Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
john6767

CRT Election

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

No-one is really speaking up for the working-age leisure boater either...

 

The working-age leisure boater needs two things IME. First, unoccupied short-stay visitor moorings at "destination" locations, so that they have somewhere to go in their rare leisure time. For example, we now have the realistic option of a day-trip from our Worcester mooring to Upton: for years that wasn't really possible because of boats overstaying on the visitor moorings. When we moored in Burton, the changes to introduce more short-stay moorings at Alrewas were really valuable - and predictably, they were loudly opposed by retired people who wanted to be able to sit for 14 days on their preferred village centre mooring.

 

Second, reasonable 7/14-day moorings near stations for "weekending" (i.e. moving from place to place over successive weekends). These don't need to be particularly plush - just somewhere, ideally piled, where you can leave the boat for a week or two in the reasonable expectation it will still be there when you get back. The sweeping bend just south of the hire-base at Alvechurch is one such. This sort of spot has, inevitably, become harder to find in recent years because they're also prized by continuous cruisers.

The second of these is of equal value to liveaboards.  The stretch of the W&B from Wast Hill south portal to Tardebigge is particularly poorly served for this.  Piling is in short supply, so pins are mostly needed.  The ground is firm, but still, keeping those pins in all week can be of concern.  But along a lot of the edge, the vegetations is very overgrown and the water is very shallow, making mooring very difficult.  Especially, in Alvechurch itself, much of the available bankside is effectively off limits.  Plus mooring is forbidden opposite the marina.

 

That sweeping bend you mention is frequently jam-packed as a result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

No-one is really speaking up for the working-age leisure boater either...

 

The working-age leisure boater needs two things IME. First, unoccupied short-stay visitor moorings at "destination" locations, so that they have somewhere to go in their rare leisure time. For example, we now have the realistic option of a day-trip from our Worcester mooring to Upton: for years that wasn't really possible because of boats overstaying on the visitor moorings. When we moored in Burton, the changes to introduce more short-stay moorings at Alrewas were really valuable - and predictably, they were loudly opposed by retired people who wanted to be able to sit for 14 days on their preferred village centre mooring.

 

Second, reasonable 7/14-day moorings near stations for "weekending" (i.e. moving from place to place over successive weekends). These don't need to be particularly plush - just somewhere, ideally piled, where you can leave the boat for a week or two in the reasonable expectation it will still be there when you get back. The sweeping bend just south of the hire-base at Alvechurch is one such. This sort of spot has, inevitably, become harder to find in recent years because they're also prized by continuous cruisers.

You could set up a new Association:  Working Age Non Continous Cruisers.  The only problem is it would abbreviate to WANCC.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Richard T said:

Sorry that Andy Tidy didn't get re-elected. The number of votes cast is very low and shows a lack of interest amongst the vast majority of boaters.

 

Until I checked, I hadn't realised just how little interest has been shown for this particular election.

 

When I ran 8 years ago in the first such election, the number who voted was 7,556, which most people considered poor at the time.  If we assume a conservative 30,000 eligible to vote, that implies only about 25%  did.

 

By now the number who voted has fallen to 2040.  That is less than 7% this time.

Put another way I managed to poll 610 votes 8 years ago, before being eliminated - the highest number of votes anybody got this time was half that.

You are clearly correct that most private boat owners could not be bothered.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

For example, we now have the realistic option of a day-trip from our Worcester mooring to Upton:

Not today you don't!

 

 

0b1178f9-f481-41bf-ae89-7d6b16bc2b33.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Until I checked, I hadn't realised just how little interest has been shown for this particular election.

 

When I ran 8 years ago in the first such election, the number who voted was 7,556, which most people considered poor at the time.  If we assume a conservative 30,000 eligible to vote, that implies only about 25%  did.

 

By now the number who voted has fallen to 2040.  That is less than 7% this time.

Put another way I managed to poll 610 votes 8 years ago, before being eliminated - the highest number of votes anybody got this time was half that.

You are clearly correct that most private boat owners could not be bothered.
 

You are right. I never bother for one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Until I checked, I hadn't realised just how little interest has been shown for this particular election.

 

When I ran 8 years ago in the first such election, the number who voted was 7,556, which most people considered poor at the time.  If we assume a conservative 30,000 eligible to vote, that implies only about 25%  did.

 

By now the number who voted has fallen to 2040.  That is less than 7% this time.

Put another way I managed to poll 610 votes 8 years ago, before being eliminated - the highest number of votes anybody got this time was half that.

You are clearly correct that most private boat owners could not be bothered.
 

And I'm not a bit surprised.  First time round it was a bit of a novelty.  8 years on, the average boater hasn't seen any evidence of a point to these positions.  Perhaps there is one, but that's the perception.  I predict that in 4 years times the turnout will be lower again, unless the reps properly engage with the boaters they're meant to represent.  Sadly, at the moment, the necessary channels for that engagement don't exist so I'll be neither voting nor standing in 4 years time.  IMO its a farce.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Until I checked, I hadn't realised just how little interest has been shown for this particular election.

 

When I ran 8 years ago in the first such election, the number who voted was 7,556, which most people considered poor at the time.  If we assume a conservative 30,000 eligible to vote, that implies only about 25%  did.

 

By now the number who voted has fallen to 2040.  That is less than 7% this time.

Put another way I managed to poll 610 votes 8 years ago, before being eliminated - the highest number of votes anybody got this time was half that.

You are clearly correct that most private boat owners could not be bothered.
 

It was actually quite a feat to select candidates from such a large list of mostly unknown people and basing that decision on a short statement. Despite this, I persevered on principal.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Not today you don't!

 

 

0b1178f9-f481-41bf-ae89-7d6b16bc2b33.jpg

Yes he does, a variety of routes.....

You could even take in the Malvern arm...

 

.....and plenty of space on both sides of the pontoon


Upton

Edited by matty40s
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

And I'm not a bit surprised.  First time round it was a bit of a novelty.  8 years on, the average boater hasn't seen any evidence of a point to these positions.  Perhaps there is one, but that's the perception.  I predict that in 4 years times the turnout will be lower again, unless the reps properly engage with the boaters they're meant to represent.  Sadly, at the moment, the necessary channels for that engagement don't exist so I'll be neither voting nor standing in 4 years time.  IMO its a farce.

Eight years ago, most boaters were either supportive of the new charity or, at least, willing to "wait and see". 
 

Today, that is no longer the case.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rgreg said:

It was actually quite a feat to select candidates from such a large list of mostly unknown people and basing that decision on a short statement. Despite this, I persevered on principal.

Ditto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rgreg said:

It was actually quite a feat to select candidates from such a large list of mostly unknown people and basing that decision on a short statement. Despite this, I persevered on principal.

 

Because of this, I abstained on principle.

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRT governance structure has achieved what it set out to do: look good on paper  and ensure that users have minimal influence on what CRT management does  whilst simultaneously insulating CRT management  (and any waterways ministers) from political pressure.

The Users Council reps are a powerless sop to correctness and sit as part of a powerless body.  IWA love it because they can bang on about their holy grail of one Navigation Authority.   (Rolt and Aickman wanted a single body of Conservators, which is not the same thing at all).  NBTA  will find they can make all the noise they like and they will get nowhere, just like previous reps, because even if they were to convince Council,  Council has no power to direct CRT, only the nuclear option of sacking ALL the trustees.  That would simply result  in the Minister appointing a new but identically minded bunch.

 

I voted, but God knows why.  I doubt I will bother next time, especially  it looks as though CRT will be in deep financial mire.

N

Edited by BEngo
  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2020 at 11:10, doratheexplorer said:

It's not ideal is it?  It seems Andy is one of the best reps and does most to engage with boaters.  But even then there's a direct correllation between having input to the reps and liking homemade jam :wacko:

 

On 14/02/2020 at 17:23, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I decided not to vote when I found that Andrew Phasey would continue as a private boaters rep on Council and on the Appointments sub-committee. 

The council decided that the AWCC would have a seperate nominated position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2020 at 11:10, doratheexplorer said:

It's not ideal is it?  It seems Andy is one of the best reps and does most to engage with boaters.  But even then there's a direct correllation between having input to the reps and liking homemade jam :wacko:

 

On 14/02/2020 at 17:23, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I decided not to vote when I found that Andrew Phasey would continue as a private boaters rep on Council and on the Appointments sub-committee. 

The council decided that the AWCC would have a seperate nominated position. 

I stood as a Friend this time, the other candidate decided to stand down. 

My husband is quite poorly and I am still on my roller-coaster transplant journey, still rather more rolling than coasting. Its been long slow progress over the last five months. However, I am positive things will improve, albeit slowly and Benji (my kidney transplant) will begin to work properly. 

I do hope the new reps will report back, I did post to every FB group I was a member of, but there are approx 50 now, so if you never saw my council notes, I apologise, I do still have my page on FB & they are available there

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StarUKKiwi said:

 

The council decided that the AWCC would have a seperate nominated position. 

It would have been the Appointments Committee that decided to include a nominated position for AWCC in the private boater constituency, not Council. 

This reverses the general policy of having elected rather than nominated positions where it is possible to identify the electorate.

 

Still waiting for an explanation as to why this was thought to be desirable. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2020 at 18:51, Capt Ahab said:

As a current and potentially future boaters rep (depending on election results) I feel a lot of people miss the main point of the role. The most important aspect is its governance role, selecting new trustees and if necessary removing existing trustees if it's felt they are not acting in the best interests of the Trust. After that the role is one of influence where, via formal and informal channels, concerns which we feel are important are fed into CRT's executive management. 

 

 

Shouldn't you be ensuring you and the trustees act in the best interests of Boaters, not the Trust (and exec team) who do not always act in the best interest of Boaters, who are your constituents.

E. G.s The draconian use of s8 to harass boaters comes to mind when by laws could be used, also claims that terms and conditions must be agreed in order to get a licence, on the grounds that they can override the Act of Parliament. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2020 at 18:30, StarUKKiwi said:

 

The council decided that the AWCC would have a seperate nominated position. 

 

Did the boaters reps vote for this nominated unelected position. Certainly in a conversation with a senior manager within CRT shortly afterwards it did not seem to be a CRTrecomendatiin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuscan said:

Did the boaters reps vote for this nominated unelected position. Certainly in a conversation with a senior manager within CRT shortly afterwards it did not seem to be a CRTrecomendatiin.

Good question.

Andy/Stella - was this put before Council and did you support it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

Shouldn't you be ensuring you and the trustees act in the best interests of Boaters, not the Trust (and exec team) who do not always act in the best interest of Boaters, who are your constituents.

E. G.s The draconian use of s8 to harass boaters comes to mind when by laws could be used, also claims that terms and conditions must be agreed in order to get a licence, on the grounds that they can override the Act of Parliament. 

That is perhaps one reason why having the Council is not such a bad (or at least ineffective) idea: Trustees have a strict legal duty to act in the best interests of the Trust. That may in turn imply looking after their customers/users but is secondary. That is not a matter for CaRT to determine. The Council members are not so constrained and can represent various partisan points of view. But they do not have to reach a consistent view - that is up to the Trustees. (as I understand the constitution)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of routes onto Council. I’ve been appointed from the Local Government Association and am looking forward to my first meeting in March.

My initial interests will be:

1. The elections. It doesn’t sound as if they were well run, if what I’ve read here is correct. I’ve stood for lots of elections, some online, and never known of one where you have to cast a minimum number of votes. 
2. Climate change issues. I’m not at all convinced that CRT appreciates what is heading our way in that canal boats are almost entirely dependent upon fossil fuels. Potentially a huge challenge.

3. Council tax questions along with social care and health. We’ve all seen Tim and Pru and my wife and I sometimes refer to the canal system as a linear care home. We are both pensioners by the way........

 

Plus issues I see coming up on this forum. I’ve been a member for a number of years.

 

We are shareboaters on an ex ownership boat Sunseeker and spend 4-6 weeks a year cruising.

 

I’ll keep in touch.

 

Peter Thornton

Cumbria County Council

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter Thornton said:

1. The elections. It doesn’t sound as if they were well run, if what I’ve read here is correct. I’ve stood for lots of elections, some online, and never known of one where you have to cast a minimum number of votes. 


This was clearly identified as a mistake.  As I understand it, it depended on what platform you were voting from.  If from a phone, then initially (incorrectly)  it insisted on voting for at least 4 candidates, but if on a PC it (correctly) did not.

Of course the error was only corrected after some people had been forced to vote for candidates that had not initially decided to.

The only way to fully put this right would have been to cancel the election,and rerun it with the software working correctly, (although I very much doubt it affected the final result, and I think the same candidates would almost certainly have been elected).

This was not the only error made.  For example licence holders with multiple boats should have got as many votes as they have boats.  Certainly if both boats are covered by the same customer number, you were wrongly only sent one voting link.  When I tried to get this corrected I was initially sent a voting link identical to the first one sent,and unsurprisingly this wouldn't let you vote again.

 

You might think if you are using a third party specialising in this kind of work they might actually get it right, but, like ERS before them, CES seemed to be pretty inept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:


This was clearly identified as a mistake.  As I understand it, it depended on what platform you were voting from.  If from a phone, then initially (incorrectly)  it insisted on voting for at least 4 candidates, but if on a PC it (correctly) did not.

Of course the error was only corrected after some people had been forced to vote for candidates that had not initially decided to.

The only way to fully put this right would have been to cancel the election,and rerun it with the software working correctly, (although I very much doubt it affected the final result, and I think the same candidates would almost certainly have been elected).

This was not the only error made.  For example licence holders with multiple boats should have got as many votes as they have boats.  Certainly if both boats are covered by the same customer number, you were wrongly only sent one voting link.  When I tried to get this corrected I was initially sent a voting link identical to the first one sent,and unsurprisingly this wouldn't let you vote again.

 

You might think if you are using a third party specialising in this kind of work they might actually get it right, but, like ERS before them, CES seemed to be pretty inept.

Yes, its pretty obvious that if you're dealing with the boating community then you are going to get a much higher proportion of mobile devices.

 

The multiple boats point is a bit trickier, it will depend upon what rules were set and I can see both sides of this. But whatever is decided should be clearly stated and followed.

 

The real worry is the small turnout compared to previous years. That should provoke some thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.