I was walking through Covent Garden in London the other day, when I looked up and saw this plaque.
Endell Street was the first hospital to be created, run and staffed entirely by women doctors and nurses and opened 100 years ago this year.
In a strange coincidence my Australian grandfather, who was wounded on the western front in 1917, was treated at Endell Street.
So, in a way, I have the wonderful women (many of whom were suffragists) who worked at Endell Street to thank for my existence.
The Sick Rose
It was national poetry day on Thursday. After reading something today I thought of this poem which was in an anthology I had long ago:
O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.
I was reminded of this poem while reading about the latest research showing that honey bees are being poisoned by neonicotinoids that they collect from wildflowers sown around the margins of arable crops. The neonics are sprayed on the crops, but being systemic they are taken up by all the plants in the area, crop and wild alike. They find their way to the flower, the pollen and nectar, and are collected by the bees.
In a very curious coincidence the research found that 97% of the neonics collected by the honey bees, were taken from wildflowers. Exactly the same statistic as the proportion of wildflower meadows lost from England and Wales since 1940.
Farmers are encouraged to plant wildflowers around their crops to help save pollinating insects, under a project called Operation Pollinator, amongst others. Operation Pollinator proudly publicised a success story recently, when a bee that had not been seen in Lincolnshire for over 100 years turned up at a farm (Beeswax Farm would you believe?) on which they were working – a farm owned by James Dyson the inventor.
Operation Pollinator is funded by Syngenta, producers of neonicotinoid pesticides.
The Ecomodernist vision: a future where most live in megacities
Ecomodernist Mark Lynas was rather rueful in his Guardian article yesterday, where he openly regretted having agreed to speak at Owen Paterson’s UK2020 “thinktank”, alongside ecovandal Paterson and his libertarian brother in law “rational optimist” Viscount Matt Ridley. He described the decision of the Ecomodernists to associate themselves with these free market fundamentalists as a “screw up”. According to Lynas it was Michael Schellenberger, one of the leading lights in the Ecomodernist cabal, who insisted on going ahead with the event at UK2020, despite Lynas’ misgivings. Collective responsibility would, you would think, be a guiding ethic of the ecomodernists, but evidently not at this particular juncture.
Perhaps Lynas might usefully remind himself of (attributed to) Lenin’s useful idiots.
Lynas finishes his confession with the plaintive cry that Ecomodernism is still an exciting new adventure, and that this mistake of aligning themselves with the neoliberal and neolibertarian right was a “blip” from which we can all move on. There is a special plea to George Monbiot to reconsider his position, since Ecomodernism is strongly supportive of rewilding, something close to George’s heart. George has been highly critical of Ecomodernism, which has upset the EMers as they evidently saw George as an inspirational leader for their movement. While Monbiot is sceptical, Ridley is evidently enthusiastic about EM and is keen to shape the agenda – yesterday on twitter he said
“I think it’s crucial not to make climate change a litmus test for eco-mods. all science can be challenged.”
The EM manifesto however is clear about the serious risks of climate change
“There remain, however, serious long-term environmental threats to human well-being, such as anthropogenic climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification.”
The EM manifesto supports the IPCC goal of keeping temperature increases below 2 celsius, while Paterson and Ridley are happy that things are fine until a 4C increase. Still, Schellenberger is happy to cosy up to the likes of Ridley and Pile, expressing admiration for libertarians on many things.
Given Paterson, Ridley, Pile et al’s outright antagonism to “environmentalism” (whatever that is), by aligning themselves so enthusiastically with them, it seems that Schellenberger and the EMers are doing exactly the opposite of what they are claiming, to reduce polarity in the debate about how to ensure humanity has a future on this planet. Interestingly, Ben Pile’s fellow “Living Marxist” Brendan O’Neill launched a scathing attack on the Ecomodernists yesterday, criticising them for even mentioning the environment. Perhaps, if extremists like O’Neill are attacking them, they can’t be all bad.
This has been a difficult birth for EM in Britain. Perhaps they need to think about who they jump into bed with next.
Golden Rice – not available yet
Necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows, according to an old adage. And it is presumably this maxim which led the Ecomodernists to jump into bed with arch-neoliberals Owen Paterson and Matt Ridley last week. They may well be rueing that decision now.
At one of the various events the Ecomodernists attended, lead Ecomodernist Mark Lynas attempted to persuade Owen Paterson to tone down the “Green Blob” rhetoric, saying “more could be gained by the argument becoming less partisan and the two sides seeking common ground” Paterson was having none of it.
Paterson was in full gung-ho mode, on the war path. In an interview on Radio 4 the same day, he got on his hobby horse about Golden Rice – the fabled GM-rice which will, if it becomes widely available, may provide additional vitamin A in children’s diets, preventing premature death. Not averse to using emotive arguments when they suit, Paterson said ” 6000 little children will die because of Vitamin A deficiency” which he claimed could be solved with Golden Rice, despite it not actually existing. He lambasted Doug Parr of Greenpeace, who oppose GM crops; Paterson claimed “smart green activists decide to play god” by opposing GM crops incorrectly claiming Greenpeace activists had attacked a golden rice trial plot. Parr hit back, saying he wasn’t going to take any lessons on science from Paterson who had refused to take a brief from Met Office scientists on climate change, while he was head of Defra.
Where did Paterson get this idea about Golden Rice? step forward his bro Viscount Matt Ridley, who had made the same unsubstantiated claims 3 years earlier. Golden Rice is very controversial.
While at the Ecomodernists event, Paterson also raised the Neonicotinoids issue, as an example of how the environmental movement had ‘effectively blocked a technology and ignored the science’. In fact, far from an excessive use of the Precautionary Principle (which the Ecomodernists loath) it was scientific evidence of harm which led to the Neonics ban – imposed on Britain by Europe. Defra was attempting to ignore the scientific evidence but were forced to stand down.
But since Paterson left Defra, his successor Liz Truss has continued in the same vein. Defra has now relaxed the ban on Neonics use on Oil Seed Rape in Suffolk, having been lobbied by the NFU and pesticides industry. This is despite the NFU providing no evidence that lifting the ban was needed. They asked, and it was given.
What do the Ecomodernists think about the Neonics debate? They are silent, apart from an article criticizing journalists’ rush to judgement that neonics caused Colony Collapse Disorder in US honey bees. No comment about their impacts on thousands of other species of insects (including bees) in the wild then.
“Nothing to see here, move along please.”
The power and influence of the Countryside Alliance extends far and wide through society, even as far as new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has been forced to publicly announce that Labour has no plans to introduce a campaign (along the lines of anti-smoking campaigns) to encourage people to eat less meat, or even, heaven forefend, become vegetarian. This is despite Corbyn being a long time vegetarian himself.
Now let’s put this into perspective: Corbyn believes in many things that are clearly at odds with the British public’s views: he believes in unilateral disarmament – this has led to calls for a military coup from a top Army general. Corbyn has stuck by his guns.
But he has felt an obligation to make this announcement in relation to meat eating.
It is difficult not to see the Countryside Alliance behind this. CEO Tim Bonner said, when asked by the Mail, “her views are verging on the cranky” and he hashtagged cranky in a follow up tweet. This has been picked up and churned around the media in the way these things are – eventually someone said to Corbyn – “you have to say something”. Bonner will be smiling.
What actually happened was that McCarthy gave an interview earl in 2015, possible even late 2014, with vegan magazine Viva!, long before she joined the shadow cabinet. McCarthy is a long standing vegan, it’s a vegan magazine. It’s hardly surprising that McCarthy would say things to them about meat eating. Vegans believe meat eating is wrong, McCarthy suggested one way of encouraging people to eat less or give up meat, would be a public information campaign similar to anti-smoking campaigns.
What is not reported elsewhere is that the next sentence said
“Sadly, I don’t anticipate that being in anyone’s manifesto at the election.”
who might have pointed the Mail in the direction of the piece in Viva!? and who would then be on hand to give a quote, putting the (hand-tooled leather riding) boot in.
Calling a vegan “cranky” is obviously an ok thing to do in the world of the Countryside Alliance. It harks back to the days (starting in the 19th century) when vegetarians were called cranks – and this led to the creation of a famous vegetarian restaurant chain, self-parodically called Cranks. I imagine Ms McCarthy has been called far worse, indeed you only have to look at the social media activity of the pro-bloodsports movement to see it.
Expect to see far more of these bullying attacks on Ms McCarthy from the Countryside Alliance and their fellow travellers. But also consider why they should feel the need to do so – they are worried. McCarthy represents an existential threat to them and what they see as their birthright.
Giacomo Balla, Sculptural Construction of Noise and Speed (1914)
The risk all utopians run is that entryists will use their idealism for their own ends. This would appear to be happening this week, as arch neoliberal brothers Owen Paterson and Viscount Matt Ridley, and others, seek to appropriate Ecomodernism for their own ends.
Ecomodernism is not, as you might imagine, a return to modernist art, music or literature from an environmental perspective (although perhaps that also exists). But ecomodernism does take key tenets from at least some strands of modernism – that a collective approach is better than individualism, that new is better, that technological progress is generally good; and that humanity can overcome nature. It also conveniently ignores other modernist philosophies, which emphasised the importance of spiritual life and working with nature, such as in the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and other advocates of Organic Architecture.
Ecomodernism is a utopian venture developed by The Breakthrough Institute. The Ecomodernists modestly describe themselves as “leading global thinkers” and who am I do argue with their self-identification. Their goal is to decouple humanity from nature. They believe
“humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature” and reject the notion that “humans must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse:”.
Their utopian vision is that technology will solve the worlds problems – and this is certainly a modernist belief. From a hundred years ago.
I’m not inclined to critique this vision further, just now – though I can recommend readers look at this essay by Chris Smaje.
What interests me this week is the strange bedfellows the ecomodernists have attracted, namely former Secretary of State for the Environment Owen Paterson, about who I have written many times, and his brother in law Viscount Matt Ridley, who has also graced these pages all too often.
This week Paterson’s “think tank” UK2020 invites Breakthrough Institute’s global think leaders to speak on ecomodernism. Paterson has been voluble in his support for GMOs, something TBI are also keen on. Paterson also believes in decoupling, because he is a neoliberalist, who believes that the market will solve all humanity’s ills.I previously described Paterson as a latter day “enlightenment man” but perhaps that does a disservice to the enlightenment. Paterson fundamentally believes that humanity can improve nature and that it is our duty to do so.
Ridley is also a staunch supporter of free market fundamentalism, though he often goes further and has been described as a neo-libertarian. He does not believe there is any good in the state, the public sector, collective action, whatever you want to call it. This is ironic considering how much he receives from the taxpayer in farm subsidies, let alone the cost of his mistakes as chair of Northern Rock, which collapsed, costing the uk taxpayer billions.
Paterson, writing in the Telegraph yesterday, takes up the cudgels for ecomodernism. Paterson is always good value for his absurd quotes, so here are some:
“Today’s seven billion people have both more food and more nature reserves than the five billion of 30 years ago.”
Is the area under “nature reserve” whatever Paterson actually means by that, a good indicator of the health of the planet? Perhaps land 30 years ago didn’t need to be in a nature reserve because it was not under threat?
“The rich parts of the world, like Europe and North America, are now teeming with far richer wildlife populations than for many centuries, to the point where it is becoming a problem in cities – foxes in London, turkeys in Boston, bears in Philadelphia.”
Paterson always does take a route A approach to facts. Why spend years developing complex indicators for wildlife or biodiversity when you can just SEE ALL THE FOXES?
“Outside the developing world, forests are increasing in extent and diversity all the time.”
Paterson in his days at Defra, explained that the environment would be improved by getting rid of an ancient woodland, but planting loads of new trees. This is equivalent to others who argue that replacing a rainforest with an oil palm plantation means there has been no loss of forest. Real scientists have found that 3% of global forest was lost between 2000 and 2012 and that fragmentation during that period was profoundly affecting 10% of global forest. Paterson never worries too much about scientific evidence though.
According to Paterson, the developing world has the worst environmental problems, because they have not made the transition to intensive industrial agriculture, or using fossil fuels instead of burning wood. “they are still coupled to the natural environment” he says, using the language of the ecomodernists.
Paterson goes on to his favourite topic of late “the green blob”. We are told that environmental organisations have more clout in Brussels than corporate lobbyists – that would explain why the Common Agricultural Policy continues to be paid to farmers to deliver minimal public benefits I guess, or why environmental campaigners are not winning their fight to stop the EU from signing a secretive trade deal called TTIP with the US. Paterson’s world is a genuinely scary one – for the rest of us as well as him.
The Breakthrough Institute support things that are anathema to Paterson and Ridley. They believe the state has a key role to play in creating their utopian vision. After all, arguably the most significant outcome of the modernist age in the political sphere were the Socialist revolutions of Russia, China and elsewhere. TBI argue for state intervention to fast track the world to a future fuellled by nuclear energy. Now where have we heard that one before? Oh yes, the white heat of technology that was going to give us nuclear power so cheaply it would too cheap to meter. That doesnt appear to be coming any time soon, as efforts to build just one new nuclear plant in the UK are mired in chaos amid every spiralling costs – £24Billion pounds and counting. Having said that, TBI also appear to ignore the evidence that neoliberal economic dogma has created many of the worlds modern environmental, social and political problems – neatly summed up in the concept of “market failure”.
Why would brothers Paterson and Ridley seek to team up with these big state intervention ecotopians? I can only assume it is classic entryism, seeking to exploit the naive idealists at the Breakthrough Institute for their own nefarious ends. But they are not the only entryists on the block this week. Step forward the Living Marxism network, or LM in short.
I’ve written previously about the links between the libertarians of LM and UKIP. One of the LM front organisations is called Sense about Science, and it is they who are hosting the Breakthrough Institute this week, after their visit to Paterson’s world. Sense about Science are unashamedly pro GMO and have taken funding from big pharma in the past. It is also I think no coincidence that Matt Ridley sits on Sense About Science’s advisory council. CEO of Sense About Science is Tracey Brown who has, along with other LMers like Adam Curtis, attacked the Precautionary Principle as being anti-progressive, even arguing that the ban on neonicotinoids would not benefit bees. I wonder what the Breakthrough Institute feel about the precautionary principle.
Can we seriously talk about decoupling humanity from nature? And if so, would that be a good thing? I think it is utopian hubris to believe we can decouple ourselves from nature. It’s akin to the idea that we can “cure” cancer, or that all infectious diseases will be wiped from the earth in the way that smallpox was. These things are part of life, in the way death is part of life, an essential part.
Should we decouple ourselves from nature? No, we should not. We need to be more connected to nature, not less. People Need Nature.
Farmers and Bloodsports campaigners reacted with repressed fury, confusion and shock to the announcement that Kerry McCarthy – A VEGAN – had been selected as Labour’s shadow secretary of state for the environment, farming and rural affairs.
The farming press used emotive language in its coverage “Ms McCarthy… refuses to eat meat, dairy products or eggs” – refuses? was she tied to a chair while Countryside Alliance supporters forced bacon into her mouth? No, she has chosen not to eat meat or animal products. She has made an ethical choice to forego the consumption of food derived from animals. That does not mean she is (or has ever been) an animal rights extremist who wants to firebomb intensive broiler units.
Thankfully Farmers Weekly asked old chestnut UKIP farm spokesman and chicken farmer Stuart Agnew for a quote
“Kerry McCarthy will have little in common with either the producers or consumers of food and would be better described as the Corbynist who would like Defra to be renamed the Department for Eradication of Farmers and Rural Areas.”
And bloodsports champion Tim Bonner, recently made chief exec of the Countryside Alliance (who also happens to be a former Tory parliamentary candidate) predictably pointed out that since Ms McCarthy was against bloodsports, she must be therefore against the countryside and rural communities. That is the level of debate you can expect from the CA. Remember 80% of the public support the ban on hunting with dogs.
McCarthy has produced quite a detailed position statement on her website. She explains that she will not let her vegan ethics affect Labour’s policy in relation to the farming industry. Anyone who takes an interest in these issues will know that she has been very active in Parliament on agriculture and environmental issues for a long time – and has not taken a militant vegan position on farming at any time. Now Stuart Agnew or Tim Bonner’s view on what makes a militant vegan is bound to differ from the average person in the street, but they are both at the extreme ends of at least 2 spectra, so their views have to be seen in that context.
Bonner for example argues that shooting “cannot be separated out from the rest of rural life”. I am slightly surprised he did not write “hunting” – perhaps he did and it was edited out. Bonner’s argument is that shooting (and hunting) are so deeply embedded in the rural life of Britain that the rest of it will collapse without those sports continuing. Now I do not believe that all shooting should be banned. But I also find the idea that it is somehow woven into the DNA of rural life absurd and is itself an extreme position to take. Shooting is done by people for pleasure and it employs a small number of people in the economy. Neither of those things make it essential. After all, cock-fighting was exactly the same, until it was banned in 1835.
How many vegans are there in the UK? Statistics are hard to find, but one estimate of 150,000 in 2006 seems very low to me. Vegetarians may now number 4 million with many more adopting a “flexitarian” diet. This is quite a significant chunk of the population, compared to, say, the number of dairy farmers in Britain (less than 10,000).
The hysterical response from the farming and bloodsport industries, to McCarthy’s appointment, also has to be seen in another light. When Owen Paterson was appointed Defra Secretary of State, his appointment was lauded by farmers and bloodsports supporters because he agreed with them. He was also criticised because he was, and is, a climate change denier. He is also in favour of lifting the ban on hunting with dogs.
McCarthy’s decision to become vegan was an ethical one. What ethics drive Paterson’s choices to deny climate science and support the killing of wild animals for pleasure?
ICI Billingham as it was in 1970: part of new environment minister Alex Cunningham’s constituency
It’s taken a while but Jerry Corbyn has finally chosen his shadow ministers. Working for Shadow Secretary of State for Defra Kerry McCarthy MP (who has set out her initial views on the post here) will be:
Alex Cunningham, Nick Smith, Baroness Maggie Jones and Lord John Grantchester. Old hand Barry Gardiner a former biodiversity minister and shadow environment minister, is now in the shadow DECC team and as he’s listed second under Lisa Nandy, it’s reasonable to assume he is second in command ; Minister of State.
What do we know about the shadow EFRA team?
Born in Scotland, Alex Cunningham is MP for Stockton North, in the north-east. Elected in 2010 after a career in regional journalism followed by a long stint in industry comms with National Grid, during which time he was a Labour councillor. His media and comms skills should come in extremely handy when challenging Defra’s public stance on emotive subjects like the badger cull. Cunningham welcomed news of HLF funding for a wildlife project in his constituency, saying:
“Open spaces and green areas such as Hardwick Dene are of great importance to our communities, not to mention the flora and fauna that thrive in these surroundings. And the opportunity for young people to work towards the John Muir award will allow them to develop an understanding of this importance while gaining experience of the important conservation activities that will safeguard their availability for generations to come.”
Originally from Cardiff, Nick Smith is another recently elected MP, winning Blaenau Gwent in 2010. Another former Labour councillor (in Camden). He has been a Labour activist all his career, working within Labour HQ, but also stints with the European Labour party in Brussels, as a campaigner with the NSPCC and policy director at the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. He was accused of being a product of “Blairite New Labour” when he won a selection contest to be candidate for Blaenau Gwent – former seat of Labour-left stalwarts Aneurin Bevan and Michael Foot. It’s difficult to find any evidence of an interest in the environment, apart from one oral question back in 2010,
“I am a keen hill walker, but the Government are selling off England’s forests and nature reserves. Why are they selling off those natural assets for a quick buck without getting strong assurances on public rights of way?”
Perhaps Smith will get the shadow forestry remit.
Baroness Maggie Jones had been a shadow Lords spokesperson for Education, and Culture Media and Sport. She was formerly a non-exec Director for WRAP, the publicly funded recycling campaign and is now a trustee there. Before going to the Lords she was policy director for UNISON.
Lord John Grantchester aka Christopher Suenson-Taylor, is the heir to the John Moore Littlewoods football pools fortune. He is a dairy farmer but also owns 8% of Everton Football club. He was chair of Dairy Farmers of Great Britain when it went bust in 2009.
It is perhaps noteworthy that the 2 MPs chosen to support Kerry McCarthy are both from former industrial heartland constituencies with limited rural areas. Stockton North includes the industrial centre of Billingham, while Blaenau Gwent lies at the head of the south Wales valleys, including Ebbw Vale. McCarthy represents the urban constituency of Bristol East.
Photo: “Billingham ICI plant September 1970 No. 9 geograph-3436075-by-Ben-Brooksbank” by Ben Brooksbank. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Billingham_ICI_plant_September_1970_No._9_geograph-3436075-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg#/media/File:Billingham_ICI_plant_September_1970_No._9_geograph-3436075-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg
Following my earlier blog about the Countryside Alliance and the relationship with its charitable foundation, I have had the following comment from a Chartered Accountant on the latest published accounts of the Countryside Alliance Foundation:
“The charity should be following Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of Recommended Practice (Revised 2005). This is more generally known as SORP 2005.
It also follows the Financial Reporting Standards for Smaller Entities (FRSSE) which is a Companies Act disclosure standard.. However, in areas where the SORP and the FRSSE conflict then the SORP should be followed.
In general I think the disclosure is poor. The SORP stresses the importance of detailed proper disclosure.
Page 32, paragraph 221 and following cover related party transactions. Paragraph 224 stresses transparency.
Note 7 of the accounts is anything but transparent.
Which directors lent what to the company?
Who received what interest?
This should have been disclosed in these accounts.
In addition to a lack of detail relating to the above transactions it is rather unbelievable that the accounts do not mention that Mr White-Spunner was leader of the Countryside Alliance!
Control Relationships
The FRSSE requires that the accounts disclose the name and relationship of any party which controls the reporting entity along with the name of ultimate controlling party if different. I would have expected a note either saying that the Countryside Alliance Foundation was controlled by the Countryside Alliance or more likely that there was no overall controlling entity. I would like to see how they justified the latter statement.
I think that most people would assume that the CA controls the CAF so the accounts should address the issue.”
The Badger Hunt
The Countryside Alliance, who you will remember launched a scathing (unjustified) attack on the RSPB earlier this year, and more recently against Chris Packham, is not a charity, though reports suggested it was planning to register as one last year: “What we have done over the past 15 years is essentially charitable” they claimed. The Charity Commission may not agree with that – which might explain why they have yet to gain Charitable status. Given that they spent £2.9M of its £4.7M income on campaigning in 2013, charity rules on lobbying may make for uncomfortable reading in CA Mansions.
The Alliance is a membership organisation – with a special discount membership rate for Gamekeepers; and cheap gundog insurance. Membership also entitles you to “access to a dedicated team of firearms experts”, should you need them.
It claims to speak for country folk, standing up for a rural way of life. Among reasons to join, along with campaigning on universal rural issues like broadband, The CA “champions British farmers and their produce.” They are the only organisation working “for the future of hunting: and “to repeal the hunting act”. Its new chief exec is Tim Bonner. Bonner is a former Tory district councillor and (failed) parliamentary candidate from the south-west.
The Alliance are also proud to “make the voice for shooting heard in Westminster” and campaign for shooters rights, especially the right to poison the countryside, themselves and their own children, with lead. The Lead Ammunition Group, set up by the Government to look into the use of lead in ammunition, has concluded these things are demonstrably true. A key organisation with close relationships to the Alliance is the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). BASC are not at all keen to stop lead poisoning, as their chair Alan Jarrett noted in this recently letter. Alan Jarrett is Tory leader of Medway Council, where the Nightingales live.
The other thing the CA are proud to promote, as a reason to join, is the Countryside Alliance Foundation, a registered charity. This is slightly odd, as the Foundation is a separate entity. In fact, the charity is supposed to be very much at arms length from the very political, campaigning body that is the Alliance.
When the CA applied to register the CA foundation as a charity, they were initially rejected by the Charity Regulator, the Charity Commission. After further amendments to the CA foundation’s objects, they were allowed to register, but only with conditions. The CA foundation had argued that “promoting rural life” and “promoting the rural environment” were charitable objects. The Commission decided otherwise, arguing they were essentially meaningless phrases – these were removed. In confirming the CA Foundation as a charity, the Charity Commission reiterated how important it was that the “Foundation Directors understood their obligations to maintain independence from the Alliance” and to appoint Trustees independent of the Alliance.
I was therefore somewhat surprised to see the the membership form for the Alliance and Foundation was the same for both. Gift aid can be applied for the Foundation but not the Alliance. You are implored to gift aid your donation to the Foundation, with the following words:
Make sure the countryside not the Government benefits from your donation by ticking a box below.
Now does this sound like the measured language of a charity dedicated to “promoting the conservation, protection and improvement of the environment” and “supporting conservation projects that protect flora and fauna in the British countryside”? You decide. Imagine the hoo-haa from the likes of You Forgot the Birds, if the RSPB put “make sure birds not the government benefits from your donation” on their website.
What does this CA Foundation do to promote such conservation? Their flagship project is “Fishing for Schools”. Fly fishing, specifically. I know a little bit about fishing, charities and education, as some of my late brother’s friends were involved in them; and I know how valuable this work is. There’s also a Falconry for Schools project.
It’s interesting that these projects are not especially related to the work of the Alliance, especially with its focus on shooting. Perhaps this is part of the Foundations efforts to distance itself from the Alliance.
The Foundation is having a bit of a hard time at the moment, financially. Latest accounts show its income is only a third of what it was 3 years ago; and its flagship fishing for schools project has been halved over the last couple of years. £75k doesnt go very far in the world of fly fishing. Worse still, the auditors have questioned whether the Foundation is a going concern. Liabilities exceed assets by over £200,000 in the last set of published accounts for the year t march 2014.
The Foundation has received a number of loans. This is where it gets a bit confusing – so anyone with a sharp eye for figures please correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
It appears that the Foundation received a loan from the Countryside Alliance in 2009 for £300,000. It then received a further loan from the Directors in 2010 for £200,000. The Foundation is paying interest to its directors on those loans. Interest is paid at 3% above base rate – not a bad return on investment at all (considering the risk is zero.)
Who are these directors? One of them, who held office from Feb 2012 to December 2013, was a certain General Barney White-Spunner.
Not General White-Spunner I hear you say – not the same General White-Spunner who was leader (Executive Chairman) of the Countryside Alliance? Yes, it is he.
Other Foundation trustees include Roger Wilson, also a director of Countryside Alliance Insurance Services limited (remember the gundogs) and Jeremy Quin. Quin was Managing Director of Deutsche Bank (UK regional management) until 2008 when he was seconded into the Treasury, presumably to help with the UK bank bailout arising from the Banking crisis. Jeremy Quin was elected Conservative MP for Horsham in may 2015.
Now whether you think the Countryside Foundation is sufficiently independent from the Countryside Alliance, or not, is beside the point. It’s for the regulator, the Charity Commission, to ensure that its stipulations are adhered to. But the Commission is having a bit of a hard time at the moment. It’s just been severely criticized for failing to spot, let alone act on, the financial/governance car crash that was Kids Company. It also lost half of its budget as a result of austerity cuts under the last government. Will it be in a position to investigate whether the Countryside Alliance and its Foundation have managed to “maintain independence”?
The Countryside Alliance is a powerful body and has its people in Government (Lord Gardiner) and Parliament (Quin, Simon Hart). They can throw their weight around, and make life difficult for people like Chris Packham. But they are in a state of shock today, with the announcement that the new Shadow Secretary of State for Defra is Kerry McCarthy, vice president of the League Against Cruel Sports, and a vegan. Look at this statement from BASC and this from Countryside Alliance.
 | navasolanature on Poundbury Nature for Wellbeing… |
 | Alex Tylor on ‘Look but don’t pick’ – Wild M… |
 | AllRoundNature on Will Prime Minister Truss aban… |
 | Peter Lancashire on The true story of David Camero… |
| Peter Lancashire on The true story of David Camero… |
a new nature blog 
.jpg){kind=link}
