C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[Leni]

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

 

I have to say it seems a bit unfair that the 4 people supposed to represent boaters on the committee should be chosen from IWA - an organisation that represents all waterway users, not just boaters! Surely the 'others' (i.e. non-boaters) are already adequately represented by the other committee members? Wouldn't it be fairer if the 4 boater representatives represented just boaters?

[David Schweizer]

Gremlins in my text editor somewhere. Aargh

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 :-)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 :-)

 

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.

Your responses to some of the comments posted suggest that you have completely misundrstood the points being raised. That in itself is a sufficiently good enough reason not to vote for you. If you cannot understand what people are saying then how can you hope to represent other boaters?

 

I have to say it seems a bit unfair that the 4 people supposed to represent boaters on the committee should be chosen from IWA - an organisation that represents all waterway users, not just boaters! Surely the 'others' (i.e. non-boaters) are already adequately represented by the other committee members? Wouldn't it be fairer if the 4 boater representatives represented just boaters?

That is what I meant when said "sponsored candidates do come with a mandate which has been set by an organization, which ultimately only represents the interests of their members" but Peter has failed to recognise the issue.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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

 

Quite right, they have committed to review it in 2022.

[PeterScott]

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.

just some own boats !!!! sorry NO way any iwa person gets my vote

I have to say it seems a bit unfair that the 4 people supposed to represent boaters on the committee should be chosen from IWA - an organisation that represents all waterway users, not just boaters! Surely the 'others' (i.e. non-boaters) are already adequately represented by the other committee members? Wouldn't it be fairer if the 4 boater representatives represented just boaters?

That is what I meant when said "sponsored candidates do come with a mandate which has been set by an organization, which ultimately only represents the interests of their members" but Peter has failed to recognise the issue.

I'm drawing the distinction between boaters and boaters who own boats. If contributors here think this election is to exclusively represent the latter, then we will just have to disagree. For my part everyone who joins us on our boat - family, friends, work colleagues,... is a boater. We've met people who worked Fulbourne in her working days but don't own a boat any more: they're boaters. We need all those with practical experience of navigating boats to give of their expertise through this C&RT Council.

 

As to the composition of IWA membership, the vast majority are boaters. It can't be a surprise to anyone that IWA support the use of canals for fishing (for example): but the number of our members who are exclusively fishermen, without any other attraction to the Waterways, and who see the IWA as their preferred advocate for their sport is ... guessing a bit here ... zero ?? one ?? ten?? Zero is my best guess. Cycling similarly. Walking, as in walking the towing paths, would be non-zero but still a small number.

 

Yes the non-navigation interests on the Council are over-represented. The Government did that. Let's make the best of it, take a deep breath and start persuading them of the delights of the Misty Morning and everything else that makes boating great.

 

There is a flawed logic in believing that IWA's support for multi-use of the waterways, and seeking support for us from other groups is contrary to the interests of boaters. If navigation is seen by those-with-the-purse strings as inward-looking and selve-serving we just won't have the money to survive. And so back to the starting point above "It's the boats which bring the vibrancy, the colour, the movement that make the Waterways a unique national resource" - however much we do it for ourselves, those looking on like what they see and are prepared to support us with their money and their time. We have to make it easier for them to give us the funding.

[WillC]

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

 

Actually - I just checked - Peter is now listed as one of the now five IWA candidates. IWA do a good job in many ways but the very fact that specialist boating user groups like AWCC, RBOA, NABO have active memberships, says to me that IWA isn't covering all the bases.

 

I too feel uncomfortable about this. Right from the start I had a feeling that it could have been a tactical mistake; from some of the reactions on this thread I may not be alone in that. On the other hand, I'm not an expert on the form of voting being used, but if anyone here is, will the influence IWA's sizeable membership give them a big advantage if they all vote for all their 5 candidates?

 

There are mitigating factors:

 

1. A significant number of IWA members won't have a vote because they are not registered boat owners. (Anyone have any figures on that?)

2. A significant number of IWA members are also members of other boating user groups who are also fielding candidates. Ivor Caplan is a good example. He is an official candidate for RBOA and IWA so I would guess that many RBOA members will vote for Ivor but not necessarily use their other options on other IWA members.

3. But even the combined vote of all the boating users groups - IWA, AWCC, NABO, RBOA etc - could well be less than 50% of all those with a vote (perhaps 30,000 if we eliminate those that have been disenfranchised because they don't have an ANNUAL license (a point which I feel is a serious flaw in the voting system - one I believe is inexcusable. As someone who has professional experience managing and manipulating databases, I would like a technical explanation of why BW can't search its registrations for all those that will have valid registrations over the voting period). I believe these unaffiliated voting boaters could be the key to this election.

 

I've started a feature on Waterway Watch that features all candidates. The idea is to publish anything each candidate uses as part of their 'manifesto'. I can't publish anything that I don't know about so I urge any candidates to send me links and/or copy. The basic idea is to give a central point where all candidates can be compared. I have started by featuring Boating and Boating Business candidates but might expand on that if time permits.

 

Regards

 

 

Will

Edited January 28, 2012 by WillC

[WillC]

I'm drawing the distinction between boaters and boaters who own boats. If contributors here think this election is to exclusively represent the latter, then we will just have to disagree. For my part everyone who joins us on our boat - family, friends, work colleagues,... is a boater. We've met people who worked Fulbourne in her working days but don't own a boat any more: they're boaters. We need all those with practical experience of navigating boats to give of their expertise through this C&RT Council.

 

I agree with that but in the absence of a C&RT membership there's nothing we can do about it now (it is on the agenda). On the other hand, once the voting is over there is a lot that others can do. My personal view is that the regional Waterway Partnerships are going to be where the real influence can be made. In fact, there is already a mechanism for users to make a difference by getting together to formulate Local Mooring strategies in their communities in conjunction with BW Regions/Waterway Partnerships/user groups.

 

As to the composition of IWA membership, the vast majority are boaters.

 

How vast? And perhaps more pertinent, how many are members of other boating user groups either with double membership or through IWA affiliation (like AWCC)?

 

 

Yes the non-navigation interests on the Council are over-represented. The Government did that.

 

 

I suspect that BW had a big hand in that before the Transitional Trustees came on board. But I agree that we have to start somewhere.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Will

[cotswoldsman]

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 first problem, is that how you see the council just a twice yearly "talking shop"?

I presume then that you would not be available to meet with the boaters that elect you to hear there concerns. This might just be another committee and a place for a chat twice a year to you, but to a lot of boaters it is a lot more than that!!! I would like to think that the people elected would be available to listen to Licence Boat Holders concerns. I know for example Dave Mayal, Alan Fincher and Andy Tidy have stated that they will ensure they have a web presence to listen to boaters and will also hold talking shops that boaters can attend that is what I call representation. Attending a "talking shop" twice a year and doing all the other stuff you do is not in my opinion representation of Licence Holders.. I think you are standing just to add something else to your boating CV and have no interest in representing people like myself who spend 12 months a year on the canals.

[David Schweizer]

Snip>.... 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....<Snip

What does that mean?

 

I hope you will excuse me for asking, but what is the point in allowing your name to be put forward if you are already indicating that, if you are elected, you may not turn up?

 

Do you make a habit of wasting other people's time?

Edited January 28, 2012 by David Schweizer

[WillC]

I know for example Dave Mayal, Alan Fincher and Andy Tidy have stated that they will ensure they have a web presence to listen to boaters and will also hold talking shops that boaters can attend that is what I call representation. Attending a "talking shop" twice a year and doing all the other stuff you do is not in my opinion representation of Licence Holders.. I think you are standing just to add something else to your boating CV and have no interest in representing people like myself who spend 12 months a year on the canals.

 

Do you have contact details for Dave and Andy? I would like to put their election manifestos on Waterwaywatch.org

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Will

[cotswoldsman]

Do you have contact details for Dave and Andy? I would like to put their election manifestos on Waterwaywatch.org

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Will

 

Link to Andy Tidy Website Dave can be contacted via PM on this site for details.

[MartinClark]

I'm drawing the distinction between boaters and boaters who own boats.

 

I am a boater. I spent six weeks away boating in 2011, in addition to time I spent skippering trip boats. I also invest a lot of my time and energy into activities that promote the canals.

I do not own a boat. Therefore I am completely disenfranchised in this election! You imply that you (and other IWA candidates), if elected, would seek to represent non-boat-owning boaters. Yet there is no way for non-boat-owning boaters to have any say as to who is elected!

 

I know you don't need to win my vote, Peter, as I haven't got one, but I should be interested to hear your views on this.

 

Incidentally, there are a heck of a lot of non-boat-owning boaters out here, including the many on this forum who hire regularly or who go boating with friends (as I do). Then there are all of those who are simply the partners of people who own boats who, even if they spend 24 hours a day on their boat, because it is their partner whose name is on the BW licence, do not themselves have a vote!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Will David Pearce be IWA candidate no. six?

[PeterScott]

I'm drawing the distinction between boaters and boaters who own boats.

I am a boater. I spent six weeks away boating in 2011, in addition to time I spent skippering trip boats. ... I do not own a boat. Therefore I am completely disenfranchised in this election! You imply that you (and other IWA candidates), if elected, would seek to represent non-boat-owning boaters. Yet there is no way for non-boat-owning boaters to have any say as to who is elected! ... there are a heck of a lot of non-boat-owning boaters out here,... who hire regularly or who go boating with friends (as I do). Then there are all of those who are simply the partners of people who own boats who, even if they spend 24 hours a day on their boat, because it is their partner whose name is on the BW licence, do not themselves have a vote!

Yes, a succinct expansion of the point.

 

This election gives those who have licences a direct vote for the first time, and it's a good opportunity for all boaters to question candidates on what-we-are-for. My distinctive contribution - nobody else has said this - is to use the election to remind both the interim trustees and the Government that their current funding negotiations can be scrutined by the Council when it's deciding whether to appoint the interim trustees for a full term.

 

Nobody knows whether the Council will be effective, or whether boating reps will be able to exert any influence on the trustees or the C&RT managers. It may be just-a-talking-shop or it may be dominated by the not-primarily-boating majority. Let's give it a go and see how we all get on; nobody said it would be easy, unfortunately, ...

Edited January 29, 2012 by PeterScott

[PeterScott]

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.

What does that mean? I hope you will excuse me for asking, but what is the point in allowing your name to be put forward if you are already indicating that, if you are elected, you may not turn up? Do you make a habit of wasting other people's time?

David's <snip> in his original posting did not cover the full point.

 

If the Council proves to be an effective body - and there is no guarantee of that - and the numerical majority of not-boating people are nevertheless supportive of the need to maintain navigation on the system, then the personal time taken by Council to a do a proper job there, added to the time taken to be an IWA trustee, might preclude covering the thousand-miles-a-year which has become our habit, and is the essence of our boating, and actually doing boating is a qualification for the other jobs.

 

If all of that happened, then at the 2013 election for IWA Region-Chairman, I might need to stand down from that role.

 

If all of that happened, I would still be an elected representative on C&RT although not an IWA Trustee at that time, and IWA support in this election would not allow IWA to replace me with somebody else on C&RT Council mid-term. And as I said originally "I will complete the jobs people have elected me for": that's part of the deal in standing for any election.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

If the Council proves to be an effective body - and there is no guarantee of that - and the numerical majority of not-boating people are nevertheless supportive of the need to maintain navigation on the system, then the personal time taken by Council to a do a proper job there, added to the time taken to be an IWA trustee, might preclude covering the thousand-miles-a-year which has become our habit, and is the essence of our boating, and actually doing boating is a qualification for the other jobs.

 

 

Peter it only has a chance of being effective if those elected put in the hard work and are committed and it sounds like you are not. To many ifs and buts for me.

[David Schweizer]

David's <snip> in his original posting did not cover the full point.

 

If the Council proves to be an effective body - and there is no guarantee of that - and the numerical majority of not-boating people are nevertheless supportive of the need to maintain navigation on the system, then the personal time taken by Council to a do a proper job there, added to the time taken to be an IWA trustee, might preclude covering the thousand-miles-a-year which has become our habit, and is the essence of our boating, and actually doing boating is a qualification for the other jobs.

 

If all of that happened, then at the 2013 election for IWA Region-Chairman, I might need to stand down from that role.

 

If all of that happened, I would still be an elected representative on C&RT although not an IWA Trustee at that time, and IWA support in this election would not allow IWA to replace me with somebody else on C&RT Council mid-term. And as I said originally "I will complete the jobs people have elected me for": that's part of the deal in standing for any election.

OK so here is the full quote:-

 

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.

 

I am not sure it makes any difference, you still said "I might not have time for the Council" and you still haven't addressed the question I raised:-

 

"I hope you will excuse me for asking, but what is the point in allowing your name to be put forward if you are already indicating that, if you are elected, you may not turn up?"

Edited January 29, 2012 by David Schweizer

[matty40s]

OK so here is the full quote:-

 

 

 

I am not sure it makes any difference, you still said "I might not have time for the Council" and you still haven't addressed the question I raised:-

 

"I hope you will excuse me for asking, but what is the point in allowing your name to be put forward if you are already indicating that, if you are elected, you may not turn up?"

 

Politics innit!!

most of the MP's only turn up at Westminster for show votes, whipped votes or PM question time.......where TV coverage is guaranteed.

[alan_fincher]

Will David Pearce be IWA candidate no. six?

Well he says he is a long term IWA member, not actually "sponsored by them".

 

But indeed another case of an "association" wanting to get their nominee elected as one of the 4 boater places. (For anybody else watching this is name of someone nominated by the AWCC).

[PeterScott]

OK so here is the full quote:-I am not sure it makes any difference, you still said "I might not have time for the Council" and you still haven't addressed the question I raised:- "I hope you will excuse me for asking, but what is the point in allowing your name to be put forward if you are already indicating that, if you are elected, you may not turn up?"

David,

You original <snip> and the red highlight here are both changing the meaning of the original words. Which were:

"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"

It's a list of three items, which collectively might take too much time, and thereby make the boating less - which is what all the energy is there to make better. We are all volunteers in this, and the jobs, as with all the volunteering roles across C&RT have to attract people and continue to be worthwhile. I said at the end the obvious point that I would complete the jobs people have elected me for, which is answers your challenge about whether I would go to the Council meetings.

 

Let's debate something substantive: what do we know of the Council, and how - and will the interests of navigation would be served by Council having a larger / smaller role in the management of the Watwerway?. It's not obvious to me that the inbuilt majority of not-boating interests could be easily brought around to a supportive-of-navigation stance. Maybe our collective efforts would be better directed to the Waterway Partnerships, which are recriting up to twelve people for the twelve Partnerships. Those already set up have a similar need of people to advocate navigation.

[jenlyn]

David,

You original <snip> and the red highlight here are both changing the meaning of the original words. Which were:

"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"

It's a list of three items, which collectively might take too much time, and thereby make the boating less - which is what all the energy is there to make better. We are all volunteers in this, and the jobs, as with all the volunteering roles across C&RT have to attract people and continue to be worthwhile. I said at the end the obvious point that I would complete the jobs people have elected me for, which is answers your challenge about whether I would go to the Council meetings.

 

Let's debate something substantive: what do we know of the Council, and how - and will the interests of navigation would be served by Council having a larger / smaller role in the management of the Watwerway?. It's not obvious to me that the inbuilt majority of not-boating interests could be easily brought around to a supportive-of-navigation stance. Maybe our collective efforts would be better directed to the Waterway Partnerships, which are recriting up to twelve people for the twelve Partnerships. Those already set up have a similar need of people to advocate navigation.

Your wasting your time, it seems to me no one is interested why don't you try the boaters manifesto page? Some on there are quite gullible lol

[Rebotco]

Your wasting your time, it seems to me no one is interested why don't you try the boaters manifesto page? Some on there are quite gullible lol

 

 

Sorry Jenlyn, but who appointed you to decide I or others are not interested?

 

In fact I for one am interested.

 

What PS says makes a lot of sense to me, and although my first choice will probably be Alan Fincher, I also need to decide

 

where to make my second/third etc. choices.

 

You may think I'm gullible if you wish, but please do not try to restrict information that others find valuable.

 

Brian

[jenlyn]

Sorry Jenlyn, but who appointed you to decide I or others are not interested?

 

In fact I for one am interested.

 

What PS says makes a lot of sense to me, and although my first choice will probably be Alan Fincher, I also need to decide

 

where to make my second/third etc. choices.

 

You may think I'm gullible if you wish, but please do not try to restrict information that others find valuable.

 

Brian

No need to be sorry, whatever sparks your plug

[David Schweizer]

David,

You original <snip> and the red highlight here are both changing the meaning of the original words. Which were:

"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"

It's a list of three items, which collectively might take too much time, and thereby make the boating less - which is what all the energy is there to make better. We are all volunteers in this, and the jobs, as with all the volunteering roles across C&RT have to attract people and continue to be worthwhile. I said at the end the obvious point that I would complete the jobs people have elected me for, which is answers your challenge about whether I would go to the Council meetings.

 

Let's debate something substantive: what do we know of the Council, and how - and will the interests of navigation would be served by Council having a larger / smaller role in the management of the Watwerway?. It's not obvious to me that the inbuilt majority of not-boating interests could be easily brought around to a supportive-of-navigation stance. Maybe our collective efforts would be better directed to the Waterway Partnerships, which are recriting up to twelve people for the twelve Partnerships. Those already set up have a similar need of people to advocate navigation.

It is easy to say that now, after several attempts to get you to explain your statement. I certainly did not read it that way, and if that is the measure of your ability to make yourself understood, perhaps you should concentrate on the boating, which you declared earlier, is you preference.

 

I also take issue with your observation that "We are all volunteers", implying that we should be grateful for what volunteers can manage to fit into their busy lives. As someone who has been a serial volunteer, and has also managed a large team of volunteers, I have to say that being a volunteer is not a valid excuse for not doing the job properly.

Edited January 29, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Well he says he is a long term IWA member, not actually "sponsored by them".

 

But indeed another case of an "association" wanting to get their nominee elected as one of the 4 boater places. (For anybody else watching this is name of someone nominated by the AWCC).

 

You rather missed the point I was making, Alan. AWCC is a 'corporate member' of IWA. AWCC has over 100 clubs with 20,000 members.

[carlt]

Could I ask if the IWA sponsored candidates will be representing all waterways users (just like their sponsoring organisation does) or just the boaters?

 

If the answer is "all waterways users" then how can they justify attempting to hijack the places specifically reserved for boaters and their concerns?

 

If they say they will only argue for the interests of boaters then how can they assure us that the IWA, as their sponsors, won't demand that they broaden their remit, at a later date?

 

It seems to me that the IWA, because of their wide ranging interests, should leave the boaters' spots to boaters.