February 19, 2011 · 6:08 pm

#oneaday 29: Hugging trees as well as Hoodies in a Big Society

Things are looking up. The Coalition Government are showing that they are prepared to listen to the citizens, after all we do live in a democracy, don’t we? This new approach of listening is more than Labour ever seemed to do,  indeed Mr Blair and Mr Brown seemed pretty incapable of listening, or even looking before they acted. Maybe our leaders have taken their cue to this new approach from the activity and turbulence currently taking place in North Africa and the Middle East, fearing that the peaceful protest of ordinary people in the UK  could escalate. Or may be they have decided to stop wasting time on policies that are not absolutely ‘in the national interest’ ?

Thus, despite the protestations of my local MP and his personal letter to me which assured me that the consultation would be ‘comprehensive’ and that he had voted ‘against the Labour motion’, as if I care if it is a Labour motion or not, the proposed Act has been kicked well and truly into touch. I think we are in week 3 of a 12 week process, so one can tell that this proposed policy has not reallly had any poplar support amongst Coalition MPs, let alone opposition MPs. Take a look at The Politics Show from 8th Feb, you will see despite some pretty hard questions, the Minister who made these proposals  Ms Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs,  did her best to tell us that ‘the lady’s not for turning, yet.’ But we all knew it was not terribly convincing at all.

So it really was  rather nice to see and hear a poltician actually say sorry this week. Sorry for wasting time and thus money. That is new. Politicians saying sorry is pretty rare not just nowadays but any days! Indeed, it was refreshing to see Mr Cameron telling the House of Commons that he really was not that impressed with the policy at all. He even said it with a sense of humour. Hats off to him. It is worth seeing how both politicians dealt with this climb down, may be a sign of a little more humility on the part of all politicians and a sign that debating the issues ahead of us is not just the domain of Parliamentarians, but in this day and age where access to the old media via new media, means that citizens can make their opinions heard, seen and read. Indeed, peaceful and intelligent protest must be the way forward for a democracy.  Have a quick look here courtesy of ITN News.

Mr Cameron has proved that he is prepared to hug more than just Hoodies. He has hugged the Trees, a vital mainstay of any environment, and long overdue for some love from our leaders. Labour sold off  parts of our forests, but we did not notice! Let’s hope Mr Cameron gives Ms Spelman a big hug, she has had a rough few weeks and seems like a decent enough lady and no one likes to be made to look stupid, especially in public.

One final thought. Every cloud has a silver lining. Mr Cameron has struggled to get his concept of the ‘Big Society’ through to all of us. Actually it is us that have struggled to understand the principle, if the truth be told. For my part, I think the ‘Big Society’ is something positive that comes from a number of citizens working together, without pay, collaborating, sharing and helping others. It is cross cultural and cross class. It sees positive action and costs the state ie the tax payer absolutely nothing at all and above all fosters a sense of belonging, purpose and identity.

 The campaign against the sell off of our forests has been organised by a the action group 38 Degrees. 38 Degrees is a not for profit organisation who say that they campaign for fairness, defend rights, promote peace preserve the planet and deepen democracy in the UK.  I must say they seem to do exactly that. They explained the issue, broadcast it to anyone who was interested via the internet, engaged with social media, asked for donations and allowed ordinary citizens to write to their MPs. And they ran a petition. It was completely free to take part, and over 500,000 UK voters signed the petition.  For me, this is an example of the ‘Big Society’ in action. Let’s hope we can all take part in campaigns to deliver fairer taxes, democratic voting reforms, key climate change issues and protection of our NHS, from privatisation and the pursuit of corporate profit over national health. That will help us all live in a bigger society.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Politics

Tagged as , ,

February 17, 2011 · 11:40 am

#oneaday 28: Carpe Diem and other coded languages

I have had a really interesting couple of days. On Tuesday I visited my friends Railsim.com who make Railworks and Rail Simulator and are an example of a wondeful British technology company. They are based in the Historic Naval Dockyard at Chatham and are very much at the cutting edge of computerised train and railway simulation. The Dockyard is a little bit rough round the edges nowadays, but no one can doubt its provenance and the part it played in Britain’s technological past and now, hopefully present. Surrounded by history and with access to talent from the University of the Creative Arts which is part of the University of Kent, these guys will hopefully be contributing to our creative digital industries not of the future, but of now.

Yesterday, I attended a really interesting presentation yesterday at Portcullis House, the place near The House of Commons that MPs use to conduct day to day business, about Creative Clusters, titled ‘Critical Mass – growing creative clusters’ . It was a report produced by the uber clever people at NESTA ( those who worked tirelessly with Ian Livingstone and Alex Hope on the Livingstone Hope Review) and looked at the data that supported the establishment of clusters of creative businesses and creative people throughout the UK. It was supposed to be chaired by Louise Bagshawe MP, but she could not make it. It was  supported by MPs who represent the creative industries via the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Comittee. Don Foster, Damian Collins and Ivan Lewis.

They conducted a reasonably structured debate once they had each got their speeches made and out of the way. I use the word reasonably for one simple reason, namely politicians cannot help themselves from being party political. Instead of debating the subject and suggesting creative ways of helping foster our wonderful creative industries, they insist on political point scoring. The debate masquerades as a robust and comprehensive piece, but actually ends up as a crescendo of mainly red and blue noise, with a hint of yellow. You just end up with a murky brown almost a rusty effect.

Clustering is not an unusual concept in life, indeed humans love clustering in their work life and within their social life. Think pub, office, sports stadia, gigs, restaurants, demonstrations, Singstar, the internet. But clusters become places where the action is, where ideas are exchanged and ultimately where money or other commodities pass from one place to another. Indeed Parliament is a massively important cluster for us all as it is where the real business of government takes place.

 The role of the State in the evolution or development of clusters is a tricky one. Like most things in life we all need balance. Our eyes and our ears help up balance ourselves. Our voices should reflect what we see and what we hear and what we think as  a result of those stimuli. Free markets and a bit of chaos theory, if left unchecked end up with Big Business at the helm. Equally top down State control ends up with the so called Big State and that can be equally extreme. For me neither work because they do not actually represent everyone and thus cannot be democratic, they cede power over many into the hands of few. But if the State exercised no control or intervention then Parliament would not be so vital and knowledge share and debate would become far more polarised.

 The point I am trying to make is that sometimes the State needs to decide to stand up to other Sovereign Nations, who are the ultimate self interest groups and look after it’s people. Britain has proud history of democracy, of Sovereign and State working together via the people. A mix of State intervention and free market principles came together in an almost perfect way to build the Royal Navy over a number of years. This was the ultimate fighting machine, multi cultural and multi faceted. Well led in comparison to The Army, it was the ultimate meritocracy. It was both a tool for trade, protection and sometimes national aggression. It saw the development of so much hi-tech during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries that arguably it both fuelled and led the Industrial Revolution. And it stood undefeated for 200 years. The point was, it was an example of almost perfect balance, yet the State was always carrying  a debt which in turn put pressure on growth (colonialism) and taxation of the people. This is how life works. Sovereign powers have been replaced by multi national globalised businesses and tax is still tax. The new colonies are run by the multinationals and that is life, our job as citizens to figure out how to work within a system and effect change if the will of the majority is there.

Back to yesterday. Two of the politicans had conducted a mini political debate,  using the English language in a wonderful way. It was most enjoyable, even if it was actually unproductive. The gathered audience was asked for questions, so I put my hand up. I cannot actually remember exactly what I asked, but it went along these lines:-

I really enjoyed your verbal jousting,  something built on the wonders of the English language. Indeed do politicians realise that the traditional bulwark of our creative industries is the English language – think music with lyrics, TV, film and publishing of books – grounded in Britain and the USA. Do you realise that in the creative industries and especially in video games and interactive entertainment, where art meets science, the key driver is not English words, but code. It comes in several different languages of course, but code is fundamental. Yet we have a Department for Education which is headed by people who do not believe that computers should be anywheer near schools, let alone computer science being part of the National Curriculum and espouse the introduction of Latin as a language of the future (see recommendation 1 in the Livingstone Hope Review that states ‘Bring computer science into the National Curriculum as an essential discipline – see http://www.nesta.org.uk/home1/assets/features/next_gen ). How can the you agree with this, and importantly how can you influence the nation’s need for better skilled citizens?

Needless to say, the answers were political. I made the point, let’s see if we can all influence the outcome. The English language is becoming a universal language. Let’s hope that our nation can keep abreast of the languages of the future. Not only do we need to think different, we need to speak different. Carpe Diem and all that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Video games

Tagged as , , , , ,

February 17, 2011 · 12:14 am

#oneaday 27: Out of the woods or just out of touch?

I have read the piece printed in our local newspaper written by my local MP about the proposed selling off of our forests. It also seems that I am one of 400 (out of 68,600) who has written to him on the subject. On the surface that seems like a very small proportion of the voters, and perhaps it is, however it does assume a 100% of voters are always considered in these statistical arguments. But we don’t live in a true democracy, ie one that actually values and takes account of all those who bother to vote. Rather we use an arcane system that has been with us for about 200 years, the so called ‘first past the post system’.  This is a system which typically allows under 40% of the population who do vote to command a majority government.

Under 40% and majority, in the same sentence, not exactly logical is it? Well in May, there may or may not be a referendum (the unelected House of Lords are currently voting on this , to make the whole thing even more bizarre) where the population eligible to vote, including prisoners no doubt, will be asked if they want to see the introduction of the ‘Alternative Vote’ or ‘AV’ system or not. A simple ‘Yes’ (for the AV) or ‘No’ (against any change to the exsiting system). The ‘No’ campaign will point to this change allowing small, minority parties effectively holding the balance of power. Fair point, if the current system was actually giving us a majority of voters voting for the winning party, but it doesn’t. The ‘No’ campaign will also point to the fact that the AV system is only used by Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia as if these are 3rd world democracies. They won’t tell you that most of Europe actually has a proportional representation system or ‘single transferable vote’. Put simply, in those democracies every vote ultimately counts and the government is elected in proportion to the votes cast by all those who vote. That seems fairer in my book.  But that is my book!

In reality, the AV system is a change, but because the Liberal Democrats (who are in favour of full proportional representation) could only negotiate a small change with the Conservatives within their Coalition deal, it is a compromise. But that is what evolutionary and progressive government should be, negotiated compromise, which is often derided as ‘weal governement’. Well it represents a step towards reform and change and besides, ‘Yes’ is a better word than ‘No’ so I for one will want to hear more from both sides, before I make my vote for this important first past the post vote.

Back to my MP, incidentally a man who occupies an uber safe seat, which under the current system will never see any other party get a look in. He has decided that the sell off of the forestry policy is clearly worth sticking with. A pity then that today saw the policy effectively booted beyond the long grass and into the copse yonder by The Prime Minister, who clearly feels that it may be worth listening to over 500,000 people who have signed a petition opposing the proposed legislation. It’s not democracy, but it is a step in the right direction.

Here, for the record is the piece my MP wrote for our local paper. Time will judge his stance on this subject. Wish him well if we ever get a change to the voting system. He will need more votes than he normally gets! Also, see if you can see the funny side of this. I certainly can.

——————

What do you think has been the biggest single issue in my mailbag this week? ? Afghanistan? Egypt
and the Middle East? The economy? Lynehham? Planning and development? Health and education?
None of them. I have received something like 400 letters on the question of whether or not the 15%
or so of our national forests which are still owned and managed by civil servants would or would not
be better off joining the other 85 % which has been in private hands for many generations.

Now I well accept that there are passionately held views on both sidees of the argument. In an area like
this, but perhaps even more so if we lived in an urban environmennt, we love our forests. Walking,
cycling, and riding through them. Looking out of the car window at them, knowing that they are there
providing biodiversity and a haven for our wildlife, and helping eat up the carbon we all pump out.
Locally we are naturally concerrned about the ancient King’s huntinng grounds in Bradon Forest and
the superb Arboretum at Westonbirt. (Aboout both of which I had a quiet word with Minister Jim
Paice in the lobbies.) But where the verywell-orchestrated campaign against privatisation is
misleading is in the suggestion that that would somehow or another lead to an end to our forests, or at
least an end to access to them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Much privately owned forestry is bettter managed and has
much better public access than very much of the Forestry Commission land. It will be sold on a long
lease with carefully worded access, maintenance and biodiversity clauses written in. And anyhow,
what mad entrepreneur is going to buy a huge Forestry Commission wood, knock it down and then
forlornly try to get planning permission to develop it? It would be a commercially absurd thing to do.
I think I am right in saying that only one planning application in the country has succeeded in
woodland in the paast 40 years. Those who own and manage forests grow them and harvest them
sustainably, in precisely the same way as a farmer grows and harvests his wheat.

And as to the ‘heritaage forests’ – and I will be seeking to ensure that Bradon Forest is one of them –
they will be made over to a charitable or local trust to look after for perpetuity. I am very glad that
much off our heritage forestry was long ago handed over or sold to the Woodland Trust, and that our
historic houses are run so very well by the National Trust. Trusts will allow acceess to volunteer help.
The highly successful Friends of Oakfrith Wood at Urchfont, purchased by a local Trust and managed
and run by locals for locals is a good example. Charitable trusts do a very good job maintaining
heritage that governments might well be more careless about!

So I fear that I am not one of those who believe that being ‘nationally owned’ and run by civil
servants is necessarily a good thing. After all, I well remember similar arguments being advanced
when we privatised British Airways for example. I am as determined as any to preserve and enhance
our forests, but simply believe that that is more likely to be achieved by a properly regulated private
sector than by rather a creaking old public sector body like the Forestry Commission which was
established in the first place to supply pit props and railway sleepers ! So I am sorry to disapppoint the
400 or so constituents who have made it plain that they disagree with me on this issue, but I hope that
at least most of the other 68,6000 voters may think I have done the right thing by supporting the
Coalition Government on the matter. Would it be too corny to suggest that those who are so militantly
opposed to it frankly can’t see the wood for the trees?

—————————

1 Comment

Filed under Environment, Politics

Tagged as , ,

February 13, 2011 · 4:28 pm

#oneaday 26: Flick’s Affliction

When I decided to take part in the ‘One a Day’ project with other citizen bloggers, I knew meeting the criteria would be tough. My judgement was sound, I have fallen behind, consistently. This is down to a few factors. In no particular order, my laziness, lack of time (or perceived lack of time), no carrot or stick and a desire to write too much on too many subjects. Far from writer’s block I have blogger’s bulge. As Flick from Bug’s Life said once, and I have quoted too many times, ‘my head is full of ideas.’ Too many ideas, not enough time.

So, getting this blog done is a nod to ‘just letting go’, I have knocked off blog 26 by simply listing what I need to write about next. Again in no particular order:-

Berlusconi and the women protesters.
Big society and how GamesAid was there first.
Scott Parker, a one man manager and captain who is officially neither.
Second hand games and how they effect the games industry.
The Games Consortium, a new project I am leading
The Gareth Thomas story, which will be made into a film starring Mickey Rourke.
People power and the sell off of the forests
Bankers, their bonuses and how Project Merlin is an act of magic – ie deception.
Internet dating and how people part with large sums of money.
West Ham’s plans for the Olympic Stadium.
What’s radio for? Ie the debate about Radio 4 (and 3).
Democracy – is Britain going to be caught up and then left behind, as normally happens?
Retribution to recovery – more on the bankers, their morals and the issue of president Mubarak’s hidden assets
John Sentamu Archbishop of York, Zimbabwe and his dog collar, or lack of it.

So put simply, there are 14 subjects to cover. Given it is day 43 and I have scribbled 26 episodes, I really need to catch up on these 14 and think of 3 more, just to stand still. Now there is a thought…..

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

February 13, 2011 · 8:31 am

#oneaday 25: Sex discrimination and film awards

So today is the day that The King’s Speech could mop up a fair few BAFTAs and leave the deserving Social Network in it’s wake, at least until the Oscars next month. But the real question for me is why are there still categories that are sexually determined? Why do we have ‘Best Actor’ and ‘Best Actress’ in this day and age? Surely these categories are relics of another age? We don’t have ‘Best Male Director’ we have simply ‘Best Director’ so why bother with ‘actor’ and ‘actress’?

Is it that these categories go back to the days of inequality amongst the sexes, especially in the film industry. The fact was all the jobs were done by men and women only took acting and not technical or craft roles outside costume and make up. Surely now it is the time for all film awards to focus on the ‘best’ in class and ditch the sexual demarcation? Could they, the Academies, do the decent thing and make the changes and bring themselves up to date soon please?

Having said all of that, I still think Colin Firth will pip Natalie Portman to the ‘Best Person Portraying Someone Else’ BAFTA tonight. But in the interests of old fashioned forced equality, Natalie will win her category and Colin will win his one and everyone will put their hands together.

1 Comment

Filed under TV

February 7, 2011 · 10:44 pm

#oneaday 24: The Fall of Rupert’s Empire?

My post #24 talked about the impending  implosion within the mainstream media, which was not neccessarily that life threatening all be it still pretty serious. In the fast moving world of the dark arts, our liberty seemingly is actually never respected. The story of the phone hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch owned ‘News of the World’ has been well covered, admittedly after a very slow start. Unsurprisingly, there has been little or no coverage in the News International owned papers including The Sun, The Times and obviously the News of the World. The vanguard was led by The Guardian and Channel 4, alhough the BBC has now fully got behind the investigation.

To recap briefly on the scandal. A national newspaper, The News of the World has been accused of sanctioning wide spread phone hacking (of people in the public eye) and specifically Andy Coulson, former editor of the paper and latterly communications director at No 10 Downing Street, accused of knowingly allowing this disgusting practice to carry on regardless. Add to this the Metropolitan Police and the Press Complaints Commission’s credibility being seriously called to question and you have a right old caper. And not a very funny one.  When Andy Coulson resigned a couple of Friday’s back there was little media coverage, which has now called into question whether the phone hacking was restricted to the News of the World or actually whether it was and is rife throughout ‘Fleet Street’?

It is good to see the debate now in full flow and I for one hope that the practice of phone hacking is outlawed and ended. Indeed this scandal could strike deep into the heart of the 4th Estate and question the  power exerted in Britain by a foreigner living abroad. The influence of Rupert Murdoch may now be coming under increasing scrutiny and time will tell if the power of the newspapers, not just his, until now peerless and beyond reproach, is beginning to be questioned at long last.  Ultimately, the truth will out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as ,

February 7, 2011 · 8:23 pm

#oneaday23: The Holey Trinity – is it a just Mexican stand off?

As our means of collecting and accessing information becomes faster and more comprehensive and the role of the traditional media becomes both questioned and strained, so the dynamics within the media challenge their very existence and importance.  We begin to see a backlash by the media against the media, especially  in Britain where it is a national habit to ‘build ’em up and knock ’em down’. Sometimes the backlash is serious, at other times somewhat more facile. The increasingly open nature of debate means we are seeing the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ becoming more prevalent , which can be a very good thing and sometimes a little more dangerous. This is nothing new, when people are put down, their natural instinct is to rise up. Think 1789 Paris for example. But the crowd is not always right. A couple of weeks back, two prominent presenters on Sky TV lost their jobs, one voluntarily and one without any choice. The ‘crowd’ was right to pronounce their abhorrence and the broadcaster took neccessary action.

But another broadcaster decided not to take action when 3 of their star presenters made racist and insulting comments about Mexicans on their Sunday evening episode of ‘Top Gear’. I did not see the episode, I gave up with Top Gear at the end of the last series, as it seemed to become far too cliched and actually quite boring, like many of these ‘familiar family favourites’ ultimately become. But I have since seen the clips on YouTube and on the national  news since, and it confirmed one thing that Top Gear is actually quite smug, full of itself and ultimately actually boring. The presenters are talented enough, but seeem to believe that they can do what they want, when they want and say what they want about whoever they want. In short they have believed in their own publicity and that is always a sad thing to witness. I am actually not really that bothered what these boys say, my main issue is one of consistency. If they had directed their ‘humour’ at women would there have been the same mute approach from our national broadcaster or indeed the ‘crowd’ in general?

Indeed, is it a decision or lack of it, dictated to by sheer commercial principle? Sky could afford to dispose of Messrs Gray and Keys, both reported to be on salaries of £1.3M per annum, as there are many more who could fill their football boots. But could the BBC afford to dispense wholesale with the Top Gear  triumvirate ? This series generates a massive amount of cash for BBC Worldwide and removing the holy trinity of Clarkson, Hammond and May would leave a massive hole in their P&L. I actually would not want to see anyone lose their job, but maybe the BBC should have a word in their shell like. Given the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross episode, there is some track record here. If nothing else, it will give those who write Top Gear a kick up the arse of those Marlboro style cowboy booted, denimed clad legged presenters. Indeed Mr Clarkson stated that ‘it is impossible to be funny without offending someone’. I am not sure I completely agree with that. Mind you,  it may just make the show get back to its roots and bcome more interesting and less predictable.

Dear BBC – please restore our faith in your ability to make genuinely funny programmes.  We can but hope

1 Comment

Filed under TV, World Cup 2010

Tagged as , , ,

February 4, 2011 · 8:35 pm

#oneaday 22: Our democratic right to a reply?

I have just received a letter and Papers  from my local MP , Mr James Gray, in response to my letter to register my disapproval against the proposed sell off of our forests to private owners.

Here it is. Talk about using disingenuous pieces of information…..dear oh dear. It will be interesting to see what reply I get next time round. Hopefully one that actually addresses my questions rather than ‘here’s a load of information, pick the bones out of that’, which appears to be the norm. Transparency  is the word!

————————–

Dear Mr Gray,

Thank you for your letter of 28th January 2011 and for enclosing the recently published papers by Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. I have posed a number of questions which I would like to put to you for consideration.

In the press notice, I question why it is stated that the ‘new direction for England’s public forest estate will protect for future generations’? Can I ask if the current status quo puts these forests under threat? Indeed, the paper goes on to state that ‘the transfer of heritage forests such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean to charitable trusts will mean walkers, riders and cyclists will still be able to enjoy them as they do at the moment’. Again, are we to suppose that the current ownership model, by the us the people, will threaten our access in the future?

The paper goes on to state. ‘The proposals would remedy the situation where the Commisson is the largest commercial operator in the sector it also regulates’. Can I ask who exactly has made complaints that this is the case? Is it commercial competitors or is it the state, or indeed the people? Indeed, why has the Government already committed to taking 15% of the public forest estate out of state control over the course of this Parliament? You say you will generate £100m income, but what of the cost longer term? Is this a decision driven by the need to unlock money for assets or is it some other principle? £100m in the grand scheme of things, when we waste money on a daily basis in Afghanistan, is frankly pushing irony to its limit. Indeed, do we know how much this nation has spent on Afghanistan under this Government and the previous Government’s administration? Are these figures agreed, audited and known?

I note also the statement that ‘state control of forests dates back to the First World War. when needs were very different. There is now no need for Government to be in the business of timber production and forest management.’ This statement suggests that the concept of state ownership of forests is wrong, and by referencing the First World War, we are somehow living in an outdated manner. Given that we are still involved in t least one futile conflict, maybe your Government would consider rolling this principle out a little further and re-examining exactly what value we are getting from Her Majesty’s Forces being in Afghanistan?

Pam Warhurst, Chair of the Forestry Commission said, ‘Ministers have set out a new vision for forestry in England that will require a fundamental shift in our thinking and how we work. The proposals provide an opportunity to think about ownership and and sustainable land management in a new way and to engage in a wider cross section of society. The consultation will allow people to have their say and we encourage everyone with an interest to give us their views’.  Can I ask did Ms Warhust make this statement, as a public servant, before or after  Ms Spelman had issued her ideas? Does Ms Warhurst believe this is the righh thing to do, or is she just toeing the line? What was the process in Scotland and Wales, and did their Forestry Commissions decide to reject this policy?

I also refer to the letter to all Coalition MPs dated 27th January from Ms Spelman – headed ‘useful points to be aware of’. Frankly this looks like the work of an over eager undergraduate advisor!

1) Only 18% of England’s woodlands is managed by the Forestry Commission. The remainder being owned by various types of organisation. Is this some sort of statement to mitigate the process. Is she saying  ‘please don’t worry, there is nothing new here, it is quite normal, please move on’?
2) ‘Between 1997 – 2010 over 25,000 acres sold with significantly less access and benefit protections that would be the case now’. This somehow suggests, in that awfuly immature party political way that ‘what we are doing is so much better than the previous lot’. Just because Labour, new or otherwise, made a cock up and sold land off to private ownership does not mean it is OK to do the same, as long as you do it ‘better’. Why did we, the people, not know about this? Maybe, just maybe it was down  the appalling lack of transparency that abounded in our public life 5 years or so back.
3) Continuing along the line of argument that ‘Labour were doing this anyway so we are not sure what the problem is’, she states ‘reform of the public forestry estate has been under consideration for some time under the previous Government, with the 2009 ‘Operational Efficiency Programme’ detailing ‘alternatives to public ownership’ and ‘new commercial opportunities’ for the estate. Does this really make the case that this policy is right??

I have checked and noted that in the Commons vote on selling off our woodlands you have voted to support  this policy.  Over 400,000 people and counting have expressed their dismay by petition and yet MPs seem to take little notice. Many of these MPs are the very same Labour and Conservative MPs that refused to acknowledge 1 million ordinary people in the streets of London who marched against the war in Iraq.

Could you also explain to me why you believe that it’s us – the voters – who have got this wrong and not the government? I hope that as my representative in Parliament you will reconsider your position.

Finally, can you enlighten me on a question of Freedom of Information. If these proposals are made law, will the private companies who buy these forests be subject to FOI requests in the same way that the Forestry Commission are now? We are in an age of transparency after long last, and the Coalition Government pride themselves in a new ‘transparent’ approach.

I look forward to hearing from you,

With kind regards,

Andrew Payne

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment

Tagged as ,

February 1, 2011 · 7:32 am

#oneaday 21: When money is easy, madness follows

Yesterday was a significant day in the (English) Premier League – £135 m spent by football clubs in one day, bringing the spend in the January transfer window to in excess of £200m – tens times what it was last year. Significant, however for all the wrong reasons. Indeed is this the last hurrah before the UEFA’s new financial rules come into play in 2013?

Januray 31st 2011 was the day when the English Premier League broke all bonds with its fans, who have clearly become the least important constituent in the football universe. Sitting way back in stands, we peer at the antics of a bloated game, one which cannot produce a credible national team, despite pouring obscene amounts of money into a whole host of distinctly average players. It all starts with the owners. Nowadays these fall into 3 broad groups.

  • The rich individual – think Roman Abramovich at Chelsea (wealth quoted at £8billion) and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his Abu Dhabi United Group at Manchester City. These people are often quotes as businessmen, yet there is often controversy surrounding their wealth. In the case of Abramovich it was gained in a very short period of time when Vladimir Putin broke up a communist, state owned economic system into pieces and bestowed it piece by piece on a number of favoured friends, the oligarchs. Over in Abu Dhabi, well it is a tale of black gold, oil.
  • The US based business conglomerate who may use debt to leverage the purchase, think the Glazers at Manchester United and Gillette and Hicks formerly of Liverpool who basically got it wrong and had to sell out to fellow American John W  Henry of New England Sports Ventures.
  • The rest, usually business men, whether they have made money in the pornography industry, sportswear or intensively farmed battery chickens, but ones who will find competing with the mega rich, just a little bit too, well, rich for them.

Yesterday saw the redistribution of a fraction of one Russian oligarch owners ‘wealth’, into an owner of a sports goods empire, via New England Sports Ventures. When Roman Abramovich decided to part with a mere £50m of his easy money,in return for Fernando Torres, he passed it to John W Henry at Liverpool, who flicked over £35m to Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct and Newcastle United for ‘England sensation’ Andy Carroll. I wonder if that money just goes to pay off some of the debts that Newcastle have accrued down the years? Either way I am sure it will be pretty useful to Mr Ashley. Along the way, the usual cuts would have been taken by the agents, even more money would have been put into the overpaid player’s pockets and who knows, maybe us tax payers will have gained a few quid towards our debts.

These amounts of money are nothing short of obscene. They show that the game at the ‘top end’ is nothing more that a bloated and rotten borough. In these troubled times, when pretty much all of the people who pay to watch the games via entrance fees or less so via a Sky Sports subscription, are facing an age of austerity, this sends out a message that the game has become nothing more than an effete and irrelevant sideshow, a circus. As crowd numbers fall off, the owners literally fiddle. It is yet to be seen if a fire has started, but the mood out there amongst the fans is starting to turn against their ‘heroes’.

Whether you wake up today as a Newcastle fan, a Liverpool fan or indeed a Chelsea fan this morning, you anger or elation may be short lived and the gloss may wear a little thin. Indeed, you have to ask whether the late, great Bill Shankly would ever utter his famous saying, ‘some say football is a matter of life and death. I say it is more important than that’, nowadays. Perhaps he would simply say ‘some say football is a matter of money. I say it is a matter of too much money’. I would like to think the great man would have something to say about the mess our once beautiful game is now in.

Leave a comment

Filed under Premier League

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 26, 2011 · 12:54 am

#oneaday 22: How many hands have we got?

So it has taken precisely 5 days for the eloquent and quite brilliant Charlie Brooker to return to the BBC, restore some faith and deliver his unique blend of acerbic, retro laden wit possibly proving that he is far better working on his own, in a darkened room, without carrying the weight of others far less talented than him. Last Thursday saw the first in the series of Brooker’s team effort ‘The 10 O’Clock Show’ on Channel 4 and tonight also at 10pm, saw the first of Brooker’s solo offering, ‘How TV Ruined Your Life’.

I have to say I was very disappointed with the C4 effort. I will stick with it, naturally as it will only get better, but it really felt like it did not know what it really was or wanted to be. David Mitchell, a talent in the same sphere as Brooker, came across as nervy and a little too snooty and dare I say weak when he had a short discussion with some bankers. Too short, too light, too prescribed. Jimmy Carr is always too prescribed and short. There is just something about him that does not quite work, he is almost trying too hard, dressing too sharp and in short (sorry) just one degree away from being an irritant. In contrast Charlie boy is tight, dry and cutting with some patches of profanity, which always seems natural and easy to him, and me. I suspect that Charles would make me laugh over a pint and James would be less, how do you say, immediately funny. But that is purely a suspicion mind you.

The rest of the show was filled with jagged edges. A cut away to a pre-recorded set piece sketch here and there, something about a ‘Holday in Tunisia’ (Jello Biafra would be proud of the nod) segwaying into some appallingly unfunny and hardly relevant spoof of the US news, fronted by the 4th quarter of the team, Lauren Laverne, who frankly looks and feels like she needs to get her TV ‘comedy’ sea legs on. Attempts to ‘get serious’ see Carr interviewing a serious and controversial (obviously) environmentalist called Bjorn, with young Jim pulling the same old faces to the audience who then dutifully laugh somewhat inappropriately bang on cue when the environmentalist talks about making clouds whiter. Is this a straight comedy or a simplistic spoof? Who knows, Carr cuts the man off mid sentence to shoe horn his playful gag about having Bjorn (back on the show) again. All terribly droll and yes, prescribed and predictable.

The show comes back to life, briefly when David runs his ‘Listen to Mitchell’ piece focused on Culture, Media and Sport Minsiter – Jeremy Hunt complete with the Radio 4 version of his name – and his call for more local news. Funny. The humour button stays engaged for a bit of Brooker doing a sort of Screenwipe live (good), but then lapses back again with Mitchell failing again in the interviewers chair. He loses the battle to a very capable David Willetts, with predictable jabs about the student fees, rounded off with David M answering his own questions and getting just a little bit emotional. David Frost he ain’t, Terry Wogan even? Well not quite, yet.

The show comes to a finale with a sort of ’roundtable’ piece which was just about OK. Ms Laverne continues to look disconnected, getting confused about Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls being MARRIED and in the Shadow Cabinet, which is not exactly earth shattering given they were MARRIED and in the Cabinet 6 months ago. What becomes obvious is that Jimmy seems to be more of a Tory than the others, although his idea to make bankers receive their bonuses live on TV is one of the more amusing utterances from him. That would be a good move. Mind you I have never trusted a man who has to laugh at his own jokes and clearly has taken his body language/hand movements straight out of the Blair/Cameron/Clegg handbook.

Verdict: David and Charlie would be better sticking to their own devices and Lauren was great on the Culture Show after she gave up singing. Jimmy Carr is a stand up comedian.

Thus it was reassuring when I invested half the time tonight at 10pm this time on BBC2. This was far more focused, using a lovely rack of public information films as the subject matter. Indeed, the semi legendary ‘British’ boxer, Joe Bugner appeared in one, the ‘Be Smart, Be Safe’ campaign and I am sure Charlie missed him completely. These films were from a more naive age, kids were not media savvy, and governments were certainly more patronising. Brilliant campaigns like ‘If you want to have fun and stay alive’ warned of the dangers of playing with scaffolding, flying kites or chucking Frisbees near overhead cables. Bliss.

We had a wonderful journey into the centre or back of the brain, literally, the Amygdala – which was all news to me. The politics of fear and terror were seen through the eyes of impressionable youth and lived out in those wonderful kids’ existentialist shows ‘Pipkins’ and ‘Orlov’, no wonder we are a creative race, the randomness of what we are brought up with is simply brilliant. We are hard wired to fear loud noises (bang) and sudden movements (falls) and TV plugs into those fears. Given that Crimewatch was launched on the BBC in 1984, one can’t help appreciating the wonderful irony.

Which rather begs the question, ‘what would public information films look like if they were made today’ Messrs Brooker and Mitchell, perhaps that would be the beginning of a beautiful relationship?

Leave a comment

Filed under TV

Tagged as , ,