Boaters to join CaRT

[fuzzyduck]

I was considering running a piss take campaign, I have now cancelled this idea because i think it's vitally important that the IWA don't get all 4 seats.

 

ohh 'eck NBW agrees with me.

 

It is indeed tragic that there are only four people representing boaters on the Canal & River Trust, but it would be even more tragic if the four were from the hierarchy of the Inland Waterways Association.

 

There goes my street cred.

Edited December 18, 2011 by fuzzyduck

[Tiny]

I can't see that the IWA represents boaters. Years back they started saying they represented all canal users and since then often take an almost anti boater (BW spokesman) stance. No votes for them - NABO yes.

 

As for supporting boaters yes to some on this site but most boaters (the committee sort) out there often display a marked lack of knowledge about anything but the few miles of cut near them and even then have some very strange ideas. So it comes down to hoping they represent you and don't just go along with the flow.

[mayalld]

I'm going to vote for a CWDF member. But, may have to vote tactically to help one with the best chance.

 

There have been a few suggestions that there is a need to see which of myself and Mr Fincher should be backed, in order to "avoid splitting the vote", and talk of tactical voting to keep certain people out.

 

The election is being conducted under Single transferrable vote, where you rank your candidates in order of preference.

 

Under such a system, it is effectively impossible to split the vote, and no voter can expect to get a more favourable outcome than expressing his true preference.

 

To avoid taking this thread off on a tangent, I'll start another with a worked example of STV.

[fuzzyduck]

It may be of interest to some, Ivor Caplan (IWA Candidate) is also a committee member of RBOA. might be worth the liveaboards taking note.

[Yorksboat]

It may be of interest to some, Ivor Caplan (IWA Candidate) is also a committee member of RBOA. might be worth the liveaboards taking note.

[Cosmic]

So - how many people from here are standing, just Dave and Alan? Shouldn't there be at least four candidates who don't support the IWA?

 

I imagine, for example, that there will be some perfectly good candidates put forward by London Boaters, but that could be both pointless and counter-productive in the face of a block vote of possibly thousands of IWA members. I'll be making LB aware of the problem and advising them that, if people do stand, they co-ordinate their campaign with those from elsewhere.

 

(On the subject of IWA numbers, I'm not sure how many are actually committed to what it stands for, as many people get special offers on membership with magazine subscriptions, insurance etc. )

[cotswoldsman]

The more I research this and read what other people are saying about the make up of the council,the more I feel that for boaters it is just tokenism. So boaters get 5 members and the blurb says this number was thought to be fair as boaters contribute about 20% of the funds to CaRT and 5 seats represents 20% of the seats. So I guess the conclusion from this is the other 30 seats represent 80% of the funds. Now we all know that the other 80% contribute very little financially so when the Council discusses such things as where money should be spent 80% of the members will be deciding based on the fact that they contribute very little financially. Now I know that restoration groups do contribute financially to their own projects but this money is not available for the complete system.

I am trying to remain positive about CaRT but I think the make up of the Council is just another example of how the process is flawed. In the excitement of the fact that we are going to have a voice on the Council we seem to be overlooking that our voice in comparison to future funding is just completely inadequate.

[Higgs]

The more I research this and read what other people are saying about the make up of the council,the more I feel that for boaters it is just tokenism. So boaters get 5 members and the blurb says this number was thought to be fair as boaters contribute about 20% of the funds to CaRT and 5 seats represents 20% of the seats. So I guess the conclusion from this is the other 30 seats represent 80% of the funds. Now we all know that the other 80% contribute very little financially so when the Council discusses such things as where money should be spent 80% of the members will be deciding based on the fact that they contribute very little financially. Now I know that restoration groups do contribute financially to their own projects but this money is not available for the complete system.

I am trying to remain positive about CaRT but I think the make up of the Council is just another example of how the process is flawed. In the excitement of the fact that we are going to have a voice on the Council we seem to be overlooking that our voice in comparison to future funding is just completely inadequate.

 

On a seat for seat basis, 5 seats are 14.2%. Each seat - 2.85%. Boaters x 4= 11.4%. Minus any IWA member, say 1.

 

Independent boaters ( 3 ) = that's a massive 8.55%

 

It's worse than that

 

If 3 IWA members get in, that will bring it down to 2.8% for independent boaters.

 

But it's worse than that. The 20% we pay is measured against the 80% that CaRT will be finding. So, the 20% we're paying is spread across the the council. We're going to have about 14.2% of 20% of say for our contributions. That equates to 2.8%, for 5 seats.

 

This is fag packet stuff. Don't take it too seriously. Ok; never any danger of that.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Higgs

[cotswoldsman]

On a seat for seat basis, 5 seats are 14.2%. Each seat - 2.85%. Boaters x 4= 11.4%. Minus any IWA member, say 1.

 

Independent boaters ( 3 ) = that's a massive 8.55%

 

It's worse than that

 

If 3 IWA members get in, that will bring it down to 2.8% for independent boaters.

 

But it's worse than that. The 20% we pay is measured against the 80% that CaRT will be finding. So, the 20% we're paying is spread across the the council. We're going to have about 14.2% of 20% of say for our contributions. That equates to 2.8%, for 5 seats.

 

This is fag packet stuff. Don't take it too seriously. Ok; never any danger of that.

 

Go on can it get any worse???Does not sound like very good value for money what ever way you look at it.

[Higgs]

Whatever amount of money boaters pay in, it does not relate to their size or representation on the council. The council group are split into categories and elements of specific parts of the charity's areas of operation.

 

Leisure users of the canal all have roughly equal representation; groups 1 and 4. No importance is attached to boaters 20% fund raising, except, we're not actually bundled in with group 4.

 

Any member of an organisation, elected to the council, should act in a 'non-affiliated' capacity when invovled with council business, even if some decisions of the boating group are contrary to their organisation's view.

 

This is why organisations should stick to their organisations and stay off the council. They'll be nearly useless to the council, in their capacity as private boaters. The council group should not have to play second fiddle to any organisation interests. While organisation interests and boaters' interest will be in agreement in some areas, in some areas, the boaters' interests may not.

 

There's no place for what might prove to be the divided loyalties of an association/organisation member. There's no problem joining associations, so, join the association. The boating group is for all boaters.

 

If the boating group ends up as another wing of an association then I'll just not bother treating it with any credibility.

 

Membership of an association by default. No thanks.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Higgs

[Higgs]

Using the Charity Commissions figures, because the IWA are a registered charity; IWA income was down on their outgoings by £186,000.

 

Would they use any positions in the boaters group to try and fill this gap. The IWA is a group whose objectives are to view the whole environment of the canal and it's uses, for all users. This may well fit in with the overall concept of CaRT.

 

IWA do not exclude boaters, but neither do they stand for boaters. Unless the IWA have a solely boaters group within it, they have the wrong CV's for the boaters group.

 

IWA have 11 employees, are any of their 4 candidates on the payroll?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Higgs

[boatmanckp]

Those of you who believe that the Inland Waterways Association is doing a good job in representing boaters may wish to vote for one (or more) of the candidates being sponsored by the IWA, details of these persons at:

 

http://www.waterways.org.uk/campaigns/news/bulletins/iwa_bulletin_mid_december_2011#boaters

 

Tim

 

 

The IWA is not a boater organisation. NABO and the RYA represent boaters.CKP