[Closed] Privatising the Forestry Commission

I want to see many of the cuts the Gov are proposing, wish it was not the case but think they are needed, but this would really p!ss me off!!!

[i]"...privatising [b]parts[/b] of the Forestry Commission..."[/i]
Most of the tree felling and road construction is done by contractors anyway.
This may not be as serious as it first sounds.

Wait until all the nature reserves are sold off as well!

These cuts are going far beyond what was proposed in the manifesto and far far beyond what is sensible and needed. its a purely ideological hatred of public / state ownership of assets and the opportunity is being taken to force sales thru having conned some of the population as to the extent of the financial crisis.

Its utter madness. Its far worse than anything Thatcher proposed or achieved. its the deliberate destruction of the state owned assets

Indeed, though hopefully this is a classic government stance of leak some truly monumentally disastrous proposals, so that the actual horrible cuts sound quite reasonable in comparison.

There was also a private members bill before the house a few weeks ago to abolish national park authorities (although not the parks themselves). I'm not sure what happened to it, but lets hope it doesn't give DEFRA any ideas.

After the audit office, I expect ONS to be the next agency to be talked up as ripe for the private sector.

Well the Times printed an article about DEFRA selling some of its flood defences off like the Thames barrier. Defra announced that it's not true and have no interest in selling off any of it's assets.

The only one's I know about is Environment Agency Wales, Countryside Council for Wales and Forestry Commission Wales want to break away and become one under the Welsh Assembly. And also British Water Ways becoming a Trust.

It's a bollocks article by a bollocks newspaper. It'll never happen.

but this would really p!ss [b][i]me[/i][/b]* off!!!

* emboldened and italicised by myself

This is what the tories love. Yeah, yeah, cut the shit out of everything. It's needed. But don't cut the shit out of [i][b]my[/b][/i] thing. Because that'll really piss [b][i]me[/i][/b] off. I'll blithely let everything that doesn't affect [b][i]me[/i][/b] be stripped bare. But I'm a mountain biker and I want [b][i]my[/i][/b] thing left alone thank you.

You might think to wonder why the vast majority of those less better off might not give a flying shit when you ask them to care about the sell-off of our countryside (if it happens 😉 ).

What the tories are doing is rather clever in a way.
1) convince the poulation that massive cuts are needed
2) cut budgets to depts and make them make the unpopular decisions
3) blame civil servants in these dept for the cut

I cannot believe how gullible many of you are
1) believing these cuts are needed
2) not believing that it is going to mean major changes

These changes such as selling off the forests are not coming directly from the government - they are coming from within depts that are having to attempt to balance budgets with 25% - 40% cuts and large amounts of non discretionary spending.

Your only hope is that the coalition falls apart and the condem government falls. Otherwise the damage the tories want to do in the name of a discredited ideology is going to do such damage to our society that Thatcher will look moderate

The worst aspect to me is again the lies. No mention of cuts this big was in the manifesto. Teh Lib dems campaigned against these cuts.

What's your thing Darcy? Not keen on the 'personals'! Get out of the wrong side this morning? Still not absolutely sure of the point you are making. I steer clear of politics none have ever done me much good. I have given a thought to what you have said and will continue to think about it. Others may not care about this issue but currently stand by my original thought that I would not like the FC, EA, National Parks or any of those things to be privatised.

I worked at Defra's HO for a number of months a few years ago; their ability to piss money away was beyond me - and believe me, having worked in the HO's of very blue-chip companies I seen a lot of waste/lavish expense.

It's been discussed for a good few years...I think very early 90's was a concerted effort to do this and then the FC remit changed to include recreation in their make-up...so they managed to stave off privatisation as they were also doing things for the public...

They should be privatised as they don't seem capable of running the 'service' for the benefit of the public but they do run it like their own personal fiefdom...get rid of them all and either start again or get it privatised and let them make the improvements needed.

DickBarton - Member

.............. get it privatised and let them make the improvements needed.

Private companies don';t like public access on their land - it has the potential to cost them money.

Not keen on the 'personals'!

Sorry if you're upset...it wasn't a personal thing...I'll keep in mind how sensitive people can be in future.

Thanks DD, no prob, my perspective has returned. I am not particularly well off having had a few difficult years and now redundant from these gov cuts. I am sure, as DickB says lots can be saved in Defra and I would like to see that, but my experience of many (not all) being privatised leads it away from the good aspects of the FC, EA etc... Now time to go see sprog James racing on said land

The last thing we need is the likes of Wildlife Trusts running LNRs and NNRs. I've seen some truly shocking WT written management plans.

That said, I can't see why any charity would really want to buy LNRs and NNRs. They're not generally like trail centres, where you can charge large numbers of people £3 to park. And if they do become that, most of their value will be destroyed by disturbance.

This is what the tories love. Yeah, yeah, cut the shit out of everything. It's needed. But don't cut the shit out of my thing. Because that'll really piss me off. I'll blithely let everything that doesn't affect me be stripped bare. But I'm a mountain biker and I want my thing left alone thank you.

Spot on. I mean god forbid they'd openly cut stuff like the "ringfenced" NHS now would they?

They should be privatised as they don't seem capable of running the 'service' for the benefit of the public but they do run it like their own personal fiefdom...get rid of them all and either start again or get it privatised and let them make the improvements needed.

Or you could make those improvements without privatisation, because if it were privatised like all the other privatisations, it wouldn't be for the benefit of the public.

Whenever I see this privatisation will make it better claptrap, it doesn't take much to realise it's simply a Government with a hatred for the public sector.

get it privatised and let them make the improvements needed.

Some people should watch "Yes Minister" before they give themselves a hysteria induced stroke

Usual pre-cut sacred cows being dragged out to make cuts unpalettable

Seems strange all these extreme "tory" cuts with a Lib Dem holding the purse strings

Talking about disastrous asset sales when is Gordon Brown going to apologise for the gold sell off?

If you think its a lib dem holding the purse strings you have been conned - as they have.

The gold - a miniscule amount compared to what is being proposed here.

Everyone line up, drop your pants, and bend over... it will hurt and resistance is futile.

It's already happening. The FC is selling off many of it's smaller woodlands as fast as it can. One of the reasons (amongst many others) the Gisburn boys are so keen on mountain bike trails, means the forest is less likely to be transferred into private hands. That said Tilhill (Llandegla) own a small part of Gisburn so who knows what may happen.

I don't fully agree with TJs sentiments that cuts aren't needed, I think they are and much of government is wasteful and not delivering what it set out to do (we could start another debate on whether what they want to achieve is worth it anyway). However I am extremely worried about the speed at which cuts are being annouced. I'm an Industrial Engineer by training so my whole job is about reducing costs but I've learnt the hard way there is a massive difference between arbitary 'cost cutting' usually driven by accoutants which invariably lead to less efficient operations and measured cost reduction which leaves organisations stronger. The trouble is the latter takes time, investment up front and perseverence, something politcians and many businessmen don't have.

stumpyjon - Member

....... I've learnt the hard way there is a massive difference between arbitary 'cost cutting' usually driven by accoutants which invariably lead to less efficient operations and measured cost reduction which leaves organisations stronger. The trouble is the latter takes time, investment up front and perseverence, something politcians and many businessmen don't have.

This is a crucial point and one I tried to make. It is arguable that some cuts are needed - myself I don't believe this especially as I know the cost cutting pressures the NHS has been under. However the massive arbitrary cuts (25 = 40% in some budgets) are certainly not needed and the speed at which they are being done is certainly going to be very damaging

Do try to remember tho that the UK has a low tax low government spend compared to our competitor nations. The alternative is to raise taxes to a level similar to our neighbours

It is arguable that some cuts are needed - myself I don't believe this

Nah, let's just keep spunking away the cash. We can always print more, can't we?

Do try to remember tho that the UK has a low tax low government

I must admit that does prick at the back of my mind every time I whinge about how much tax I pay versus what I perceive to be the services I get in return.

The flip side to the point I made is that throwing money at something doesn't make it intrinsically better. I had heard anecdotally that when labour was in the full flush of chucking money at the NHS people were actually having trouble spending it. Either way cuts or investment need to be thought though first or will result in a negative outcome.

As I mentionned in another thread the whole cuts thing is purely politcially driven. This was very apparent with Call Me Dave stomping all over the removal of school milk, he was sh*t scared he'd get equated to Thatcher. Totally transparent and morally bankrupt.

Summary the cuts are cuts which will probably cost us more in the long run, they're poltically motivated and there has not been anywhere near enough time to have properly thought them through.

PS I don't want Brown back either, be nice if we could have some politicians that were idealogically driven for once rather than career driven. Trouble is the electorate don't often vote for them, too complicated to understand what they stand for.

CFH - its a very clear choice - decent services or low tax - we can't have both.

Look at the tax take in Germany and Holland compared to here - then add in healthcare which is all paid from tax here and only partly there - you will see that most of our competitor countries if you compare like with like IE include healthcare costs have a higher government spending than we have.

The alternative to spending cuts is tax increases - to the levels in other eurpoean countries which are significantly higher

It remains absolutely true that we are a low tax low spend country. Even the usa if you add healthcare costs in is only a couple of % pts of GDP lower. Germany is a bit higher, holland a lot higher, norway higher still.

The gold - a miniscule amount compared to what is being proposed here.

Where do you get your info? Straight out of your arse?

More significantly, the gold sold is worth some £6.6 billion more than the £2.2bn that the Treasury received over the period of the sale.

against;

Defra has been asked to cut spending this year by £162m

So, the 2.2bn is miniscule? or perhaps the 6.6bn difference between what he sold it for and what its worth today? F***ing brilliant chancellor he was!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece

TJ, it's a very clear choice - Stop spunking money on utterly stupid waste and spend it where it really matters. There is vast waste in government (all governments) which could and should be cut back. Let's start with the easy targets and then spend what's left where we really need it.

Let's start with the easy targets

Like Trident you mean?

Stop spunking money on utterly stupid waste and spend it where it really matters.

Depends on what you would classify as stupid, based entirely on your social background and political leanings.

Anything he'd like us to imagine he can afford.

Stop spunking money on utterly stupid waste and spend it where it really matters. There is vast waste in government (all governments) which could and should be cut back. Let's start with the easy targets and then spend what's left where we really need it.

+1konabunny - it's like listening to re-runs of the 80's.

Of course, all those privatized utilities now operate so much more effectively - just look at the railways, or Royal Mail.

+1konabunny - it's like listening to re-runs of the 80's.

Of course, all those privatized utilities now operate so much more effectively - just look at the railways, or Royal Mail.

yep... or affordable housing, or staying warm in the cold, or healthcare...

6.6 billion lost on the gold( is that right???) compared to a total cut of 25% in government spending. Thats a proposed cut of 150 billion a year in the UK budget. Minuscule might be not quite right but it is definitely small beer in comparison to the proposed cuts

CFH - I'd love to see whare you think 25% efficiency savings are coming from.

You really have no idea do you - there simply is not that much waste to be cut and actually many depts run very efficiently. Teh waste that gets the Daily Wailers all frothing at the mouth is minute sums in comparison to budgets.

so lets see some examples of significant waste that makes any significant dent in the 150 billion a year they want to cut.

TJ, please, for the sake of everyone else here, go and do a stint working for the private sector.

Contracts of employment and employment rights are radically different. Take the example of someone who isn't pulling their weight. Within the public sector, the tendency is to try and get them to go to another department. The problem is almost impossible to resolve in many public sector organisations, as sacking someone is very lengthy, and there's a huge incentive to stick around long after you're fed up with the job in the form of the pension. In the private sector, you'd be out the door pretty sharply.

I know you see the public sector as setting an example of how the private sector should treat it's employees, but from where I'm sitting, it looks very different. To me, it looks like unions have huge sway over public sector employers, and create a situation where their members are protected at the cost of everybody else.

Of course, your original question, which boils down to "What can make a significant dent in £150 billion" is unanswerable. £150bn is larger than most government departments. The only way to make a dent in it is to try and save what are individually quite small sums everywhere.

tron - I have and do work in the private sector. IME its far more wasteful that the public sector. You clearly have no idea what occurs in the public sector. Sacking folk is easy if you have the will. I have done it as a public sector manager.

Why should workers get such poor terms and conditions? They don't in the private sector in Germany - where they have significant growth this year. Nowhere else of our competitor nations do you have such poor terms and conditions nor do you have a governemnt so intent on massive cuts.

Its just the idea that cutting waste and making efficiencies will save this money if so ludicrous. Its just potty. You might save 2% from waste - you wont save 25%

Cuts of the scale proposed mean massive cuts in services. There simply is not 25% savings to be made from waste. Its an ideological crusade to destroy the public sector based around cooked up moral panics. If you can't see this you are a gullible fool.

You have been conned by the daily wailers.

The damage these cuts will do will last for generations.

You show your ignorance by this

To me, it looks like unions have huge sway over public sector employers, and create a situation where their members are protected at the cost of everybody else.

Simply untrue. A union has no power over its members.

Employers, not employees. And anyone who doesn't think unions have power over their members is on a hiding to nothing - there might not be formal power, but in any group there is always a lot of informal and implicit power.

As for me having no idea what occurs in the public sector, I and my girlfriend have both seen the kind of situation I outlined first hand.

And you're coming out with straw man arguments all over the shop.

In 30 yrs of working in both private and public sectors I simply have never seen what you describe. I have been a union convener as well

My basic point remains.

Why should our workforce have the worst terms and conditions of any of our competitor nations, why is our government pursuing massive cuts that no other government is doing?

This whole cuts issue is a ideologically driven con on the back of an artificially created moral panic and far to many of you are gullible fools who believe it.

We remain a low tax low spending economy in comparison to our competitor nations. Our workforce gets a far worse T&C than in the rest of Europe. There simply is no need for the scale of cuts proposed

Why should our workforce have the worst terms and conditions of any of our competitor nations,

Our workforce gets a far worse T&C than in the rest of Europe.

the 1 million+ eastern europeans now working in this country must be mugs then

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
{William Shakespeare}

Baseless scare story in a shit newspaper.

andemJeremy - Member
There simply is no need for the scale of cuts proposed

They still don't get it, do they?

Luckily those who share your viewpoint are firmly out of the picture now.

In two years time it's going to be interesting to look back and see if TJ (et al) is just a wailing lefty and little really changes or if he's really right and we really see massive changes. I suspect that he'll be partly right but a lot of the cressers doom stuff will be wrong - eg a comfortable middle ground.

+1 for TJ
early night for backhander 😉

face it the torries will be jizzing themselves at the chance of selling off something as non-essential as the FC
i wonder what affect it would have on trail centres and insurance in particular.

what insurance?

over the whole forest estate, i'd imagine risk from built trails is swamped by other stuff.

[i]i wonder what affect it would have on trail centres and insurance in particular.[/i]

Should be fine, the new £10 a ride fee will have it factored in.

trail centres and insurance in particular.

ask the Llandegla crew, site owned and operated by Till Hill and trail expansion?

ask Drumlanrig, etc etc

Modern history has shown us that right-field, neo-con, pro-big business, anti-state, pro-cuts governments allways produce more mess for the most people. The most relatively succesful societies(i.e. where people are happier, healthier and wealthier) are those with liberal, left-field, pro-tax, pro welfare consensus governments. I am old enough and have lived in enough countries to have seen the differences 🙂

And you're coming out with straw man arguments all over the shop

bravohotel9er

Its you that doesn't "get it"

We have a leaner public sector than competitor nations such as Germany, Holland Italy etc, we spend less on public services, we have a lower tax take. If these countrioe who tax an dspend more than us are not prposing massive cuts then why do we have to

cuts [u][b]on the scale proposed[/b] [/u]and intended are simply not needed A sensible efficiency drive together with a rise in income tax and cancellation of vanity projects such as Trident will suffice.

You have bought into a neocon moral panic and have been conned.

I am old enough and have lived in enough countries to have seen the differences

Yes, i'd agree, but unfortunately the quarter wits here would rather pocket the money and stuff the rest.

Modern history has shown us that right-field, neo-con, pro-big business, anti-state, pro-cuts governments allways produce more mess for the most people. The most relatively succesful societies(i.e. where people are happier, healthier and wealthier) are those with liberal, left-field, pro-tax, pro welfare consensus governments. I am old enough and have lived in enough countries to have seen the differences

I take it you didn't live in the USSR? Cuba? North Korea?

I suspect its more countries like Norway, Germany and Holland that are referred to. You know countries with a higher standard of living than ours and more happy people despite or because of the higher taxes and public spending.

I take it you didn't live in the USSR? Cuba? North Korea?

i havent, but i did go to sweden recently, it was very nice indeed.

Funny, I thought that germany were capitalists

Backhander - can you read?

BluePalomino

...those with liberal, left-field, pro-tax, pro welfare consensus governments

About as good a description of post war Germany as possible.

TandemJeremy - Member
I suspect its more countries like Norway, Germany and Holland that are referred to. You know countries with a higher standard of living than ours and [b]more happy people[/b] despite or because of the higher taxes and public spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Norway: 39th
Germany: 50th
Netherlands: 54th
UK: 66th

Very good Druidh!

I take it you didn't live in the USSR? Cuba? North Korea?