C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[cotswoldsman]

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.

 

This is in my opinion where the problem lies because these council places are not for boaters but Licence Holders, now at a later date they might introduce places for ALL boaters but at this stage these 4 places are for Licence Holders now the 5th co-opted place might well be for ALL boaters. It is the job of the Trustees to ensure that ALL boaters are catered for it is the job of the Council Members elected by Licence Holders to ensure the Trustees are made aware of the concerns of Licence Holders. That is why in my opinion IWA Sponsored Candidates are a concern.

[Higgs]

I just can't see how a member of the IWA can have any higher expectations of effectiveness in a boaters group than they have already had as members of the IWA. Why do the IWA think this other group could make them more effective?

 

CaRT is something new and I think a new approach, without old organisations hanging around, will be more democratic.

 

The vast majority of IWA members, who are licensed boaters, are not a vast majority. Even just using 'boaters' as the reference group, the approximate ratio is 17'000 members, with 10000 ish that are boaters.

 

Mr Scott, as you don't have long to go before elections in the IWA, for IWA positions, why sit on the fence? Throw your weight behind the boaters' group and retire from the IWA now. Keeping your options open?

 

Keeping the navigations well maintained is in everyones interest. I don't think it is mentioned more, because it goes without saying. I don't think that decisions that boaters make will be without bearing that consideration in mind.

 

Mr Scott, the ways that you view your role, in a boaters' group, might only seem like subtle differences to you, but an inch is as good as mile when you miss the point. In my opinion, like some would see putting water in whiskey. Weakens the spirit.

[rgreg]

Whatever their credentials, I take my hat off to anybody who stands for this election, or any other waterway's organisation, for being prepared to give up their time and get involved. Of course we should cross-examine candidates to decide who can best represent us but in my opinion they all deserve our respect and gratitude.

[Sir Nibble]

Whatever their credentials, I take my hat off to anybody who stands for this election, or any other waterway's organisation, for being prepared to give up their time and get involved. Of course we should cross-examine candidates to decide who can best represent us but in my opinion they all deserve our respect and gratitude.

Quite right. Would you care to extend the sentiment to other elected positions too?

[rgreg]

Quite right. Would you care to extend the sentiment to other elected positions too?

Not sure what you're alluding to but anyone who gives their time free of charge to any good cause gets my respect.

[Timleech]

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.

 

 

See my post No32, & the OP's rather unconvincing (to me) response in post No 49.

Pretty much the same question.

 

Tim

[PeterScott]

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.

This is in my opinion where the problem lies because these council places are not for boaters but Licence Holders, now at a later date they might introduce places for ALL boaters but at this stage these 4 places are for Licence Holders now the 5th co-opted place might well be for ALL boaters. It is the job of the Trustees to ensure that ALL boaters are catered for it is the job of the Council Members elected by Licence Holders to ensure the Trustees are made aware of the concerns of Licence Holders. That is why in my opinion IWA Sponsored Candidates are a concern.

See my post No32, & the OP's rather unconvincing (to me) response in post No 49.Pretty much the same question.

[Post32:]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.

[Post49:]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.

 

It's an important point running through these pages - and I see the position clearly: IWA is a charity to support the Waterways - boating (vibrancy colour and movement, etc) is the unique and essential part of the Waterways scene that distinguishes us from the disconnected duckponds.

 

I think it's for those who detect a conflict of interest to give us an example to debate: where has anything the IWA has done been of disadvantage to boating? If I could bring an example to mind, I would write it and debate it.

 

The general point about volunteers is that we have more freedom of action: if a minister or an MP needs to resign, it is their job they lose, their way of providing for their way of life: if volunteers are put-upon by those who seek their time and energy, the volunteer can more easily move on to something else. If we - we the IWA - have volunteers who are prepared to engage, for example, with local authorities and the complications of the planning process - this is a valuable contribution to preserving the canal environment: boating benefits - and if it doesn't seem to be of direct benefit to boating, then it isn't in opposition either. If our volunteers weren't doing this job which they find fulfilling, then they might well not be volunteering for us at all.

 

Personally, the issues I am good at volunteering my time for are the boating ones, which is why I am standing in the election, and why my blog is so heavily boating-oriented. Try this one as an example.

[carlt]

Personally, the issues I am good at volunteering my time for are the boating ones, which is why I am standing in the election, and why my blog is so heavily boating-oriented. Try this one as an example.

As you are standing as an IWA sponsored candidate, what you are good at, personally, may not be relevant.

 

The IWA proclaims its support for all waterway users and, considering the frequent disputes between cyclists, towpath walkers, anglers, canoeists, rowers, commercial and leisure boaters I do not see how you can possibly reconcile your IWA sponsorship with a place specifically reserved for boaters' interests.

 

Stand as an independent, but citing your experience with the IWA as a benefit to boaters, then I may think differently but, whilst you are wearing the IWA rosette so prominently, I believe there will always be a conflict of interest.

Edited January 30, 2012 by carlt

[Phoenix_V]

 

 

I think it's for those who detect a conflict of interest to give us an example to debate: where has anything the IWA has done been of disadvantage to boating? If I could bring an example to mind, I would write it and debate it.

 

 

I know they saw sense in the end but wasnt IWA's initial response to the proposed additional increase on licence fees for river boaters and widebeams (often one and the same as many small river cruisers are over 7'6") to support this blatant attempt by BW to divide boaters, and I didnt see much sign of consultation (at least here down South) by the IWA either.

[cotswoldsman]

Peter I would be happy to debate with you why IWA feel the need to sponsor 5 candidates for 4 places on the council.

[jenlyn]

Peter I would be happy to debate with you why IWA feel the need to sponsor 5 candidates for 4 places on the council.

6 actually

[Leni]

6 actually

Splitting the vote between many candidates means the 'winning' candidate actually needs fewer votes to 'win'. Therefore the more candidates IWA puts forward the better chance they have of at least one of their people getting elected.

 

Simples!

[alan_fincher]

The official list of the 33 candidates standing in the "private boater" part of these elections is now published on Waterscape....

 

Link to announcement

 

As has already been discussed there was clearly no obligation for the 5 "officially sponsored" IWA candidates to declare themselves as such, (or 6 if you include the AWCC man).

 

I would say, (just making an observation - I'll leave the "judgement" part to others!), it is far less than obvious from those statements which "names" will have the big associations urging all their members to vote for, and which will not.

 

As an example, is it entirely obvious which candidate is "sponsored" by both the IWA and RBOA, and would you possibly work that out from these election statements alone ? I would say "almost certainly not!".

[mayalld]

Splitting the vote between many candidates means the 'winning' candidate actually needs fewer votes to 'win'. Therefore the more candidates IWA puts forward the better chance they have of at least one of their people getting elected.

 

Simples!

 

Except that it isn't.

 

To repeat what I have said before;

 

This is an election under STV. the requirement to get elected to the council is 20% of the votes cast after transfers. Regardless of whether the IWA fields 4 candidates or 400, they still need 80% of the electorate to vote for them to get all 4 seats.

 

You cannot split the vote in STV

[Leni]

You cannot split the vote in STV

Not as such. However, the point I was (OK, maybe clumsily) making was that if you look on it as a 'party' election, as many of the posters here seem to, by fielding more candidates the 'IWA party' is seeking to ensure that "the better chance they have of at least one of their people getting elected" , as I said.

 

Of course, one way to skew (or do I mean screw?) the STV is if you only have one candidate you would wish to vote for, you can simply put a 1 beside your favourite candidates name and not put a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice! That way your vote doesn't get passed on if your favourite doesn't get enough votes in 'the first count'.

[mayalld]

Not as such. However, the point I was (OK, maybe clumsily) making was that if you look on it as a 'party' election, as many of the posters here seem to, by fielding more candidates the 'IWA party' is seeking to ensure that "the better chance they have of at least one of their people getting elected" , as I said.

I'm afraid that I still don't see your logic.

 

If IWA can count on 20% of the vote, they will get one seat. The number of candidates fielded won't affect that.

 

In fact the only difference that fielding 5 or 6 candidates will make is that independent candidates like me will be able to point to an unhealthy desire to stuff the boater seats from the IWA, which can hardly be to their advantage.

[jenlyn]

Not as such. However, the point I was (OK, maybe clumsily) making was that if you look on it as a 'party' election, as many of the posters here seem to, by fielding more candidates the 'IWA party' is seeking to ensure that "the better chance they have of at least one of their people getting elected" , as I said.

 

Of course, one way to skew (or do I mean screw?) the STV is if you only have one candidate you would wish to vote for, you can simply put a 1 beside your favourite candidates name and not put a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice! That way your vote doesn't get passed on if your favourite doesn't get enough votes in 'the first count'.

yes, you are correct to a certain extent, also, IWA members i would have thought will vote for their own, which could be quite a threat, so common sense says, just tick your favourite

[PeterScott]

The IWA proclaims its support for all waterway users and, considering the frequent disputes between cyclists, towpath walkers, anglers, canoeists, rowers, commercial and leisure boaters I do not see how you can possibly reconcile your IWA sponsorship with a place specifically reserved for boaters' interests.

IWA wants cyclists, towpath walkers, anglers, canoeists, rowers, wildlife, and other interest groups to support the waterways. We are pleased to accept their money to support IWA's charitable aims: "to advocate the conservation use maintenance and development of the inland waterways ..., to advocate and promote the restoration and the maintenance in good condition of such waterways and associated craft and buildings and structures and advocate and promote their fullest use for appropriate commercial and recreational purposes. ". That's a statement of boaters' interests as well as IWA's interests imho. IWA doesn't use its energies or resources on the not-waterway interests of these other groups.

 

For example, there are disputes between the slow and the fast on the towingpath: an analysis, some lighthearted - here: we all need cyclists to be responsible, and towingpath-owners to apply the conditions-of-use. I had a lockside discussion last year with a lockwheeling-cyclist who thought boatless-cyclists should be excluded from the towingpath. My advocacy of having to find a way of surviving together brought nods before the lock was full -but it may just have been politeness on a sunny day. Much the same line-of-thought applies to glum fishermen, large umbrellas and long poles. And here is an offline construction to meet a potential conflict of restoration and wildlife interests.

 

If C&RT or its Council needs reminding of its primary responsibility for navigation or as a navigation authority, I'll be pleased to do it from a boating and IWA perspective, and let's not forget that IWA successfully runs the Chelmer and Blackwater Canal through the subsidiary Essex Waterways and brings the extra credibility of actually doing a difficult job with limited resources.

[carlt]

That's a statement of boaters' interests as well as IWA's interests imho. IWA doesn't use its energies or resources on the not-waterway interests of these other groups.

That's just not good enough, in my opinion.

 

It uses its energies and resources on the waterways interests of those other groups which are frequently at odds with the interests of boaters.

 

How many boaters were unhappy about Sustrans metalling hundreds of miles of tow path, with IWA's support, to make high speed cycle routes, for example?

 

If C&RT or its Council needs reminding of its primary responsibility for navigation or as a navigation authority, I'll be pleased to do it from a boating and IWA perspective, and let's not forget that IWA successfully runs the Chelmer and Blackwater Canal through the subsidiary Essex Waterways and brings the extra credibility of actually doing a difficult job with limited resources.

Again, you are plugging the IWA's interest in waterways in general, yet you are standing for a place that is dedicated to boaters' interests in particular.

 

It is obvious that the IWA wants to influence C&RT and I don't see how anyone standing on its ticket can possibly ignore its wider interests and work solely for the boater.

[cotswoldsman]

Peter I think you missed my question as to why IWA feels the need to field 5/6 candidates?

 

Edited to say: I can only presume that one of the reasons for fielding more candidates than places available is that the the feeling within IWA is that 1/2 of the candidates are not up to the job. Which candidates are felt not to be up to the job?

Edited January 31, 2012 by cotswoldsman

[Phoenix_V]

let's not forget that IWA successfully runs the Chelmer and Blackwater Canal through the subsidiary Essex Waterways and brings the extra credibility of actually doing a difficult job with limited resources.

Now that certainly is a missed opportunity The Chelmer and Blackwater along with the Avon Trust and Wey Navigation are independantly run and all exist on a much smaller budget pro rata than BW (circa £400,000 in the case of the C and B)some representatives from these bodies might have much to teach CART about cutting your cloth to suit your means. Interesting to note too that the C and B is increasing licence fees by less than inflation unlike Bw and EA.

Unfortunately none of the IWA slate appear to be directly involved with the running of the waterway.

[carlt]

Now that certainly is a missed opportunity...

If you read the annual reports, of Essex Waterways and the C&B Trust, you will see that full size boats are some way down the list of priorities.

 

I believe that managing the C&B should mean that the IWA has an important consultative role to play but it doesn't qualify them to hijack a role reserved for a boater.

[Phoenix_V]

If you read the annual reports, of Essex Waterways and the C&B Trust, you will see that full size boats are some way down the list of priorities.

 

I believe that managing the C&B should mean that the IWA has an important consultative role to play but it doesn't qualify them to hijack a role reserved for a boater.

I dont know about the c and b but i've been on the Avon and it's pretty good.

IWA should have had a seat in their own right agreed, as they didnt what I would hope for is that they get 1 or possibly 2 but not all 4.

[sueb]

How many of the other candidates are IWA members? Should they be disqualified as well?

Sue

[jenlyn]

Just come back from a meeting where David Fletcher of NABO, gave us a talk on the transition. I have to say, I was quite impressed by the guy, maybe even converted!