Alan Fincher for Canal and River Trust Council

[churchward]

Sorry, but I can't help feeling that's sex discrimination!

Nonsense. Why? Would being all female or all Male be better?

 

What I mean is that any team usually operates best in my experience with a mixture of gender as a diverse group can then curb the excesses of each other and also bring a broader view.

 

I don't suppose a picture of me in a dress and lady's wig would help would it ?....

 

....... Nope! - Thought not!

It's tempting but not quite what I had in mind!

Edited February 9, 2012 by churchward

[Guest]

Nonsense. Why? Would being all female or all Male be better?

 

What I mean is that any team usually operates best in my experience with a mixture of gender as a diverse group can then curb the excesses of each other and also bring a broader view.

 

 

It's tempting but not quite what I had in mind!

 

Surely gender doesn't come into it, does it?

 

It's about how well we think somebody will do the job, if somebody elected happens to be female/male is matter-less - I'm sure the candidates would rather be elected by virtue of their perceived ability to perform in the role and not by virtue of their gender...

[Alan de Enfield]

.....Would being all female or all Male be better?.......

 

 

I'm not aware that any candidates have admitted to being "half & half"

[churchward]

Surely gender doesn't come into it, does it?

 

It's about how well we think somebody will do the job, if somebody elected happens to be female/male is matter-less - I'm sure the candidates would rather be elected by virtue of their perceived ability to perform in the role and not by virtue of their gender...

In one sense it shouldn't but often it does matter. Since the population is split into roughly half and half (slightly more of females) then one would think all things being equal there should be some females on any committee as a statistical split. I do think a broad/diverse representation will help.

 

In any case I was expressing an opinion that it would be good to have a female on the committee it makes no mention of having to vote for one to the detriment of a better candidate that is your asummption. What will be will be but I still think it will be all the better to have some diverse representation.

 

I'm not aware that any candidates have admitted to being "half & half"

I guess it's possible!

[Dekazer]

In one sense it shouldn't but often it does matter. Since the population is split into roughly half and half (slightly more of females) then one would think all things being equal there should be some females on any committee as a statistical split. I do think a broad/diverse representation will help.

 

In any case I was expressing an opinion that it would be good to have a female on the committee it makes no mention of having to vote for one to the detriment of a better candidate that is your asummption. What will be will be but I still think it will be all the better to have some diverse representation.

 

 

I guess it's possible!

 

It's a bit of a feminist paradox. Of course meritocracy is widely perceived to be the best system of selection, but it's hard to believe that the 'male, pale and stale' make up of so many institutions can be attributed to old rich white men are better at everything than everyone else.

 

In my opinion it's much better to have a mixture of people on any committee, but I admit I'm hard pushed to describe precisely why.

[David Schweizer]

I had an email through last night for online voting but nothing by post yet.

 

I can't make up my mind on the candidates yet. I think it would be good to get at least one female voted in.

 

So, since undecided I am open to offers. Will candidates please PM me and outline what silver may cross my palm!!!

Strange, but I never thought of you as being a muddled thinker. Gender is not an issue, it is quality of the candidate. I worked on a great many committes as part of my job, the most at any one time being about twenty. One of the most effective committees was one comprising entirely of women (myself excepted as ex-officio), however, my overall experience was that gender is of little consequence. I have met good female committee members and poor ones, and the same applies to men.

 

Two of the most effective and best organized committees I worked with had an age range of 16 to 25 years old, but that experience does not persuade me that there is a valid arguement for all the candidtaes being under 25.

Edited February 9, 2012 by David Schweizer

[lexicon]

Well finally received my email voting pack some time after 10pm last night.

 

Looked at all the information and voted how i felt best given the statements.

 

Not entirely sure about the issue of sex of candidates comes into things or even should.

 

I firmly believe that in striving for equality we actually move further away from true equality and fairness.

[magpie patrick]

Given we've got a month and a pretty big list of candidates I'm surprised by the number of people who've already voted, unless they are working on the principle of "vote early and vote often"

 

It's the first time I've seen a comprehensive list of candidates, and I'm going to mull it over. I've already ruled a few out, and several in, with some "don't knows". So I'll look through it all again this evening.

[Sir Nibble]

Given we've got a month and a pretty big list of candidates I'm surprised by the number of people who've already voted, unless they are working on the principle of "vote early and vote often"

 

It's the first time I've seen a comprehensive list of candidates, and I'm going to mull it over. I've already ruled a few out, and several in, with some "don't knows". So I'll look through it all again this evening.

I shall just wait 'till the last minute and whore myself to the highest bidders.

[churchward]

Strange, but I never thought of you as being a muddled thinker. Gender is not an issue, it is quality of the candidate. I worked on a great many committes as part of my job, the most at any one time being about twenty. One of the most effective committees was one comprising entirely of women (myself excepted as ex-officio), however, my overall experience was that gender is of little consequence. I have met good female committee members and poor ones, and the same applies to men.

 

Two of the most effective and best organized committees I worked with had an age range of 16 to 25 years old, but that experience does not persuade me that there is a valid arguement for all the candidtaes being under 25.

I don't think I am muddled niether do I get my mucking words fuddled!

 

I didn't say female at all costs regardless of quality that is something others have put on my words. I am saying though I think it would be good to get as diverse a committee as possible and that includes a mix of gender but I do want good candidates.

[mayalld]

I don't think I am muddled niether do I get my mucking words fuddled!

 

I didn't say female at all costs regardless of quality that is something others have put on my words. I am saying though I think it would be good to get as diverse a committee as possible and that includes a mix of gender but I do want good candidates.

 

 

The problem is that as soon as you start down that line, the end result is that you are looking as passing over a more capable candidate to get a candidate of the desired gender elected.

 

I don't care if council is all male, all female, or somewhere between, so long as those elected do a good job, and I certainly wouldn't amend my preferences to skew either way.

[magpie patrick]

The problem is that as soon as you start down that line, the end result is that you are looking as passing over a more capable candidate to get a candidate of the desired gender elected.

 

I don't care if council is all male, all female, or somewhere between, so long as those elected do a good job, and I certainly wouldn't amend my preferences to skew either way.

 

I have no dilemma, as one of the female candidates is high up the list on the strength of her candidacy alone.

 

I've decided to use basically two criteria, navigation and built/mechanical heritage, as well as the obvious ones of calibre of the candidate and attempts to be inclusive. By navigation I mean system wide. I may have to do some reading between the lines, and also I did wonder whether I should be swayed by knowing the candidates. I've realised that it is almost impossible not to be swayed, as I know around half of them either face to face, though this forum or on facebook (or all three!). In any event I realised that my personal knowledge cut both ways, as it might work for or against a candidate.

[cotswoldsman]

Vote for Sue Cawson

 

I believe Sue is sponsored by The Historic Boats Society or whatever they are called. Does this not mean that like IWA candidates she does have an agenda. I do know soon and her love of the canals but I also know that her passion for Historic Boats gives her a slightly biased view of boaters.

 

Edited to add link to Historic Narrow Boat Owners Club who are sponsoring Sue Cawford Link to HNBOC

Edited February 9, 2012 by cotswoldsman

[J R ALSOP]

I have known Sue for 40 years plus, she used to work for Peter Froud (Canal Voyagers, Inland Waterway Holidays) as I did in 1962, she is committed to canals as I am, even after the influx of latter day boaters!. she and her sister and brother in law have probley done more boating than all of us put together. She got my vote.

[Guest]

I have known Sue for 40 years plus, she used to work for Peter Froud (Canal Voyagers, Inland Waterway Holidays) as I did in 1962, she is committed to canals as I am, even after the influx of latter day boaters!. she and her sister and brother in law have probley done more boating than all of us put together. She got my vote.

 

....pardon us who have come to the party a bit late.....

 

(MJG - latter day boater as only owned one 18 months)

Edited February 9, 2012 by MJG

[alan_fincher]

I have known Sue for 40 years plus, she used to work for Peter Froud (Canal Voyagers, Inland Waterway Holidays) as I did in 1962, she is committed to canals as I am, even after the influx of latter day boaters!. she and her sister and brother in law have probley done more boating than all of us put together. She got my vote.

Yes, there can be little doubt about Sue's credentials as a boater.

 

This is I believe, (unless someone wants to correct me!), Sue on "Renown" in (probably !) 1972, when we were sharing locks on a rather water starved Leicester arm. (We were with Bexhill - the chap with his back to the camera is my brother Mike, who has posted on here as "Antarmike").

 

 

I have no doubt she would make an excellent member of Council, but equally Cotswoldman is correct in that she is the person HNBOC are asking their membership to vote for.

 

One relevant difference, of course, is that the membership of HNBOC, able to vote in these elections, is at best a few hundred, so relatively insignificant compared to other big "associations" putting preferred candidates forward. Sue will, in my view, certainly have to attract votes far more widely from just the "historic boat" crowd, if she is to succeed.

 

EDITED: As the picture has gone missing!

 

Also to say......

 

Please, please, understand how the single transferable vote works.....

 

If you genuinely believe that "candidate A" is the very best choice for one of the council places, but "candidate B" would be your second preference, then don't just vote for "A", but put "A" as "number 1", and "B" as "number 2". This will not, as Dave keeps reminding us, in any way disadvantage "candidate A", but if you only vote for them, and they have enough votes anyway, or can never get enough, once all preference votes are considered, then your vote is effectively "wasted". If you have put further choices, and your vote is not useful to your first choice, you may help someone in that you also approve of. If you don't specify several in priority, (and there is no logical reason to stop at 4 preferences), then you may have failed to help elect someone you would have preferred to someone who ends up elected.

 

Awaits Dave's wrath if that is in any way incorrect!

Edited February 9, 2012 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

I have known Sue for 40 years plus, she used to work for Peter Froud (Canal Voyagers, Inland Waterway Holidays) as I did in 1962, she is committed to canals as I am, even after the influx of latter day boaters!. she and her sister and brother in law have probley done more boating than all of us put together. She got my vote.

 

Latter day boaters!!!! Like myself you mean. Though I have only known Sue for 5 years I hope she does not share your view on the type of boaters that are in the majority that she seeks to represent. In my post I was just pointing out the facts the same as we have done on here with IWA, RBOA etc candidates.

[mayalld]

Please, please, understand how the single transferable vote works.....

 

If you genuinely believe that "candidate A" is the very best choice for one of the council places, but "candidate B" would be your second preference, then don't just vote for "A", but put "A" as "number 1", and "B" as "number 2". This will not, as Dave keeps reminding us, in any way disadvantage "candidate A", but if you only vote for them, and they have enough votes anyway, or can never get enough, once all preference votes are considered, then your vote is effectively "wasted". If you have put further choices, and your vote is not useful to your first choice, you may help someone in that you also approve of. If you don't specify several in priority, (and there is no logical reason to stop at 4 preferences), then you may have failed to help elect someone you would have preferred to someone who ends up elected.

 

Awaits Dave's wrath if that is in any way incorrect!

 

No wrath, because you are correct!

[alan_fincher]

No wrath, because you are correct!

Phew! - I'm still passing the STV knowledge test, it seems!

 

Even organisations "sponsoring" candidates don't necessarily understand the system, as I have seen them make reference to "how you should use your other three votes".

[cotswoldsman]

 

Even organisations "sponsoring" candidates don't necessarily understand the system,

 

You are quite correct there!!! These places on the Council are supposed to be for people to represent ALL Licence Holders without bias.....if you are sponsored by an organisation this is very difficult.

[mrsmelly]

....pardon us who have come to the party a bit late.....

 

(MJG - latter day boater as only owned one 18 months)

 

Whats the cut off date in English law that dictates wether or not some one is a " Latter day boater " or otherwise ?

[cotswoldsman]

Whats the cut off date in English law that dictates wether or not some one is a " Latter day boater " or otherwise ?

 

I guess it is those of us can not stand at the lock and say "when I started boating 30 years ago"

[mayalld]

Latter day boaters!!!! Like myself you mean. Though I have only known Sue for 5 years I hope she does not share your view on the type of boaters that are in the majority that she seeks to represent. In my post I was just pointing out the facts the same as we have done on here with IWA, RBOA etc candidates.

 

An excellent summary of the issue.

 

There is a need for members of the Council who are aware of and sympathetic to the particular needs of historic boats.

 

There is also a need for any such members to also be sympathetic to the fact that the canals are for all boaters, and that "Latter day boaters" are not merely to be tolerated in the Historic Boats playground.

 

Unfortunately, amongst historic boat enthusiasts, there are many who do take this attitude, and whilst Sue has a respectable mid-table ranking from me at present, I would need to be more confident that she isn't part of the "get out of the way, historic boat" crowd if she is to climb higher on my list

[sueb]

You are quite correct there!!! These places on the Council are supposed to be for people to represent ALL Licence Holders without bias.....if you are sponsored by an organisation this is very difficult.

No it isn't. I see boaters being represented in general not individually. I can't see a representative going to a meeting and saying Joe Blogs our member is having mooring problems for example.

 

Sue

[churchward]

Latter day boaters!!!! Like myself you mean. Though I have only known Sue for 5 years I hope she does not share your view on the type of boaters that are in the majority that she seeks to represent. In my post I was just pointing out the facts the same as we have done on here with IWA, RBOA etc candidates.

I tend to agree. Although the phrase is not in her words it doesn't help her cause.