State of the parties and Firm Briefing 17

Mark 31 Comments

799px-Houses.of_.parliament.overall.arp_You’ve been very busy with firm briefing over the last few weeks.  Just over 500 of you have written to just over 300 MPs (and let me know – new correspondence arrives every day).

According to what you have told me, for that is all I have to go on, this is the breakdown of responsiveness from the main political parties:

Conservatives: 74 MPs replied so far, 106 not yet replied

Labour: 22 MPs replied so far, 68 not replied

SNP: 14 MPs replied so far, 8 not replied

LibDems: 5 MPs replied so far, 1 not replied

So, Labour MPs are worst at responding to their constituents on this issue, it seems, whereas the SNP and LibDems are good, and to be fair, the Conservatives are reasonably good.

But what did they say?

The Lib Dems are all over the place at the moment – which is charmingly liberal of them, but they are generally against the idea of any ban – some have sent out a version of the Defra briefing with a nod towards BASC in it too! Considering the strength of support for a ban from Liberal and ex-Liberal rural seats then they might just want to think about how this plays politically, and indeed, whether they have given it enough thought.

The SNP were good at responding but their standard response has gone down like a lead balloon with many of you. Some of you have met and talked to your SNP MPs and got a lot further that way than writing. There are rumours that the SNP might change its response from ‘don’t bother me, I’m just paid to be your MP’ to something more sensible but we’ll see.

Labour MPs have been very poor in responding on this issue. That is probably due to a variety of factors such as having urban constituencies, having relatively few of their constituents sign the e-petition on average, having little personal connection with nature and, perhaps most importantly, being a party (of which I am currently a member remember) in disarray at the moment. However, that isn’t a good enough batch of reasons as, as long ago as 24 August, some Labour MPs were sending out the standard response, which is non-committal but quite good, to constituents. If your MP has not bothered to send you the same then I’d ask them what they are doing.  I’ll provide a gingering up letter that you might want to send to your Labour MP on this blog this evening.

The Conservatives are much more interested in grouse shooting but appear to be pretty ignorant about the facts of the matter.  We have already seen the standard Conservative response, and the response that comes from Defra when the standard response is questioned. The Conservatives cannot cope with the fact that wildlife crime is widespread on grouse moors and that the government is standing by and doesn’t have an answer to this criminal activity.  I will come back to that matter at a later date – it might be in quite a while, but I will certainly come back to it and I’ll be asking you to write to your Conservative MPs to ram home that and other messages.

 

 

[registration_form]

31 Replies to “State of the parties and Firm Briefing 17”

  3. It’s a shame they don’t find a common cause instead of infighting, the natural environment should find common ground as well as being a potential vote winner with the public?

    Then again, politicians and winds or rather a palace full of ostriches with Nero at the helm, fiddling about with no coherent plan how to reduce consumption to help address climate change. Anyone for fracking and nuclear with lots of subsided wind turbines requiring spinning reserve?

    ooops, sorry folks, hadn’t meant to ramble more a case of offering any political party a handle that the public might see value in?

  4. Do you think the Conservative response may be the way it is because your claims of widespread “wildlife crime” perpetrated by keepers is without any basis in fact? Along with your dubious assertions regarding muir burn causing flooding, hysterical fear mongering about lead shot and your casual disregard for the livelihoods, careers and tied cottages of the estate workers who you would see thrown onto a dole queue, my only surprised is that any MP has given you a response favourable or otherwise.

    1. Richard – no I don’t. It may be that a range of Conservative MPs have been misled by shooting people (you shoot don’t you?) but we are dealing with that. Nice of you to comment though.

      1. Richard Negus: Have you read Inglorious?

        In addition, the keepers prosecuted and reported about by various blogs is not true?

        Junior keepers acting outwith management instruction, oh yeah – VL should address that and you’d have no problem with it being introduced in England (exists in Scotland) because you suggest there have been no keepers prosecuted?

        No one wishes to see people homeless, be it keepers or farm workers laid off when smaller farms are subsumed into larger agri-industrial units. Remind me where in Inglorious that is suggested?

        1. I have read Inglorious. I found it tedious to be honest and littered with half truths, exaggeration and downright lies. I believe there are a tiny minority of keepers who have killed raptors, who should and have been prosecuted, as is advocated by NGO, BASC, CA etc. However to claim this as a common place activity is laughable were it not lapped up by Mark’s slavish followers and treated as fact. The result of a Driven Grouse ban would be not only disastrous for our native Red Grouse but also the mass of flora and fauna who benefit and rely upon the conservation work undertaken by Moorland Keepers. Do you honestly believe the Moorland owners would retain their Keepers, their homes and jobs if you banned the very reason they are there? I fear this whole charade is merely a fig leaf the bash “the Toffs”.

          1. Richard – I might quote you on the cover of the next edition… Bound to help sell some copies.

            Please keep commenting, some of us almost have a full bingo card already.

          2. ‘The result of a Driven Grouse ban would be not only disastrous for our native Red Grouse but also the mass of flora and fauna who benefit and rely upon the conservation work undertaken by Moorland Keepers.’

            ###

            And the stone curlew.

            Apparently.

          3. Richard, I for one wouldn’t be here if all the moorland raptors hadn’t disappeared. I’m also here because of the way the industry has intensified over the last decade or so; it’s much harder to defend in 2016 than it was in 2006 or 1996. There are, no doubt, a few here for party political reasons but I don’t think most of us are.

            What doesn’t help your case is the dirty tricks by the Grouse industry – slagging off Chris Packham, the lies told by an expensive London PR agency masquerading as a legitimate pressure group (“You Forgot the Birds”), the misinformation about the rate of failure of satellite tags, and the denial of the extent of crime within the industry.

            If the Grouse industry had said “We have a real problem here and we’re going to do everything we can to stamp wildlife crime out” and then followed through we wouldn’t be here. But the old “A few rotten apples” line just won’t wash any more. There is just too much evidence from too many sources, and every time yet another satellite tagged bird disappears over yet another a grouse moor it makes it even more daft to pretend that there isn’t a wildlife crime problem there.

            I had a long conversation with a pheasant shooter a while ago. He thought that the Grouse industry was bringing the whole of shooting into disrepute (as do I). The Grouse industry IS the rotten apple in the shooting barrel. How many more jobs will go in the end if you bring it all down because the Grouse industry insists on continued denial and misinformation despite all the evidence? It’s well past time to put your house in order or you’ll end up dragging everyone else down with you . If the Grouse industry had done that, even just in the last year or two then we wouldn’t be here.

            Ball in your court, sorry.

          7. “littered with half truths, exaggeration and downright lies.”

            Pages and paragraphs in question please, Mr Negus.

          8. “Downright lies” Richard Negus is a pretty strong term to be using, is it underpinned with evidence that would be upheld in a court of law? If so then no doubt you or your colleagues will have already served the relevant paper?

            If not, then Stone Curlew really are fantastic Breckland birds, Eurasian (previously Common) Curlew are upland and indeed lowland moorland species.

            Mark apologies for my asking the above question but the audacity of assertions is frankly astonishing, I wonder if RN will be presenting a written submission?

          9. “I believe there are a tiny minority of keepers who have killed raptors”

            Does the expression “in denial” resonate at all with you?

          10. “The result of a Driven Grouse ban would be not only disastrous for our native Red Grouse…”

            Lagopus lagopus is extremely widespread with a range extending right across North America and all the way across northern Europe and Asia. Its conservation status is evaluated by Birdlife International as ‘Least Concern’. Over the vast majority of its range there is no driven grouse shooting. It therefore seems highly unlikely that an end to driven grouse shooting would be disastrous for the species (though it would mean an end to artificially high post breeding populations in the UK).

          11. Jonathan – thank you. I’ve said similar things so often before I was getting weary of doing it again.

    2. Thanks for putting me right there Negus.
      There was me thinking that all the raptor crime and poisonings statistics showing that the majority were by gamekeepers on grouse moors, were accurate.
      10 shillings is in the post.

    3. Richard.

      86% of people convicted for offences linked to raptor persecution in Scotland between 1994 and 2014 were gamekeepers. I don’t see any reason to think England is any better than Scotland. I would suggest your definition of the word ‘fact’ differs to how most would define the word.

  5. My MP, Jonathan Edwards (Plaid) replied to me.
    He hopes to attend the debate and asked that I keep him appraised of developments as they happen; information, dates etc..

    Part of his reply said “In the first instance, I greatly appreciate your detailed and insightful correspondence.

    I must admit that I was not aware of most of the information that you have kindly provided but nevertheless I am very grateful to receive it.”

    He addressed me as “Dear Mark” which is always a good sign. But then he has helped me in the past and we have met.

    So I have found my MP positive, helpful, & a friendly personal reply. Mind, I helped elect him so as any MP should, he is there for me!

  6. Musing on the Defra response – which someone dashed off for the Minister in 15 minutes – it would be really interesting to do a full economic study on the uplands.

    At the moment, other than direct catchment services where water companies collect from their own land, I suspect by far the greatest net contributor is tourism. In contrast, agriculture – sheep farming – would not only be massively uneconomic in its own right, but would also be loaded with the cost of collateral damage – carbon loss, flooding, biodiversity loss through overgrazing etc. And then there is Grouse shooting – which it should be remembered is not subsidised in its own right, only through the agricultural stream via sheep farming.

    On present arguments the uplands stands to lose the lot in any hard fought negotiation with the Treasury – all they will see is some juicy (and by then badly needed) savings. It’s time to develop a new paradigm – signalled by the Natural Capital Committee already in its economic appraisal of the potential value of carbon capture in the uplands – and, in the present context, it will be interesting to see which way landowners jump when faced with money for flood defence, carbon, clean water etc as against unsubsidised – because damaging – grouse management.

    1. I’ve long called for a full and in depth financial analysis of all aspects of the ‘uplands’ and their management as well as the ecosystem services they provide, as well as tourism etc.

      “Follow the money” and I suspect as you suggest the Treasury will be looking to make savings, we need to persuade them to provide public benefit from public funds. Funding damaging sport will not, even if they themselves indulge, win an economic case.

      Will DGS be viable without public funding of upland moorland? What happens to SSSI / SAC / SPA which have DGS?

      Could the outcome of 18 October be an investigation into the ecomonic case Roderick describes? Better still, perhaps an independent study has already been commissioned?

    1. Species Champions – White tailed Eagle and Red Kite are the only raptors on there – but not the Hen Harrier or Mountain Hare – I have suggested these species need a champion. I’ll be interested to hear if they get one. I am a tad suspicious of this as window dressing however since we have one for Blue Whales, which I agree should be conserved, but I’m not sure how many we have in Scottish waters…it’s one thing to put your name to this, another entirely to lobby and legislate in their favour…I’d like to see all our raptors on there for starters, then the boundary of the Cairngorm National Park re-drawn…before it loses all credibility as a wildlife destination.

  8. Pingback: Labour dropping the ball - maybe we need a register? - Mark AveryMark Avery

Comments are closed.