Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Talkback: National Parks Budgets Slashed

  1. #1
    Ultra King Imperial Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    41,225
    not sure what the end result in terms of actual effects of these cuts will be but bad news surely?

    I would imagine that more emphasis will be put on the voluntary aspects of the work undertaken, less jobs possibly through natural wastage and a reduction in non-core activities

    I for one really appreciate the National Parks, being on the doorstep of the Brecon Beacons, and the work that the authorities undertake to maintain these areas

  2. #2
    Ultra King Chairman Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    16,022
    Well, they're selling off the forests, and I expect the rest of our open spaces will be up for grabs soon. Privatised mountain rescue. Charges for access. Enforced insurance. Just give 'em time.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Jon Doran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,414
    I suspect it'll be much the same as elsewhere in the public sector, lots of pruning, starting with what's seen as 'least essential'. I guess the worry in a macro sense, is that ultimately, from the point of view of central government, the whole National Park set-up could be seen as 'non-essential'. Unlike, for the sake of argument, nuclear missiles.

    I suspect stuff like guided walks and various promotional projects'll be shunted off into the realms of the voluntary, but you wonder about stuff like the Lake District's Weatherline Service and the Mosaic Project.

    Interestingly, so far as I'm aware, the only park which has made a statement on the cuts is the Yorkshire Dales, I suspect most authorities are sat there taking stock and trying to work out what it means for them.

  4. #4
    ‹bermensch
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,258
    for those of us who believe in public services its bad news for all the others who would probably sell off there grannies given the chance will think its a good thing. with that im off out b4 the abuse starts

  5. #5
    Ultra King Matt C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    21,694


    Quite an interesting article appeared on Grough overnight - Chief Exec of the Lake District NP interviewed just ahead of the announcement. The core message seems to be "everything that we do now, but less of it, and more reliance on volunteers"

    http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/12/21/view-from-the-top-one-national-park-boss-plan-to-cope-with-cuts

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520




    So, Dave's 'Big Society' is forced into action, not because people are gagging for the opportunity to take control, but because they don't want to see what they consider to be important opportunities lost?

  7. #7
    Ultra King Chairman Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    16,022
    I think the Big Society means getting other people to do your job for you, for nothing. A bit like Clegg really. He takes all the flak for the Nazty Party, and it's all for nowt. Brilliant. Or not.

  8. #8
    ‹bermensch
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,097
    I'd expect Pay & Display machines to crop up adjacent to any square metre of spare ground

  9. #9
    Widdler
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    25
    Most of the National Parks land (according to DEFRA) is in the hands of private owners and can't be sold off as the park authorities don't own them, so that's good news. I suspect other things already mentioned like guided walking( although on Dartmoor they charge £8 for a decent length walk so it should really be an income generator...) will be the first to go, followed by small projects which are important but not immediately noticeable like the restoration of orchards and maintenance of ancient boundary walls etc. The nice honesty box system for car parks on the moors probably won't survive either, especially given the number of ignorant gits I see leaving their cars and not paying up.

  10. #10
    Goon Monkey Space Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    454


    Have the national parks ever been actually successfully run?

    I have never seen them as being particularly effective organisations, I have always seen them, at a management level, as being a dumping ground for public school educated failures, too stupid to be employed in the real world and too well connected to be unemployed.

  11. #11
    Ultra King Imperial Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    41,225


    I think given the size of the budgets they have they do a reasonable job. I have no qualms about "challenging" the statusquo to see if there are cost savings to be had but I suspect this goes way beyond this.

    Interestingly DEFRA also have a link into animal welfare which comes under Trading Standards juristication for enforcement. I have heard that funding for this will also be severely cut

  12. #12
    Goon Jim the park warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    319


    Make no mistake , a cut in real terms of 28% means job losses .Some so called well connected people won't be too worried by this , but there will be some people who will lose jobs ,accomodation ,and future for them and their children , in some of the most wonderful parts of this nation .

    Merry Christmas all you clever partypolitical people ,past and present , lets hope Santa brings you a conscience ......

  13. #13
    Ultra King Imperial Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    41,225


    I completely echo the sentiment Jim but putting the words Politician and conscience in the same sentence isan oxymoron a bit like:

    conservative liberal

    acute dullness

    or political trust

  14. #14
    Widdler
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    24
    The politicians can find the money to waste on fake asylum seekers and millions of lazy scroungers, but somehow can't afford the money to support our National Parks. What a bunch of useless articles! Whoever voted for them? Us mugs!

  15. #15
    Initiate woozle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    959
    Not sure I see this as negative. No money will mean that the parks get left to themselves more. I'm always rather worried by 'authorties' various (which usually means out-of-touch academia or orthodoxy sticking their oar in with plans and projects) getting their hands on the land. A minimum is necessary of course but it could actually turn out to be positive.
    Land does't need managing, the people do and there's a big difference in cost.

  16. #16
    Ultra King Parky Again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,005
    how do you know an asylum seeker is fake or a scrounger lazy and just not, for example, welsh? do they wear special t shirts?

  17. #17
    ‹bermensch Jim Parkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,097


    From teh Gruniad:

    Privatising English forests could 'cost millions in lost tax revenues


    </blockquote>Plans to privatise all English woodland could cost the government millions of pounds in lost tax revenues and cancel out most of the money raised from its sale, a leading accountant has warned.

    Detailed plans for the intended break-up of the 635,000-acre English Forestry Commission estate have not been published. But the effect of putting so much extra woodland on the open market in the next few years is expected to lead to a rush of corporations and wealthy people taking advantage of the tax sweeteners that already exist for forestry owners, says accountant Richard Murphy, director of Tax Research LLP and an adviser to the TUC and Tax Justice Network.[/QUOTE]


    So that part seems an even worse idea.


    The commission only attracts £10m a year of subsidies a year, but this could increase after a sale because new owners would be eligible to apply for conservation, management and tree-planting grants from government agencies including Natural England and the commission itself.[/QUOTE]

    I seem to remember that the privatised rail network cost the government more in subsidies than BR did.

  18. #18
    Ultra King Imperial Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    41,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Parky Again View Post
    how do you know an asylum seeker is fake or a scrounger lazy and just not, for example, welsh? do they wear special t shirts?
    splutter, splutter!

  19. #19
    Ultra King Imperial Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    41,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Parkin View Post
    Plans to privatise all English woodland could cost the government millions of pounds in lost tax revenues and cancel out most of the money raised from its sale, a leading accountant has warned.

    Detailed plans for the intended break-up of the 635,000-acre English Forestry Commission estate have not been published. But the effect of putting so much extra woodland on the open market in the next few years is expected to lead to a rush of corporations and wealthy people taking advantage of the tax sweeteners that already exist for forestry owners, says accountant Richard Murphy, director of Tax Research LLP and an adviser to the TUC and Tax Justice Network.[/QUOTE]


    So that part seems an even worse idea.</blockquote>

    so in other words helping to make rich people richer and taking vast areas of natural beauty out of the hands of the people?

    yep sounds logical and fair

  20. #20
    ‹bermensch Jim Parkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,097




    Quote Originally Posted by Imperial Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Parkin View Post
    so in other words helping to make rich people richer and taking vast areas of natural beauty out of the hands of the people?

    yep sounds logical and fair


    You forgot, "ending up costing the taxpayer money"


Similar Threads

  1. Talkback: Wildlife Facts About England's National Parks
    By Diddi in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 24-07-2015, 01:29 PM
  2. Talkback: Air Wick To Raise 100k For National Parks
    By Metric Kate in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14-02-2014, 09:06 PM
  3. Talkback: UK National Parks Partners With Air Wick...
    By Metric Kate in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-02-2014, 03:03 PM
  4. Swedish National Parks.
    By Boos in forum Travel
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 31-12-2013, 11:13 PM
  5. The National Parks Authorities
    By Guy... in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24-01-2006, 11:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •