Potential forest sell off

bagpuss

bagpuss

Member
Sorry if this has been posted before -only just noticed this is the news the other day:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bl....ests?intcmp=122

Looks like there's some pretty big opposition in the Forest of Dean. The government have stated that any sell off wouldn't effect any existing rights of way, but there aren't that many rights of way in the Forest of Dean, most are permissive paths with access granted by the forestry commission. Could this have any impact on access to the caves/mines in the FOD?

Some further info here: http://www.handsoffourforest.org/
 
gus horsley

gus horsley

New member
I'm sure it will have an impact on access.  The Forestry Commission have to allow public access but this isn't neccessarily the case with private buyers.
 
Rhys

Rhys

Moderator
If the people of the Forest of Dean are opposed to the selling off of national assets, such as the Forest, why do they elect a Tory at every election without fail?

Rhys

PS. I cave and dig in the Forest and am against a sell-off. I live in Labour Newport East though.
 
AndyF

AndyF

New member
Rhys said:
If the people of the Forest of Dean are opposed to the selling off of national assets, such as the Forest, why do they elect a Tory at every election without fail?

Rhys

PS. I cave and dig in the Forest and am against a sell-off. I live in Labour Newport East though.
Click to expand...

Well you can thank your Labour MP for there being a need for a sell-off.... :unsure:  It wasn't the tories that fecked the economy was it?
 
graham

graham

New member
AndyF said:
Well you can thank your Labour MP for there being a need for a sell-off.... :unsure:  It wasn't the tories that fecked the economy was it?
Click to expand...

Do bankers vote labour then?  :-\
 
cavermark

cavermark

New member
Rhys said:
If the people of the Forest of Dean are opposed to the selling off of national assets, such as the Forest, why do they elect a Tory at every election without fail?
Click to expand...

Because our first past the post electoral system does not represent the views of half the electorate? :sleep:
 
AndyF

AndyF

New member
graham said:
AndyF said:
Well you can thank your Labour MP for there being a need for a sell-off.... :unsure:  It wasn't the tories that fecked the economy was it?
Click to expand...

Do bankers vote labour then?  :-\
Click to expand...

Don't fall for this !it was the bankers not us ...boo hoo" from labour.

Labour ran a defecit every year from 2002, increasing National Debt every year
Labour watched the massive bubble in consumer debt form, and did nothing
Labour disconnected interest rates from house inflation, causing the property bubble.
Labour set the regulation framework for banking
All this was before 2008. They were asleep at the wheel for a decade. The crash was invetitable.

Oh, and they also gave all the taxpayers money to save the same banks. Thanks.

They did it, they were in charge. Don't blame the Tories for the mopping up operation  ;)
 
M

Maggot

New member
cavermark said:
Because our first past the post electoral system does not represent the views of half the electorate? :sleep:
Click to expand...

If the unrepresented half with views switched their tellies off, got off their arses, and went out and cast a vote, things might not be in the state they're in now.
 
D

dunc

New member
Maggot said:
cavermark said:
Because our first past the post electoral system does not represent the views of half the electorate? :sleep:
Click to expand...

If the unrepresented half with views switched their tellies off, got off their arses, and went out and cast a vote, things might not be in the state they're in now.
Click to expand...
Have they not heard of postal voting, or is licking an envelope too hard for them too, lol. Although postal voting is (and has been) subject to abuse, but we won't go there.

Perhaps the other half can't be bothered because no matter which party gets in life will continue as normal, taxes will decrease in one area but raised in another and of course the lies and bullshit that spout out of politicians mouths tend to put people off politics..
 
D

dunc

New member
And my previous post was of course completely O/T!

I can't see any good coming from selling off forests, apart from short term monetary gain by selling off national assets, but it is, after all, a Tory government these days, what else would one expect....
 
P

Peter Burgess

New member
Bagpuss has a genuine concern and all some people can do is start a political rant. Pathetic.

Are there examples of private forestry enterprises that don't mind cavers having access to their land? Before right to roam came along, that is?
 
D

dunc

New member
Considering it is the government that is selling off then politics will undoubtedly come into it. Get over it.

What has right to roam got to do with this? It guarantees NO access to caves and mines and does not necessarily cover forestry, I recall a number of plots of woodland being outside open access land despite being surrounded by it...
 
Les W

Les W

Active member
If there is enough opposition then it ought to be possible to lobby government to ensure the same access rights remain in place after any transfer of ownership.
 
D

dunc

New member
It's ok, apology accepted  ;)


I see your point. Having had a quick nosey, isn't most of the F-o-D classed as access land anyway? Rights of Way will be unaffected as will access land, so it's probably nothing to worry about for walkers etc as they will get access as before. How new owners will react to cavers is something that really, only time will tell.. It's unlikely such a minority sport will have any sway with the government so it would no doubt be up to local groups to engage in meaningful talks to secure continued access as soon as the sale goes through (if it goes through....)
 
cavermark

cavermark

New member
Maggot said:
cavermark said:
Because our first past the post electoral system does not represent the views of half the electorate? :sleep:
Click to expand...

If the unrepresented half with views switched their tellies off, got off their arses, and went out and cast a vote, things might not be in the state they're in now.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to half the voting population... eg. those who vote for parties labour/green/others in a safe Tory seat do not get their views represented in government.

If the voting system were fairer I think a bigger proportion of the electorate may not feel so apathetic as well.
 
Les W

Les W

Active member
It could be more than half of the electorate.
Most MP's get elected with much lower count than 50% as they only have to get more votes than any other candidate to win and if there is more than one other candidate then it is quite common for the other candidates to poll more votes in total.
In the case of the Forest of Dean the Tory polled 46.87% of the turnout which in turn was 71.35% of the electorate. Therefore this means he was elected by only 33.44% of the electorate.  (source)
This means that 66.56% of the population are effectively disenfranchised (although 28.65% have nobody to blame for this but themselves).

It is no of surprise that the two main political parties want to perpetuate this system of minority government that favours them.
(and also of no surprise that the Lib Dems are prepared to compromise their ideals in order to try and change it)
 
D

dave_the_cave

Member
Perhaps it is an opportunity to set up another limited company owning the entrances?

The telegraph reported the FC land being worth 2500million when they last considered selling it off which works out
as 3400 pounds per hectare and each hectare would cover a lot of otter hole sized entrances, each of which could be accessed using the right to roam.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top