociate you from that fact nor stop you from being welded to the decisions taken. As far as I am aware from your published manifesto, and that of the Conservative party too, there is no mandate, no consultation and no policy announced in these documents concerning this opportunistic and underhand effort to ‘make a few quid’ by flogging off the nation’s woodland. Furthermore, were I a believer in political dishonesty, it would seem to look like payback for ‘services rendered’ to the rich and powerful who supported your ascent up the greasy pole. You were voted into office on your manifesto, as was the Conservative party and this woodland sell-off was not on it so, enough of the bleating, please.
Your paragraph about possible conflict of interest is as interesting as it is duplicitous. The Forestry Commission has been the regulator of, as well as a major producer of, timber in this country for YEARS. How come, all of a sudden it has become such a "pressing case"? Explanation, please. Conflict over what? The Forestry Commission is a government body; are we implying that there is a possible conflict of interest with the Ministers and Civil Servants involved in the running of this organisation? And if here, of other organisations too...? Surely not... Furthermore, your saying there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean that there is one. Why was it that the diligence, research and foresight to uncover this “conflict of interest” you flag up now, after only a few months in office, was sadly lacking for twenty years and was only uncovered after diligence, research and foresight by the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and resulted in the “Expenses Scandal.”? There is no need to re-invent the wheel by the ‘Government consulting on proposals to lease parcels of the whole Estate, where such model would maintain the management of the woodland whilst protecting the public interest’. The public interest is served now, with the forests belonging to the country, and ipso-fact its people as a whole, and not to selected parties. How it is run and operated may have some room for improvement, but much of what you propose will be to throw out the baby with the bath-water and doing it without a mandate from the people.
You say that ‘Where possible, charities and local communities or enterprises with innovative ideas’ will be given an opportunity to take on the role of managing local woodland.’ The proviso here is that statement’s opener; ‘Where possible...’ Who decides this? Ministers? Not acceptable, not if you want to avoid a 'conflict of interest'. And why do we need innovative ideas for what is already a rich environment? Why can't something just be wonderful for its naturalness? This constant striving for everything to be innovative, exciting, thrilling.... The very beauty and pleasure is in the woodland’s history and connection with the land and its people, in its very naturalness if you like; pleasure does not need the word "park" after it to become wonderful. Our woodland is rich because it is real, not bent, twisted and manufactured to become a parody of reality; reality is OK, trust me on that. All you have to do is put in the correct funds (that’s your job as a government) stop tinkering with it; leave it to those who understand it and our woodland will continue to be in fine fettle. They may not house the serried ranks of timber that those in Whitehall want to see (one of the reasons they cannot be trusted with its management) the rows of timber whose 'value' can be assessed, ready-reckoned, have a price put on it per capita hour of human input required to gain the best price for it; turned into pleasure parks where the natural environment (emphasis on 'natural' here) instead of being a catalyst for reflection and personal development becomes a fractured and twisted reflection of reality. Our woodland environment and its diversity is the very reason why it should be allowed, wherever possible and suitable, to grow at its own pace so that change within it is gradual and not enforced; that the species living within it also get time to adapt to changes and develop at a pace to suit them, their surroundings and so guarantee their continued survival. Where this is not possible, sensitive felling and replanting should be undertaken....oh...er...much like we have now, in fact. Nature thrives in a level of chaos, this is what gives its inhabitants the space and place to grow, diversify and develop and along with that, the people of this country have an historic affinity with their forests and woodland. Your ill-thought-out 'policy with no mandate' gives us a direct line through to the enclosures act of 1750 and onward where the division of land was in favour of the rich and powerful and denied the people of this country a fair share of its bounty.
To your statement, ‘Around 70% of the Country's woodland is privately owned. The Forestry Commission controls 18%. The Government's consultation proposes a long-term managed programme of reform enabling the Forestry Commission to make better use of its extensive experience and allowing those who live closest to our forests greater powers to protect them.’ I can only say; “What are you talking about?” Explanation please.
All of the facts in your statement about ‘leases containing robust access, public benefit, historic rights and biodiversity conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders’ we have in place already...so, we’re now proposing to re-invent the reinvention of the wheel, an excellent use of government time and money; our woodlands play an essential role in British life as it is. That you truly and honestly believe that, ‘Ministers have sought to emphasise that these plans would not lead to a free-for-all of golf courses and housing developments’ is also a deeply troubling statement. If you honestly believe that, then you should not be in government. Do you honestly mean to tell me that, if an owner of a tract of land, an owner who had supported the Conservative or Lib-Dem government to the tune of millions to get them into government in the first place and who wanted to fell areas of woodland, or shut them up to general access and build log cabins for holiday-makers, do you honestly think that government would step in and stop them? On past record (education, health, pensions, the Conservative Government's treatment of the miners, votes for sale, Lords for sale, ministers second-jobbing and acting as 'consultants' and 'lobbyists' for the very people who have a vested interest in the passing of certain laws and the delaying of others, the expenses scandal) you are not to be trusted with the care of our major institutions. And you have no need to ‘press ahead with this after the consultation’ as you have no mandate from the people, so this begs the question; “Why do you want to change it? There's something rotten in the state of Denmark, methinks. So far you have proved one thing only; that you are spending tax-payers money on re-inventing the re-invention of the re-invention of the wheel and I also repeat, whenever this 'policy' had come to light and in whatever political party guise, it would have been resisted vigorously. Yes, your tree-planting ‘announcement’ is OK; we’ll give it credence when it’s actually achieved, but, so? What do you want, a round of applause? Just for doing your job? OK, well, well-done, but don't think this is anything special. This is what you should be doing; safeguarding our nation, its people, their history and their legacy. You are our government and should be the guardians of our heritage and well-being, not preparing to sell off these precious national assets to the highest bidder as you have done and are doing with health and education.
Thank you for offering me the opportunity to respond to the consultation. I will, rest assured. What you have to understand is that the people can only respond to information given them. The subterfuge and smoke-screen diplomacy that has gone on in this move to sell forests only gives credence to the belief that ALL politicians are deceitful and untrustworthy, not true, I'm sure but the feeling is that they hide the truth behind a false reality and only allow sifted information to get through, that they speak of half-conversations as fact; and I think I may not be alone in this belief...?
Thank you again for your interest in my E-mail. I await your considered reply to this one with interest and anticipation.
Yours sincerely,
Doris
Let them send an electronically produced reply to that little sucker....
See you soon......Byeeee!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)