No longer selling the Forests ... was this really due to "People Power" ?

Does the Coalition's decision to withdraw its plan to sell off the nation's forests show this Government is really "listening to it's people" ... 

or is it an easy, visible (and cynical) way for them to 'say they listen' ... as a defence for when they are accused of not listening/consulting about anything else ... (n.b. as such plans are arguably rather trivial when compared to planned NHS reforms for example ... which they have little/no intention of listening to anyone about, despite growing concern) ... 

Most of the blogging community appear to be very clear on this one ... and I'm afraid it's the latter.

"People power" will continue to grow ... but this isn't a great example of it ... for the truth is the Government conceded very little by withdrawing this plan. 

It's interesting to see how far more people are willing to stand up against  forests being sold off ... than to fight for the future of healthcare*. Let's see if this changes in coming weeks ... and if real "People Power" arises as a result. 

* Is this a mixture of ignorance and selfishness perhaps, or is it more akin to the fact that most people care about animals more than they do about people ?

Real "People Power" ... will rise up as result of leaders "Abusing Power"

Are we currently seeing the arrival of "Government backed People Power" or a disgraceful "Abuse of Power by the few in Power" ?

Ask yourself if you've had any say in i) how swinging budget cuts are introduced, ii) how tax hikes are implemented (e.g. VAT targeted at the poor), iii) if massive tax cuts should be quietly given to the ultra-rich Tory backers (bankers and those in tax-havens*), and iv) if our precious forests should be sold off ...?

IMHO "People Power" will eventually arrive, but to counter the "Abuse of Power" we are currently witnessing! However what we are also seeing is this Government smokescreen being blown away. What they are trying to do is to devolve responsibility and deflect blame for the cuts onto others (e.g. a great article on this is here) ... and put responsibility on communities for picking up the pieces (via volunteering - or perhaps by compulsion in the future with future welfare reform)!

It is important to note that this Government is also trying to force through NHS reforms, that also 'devolve the axe and deflect blame' onto doctors for the planned £20bn p.a. of efficiency savings ... and 'buying their silence and support' by bribing them for cutting the healthcare they provide to you (e.g. with lucrative contracts and bonuses) ... again without any consultation or support from the electorate (as this radical change was in neither of the Coalition's election manifestos).

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, has also been accused of an 'abuse of power' by a high court judge for scrapping the Building Schools for the Future programme without proper consultation and consideration ....

There are many more abuses of Power highlighted on this web site too. IMHO Ignorance and Apathy are endemic, but both will reduce as people's lives get far worse ... which they will given current plans!

Roll-on real "People Power"!

* An excellent post in the Guardian exposed this one! Contrast this with the spin from David Cameron ... who tells us he can't afford tax cuts!

'Localism' - a strategy for 'devolving the axe' and 'deflecting blame'

Following on from my last post, I have included extracts from an excellent article written by Polly Toynbee and published in the Guardian on 11th February 2011.

"Holding the Coalition line on cuts is getting harder as 90 Lib Dem councillors and council leaders break silence in a letter of protest to the Times warning of the damage to the economy and the most vulnerable ... and now some Tory councils are joining in. All this is before the great cull of jobs and services begins in earnest in April, when notice periods end and the redundant start to join the unemployment register.

Esoteric ideological debates over "localism" have become pretty meaningless – though the right find it a useful distraction from the brutality of the cuts. The coalition brand of localism means the axe is devolved, along with the blame. Brazen denial, outrageous abuse of figures, and accusations of (Labour) council profligacy are their weapons of choice.

It's easy to bamboozle voters in the impenetrable thickets of local authority funding formulae. Once a minister sinks a Newsnight debate into a row over whether a council is losing 8% or 25%, the hope is viewers give up. How can they know who's right? 

There is just one extraordinary fact everyone needs to know. The cuts have fallen hardest on the most deprived councils, while the richest areas have suffered least. Whichever way the figures are construed, the highest percentage of cuts hit the poorest places hardest: Liverpool worst, followed by Manchester; Knowsley; Blackburn with Darwen; South Tyneside; Hackney; Newham; Hartlepool; Tower Hamlets and so on.

Now look up at the top and some councils actually gain – such as Oliver Letwin's Dorset. Among the least affected in spending power are such places as Vince Cable's Richmond upon Thames, Windsor and Maidenhead, Wokingham, and Michael Gove's Surrey.

The Local Government Chronicle first outed these figures, but this remarkable fact has not percolated into national consciousness. Perhaps it's just too hard to believe that any government could do such a thing so blatantly. Research by the House of Commons library found the political match is near perfect: the more solidly Labour the district, the harsher its cuts; while the more blue Tory the shire, the less it is affected, with the Lib Dems in between.

The official response is always the same: "The government has delivered a tough but fair settlement ensuring the most vulnerable communities are protected. If councils share back-office services, join forces to procure, cut out non-jobs and root out overspends, then they can protect frontline services."

Now consider this: worse is planned, again in the name of "localism". Pickles is planning to return funds from business rates to councils that earn them. Currently they are collected centrally and redistributed according to local need. Any move to keep them in the affluent areas with the most lucrative commerce – mainly in the south-east – may in the long term take even more from the poor areas to give to the rich. But it will sound nicely "localist".

Although local tax is a small fraction of overall revenues, council tax is more hated and more regressive than any other. That's why localists of the small-state right are all for devolving tax-raising powers to councils, knowing how much less could be raised. That's why the localism bill has a trigger for a referendum if a council raises tax more than some 2.5%.

Localism, like the "big society", is the shield for a sizeable redistribution from poor to rich. Sir Michael Marmot's government-funded review pinpointed extreme inequality by council district: in some places, 58% of children fail to reach a good standard of behaviour and understanding by primary school age, destined to fail thereafter. But Sure Starts are stripped bare as the most deprived councils are hit so much harder than councils in lush places.

All this, together with £18bn of welfare cuts, form a turbo-charged programme for accelerating inequality, with an entirely predictable outcome. Margaret Thatcher caused the number of poor children to rise from one in seven to one in three: these figures on the distribution of cuts suggest the coalition will leave an even worse legacy.

But attack is their defence. Labour Manchester, rated "good", is this week's target, one of the first out with grim news that its 25% cut over two years means 2,000 jobs lost, swimming pools, libraries, youth centres and all public toilets but one closed.

Its council leader, Sir Richard Leese, says the less visible cuts are even more painful, in care for the old and mentally ill at home. Grant Shapps, caught fibbing about an imaginary Manchester "Twitter czar", accuses them of deliberately waving bloody stumps for political effect. He compared them with next door (Tory) Trafford, which, he claims, is cutting no jobs through greater efficiency. But he forgets to say Manchester has had a cut 60% deeper than more affluent Trafford.

So beware crude council comparisons as the government tries to shift the blame. First you need to know such things as how many jobs a council has outsourced, hiding job cuts in private or voluntary-sector balance sheets – and exactly which government grants have been cut where. 

Downright dishonesty is a good defence – until found out"

A great article ... but what next ...?  IMHO as dishonesty is exposed (and 'ignorance' is reduced) those deliberately misleading people and abusing power will fall back on their 'second line of defence' - 'apathy' ... as when the majority of people in this country become more aware ... ignorance simply turns into apathy ! 

Hence things will end up getting much worse before this second line of defence is breached!

'Power to the People' ... or 'Abuse of Power by a few People'?

Over the last few days we have started to see beyond the veneer of "the big society".  Cameron is pushing this as the way forward ... but in reality is slashing budgets everywhere which is forcing voluntary organisations to shut-down too  e.g. even the Citizen's Advice Bureau (promoted by the Government as being the type of voluntary organisations able to play a key role in the future) is, despite being inundated with requests (e.g. to help with spiraling debts), having to close drop-in centres due to the withdrawal of support.

Is this the 'big society' or a 'big con' ... a smoke-screen attempting (but failing) to paper over all the cracks created by the cuts, i.e. if we shut something, why don't you get up and run it ... voluntarily ! ... i.e. for free, but perhaps by compulsion once changes to the benefits system are put in place given the increasing number of unemployed! It is certainly an excellent way for the Government to deflect blame i.e. don't blame us ... blame your council, blame yourself or blame everyone else for not doing it for you for free!

The final nail in the coffin for the 'big society' scam has been seen again today, as Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, was accused of an 'abuse of power' by a high court judge when he scrapped the Building Schools for the Future programme without proper consultation ... which follows on from the Government trying to force through radical NHS reforms (that deflect blame for future NHS efficiency savings onto doctors ... and reward them for cutting your care) through without any consultation or support from the electorate (no-one voted for it, as it was in neither of the Coalition's election manifestos), as well as the sell-off of our forests (though they appear to be rethinking this one, unlike the NHS ones)! 

Are these really the actions of a Government committed to giving 'Power to the People' ... or are they an 'Abuse of Power by a few People' ... the high court judge has today made his view known.

Cashback ... for the ultra-rich who bankroll the Conservatives

With more and more people fighting to survive (due to higher taxes and escalating prices) Cameron has told the nation that significant tax cuts are not possible due the level of the deficit and the need to bring Government borrowing down ...

Yet, as my last post highlighted, he has handed out, through a carefully constructed smoke-screen, substantial tax cuts to his ultra-rich friends residing in tax havens and the City.

And by following the money we find out why ... why we are really 'not all in this together' !