Why don't they get on with it ?
And keep their greedy hands off our woods and forests
See this site for what's happening:
Save the Lake District's Forests
So will you vote for Tim Farron if he doesn't oppose this proposal.
I won't - beware Tim - dissolve the Coalition if this kind of thing is going on.
This proposal is sheer madness:
1. It is to sell assets that we should be bringing in a steady income. Once sold - no income. This is very much a short term solution.
2. In private hands the aim will, and has to, be to generating money. Thus needs that not not do this are bound to be marginalised wherever possible - it will be a continuous battle to prevent the loss of facilities. Furthermore our forests generate income indirectly for the wider tourist industry; unless the private ownership benefits from tourism it has no incentive to make our open spaces accessible. The private ownership would therefore have to make money out of the forest itself (say wood) and tourism say hotels outdoor pursuits etc to have this incentive.
Surely the best course of action is to run the forests more effectively by, for instance, improving attractive access and promoting tourism.
1. It is to sell assets that we should be bringing in a steady income. Once sold - no income. This is very much a short term solution.
2. In private hands the aim will, and has to, be to generating money. Thus needs that not not do this are bound to be marginalised wherever possible - it will be a continuous battle to prevent the loss of facilities. Furthermore our forests generate income indirectly for the wider tourist industry; unless the private ownership benefits from tourism it has no incentive to make our open spaces accessible. The private ownership would therefore have to make money out of the forest itself (say wood) and tourism say hotels outdoor pursuits etc to have this incentive.
Surely the best course of action is to run the forests more effectively by, for instance, improving attractive access and promoting tourism.
18 comments:
Frankly, I would want to know exactly what the conditions of sale would be before marching on what might well become a financial disaster for ratepayers (going by the damage caused in a certain recent protest by mindless jobs looking for a fight, and the cost of policeing)
I love those forests and we walk there (even if short distances now). We have even made a special journey just to eat in the Siskin Cafe at Whinlatter. The last thing we would want is to see them damaged or closed to the public. The forests are dear to my heart. And I would readily give my little bit towards keeping them public.
But why should closure to the public necessarily happen? There are privately-run well-managed estates all over the country which are open to the public. Of course, I would prefer to let things be, but if changes are to be made I would want to know the true FACTS before campaigning.
see your pottery on tv this morning??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xjtr4/Wanted_Down_Under_Series_5_Holmes/
Get real Gladys,
British Gas, British Rail ,British Steel,British coal.
What a mess they are now!
They will not regenerate with
broadleaf replacement after they had stripped the assets unless they get more loot.
I own part of it they havent asked me , and if they did its NO !
Roger Deakin once wrote that “the enemies of wood are always the enemies of humanity” and W H Auden that “a culture is no better than its woods”. If you are one of the millions who live within striking distance of one of the many woods currently owned, on our behalf, by the Forestry Commission you will know what they meant. Woods are the places where you first saw bluebells, walked the dog, paddled in streams, made dens, saw foxgloves and butterflies, listened to the nightingale and cuckoo, smelled wild garlic and delighted in the sun-dappled ferns. Woods and forests are part of who we are, an ever present escape in a mad world. And Cameron, Clegg and friends wish to destroy them for pieces of silver.
Please use link to petition
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests
Its non political
JAK
One good reason please why I ought to give a toss about the Lake District forests?
You may be absolutely right.
What I am waiting to hear, and vote for, are all the alternatives of raising money to pay off debt.
Every single thing proposed is being opposed. Meanwhile the debt piles up. I fear for the future of our young people. They are the ones who will be burdened with the ever increasing debt.
Many say leave it, as if the debt will suddenly disappear.
Putting one's head in the sand is why the debt is getting ever bigger. Handing out goodies in the recent past, that have now (apparently) become essentials, has not helped.
We have been through hard times. My parents far, far worse. Those days before NHS Social Security, Housing Benefit, Disability Allowance etc etc etc.
Time to get a grip and ask ourselves what we are prepared to give up to save what is precious to our society in general.
Our forests are precious, not that I was brought up anywhere near one. Nor did we go on holidays. The Lake District was always a magical place - heard about but never expecting to be able to even visit. Hence it means more to me than many who take it for granted.
Time to suggest a way forward, not take on permanent negativity.
Thanks. This is so right.
Where DO we want to make the cuts if we have to have some.
This is the question that we really need to ask ourselves.
One place would be to reduce the money being payed out to support those in accommodation who are not working.
But here the real problem is the amount of the rents that are charged.
People with property are taking so much money from others who cannot afford it.
So to reduce the takings of landlords would dramatically reduce their rents.
But then they will quite rightly argue that they have to cover the loans they are paying on these properties.
The problem then shifts to the cost/value of property.
In my view this is at the heart of the problem.
We have to see a dramatic drop in house prices. This will be extremely painful for some who have loans.
But would entirely appropriate for those that don't.
I'm sure that there are several factors at play here - a big one is the free market economy which argues that if there is a demand then you have a right to price your goods at whatever the market can stand.
We have a shortage of housing so the price is high.
We could change the rules and restrict this free ecomomy and interfere in favour of what I would call justice so that the haves and havenots are not separated by a huge gulf.
So my reasoning comes down to : those that own property as an investment without loans should be taxed severely, so that it is no longer an attractive investment to have.
In short we need a dramatic change in the way our society operates so that house prices are caused to fall steadily by say 15% per year for the next ten years.
We have to challenge those that are property owners and tax them heavily so that they are forced to sell which would cause the prices to go down.
I am one of those that would suffer but this seems to me a just solution.
I'm aware that this reasoning takes me into areas beyond my understanding, however I'm sure that there will be economists that could propose a radically different set of rules that takes us away from the free market economy.
Does this reasoning make sense?
Well, at least you have suggested something.
For years I have been saying property values are getting ridiculously high. But this last couple of years they have dropped considerably. They will go on dropping for some time. But in a short while investors will be snapping them up to make a profit. Do you recall investors buying cheap property in Barrow as soon as the Marina project went through? No doubt Ulverston will be next. No wonder there are housing shortages.
It is incredibly hard for first time buyers. The deposits needed, high fees of various kinds to pay, A lot of young people invest in a property and let it out while still at home where they can live cheaply. A single person needs a good income to buy a place and live there.
But things were hard years ago. Only one income was allowed for mortgage purposes. And only three times an annual income. (Less I think at one time.) I rather think this kept down house prices as when two incomes were allowed house prices rocketed. Really. the only people to benefit from silly house values are those in places like London. A modest house there could buy them a swish residence up here. Then ridiculous mortgage deals were made. The buyer being in negative equity until values rose higher. But they didn't did they? However interest rates dropped and many house owners benefited from cheaper repayments. Now it has been made harder to get loans.
You can't blame modest investors who are looking for a house to buy to rent as income for when they retire. The Labour government encouraged this. Those who get good final salary pensions are fine, those who have to make their own arrangements or who can expect only a meagre pension do well to live modestly, and invest in a piece of property to supplement their state pension. No doubt a lot of workers (or non-workers) will simply rely on benefits if they have made no provision for old age.
Continued from last comment:
In this area, rents are not high compared with the cost of buying a house. It is only if house values rise that a profit can be made. Otherwise, taxes, agent fees, maintenance etc make this unlikely. Investing the money in a long term account would be more profitable. The big property dealers likely have their own squads to refit shoddy but cheap property. In areas where there are students fortunes can be made (Poor souls students always exploited - except the student entrepreneurs who buy a house and rent rooms to fellow students!))
As for taxing home owners heavily — you would end up with a lot of wrinklies forced out of their own homes. The bigger the house the higher the rates, no joke if the income is small. Some homeowners wish they could move into something smaller but the cost of moving is horrendous. There is a lot of taxing already on buying and selling property.
In London and elsewhere, some properties in posh areas are rented at huge sums to the homeless far above the local rate (making rich pickings for the house owners), because the Council picks up the bill. Blame the government of the day for making regulations that benefit both wealthy property owners and their tenants to the detriment of honest rate payers. The scheme of property part-ownership with housing associations, seems to me the best way forward.
The present VAT, so I believe, is that which is charges in the EU. Rather than the many cuts taking place, I would like to see a higher VAT on 'non-essential (to daily living) luxury goods. The wealthy can afford it. But I expect it will be said that this would depress sales in this country. I'm not so sure about that. Could be they could brag about the cost to their friends!
As for ANON - no doubt you were not around when we had British Rail! Government departments were not good at running anything.
Hopefully, eventually, world governments will together, do something about the banks. We grumble here but the poorest nations are the ones that suffer most when things go haywire. And those who are engaged in sweated labour. They have no clout when it comes to rising prices and food shortages. Now food-producing land is growing bio fuel, the starving may well just starve. Are we that keen to be green?
Annon says
I was around and worked for the best rail network in the world.
We led the world and exported our rolling stock to the empire ,India Canada etc
Spend an afternoon at Carnforth Steam Town.
The train and the mail nearly always deliverd no matter what.
Now they are cattle trucks.constantly needing more and more public money with no questions asked !
Govenment departments run the NHS and I am so proud of it warts and all.
Vital services should be owned by the public to protect them from the greedy and help the truly needy
Part of a reply from Tim Farron to my letter
Now what Gladys If you give E mail address to Geoff I will send you full text.
Tim said
My view on reflection upon the numerous letters that I have received is that I am not content with the proposals, as they stand. i fear that, for very little return to the Exchequer, we will risk our natural heritage, public access and biodiversity. I am calling upon the Government to overturn this proposal and to seek more intelligent ways of using the Defra 'estate' to raise and save money.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Tim Farron MP
JAK
This government have some good points.
But they panic,rush,and destroy.
They have no idea and think people who are not rich are "Pondlife"
Twelve members of the cabinet are millionares are they in touch ?
I'm sure this must be a problem.
How can these people possibly imagine the effect of their policies on the poorer and less able people in our society?
They imagine that we will be able to totally change our culture in many respects in a couple of years
Cameron, Clegg and Osborne all went to private schools with fees now higher than the average annual wage.
How can you expect any justice/understanding
I agree.
Theory and practice are not good bedfellows.
You have to be in the thick of it to really understand.
The real test will be how the bankers are dealt with and whether the housing market is propped up.
this will show where their real thinking lies.
Post a Comment