The Guardian on canals.

[Arthur Marshall]

I know nobody on here reads that notorious left wing rag, but anyway, I quote:

 

The restoration of much of Britain’s vast canal network has been a notable and uplifting success story. Originally saved in the 1960s from Beeching-style closures by Labour’s transport secretary, Barbara Castle, many of these formerly working and polluted waterways have become modern urban oases.  Otters, kingfishers and dragonflies can be glimpsed along the 100 miles or so of Birmingham’s canals. In Manchester, barge users and walkers can trace the origins of the Industrial Revolution along intersecting routes that crisscross the city.

Across the country, canalside regeneration has transformed urban landscapes, partly enabled by the thousands of unpaid volunteers who rescued abandoned channels from dereliction and paved the way for Castle’s vision of “leisureways” to become a reality.  Environmentally rich, historically fascinating and a source of human wellbeing, thriving canals should be a treasured feature of our greener future.

The government, however, appears to have other ideas. Having previously frozen funding for the Canal & River Trust (CRT) – the charity that in 2012 took over the management of 2,000 miles of state-owned canals – ministers now plan cuts of over £300m to its finances, beginning in 2027.  As the CRT is forced to seek alternative sources of cash, this shortsighted decision will stretch resources beyond breaking point. Volunteers already have to be relied on for clean-up work and other tasks, and trust leaders have said that the sharp reduction in funds will put at risk “invaluable natural habitats, historic infrastructure and cherished public spaces”. Some canals, they warn, may have to close.

Last week, a group of council leaders wrote to the secretary of state for the environment, Thérèse Coffey, noting that large stretches of London’s network will be affected, including Little Venice.  There are many good reasons to want to see the back of this government, but one of the most emotionally compelling is its distaste for the kind of public infrastructure that makes life better for people. It remains to be seen whether ministers will choose to ignore the overwhelming opposition to plans to close railway station ticket offices. But their apparent willingness to endanger the spectacular renaissance of the country’s canals is evidence of the same ideological blind spot: the modern Conservative party just doesn’t understand the value of public goods. 

A 2019 report, Waterways in Progress, published by the Inland Waterways Association, memorably describes Britain’s canals as “a linear national park”. Among other case studies, the authors highlight the social and economic benefits delivered by the restoration of a five-mile stretch of the Chesterfield canal, in which a former lock-house now hosts a cafe, a meeting room, shower facilities and a play and picnic area. Much of this was made possible by Whitehall money released as part of the Community Assets programme. 

This is the kind of reimagining of waterways that Castle – a boat enthusiast who regularly travelled on the Rochdale canal – foresaw. Noting their potential for leisure use in the Transport Act of 1968, she established public bodies to promote “cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes” on the canals. Five decades on, the progress has been remarkable. The government has a responsibility to ensure that it is maintained, rather than undermined by funding cuts deeply at odds with the spirit and direction of the times.

[matty40s]

There isnt much wrong with so called left wing rag when so many of the other rags are so rabidly controlled by the fascists in charge., along with the entirely level headed GBNews.

The article doesnt go far enough, isnt in depth,  so perhaps will invite more support....maybe

[magnetman]

It is interesting to consider how exactly the CRT came about. I don't know the exact history and process and what the driving forces were but was it in fact a Tory move or might it have been instigated under Labour? 

 

I don't know the answer to this question but it seems to me the basic problem was what you might call a kind of privatisation of BW. 

 

So who actually did that? 

 

Labour were in power until 2010. 

 

 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I know nobody on here reads that notorious left wing rag

 

Twaddle.

 

I read it, and support it financially as I think it is the best of all the newspapers. 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

From the wikipedia entry for British Waterways. 

 

March 2010 budget was delivered by Alastair Darling who was a Labour minister. 

AbolitionEdit

By 2009, British Waterways was looking for a means of gaining a larger and more secure supply of funding in order to plug a £30m shortfall in its budget, while utilising the potential for volunteers on the waterways, allowing the waterways community to play a greater role.^[11] Its plans involved moving to become a charitable trust, in charge of the current canal systems in addition to acquiring other waterways, such as those operated by the Environment Agency.^[14]

In March 2010, the plans were given a boost when the government announced in the Budget that it intended to turn BW into a mutual organisation, but no further details were released. BW welcomed the announcement, with the chairman Tony Hales stating that the plan would preserve the canals and their associated infrastructure, and "safeguard against a return to the decline and dereliction which they faced in the last century". It would also "unlock the enormous public support that there is for them."^[14][15]

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It is interesting to consider how exactly the CRT came about.

 

It came about around 2005 (from memory) when the BW management begged the Government for 'independence saying they could do a far better and manage the system more easily if they had total control of their income and expenditure.

 

The Government fought it but eventually gave up trying to convince BW  management that they were wrong and in 2010 (I think) the actions to create C&RT as an independent charity were started. 

[magnetman]

So what we appear to now have is a Labour supporting newspaper moaning about something which Labour executed in the first place but because it went wrong it must be the fault of the government who were in charge afterwards. 

 

 

 

I think a lot of people are probably unaware that it makes no difference who you vote for. 

Whatever happens will happen regardless of governing party. They like you to think otherwise because they are all in cahoots and thrive on division of the pleb audience. 

[Midnight]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

I think a lot of people are probably unaware that it makes no difference who you vote for. 

Whatever happens will happen regardless of governing party. They like you to think otherwise because they are all in cahoots and thrive on division of the pleb audience. 

My mother used to say "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in".

 

I've always voted for the Monster Raving Looney Party and they always get in.

[Arthur Marshall]

9 hours ago, magnetman said:

So what we appear to now have is a Labour supporting newspaper moaning about something which Labour executed in the first place but because it went wrong it must be the fault of the government who were in charge afterwards.

I think a lot of people are probably unaware that it makes no difference who you vote for. 

Whatever happens will happen regardless of governing party. They like you to think otherwise because they are all in cahoots and thrive on division of the pleb audience. 

According to Alan, under heavy pressure from BW management (under a previous government). No idea why this has descended into a political debate, but unfortunately, it makes a huge difference who you vote for. If anyone thinks the Conservatives would have brought in Sure Start (now cancelled, obviously ) or the minimum wage, they're nuts. If you think a Labour government would have privatised the water supply and power supplies (all so successful) ditto. I won't even mention education or the NHS.

Another important decision decided by voting was Brexit, but you must have forgotten that one.

I am not a member of any political party, by the way. But to say there is no difference between them is simply wrong, and I do try to have some connection with reality.
Not so long back, people died for the right to vote. Saying it was pointless is not only incorrect and foolish, it disrespects them.

[magpie patrick]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It came about around 2005 (from memory) when the BW management begged the Government for 'independence saying they could do a far better and manage the system more easily if they had total control of their income and expenditure.

 

 

Exactly this - BW wanted it, the government of the day were less keen. One of the reasons the original set up allowed the government to take it back was because the government of the day feared it wasn't going to work. CRT can also hand it back, but an organisation that believes it's own hype is probably never going to do that.

[IanD]

10 hours ago, magnetman said:

So what we appear to now have is a Labour supporting newspaper moaning about something which Labour executed in the first place but because it went wrong it must be the fault of the government who were in charge afterwards. 

 

I think a lot of people are probably unaware that it makes no difference who you vote for. 

Whatever happens will happen regardless of governing party. They like you to think otherwise because they are all in cahoots and thrive on division of the pleb audience. 

Did you actually read the article, instead of going off on an anti-Guardian anti-Labour rant?

 

What it said was:

 

"The government, however, appears to have other ideas. Having previously frozen funding for the Canal & River Trust (CRT) – the charity that in 2012 took over the management of 2,000 miles of state-owned canals – ministers now plan cuts of over £300m to its finances, beginning in 2027.  As the CRT is forced to seek alternative sources of cash, this shortsighted decision will stretch resources beyond breaking point."

"This is the kind of reimagining of waterways that Castle – a boat enthusiast who regularly travelled on the Rochdale canal – foresaw. Noting their potential for leisure use in the Transport Act of 1968, she established public bodies to promote “cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes” on the canals. Five decades on, the progress has been remarkable. The government has a responsibility to ensure that it is maintained, rather than undermined by funding cuts deeply at odds with the spirit and direction of the times.

 

Given that all this -- the freezing of the grant in recent years, and especially the reduction after 2027 -- is a matter of fact and happened under the existing (Tory) government, it's difficult to see how this can be Labour's fault -- but full marks for trying to divert the blame... 😉

Edited August 23, 2023 by IanD

[Victor Vectis]

Rather than arguing amongst ourselves, how about copying the article and sending on to those MPs who have responded to our collective concerns with what looks like a standard response?

 

(Like I did this morning)

[PCSB]

2 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

Rather than arguing amongst ourselves, how about copying the article and sending on to those MPs who have responded to our collective concerns with what looks like a standard response?

 

(Like I did this morning)

Thank you. I had been wondering how best to respond.

 

And now done.

Edited August 23, 2023 by PCSB
adnn info