Is there anything the tories won't sell?

[PJMCC1UK]

if those figures are correct then it still costs us. again some firm has 50% of the market and also makes the rules yet still makes a huge loss. No your wrong it's outdated beuracracy and a waste of money.
You don't mind paying yet you'd be the first to whinge over cuts to the NHS etc. socialists never seem to amaze me at the amount of things they have no problem paying for with money we never had and have even less of now.

face facts we don't have the money. it's either make money from this or cut more deeply in the NHS/policing etc.

And your still making pointless accusations. Firstly I don't read the Mail.
secondly it does make it possible that there will be more centre parcs and leisure facilities. (I'm sure centre parcs is full of trees too. Oh and the revenue from taxes is a good thing too.) But you make it sound like we'll have no trees at all in the country. Labour scare mongering.

 

[Swales lives]

if those figures are correct then it still costs us. again some firm has 50% of the market and also makes the rules yet still makes a huge loss. No your wrong it's outdated beuracracy and a waste of money.
You don't mind paying yet you'd be the first to whinge over cuts to the NHS etc. socialists never seem to amaze me at the amount of things they have no problem paying for with money we never had and have even less of now.

face facts we don't have the money. it's either make money from this or cut more deeply in the NHS/policing etc.

And your still making pointless accusations. Firstly I don't read the Mail.
secondly it does make it possible that there will be more centre parcs and leisure facilities. (I'm sure centre parcs is full of trees too. Oh and the revenue from taxes is a good thing too.) But you make it sound like we'll have no trees at all in the country. Labour scare mongering.

The Daily Mail accusations where meant to be directed at BB2.0 there so apologies for any confusion. The figures I quoted were from a House of Commons paper, so hopefully they are accurate. The money raised from the selling of forests would be a drop in the ocean and soon swallowed up. I wouldn't be too confident that it would raise any revenues from Taxes, quite the opposite as private owners enjoy exemption from capital gains tax, income tax and inheritance tax according to a Guardian article on this matter.

We simply don't need to sell off the forests, and more importantly 84% of the public polled on this matter were against it. That is cross party support in anyone's book.

 

[Swales lives]

Re: Is there anything the tories won't sell? Our Forests update.

!st it was Labour who started the sales of the forests. They did it in private and they did it without a clause keeping the public access.

secondly the Forestry Commission owns 2 million acres of forest it not only makes the rules for all the other commercial timber producers in this country but even has 50% of the market. Year last year and in the years before it has made a loss.
They lost £75million last year. Of OUR money. The taxpayer foots the bill. And yet timeber prices were up last year.
How does anyone who has 50% of the market lose that much money.

It is outdated and unfair that they exist in this way. It's a beauracratic mess.No accountability whatsoever, people in cushy jobs who think they are untouchable. A Commission set up to make sure we had enough timber for pit props if we ever went to war. It was set up in 1919.
By all means there is a need for the Forestry Commission to exist in a regulatory capacity. But it is time to make money from 50% of the market.
The Tories have written clauses for public access. It's just typical Labour scaremongering again. If they are sold they would be developed at a better standard.

Oh dear...... looks like I was correct...again. Where is the OP now calling me names?! Priceless.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE[/youtube]

Care to back up your arguments again boys????
Another bites the dust BB2.0..... foiled again dickhead!!

So the Condems have decided it's not a good idea to sell the forests after all.
Is this because it wouldn't have raised any money whatsoever, or because
they don't want to upset middle-England?

 

[Balti]

Oh dear...... looks like I was correct...again. Where is the OP now calling me names?! Priceless.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE[/youtube]

Care to back up your arguments again boys????
Another bites the dust BB2.0..... foiled again dickhead!!

So the Condems have decided it's not a good idea to sell the forests after all.
Is this because it wouldn't have raised any money whatsoever, or because
they don't want to upset middle-England?

Labour of course never changed their minds on anything at all...10p taxes, introducing tuition fees, referendum on Europe, boom and bust etc etc Its a very long list but now they are apparently fantastic despite fucking up the country. Short memories some people.

 

[Swales lives]

Care to back up your arguments again boys????
Another bites the dust BB2.0..... foiled again dickhead!!

So the Condems have decided it's not a good idea to sell the forests after all.
Is this because it wouldn't have raised any money whatsoever, or because
they don't want to upset middle-England?

Labour of course never changed their minds on anything at all...10p taxes, introducing tuition fees, referendum on Europe, boom and bust etc etc Its a very long list but now they are apparently fantastic despite fucking up the country. Short memories some people.

This is just about the forests as far as I'm concerned, trying to sell us something we already own.
Not a good idea.

The last Labour government were shit. Not fit to call themselves Labour IMO. Their list of crimes is pretty endless, but I'd have a bad Labour government than a Tory government any day.

But the posters i mentioned above entered the forest debate and whereas PJMCC1UK offered a reasoned argument, BB2.0 just believed anything that was anti-Labour, with no knowledge of the subject and tried to mock me, even PMing me saying I was 'owned'. The guys a tool and totally out of his depth yet again.

 

[Jakson1991]

Is there anything Labour wont buy? id rather sell things and get the country back on its feet financially than keep on buying and watch our country crumble!

 

[SWP's back]

1. Wrong, It's the Condems that want to do this. If this was a Labour proposal they could just dismiss it, why would they just carry on with a Labour idea they didn't agree with?

2. Wrong. Privatised forest land can and will almost certainly be used for commercial logging, new golf courses and CenterParc style holiday developments. Stealing the land beneath our feet.

Back in your gimp mask dick-splash.

Yes, those big bad torie-dem's creating jobs, out of fucking baron hills and woods! The cunts don't they know that there's a recession on?


Swalesy i'm dissapointed as you are normally one of my fav. posters!

post of the thread

 

[SWP's back]

I notice that the usual, boorish Tories who, unlike out in the real world, fester like a cancerous growth on here and who think that the privatisation of the railways was such a good thing, have neglected to mention that Railtrack went bust a decade ago. I've still not worked out how what was effectively a monopoly could even go bust!

The Tories' privatisation of railways didn't work; their deregulation of buses (outside London, natch) didn't work. In short, privatisation simply doesn't work - unless of course you think that selling off the nation's assets abroad or to a cartel is a really good thing. However, one thing you can say with some accuracy about the Tories is that they never, ever learn from their past mistakes. Ergo, here we go again.

And, of course, privatisation is only privatisation to a limited extent, given the huge subsidies many of the firms involved in public transport are still sponging off the taxpayers: they are capitalists in profit, but socialists in debit.

I hope irony is not lost on you.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

1) Labour proposed this.

2) They are selling it but at no point will the new owners ever be allowed to build on the land, they will also have to make assurances that they will maintain the forests as well if not better than the F.C currently do.

Back in your left wing box.

They are supposed to be maintaining rights of way too but many of those already sold have been fenced off to deny access by your right wing mates.
Don't forget you own woodland you pay
no income tax on proceeds from sale of wood
no capital gains tax on resale
no IHT on death
It's a nobrainer for those mates of callmedave with cash.

well, well, well, it looks like you have nothing to worry about den.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

1) Labour proposed this.

2) They are selling it but at no point will the new owners ever be allowed to build on the land, they will also have to make assurances that they will maintain the forests as well if not better than the F.C currently do.

Back in your left wing box.

Why can't some people see past what they are supposed to think according to what their political party tells them to?

Selling off the forests is a truly wank idea. In fact it is beyond wank. What has whether Labour proposed it got to do with anything?