Voting for CART - unfair to many who are being "ignored"

[Laurence Hogg]

My voting pack arrived today but so did disappointment.

I got my "business" voters pack, yet my operation here with a BW business trade licence is "CanalScape-BCN", a group of volunteers who work alongside BW West Midlands. My actual waterway related business on its own would NOT have received a pack!!

I cannot vote for fellow enthusiasts who are standing as Boaters, they cannot vote for the business's. Worse and most critical is that amongst societies like the BCNS, Lichfield & Hatherton etc are some of the most committed enthusiasts around, some of the best thinkers, movers & shakers, excellent experienced fundraisers, who unless by sheer chance they hold a BW licence or are a "Waterway business" paying to BW will not be able to vote for the very people they work alongside!!

This is an appalling oversight in my opinion as they are shutting out the very voters who are truly "hands on" and who are in some cases have acheived incredible results (In this case one example would be a senior director of the Lichfield & Hatherton who has fundraised to build aqueducts etc).

Without the boatbuilders, repairers, the chandlers and the whole remit of services that keep the boating part of the system running there wouldnt be a "living" system, the boats are the blood in the veins, yet many many of these will know many of those who are standing and again will not be able to use their input to help shape the future. Its disgusting and depressing that this major sector of the industry is being totally ignored yet their input to the waterways is so great.

At this stage I really do think the senior management should sit down and rethink this voting system and extend it to those who are left out and who are feeling ignored.

It is causing bad feeling already in the trade and amonst those who want to support people and cannot.Already the comments such as "here comes BW mk3" are being heard and many people are now viewing CART as another BW just able to accept donations and populate a puppet governing body.

 

If you agree with my sentiments here please email Robin Evans: robin.evans@britishwaterways.co.uk

Edited February 9, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[jelunga]

My voting pack arrived today but so did disappointment.

I got my "business" voters pack, yet my operation here with a BW business trade licence is "CanalScape-BCN", a group of volunteers who work alongside BW West Midlands. My actual waterway related business on its own would NOT have received a pack!!

I cannot vote for fellow enthusiasts who are standing as Boaters, they cannot vote for the business's. Worse and most critical is that amongst societies like the BCNS, Lichfield & Hatherton etc are some of the most committed enthusiasts around, some of the best thinkers, movers & shakers, excellent experienced fundraisers, who unless by sheer chance they hold a BW licence or are a "Waterway business" paying to BW will not be able to vote for the very people they work alongside!!

This is an appalling oversight in my opinion as they are shutting out the very voters who are truly "hands on" and who are in some cases have acheived incredible results (In this case one example would be a senior director of the Lichfield & Hatherton who has fundraised to build aqueducts etc).

Without the boatbuilders, repairers, the chandlers and the whole remit of services that keep the boating part of the system running there wouldnt be a "living" system, the boats are the blood in the veins, yet many many of these will know many of those who are standing and again will not be able to use their input to help shape the future. Its disgusting and depressing that this major sector of the industry is being totally ignored yet their input to the waterways is so great.

At this stage I really do think the senior management should sit down and rethink this voting system and extend it to those who are left out and who are feeling ignored.

It is causing bad feeling already in the trade and amonst those who want to support people and cannot.Already the comments such as "here comes BW mk3" are being heard and many people are now viewing CART as another BW just able to accept donations and populate a puppet governing body.

 

If you agree with my sentiments here please email Robin Evans: robin.evans@britishwaterways.co.uk

 

I think I read somewhere that this first election is being viewed by the Government as a bit of a trial. Whilst I agree with most of the sentiments expressed, there are other groups of boaters who bring in lots of money the the canal "business" as a whole who are also not enfranchised, like hirers and share boat owners .

 

I do not think Robin Evans has any say in who the electorate are. I think that is more a Government thing in which case you should be emailing / talking to your MP and Mr Benyon. (Have I spelt that right?)

However, if you know more about the decission makers who decided the electorate, than I bow to your more extensive knowledge and withdraw most of the above!

[luctor et emergo]

Again, they don't really want our input. In due course, the right members will be announced (like tony hales, who has all ready been shoed in as ceo), and it will be business as usual...

[Phoenix_V]

I thought the business reps were supposed to represent the hireboaters and the WRG nominated rep the restoration groups?

[cotswoldsman]

Laurence I can understand what you are saying but these are early days and I think at this stage the concern was to give Licence Holders who will be contributing about 20% of the total income to CaRT were given a say, as small as that say might be.

[alan_fincher]

I thought the business reps were supposed to represent the hireboaters and the WRG nominated rep the restoration groups?

There is indeed one hire fleet operator, Nigel Stevens of Shire Cruisers, in the list of 5 candidates standing for a business place.

 

Obviously any number of hire fleet operators, chandlery operators, boat-builders, engineers, (or whatever!) could have thrown their name into the frame, but for whatever reason have chosen not to.

 

This produces the rather odd result, (in my view) that only 5 candidates are there for the 2 "business" Council places, whereas there are a full 33 competing for the 4 places available to "private boaters".

 

Make of that what you will, but it could be interpreted that private boaters are showing far more interest generally in the Council elections than most businesses are.

 

It is correct that WRG get an automatic place - so arguably the IWA were not after all denied any automatic places at all, as the WRG is these days a sub-group of that organisation.

[Phoenix_V]

 

 

It is correct that WRG get an automatic place - so arguably the IWA were not after all denied any automatic places at all, as the WRG is these days a sub-group of that organisation.

But the WRG man/woman is just nominated by them so not necessairly a member of WRG or IWA and is supposed to represent restoration/volunteer interests, not the wider aims of IWA so is not their rep.

[andrewcooley]

 

...other groups of boaters who bring in lots of money the the canal "business" as a whole who are also not enfranchised, like hirers and share boat owners .

 

 

Just to put the record straight, shared ownership boaters do have the opportunity to be represented. Their boats are licensed as private boats, and the licence holder has a vote.

 

I know two of the candidates have a shared ownership background - John Cowan and Peter Scott

[alan_fincher]

But the WRG man/woman is just nominated by them so not necessairly a member of WRG or IWA and is supposed to represent restoration/volunteer interests, not the wider aims of IWA so is not their rep.

Well I did say "arguably"!

 

Are you suggesting that the WRG (sub group of IWA) might possibly nominate a "restoration" member for council who is not one of their membership ?

 

It might be possible, I suppose, but surely you'll admit it sounds a tad unlikely ?

[Tam & Di]

There is indeed one hire fleet operator, Nigel Stevens of Shire Cruisers, in the list of 5 candidates standing for a business place.

 

Obviously any number of hire fleet operators, chandlery operators, boat-builders, engineers, (or whatever!) could have thrown their name into the frame, but for whatever reason have chosen not to.

 

This produces the rather odd result, (in my view) that only 5 candidates are there for the 2 "business" Council places, whereas there are a full 33 competing for the 4 places available to "private boaters".

 

Make of that what you will, but it could be interpreted that private boaters are showing far more interest generally in the Council elections than most businesses are.

 

It is correct that WRG get an automatic place - so arguably the IWA were not after all denied any automatic places at all, as the WRG is these days a sub-group of that organisation.

 

I'm outside of all this, having no UK boat anymore. But it might in this instance be that businesses have a fairly coherent trade body - the Association of Pleasurecraft Operators - and don't feel the need to put up several competing candidates. Certainly Nigel Stevens would be an excellent candidate. Di and I worked very closely alongside him when he was Chairman of APCO and Di vice-Chairman at the time of the 1995 Waterways Bill and other upheavals. He is a very clear thinker and not a person to let BW sweep all before them without a serious battle on their hands.

 

I could be mistaken, as we've not been involved with APCO to any extent and I could be making it all up. I'd be happy with Nigel though.

[carlt]

Are you suggesting that the WRG (sub group of IWA) might possibly nominate a "restoration" member for council who is not one of their membership ?

 

It might be possible, I suppose, but surely you'll admit it sounds a tad unlikely ?

I suppose there is a chance the canoeists will nominate a rower then...

 

(from another thread)

OK, so the canoeists get a representative. Is no-one representing Rowing Eights?

[alan_fincher]

Tam,

 

You may well be right......

 

It could be that some discussion has gone on before nominations went in, and a candidate has been found that many like minded people might support, rather than that line of business putting up several.

 

Because of trade associations, these guys will generally have a much better communications network in the first place, you are correct.

 

Not like me as a private boater throwing may name in the hat, having little idea whether I might be competing for places with 10 others or maybe even a hundred others.

[Laurence Hogg]

I wrote to both Robin Evans and Simon Salem in regards to my concerns as outlined in the opening of this thread. Simon has replied taking my concerns seriously, here is the relevent part of the reply:

 

"The Trust has always said that these elections were the start of a process that would be reviewed and developed. There was a need to start quickly and achieve what could easily be done. As a result 30,000 plus boaters and hundreds of businesses have a very important chance to participate its really sad that people cant see the positive in that.

 

 

 

The Trust said that it planned to develop a voting constituency of donors once there are enough of them to make up such a constituency and also that there would be a review of the whole electoral and nomination to council system in a few years time. So my challenge to you is to suggest you say to the critics (people like you have a voice!) that the trust has made a clear and quick democratic start and its up to all of us to play a part in developing this in the next few years.

 

 

 

If the waterways movement cant take this opportunity to pull together and make a positive case, then it is doomed to declining influence and relevance. I am an optimist I think we will go from strength to strength! "

Edited February 10, 2012 by Laurence Hogg

[carlt]

The Trust said that it planned to develop a voting constituency of donors once there are enough of them to make up such a constituency

Doesn't this amount to a membership scheme?

 

I thought they had no plans for such a system.

[Higgs]

Doesn't this amount to a membership scheme?

 

I thought they had no plans for such a system.

 

It may be part of a softly softly approach. ? I hope membership schemes will be used in the future. It will eat into the IWA's territory though.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Higgs

[David Mack]

This is an appalling oversight in my opinion as they are shutting out the very voters who are truly "hands on" and who are in some cases have acheived incredible results

 

I agree that the current system disenfranchises many who are "boaters" but who are not named 12-month BW licence holders (including me).

 

But I do have some sympathy with BW/CRT. How else can you define "Boaters" without getting into a terrible mess?

 

Most would probably agree that the electorate ought to include licence holders, close family members of licence holders and share boat owners other than the licence holder. But what about those who frequently boat with friends but are not themselves boat owners. Or those who hire for a week once a year? Or those who keep their boats elsewhere, and only occasionally vewnture onto BW waters? And should we take away the vote from those whose boats spend all year in a marina but never venture out?

 

David

[Mac of Cygnet]

There is indeed one hire fleet operator, Nigel Stevens of Shire Cruisers, in the list of 5 candidates standing for a business place.

 

 

Alan, how did you find this? AAs a private boater I've not been given any info on who's standing in the business places election. Who else is standing?

 

I agree with Tam & Di that Nigel is an excellent candidate.

[carlt]

I hope membership schemes will be used in the future. It will eat into the IWA's territory though.

I'm not so sure.

 

If the membership system is operated like English Heritage's (which is the model I would have preferred, rather than the C&RT one) then IWA would still keep its status as a campaigning body.

 

The IWA's place is outside the managing authority, campaigning, not trying to become poacher turned gamekeeper.

[alan_fincher]

Alan, how did you find this? AAs a private boater I've not been given any info on who's standing in the business places election. Who else is standing?

 

I agree with Tam & Di that Nigel is an excellent candidate.

candidate lists for both private and business places are available here

[Phoenix_V]

Well I did say "arguably"!

 

Are you suggesting that the WRG (sub group of IWA) might possibly nominate a "restoration" member for council who is not one of their membership ?

 

It might be possible, I suppose, but surely you'll admit it sounds a tad unlikely ?

Unlikely agreed but hopefully they will nominate someone not too far up the WRG hierarchy who can act independantly and represent all restoration/volunteer interests

There would certainly be some sort of outcry if the rep is seen to be favouring WRG against some other group or only supporting WRG.

Also WRG are sufficiently independant that I dont see any chance of their being the represenatives of IWA on the Cart waggon

[magpie patrick]

I don't often come out on the same side as Simon Salem but I think he has a point, they were never going to get it right first time and indeed they are never going to please everybody. We need to knuckle down and get on with it

 

As a canal enthusiast and chairman of a canal society, and a fundholder for another canal project, I get one vote, because I own a boat and licence it on BW waters and not for any of the other reasons. It isn't ideal, but then I suppose it reflects the fact that I invest my own money in my continued use of the canals, whereas a hirer may go on the Broads or to the Cost Del Sol next year.

 

It sounds like Laurence has fallen foul of an anomaly, I suspect Luctor may have too, simply because of holding a trading licence rather than a leisure one, despite in both cases their interests being more closely aligned with leisure licence holders. Hopefully such anomalies will be ironed out, but I doubt they'll ever make the system perfect

[MartinClark]

candidate lists for both private and business places are available here

 

I am a little concerned to note that one of the candidates has either misunderstood or else re-interpreted 'boating business candidate' as 'boat business candidate', saying "I am standing to represent the interests of other Licensed Canal Traders as a Boat Business Candidate." This seems to ignore the point that the majority of his would-be constituents are land-based businesses.

 

He also says that as a live-aboard, continuous cruiser, "I will be very keen to ensure that our interests are also served in these areas." I would have thought that the interests of live-aboard boaters and continuous cruisers would have been represented by the private boaters' representatives?

[jelunga]

Just to put the record straight, shared ownership boaters do have the opportunity to be represented. Their boats are licensed as private boats, and the licence holder has a vote.

 

I know two of the candidates have a shared ownership background - John Cowan and Peter Scott

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was that only 1, the licensee, will be abke to vote. The remainder, up to 10 at least maybe, would not

[Mac of Cygnet]

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was that only 1, the licensee, will be abke to vote. The remainder, up to 10 at least maybe, would not

 

I think that's fair enough. If I only owned 1/12 of a boat (which I did once)), I would only expect 1/12 of a vote, in other words the licencee would probably take into account the preferences, if any, of the other owners.

[Laurence Hogg]

Alan, how did you find this? AAs a private boater I've not been given any info on who's standing in the business places election. Who else is standing?

 

I agree with Tam & Di that Nigel is an excellent candidate.

I agree too and my vote goes to Nigel Stevens, Howard Pridding and Tony Matts are standing too with the other one being a woman who runs an organic floating cafe in London whos name I have forgotten