C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[PeterScott]

[being Regional Chairman and National Trustee of the IWA] just has the possibility of causing too many conflicts in my opinion and is one of the main reasons why you would be at the bottom of my list.

Gosh only thirty-two to overtake, then :-) I see no particular conflicts on the horizon, and if any were to arise, I would decide them on their merits: I'm happy to debate any that others have in mind. All the candidates in the election are seeking to be elected in their personal capacity: once elected the IWA couldn't say we should stop being there. I bring useful knowledge and experience from my IWA work but my strings are not being pulled from anywhere.

 

OK I will ask the question Peter are you an approved IWA Candidate and if not why not?

As Cosmic says, IWA website is now accurately showing the five trustees standing in the election. And, yes, not in alphabetical order. Ho Hummmm

 

I don't think we could rely on the IWA to keep "all" boaters in touch with what BW is up to.

Important point in here. IWA is a charity and those who give us a membership fee each year do it as a charitable gift because they support our work. It's not an exchange of money for particular services that we provide: we do send out magazines/newsletters in the post, often with entreaties to register to read them online, and allow us to use the money more directly for the Waterways. With all information to members also available online, and all our Open meetings available to everyone interested, we are best placed get information to boaters as a whole. IWA are as keen to hold BW / C&RT to account for its decisions as most contributors hereabouts are ...

 

Didn't the IWA side with Tony Hales to do away with the FOIA?

The short answer is yes. Not that I'd put it quite that way. Freedom of Information Act applies to public bodies, and not to charities. Government departments spend disproportionate resources to make themselves bullet-proof on FOIA requests, and BW seem to have followed that example internally - should C&RT continue to use money on FOIA-systems that could be better spent directly on the Waterways? On balance IWA were content to give C&RT a chance to show they could be an Open organisation and spend less on the bureaucracy in doing it. We shall have to judge by experience whether the Government's compromise solution is the best or worst of both worlds.

 

... horrified that the IWA were intending to stand four candidates and seriously threatening to use their weight of numbers to take all four boaters' places. ... Given the sheer numbers of voters that the IWA can potentially muster, I believe that a lot of us who are unaffiliated feel obliged to choose the best candidate from those who are not sponsored by the IWA. ... boaters' views will not be adequately represented if all the places allocated to us are taken by one particular group, a group that doesn't specifically represent boaters.... the effect of [iWA] their having all four council places would be detrimental to the interests of the rest of us.

 

... IWA's aim of taking all the Boaters Places on the council.

 

If IWA people were to fill all four seats, we would have polled over 80% of the votes cast: that's how the proportional STV works, and seems an unlikely outcome to me. As I said above, our members support us with their money, but they will each decide for themselves who to vote for. None of us hereabouts have evidence on how votes will be cast, and I could be equally worried that the (well-organised) London Boaters' campaign will galvanise supporters there to vote in much greater proportions than elsewhere, and if there are similar voting patterns in other places, no IWA candidates would be elected at all: have we any evidence of that worry for me being less valid than Cosmic's worry of being outnumbered?

 

Of IWA activities, I can find none that are contrary to the interests of boaters: we spend a lot of energy on promoting restoration, and lots on promoting our interests with parliament in parallel and, I contend, supportive of boating. The 'interests of the rest of us' isn't anything I could write an list of. Maybe others can.

Edited January 26, 2012 by PeterScott

[sheriff]

I have no specific problems with IWA and Peter Scott comes over as well read and articulate,and would make a good candidate.

 

However I am suspicious that IWA will have 4 members. Some of those who stand up now..I have never seen or heard about before...unlike Mr Alan Fincher who knows no bounds and is considered selfless in all canal & rivers activities by many folk far and wide.

 

good luck Peter...

 

But my vote is for ALAN FINCHER

Edited January 27, 2012 by sheriff

[cotswoldsman]

OK I will give my view on sponsored candidates from IWA, NABO, RBOA and all.

We will soon see a major change in how the Waterways are run with hopefully more accountability to ALL users of the waterways. Basically the system will still be run by the same management as before, but now they will be accountable to a Board of Trustees. For the first time interested bodies such as boaters, walkers, angler, cyclists etc are to be given a voice, be it a small one. Now I personally do not care to much about how the other groups decide who will represent them, but I do care about who will represent me and other boaters. I have heard and seen the argument that it should all be about the waterways future. For me that does not hold water (sorry about the pun) As far as the boaters group is concerned I want to be sure that the people representing me care about how boaters fit into the future of the waterways. That is ALL boaters. I just do not see how a sponsored candidate will be able to be completely Independent when they are also attending meetings of minority groups and being pressured into following the agenda of that group. Why are IWA putting up 5 candidates for election? Well in my opinion it has to be to ensure that they get more than 1 member on the council. Why would they want more than 1 member on the Council? Again in my opinion it can only be so that the IWA can ensure that they protect the interests of there group and there members.

The other organisations as far as I can see are only putting up one member each and though I do not like the idea of any Council Member coming from an organisation I do feel the other organisation are at least not trying to dominate the boaters Council seats.

I would urge anyone thinking of voting to think very carefully before voting for a IWA sponsored member.

Edited January 27, 2012 by cotswoldsman

[mayalld]

Gosh only thirty-two to overtake, then :-) I see no particular conflicts on the horizon, and if any were to arise, I would decide them on their merits: I'm happy to debate any that others have in mind. All the candidates in the election are seeking to be elected in their personal capacity: once elected the IWA couldn't say we should stop being there. I bring useful knowledge and experience from my IWA work but my strings are not being pulled from anywhere.

 

So why stand as an IWA candidate.

 

If you stood, quoting your record of working with the IWA, but NOT as an IWA candidate, your assertion that no strings would be pulled would be more credible.

[cotswoldsman]

So why stand as an IWA candidate.

 

If you stood, quoting your record of working with the IWA, but NOT as an IWA candidate, your assertion that no strings would be pulled would be more credible.

 

Surely strings are already being pulled by allowing the use of the IWA website to promote the IWA candidates.

[mayalld]

Surely strings are already being pulled by allowing the use of the IWA website to promote the IWA candidates.

 

Indeed, and it stretches credulity a little to ask people to believe that any candidate elected with IWA backing will be independent of IWA string pulling.

[Timleech]

Indeed, and it stretches credulity a little to ask people to believe that any candidate elected with IWA backing will be independent of IWA string pulling.

 

I know this has been brought up somewhere before, but to my mind gets forgotten too easily -

The IWA is not a Boating organisation. How can it properly be sponsoring candidates for Boater representatives?

 

Yes I know there's a massive overlap between the IWA aims and those of boaters, but they are not identical.

 

Tim

[jenlyn]

There is far to much infighting at the IWA, in my mind, this could distract their representative and cause problems. IMO, don't vote for any IWA reps. An independent is more likely to listen and put boaters concerns first, which is what we need.

[David Schweizer]

This to me smacks of biased thinking. Why can't a member just decide to stand as a candidate? I know the IWA have decided to put up several nominees as representing the organisation but there is nothing to prevent anybody conforming to the terms of the election deciding to stand with or without an IWA membership. It seems an irrelevant question to me.

 

If some of the posts lately on this subject are anything to go by it doesn't bode well for the efficacy of the elected body as the infighting and point scoring may well swamp any good intentions.

I agree with that statement, just as membership of any other any boating or related body should not make any difference. The problem with Peter's nomination is that the IWA website clearly states "IWA is fielding five IWA sponsored candidates", Peter is one of the five named candidates, and that does concern me, not because I have any problems with either Peter or the IWA, but because I do have problems with sponsored candidates.

 

Irrespective of what they might say to the contrary, sponsored candidates do come with a mandate which has been set by an organization, which ultimately only represents the interests of their members, possibly to the exclusion of others. Why else would they go to the lengths required to sponsor anyone. All the candidates will have their own agenda, and I suppose one could say that at least we know what the IWA agenda is likely to be, but it could also be suggested that the sponsorship of candidates to CaRT by the IWA is a cynical move designed to increase Rank and File membership of the IWA in order that people feel they may have some influence on CaRT through their sponsored candidate.

 

If Peter had stood as an independant candidate, whilst declaring his other interests, and with an assurance that he would not carry a mandate from the IWA,or any other body, I may well have included him in my list of preferences, but as a sponsored candidate, he has lost my vote.

Edited January 27, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Sir Nibble]

It's called a party whip.

[alan_fincher]

The problem with Peter's nomination is that the IWA website clearly states "IWA is fielding five IWA sponsored candidates"

I am pleased to note that the above has been recently updated to change the number of sponsored candidates from 4 to 5, and to add Peter's name. At least it clears up the possible ambiguity, (although it still says December 19th, which would probably make people think that the 5 candidates have been there throughout!).

 

What I suppose is interesting, (well maybe to some!), is that the 150 word statement we ultimately see from each of these candidates could be anything between totally dwelling on being an IWA trustee, (all 5 are), and their senior roles in the IWA, (they can include links to IWA pages if they choose to), or simply not mentioning it at all, and producing a statement that concentrates solely on boating issues.

 

This means anyone getting a voting pack could end up seeing these candidates present themselves in a very different way, with it being far from obvious that the IWA has put them all forward as the 5 names they want you to put at the top of your voting preference.

 

As a candidate,of course I am interested in what all 5 say, particularly the one who also represents the RBOA, as, in my view, the IWA and RBOA do not exactly see eye to eye on all matters!

[David Schweizer]

I am pleased to note that the above has been recently updated to change the number of sponsored candidates from 4 to 5, and to add Peter's name. At least it clears up the possible ambiguity, (although it still says December 19th, which would probably make people think that the 5 candidates have been there throughout!).

 

What I suppose is interesting, (well maybe to some!), is that the 150 word statement we ultimately see from each of these candidates could be anything between totally dwelling on being an IWA trustee, (all 5 are), and their senior roles in the IWA, (they can include links to IWA pages if they choose to), or simply not mentioning it at all, and producing a statement that concentrates solely on boating issues.

 

This means anyone getting a voting pack could end up seeing these candidates present themselves in a very different way, with it being far from obvious that the IWA has put them all forward as the 5 names they want you to put at the top of your voting preference.

 

As a candidate,of course I am interested in what all 5 say, particularly the one who also represents the RBOA, as, in my view, the IWA and RBOA do not exactly see eye to eye on all matters!

Unless I am missing something, surely any candidate who is sponsored by another body will be required to make that fact clear. Failing to do so could be considered disengenuous, and comparable to a Local Council or Parliamentary candidate failing to declare that they were being sponsored by a particular Political Party or organization, whilst pretending to be independant.

Edited January 27, 2012 by David Schweizer

[cotswoldsman]

There is far to much infighting at the IWA, in my mind, this could distract their representative and cause problems. IMO, don't vote for any IWA reps. An independent is more likely to listen and put boaters concerns first, which is what we need.

 

Agree 100% have a greenie................As I have said before if CaRT decides to go down the membership route (and I hope they do) how would IWA sponsored candidates feel about that? It would severely effect IWA membership

Edited January 27, 2012 by cotswoldsman

[alan_fincher]

Unless I am missing something, surely any candidate who is sponsored by another body will be required to make that fact clear. Failing to do so could be considered disengenuous, and comparable to a Local Council or Parliamentary candidate failing to declare that they were being sponsored by a particular Political Party or organization, whilst pretending to be independant.

They can say what they like on their election statement, so whilst it might be considered poor form if they didn't mention they were running as an IWA "sponsored" candidate, they are certainly not obliged to.

 

I had similar concerns when another candidate, deeply involved in promoting the Boater's Manifesto, (and I know that is not an organisation or society, but it does claim to be a collected voice for many boaters), then put up a series of web pages promoting himself as "independent", and simply not mentioning BM. In fact we both reached a better understanding of his position, and I believe his heart was in the right place, but he has since confirmed himself as "not now standing".

 

I think you have a free hand in what you say in that statement,(though they reserve the right to edit it), and indeed what you choose to say about yourself where.

 

One of the glossies has reported myself and Dave Mayall running as Canal World sponsored candidates. I certainly do not consider myself that - it is true my encouragement to run came to a large extent from CWDF, and that many of my sponsors and supporters are members here, but that alone is not enough to guarantee a win. In any case, is would be bonkers to assume we could have a CWDF "party line", as it is often hard to find in a debate on here two people who can agree the full detail on anything! Anybody who has seen me and Dave express our views will know we certainly don't feel the same on many issues, and no doubt some will see Dave as a higher preference on their voting papers, whereas some will give me that honour.

[Leni]

... it is often hard to find in a debate on here two people who can agree the full detail on anything!

Too true! I have been reading all the CRT election threads with interest, trying to make up my mind who I should vote for, but I have often found myself reading something someone says in one post and thinking, "I like the sound of this person. I agree with what they say", only to read something else by the same poster later in the thread which I totally disagree with, and I find myself thinking, "Oh, I don't like this one after all! I won't be voting for them!"

 

I guess I'll just have to wait and see the rest of the manifestos and decide who is the best fence-sitter!

 

(PS - that's a joke, by the way, before I 'get it in the neck' for not taking this matter seriously )

[alan_fincher]

I guess I'll just have to wait and see the rest of the manifestos and decide who is the best fence-sitter!

 

(PS - that's a joke, by the way, before I 'get it in the neck' for not taking this matter seriously )

My only plea is that if you, (or anybody else), is taking it seriously, and you don't personally know the candidate involved, then do some additional research if you feel from their "personal statement" that you may wish to support them.

 

Although with (allegedly) 33 candidates at 150 words each, (so probably 5000 words by the time you have read all our names too!), I think the one thing most candidates are agreed on, however much else we differ, is that 150 words does not adequately allow us to express much about ourselves, what we think, and why we think we are well placed to represent you.

 

I wouldn't want to try and convince a total stranger on the basis of just 150 words, frankly, which is why I have tried to make more information available.

 

Of course you could say that with the highest post count on this forum, and with some views that have undoubtedly shifted in the 7 years I have been on here, (I'll freely admit that I don't see all things the same now as when first posting), there must be enough things I have at sometime or another said, that you could make a case against me on any issue of your choosing! I do carry a lot of "baggage", and accept that when throwing my name in the ring.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Agree 100% have a greenie................As I have said before if CaRT decides to go down the membership route (and I hope they do) how would IWA sponsored candidates feel about that? It would severely effect IWA membership

 

CART decided at least four months back that they did not intend to go down the membership route probably for that very reason.

[cotswoldsman]

CART decided at least four months back that they did not intend to go down the membership route probably for that very reason.

 

Hopefully the Council will be able to point out the error of their way!!!!!

[mayalld]

CART decided at least four months back that they did not intend to go down the membership route probably for that very reason.

 

They didn't, however, bind themselves to that policy for all eternity.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Hopefully the Council will be able to point out the error of their way!!!!!

 

I am sure the four IWA boating members will be keen to raise the subject!

[cotswoldsman]

I am sure the four IWA boating members will be keen to raise the subject!

 

And the one co-opted from IWA to make the fifth boaters representative guess they will save naming the fifth member until they see how many IWA Sponsored members get elected!!!!

[PeterScott]

Surely strings are already being pulled by allowing the use of the IWA website to promote the IWA candidates.

it stretches credulity a little to ask people to believe that any candidate elected with IWA backing will be independent of IWA string pulling.

why stand as an IWA candidate. If you stood, quoting your record of working with the IWA, but NOT as an IWA candidate, your assertion that no strings would be pulled would be more credible.

If Peter had stood as an independant candidate, whilst declaring his other interests, and with an assurance that he would not carry a mandate from the IWA,... I may well have included him in my list of preferences,

Why mention IWA? Because I am an IWA national Trustee and IWA does good work and it is an important part of my contribution to the waterways. As to strings, an example: Waterways Recovery Group (as it happens, a part of IWA) is invited to nominate a C&RT Council member. If WRG wished to replace one nominee by another (a bit of speculation necessary here, as I've not seen any Council constitution yet), then it would be a WRG decision to send someone different. I seek to be elected directly: if the electorate agrees, then PeterScott (and not the IWA) is a member for four years until the next boaters' election. IWA sponsorship by hosting my details on the website and mention in newsletters does not mean IWA could send someone else instead of me mid-term. If the Council can create a role for itself more than as a twice-yearly talking shop, I might not have time for the Council, the IWA trustee job (my next election for that is in 2013) and fitting in the thousand miles of boating in the year - the last of which is obviously the most enjoyable, and I will complete the jobs people have elected me for.

 

... my view on sponsored candidates from IWA, NABO, RBOA and all... I care about who will represent me and other oaters....I want to be sure that the people representing me care about how boaters fit into the future of the waterways. That is ALL boaters. I just do not see how a sponsored candidate will be able to be completely Independent when they are also attending meetings of minority groups and being pressured into following the agenda of that group.

sponsored candidates do come with a mandate which has been set by an organization, which ultimately only represents the interests of their members,

IWA, as a charity, receives tax-breaks from the Government because we are an Open organisation - we're not here to give benefits to our members, and we encourage them all to

work for the waterways. It's the boats which bring the vibrancy, the colour, the movement that make the Waterways a unique national resource, and IWA's seventeen thousand members include many boaters - some of whom own boats. We can seek their contributions to debates on what C&RT do more easily than an independent C&RT member could do: the ALL in the 'ALL boaters' is the hard bit: ALL are not online, unfortunately.

 

It's called a party whip.

I don't think we have different organisations with consistently opposing analyses of what to do, so no need or advantage in trying parliament-like structures Edited January 27, 2012 by PeterScott

[matty40s]

Peter, you need to improve your forum posting presentation skills if you want to get my vote.

I can't read that.

 

 

thats better

Edited January 27, 2012 by matty40s

[PeterScott]

Peter, you need to improve your forum posting presentation skills if you want to get my vote.

I can't read that.thats better

Gremlins in my text editor somewhere. Aargh

 

IWA putting up 5 candidates for election in my opinion has to be to ensure that they get more than 1 member on the council... it

can only be so that the IWA can ensure that they protect the interests of their group and their members. The other organisations ... are only putting up one member each and [and] are at least not trying to dominate the boaters Council seats.

Perhaps, whatever the electorate decide, will be an incentive to all of us representing boaters to come together in fewer organisations - by being so diverse we give the wrong impression of having different agendas and different policies, when we need to have a combined view as users of the system.

 

The IWA is not a Boating organisation...there's a massive overlap between the IWA aims and those of boaters, but they are not identical. How can it properly be sponsoring candidates for Boater representatives?

We do lots of work for boaters, and some of our volunteers spend time, for example, on vetting planning

applications that affect the canal environment: if contributors can find where any of our energies conflict with boaters' interests, I'd be pleased to debate it.

 

There is far too much infighting at the IWA, ... this could distract their representative and cause problems.

If the challenge was "There is far too much debate at the IWA..." that's all worth having and a good thing imho: running the waterways is hard, even harder with inadequate resources, and debating the issues helps to clarify the options. 'Infighting' suggests arguing for the sake of personal advancement or for no useful purpose whatever. Hmmmmm I wonder if an independent person elected from CanalWorld might be distracted by any of that, hereabouts :-)

 

at least we know what the IWA agenda is likely to be, but it could also be suggested that the sponsorship of candidates to CaRT by the IWA is a cynical move designed to increase ... membership of the IWA in order that people feel they may have some influence on CaRT through their sponsored candidate.

Well, IWA website tries to explain what we do, and that may well have more information than independent candidates have energy to provide. Yes, we are very keen to attract more people to join us and give us some of their money for the benefit of the waterways. People discussing together will probably have more influence on C&RT than people working on their own: IWA can help that process.

 

150 word statement ... from each of these candidates could be anything between totally dwelling on being an IWA trustee, (they can include links to IWA pages if they choose to), or simply not mentioning it at all, and producing a statement that concentrates solely on boating issues.

All (mine included) are dull, all mentioning as IWA trustees. Mine the only one with a weblink (assuming it survives the publication process). I'll suggest the're all on the website soon.

 

interested in [150 word statements] particularly the one who also represents the RBOA, as, in my view, the IWA and RBOA do not exactly see eye to eye on all matters!

Well, it's a good opportunity to come to a common view. It's the fragmentation of boaters that has limited our influence on BW. Slogan: Fewer Boating Organisations - Fewer Silly Bollards :-)

 

Iif CaRT decides to go down the membership route (and I hope they do) how would IWA sponsored candidates feel about that? It would severely effect IWA membership

A C&RT-membership-organisation would attract all the same criticisms as those here of the IWA - working for its own members, being governed by just its own members. Government therefore preferred the model of the Council representing the whole public interest with C&RT recruiting 'supporters' who give their time or money to the Charity. That seems a reasonable compromise, certainly for the four years of this Council term. I think IWA will always be needed to hold C&RT to account for their proper management of the waterways: if fewer people want to give us their money to do that job - and that is not a proven outcome - then so be it. Thanks for a question about waterways policy, btw. Edited January 27, 2012 by PeterScott

[waggers]

It's the boats which bring the vibrancy, the colour, the movement that make the Waterways a unique national resource, and IWA's seventeen thousand members include many boaters - some of whom own boats

 

just some own boats !!!!

 

sorry NO way any iwa person gets my vote