Forests: The first government u-turn?

I previously blogged here about the UK government's plan to sell off Forestry Commission woodland. Well, the government has now decided to put plans on-hold, a sign that a u-turn on the issue could be looming.

I want to know what has successfully pressured the government in making this decision, and what lessons can be learnt for other campaigns:

1) The policy wasn’t staunchly ideological
Remember the Conservative vote is traditionally held in rural areas, and there’s a danger this policy could outrage their own country bumpkins. The green spaces of England are heritage for everyone, and a public consensus could be heard in the Question Time studio a few weeks back. I’ve never heard such cheering and agreement amongst the audience.

2) Reputable celebrity backers
When an issue is less ideologically sensitive, more celebrities will rally round. Fact. Judi Dench, Bill Bryson, Annie Lenox, Ranulph Fiennes, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury – Dr. Rowan Williams put their name to a letter in the Sunday Telegraph calling the proposals ill-conceived. And you know when the Telegraph is publishing sentiments against the government, there’s something brewing...

3) Successful, organised campaign and petition
We should not forget the role of 38degrees in this campaign to save the forests. They’ve clocked up over 50,000 signatories, including mine. This is a demonstration of people power, people organising over the internet. There’s been some favourable coverage of this group too, on TV shows such as ‘10 o’clock live’. The interesting thing is, this group is not just campaigning against the government’s plans for the Forestry Commission. It’s also collecting signatories against human trafficking, against political interference in BSKYB investigation, and against NHS reforms. And this leads me nicely to my last thought...

Why are people bothered about our green spaces being sold off, but less bothered about saving the NHS? Less bothered about ensuring everyone has the same right to free healthcare? Perhaps the NHS is fair-game for ideological struggles, but we could do with some celebrity backers right now for this one.

Charity Starts At School

Twelve months ago the Charity Commission concluded that St Anselm's private school was “not currently operating for the public benefit” and challenged its charitable status. This threatened a raft of charity perks which the £15 000 pa school enjoyed – including reduced business rates and opt-outs from income/corporation tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty.

One year on and St Anselm’s School has secured its charitable status by pledging “to triple the number of children with full bursaries”. Interesting spin here by the Telegraph as, in actual fact, the number of bursaries has increased from one to three. That’s a total of 1.3% of 230 pupils receiving bursaries. But tripling sounds much more philanthropic than “extended to three”.

In its report, the Charity Commission commends St Anselm’s selection procedures for not being "academically selective". Well why would they? All they care about is a family’s ability to pay, not the academic prowess of a child. Interestingly, when a person applies for a bursary, there is a formal testing process involved. This hardly seems fair and equitable – oh yeah, we don’t care if the rich kids are as thick as shit, but if we let a prole in they better be clever otherwise they won’t be able to compete with our received wisdom following years of inbreeding.

Charitable status should be reserved for those organisations which help the most needy and vulnerable – not the cleverest or richest. The benefits associated with being a charity are designed to do more good, not make more profit. St Anselm’s might help three intelligent working-class kids every year, but what about those not as academically gifted? Just because someone has their fees paid does not mean that they will fit in if they can’t afford trendy clothes or the latest technology. Giving places to disadvantaged pupils will never challenge the inherent hierarchy and elitism at fee paying schools – if anything it will make it worse.

David Hanson, chief executive of the Independent Association of Prep Schools said “the vast majority of schools . . . do not have the resources to be able to pay for fully-funded bursaries. . . the commission has to get into the real world”. I agree with Mr Hanson – the commission should get into the real world because there is something fundamentally wrong when independent schools are afforded charity status. Their very existence is incompatible with community benefit because entry is based on an ability to pay. When a poor pupil does receive a bursary, then entrance is determined by an arbitrary measure of intelligence. Either way, access depends on discrimination and this acts to reinforce divisions within society and fortify social and economic stratification.