BCA CRoW Poll Result
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
Ian Adams
Active member
Bottlebank said:
I completely agree it is a sad state of affairs but as already stated, it is democracy. Do I like it? No.
As a comparison, in 1997 the Welsh population balloted on Whether Wales should "devolve" and the result was 50.3% "yes" and 49.7% "no" with a turnout of only 50.1%
In round figures, that pretty much equates (ie. roughly this; in fact over 75% in one form or another don't support it, or don't support it enough to tick a box)
As a result, Wales devolved. I voted against it and still live in Wales. I have embraced the change, love the country and I work "with" the regime (and enjoy my life here). I could choose to be "upset" but then it would be just me that suffers. I could choose to fight but I am not likely to win and I would probably spend my life in misery.
It's the same with every democratic process, not every one votes and we all have to live with the consequences.
How we each "handle" the result of that process determines what we each (individually) get out of it.
Ian
Bottlebank
New member
Stuart Anderson said:
I think we may have agreed to disagree before
I agree half measures won't do, I think BCA should be worried, this is a half measure. A quarter measure really. And partly their fault.
In fairness to Badlad whilst I don't agree with him he's made his case very well for one person, but BCA should have made sure everyone was aware of the facts and risks on both sides before wasting money on a poll that in my opinion has done nothing to end the uncertainty.
If less than one in four cavers think this is a good idea should they really be wasting more time and money on a second poll to amend the constitution?
Mr Bottlebank. I did not call anyone a turkey. Apologies to anyone who voted 'no' who took my comment that way. I was trying to express my sadness at the number of people who voted against a campaign for a legal right of access to caves. In my opinion a 'no' vote is something that is detrimental to the health of the future of caving. So I tried to use a seasonal English idiom to express that.
FYI from wikipedia;
"Turkeys voting for Christmas is an English idiom used as a metaphor or simile (in the construct "like turkeys voting for Christmas") in reference to a suicidal ("death-wish"[1]) political act, especially a vote. In the United Kingdom, turkeys are customarily eaten on Christmas Day dating back to 1573 when they became part of the English Christmas dinner.[2]
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations writes that a commentator in the Independent Magazine traced the origin of the phrase to British Liberal Party politician David Penhaligon,[1] who is quoted as saying: "Us voting for the Pact is like a turkey voting for Christmas" in reference to the Lib-Lab Pact which he opposed.[3]
The phrase was soon borrowed by other politicians and public figures.[1] In particular, British MP Teresa Gorman, who opposed the Maastricht Treaty, stated; "If the House of Commons voted for Maastricht it would be like 651 turkeys voting for Christmas."[4] When confronted over time spent on luxury by United Kingdom Independence Party MEPs, Nigel Farage responded by saying that "we are the turkeys that would vote for Christmas".[5]"
FYI from wikipedia;
"Turkeys voting for Christmas is an English idiom used as a metaphor or simile (in the construct "like turkeys voting for Christmas") in reference to a suicidal ("death-wish"[1]) political act, especially a vote. In the United Kingdom, turkeys are customarily eaten on Christmas Day dating back to 1573 when they became part of the English Christmas dinner.[2]
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations writes that a commentator in the Independent Magazine traced the origin of the phrase to British Liberal Party politician David Penhaligon,[1] who is quoted as saying: "Us voting for the Pact is like a turkey voting for Christmas" in reference to the Lib-Lab Pact which he opposed.[3]
The phrase was soon borrowed by other politicians and public figures.[1] In particular, British MP Teresa Gorman, who opposed the Maastricht Treaty, stated; "If the House of Commons voted for Maastricht it would be like 651 turkeys voting for Christmas."[4] When confronted over time spent on luxury by United Kingdom Independence Party MEPs, Nigel Farage responded by saying that "we are the turkeys that would vote for Christmas".[5]"
Bottlebank
New member
Badlad said:
Mr Badlad,
I'm well aware of the phrase.
This debate has been between people who believe we should have a right of access to caves and people who believe the status quo works well, through negotiation and respect for the people who own the caves we use. I accept you may not think they own them.
Those of us who don't agree with you are most certainly not suicidal. We also want better access wherever possible. The debate is about how we achieve it.
Your comment perhaps gives us an insight into what you really think about people who don't share your views on this and was hardly in keeping with the higher standards you are asking us to maintain under your new management of UK Caving.
Cheers, and all the best for Xmas!
Tony
p.s. do you still need the stuffing sending over?
Bottlebank
New member
Stuart Anderson said:
Stuart,
We could, but I think you'd be on safer grounds assuming only around two in nine currently think it is a good idea
cavermark said:
Equally out of interest - do we have an estimate of how many BCA "caving" members are not active cavers?
I ask because the student club I am a member of insured all their keen new members in January, some of which we unfortunately never saw again, graduated etc and had no way of passing their vote on to them. As a result, probably 20 voting forms (maybe more) went into the bin. I'm sure we were not alone in doing this.
tony from suffolk
Well-known member
Absolutely no point arguing with the result either way. The Yes vote wins. Good! They won. The Nos lost. Time to get working on getting the government to agree that caves are covered under CRoW.
Aubrey
Member
The 62% vote in favor of BCA pursuing CRoW access to caves is nowhere near the75% required to change the cconstitution. It therefore seems likely that any vote to change the constitution will fail.
The BCA executive now have the problem of trying to satisfy the members who voted yes whilst adhering to their own constitution.
Can of worms?
The BCA executive now have the problem of trying to satisfy the members who voted yes whilst adhering to their own constitution.
Can of worms?
richardg
Active member
Aubrey ....its nowt about a change to any constitution!! Ha haAubrey said:
..... However its not April the first .... its Christmas time... good attempt to derail a democratic process..... And you've posted it in the wrong section, we've got a joke section on the forum, you may have got a few more laughs there, ha ha good one mate..... 0
Bottlebank
New member
richardg said:Aubrey ....its nowt about a change to any constitution!! Ha haAubrey said:
Aubrey is more or less right - although it's a bit more complicated than that. There are actually three 70% votes needed before BCA can campaign for CRoW, without breaching the constitution.
If you're being serious that's a good example of why the BCA should have got the facts out in advance of the poll!
It's a very wormy can and this is just the start of what could be a very long process, because even if they get through that there's still the little matter of persuading the powers that be to change their minds. Best bet is they'll listen sympathetically, and do nothing.
If CRoW falls on the constitutional change vote no doubt we'll see a campaign from Badlad to lower the bar on constitutional change to 50% next
Pete K
Well-known member
I've been biting my tongue on this but...
The vote has come in as a victory for the Yes side. It is both petty and pathetic for those who have not got their way in this to start undermining the voting process. Let's face it if the vote came down the other way you'd not be doing it, grow up.
I'm sorry but I don't care about those who did not vote, clearly most of them did not care enough about the debate to have an opinion either way and damn anyone who tries to hint that the absence of a vote can be read as a theoretical vote for any side. For those who did not vote because they did not have the correct address listed for the ballot, I have sympathy, but that's it. I got my papers because my address was right, you should have checked.
The more vocal members of the No camp here should just pick their toys back up and work out how to live with the fact they are outnumbered and that they lost. You can now become an irrelevant remnant of the old ways or remain as an important part of the debate if you choose to do so like adults. You will have the job now of bending your influence to either continue to undermine the now accepted position or to come round and support the majority of cavers in their goal of confirming access rights for future generations.
The Yes camp also need to be very careful now. Don't rub it in or antagonise anyone. The job ahead will require more effort than we realise I fear. The outlook on our position has changed but the interpretation of the act has not, we will need the members of our governing body, regional councils, clubs and every access controlling body to move this forward, even those who voted No. To attempt to get one's way by subverting the process and misusing power is immoral and if this is to be our great legacy for the future of the sport, it must be done openly and honestly.
So, as Christmas arrives and 2015 approaches, can we please put this arguing rubbish behind us, accept the position we're in and move forward without childish demonstrations, veiled insults and irrelevant bickering. You'd think we'd just voted the Nazi Party into power.
And with that invocation of Godwin's Law I say goodbye to you and Merry Christmas.
The vote has come in as a victory for the Yes side. It is both petty and pathetic for those who have not got their way in this to start undermining the voting process. Let's face it if the vote came down the other way you'd not be doing it, grow up.
I'm sorry but I don't care about those who did not vote, clearly most of them did not care enough about the debate to have an opinion either way and damn anyone who tries to hint that the absence of a vote can be read as a theoretical vote for any side. For those who did not vote because they did not have the correct address listed for the ballot, I have sympathy, but that's it. I got my papers because my address was right, you should have checked.
The more vocal members of the No camp here should just pick their toys back up and work out how to live with the fact they are outnumbered and that they lost. You can now become an irrelevant remnant of the old ways or remain as an important part of the debate if you choose to do so like adults. You will have the job now of bending your influence to either continue to undermine the now accepted position or to come round and support the majority of cavers in their goal of confirming access rights for future generations.
The Yes camp also need to be very careful now. Don't rub it in or antagonise anyone. The job ahead will require more effort than we realise I fear. The outlook on our position has changed but the interpretation of the act has not, we will need the members of our governing body, regional councils, clubs and every access controlling body to move this forward, even those who voted No. To attempt to get one's way by subverting the process and misusing power is immoral and if this is to be our great legacy for the future of the sport, it must be done openly and honestly.
So, as Christmas arrives and 2015 approaches, can we please put this arguing rubbish behind us, accept the position we're in and move forward without childish demonstrations, veiled insults and irrelevant bickering. You'd think we'd just voted the Nazi Party into power.
And with that invocation of Godwin's Law I say goodbye to you and Merry Christmas.
Goydenman
Well-known member
Bottlebank said:richardg said:Aubrey ....its nowt about a change to any constitution!! Ha haAubrey said:
Aubrey is more or less right - although it's a bit more complicated than that. There are actually three 70% votes needed before BCA can campaign for CRoW, without breaching the constitution.
If you're being serious that's a good example of why the BCA should have got the facts out in advance of the poll!
It's a very wormy can and this is just the start of what could be a very long process, because even if they get through that there's still the little matter of persuading the powers that be to change their minds. Best bet is they'll listen sympathetically, and do nothing.
If CRoW falls on the constitutional change vote no doubt we'll see a campaign from Badlad to lower the bar on constitutional change to 50% next
It is important the BCA now take it they have a majority yes vote and move forward on that basis. I would like to see the concerns of no voters taken note of and lets move on together. I would be very very annoyed and I suspect not the only one if this goes into a 'long process'. If it does then it will further divide the caving community and I fear for the fallout from it.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Goydenman makes a very important point above; we do need to work together. Bearing in mind that 77% of those eligible to vote didn't vote yes, his other point about staying aware of the concerns of no voters is also an important consideration.
Our BCA officers' real challenge now is to find a way forwards which the majority of cavers are comfortable with, even though the outcome of the vote wasn't a clear landslide victory for anybody. Their job will not be easy; I hope everyone remembers that they're volunteers and I think we should all give them a bit of breathing space now to reflect on things and work out the best way forward.
I hope you all have a happy and peaceful Christmas, whichever way you campaigned or voted.
Our BCA officers' real challenge now is to find a way forwards which the majority of cavers are comfortable with, even though the outcome of the vote wasn't a clear landslide victory for anybody. Their job will not be easy; I hope everyone remembers that they're volunteers and I think we should all give them a bit of breathing space now to reflect on things and work out the best way forward.
I hope you all have a happy and peaceful Christmas, whichever way you campaigned or voted.
crickleymal
New member
I must admit I am saddened but not surprised at the number of people on here who seem to be trying to undermine the votes cast. After all most of the govenments we've had in the UK seem to be elected by a majority of a minority of the people and we just get on with it, but not on UK Caving
