Forests

The proposed sale of the forests is the topic of the day in the press. This has been rumbling since October, when the Telegraph published details of the proposed sale. The initial sale is bad enough, but perhaps more sinister is the line in the public bodies bill currently going through the Lords, which would allow the Government to sell 100% of the publicly owned forests.

My feeling is that the nationally owned forests are a rare thing - somewhere that people can go, take their children to, for free, escaping from the commercialism and materialism of 21st Century life, and as such are invaluable. The Government keeps talking about 'access being preserved', but I haven't heard them talk about 'free access', which is a very different prospect - having to pay an entrance fee would render them inaccessible for many. The Government have suggested that as part of the 'Big Society', communities could buy them. But they are seen as being in public ownership already - I don't think communities will raise thousands of pounds to buy something they consider to be their's.

Again, this is a massive change, not mentioned in any manifesto. Surveys show a vast majority of people to be against the sell off. This is a very good summary of how the argument seems to be changing - first it is an economic issue, then it is to 'see if others could do better', then a 'Big Society one, and sometimes it is a 'conflict of interest' issue. I suspect it may be a 'we've said we're going to do this, so do it we will' issue!

Today's question then; Does the Government think it is reasonable to sell of the heritage of the nation, against the wishes of the people, for no very good reason?