In reply to chrisf123:
You're correct that the Lakes should not be confused with its romanticised representation. Where do we go with that? For me, we should move forward by prioritising the real needs, rights and agency of people who live in and around Cumbria, followed secondarily by those of visitors. These needs and desires are not easily accessed, however, and are easily misrepresented.
I'm not sure we do need to keep sheep farming as a priority, despite its role in shaping the Lakes. Far better if schemes can be developed that protect farmers' existence and livelihoods, but contribute to increasing the biodiversity of the Lakes. Perhaps this is an open door, as sheep farming looks less and less viable as a livelihood.
The location of the Whinlatter gondola makes it more suitable than other developments, e.g. the Honister zipwire. But, I sincerely doubt it will bring much of value to the Lake District for visitors or local people, whilst it seems to me that its go-ahead makes similar projects more likely.
The concept of 'Nimbyism' is not very critical or helpful. For example, it is currently being used against those opposing fracking; its deployment by the pro-frackers is precisely to delegitimise attempts by local people to participate in the politics of local planning decisions and economy. Local people should have a right to have a say in what happens in the places where they live; if we do not start with this as a first principle, we've already lost.
BAE Systems, the nuclear industry, fracking and the proposed coal mining - all of these projects are supported by both local Labour and Tory MPs, who claim they are upholding the interests of local people by supporting industries that provide jobs in an area with poor investment. But analysis very quickly reveals the paucity of what these big industries really offer to Cumbria and the lack of democratic accountability, as well as their negative impact locally, nationally and globally.
Similarly, but on a smaller scale, I feel these gondola and zipwire schemes are likely to make money for particular companies and landowners, but unlikely to provide much to local people. The governing assumption is simply that increasing the 'offer' to tourists will stimulate the economy, and that wealth will trickle down. Can anyone can really advance this idea anymore with a straight face...?
Perhaps a better model can found, not far away, in the 'municipal socialism' of Preston city council. This begins with strategically using public spending to create value and investment locally, rather than following the neoliberal model of cutting and marketizing public services. More can be read about this all over the internet...
Post edited at 12:50