The gun has been fired

[Ian Mac]

Surprisingly C&RT have fire the gun, that we are in the shit. Divided we fall united we stand.

 

[Athy]

"A message from our chair". What an articulate piece of furniture he is.

Could you explain your "fired the gun" statement?  That would suggest some sort of aggression or antagonism, which I didn't notice.

[Mike Hurley]

Well presented i thought.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

"A message from our chair". What an articulate piece of furniture he is.

Could you explain your "fired the gun" statement?  That would suggest some sort of aggression or antagonism, which I didn't notice.

 

 

It's the start of a campaign to protect and preserve our canals, the nice man explains close to the end. 

 

Maybe you had dozed off under spell of his soporific delivery by that point...

 

 

 

 

[howardang]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It's the start of a campaign to protect and preserve our canals, the nice man explains close to the end. 

 

Maybe you had dozed off under spell of his soporific delivery by that point...

 

 

 

 

I thought his presentation was clear and articulate and a well balanced statement of the issue. 

In recent weeks, there have also been similar "starting gins" fired by IWA and NABO so it is good to see that CRT have joined in the campaign to try to eliminate the threat to our waterways, and especially I was pleased to note how he managed to include all waterway users in his short presentation.

Let's hope that the message is heard in Whitehall.

 

Howard

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, howardang said:

I thought his presentation was clear and articulate and a well balanced statement of the issue. 

 

I thought so too, although I felt rather 'hurried along' by the video editing. I wanted to linger slightly longer on nearly every clip but that would have made the whole video about a minute longer!

 

If anything, my criticism is that delivery of the message at the end that "this is the start of a campaign to preserve and protect our canals" got a bit muddled and buried in all the feelgood.

 

11 minutes ago, howardang said:

In recent weeks, there have also been similar "starting gins"

 

P.S. I like your idea of a "starting gin", too. Cheers!

 

 

 

[howardang]

24 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I thought so too, although I felt rather 'hurried along' by the video editing. I wanted to linger slightly longer on nearly every clip but that would have made the whole video about a minute longer!

 

If anything, my criticism is that delivery of the message at the end that "this is the start of a campaign to preserve and protect our canals" got a bit muddled and buried in all the feelgood.

 

 

P.S. I like your idea of a "starting gin", too. Cheers!

 

 

 

Freudian slip if ever I saw one!

Howard

 

[Midnight]

Same expensive video different presenter - yawn!
Okay let's all work together what do you want me to do Mr Orr? Please could I be regional director for Yorkshire and the North East?

Edited May 6, 2023 by Midnight

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I wonder if the Trustees have had 'early access' to the 'DEFRA Funding Review' findings and realise that the sky is about to fall in ?

[Tracy D'arth]

8 hours ago, Ian Mac said:

Surprisingly C&RT have fire the gun, that we are in the shit. Divided we fall united we stand.

 

Unfortunately I think we will find that it only fires blanks.

[Athy]

Why should a senior official at CART be launching a campaign to preserve and protect our waterways? That's what they're supposed to be doing already; has nobody told him?

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Same expensive video different presenter - yawn!
Okay let's all work together what do you want me to do Mr Orr? Please could I be regional director for Yorkshire and the North East?

 

I have to say, I initially resisted being scornful but I give in now. "Everybody must work together" seems to be the main theme of the video. Well feck moi, what an excellent idea. I'm staggered that no-one has thought of this before. 

 

I have to admit however, I prefer working alone.

 

 

[Midnight]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I have to say, I initially resisted being scornful but I give in now. "Everybody must work together" seems to be the main theme of the video. Well feck moi, what an excellent idea. I'm staggered that no-one has thought of this before. 

 

I have to admit however, I prefer working alone.

 

 

Could have saved a fortune if only they had added the question in the consultancy. "On a scale of one to five hundred how satisfied would you be with the idea of working together?"

[MtB]

On the subject of starting guns, it's a little-known fact that a special starting gun was invented by the sister of that well known leftie, Karl Marx.

 

Her name was Onya. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I wonder if the Trustees have had 'early access' to the 'DEFRA Funding Review' findings and realise that the sky is about to fall in ?

It is written into the Terms of Reference that CRT will be given a draft of the Defra report on the Trust's performance. I have little doubt that the report would have been made available to them over a year ago. However, that is not to say that they would have been told at that time what post 2027 funding they will get, if any.

CRT certainly know that the sky is about to fall in as Parry has started talking of a growing "funding gap" (as predicted by the KPMG report of 2008). The later KPMG report of 2012 stated that the funding gap would shrink.

Asked to provide figures for the yearly funding gap back to 2010, CRT say that they do not hold this information and it would be too costly to produce.

[Alan de Enfield]

40 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

CRT certainly know that the sky is about to fall in as Parry has started talking of a growing "funding gap" (as predicted by the KPMG report of 2008). The later KPMG report of 2012 stated that the funding gap would shrink.

 

 

The 'problem' with the KPMG 2012 report is that (as KPMG state numerous times) the conclusions and recommendations in the report "ARE BASED ON THE NUMBERS GIVEN TO THEM BY BW/C&RT"

 

Maybe it is 'standard contract wording' but, it reads to me as if there is a lack of confidence that the forecasts and underlying figures are achievable and KPMG don't want the blame when it goes pear-shaped.

 

 

 

Which means that BW/C&RT could have provided any figures they wished to make the situation look better.

KPMG simply 'plugged the figures' into their models and said : yes, based on the figures provided KMPG conclude that the viability of the Trust is ensured, as long as they generate the necessary (planned) additional income.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The 'problem' with the KPMG 2012 report is that (as KPMG state numerous times) the conclusions and recommendations in the report "ARE BASED ON THE NUMBERS GIVEN TO THEM BY BW/C&RT"

 

Maybe it is 'standard contract wording' but, it reads to me as if there is a lack of confidence that the forecasts and underlying figures are achievable and KPMG don't want the blame when it goes pear-shaped.

 

 

 

Which means that BW/C&RT could have provided any figures they wished to make the situation look better.

KPMG simply 'plugged the figures' into their models and said : yes, based on the figures provided KMPG conclude that the viability of the Trust is ensured, as long as they generate the necessary (planned) additional income.

 

 

... but they have failed to generate the necessary (planned) additional income. In particular, investment income is millions down on what it should be for 2021/22. 

Projected Investment Property contribution from KPMG report = £41,034,000
Actual Investment Property contribution (including diversified Investments) from annual report = £30,800,000


 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

... but they have failed to generate the necessary (planned) additional income. In particular, investment income is millions down on what it should be for 2021/22. 

Projected Investment Property contribution from KPMG report = £41,034,000
Actual Investment Property contribution (including diversified Investments) from annual report = £30,800,000


 

 

 

Add to that the 'negative income' (income less than expenditure to raise the income) from charity giving has reduced the income by many millions in the last 10 years.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Add to that the 'negative income' (income less than expenditure to raise the income) from charity giving has reduced the income by many millions in the last 10 years.

It's sobering to think that charitable giving is the only new income stream under CRT but has done so badly. 

It might get worse because CRT have been operating under a derogation granted by HM Treasury which considers it to be a public body (as it is under the control of government). My understanding is that the derogation ran out a month ago without the changes being made to take it out of Defra's control.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The 'problem' with the KPMG 2012 report is that (as KPMG state numerous times) the conclusions and recommendations in the report "ARE BASED ON THE NUMBERS GIVEN TO THEM BY BW/C&RT"

 

Maybe it is 'standard contract wording' but, it reads to me as if there is a lack of confidence that the forecasts and underlying figures are achievable and KPMG don't want the blame when it goes pear-shaped.

 

 

 

Which means that BW/C&RT could have provided any figures they wished to make the situation look better.

KPMG simply 'plugged the figures' into their models and said : yes, based on the figures provided KMPG conclude that the viability of the Trust is ensured, as long as they generate the necessary (planned) additional income.

 

 

Like all the other of the "big four" consultants, KPMG get work by taking any figures given to them and submitting a report twisting the data into the answer that the hiring company want. It's the only reason anyone uses them. No-one wants a totally honest accountant.

Expecting their forecasts to bear any relation to reality is asking for trouble, and I'm sure neither CRT nor DEFRA nor the government did, but they got the answers they needed at the time to justify decisions already made.

In due course, we can expect another million pound study and report, once the powers that be have decided what the outcome should be. Probably a boater's survey,  too.

 

[MtB]

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Probably a boater's survey,  too.

 

Yeah, what happened to that? 

 

Weren't the fat bustard boats supposed to be getting taxed off the waterways?

 

What have CRT done with the survey? Nothing!! (So far...)

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yeah, what happened to that? 

 

Weren't the fat bustard boats supposed to be getting taxed off the waterways?

 

What have CRT done with the survey? Nothing!! (So far...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't they say it'd be July for the publication of the results ?

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Didn't they say it'd be July for the publication of the results ?

 

 

Perhaps, but which year?

 

 

[DandV]

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Like all the other of the "big four" consultants, KPMG get work by taking any figures given to them and submitting a report twisting the data into the answer that the hiring company want. It's the only reason anyone uses them. No-one wants a totally honest accountant.

Expecting their forecasts to bear any relation to reality is asking for trouble, and I'm sure neither CRT nor DEFRA nor the government did, but they got the answers they needed at the time to justify decisions already made.

In due course, we can expect another million pound study and report, once the powers that be have decided what the outcome should be. Probably a boater's survey,  too.

 

Cynical but unfortunately true.

They live very much by supplying what their hirer wants, rather then determining what is best needed.

This means too much of their role has deteriorated to providing the appearance of respectability, (and a buffer, if things don't work out), to client whims.

An unfortunate side effect is that intellectual rigour in government is decaying in favour of shallow populism.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, DandV said:

Cynical but unfortunately true.

They live very much by supplying what their hirer wants, rather then determining what is best needed.

This means too much of their role has deteriorated to providing the appearance of respectability, (and a buffer, if things don't work out), to client whims.

An unfortunate side effect is that intellectual rigour in government is decaying in favour of shallow populism.

 

 

I like the concept of "intellectual rigour" in government. When was that then?! Much like "management expertise" from BW and CRT, I suspect.

Everything was so much better in the old days...