Are you a member of IWA

[Morat]

That man is drinking water! He cannot be trusted!

[PhilR]

Allan , Im flattered - that would have possibly been the follow up and probably one for trustees and members to consider in the future - but It'd have to a a special result with BW and EA to enable it to happen - ie the new organsiation would have to be a radically different animal from what we have now and panacea for the waterways wouldnt it ? And it would have to support active restoration amongst many other things not in scope at the moment .... - I was more interested in have we ( IWA) relevance now? - and if not how to claim it back ( Ask a non member ) at a time when waterways really do need an active and unified voice - - I cant fail to wonder when there are IRO 60k registered craft on BW and EA waters - there are probably no more than 25k members of an inland waterway organisation ( NABO, RBOA IWA etc)- is everyone else really happy with their lot ?

 

 

It is a shame that you didn't come clean with your original post. Most people are probably too wary of cold call marketing phone calls.

There might even be a few members who were around during the Rolt/Aikman flame wars ...............

[luctor et emergo]

no.

 

 

Tell me, why should I be?

[Jo Gilbertson]

It is a shame that you didn't come clean with your original post. Most people are probably too wary of cold call marketing phone calls.

There might even be a few members who were around during the Rolt/Aikman flame wars ...............

 

clearly good advice - I probably ought not have transferred my facebook/twitter alter ego over either - different forums different rules ... / information access etc... Jo x

[Guest]

clearly good advice - I probably ought not have transferred my facebook/twitter alter ego over either - different forums different rules ... / information access etc... Jo x

 

You might want to drop the kisses at the end of your posts too....

[Jo Gilbertson]

Hello are you paid?

No I am not a member. I left in David Stevenson's time. I protested to IWA about the lack of moorings on the Oxford that enabled weekending. I was told just to phone BW and say who I was so that I could moor longer . This reply wasn't given by David I add swiftly but by another iwa officer. I feel Nabo has more to offer boaters.

Sue

 

Thank you Sue

 

You might want to drop the kisses at the end of your posts too....

 

No problem

[cotswoldsman]

I have just caught up with this thread and having read captainwaterway's posts I now know why I never joined IWA.

[Jo Gilbertson]

well okay, what do we do? radical activists to arms?

 

Blockading the waterways is a waste of time. The only ones who notice are the ones who already care...

 

hows about a coordinated campaign of blocking bridges over canals with our cars. Not every bridge in a town, just enough to be a nuisance. advertise in advance that we will do it, make it clear what the alternative route is, and then, park on the bridge. i wouldn't do it solo, but i'd do it if I knew 200 other bridges would be blocked that day at the same time...

 

thoughts?

 

- there is always a danger of a backlash where the public is concerned and a polarisation of opinion - ( see above threads for evidence of how easy it is to obtain the wrong result for your actions! ) Direct action works better if it is targeted against the people you are seeking to influence maybe blockading navigation authority car park spaces... - or a low loader with a 70 foot working boat processing slowly around Parliament Square with sundry slow cycling out riders would suit? - needs to be something you can make appear big - with few resources - even if every registered boater turned out it wouldn't be enough to fill Arsenals foot ball ground .

 

 

Also need to pick a time and a 'cause' to back it up ...

 

Some one else makes an interesting point elsewhere in the forum about his own direct action - trimming over hanging veg -Im not long versed in waterway lore but wasn't that more akin in a small way to the original direct action of the 60 and 70 s?- taking it out on the things that were'nt being done

and showing that it could ? albeit possibly for different political reasons -

Edited September 18, 2010 by captainwaterway

[Jo Gilbertson]

It seems its remit is too broad for it to be useful as a vehicle for promoting change/improvement from any factions point of view and certainly not boaters. It is understandable that it sees its role as toadying to BW and I presume that those who subscribe are happy in that. As someone who is a tad unhappy with some of BW's progress/initiatives/consultations/outcomes/whatever it is unlikely that I would ever join and support their platform/agenda.

 

Thanks for this , given your stated unhappiness with BW out of interest - are you a member of another/any organisation that you feel better represents your interests ? - or do you feel that organisations cant do this

 

I was a member for many years, organised various events and served as Branch Chairman for a while. I resigned when they appeared to become just another branch of BW and showed no interest in the needs of the majority of boaters.

 

Thanks - for you when did this transition to 'ineffectivenss' take place?- what do you want to see change ?

[NB Alnwick]

One of the many benefits of IWA membership is its branch structure. The activities of local branches in themselves make membership good value for money. We joined the Northampton Branch because that was the area where we expected to be when we bought Alnwick but through circumstances we have been unable to attend or participate in many of their events lately - nevertheless they manage to stage at least one event or historical talk every month.

Edited September 18, 2010 by NB Alnwick

[boatmanckp]

Yes. Joined in 1963 Section (now branch )committee member 1966, secretary 1971,chairman 1975/79 resigned from IWA in 1979 due to maladministration at head office level where the branch was publicly (within IWA) pilloried for a region mistake over which it had no control.No apology or retraction was forthcoming and as they say the buck stops here.Rejoined in 1988 and on the same day became branch secretary( is this a record?) and eighteen months later a second stint as chairman for another five years. Remained on the region committee untill the year 2000. Over the years involved in many campaigns,rallies,local broadcasts,etc to numerous to mention.Still have a boat and despite living overseas return each year for a canal holiday.I was not keen on IWAs stance on its statement that it did not represent boaters so joined the RYA.

CKP

[blodger]

Thanks for this , given your stated unhappiness with BW out of interest - are you a member of another/any organisation that you feel better represents your interests ? - or do you feel that organisations cant do this

I think that besides being a member of something one has to also be able to give some time to the 'cause' to get something out of it or, make it work. I am committed to a local charity that seems to take up my drive and time. However, since some involvement with the Wooden Canal Boat Society based at Portland Basin got us boating between us we have a membership and follow their progress in creating a Heritage Boatyard and keeping a handful of historic craft doing something useful.

I think a lot of organisations/national bodies get lost in having and maintaining a profile, to raise funds that are dissipated in fruitless ways to the detriment of other voluntary sector agencies that are actually delivering something. Nothing new in that.

[magpie patrick]

My point was that blockading waterways is pretty much a waste of time, no I'm not sure blockading roads is a good idea either BUT it might spark other, better ideas.

 

With regard to active membership, membership numbers add clout, My target for the SCCS is around 500 because 500 people who care about a long lost canal enough to sign up to it's cause makes governing bodies sit up and take notice. At present, of around 200, probably 20 are active either on the committee, at the work parties or getting the new stand ready, another 20 attend any event we hold which helps give a nice baseline that impresses non-members. If we get 500, I hope these numbers will go up.

 

So please don't think you have to volunteer if you join, and don't think that volunteers only do scrub bashing. We have a volunteer civil engineer, I am the volunteer town planner (which means that no-one gets away with anything along the line of the canal as I practically write BANES enforcement notices for them). I'd love a volunteer solicitor to help draft leases and, when the time comes, do land conveyance for us.

[rgreg]

Captainwaterway Jo, I think this could have been an excellent thread giving you the opportunity to promote the work of the IWA and at the same time get some good feedback. Unfortunately, up to now I feel it has achieved neither.

[sueb]

I can't see any reason to be coy:

 

 

Jo Gilbertson

 

Contact details on the IWA website

 

Richard

 

Photo from Peter Scott's AGM folder in Picasa

 

Rats. Richard posting as Sue again!!!

 

That has cleared something up. I thought you were female! Also you do hold a paid post as you didn't answer my question)

Have fun on the forum

 

Sue

[Jo Gilbertson]

Captainwaterway Jo, I think this could have been an excellent thread giving you the opportunity to promote the work of the IWA and at the same time get some good feedback. Unfortunately, up to now I feel it has achieved neither.

 

Thanks , I think you're right and I would on reflection approach this thread differently - but the feedback has been honest and helpful.

 

Re promoting the IWA - this is a good point and one thats not been addressed here -I didn't want to prosletyse for the IWA - just elicit feedback - but perhaps if I was to say why I joined IWA it might be appropriate now ?

 

I joined for purely selfish reasons - i was getting into boating seriously and wanted to protect my interests I looked at the organisations around and Chose IWA purley because it is large( ish), national, charity , these I believe count for something when dealing with people and government and the navigation authorities. I alone cant be heard I believe in strength in number. (I personally trust charities more than organisations or clubs ...)

 

Secondly it campaigns, and therefore I support it because I believe it supports what I value - the inland waterways.

 

What does it campaign for? - well increasingly were more effective at national level, it has a presence in Parliament and is developing political links and MPs who will help defend and lobby for Inland waterways, it has a region and branch structure that supports local activities, watches over the local scene and engages with the local waterway organisations and navigation authority groups and officers on local issues. It actively supports restoration , it supports WRG and their Work camps - and equipment. I have a colleague who works full time supporting this and working with waterway organisations to make it happen . Last year WRG and IWA members gave 5000 days time on set piece restorations organised by us for trusts and societies - and many more on an ad hoc basis. We also give grants to trusts to get started or do planning studies etc, the sort of thing its difficult to get people motivated about - but which provide the seed corn for growing a project and giving it wings to take off. We also have people who give time to sorting out engineering problems for societies and trusts. I also don't believe is Sucks up to BW - but thats a personal view based on angry calls from certain directors of the said organisation - we act as a platform to raise money and have been party to rebuilding Woolsthorpe Lock on the Grantham and are actively raising money for the Inglesham Lock on the Cotswold scheme. We took over the management and day to day running of the Chelmer and Blackwater , and stopped it from falling into disuse through no one else wanting to take it on - and so I suppose we really do practice what we preach - and mange to run it profitably and for the benefit of the public good- without a drain on IWA funds through careful fostering of relations with local organisations and volunteers. We think this is a good model for future trusts to learn from . We run and assists others in festivals and events around the country to foster good impressions of the value of the waterways and their value to local communities so that we maintain their support for them. And you are always welcome for a cuppa at our branch meetings and talks around the country ( make that head office too- but I haven't passed that one with the boss).

 

That has cleared something up. I thought you were female! Also you do hold a paid post as you didn't answer my question)

Have fun on the forum

 

Sue

 

Sorry Sue , having trouble keeping up -yes Im an employee as well as a member , and a boater

 

Jo - I am not a member.

 

I sometimes think that I ought to be, until I reach for the application form and notice the high cost of membership!

 

I am a member of a number of other canal-related organisations and the most expensive of these has a subscription of £15 a year. £27 a year seems very dear and I would be interested to hear why it is so much. Okay - you've got paid staff but then you have a huge membership to help pay for them.

 

I think part is historical - we're a membership organisation more or less from day one and through time have arrived where we are - your point is a good one though - if I offered you free membership would you join because it was free - or because you wanted to ?

[alan_fincher]

Captainwaterway Jo, I think this could have been an excellent thread giving you the opportunity to promote the work of the IWA and at the same time get some good feedback. Unfortunately, up to now I feel it has achieved neither.

I'm afraid I can only agree, but admit I have gone beyond the point where I can be bothered to read every post.

 

I have however seen nothing that would make me choose to now give money to the IWA, rather than something like a genuine restoration group.

[rgreg]

I do believe we need an influencial body to represent the waterways at government level (particularly as we venture down the charitable sector route) and feel the IWA is best positioned for this. For that reason I will remain a member.

[MartinClark]

I am a member of a number of other canal-related organisations and the most expensive of these has a subscription of £15 a year. £27 a year seems very dear and I would be interested to hear why it is so much. Okay - you've got paid staff but then you have a huge membership to help pay for them.

I think part is historical - we're a membership organisation more or less from day one and through time have arrived where we are - your point is a good one though

 

Thanks for responding - I can see you are having trouble keeping up with all the comments!

 

- if I offered you free membership would you join because it was free - or because you wanted to ?

 

In such a situation I would join for a combination of both reasons! I do want to join but, at the moment, not enough to fork out £27. I would want to join because I support (most of) what IWA does but, being heavily involved with a number of other organisations, I would not be able to do much more than be an armchair member.

 

I took early retirement but will not reach statutory retirement age for a few more years yet. Thus I am in receipt of a reduced work pension but do not qualify for your Senior Citizen rate (or even a bus pass!). In my case price of membership is an issue. I am not able to speak for others.

 

As you say it is historic. The present rate will be a result of small increases over the years and the organisation has got used to a certain level of income. If the IWA Council was suddenly to decide to reduce membership fees to, say, £20 a year (the same as the Angling Trust), that would certainly cause you big difficulties but I'm sure that you would find a way to cope!

[NB Alnwick]

Thanks for responding - I can see you are having trouble keeping up with all the comments!

 

 

 

In such a situation I would join for a combination of both reasons! I do want to join but, at the moment, not enough to fork out £27. I would want to join because I support (most of) what IWA does but, being heavily involved with a number of other organisations, I would not be able to do much more than be an armchair member.

 

I took early retirement but will not reach statutory retirement age for a few more years yet. Thus I am in receipt of a reduced work pension but do not qualify for your Senior Citizen rate (or even a bus pass!). In my case price of membership is an issue. I am not able to speak for others.

 

As you say it is historic. The present rate will be a result of small increases over the years and the organisation has got used to a certain level of income. If the IWA Council was suddenly to decide to reduce membership fees to, say, £20 a year (the same as the Angling Trust), that would certainly cause you big difficulties but I'm sure that you would find a way to cope!

 

I don't think the cost of membership is such a serious issue provided it is sensibly calculated to cover the cost of servicing the membership and very little more. There will always be those who cannot find sufficient funds in their personal budget to afford to join and, equally, there will be many more to whom a £30 or £50 subscription is no more than loose change. After all there are waiting lists at many Golf Clubs and Leisure Clubs where the subscription can be a hundred times what the IWA are asking for.

 

The canal community is quite diverse but it does seem to include a large number of we retired folk but even then fortunes vary - some retired folk manage to survive on nothing more than the state pension whereas others have a generous private income - so the same applies. There are also many boaters of working age who, through circumstances that may be beyond their control, need to rely on the benefits system and this leave very little spare cash for membership subscriptions of any kind.

 

For those who would like to be part of the IWA but struggle to find the cost of the subscription, would it not be a good idea to have a special category of membership? Maybe they could become 'associates' and enjoy all the benefits of full membership except those services where significant administrative cost is involved? That way their support could still be welcomed without being a drain on the organisation's resources.

[Jo Gilbertson]

I don't think the cost of membership is such a serious issue provided it is sensibly calculated to cover the cost of servicing the membership and very little more. There will always be those who cannot find sufficient funds in their personal budget to afford to join and, equally, there will be many more to whom a £30 or £50 subscription is no more than loose change. After all there are waiting lists at many Golf Clubs and Leisure Clubs where the subscription can be a hundred times what the IWA are asking for.

 

The canal community is quite diverse but it does seem to include a large number of we retired folk but even then fortunes vary - some retired folk manage to survive on nothing more than the state pension whereas others have a generous private income - so the same applies. There are also many boaters of working age who, through circumstances that may be beyond their control, need to rely on the benefits system and this leave very little spare cash for membership subscriptions of any kind.

 

For those who would like to be part of the IWA but struggle to find the cost of the subscription, would it not be a good idea to have a special category of membership? Maybe they could become 'associates' and enjoy all the benefits of full membership except those services where significant administrative cost is involved? That way their support could still be welcomed without being a drain on the organisation's resources.

 

That sounds a really interesting approach - would it be seen as inferring a second class membership?- appreciate any views though - I would not want people to feel unable to join because of cost.

[Guest]

That sounds a really interesting approach - would it be seen as inferring a second class membership?- appreciate any views though - I would not want people to feel unable to join because of cost.

 

A great many organisations operate a concessionary payment system for those in receipt of benefits and the state pension - if our local theatre club can do it I'm sure the IWA could....

 

 

.

edit to re-insert vanishing smiley

Edited September 18, 2010 by MJG

[Idunhoe]

That sounds a really interesting approach - would it be seen as inferring a second class membership?- appreciate any views though - I would not want people to feel unable to join because of cost.

I don't see why it should be classed as 'second class membership' The RNLI have Shoreline Membership for those individuals who wish to support the organisation without being sea going sailors in their own right.

[tony collins]

I know this is off topic, but I have to respond to this-

As a member of an AWCC-affiliated club I always thought this arrangement would be useful to me until I tried to make use of it only to be told, 3 times in a row at 3 different clubs, that the arrangement "only applied to boats of 45ft or less"

 

As an ex-AWCC committee member I have to say that the above is news to me! It was always the case that the size of boat only had any influence where room was an issue. It could always be the case that the three clubs you tried hed very little room for visitors. The reciprocal mooring arrangement was never a right, merely a courtesy offered where space existed. This was the only criteria which came into play when considering a mooring request from an AWCC visitor at the club where I am a member. The harbourmaster made the decision on the resources available at the time. We often had 60ft+ boats in our basin on just such an arrangement.

[Tony Brooks]

If yes, can you explain why you are , and what you hope they can do for the waterways?

 

If no, are you able to say why not and if relevant - what changes IWA could make that might make you join?

 

 

Having read most of the answers I find I am in agreement with many.

 

I am a member but each year I question if continuing membership is in my best interest.

 

I joined when I bought the boat because I though the IWA had the best chance of protecting the waterways and it would be wrong to enjoy the fruits of their labours without paying towards it.

 

Now I question their commitment to ensuring the waterways can be enjoyed by all. There is considerable evidence that the increase in towpath cycling is creating dangers for all yet the IWA seem to want to promote even more cycling (see Waterways last but one edition). In my view they should be fighting this development and persuading BW to withdraw the "Two tings and get out of my way code". They should also be campaigning to get Joint Use towpaths built to acceptable standards.

 

I also question their commitment to boaters. They seem very happy to say how many hundred boats attend things like the National but seem incapable of catering adequately for those boaters. If you want boats and boaters then cater for them. I feel my own efforts in this respect resulted in boaters being ripped off and when I tried to rectify this I felt the result left much to be desired. If you want the general public be honest about it. The IWA's apparent action/inaction in respect of the SOS campaign is another example.

 

The waterways need a national large membership organisation but not a toothless tiger. Such an organisation should have the members and resources to mount legal challenges but it seems the IWA prefers to cosy up to BW. Example - new no mooring areas to placate the owners of new (or older) canal side properties.

 

I find the not so local branches are of little use apart from (possibly) reporting upwards on local issues. Perhaps that would be one way of reducing membership costs. Why I should have any interest in a cruise to Bucklers Hard, Portsea Creek or the the Sussex Ouse remains a mystery to me.

 

There are hundreds of volunteers beavering away for the IWA and we should not dismiss or ignore their work but I do wonder if the higher echelons use the IWA as an ego trip.

 

Each year I question renewal and consider joining NABO so I suspect I will act one year.