This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Chris Witter comments on how austerity is impacting land access for climbers and hillwalkers, in the context of recent land sales within National Parks and public campaigns such as 'Mend Our Mountains.'Read more
35
3
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Good article. Food for thought. In the interim, does anyone know what happened to the crag that Wrexham Council were auctioning at Pandy?
Good article. Food for thought. In the interim, does anyone know what happened to the crag that Wrexham Council were auctioning at Pandy?
2
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
I'll need a bit of time to digest this
... my first thoughts are for oncoming grimness!
I'll need a bit of time to digest this
... my first thoughts are for oncoming grimness!
6
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
An interesting read but it would have been better to include England in the title or to extend the article to cover Scotland & Wales - although I suspect much of the legislation mentioned also applies to Wales and maybe the author didn't choose the title
An interesting read but it would have been better to include England in the title or to extend the article to cover Scotland & Wales - although I suspect much of the legislation mentioned also applies to Wales and maybe the author didn't choose the title
4
3
4
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Thw national parks might not need to sell land, if they weren't each individually managed etc.. They all have their own hq, CEO, supply chain, events system, shop management and supply chain etc.. the lack of efficiency is glaring. Plus their desire to freeze time isn't necessarily what is best for those in the park.
The NTs purchase of thornthwaite looks quite unhelpful to people living and working in the lakes who also wanted to buy it. Why should NGOs decide what is best.
Thw national parks might not need to sell land, if they weren't each individually managed etc.. They all have their own hq, CEO, supply chain, events system, shop management and supply chain etc.. the lack of efficiency is glaring. Plus their desire to freeze time isn't necessarily what is best for those in the park.
The NTs purchase of thornthwaite looks quite unhelpful to people living and working in the lakes who also wanted to buy it. Why should NGOs decide what is best.
4
9
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
The Green Backyard - Presumably the council will be required by the government to provide more homes, so I wonder where these will be built instead?
The Green Backyard - Presumably the council will be required by the government to provide more homes, so I wonder where these will be built instead?
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Really excellent description of the sorry trajectory we have been on since the neo-conservative market worshipping policies triggered in the 80's. Far from trickling down, the wealth generated by flogging off the commons has been concentrated at the top and leads us towards a rentiers economy. And the idea that voting for brexit was somehow a kick in the teeth for the political establishment was the greatest con trick I can imagine!
I worry that we've no more fight left in us.
Really excellent description of the sorry trajectory we have been on since the neo-conservative market worshipping policies triggered in the 80's. Far from trickling down, the wealth generated by flogging off the commons has been concentrated at the top and leads us towards a rentiers economy. And the idea that voting for brexit was somehow a kick in the teeth for the political establishment was the greatest con trick I can imagine!
I worry that we've no more fight left in us.
24
4
4
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
A well researched and written exposition of the issues surrounding land, ownership and society. Thank you so much for turning a topic I often rant about into such a well thought through piece.
A well researched and written exposition of the issues surrounding land, ownership and society. Thank you so much for turning a topic I often rant about into such a well thought through piece.
7
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Not got round to the text yet but that Wasdale Walls picture is an absolute stonker! Credit to RuthieB for it.
Not got round to the text yet but that Wasdale Walls picture is an absolute stonker! Credit to RuthieB for it.
3
2
2
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
A great article that I mostly agree with. The Lake District photo is fantastic, but why did the people who built the walls put all that effort into making tiny odd shaped fields?
A great article that I mostly agree with. The Lake District photo is fantastic, but why did the people who built the walls put all that effort into making tiny odd shaped fields?
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
It's interesting watching the likes of Serco taking over the management of public spaces and monetising them -nothing wrong with that in theory, providing it doesn't undermine the basic principles of free access for the community to their countryside, and that isn't always the case.
We have seen local authorities under appalling pressures, both from politically motivated "austerity" cuts and demographic and cultural changes leading to an increasingly frail, demanding and expensive population. LAs are belatedly realising that proving access to open space is not something they are obliged to fund, so parks and open spaces are dropping right down the agenda, or in some cases right off the bottom and into the hands of developers. It's hard to argue against proving carers to change grandads colostomy bag instead of play areas or greenspace. As a consequence, it's usual for all the policy statements to recognise the importance of a healthy population, but much less so for these policies to be supported with funding to implement them.
The latest big idea is that every scrap of green has to have a "friends of..." group, but these are often just intended as ways to access 3rd party funding, rather than allowing them to have any say in policy or management. I've been in some difficult meetings of late where FoG's have dared to have an opinion that doesn't match the vision of the council.
But there are no easy answers - you could consider the Canal and River Trust as an example - the charity spun out of the old British Waterways quango. No budget, a quasi housing role (especially in London) that they never asked for, and every attempt to find new ways to raise money derided by people still living in 2000.
The way our National Parks were created primarily as planning authorities was, with hindsight, a colossal mistake. They should probably have been more invested in the land (no matter how unpopular that might have been with some locals) - more like the National Trust perhaps, so that this rush to divest land ownership would have been avoided.
<lorem ipsum.....insert magic solution here...lorem ipsum...>
It's interesting watching the likes of Serco taking over the management of public spaces and monetising them -nothing wrong with that in theory, providing it doesn't undermine the basic principles of free access for the community to their countryside, and that isn't always the case.
We have seen local authorities under appalling pressures, both from politically motivated "austerity" cuts and demographic and cultural changes leading to an increasingly frail, demanding and expensive population. LAs are belatedly realising that proving access to open space is not something they are obliged to fund, so parks and open spaces are dropping right down the agenda, or in some cases right off the bottom and into the hands of developers. It's hard to argue against proving carers to change grandads colostomy bag instead of play areas or greenspace. As a consequence, it's usual for all the policy statements to recognise the importance of a healthy population, but much less so for these policies to be supported with funding to implement them.
The latest big idea is that every scrap of green has to have a "friends of..." group, but these are often just intended as ways to access 3rd party funding, rather than allowing them to have any say in policy or management. I've been in some difficult meetings of late where FoG's have dared to have an opinion that doesn't match the vision of the council.
But there are no easy answers - you could consider the Canal and River Trust as an example - the charity spun out of the old British Waterways quango. No budget, a quasi housing role (especially in London) that they never asked for, and every attempt to find new ways to raise money derided by people still living in 2000.
The way our National Parks were created primarily as planning authorities was, with hindsight, a colossal mistake. They should probably have been more invested in the land (no matter how unpopular that might have been with some locals) - more like the National Trust perhaps, so that this rush to divest land ownership would have been avoided.
<lorem ipsum.....insert magic solution here...lorem ipsum...>
4
In reply to toad:
There's a very easy answer: Use your vote.
Oh, hang on a minute - there's no opposition
> But there are no easy answers
There's a very easy answer: Use your vote.
Oh, hang on a minute - there's no opposition
9
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Superb article. Agree with the coments so far, access appears to be very precarious and set to get worse.
Superb article. Agree with the coments so far, access appears to be very precarious and set to get worse.
1
In reply to pasbury:
Its not Neo-conservative, its Neo-liberal, using the word conservative immediately divides people into Labour and Tory camps, which the political elites of both sides use to rule over us (divide and conquer). I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we the people need to find a new way, and that will involve us the people not just focussing on our rights (which is the way of the consumer) but also our responsibilities, to ourselves and others. Taking up these responsibilities may entail sacrifice and a lower standard of living, but how that is judged in our consumerist world I do not know. Do people value a new car and the latest smartphone more that a healthy populace and environment.
Though provoking article I am going to print and re read. Does UKC have a print function?
> Really excellent description of the sorry trajectory we have been on since the neo-conservative market worshipping policies triggered in the 80's.
Its not Neo-conservative, its Neo-liberal, using the word conservative immediately divides people into Labour and Tory camps, which the political elites of both sides use to rule over us (divide and conquer). I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we the people need to find a new way, and that will involve us the people not just focussing on our rights (which is the way of the consumer) but also our responsibilities, to ourselves and others. Taking up these responsibilities may entail sacrifice and a lower standard of living, but how that is judged in our consumerist world I do not know. Do people value a new car and the latest smartphone more that a healthy populace and environment.
Though provoking article I am going to print and re read. Does UKC have a print function?
7
In reply to J1234:
You're right on the economic argument but in your development of that, it seems to me neo-conservatism much better describes the combination of economic liberalism and social conservativism that started with centrist democrats in the US and had its peak under Bush/Blair, leaving the mid-left in both countries with little political influence. Its hard to accuse the current labour 'elite' of behaving that way whatever you may think of them (ditto for neo-liberalism).
Since you seem so keen to give things up on everyones behalf, why should we give you access to the legendary UKC printer?
You're right on the economic argument but in your development of that, it seems to me neo-conservatism much better describes the combination of economic liberalism and social conservativism that started with centrist democrats in the US and had its peak under Bush/Blair, leaving the mid-left in both countries with little political influence. Its hard to accuse the current labour 'elite' of behaving that way whatever you may think of them (ditto for neo-liberalism).
Since you seem so keen to give things up on everyones behalf, why should we give you access to the legendary UKC printer?
Post edited at 09:23
1
In reply to Offwidth:
The problem is whilst we argue over semantics, nothing gets done, the top 1% get richer and the environment is degrading. Though I am of the right I actually have a respect for Corbyn, but when I was thinking of political elites I was not thinking of him and the current labour leadership.
Giving things up. I think we should and maybe will have to, but I am far to selfish to go first, hypercritical, possibly, honest, always
The problem is whilst we argue over semantics, nothing gets done, the top 1% get richer and the environment is degrading. Though I am of the right I actually have a respect for Corbyn, but when I was thinking of political elites I was not thinking of him and the current labour leadership.
Giving things up. I think we should and maybe will have to, but I am far to selfish to go first, hypercritical, possibly, honest, always
1
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
I'm rather saddened to see UKC providing a platform for political opinion even if there is an attempt to disguise it as a piece on access rights.
I'm rather saddened to see UKC providing a platform for political opinion even if there is an attempt to disguise it as a piece on access rights.
10
33
In reply to J1234:
No it doesn't you're confusing the terms because they happen to contain other words that are relevant to the UK.
Neo Cons arose in the 1960s in the US for the Left, Neo Lib was given a new lease of life by Thatcher under Friedmanist monetarism for the Right.
> Its not Neo-conservative, its Neo-liberal, using the word conservative immediately divides people into Labour and Tory camps,
No it doesn't you're confusing the terms because they happen to contain other words that are relevant to the UK.
Neo Cons arose in the 1960s in the US for the Left, Neo Lib was given a new lease of life by Thatcher under Friedmanist monetarism for the Right.
1
1
In reply to timjones:
How do you understand access rights if you don't understand property rights and the law and politics thereof?
I'm more disappointed that UKC hasn't given a political platform to criticism of Sport England, given the current BMC kerfuffle.
> I'm rather saddened to see UKC providing a platform for political opinion even if there is an attempt to disguise it as a piece on access rights.
How do you understand access rights if you don't understand property rights and the law and politics thereof?
I'm more disappointed that UKC hasn't given a political platform to criticism of Sport England, given the current BMC kerfuffle.
5
1
In reply to timjones:
Access rights are a political matter. As for 'disguising', clearly not, the title starts with 'OPINION'.
> I'm rather saddened to see UKC providing a platform for political opinion even if there is an attempt to disguise it as a piece on access rights.
Access rights are a political matter. As for 'disguising', clearly not, the title starts with 'OPINION'.
Post edited at 11:12
16
1
In reply to J1234:
I copied & pasted it into a Notepad file then a Word document to keep for later.
I copied & pasted it into a Notepad file then a Word document to keep for later.
1
In reply to timjones:
Why not write an article presenting a counter argument rather than complaining about it?
Why not write an article presenting a counter argument rather than complaining about it?
11
1
2
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
The people were dispossessed in 1066 when William the Conqueror seized all the land and distributed it through the feudal system. Everyone from dukes down to villeins held their land from their lord under a system of rights and obligations. The commons were not public land open to all, they were land used in common but only by those people who were granted the rights to do so.
The Enclosures were part of a massive economic and social upheaval as the feudal system based on service obligations broke down and was replaced by a capitalist system based on money. The common people lost their rights to the land but were also freed from the obligations which tied them to it. The people who then owned the land were the people who already held it under feudal rights. It was a huge upheaval which like any such changes was difficult at the time but which ultimately made the country wealthier. Of course, as the article points out, it also brings its own set of problems.
The problem with the article is that it has no real suggestions for an alternative system. Public ownership is not the answer, many of the issues raised in the article are because public bodies are selling off their assets. The issue is one of resources. However resources are not infinite, and there are differing political views on how they should be shared between private and public interests. It is also unfortunately true that the public sector is generally very bad at managing its assets.
The knee-jerk response to the lack of resources is to tax the rich. However the rich are few in number, and already contribute a disproportionately large amount of tax. Squeezing them even more isn't going to produce the amounts required, that has to come from you and me. The fact is that there are many demands on public resources (NHS, social care, education for example) which many would rate as more important than access to a few bits of land.
I don't the answer. People want to make use of land for recreational purposes but are mostly very reluctant to contribute to the costs of looking after it, either directly or through their taxes. People complain about the lack of housing and jobs, but object to land being developed to provide homes and workplaces. People complain about poor public services, but voted for austerity.
The people were dispossessed in 1066 when William the Conqueror seized all the land and distributed it through the feudal system. Everyone from dukes down to villeins held their land from their lord under a system of rights and obligations. The commons were not public land open to all, they were land used in common but only by those people who were granted the rights to do so.
The Enclosures were part of a massive economic and social upheaval as the feudal system based on service obligations broke down and was replaced by a capitalist system based on money. The common people lost their rights to the land but were also freed from the obligations which tied them to it. The people who then owned the land were the people who already held it under feudal rights. It was a huge upheaval which like any such changes was difficult at the time but which ultimately made the country wealthier. Of course, as the article points out, it also brings its own set of problems.
The problem with the article is that it has no real suggestions for an alternative system. Public ownership is not the answer, many of the issues raised in the article are because public bodies are selling off their assets. The issue is one of resources. However resources are not infinite, and there are differing political views on how they should be shared between private and public interests. It is also unfortunately true that the public sector is generally very bad at managing its assets.
The knee-jerk response to the lack of resources is to tax the rich. However the rich are few in number, and already contribute a disproportionately large amount of tax. Squeezing them even more isn't going to produce the amounts required, that has to come from you and me. The fact is that there are many demands on public resources (NHS, social care, education for example) which many would rate as more important than access to a few bits of land.
I don't the answer. People want to make use of land for recreational purposes but are mostly very reluctant to contribute to the costs of looking after it, either directly or through their taxes. People complain about the lack of housing and jobs, but object to land being developed to provide homes and workplaces. People complain about poor public services, but voted for austerity.
15
3
In reply to Doug:
A very worthy article illuminating the often concealed march towards marketisation of public-goods, but also the neo-liberalisation of people and culture.
Agree with Doug's point that perhaps a distinction between Scottish and English/Welsh trajectories on land would have been useful. Especially for readers unaware of Scottish land reform and what that means, not just in terms of access, but of sustainable management and ownership.
Living in Scotland, amongst the current round of land reform legislation, it's clear to see the most progressive nation in terms of re-establishing our fundamental relationship to land and what that means. For centuries what people do and allow on their land has been a matter of private interest, that is changing and it's increasingly becoming a public interest here in Scotland.
There's still a long way to go, there's been various setbacks/issues that still need resolving, e.g. access issues in LLTNP, but on the whole the access legislation in 2003 has been a success. Will be interesting see what happens in the next decade, in terms of the new legislation regarding land rights and responsibilities.
The recent Community Empowerment Act is also interesting and perhaps may turn out to be even more radical, paving the way for communities to be given the right to buy land that isn't being managed sustainably, especially in urban areas. The days of land and buildings left neglected through speculation may be coming to an end. (Well in Scotland at least)
A very worthy article illuminating the often concealed march towards marketisation of public-goods, but also the neo-liberalisation of people and culture.
Agree with Doug's point that perhaps a distinction between Scottish and English/Welsh trajectories on land would have been useful. Especially for readers unaware of Scottish land reform and what that means, not just in terms of access, but of sustainable management and ownership.
Living in Scotland, amongst the current round of land reform legislation, it's clear to see the most progressive nation in terms of re-establishing our fundamental relationship to land and what that means. For centuries what people do and allow on their land has been a matter of private interest, that is changing and it's increasingly becoming a public interest here in Scotland.
There's still a long way to go, there's been various setbacks/issues that still need resolving, e.g. access issues in LLTNP, but on the whole the access legislation in 2003 has been a success. Will be interesting see what happens in the next decade, in terms of the new legislation regarding land rights and responsibilities.
The recent Community Empowerment Act is also interesting and perhaps may turn out to be even more radical, paving the way for communities to be given the right to buy land that isn't being managed sustainably, especially in urban areas. The days of land and buildings left neglected through speculation may be coming to an end. (Well in Scotland at least)
4
In reply to davidbeynon:
A counter argument to what?
The political rhetoric?
In which case I'm not the man for the job, as I don't get the whole political polarisation thing.
Or the underlying message on access?
Which it is damn near impossible to decipher in amongst all the political guff
> Why not write an article presenting a counter argument rather than complaining about it?
A counter argument to what?
The political rhetoric?
In which case I'm not the man for the job, as I don't get the whole political polarisation thing.
Or the underlying message on access?
Which it is damn near impossible to decipher in amongst all the political guff
7
10
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Why publish political opinion pieces on a climbing website?
Access rights are political at some levels but far too much of the article was devoted to rambling criticism of politics in general IMO.
There may have been a good conclusion but I lost the will to read long before I got to the bottom
> Access rights are a political matter. As for 'disguising', clearly not, the title starts with 'OPINION'.
Why publish political opinion pieces on a climbing website?
Access rights are political at some levels but far too much of the article was devoted to rambling criticism of politics in general IMO.
There may have been a good conclusion but I lost the will to read long before I got to the bottom
Post edited at 14:27
6
12
In reply to timjones:
Any decision where you have a resource and more than one person who wants to use it is political. The issue of governments since the 70s selling off all the family silver on the pretext of keeping taxes down is as political as it gets.
Any decision where you have a resource and more than one person who wants to use it is political. The issue of governments since the 70s selling off all the family silver on the pretext of keeping taxes down is as political as it gets.
3
1
In reply to davidbeynon:
That only realtes to access if you believe that public access can only be achieved by public ownership.
> Any decision where you have a resource and more than one person who wants to use it is political. The issue of governments since the 70s selling off all the family silver on the pretext of keeping taxes down is as political as it gets.
That only realtes to access if you believe that public access can only be achieved by public ownership.
2
2
In reply to timjones:
Because access to the countryside is political. You might not like it, but we have centuries of conflict relating to access rights which are resolved to some extent or another through political dialogue.
> Why publish political opinion pieces on a climbing website?
Because access to the countryside is political. You might not like it, but we have centuries of conflict relating to access rights which are resolved to some extent or another through political dialogue.
4
In reply to tony:
It should be possible to deliver a good clear concise message in 500 words.
I'd guess that this piece easily exceeeds 1500 words as it attempts to drag everything from the NHS to the BMCs failed rebrand into the picture.
Who the hell edited it?
> Because access to the countryside is political. You might not like it, but we have centuries of conflict relating to access rights which are resolved to some extent or another through political dialogue.
It should be possible to deliver a good clear concise message in 500 words.
I'd guess that this piece easily exceeeds 1500 words as it attempts to drag everything from the NHS to the BMCs failed rebrand into the picture.
Who the hell edited it?
6
11
In reply to timjones:
Not really, unless you think such things as the CROW act and continued access of public rights of way on private land are somehow apolitical.
Not really, unless you think such things as the CROW act and continued access of public rights of way on private land are somehow apolitical.
3
In reply to timjones:
Off you go then. Rather than whinging, why not make a positive contribution to the issue?
> It should be possible to deliver a good clear concise message in 500 words.
Off you go then. Rather than whinging, why not make a positive contribution to the issue?
12
1
In reply to toad:
I am happy with how the Eastern Moors Partnership is managing Froggatt and Curbar on a long term lease from the Peak National Park Authority because of their great attitude to public access. However, if more similar land holdings came up for sale or long term lease, is there anything to stop the likes of Crapita bidding for them?
> It's interesting watching the likes of Serco taking over the management of public spaces and monetising them -nothing wrong with that in theory, providing it doesn't undermine the basic principles of free access for the community to their countryside, and that isn't always the case.
I am happy with how the Eastern Moors Partnership is managing Froggatt and Curbar on a long term lease from the Peak National Park Authority because of their great attitude to public access. However, if more similar land holdings came up for sale or long term lease, is there anything to stop the likes of Crapita bidding for them?
2
5
In reply to davidbeynon:
I've already agreed that there is a political element to it but WTF has it got to do with the NHS, social housing and the BMC rebrand?
I'm afraid that I get rather tired and disillusioned with people's attempts to distance themselves from where we are as a nation/species by blaming it on the loony left/evil tories/banks/ big business/EU/brexit/etc (delete as appropiate based on your chosen prejudice/prejudices)
> Not really, unless you think such things as the CROW act and continued access of public rights of way on private land are somehow apolitical.
I've already agreed that there is a political element to it but WTF has it got to do with the NHS, social housing and the BMC rebrand?
I'm afraid that I get rather tired and disillusioned with people's attempts to distance themselves from where we are as a nation/species by blaming it on the loony left/evil tories/banks/ big business/EU/brexit/etc (delete as appropiate based on your chosen prejudice/prejudices)
7
6
In reply to timjones:
Well if you don't believe there's an issue regarding land access, you could write something to explain why you believe that to be the case, and why those who do express concerns about possible conflicts between land management practices, land use, the funding of land management and so on are mistaken in their concerns. That would be quite a constructive contribution.
> You appear to be working on the assumption that I believe there is an issue?
Well if you don't believe there's an issue regarding land access, you could write something to explain why you believe that to be the case, and why those who do express concerns about possible conflicts between land management practices, land use, the funding of land management and so on are mistaken in their concerns. That would be quite a constructive contribution.
4
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Words like 'austerity' make it sound like an article you would find in Socialist Wanker. I'm not reading it
Words like 'austerity' make it sound like an article you would find in Socialist Wanker. I'm not reading it
5
15
In reply to J1234:
"Its not Neo-conservative, its Neo-liberal, using the word conservative immediately divides people into Labour and Tory camps,"
I am afraid your terminology is simply wrong; 'conservative' is a humble adjective, not a party-political affiliation.
Astute article, kudos to the writer for its clarity.
"Its not Neo-conservative, its Neo-liberal, using the word conservative immediately divides people into Labour and Tory camps,"
I am afraid your terminology is simply wrong; 'conservative' is a humble adjective, not a party-political affiliation.
Astute article, kudos to the writer for its clarity.
4
3
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Of all the moaners here wonder how many have written half as many words to their mp complaining?
I got loads a thumbs down for slamming the parks, but they are an inefficient farce, they help maintain the very things most on here hate, Lord pink trousers and his grouse moor. If the parks weren't obsessed with maintaining this Victorian scenery then they could be forested, improve access, build affordable housing etc.... NPs might be staffed by well meaning people, but are they really benefiting the UK as a whole?.
Secretly I think many here like Victorian Britain as it gives them something to complain about. Kids dressed in mini suits off to school, mps and their 2nd jobs, Lords sleeping in parliament all day... if people want thing to improve with anything in society, it's not going to happening ranting on websites.
The one party that could have improved things got decimated in the last election just because people don't understand coalition politics.
Of all the moaners here wonder how many have written half as many words to their mp complaining?
I got loads a thumbs down for slamming the parks, but they are an inefficient farce, they help maintain the very things most on here hate, Lord pink trousers and his grouse moor. If the parks weren't obsessed with maintaining this Victorian scenery then they could be forested, improve access, build affordable housing etc.... NPs might be staffed by well meaning people, but are they really benefiting the UK as a whole?.
Secretly I think many here like Victorian Britain as it gives them something to complain about. Kids dressed in mini suits off to school, mps and their 2nd jobs, Lords sleeping in parliament all day... if people want thing to improve with anything in society, it's not going to happening ranting on websites.
The one party that could have improved things got decimated in the last election just because people don't understand coalition politics.
Post edited at 06:15
9
1
In reply to Ian65:
As a fellow "ranter", I agree wholeheartedly with this pithy comment!
M
> A well researched and written exposition of the issues surrounding land, ownership and society. Thank you so much for turning a topic I often rant about into such a well thought through piece.
As a fellow "ranter", I agree wholeheartedly with this pithy comment!
M
1
1
In reply to J1234:
Not for most of us. If equality of income and wealth was better, most of us would not have a drop in standard of living at all. If the rich and "super-rich" made a reasonable sacrifice to their extremely high standard of living, the rest of us could actually be wealthier and public services could be better funded to boot.
> .....Taking up these responsibilities may entail sacrifice and a lower standard of living, but how that is judged in our consumerist world I do not know. .....
Not for most of us. If equality of income and wealth was better, most of us would not have a drop in standard of living at all. If the rich and "super-rich" made a reasonable sacrifice to their extremely high standard of living, the rest of us could actually be wealthier and public services could be better funded to boot.
2
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
I have to admit, on balance, I'm with Tim on this one (for once).
What should have been an absolutely excellent article with some decent editing is let down by rather too much biased, partisan and off topic political point scoring in the middle sections.
Much of it is superbly written and it highlights many pertinent and interconnected issues. It is slightly lacking a strong conclusion but it certainly confirms that now is the worst possible time for organisations like the BMC to engage in internal strife and prolonged navel gazing.
I'd also like to echo the point that National Parks selling land is potentially as much an opportunity for securing access as it is an existential threat. Neither National Parks (nor the National Trust - probably the most anti-climbing owner of access land in England) have the interests of walkers or climbers foremost in their minds.
I have to admit, on balance, I'm with Tim on this one (for once).
What should have been an absolutely excellent article with some decent editing is let down by rather too much biased, partisan and off topic political point scoring in the middle sections.
Much of it is superbly written and it highlights many pertinent and interconnected issues. It is slightly lacking a strong conclusion but it certainly confirms that now is the worst possible time for organisations like the BMC to engage in internal strife and prolonged navel gazing.
I'd also like to echo the point that National Parks selling land is potentially as much an opportunity for securing access as it is an existential threat. Neither National Parks (nor the National Trust - probably the most anti-climbing owner of access land in England) have the interests of walkers or climbers foremost in their minds.
3
1
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
It's an opinion piece, its traditional not to edit the opinion out of opinion pieces. You are welcome to express an alternative opinion.
It's an opinion piece, its traditional not to edit the opinion out of opinion pieces. You are welcome to express an alternative opinion.
3
2
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Where is access to a crag currently threatened by 'austerity'? I think some of the connections presented are tenuous. The private ownership of land and international capitalism clearly have good and bad points; history tells us the alternatives are usually worse.
An alternative analysis of the UKs current economic issues is that we are in a more competitive globalised world, competing with people in developing countries prepared to work harder for less. Global inequality is reducing which is a good thing, however our relative wealth will diminish at the same time as pressure on the public finances increases (with an older, increasingly less healthy population).
There are no easy answers to this; taxing the rich is no more a silver bullet than cutting benefits. Ultimately we will all, i.e. the middle classes making up most of the country will have to pay more tax if we want to maintain anyting like current level of public services.
Where is access to a crag currently threatened by 'austerity'? I think some of the connections presented are tenuous. The private ownership of land and international capitalism clearly have good and bad points; history tells us the alternatives are usually worse.
An alternative analysis of the UKs current economic issues is that we are in a more competitive globalised world, competing with people in developing countries prepared to work harder for less. Global inequality is reducing which is a good thing, however our relative wealth will diminish at the same time as pressure on the public finances increases (with an older, increasingly less healthy population).
There are no easy answers to this; taxing the rich is no more a silver bullet than cutting benefits. Ultimately we will all, i.e. the middle classes making up most of the country will have to pay more tax if we want to maintain anyting like current level of public services.
4
In reply to aln:
Some walls in areas like that are "consumption" walls, built to clear the land of stone .
Some walls in areas like that are "consumption" walls, built to clear the land of stone .
In reply to Mark Warnett:
>Global inequality is reducing
Measured in what way? There are individuals who own yachts which are worth more than the wealth of some countries. And there are economic migrants being sold as slaves.
>Global inequality is reducing
Measured in what way? There are individuals who own yachts which are worth more than the wealth of some countries. And there are economic migrants being sold as slaves.
Post edited at 22:53
In reply to aln:
Global averages, presumably, to which extreme outliers probably contribute insignificantly.
> >Global inequality is reducingMeasured in what way? There are individuals who own yachts which are worth more than the wealth of some countries. And there are economic migrants being sold as slaves.
Global averages, presumably, to which extreme outliers probably contribute insignificantly.
In reply to aln:
Many parts of the developing world might not be 3 car, multiple holiday households, but the number of people struggling for food, water, shelter or dying from disease is declining. The stats for infant mortality are another benchmark.
> >Global inequality is reducingMeasured in what way? There are individuals who own yachts which are worth more than the wealth of some countries. And there are economic migrants being sold as slaves.
Many parts of the developing world might not be 3 car, multiple holiday households, but the number of people struggling for food, water, shelter or dying from disease is declining. The stats for infant mortality are another benchmark.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
It is however traditional to impose a word limit on the authors of opinion pieces when you commission them.
Opinion pieces can make great reading, whether you agree with them or not, as long as they are concise and readable.
> It's an opinion piece, its traditional not to edit the opinion out of opinion pieces. You are welcome to express an alternative opinion.
It is however traditional to impose a word limit on the authors of opinion pieces when you commission them.
Opinion pieces can make great reading, whether you agree with them or not, as long as they are concise and readable.
1
5
In reply to Howard J:
the rich may well contribute a disproportionately large amount of tax but they are disproportionately rich. Tax on the highest earners was 98% in the 1970's. No longer. I agree that a comprehensive solution is difficult to imagine but part of the battle is to demand that there must be an alternative because neoliberalism has produced this crisis. If Britain reimagined itself as not a military power with an international policing role, as not a possessor of nuclear weapons, as an investor in renewable energy research etc... The mantra of neoliberalism is there is no alternative - that has to change.
the rich may well contribute a disproportionately large amount of tax but they are disproportionately rich. Tax on the highest earners was 98% in the 1970's. No longer. I agree that a comprehensive solution is difficult to imagine but part of the battle is to demand that there must be an alternative because neoliberalism has produced this crisis. If Britain reimagined itself as not a military power with an international policing role, as not a possessor of nuclear weapons, as an investor in renewable energy research etc... The mantra of neoliberalism is there is no alternative - that has to change.
1
In reply to aln:
>There are individuals who own yachts which are worth more than the wealth of some countries.
Nonsense. Not even vaguely true. You don't serve your argument well by indulging in hyperbole.
>There are individuals who own yachts which are worth more than the wealth of some countries.
Nonsense. Not even vaguely true. You don't serve your argument well by indulging in hyperbole.
2
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Well, interesting to see that Citizen Smith is alive and well and writing on UKC. We were at least six paragraphs into a potted history of the reduction in the power of the State before the subject in the headline even got a decent mention.
The article simple assumes that State ownership is good and non State bad. Given that the vast majority of land in the national parks is already privately owned, and only 4% owned by the NPA one would think that the author might at least make the effort to explain why a change of ownership of some of that 4% is to be regarded as a disaster. Personally I would rather like the BMC to own more assets. There may be a problem here but the author has not explained it.
Talking of which, this little article gives a more balanced, informative and less politicised summary of the topic.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/land-sell-offs-the-end-of-national-parks-as-we-kno...
Well, interesting to see that Citizen Smith is alive and well and writing on UKC. We were at least six paragraphs into a potted history of the reduction in the power of the State before the subject in the headline even got a decent mention.
The article simple assumes that State ownership is good and non State bad. Given that the vast majority of land in the national parks is already privately owned, and only 4% owned by the NPA one would think that the author might at least make the effort to explain why a change of ownership of some of that 4% is to be regarded as a disaster. Personally I would rather like the BMC to own more assets. There may be a problem here but the author has not explained it.
Talking of which, this little article gives a more balanced, informative and less politicised summary of the topic.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/land-sell-offs-the-end-of-national-parks-as-we-kno...
4
6
So, UKC/UKH Articles, when will you be telling us how to vote in the upcoming general election?
Post edited at 12:44
4
5
In reply to benmorr:
That's true. 10% of UK households own 45% of the wealth. However the top 10% earners pay nearly 60% of the total income tax yield. The left's idea that all the country's problems could be solved by taxing the rich more is just fantasy - it reaches a point where they simply move themselves or their assets to a more tax-friendly location.
And as a result they stopped bothering to work harder or invest, which was damaging to the economy and the people they might otherwise have employed. They also found ways to avoid tax. The total tax revenue increased when the top rate was reduced.
> the rich may well contribute a disproportionately large amount of tax but they are disproportionately rich.
That's true. 10% of UK households own 45% of the wealth. However the top 10% earners pay nearly 60% of the total income tax yield. The left's idea that all the country's problems could be solved by taxing the rich more is just fantasy - it reaches a point where they simply move themselves or their assets to a more tax-friendly location.
> Tax on the highest earners was 98% in the 1970's.
And as a result they stopped bothering to work harder or invest, which was damaging to the economy and the people they might otherwise have employed. They also found ways to avoid tax. The total tax revenue increased when the top rate was reduced.
4
1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Leaving the politics aside, can I offer a +1 like for The BMC Access and Conservation Trust (ACT) and the tremendously successful Mend Our Mountains campaign. Watch out for the forthcoming MOM2 which aims to raise £1 million!
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-access-conservation-trust
Meanwhile, we can ALL make a difference by supporting this great cause. The above link has loads of ways to support ACT but why not DO IT NOW before you scroll down or your next FB notification distracts you.
Simply text the code AACT01 followed by the amount you want to donate to 70070*.
You can donate £1, £2, £3, £4, £5 or £10.
As an example, to make a £10 donation, you would text the following to 70070: AACT01 £10
No hidden agenda here - I'm an ACT trustee and a proud advocate for securing access and conservation of our wild and special places.
Leaving the politics aside, can I offer a +1 like for The BMC Access and Conservation Trust (ACT) and the tremendously successful Mend Our Mountains campaign. Watch out for the forthcoming MOM2 which aims to raise £1 million!
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-access-conservation-trust
Meanwhile, we can ALL make a difference by supporting this great cause. The above link has loads of ways to support ACT but why not DO IT NOW before you scroll down or your next FB notification distracts you.
Simply text the code AACT01 followed by the amount you want to donate to 70070*.
You can donate £1, £2, £3, £4, £5 or £10.
As an example, to make a £10 donation, you would text the following to 70070: AACT01 £10
No hidden agenda here - I'm an ACT trustee and a proud advocate for securing access and conservation of our wild and special places.
In reply to Howard J:
Your assertion that income tax is the only thing "the left" are talking about is a straw man.
As you acknowledge yourself, there are all kinds of tax dodges out there to be looked at. It's not just about different brackets for PAYE, nor is it just about individuals. Companies and large corporations have to be looked at as well.
> However the top 10% earners pay nearly 60% of the total income tax yield. The left's idea that all the country's problems could be solved by taxing the rich more is just fantasy
Your assertion that income tax is the only thing "the left" are talking about is a straw man.
As you acknowledge yourself, there are all kinds of tax dodges out there to be looked at. It's not just about different brackets for PAYE, nor is it just about individuals. Companies and large corporations have to be looked at as well.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...