Really CRT? Not another consultation.

[Llamedos]

Just opened my emails and there’s one from Campbell Robb. The opening paragraph…

 

“Later this year, we’ll be launching a major public consultation about the future of boating on the waterways.”

 

Perhaps I’m missing something here but exactly how many ‘consultations’ does CRT need to undertake before it actually does something positive. Is it really so disengaged from us that it needs to continuously consult before it feels confident enough to move forward? 

[Lady M]

This sounds a bit worrying.  I hope it isn't suggesting that there is no future for boating on waterways.

[IanD]

50 minutes ago, Llamedos said:

Just opened my emails and there’s one from Campbell Robb. The opening paragraph…

 

“Later this year, we’ll be launching a major public consultation about the future of boating on the waterways.”

 

Perhaps I’m missing something here but exactly how many ‘consultations’ does CRT need to undertake before it actually does something positive. Is it really so disengaged from us that it needs to continuously consult before it feels confident enough to move forward? 

Yes, because if they did anything without asking boaters they'll be bombarded with abuse about not listening to boaters and doing only what CRT want instead... 😉

[Tonka]

50 minutes ago, Llamedos said:

Just opened my emails and there’s one from Campbell Robb. The opening paragraph…

 

“Later this year, we’ll be launching a major public consultation about the future of boating on the waterways.”

 

Perhaps I’m missing something here but exactly how many ‘consultations’ does CRT need to undertake before it actually does something positive. Is it really so disengaged from us that it needs to continuously consult before it feels confident enough to move forward? 

Keep going until they get the answers they want

[Arthur Marshall]

46 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Keep going until they get the answers they want

As they're the only people who see the answers, that's not hard.

Anyway, first rule of any new boss who knows nothing about the business and who has no idea what to do, is to find some new numbers to count. Doesn't matter what.

Edited July 23 by Arthur Marshall

[Llamedos]

1 hour ago, Lady M said:

This sounds a bit worrying.  I hope it isn't suggesting that there is no future for boating on waterways.

No, there's a whole load more in the letter about the scope of the consultation, but it does seem to be covering a lot of the same old ground. I'm probably a cynic, but I do tend to view consultations as a good way of kicking the can down the road and not actually grasping the nettle.

 

I think everyone should get the email within the next day or so - you'll be able to judge for yourself. It appears to have gone to the mailing list of people who have boats ie pay for their licences.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Llamedos said:

No, there's a whole load more in the letter about the scope of the consultation, but it does seem to be covering a lot of the same old ground. I'm probably a cynic, but I do tend to view consultations as a good way of kicking the can down the road and not actually grasping the nettle.

 

I think everyone should get the email within the next day or so - you'll be able to judge for yourself. It appears to have gone to the mailing list of people who have boats ie pay for their licences.

The problem is -- which nettle do you want CART to grasp?

 

I'm sure they know as well as boaters do what the problems with the canals are, and there are only a limited number of ways of fixing them -- one of which (as proposed by some posters on CWDF) would be a really big increase in license fees generally (e.g. +100%) to fill in the hole in their finances, another of which could be closing some canals to save money (if it does given the costs), or massively increased/draconian enforcement against license evaders/serial overstayers. Grasping any of these nettles would be very unpopular with large numbers of boaters... 😞 

 

So if "grasping the nettle" means the survey asking boaters to face up to these unpleasant realities and forcing them to say which they think is the least bad way to fix these difficult problems, I'm all in favour of it -- then at least it might give CART a mandate to actually do something, even though some boaters will still undoubtedly object to whatever they do.

 

If it's just another wishy-washy "tell us what you think" then I agree it's pointless, because we already know what most boaters think -- "I want the canals to be fixed but I want someone else to pay for this, not me"... 😞 

Edited July 23 by IanD

[Peanut]

I notice that there is a section of boaters who are very intent on stirring things up in ways which challenge the views of many, such as to portray their own position to be the normal, which should prevail. Their view is being established in the public domain.

 

They are an organised, vocal group, and have help from a friend in parliament. It is essential that recipients answer the questionnaire thoughtfully, to give CART a fair indication of the opinion held by the majority of boaters, so that CART is able to answer any challenge that comes their way.

[Tonka]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

The problem is -- which nettle do you want CART to grasp?

 

I'm sure they know as well as boaters do what the problems with the canals are, and there are only a limited number of ways of fixing them -- one of which (as proposed by some posters on CWDF) would be a really big increase in license fees generally (e.g. +100%) to fill in the hole in their finances, another of which could be closing some canals to save money (if it does given the costs), or massively increased/draconian enforcement against license evaders/serial overstayers. Grasping any of these nettles would be very unpopular with large numbers of boaters... 😞 

 

So if "grasping the nettle" means the survey asking boaters to face up to these unpleasant realities and forcing them to say which they think is the least bad way to fix these difficult problems, I'm all in favour of it -- then at least it might give CART a mandate to actually do something, even though some boaters will still undoubtedly object to whatever they do.

 

If it's just another wishy-washy "tell us what you think" then I agree it's pointless, because we already know what most boaters think -- "I want the canals to be fixed but I want someone else to pay for this, not me"... 😞 

Giving CRT more money is not going to fix the canals

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Llamedos said:

 

 

“Later this year, we’ll be launching a major public consultation about the future of boating on the waterways.”

 

Is that going to be a consultation with the public in general or just a consultation with people who have a valid C&RT license at the time of the consultation?

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Giving CRT more money is not going to fix the canals

What is then? Come on, if you know better tell us what your master plan is... 😉 

 

(preferably without using words like "lengthsmen" or "executive pay" or "blue signs" or...)

 

19 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I notice that there is a section of boaters who are very intent on stirring things up in ways which challenge the views of many, such as to portray their own position to be the normal, which should prevail. Their view is being established in the public domain.

 

They are an organised, vocal group, and have help from a friend in parliament. It is essential that recipients answer the questionnaire thoughtfully, to give CART a fair indication of the opinion held by the majority of boaters, so that CART is able to answer any challenge that comes their way.

You mean the NBTA and their CM supporters?

 

I think we can name names here, especially given that their "friend in Parliament" admitted the connection... 😉 

Edited July 23 by IanD

[Tonka]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

What is then? Come on, if you know better tell us what your master plan is... 😉 

 

(preferably without using words like "lengthsmen" or "executive pay" or "blue signs" or...)

 

You mean the NBTA and their CM supporters?

 

I think we can name names here, especially given that their "friend in Parliament" admitted the connection... 😉 

No master plan. You seem to think that giving CRT more money will fix the canals 

But you assume that CRT will spend that money on fixing the canals. They may not.

Surely more staff whether CRT or sub contractor are needed.  Are they available? Is the machinery available if needed.

You haven't realised any of this just give them money is your answer every time.

[IanD]

36 minutes ago, Tonka said:

No master plan. You seem to think that giving CRT more money will fix the canals 

But you assume that CRT will spend that money on fixing the canals. They may not.

Surely more staff whether CRT or sub contractor are needed.  Are they available? Is the machinery available if needed.

You haven't realised any of this just give them money is your answer every time.

 

Of course if there's the need to spend more money to do more maintenance then more staff are needed, either CRT or (much more likely) subcontractors -- that's blindingly obvious. And whoever does the work will have to invest in more equipment and pay for more materials which needs more money, also blindingly obvious. Also CRT will have to expand workshop capacity for making new lock gates since they're the only people who can do this, that's going need more money (equipment and staff), also blindingly obvious. Mind you, there's none so blind as those who won't see... 😉 

 

But to do any of this, CART need more money to pay for it all, because running and maintaining the canals is their responsibility. Who else do you think is going to pay?

 

Or are you in the tin-hat territory of suggesting that if CART are given more money they'll spend it all on Rolls-Royces and drugs and hookers and blue signs and multimillion-pound executive salaries and towpaths suitable for e-bike/e-scooter racing? 😉 

Edited July 23 by IanD

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Llamedos said:

Just opened my emails and there’s one from Campbell Robb. The opening paragraph…

 

“Later this year, we’ll be launching a major public consultation about the future of boating on the waterways.”

 

Perhaps I’m missing something here but exactly how many ‘consultations’ does CRT need to undertake before it actually does something positive. Is it really so disengaged from us that it needs to continuously consult before it feels confident enough to move forward? 

 

Wasn't the last consultation a "boater consultation"? This one is described as a "public consultation" which to me, suggests asking the person whose gender we must not assume on the apocryphal Clapham Omnibus what they want done with the canals. Not just canal users and visitors like the last one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Wasn't the last consultation a "boater consultation"? This one is described as a "public consultation" which to me, suggests asking the person whose gender we must not assume on the apocryphal Clapham Omnibus what they want done with the canals. Not just canal users and visitors like the last one. 

1 hour ago, Llamedos said:

No, there's a whole load more in the letter about the scope of the consultation, but it does seem to be covering a lot of the same old ground. I'm probably a cynic, but I do tend to view consultations as a good way of kicking the can down the road and not actually grasping the nettle.

 

I think everyone should get the email within the next day or so - you'll be able to judge for yourself. It appears to have gone to the mailing list of people who have boats ie pay for their licences.

 

 

[Peanut]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

What is then? Come on, if you know better tell us what your master plan is... 😉 

 

(preferably without using words like "lengthsmen" or "executive pay" or "blue signs" or...)

 

You mean the NBTA and their CM supporters?

 

I think we can name names here, especially given that their "friend in Parliament" admitted the connection... 😉 

👍

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

I notice that there is a section of boaters who are very intent on stirring things up in ways which challenge the views of many, such as to portray their own position to be the normal, which should prevail. Their view is being established in the public domain.

 

They are an organised, vocal group, and have help from a friend in parliament. It is essential that recipients answer the questionnaire thoughtfully, to give CART a fair indication of the opinion held by the majority of boaters, so that CART is able to answer any challenge that comes their way.

There is usually a box for comments,  that could be used to flag up "activists",  though there must be a more appropriate word !

[Tonka]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Of course if there's the need to spend more money to do more maintenance then more staff are needed, either CRT or (much more likely) subcontractors -- that's blindingly obvious. And whoever does the work will have to invest in more equipment and pay for more materials which needs more money, also blindingly obvious. Also CRT will have to expand workshop capacity for making new lock gates since they're the only people who can do this, that's going need more money (equipment and staff), also blindingly obvious. Mind you, there's none so blind as those who won't see... 😉 

 

But to do any of this, CART need more money to pay for it all, because running and maintaining the canals is their responsibility. Who else do you think is going to pay?

 

Or are you in the tin-hat territory of suggesting that if CART are given more money they'll spend it all on Rolls-Royces and drugs and hookers and blue signs and multimillion-pound executive salaries and towpaths suitable for e-bike/e-scooter racing? 😉 

So obvious that you have never mentioned it!

Does every pound going to the NHS go towards patient care?   NO

Does every pound going to charities go towards care? NO

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So obvious that you have never mentioned it!

Does every pound going to the NHS go towards patient care?   NO

Does every pound going to charities go towards care? NO

Oh stop being an idiot... 😞

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Tonka said:

No master plan. You seem to think that giving CRT more money will fix the canals 

But you assume that CRT will spend that money on fixing the canals. They may not.

Surely more staff whether CRT or sub contractor are needed.  Are they available? Is the machinery available if needed.

You haven't realised any of this just give them money is your answer every time.

Hmmm. But if CRT don't get any extra money, how will they pay for the extra staff, subcontractors and machinery which you seem to acknowledge they need?

[Arthur Marshall]

32 minutes ago, IanD said:

Oh stop being an idiot... 😞

You can solve anything with enough money. Trouble being there isn't enough money to solve everything, and a few people pootling about on boats aren't really very important to the general public. And the longer you leave it to start solving it, the more it costs and the less money there is.

 

And, I'm afraid, the salaries, pension schemes and bonuses for the people at the top, especially in the charity sector, increase in inverse proportion to the amount spent running the business. This is because their salaries, unlike everyone else's, are set by comparison with other people in the same line of work, but in order to hire a new top bod, you have to pay them more than everyone else. So then everyone else in the same line of work has to have the same payrise, and when they move on (because the charity sector feeds off itself) up it all goes again, while the amount available for everything diminishes.

 

But anyway, it's much easier to spend a few million quid on a public consultation than doing anything practical, and it looks to your paymasters that you're doing something, even though you know there's nothing to be done except manage the decline, and, really, how much difference would that million or so make? By the time the difference it might have made shows up you'll be running Oxfam, London Zoo, the NT or something anyway.

[Llamedos]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You can solve anything with enough money. Trouble being there isn't enough money to solve everything, and a few people pootling about on boats aren't really very important to the general public. And the longer you leave it to start solving it, the more it costs and the less money there is.

 

And, I'm afraid, the salaries, pension schemes and bonuses for the people at the top, especially in the charity sector, increase in inverse proportion to the amount spent running the business. This is because their salaries, unlike everyone else's, are set by comparison with other people in the same line of work, but in order to hire a new top bod, you have to pay them more than everyone else. So then everyone else in the same line of work has to have the same payrise, and when they move on (because the charity sector feeds off itself) up it all goes again, while the amount available for everything diminishes.

 

But anyway, it's much easier to spend a few million quid on a public consultation than doing anything practical, and it looks to your paymasters that you're doing something, even though you know there's nothing to be done except manage the decline, and, really, how much difference would that million or so make? By the time the difference it might have made shows up you'll be running Oxfam, London Zoo, the NT or something anyway.

Spot on.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You can solve anything with enough money.

 

I disagree.

 

What makes a woman happy?

 

Go on, quote me how much money solves that one!! 

 

    

 

 

 

Oh, hang on a sec.....

 

 

 

[IanD]

13 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You can solve anything with enough money. Trouble being there isn't enough money to solve everything, and a few people pootling about on boats aren't really very important to the general public. And the longer you leave it to start solving it, the more it costs and the less money there is.

 

And, I'm afraid, the salaries, pension schemes and bonuses for the people at the top, especially in the charity sector, increase in inverse proportion to the amount spent running the business. This is because their salaries, unlike everyone else's, are set by comparison with other people in the same line of work, but in order to hire a new top bod, you have to pay them more than everyone else. So then everyone else in the same line of work has to have the same payrise, and when they move on (because the charity sector feeds off itself) up it all goes again, while the amount available for everything diminishes.

 

But anyway, it's much easier to spend a few million quid on a public consultation than doing anything practical, and it looks to your paymasters that you're doing something, even though you know there's nothing to be done except manage the decline, and, really, how much difference would that million or so make? By the time the difference it might have made shows up you'll be running Oxfam, London Zoo, the NT or something anyway.

 

While I agree completely that the entire capitalist system is broken as far as inequality and ridiculous salaries for CEOs is concerned, it does seem unlikely that protests about this on CWDF will do much to fix the problem... 😉 

 

And the same for charities -- though some might argue there are too many overpaid fat-cats at the top of them, the actual numbers show they're less well-paid than in the private sector, and CART is not out of line with other similar-sized charities (and the total spend on fat-cats is maybe 1% of their budget?). A massive reduction in pay (e.g. 50%) for CART "fat-cats" to make you feel good would probably mean they'd find it impossible to get anyone to fill the posts -- even if you're charity-minded, why would you work for CART when you can get double the pay working for another charity and still feel good?

 

As to your last point -- what do you want CART to do? When they didn't have such consultations lots of boaters (including on CWDF, and including you IIRC...) perpetually slagged them off for ignoring what boaters (who obviously know better than CART!) wanted and not listening to them, or have you forgotten that? So now they do what boaters asked for and try and consult them and find out what their opinions are and what they want, and get slagged off for doing that?

 

Come on, which do you want -- the situation you complained about before, or the one you're complaining about now?

 

Hang on, I think I've spotted the common denominator -- complaining about CART no matter what they do... 😉 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

So now they do what boaters asked for and try and consult them and find out what their opinions are and what they want, and get slagged off for doing that?

 

 

I think the point is they asked once, so why are they asking again?