Is the CRT too woke?

[MtB]

21 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

 

Please could you define what "wokeness" is, in your opinion.

 

MP.

 

I always took the term to be a contraction of "Woken up to injustice as a result of race, gender, religion, poverty" (and perhaps a few more I might have missed). 

 

So in the context of CRT encouraging us to 'do our bit' to combat global warming, that isn't "wokeness" at all. It's common sense. 

[mark99]

36 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I always took the term to be a contraction of "Woken up to injustice as a result of race, gender, religion, poverty" (and perhaps a few more I might have missed). 

 

So in the context of CRT encouraging us to 'do our bit' to combat global warming, that isn't "wokeness" at all. It's common sense. 

More like condescending nonsense and virtual signalling from CART.

 

In view of course.   😛

 

 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, mark99 said:

More like condescending nonsense and virtual signalling from CART.

 

In view of course.   😛

 

 

Which bit about global warming is condescending nonsense?

 

Agreed it is condescending and virtue signalling, but I'm inclined to accept the case for global warming. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

Agreed it is condescending and virtue signalling, but I'm inclined to accept the case for global warming. 

 

I think that the experts have now accepted that there is no such thing as global warming and many countries (UK included) is likely to get much colder as the gulf stream is diverted by freshwater from the melting ice.

 

The latest terminology is "Climate change"  as it encompasses, hot / cold / wet and dry and is bound to be correct somewhere or other on the planet.

[Arthur Marshall]

Companies do this stuff because it's cheap and they can. It doesn't mean anything, and I doubt any of the people who write the handouts,  speeches or whatever believe a word of it. Doesn't do any harm, though. It would be better if they just got on with their jobs, I suppose, but people in offices do get bored doing that. Must be a bit dull, all this canal stuff  really, if you're not that interested in it.

[IanD]

To people accusing the presentation of being condescending and virtue signalling -- exactly what parts of what he said, and what do you think he should have said instead?

 

As far as I can see it was a reasonable summary of CARTs position regarding boaters, funding, and where this needs to go in the future.

 

Yes it was just a teeny bit optimistic about how effective their maintenance program is -- especially being proactive fixing stuff instead of reacting when it breaks -- but what else do you think he could say?

 

I do get hacked off sometimes with people slagging off CART at every opportunity without recognising the problems they face with funding and maintaining the system, and I think the presentation did a decent job of trying to explain this.

 

If you don't like it and think that CART should give top priority to 35000 boaters and ignore everyone else, are you willing to pay the massive license fees that would be needed if all the costs fell onto boaters?

 

No, I didn't think so...

Edited November 12, 2021 by IanD

[frangar]

Just now, IanD said:

To people accusing the presentation of being condescending and virtue signalling -- exactly what parts of what he said, and what do you think he should have said instead?

 

As far as I can see it was a reasonable summary of CARTs position regarding boaters, funding, and where this needs to go in the future.

 

Yes it was just a teeny bit optimistic about how effective their maintenance program is -- especially being proactive fixing stuff instead of reacting when it breaks -- but what else do you think he could say?

 

I do get hacked off sometimes with people slagging off CART at every opportunity without recognising the problems they face with funding and maintaining the system, and I think the presentation did a decent job of trying to explain this.

 

If you don't like it and think that CART should give top priority to 35000 boaters and ignore everyone else, are you willing to pay the massive license fees that would be needed if all the costs fell onto boaters?

Exactly how long have you been involved with inland waterways? Remember some of us have been here a while....and some much longer than that!....we have seen the rise and fall of the system we love..and its been a lot more fall under the present regime than rise...

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, frangar said:

Exactly how long have you been involved with inland waterways? Remember some of us have been here a while....and some much longer than that!....we have seen the rise and fall of the system we love..and its been a lot more fall under the present regime than rise...

Irrelevant. Answer the questions.

 

Nobody -- including me -- is saying that CART is doing the best job they could do, there's a lot wrong with the organisation, and part of the problem is government funding.

 

But what was said in the video has a lot of hard truths about where the money to pay for the canals comes from, and why CART can't just listen to 35000 boaters and ignore everyone else. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. There's no commercial traffic to pay for the canals any more, so where do *you* think the money should come from?

Edited November 12, 2021 by IanD

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Irrelevant. Answer the questions.

 

Nobody -- including me -- is saying that CART is doing the best job they could do, there's a lot wrong with the organisation, and part of the problem is government funding.

 

But what was said in the video has a lot of hard truths about where the money to pay for the canals comes from, and why CART can't just listen to 35000 boaters and ignore everyone else. You might not like it, but that's the way it is. There's no commercial traffic to pay for the canals any more, so where do *you* think the money should come from?

Far from irrelevant I think you will find....If you dont understand the organisation and how its being run now to how it was run in the past then you have missed the point totally.....

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think that the experts have now accepted that there is no such thing as global warming and many countries (UK included) is likely to get much colder as the gulf stream is diverted by freshwater from the melting ice.

 

The latest terminology is "Climate change"  as it encompasses, hot / cold / wet and dry and is bound to be correct somewhere or other on the planet.

 

I still prefer the term 'global warming' because that IS what is happening. The globe as a whole is getting warmer due to the 'greenhouse effect'. The total energy being absorbed exceeds that which is being radiated. Therefore the globe is warming up. 

 

"Climate change" is a weasel term which encourages people to see it as neutral effect, and deny it.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, frangar said:

Far from irrelevant I think you will find....If you dont understand the organisation and how its being run now to how it was run in the past then you have missed the point totally.....

 

I do understand that, which is what I just said, if you'd bothered to read it.

 

No amount of reorganisation is going to change how much money CART needs to run the system, and this is currently from various sources (as described) of which boaters are one of the smallest -- and it's not enough. Where do you suggest any extra funding comes from -- which is needed to stand any chance of catching up with the maintenance backlog -- if not the government? Why do you think the government would increase spending above £50M just for the benefit of 35000 boaters?

 

It's why there's all this effort by CART to try and promote the canals to as many non-boaters as possible -- including all those cyclists and joggers and fisherman that so many people on here hate -- because that makes it more likely that government funding will increase -- or at least, stay the same -- instead of decreasing.

 

The video tried to explain this, but you don't seem to want to hear it...

Edited November 12, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

No amount of reorganisation is going to change how much money CART needs to run the system

 

Agreed, but a re-organisation can result in more money being available to spend, and for it to be spent in more productive** ways

 

Before you ask : NOT Duxxk lanes, blue signs, new uniforms, etc.

[tree monkey]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

"Climate change" is a weasel term which encourages people to see it as neutral effect, and deny it.

I prefer it, it's more accurate, overall the planet will warm but some areas may have colder temperatures than they have now, plus it takes the emphasis from just heat and paints a clearer picture of increased extreme weather.

 

 

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Agreed, but a re-organisation can result in more money being available to spend, and for it to be spent in more productive** ways

 

Before you ask : NOT Duxxk lanes, blue signs, new uniforms, etc.

Yes, I said that too, and these are undoubtedly a waste of money in the minds of most boaters.

 

If the government thinks lots of people (millions?) derive various benefits from the canals (like CART keep pushing in their publicity) then they might cough up. If they think the canals are being solely run for the benefit of 35000 boaters by fixing locks and dredging, they'd shut the system down tomorrow -- if they legally could, though sticking to the law doesn't seem to be their top priority... 😞

 

I'm going to repeat the questions...

 

1. How do you think that CART should raise the profile of and interest in the canals among the general public, in such a way as to encourage the government to give it more money?

 

2. If you don't like it and think that CART should give top priority to 35000 boaters and ignore everyone else, are you willing to pay the massive license fees that would be needed if all the costs fell onto boaters?

 

3. Where do you suggest any extra funding comes from -- which is needed to stand any chance of catching up with the maintenance backlog -- if not the government?

 

CART are caught between a rock and a hard place on both funding and trying to please all the competing interests, especially boaters, and anyone thinking that a magic money tree is suddenly going to provide the funds to fix all the canal network problems is living in cloud cuckoo land...

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by IanD

[MtB]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

I prefer it, it's more accurate, overall the planet will warm but some areas may have colder temperatures than they have now, plus it takes the emphasis from just heat and paints a clearer picture of increased extreme weather.

 

But the word "change" is so benign. "Climate degradation" for example would be more accurate and convey that something bad is going on.

 

I think we've had this discussion before! 

[tree monkey]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But the word "change" is so benign. "Climate degradation" for example would be more accurate and convey that something bad is going on.

 

I think we've had this discussion before! 

We definitely have, if current forum form is anything to go by in 2 more posts we will be calling each other fools and threatening to block each other

 

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

1. How do you think that CART should raise the profile of and interest in the canals among the general public, in such a way as to encourage the government to give it more money?

 

I think the last 10 years has shown that there is no particular public interest or appetite for the canals, tin-rattlers, newspaper articles, open days and even £ 100's of thousands spent on TV advertising the 'public' is not generating any income. The expenditure of raising 'giving' has far exceeded the income.

C&RT need to convince the Government that there are 'public benefits' and they are doing this with all sorts of weird statistics that experts have been commisioned to produce.

If the Governement can see some 'benefits' to offset (eg healthly exercise vs hospital bills) then they may decide to continue the grant.

 

Have you looked at the actual conditions and targets that must be met to retain the grant - keeping the Navigation open is conspicuous by its absence.

 

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

2. If you don't like it and think that CART should give top priority to 35000 boaters and ignore everyone else, are you willing to pay the massive license fees that would be needed if all the costs fell onto boaters?

 

No longer relevant as I am no longer on CRT waters., but, if I was to pay 2x or 3x the licence fee I'd expect to have some say in the way it is spent. If that happened then yes, I would pay more.

 

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

3. Where do you suggest any extra funding comes from -- which is needed to stand any chance of catching up with the maintenance backlog -- if not the government?

 

Start to charge for what they are legally allowed to charge for - they can even charge for visitors moorings if they so wish.

Implement the existing bylaws

Introduce new by-laws.

Review licence fee structure such that (as previously proposed) 'the user pays' CCers pay 3x the fee that a non CCer pays, I have a number of times posted their original proposals which they were 'to frightened' to introduce.

I'm sure if they actually employed someone (not a pyramid of 20 people) experienced with other charities to look at other options of fund raising.

Look to see how they could introduce a 'membership system' and what benefits members could get over non-members.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, frangar said:

Exactly how long have you been involved with inland waterways? Remember some of us have been here a while....and some much longer than that!....we have seen the rise and fall of the system we love..and its been a lot more fall under the present regime than rise...

 

So how long have you been involved?

[frangar]

Just now, Graham Davis said:

 

So how long have you been involved?

About 37 years..with 30 of them as a live aboard.....as I said Im well aware some have been involved much longer...as have many I know personally....but long enough to have experienced the early to mid nineties when BW was doing a fair bit for boaters....and the steady decline under CRT...Oh and during my time Ive been involved with various canal related committees and organisations including practical hands on stuff....indeed I still am.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No longer relevant as I am no longer on CRT waters., but, if I was to pay 2x or 3x the licence fee I'd expect to have some say in the way it is spent. If that happened then yes, I would pay more.

And how would that say actually operate? If 100 different boaters had 100 different ideas on how the money should be spent you wouldn't get much further forward!

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Start to charge for what they are legally allowed to charge for - they can even charge for visitors moorings if they so wish.

Implement the existing bylaws

Introduce new by-laws.

Review licence fee structure such that (as previously proposed) 'the user pays' CCers pay 3x the fee that a non CCer pays, I have a number of times posted their original proposals which they were 'to frightened' to introduce.

But how much additional revenue would that bring in? Every time you increase the cost, some will decide they can't or don't want to pay and will choose not to be boat owners. I don't know if CRT's current charging structure maximises income in relation to the associated cost, but just raising charges will not bring a corresponding increase in net revenue.

Enforcing the bylaws involves significant expenditure by CRT, for fines set in law at low values, and I think those go direct to the Treasury not to CRT. So while better enforcementt may be desirable in some respects, it certainly won't be a financial winner.

Edited November 12, 2021 by David Mack

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I'm sure if they actually employed someone (not a pyramid of 20 people) experienced with other charities to look at other options of fund raising.

I seem to recall that is exactly what they did. I can remember announcements of senior fundraising staff who had previous relevant experience with other charities. To my mind the problem is that the proposition that large numbers of non boating public will pay significant sums when they can enjoy CRT's facilities for free has always been a non-starter, and there simply isn't the scope for any fundraiser, no matter how good, to do significantly better.

Trying and failing was a necessary step in the process to convince government that continued central funding is essential.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Look to see how they could introduce a 'membership system' and what benefits members could get over non-members.

And what benefits would those be? And what would be consequence if the non-boating 'members' exceeded boater numbers, and they voted for more cycle tracks, ducks, wellness signs, picnic benches, poetry carved into lock gates etc, while simultaneously saying they saw no benefit to them in dredging or reservoir maintence?

Edited November 12, 2021 by David Mack

[MtB]

2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

We definitely have, if current forum form is anything to go by in 2 more posts we will be calling each other fools and threatening to block each other

 

 

You fool!! 

 

(Oops, I peaked to soon  )

[ditchcrawler]

22 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You fool!! 

 

(Oops, I peaked to soon  )

Who said that?

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think this would lead me to use the term snowflake Mum disgusted by 'vile' product in Aldi children 'shouldn't see' - LancsLive

You can get a machine to pump out snowflakes 

[IanD]

4 hours ago, frangar said:

About 37 years..with 30 of them as a live aboard.....as I said Im well aware some have been involved much longer...as have many I know personally....but long enough to have experienced the early to mid nineties when BW was doing a fair bit for boaters....and the steady decline under CRT...Oh and during my time Ive been involved with various canal related committees and organisations including practical hands on stuff....indeed I still am.

Oh dear, I'm obviously a newcomer, only 41 years since my first canal trip. I remember when it was the Rochdale Eight... 😉