In reply to C Witter:
You're pretty spot on in your assessment that this isn't per say a 'Right to Roam' manifesto, because most of the organisations signed on to the Outdoors for All coalition (as it were) would not feel comfortable signing on for such a specific call.
What this does it outline the need for more access to nature and lays out the evidence, the cross-sector support. What the BMC aim to do in the meantime is show that a default of access is by far the cheapest, easiest, most comprehensive way to achieve the goals set within. We aren't alone in campaigning for this and this manifesto represents a significant step up in the demands laid out by environmental organisations for more access.
In short, this is by necessity a consensus document.
As Spenser said - Labour have backstepped considerably over the last few months.
*However* - we are not planning to move with them. Our position is that a Right to Roam (default of access) or whatever language you wish to use is the way forward and we plan to campaign on that basis, with (hopefully, according to our data) the (strong) support of our members. Pointing out the shortcomings of CRoW is not incompatible with calling for wholesale new legislation. We are an access campaigning organisation and our job is not to move with the debate.
As for why Labour are moving towards the landowners on this; it's because recent polling suggests that rural seats have suddenly become winnable for them, and simultaneously they don't need to worry about pleasing their urban base who desperately want/need more access to nature as those seats are completely safe.
Edit: The other thing I would add as to the value of the specific demands within this document is that campaigning on repealing the historic rights of way registration deadline is taking up an enormous amount of campaigning resources from organisations like the Ramblers and the OSS. Were we to achieve even that alone, it would free significant campaigning resources for other access demands.
Post edited at 14:48