New Waterways Charity

[Peter Underwood]

New Waterways Charity a dangerous Con Trick

http://norburywharfltd.blogspot.com/

[Tiny]

As Machiavelli put it we always prefer the known as we recon we know its shortcomings but fear the new in case what might seem OK and even to our advantage to start with turns into something much worse than what we had.

 

In BWs case we do know the shortcomings in BW and would love to get them corrected but will the new kid on the block manage it - or just be an on the cheap poor copy (if that is possible) of BW with the same old clowns really calling the shots.

 

Unfortunately it looks more and more (to his person) that it is and that we won't be able to stop it. Certainly our MP (currently riding a pnoy in Mongolia for charity) TELLs us what to do and think rather than listen to his voters (having had enough years in parliament to loose his local bias in his efforts to get on in government and therefore toe the party line.

 

The bottom line of this is summed up in the Herrick poem to the virgins... 'Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, Old time is still a-flying, And this same flower that smiles to-day, To-morrow will be dieing.

[pete.i]

Hi

 

Well if he is right, and I feel he could well be right, we could be seeing the end of the British Waterway System within ten years. Also those of us with boats at that time will only be able to sell them as scrap. That scenario does not take into account the thousands of people who live aboard. In my opinion us (the people who own boats) will have to campaign like they did in the old days although I have to agree with his views on the IWA and I can't see any other campaigning bodies on the near horizon.

 

I do hope he is wrong.

 

Cheers

Pete

[carlt]

i do wish we could give the new body a chance, before condemning it.

 

If boaters are busy grumbling about change and how it's all a con, whilst other interested parties are enthusiastically getting involved, we may find that we've whinged away any influence we may have had.

 

I suppose it's easy for the moaners though...A self fulfilling prophecy will just give them something else to moan about.

[cotswoldsman]

i do wish we could give the new body a chance, before condemning it.

 

If boaters are busy grumbling about change and how it's all a con, whilst other interested parties are enthusiastically getting involved, we may find that we've whinged away any influence we may have had.

 

I suppose it's easy for the moaners though...A self fulfilling prophecy will just give them something else to moan about.

 

have a greenie

[Robin2]

i do wish we could give the new body a chance, before condemning it.

 

If boaters are busy grumbling about change and how it's all a con, whilst other interested parties are enthusiastically getting involved, we may find that we've whinged away any influence we may have had.

 

I suppose it's easy for the moaners though...A self fulfilling prophecy will just give them something else to moan about.

 

I don't think there is a contradiction in agreeing with Carl and with Peter Underwood.

 

I had assumed that the legislation was already through Parliament. If not then there is at least a possibility of lobbying to stop it.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Robin2

[Minos]

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Carl. I've even given him a greenie.

 

Time for a drink, I think.

[Peter Underwood]

The alternative to pointing out that the emperor has no clothes (or money and accountability in the case of NWC) is to accept that we are getting screwed and decide to accept the slow abandonment of our waterways. If you do raise your voice you may find you are not alone.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The alternative to pointing out that the emperor has no clothes (or money and accountability in the case of NWC) is to accept that we are getting screwed and decide to accept the slow abandonment of our waterways. If you do raise your voice you may find you are not alone.

 

The Emperors New Clothes

[cotswoldsman]

The alternative to pointing out that the emperor has no clothes (or money and accountability in the case of NWC) is to accept that we are getting screwed and decide to accept the slow abandonment of our waterways. If you do raise your voice you may find you are not alone.

 

here we go again we are all doooooooooomed!! Everyone seems to be queuing up to tell me why NWC will not work and that we should all abandon ship and find something else to do. What I never see is an alternative solution, all I see is people like yourself talking everything down. What is your alternative? Forget increased government funding that has finished and was always doomed especially with present cuts. Telling people that you are going to cut funding to NHS, Police, Universities etc in order to fund the waterways is never going to happen.

Who do think should run the waterways? A business that is as large as a Footsie 250 company. Do you think a bunch of well meaning amateurs can run the waterways?

Articles like yours on NWC and for that matter the ones you did on Living Afloat shows that you are completely clueless, fine at putting pen to paper but underneath that no substance.

Edited August 12, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Robin2]

here we go again we are all doooooooooomed!!

 

I think we need to split the issue of the NWC in two parts.

 

I agree with your criticism of the doom and gloom merchants who never have a good word to say about BW or about what will replace it and haven't a single constructive suggestion to make.

 

At the same time, under the present legal framework the responsibility for the state of the canals ultimately rests with Government and politicians can be called to account if the system degenerates to an appalling extent. In effect, it doesn't matter how bad BW might be, the State is the backstop. After all that's how the restoration of the canals happened.

 

Under the new regime the Government will be able to wash its hands completely even if three-quarters of the system becomes unusable.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Under the new regime the Government will be able to wash its hands completely even if three-quarters of the system becomes unusable.

 

Surely that is what the government wants, there are no votes in funding the waterways. I am prepared to give NWC a chance and I do believe they will manage, it will not be easy and we all need to support it not just sit back and say "it will never work!"

[Robin2]

Surely that is what the government wants, there are no votes in funding the waterways. I am prepared to give NWC a chance and I do believe they will manage, it will not be easy and we all need to support it not just sit back and say "it will never work!"

 

Well we could put the same energy into getting the existing BW to work without running the risk associated with the charity.

[jenlyn]

I think Carl and Cotswoldwoman are right on this issue. Although I firmly believe the NWC will be giving itself problems from the offset, if it intends to keep the present BW management. An awful lot of people on this site, sound off, but in reality, never do much other than that. Even tho we are boaters, and like myself, use the system to live on, its not ours. We do not have sole rights to decide its future. We have to be seen doing something constructive, or Joe public will not have any interest whatsoever. I think we need to either sort some of the present boating associations out, or start a new one, to represent what will be a new future. Make no mistake, the government are going to dump the waterways, its a done deal. Its now down to waterways users to decide what's next, preferably without the silly bickering.

[Peter Underwood]

I would suggest the NWC is far from a done deal. To begin with the Charity Commisioners have a legal duty to ensure a charity is financially viable before it is registered and the NWC will clearly not meet that criteria. That would take more tax cash, as MPs have recognised.

In truth, if the funding were committed, if the responsibility for keeping the system open remained with accountable ministers, if the charity was properly elected not appointed, if the failed board-level management were swept away then I would not object so strenuously. However, I do fundamentaly believe the preservation and functioning of such an important national asset IS a function of government.

It is always easy to dismiss inconvenient arguments by making sweeping assertions such as 'there is no alternative'. I am not so downbeat and think the least I owe the waterways is to fight for what I see to be the best option for the future.

I don't buy the cuts argument - that is pure political dogma, like the 'big society', I want to be part of a society where we all care for the things we value through a fair tax system properly applied to all, even Philip Green.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Peter Underwood

[deletedaccount]

The charity commission will do as it's told. i.e. approve the nwc.

[c c]

British Waterways Board was formed for a reason when there was still some future in using canals for trade/transport.

Now we need a body who can run what the Waterways are today - a large National water-park used by many of the population for leaisure and tourism, including boaters.

It could be divided into sections run by local volunteer branches of a National Charity. Most of the restorations have been achieved with local charity volunteer management and expert volunteers (a la Wey&Arun etc) - so why not maintain the various sections in the same way? It is far far cheaper and far more satisfying, particularly for the ever expanding retired sector.

I suspect that if the reported gloom does become real then the above will happen naturally. Perhaps the IWA has had its day also and should be replaced by a more aggresive watchdog of volunteers.

[Peter Underwood]

Mostly because those people with the necessary skills, willing to devote the necessary time don't exist, especially in March on the BCN or in Burnley. You would just get another example of the I'm allright Jack society with canals cared for only in prosperous middle clads areas.

[cotswoldsman]

I would suggest the NWC is far from a done deal. To begin with the Charity Commisioners have a legal duty to ensure a charity is financially viable before it is registered and the NWC will clearly not meet that criteria. That would take more tax cash, as MPs have recognised.

In truth, if the funding were committed, if the responsibility for keeping the system open remained with accountable ministers, if the charity was properly elected not appointed, if the failed board-level management were swept away then I would not object so strenuously. However, I do fundamentaly believe the preservation and functioning of such an important national asset IS a function of government.

It is always easy to dismiss inconvenient arguments by making sweeping assertions such as 'there is no alternative'. I am not so downbeat and think the least I owe the waterways is to fight for what I see to be the best option for the future.

I don't buy the cuts argument - that is pure political dogma, like the 'big society', I want to be part of a society where we all care for the things we value through a fair tax system properly applied to all, even Philip Green.

 

So your alternative is to say it might not happen (Dream on) or it should remain a function of government (dream on)

I am not sure what you mean by a fair tax system, is that your alternative solution to NWC as I said before you spout away about failure of NWC but you have no substance to an alternative.

An accountable minister???? The government do not want the responsibility for the Waterways so hardly lightly to appoint a minister with responsibility.

I ask you again

[c c]

Mostly because those people with the necessary skills, willing to devote the necessary time don't exist, especially in March on the BCN or in Burnley. You would just get another example of the I'm allright Jack society with canals cared for only in prosperous middle clads areas.

Those people are all over the country working on restoration right now and all year round.

[Peter Underwood]

Don't know what dream world you live in, I have great respect for the WRG but their activities are nothing to do with maintaining the system. You certainly capitulate to political propaganda very quickly, or perhaps because you believe in the same approach. I prefer to continue to campaign for what is really needed to ensure we still have a working system in 20 years.

I and all the others who see the dangers, including MPs, may well lose but at least we will have tried.

[carlt]

Don't know what dream world you live in, I have great respect for the WRG but their activities are nothing to do with maintaining the system. You certainly capitulate to political propaganda very quickly, or perhaps because you believe in the same approach. I prefer to continue to campaign for what is really needed to ensure we still have a working system in 20 years.

I and all the others who see the dangers, including MPs, may well lose but at least we will have tried.

How arrogant. Once again the naysayers think they are the only ones capable of saving the canals.

 

There will be, no doubt, experts in the field of civil engineering who will be willing to volunteer their time and skills into helping maintain the system, not just WRG diggers.

 

Your negative reporting, mixed with accusations of corruption, can't be doing your campaigning credentials any good.

 

Perhaps if you were a bit more positive, and kept your conspiracy theories to yourself, you might have more influence on the outcome, and gain more respect here.

[churchward]

i do wish we could give the new body a chance, before condemning it.

 

If boaters are busy grumbling about change and how it's all a con, whilst other interested parties are enthusiastically getting involved, we may find that we've whinged away any influence we may have had.

 

I suppose it's easy for the moaners though...A self fulfilling prophecy will just give them something else to moan about.

I totally agree. It's not like BW come in for universal approval around here anyway.

 

Those people are all over the country working on restoration right now and all year round.

Exactly and it has been going on for many decades. Would we have the recent opening of the droitwhich without the volenteers efforts. Roll-on the Cotswold opening.

Edited August 12, 2011 by churchward

[c c]

Don't know what dream world you live in, I have great respect for the WRG but their activities are nothing to do with maintaining the system. You certainly capitulate to political propaganda very quickly, or perhaps because you believe in the same approach. I prefer to continue to campaign for what is really needed to ensure we still have a working system in 20 years.

I and all the others who see the dangers, including MPs, may well lose but at least we will have tried.

 

The dream world I live in is called the Oxford Canal - where's your's?

 

Me capitulate to political propaganda? - e don know me vewy well doee?

[sueb]

here we go again we are all doooooooooomed!! Everyone seems to be queuing up to tell me why NWC will not work and that we should all abandon ship and find something else to do. What I never see is an alternative solution, all I see is people like yourself talking everything down. What is your alternative? Forget increased government funding that has finished and was always doomed especially with present cuts. Telling people that you are going to cut funding to NHS, Police, Universities etc in order to fund the waterways is never going to happen.

Who do think should run the waterways? A business that is as large as a Footsie 250 company. Do you think a bunch of well meaning amateurs can run the waterways?

Articles like yours on NWC and for that matter the ones you did on Living Afloat shows that you are completely clueless, fine at putting pen to paper but underneath that no substance.

IWA are successfully running the chelmsford canal.

Sue