The road less travelled

Fantastic. One idiotic idea down, many more to go...

These daily fiascos and U turns are really showing up the tories for what they are ...

.... a single issue party run by a bunch of public school boys with no experience of the real world let alone running a country.

I suppose the only thing you can credit Cameron with is recognising the policy is not right and stopping it before it goes any further.

They really need someone with their feet on the ground to say hey chaps this half baked policy isn't going to work......someone like Andy Coulson perhaps?

Good morning Nick,

good breaking story. How long can Spellman last?

My point is that on 9th February I asked Devon County Council (DCC) about the sale of Haldon Forest. The response of DCC is worth repeating:

'the parts of Haldon Forest that are currently in the County Council's ownership will remain in our ownership and are outside the scope of any proposals for disposal of forestry that is currently owned by Central Government'.

The interesting point is did Central Government actually own any Forest to sell, or is most of it actually 'owned' by Councils'.

Oops!!

Fiasco of the day...

Rising unemployment AND rising inflation!

Option (d) still in operation: labour made a mess of the economy, tories made it even worse.

Well done the tories.

""Mr Cameron took a peek out the No 10 window and saw the massed ranks of Middle England marching up the road with the band playing Jerusalem in the background, and decided he was in a particularly deep hole and needed to stop digging," our correspondent said."

Why do you lot at the Beeb have to be so given to utterly ridiculous hyperbole??? Shouldnt you be leaving that to the dumbed down redtops like the Sun and the Mirror??

Politician hears rumbles from a consultation period and changes his mind because he figures its not worth the political price. Well, whoop-de-flamin-do, roll out the bunting. What a surprise.

Pardon me if I'm being a bit slow Nick, but isnt that what consultation periods are meant to be for?

Or had you just got used to what they were in the NL days, which was a sop to democracy and something that they would ignore the output of anyway? AndyC555 could probably give examples of HMRC consultation periods on quite far reaching prospective policies where the results of the consultation were merely a bump in the road and the policy got implemented anyway. And thats just one department...

You'll soon find out whether the massed ranks of middle England have any say whatsoever when it comes to HighSpeed2 and how the incumbent administration deals with that, regardless of which colour it is.

Probably in the same way that Blair dealt with the Iraq War and Countryside Alliance protests... complete ignorance and just crack on and do it anyway and s*d the consequences.

"The nation" is England.

I am sick of politicians using "this country", "the country" and "Britain" when they're talking about England.

Only England's forests were up for sale because the UK government CAN only sell England's assets.

Why is it that Cameron, Clegg, Miliband can never say the word England?

Why is it that Nick Robinson never holds them to account on this? Make them say England when they are talking about England.

I'm glad they have backed down on this one, as a keen walker I would not have like the loss of our forests

I'm also glad that they recognised the fact that it was an unpopular policy and have rightly changed their minds. I don't think any government should be chastised for changing their opinions after consultation shows the opposite of their assumptions

That won't stop the howls on here though will it?

In fact I see it has started already.......

"Of course governments make mistakes. I hope that when we do, we are relatively fast in trying to admit a mistake, put it right, sort it out."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is a sensible approach, but it would be better to spend a bit longer thinking about things and subjecting ideas to internal challenge before making public announcements. There is a sense of incontinence about the government.

The policy itself didn't seem as though it would have achieved much apart from annoying tree-huggers and diverting focus from more pressing mattters.

I know that journos love a story involving the "u" word, but isn't IDS's announcement on benefit changes a much bigger deal?

As #8 mentioned, Cameron should be congratulated for not being afraid to back down. However, it was a stupid idea in the first place. Also, I think the BBC should acknowledge the part that the organisation 38 Degrees played for it was they who gathered the half a million petition

A fine example of democracy shooting down a perfectly reasonable policy because of airy, baseless fears about things that were never clearly defined.

Ask an "anti-sell off" protester about why the forests should not be sold off, and they have no answer. Some say that it would restrict access, but this plainly isn’t true as the Right to Roam still exists, and somewhere in the covenant would be conditions disallowing the building of fences to keep people out. Some argue that it would mean mass deforestation, but this also isn’t true because you need permission. Some also argue that the forests would be badly maintained, but again, owners of the forests would purchase them under the condition that they were kept to Forestry Commission standards.

We’ve just forfeited hundreds of millions of potential proceeds so that Middle England can sleep better in their beds at night, knowing that a forest they will probably never visit will continue to be owned and kept by a government that can’t afford them.

So where were the BBC and people who have said how awful the present Government are to sell off some of the Forests when the Labour Government sold off 25000 acres of forest.

Where was David Babbs 38 Degrees when Brown sold off forests with NO guarantees on access or anything else?

Where were the protesters when labour introduced tuition fees?

Where were the protesters when Brown scrapped the 10 pence tax rate?

Even when more than 2 million demonstrated against the Iraq war labour ignored them !

Total hypocrisy from labour as usual.

The coalition government at least are listening unlike labour.

Coats @ 3 wrote:
I suppose the only thing you can credit Cameron with is recognising the policy is not right and stopping it before it goes any further.

>>

Yes, and I think he does deserve credit for it. I wonder if it's a conscious decision to differentiate himself from Brown, whose almost pathological inability to admit mistakes made him appear arrogant and inhuman. (Or delete "appear" if you prefer.)

The danger for Cameron is that he starts to look amateurish, particularly when compared to Blair. The quotes from Cameron in Nick's piece - "Government is a lot harder than opposition", "there's an awful lot of decisions" - begin to a create a picture of a PM who is out of his depth.

tomb123 @ 11 wrote:
We’ve just forfeited hundreds of millions of potential proceeds

>>

But we've still got the asset, so I don't see the problem. From an accountant's point of view, our financial position isn't worse for not selling them, it's exactly the same. Or perhaps better, if the value of the land is rising at a higher rate than the interest on our debts. And in the meantime, everybody gets to enjoy the forests. It's win-win!

By your logic, everybody who owns a house which they don't immediately sell is forfeiting thousands.

Mr. Cameron now seems to concede that in the early days the government tried to do too much too fast.

Does that apply to thhe deficit reduction policy as well?

#15, pdavies65 wrote:
But we've still got the asset, so I don't see the problem.
>>

I take your point, but the asset still costs considerable sums of money to maintain through the Forestry Commission. I don't have the exact figures for this, but given the normal massive overspending of such organisations, I'd guess somewhere in the tens if not hundreds of millions each year continuing to be spent on upkeep.

It's ironic that the same people who were complaining about the sale are the same people who campaign for higher taxes on the wealthy. This would effectively be a tax on the wealthy (or the organisations) which buy the forests to pay for their upkeep.

Although, yes, there is clearly an argument to wait until the price of the land peaks to wait to sell them, much in the same way as gold. Although no one complained as much about that at the time.

Allotments

Lets now try to kill off the 300% hike in the cost of an allotment! It is in fact illegal, but councils across the country will try to get away with it!

The Law (Allotments Act 1950) clearly states that allotments can only be rented for the purpose they are used - that is agricultural. That makes the maximum rent about £50 per plot per year - not the £300 some Councils want to charge! The Councils will loose in court but huge sums of public money will be wasted on going to law - they must be told to drop their absurd 600% attempted price increase NOW!

David Cameron will stop the closure of the coastguard stations next.

Thank goodness that this stupid proposal to sell off and lease off publicly owned forests has been defeated. The assurances made by the government that public access and biodiversity would be fully protected were largely worthless both because under existing legislation it would be almost impossible to make any conditions legally binding and because, in practice, it would be extremely difficult to police and enforce any conditions to ensure that they were not being broken. Even now, local councils and national agencies cannot properly police and enforce the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Tree Preservation Orders, Public Rights of Way, and so on. And this is before all the cuts in funding and staff that are currently being implemented.

The only way to guarantee that public access and biodiversity will be respected is to keep the forests in public ownership and, in general, public management (although some charities, such as the National Trust, Woodland Trust, RSPB or Wildlife Trusts could probably be trusted).

England is one of the least wooded countries in Europe, so, if anything, the government should be increasing, not decreasing, the amount of publicly owned forests and creating new forests and 'wilderness' areas for public enjoyment and wildlife.

Now that we have defeated this crackpot idea from Defra Secretary Caroline Spelman and her appalling Farming Minister Jim Paice, I hope that we can stop their equally crackpot ideas to slaughter large numbers of badgers and re-legalise the hunting of foxes, deer and hares (all of which run counter to both public opinion and the scientific evidence).

#15. pdavies65 wrote:

"tomb123 @ 11 wrote:
We’ve just forfeited hundreds of millions of potential proceeds"

But isn't tomb123's point that so long as he/she isn't forced to sell their own property he/she want everyone else to cough up till the pips-squeak! The logic of Thatcher and the Tories throughout the ages - "I'm all right Jack" and stuff the poor!

If nothing else, for me this at least demonstrates that Cameron has some awareness of popular opinion, and some willingness to listen to it. Two things that were very much lacking in the previous government.

This is the first thing I have agreed with Cameron on since he got into power. Too much lightweight policy making by the coalition is coming to light.

I have to applaud him for listening to the public, but I think he needs to do a lot more listening before long. https://bit.ly/e1c7OF

Perhaps Blair should have done a u-turn over IRAQ but then he had already made a deal with bush.

IRAQ or WOODs

think WOODS is a minor issue.

Mr J.Powell seems to be rowing back from his support if he had knwon the evidence was not that trust worthy ?


lets get some perspective.

ps no body was going to Die from the woods sell off

Unless one is an ideologue … and nothing wrong with ideology, btw, except the ‘small state’ variety … but unless you’re one of those, what you’ll mainly be looking for in a government is the C word. No, not chocolate (please behave) - Competence. Not clear that we’re getting this from Cameron and his team. Why might this be? Been giving some thought to this and I have an insight. I’m someone who normally has very little time for Class War type nonsense – grew out of that ages ago (last Tuesday as I recall) – it’s where a person’s going to which counts, not where they’ve come FROM* - but I wonder if social background is a factor here. Because born-to-rule doesn’t mean born to rule well, does it? No. As we’re seeing. Running the Eton tuck-shop isn’t necessarily a good training for running this complex, multifaceted, mixed culture, mixed economy entity we call Britain today. Having said that, my researchers tell me that David Cameron didn’t run the tuck-shop at Eton. Does that make it better or worse? That he wasn’t considered quite ‘right’ for that particular job. Or perhaps he wasn’t even interested. And is this any better? - having a complete lack of interest at such a formative age in managing something. I don’t know (does anybody really?); I’m just putting it out there.

* In fact, thinking about this oft-used phrase, it’s nonsense, isn’t it? Both are moot. If I meet somebody when I’m out and about in the locale, I tend to ask them where they’re off to – yes of course I do, only polite – but I also ask them where they’ve just been. The latter is, if anything, the more interesting and relevant aspect because it’s a fact, it’s happened. As to where they’re going now, well who knows? They could be fibbing.

17. At 10:26am on 17 Feb 2011, tomb123 wrote:


"Although, yes, there is clearly an argument to wait until the price of the land peaks to wait to sell them,"

Then, quite rightly IMO, we should hold on to then forever as the price of land will never peak (unless of course the land is the Peak District and then it's always peaked).

Acutally I am sorry that the Coalition have done a U turn on selling off the nations wood, because I thought is was a rather good policy. The Government, however, did not communicate the benefits to the public, therefore it was always going to be an argument they would lose. Damian Green, in particular, did a very poor job of selling the policy on Question Time, which did a lot of damage.

It is always a source of interest to me, that it is the small issues that can cause a Government damage with the public, whilst the bigger issues seem to pass them by.

I suppose, Cameron decided this was not a fight worth picking at the moment with so many other issues the Coalition have to deal with. In these circumstances he is probably right.

"I’m someone who normally has very little time for Class War type nonsense – grew out of that ages ago (last Tuesday as I recall) – it’s where a person’s going to which counts, not where they’ve come FROM* - but I wonder if social background is a factor here. Because born-to-rule doesn’t mean born to rule well, does it? No. As we’re seeing. Running the Eton tuck-shop isn’t necessarily a good training for running this complex, multifaceted, mixed culture, mixed economy entity we call Britain today."

Oh for gods sake.... {facepalm}.

I cant say what I really think of this childish drivel, the mods would censor me in a heartbeat. There are times mate that I would like to tip a bucket of ice cold water over you, there really are.

This is one of those times.

#7

I totally agree. it is like when people talk of the 'National' Health Service, it is now effectively the English Health Service. It is le the BBC, or British Broadcasting Corporation, surely with Scotland having its BBC, Wales, its BBC, Northern I do not know, but surely we can forget about the BBC, and have the English Broadcasting Corporation.

The policy of sales of woodland related to England and nowhere else. I think again that it is time that we had an English parliament, and we can forget all about Britain, the British, Britons, and start thinking of what has over time been stolen, namely England, or as the Americans would say England land.

I don't know about others but the problems over the sale of woodland are bringing many other previously hidden issues to the fore, namely, why have the English allowed Britain to walk over us, I think that there should be a referendum on whether there should still be any union, I want independence, and freedom, for England, and the English taxpayer.

PD@14

They need to concentrate on doing a few things well - this splatter gun approach to policy - trying to do everything at once, does (as you say) make them look amateurish.

I would have thought they had enough on their hands with managing the economy, voting reform and the NHS reforms without taking on every battle now.

Susan @ 27

He bottled it, is what you're saying. Which is fair enough. Important to pick your fights wisely.

The forests are a national asset and a potential boon to the health and well-being of the population. The young especially could do with spending less time on the Wii and more time in the fresh air. When PD junior was being particularly irksome the other day, I said to my wife, "What that boy needs is a hike in the Trossachs".

Would hate to drive all that way and find they'd been sold off.

Saga@25
"Running the Eton tuck-shop isn’t necessarily a good training for running this complex, multifaceted, mixed culture, mixed economy entity we call Britain today. Having said that, my researchers tell me that David Cameron didn’t run the tuck-shop at Eton."

Sadly I don't think many front line politicians have ever actually run anything and it is starting to show - could equally apply to the MiliBros & the opposition front bench.

Anyhow back to the tuck shop - surely the fags to do the menial work for them?

Mrs Tiggy-Winkle, Nutkin and the residents of Cat Bell hill are very grateful for Mr. Cameron's u-turn on the sell-off of the nation's woods.
They hope to continue going about their blackberry picking untroubled by corporate buy-outs.
The Save Our Woods march, or crawl, into London has been called off.

BTW the money to pay for New Labours mess has to come from somewhere and thats a fact

pdavies 31

Call it whatever you like, I probably would have made exactly the same decision as Cameron, so it seems only logical to me.

You obviously do not understand the policy, judging by your comments. Much of Scandinavian Forests are privately owned. Sustainable Management is very important. However, Britain always has to lag behind every other Country, so situation normal. Much like your posts are predictable, try breaking the mould just now and then. Think about the subject matter instead of the politics for once.

Britain is stuck in this belief public sector good, private sector bad, it will prove their undoing, I am afraid. Still what do you care about these important issues, as long as you can keep claiming you are a Labour leftie, no matter what the cost.

2. At 09:11am on 17 Feb 2011, jon112dk wrote:
.... a single issue party run by a bunch of public school boys with no experience of the real world let alone running a country.
=========================================================================

Sounds like all parties today......

In the words of the great Arny "It'll be back".

35

Why so sour Susan?

Why thank you, Fubar! - 28 - yes, a touch better drivel than the 'cleaning up Labour's mess' variety, isn't it? Important to up the standards re drivel on here. But actually I think I've put my finger on something and there's nothing wrong with that. Bet you do it, don't you? Bet you do that quite a lot. Fact, I know you do - it's obvious.

No, look, it's a serious - and seriously good - point. Or set of questions rather; is Cameron up to it? and if not, is it anything to do with the sort of chap he is? and if it is (a little bit to do with the sort of chap he is), is this anything to do with his background?

Three questions there, all spot-on relevant to the thread topic (Competence and UpToItness) and the jury's out. Could well be that the answers to these questions are, respectively, No and Yes and Yes.

Couldn't it?

What this entire process shows is that very few people actually know what they are talking about when it comes to woodlands and forests.

Forestry is different from woodland management.

The Forestry Commission has done a lot in the past to destroy woodland and heathland by burying them beneath plantations of fir.

If woodland is properly managed then it is a profitable and valuable activity best left to a skilled and knowledgeable workforce. This has little in common with forestry management.

There is a strong argument for the local management of woodland as an asset by locally based Trusts. This is already born out by experience as the woodland provides an income stream which can then be diverted into public access and educational activities. In the current climate the employment prospects in a healthy and outdoor industry should be encouraged particularly among young people.

Forestry is about the bulk production of timber as a commodity. Of course the trees will be cut down as this is why they were planted in the first place. Then they grow again.

The conversion of woodland and forests into agricultural or residential land is very complex and expensive as anyone who has dug out a tree stump can tell you.

Historically government has always sold off its timber when in times of financial trouble. Charles I did it, as did Edward, The Black Prince among many others. It is a habit older than the trees themselves.

I can't help thinking this is a lot of fuss about very little, but it does create the opportunity to argue for locally backed woodland trusts. As a descendant of woodmen anything that makes paying jobs in the woods is to be encouraged. As a descendant of woodland owners I can assure the public that nobody destroys a profitable asset. Unless they are a banker, of course!

27. At 10:52am on 17 Feb 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:

"It is always a source of interest to me, that it is the small issues that can cause a Government damage with the public, whilst the bigger issues seem to pass them by."

Now I very worried. I confess having recently been tied up with Blame trying to save our nations woods so please, no prey tell, what bigger issues have paseed us by, whilst we've been away. Now that our woods are secure for the enjoyment of future generations we will ensure that our attentions will be re-directed to these bigger issues that you talk about. Tell us what these issues are and we will get on the case immediately. Just hope we are not too late and Blame hope you're geared up. Right Susan, we're all ears, lets hear it, give us the worse, what have those nasty Tories been up to now!

coats @ 32

Mmm. Fancy a fag? Who doesn't? I certainly used to before I kicked the habit into touch where it belongs. It was taking far too much time. Plus, you have to go outside for a puff now - not so much fun.

And yes, today's politicos generally, very true what you say about them. PPE at Oxford and all the rest of it. Total SPADs. It's not really an anti-Cameron point I'm making - not as such. Just that his abilities (or lack of) are the Blog topic.

28 - Fubar

It has to be deliberate, surely? Saga goes from saying that where someone is from isn't important to purile 'Eton tuck shop' insults in a single paragraph.

Good to see that again, Blame (33). Been a while. Quite fitting for the subject too.

I am not a Tory, and I strongly dislike this government. However, credit where credit is due: whether it be because of a change of heart, or an early recognition of realpolitik, Mr Cameron has changed his policy with more than a modicum of good grace. That is far more than Tony Blair ever did. At least Mr Cameron does not hamstring his government with an egotistical need to demonstrate his own infallibility.

As it happens, I think this is the right decision. Most people don't want the majority of future generations to feel like trespassers in their own country. At least for now, parents won't need to go to the top of a hill and say to their childen "One of these days, none of this will be yours!"

Over the centuries, the ruling classes in Britain have appropriated far too much property that was in no way rightfully theirs! Most people may not know the details, but the actions of the hereditary kleptrocracy have contributed greatly to the cultural legacy of class hatred and division in Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

This theft has even occurred in Education. How many people know that Eton and other Public Schools were set up for the benefit of the poor, but that the ruling classes stole them and subverted their purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College

31 pdavies65

The forests are a national asset and a potential boon to the health and well-being of the population. The young especially could do with spending less time on the Wii and more time in the fresh air. When PD junior was being particularly irksome the other day, I said to my wife, "What that boy needs is a hike in the Trossachs".

Would hate to drive all that way and find they'd been sold off.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This illustrates the irrationality of much of the opposition to the plans, you would still have been able to go for your walk whether they were privately owned or not. The plan was not to sell the woods so that they could be cleared and concreted over.

Probably this could be one of those stories that just slipped under the carpet or on the other hand it could be a weapon of mass destruction for Ed Balls, The headline in the FT reads;

"IMF admits wilting under Brown Treasury"

It goes on to say;
"In particular, the constant sparring over the public finances between the IMF and Gordon Brown’s Treasury, when Ed Balls, now shadow chancellor, was a key figure, contributed to fund officials being insufficiently robust with the Bank and the FSA."

The report makes interesting reading....

https://imf-ieo.org/eval/complete/pdf/01102011/Crisis_BP5_UK_Bilateral_Surveillance.pdf

25. At 10:46am on 17 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:
Competence
=========================================================================
Interesting both you and Ed used this when his own competence has been called into question along with his new partner in crime Mr Ed 2...

susan @ 35

Ah yes, that reminds me; you were going to give us an example of a proper left (as opposed to my nonsense) policy yesterday - weren't you? - the sort you disagree with but 'have respect' for, and then the damn thread closed, probably just as you were about to hit Post.

So great that we get a second chance here today. Serendipity is the name of the game here, let's not miss out again.

pdavies 38

Not sour, just frustrated really. I get a little tired of posts which say nothing, but reflect the view that if Labour said the sky was black you and others would believe them.

Please don't come back with the obvious joke.

I have worked with a lot of people from other Countries, who are so enthusiastic to move on, learn new things. With the British it is always I can't, or thats too difficult, I can't be bothered to understand etc.

It is like all the young British people who are out of work, who say they cannot get jobs, yet immigrants always do.

Why can't we do what other Countries do, embrace change, understand cuts have to be made, and look forward to a rewarding future for us all.

Your posts just encourage the negative all the time, and they get me down, quite frankly.

OK, so the woodlands are saved. But what about the infinitely more serious problem of nearly a million unemployed young people?

Just heard that of the 5million out work of working aga 1.4 million have been out of work for a decade.

At a time of the biggest "Fake" boom surly that shows just what a failure the NEW LABOUR project was.

what did that cost the country 1.4million*£25K *10 years =
£350 000 000 000

yet there are around 2million non UK natinoals doing work in the UK for this period jobs that they could have been doing.

the number are mind boggling at the size of the labour failure.

take that out of the debt and we could have weather many a storm and let the like of NR,RBS BOS go to the wall

NEW LABOUR = FAILURE written large

27. Susan-Croft wrote:
Acutally I am sorry that the Coalition have done a U turn on selling off the nations wood, because I thought is was a rather good policy. The Government, however, did not communicate the benefits to the public, therefore it was always going to be an argument they would lose. Damian Green, in particular, did a very poor job of selling the policy on Question Time, which did a lot of damage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh, as Cool Hand Luke would have said “what we have here is a failure to communicate”.

I seem to remember another PM, our former Vicar of the Parish, complaining that the Public just didn’t get it either – yes the millions were wrong, but he was so right.

I think you are correct though; Cameron has far bigger fights ahead of him, so why waste his political strength on small fry right now.
Apart from that, the sale of woodlands would have only raised chicken feed as far as our deficit is concerned.
Worry not; the policy has probably gone onto the back (wood) burner for now rather than been totally scrapped as some media pundits have suggested.

Trying to imagine Cameron running around shouting "I've got wood" was always a dubious proposition.

And as it has turned out, there was something nasty in the political woodshed.

Sometimes policies might make perfect sense but always have to overcome an English public that on a fundamental level, simply does not trust politicians to always do the right thing.

PS. Glad to see that some of our English bloggers on this thread are realising the invidious political situation that our England is in. Its an awakening - English style.

sasha Clarkson 45

This theft has even occurred in Education. How many people know that Eton and other Public Schools were set up for the benefit of the poor, but that the ruling classes stole them and subverted their purpose.

-----------------------------------------

No, the question should be who cares.

We used to put children up chimneys as well. So what.

That has absolutely no connection with our woods in modern times.

sagamix 49

I told you I would not, and I told why. However feel free to continue talking to yourself as you usually do. Please note though the subject matter is woods. Bit tricky for you that one, I know, you not being able to see the wood for the trees and all that.

No, look, it's a serious - and seriously good - point. Or set of questions rather; is Cameron up to it? and if not, is it anything to do with the sort of chap he is? and if it is (a little bit to do with the sort of chap he is), is this anything to do with his background?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No mate, no matter how you want to dress it up its garbage. It has about as much to do with his background as to yours does as to why you couldnt hack it as a Bond Trader, or as much as Brown's inability to run anything beyond a flight of stairs because his dad was a presbyterian priest. Its all complete cr*p.

Now you know what I think of DC, I dont think he's up to the job either, I think he needs to go away and grow a pair, but its not because of where he's from, its because of his personality and his political attitude.

Honestly, this self loathing "I hate the rich and priveleged" tripe from people who werent exactly born to heroin addicted HIV positive single mothers from the wrong side of the tracks - and think that they're being achingly self conscious, "progressive" and "radical" by rebelling against their "conservative with a small c" parents - its unconvincing, its false, its.... nauseating.

Give it a flamin' rest will you?

43#

He wouldnt know penury if he fell over it on his way to the Organic Free Trade Nuclear-Free Progressive Dry Cleaners in Hampstead High Street.

53. At 12:33pm on 17 Feb 2011, forgottenukcitizen wrote:

"Worry not; the policy has probably gone onto the back (wood) burner for now rather than been totally scrapped as some media pundits have suggested."

You mean to say that DC and his governmenr are setting out to deceive us? Hope not, I've got trust in DC and this government and they wouldn't want to lose that level of trust would they?

Susan @ 50

I wouldn't characterise my posts as negative. They are often critical of this government, but that's to be expected as the coalition is centre-right and my views are left of centre (not proper leftie though - whatever that is!).

But anyway, sorry if they get you down. Sounds like you could do with a hike in the Trossachs too.

Nick's sycophancy is now fully tiresome! This government is by any stretch a 'poor' one. In a week that saw unemployment rise, growth falter further and inflation rise Osborne remains invisible! Cameron's 'Big Society' relaunch fails the third time alongside Pickle's Localism struggling to overcome contradictions because they are simply 'muddled nonsense'. Then comes the resulting end to the 'forest sell off daftness!'

And, Duncan Smith today continues to espouse 'welfare to work' but cannot call his own government to demonstrate growth in the jobs market, nor idea or wish, or firm policy to build the capacity needed to support people to work. Alongside this a tory MP claims thousands of constituents around Salisbury (many working!) using the service of a 'food bank' 'lead chaotic lives and fail to budget to provide food forthemselves' So regulation for welfare against huge bank bonus payouts with no effort to bank regulation and then crass insensitive comment that summs up this administration?

Just a weeks 'snap shot' Nick that shows 'government is harder than oppoaition' but the truth is more unpalatable than you or Cameron would like, this government is a 'bad' governemnt. I have'nt seen or heard one policy decision that looks to have been thought through, is coherent and has a strategy to implement it. Let's be clear, Cameron and company are not very able, not very good! I hope they have the humility to admit 'a mistake' and 'put it right' by standing down!

31. pdavies65
"I said to my wife, "What that boy needs is a hike in the Trossachs".

Would hate to drive all that way and find they'd been sold off."

The misinformation that englandrise refers to in #7 has clearly confused you as well.

The Trossachs are not in England.

susan @ 56

Well yes okay, woods. Bad policy, good U turn. And Cam's competence? Can he grow into the job? Questions to be answered over the next weeks and months and years.

Now then, a 'proper left' policy. No, I don't understand your reticence, I'm afraid. Unless you can't tell us one - but that would mean you've been spouting complete nonsense all this time and I'm reluctant to believe that.

Susan @55

"We used to put children up chimneys as well. So what. That has absolutely no connection with our woods in modern times."

Winston Churchill, someone I imagine you might respect, wrote his four volume "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" (and won the Nobel Prize for it) because he thought it important that we knew where we came from, and about the triumphs and disasters of our ancestors.

I remember Enoch Powell, started a speech on the (then) Common Market with the stirring phrase: "I do not believe, that this Nation, which has defended and maintained its independence for a thousand years ...."

Of course, if you don't understand, or don't want to understand, the chain of cause and effect which has made Britain what it is today, that is your loss. But you might reflect that this attitude rather subtracts weight from your political opinions.

Reincarnation @ 62

No wonder we couldn't find them!



Next time, I'm going to suggest we give him a stroll in the Grampians instead.

fubar @ heinz

"Give it a flamin' rest will you?"

No, not so sure I will. I recall many many posts over the last couple of years on here - pre May 6th and even since - which attacked and lampooned a certain Gordon Brown for matters completely unrelated to policy; his poor eyesight, his Scottishness, his so called 'autism'. A large proportion of those posts were from ... well I don't need to tell you, do I?

Me, I'm raising valid points about DC here. Just in a way you don't care for. If you don't care for it, why did you wallow in far worse when it was Brown? Mmm?

Sorry, Fubar, these are questions I have to put to you. Not the questions above (since I know you'll dodge and try to change the subject) but the following ones:

Would you prefer it if Cameron had run the tuck-shop at Eton?

And given he didn't (which he didn't), would you rather find out that ...

(a) it was because he was passed over for the position, or
(b) that he had zero interest and so didn't even apply?

Don't go saying you don't care, or it doesn't matter - that simply won't do. It's pertinent to what makes our PM tick, and if that isn't a great subject for a serious political pundit (que?) like yourself, I don't know what is.

sagamix 63

On the woods.

No, good policy, sensible U turn.

It bothers me not one bit what you think of me. If you believe I am spouting nonsense, I am merely following your example.

63 saga

Now then, a 'proper left' policy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Unilateral nuclear disarmament
Withdrawal from NATO
Nationalisation of industry

Susan @56 "sagamix 49
...... feel free to continue talking to yourself "

A somewhat "logically challenged" statement" If you're replying, he isn't talking to himself, is he? ;-D

64. Sasha Clarkson
"I remember Enoch Powell, started a speech on the (then) Common Market with the stirring phrase: "I do not believe, that this Nation, which has defended and maintained its independence for a thousand years ....""

I wonder what nation he was speaking about? The Brits only came into existence in 1707 when England gave up its independence. I suppose he could have meant the Manx.

sasha Clarkson 64

I know my history very well, actually it is one of my best subjects. However, I don't think I will be writing to William the Conquer very soon to ask for our land back. If you get my point.

"you couldn't hack it as a Bond Trader" - fs @ 57

Completely untrue: I hacked it too well, if anything. What actually happened - why I'm not still doing it - is I had what the Doctors called a 'burn out'. Very exciting it was, and also quite sexy.

Seems like Cameron (and Osborne?) might be heading the same way with all these U turns on selling off forests, all this "road less travelled" type stuff.

And that will be serious (unlike my BO, a matter of national importance). Don't think we want our PM and Chancellor trucking off on the road less travelled, do we? Just another way of saying off-piste, that is. Losing their way.

Come back, David - and George - come back to us.

"Now then, a 'proper left' policy. No, I don't understand your reticence, I'm afraid. Unless you can't tell us one - but that would mean you've been spouting complete nonsense all this time and I'm reluctant to believe that."

Would make an interesting change to hear a "proper" left policy from your guys saga, all we get is reheated, refried Marx and stolen 1980's Tory clothes, which is what it takes to get Labour elected.

Cant remember the last "proper" left policy there was... and I dont for a second include Harriet's loony rantings in any of that....

66. At 1:57pm on 17 Feb 2011, sagamix wrote:

fubar @ heinz

"Give it a flamin' rest will you?"

No, not so sure I will. I recall many many posts over the last couple of years on here - pre May 6th and even since - which attacked and lampooned a certain Gordon Brown for matters completely unrelated to policy; his poor eyesight, his Scottishness, his so called 'autism'. A large proportion of those posts were from ... well I don't need to tell you, do I?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I readily admit that I lampooned and lambasted the former PM, declaring that he was unsuited to the role he coveted. But that had nothing to do with his background as the "son of the manse". It had everything to do with the fact that he was an unstable megalomaniac. Thats not a skill his father taught him, I would venture.

You attack others for their accident of birth over which they have no control, whilst you, I have no doubt whatsoever, know by experience, about as much about the lives and upbringings and struggles of your coveted political flock as you do Yak milking in Tibet. I would readily bet a pound to a pinch of guano that by comparison to myself and others, your birth and upbringing could be described as "privileged".
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Me, I'm raising valid points about DC here. Just in a way you don't care for. If you don't care for it, why did you wallow in far worse when it was Brown? Mmm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

See above. I didnt attack Browns parents, his schooling, his upbringing. I attacked his methods, his megalomania, his incompetence, his lying.
Search every one of my posts if you want, you wont find a single reference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, Fubar, these are questions I have to put to you. Not the questions above (since I know you'll dodge and try to change the subject) but the following ones:

Would you prefer it if Cameron had run the tuck-shop at Eton?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly I couldnt give a monkeys if he'd run a three minute mile, let alone a tuck shop. He's a Heathite and I would not vote for him. The only reason he got elected is because he's not Gordon. The alternative, five more years of Brown, was more than the electorate could stomach. Plain and simple. The fact he was at Eton only matters to petty, pseudo-class warrior self-loathing middle class trustafarians like you mate and the knuckle-draggers who think life owes them a living. Nobody else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And given he didn't (which he didn't), would you rather find out that ...

(a) it was because he was passed over for the position, or
(b) that he had zero interest and so didn't even apply?

Don't go saying you don't care, or it doesn't matter - that simply won't do. It's pertinent to what makes our PM tick, and if that isn't a great subject for a serious political pundit (que?) like yourself, I don't know what is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the name of all that is holy can running a tuck shop be a serious subject for political punditry? I'm afraid you're going to have to settle for "simply wont do". I should imagine theres a damn sight more to what makes politicians tick than running tuck shops. Seems to have passed you by though. Maybe thats how former teachers, union barons, SpAds, bag carriers, etc get parachuted into safe seats on all women shortlists....

68#

All the things that made them unelectable for a generation. Funnily enough, had they stood on that ticket last year, who'se to say what would have happened?

71 @ 68

Yes, they look like the ticket. Need to check with Susan, though. Let's just take one from your list - nationalisation - and let's just say, for now, of residential mortgage lending rather than every single industry. A National Mortgage Bank.

So - Susan - how about that? Creation of a publicly-owned 'National Mortgage Bank' as a proper left policy that you'd disagree with but would respect.

What say you?

And for a person (since it's also about people, isn't it?, not just policies), what do you think of Scot-In-Nott's hot-off-the-press suggestion ... north of the border and extremely authentic working class hero, Jimmy Reid?

Say a Jimmy Reid type guy collars you and argues for a National Mortgage Bank, Susan, do you tell him, "No, I don't agree but I can tell you're a proper leftie and I respect your views. Where did you get that jacket?"

I reckon we're close to cracking this.

59. At 1:07pm on 17 Feb 2011, Mr N wrote:

53. At 12:33pm on 17 Feb 2011, forgottenukcitizen wrote:

"Worry not; the policy has probably gone onto the back (wood) burner for now rather than been totally scrapped as some media pundits have suggested."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean to say that DC and his government are setting out to deceive us? Hope not, I've got trust in DC and this government and they wouldn't want to lose that level of trust would they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad you have trust in our Government my friend because mine went long ago when I finally came to terms with the idea that they view their own people as a mere inconvenience in the Grand scheme of things.

The fact that this proposal got as far as it did shows that public opinion was not researched properly & - as Susan-Croft pointed out – the idea was not explained to the public as well as it should have been anyway. (Can’t comment on the “Question time” myself because I didn’t see it).

DC stands to gain from backing down here because he comes off as “The Listening Man” ,whilst Labour's screams of U-turn just don’t seem to be sticking because opposition policies are thin on the ground – If any.

Note: Old policies don’t die, they just get achieved for future reference.

sagamix 66

What are you on about with all this tuck shop garbage?

At my school, we had a member of staff to run the tuck shop (he had other duties as well, of course), so none of the pupils had so much as a look in when it came to a willingness to make an early start at commanding a retail empire.

I rather suspect the same was true at Eton too.

I can't help thinking that your fixation with trying to make anti-Cameron points has rather run away with itself on this one. Fubar is right: "Give it a flamin' rest will you?".

reincarnation @ 70

I rather think the Scots are inclined to think that they or more accurately, newly impoverished Scottish lairds, due partly to perfidious Albions involvement with the doomed Darien Scheme, were coerced into a union with England in 1701.

And we have rubbed along with each other ever since although probably not for much longer if Alex Salmond and the SNP achieve their ultimate objective of Scottish independence.

The Scots are a proud nation and fully deserve to reap the rewards of their political activity - quite unlike us politically apathetic English, who are jerked around by 'British' politicians every day.

72 sagamix

"Bond trader"

And while you are there (and since you are so keen to garner personal information from everyone else) you can have a go at answering this one.

Did your "career" as a "bond trader" come before or after the alternative career you admitted to a couple of threads back, as a kitchen hand in a south coast (shall we say, residential?) establishment?

fubar @ 73

"Can't remember the last "proper" left policy there was"

Ah right, you as well. Yes it's one of your little recurring themes too, this, isn't it? You're not within a million miles of being left-wing yourself, or of understanding even a sliver of what it means, and yet you pontificate endlessly on supposedly important distinctions between proper lefties and those who aren't.

Risible.

So - why wasn't, say, the Tax Credit regime (which was redistributive) a 'proper left' policy?

No, second thoughts, forget that, I'm not interested in hearing why you think it wasn't. Let's focus on what IS, reach for the positive. Ergo same question to you as to Susan - since you both spout the same ignorance-driven tosh on this - give me an example of what you DO consider a 'proper' left policy.

(Hey Susan, you're not off the hook just because your fellow TTs are chipping in. You have to give us one yourself - do you hear me? you have to).

sasha 69

Not good sasha. No chance of you getting 'out of the woods' with that one.

65. pdavies65
"Next time, I'm going to suggest we give him a stroll in the Grampians instead."

Better be careful about that. Unless he is prepared for Arctic conditions, sending him there could end up with you in court on a charge of culpable homicide! :-)

60. pdavies65

Susan @ 50

'I wouldn't characterise my posts as negative. They are often critical of this government, but that's to be expected as the coalition is centre-right and my views are left of centre (not proper leftie though - whatever that is!).'


Except on supporting that illegal war issue, pd. That's centre-right.
Sorry to mention it. The war, that is.

79. JohnConstable
"coerced into a union with England in 1701"

Indeed. But my comment referred to whichever nation Enoch Powell was referring to (and that wouldn't have been the Scots!)

I have asked before about "the geographical area that dare not speak its name", but no one has been able to explain it, or had the sense to seize appropriate bits of a MilliCleggAmeron while asking the question as to why.

78. jrperry wrote:

sagamix 66
"What are you on about with all this tuck shop garbage?
At my school, we had a member of staff to run the tuck shop (he had other duties as well, of course), so none of the pupils had so much as a look in when it came to a willingness to make an early start at commanding a retail empire.
I rather suspect the same was true at Eton too."

No, I think Saga is right, although my sources say DC only ran the imported cheese section.

Why was the policy purely to sell off England's woods for short term profit, why couldn't Westminster have leased them? Best of both worlds there, income from the lease and the woods are still retained by the public state.

#79 JohnConstable

Hi John, sorry to have to correct you on a small point but reincarnation had it right with the Act of Union in 1707. Lots of factors concerning that debacle not, just the Darien scheme; however the part the Scottish nobles played was immortalised by The Bard with "sic a parcel 'o rogues"

If I were an Englishman I would be rightly annoyed every time England was referred to as Britain; much in the same way as it is tiresome to hear Britian or the UK referred to as England by unknowing persons. Hopefully this realistion amongst the English electorate will grow into a healthy desire towards change for the better.

"At my school, we had a member of staff to run the tuck shop" - jrp @ old & brittle*

* not you, the post ref.

Oh. Well I'm very sorry to hear that, JR. That's like those 'organised' fireworks displays that are all the rage these days. Much better to toss a few bangers around yourself, isn't it?

As to your 80 - no, not in the mood to tell you any more about myself. You'll only start getting jealous again. Remember what happened last time with all that? Got a little out of hand, didn't it? Mmm. Quite.

And on "giving it a rest" re raising questions about PM Cameron's ability to take us where we need to be going? - the blog topic - raising questions, pls note, not answering them, that's for others - well, same reply to you (@ beast) as to Fubar. Which I know you've seen and read, so I don't know why you're asking me.