Canal and River Trust Council - Private Boater Elections

[Chertsey]

I think Sue would have done better had she not been promoted by HNBC I would have had her far higher in my rankings had she not been and I know 2 other boaters who were of the same opinion.

I have to say with all due respect to you as a person that that is an absurd position. Either someone is a good candidate or they are not. Whether someone else supports them should have no bearing on that decision. What if HNBC had endorsed Alan (without him having sought it)? Would that have ruled him out as well? It very nearly happened; the committee was looking at the list of candidates with a view to endorsing sympathetic ones. We were all agreed on Alan, it was only because we disagreed on some of the others that the idea was dropped.

 

Yes you should so, for example, if the owner of a large marina, chooses to stand as a private boater, he should not then say "I am the ***** Marina candidate!".

 

Likewise, if he wishes to represent his business (a bit like Clive Henderson wanted to) then he should stand as a business representative.

 

 

All elections have rules and it is up to the candidates to abide by them.

Indeed, but the rules must be enforceable, and I am suggesting that there are no enforceable rules which could have prevented IWA doing what they did.

[carlt]

Indeed, but the rules must be enforceable, and I am suggesting that there are no enforceable rules which could have prevented IWA doing what they did.

Really?

 

"You have openly promoted a candidate as an IWA representative, which is contrary to the rules, therefore that candidate is disqualified."

 

Seems enforceable enough to me.

[cotswoldsman]

I have to say with all due respect to you as a person that that is an absurd position. Either someone is a good candidate or they are not. Whether someone else supports them should have no bearing on that decision. What if HNBC had endorsed Alan (without him having sought it)? Would that have ruled him out as well? It very nearly happened; the committee was looking at the list of candidates with a view to endorsing sympathetic ones. We were all agreed on Alan, it was only because we disagreed on some of the others that the idea was dropped.

 

 

 

 

We could go round in circles here I stated very early that I would not vote in my top 5 for any candidate promoted by an organisation, infact I posted early on that I thought Ivor would be a good candidate and was disappointed he was also endorsed. Had Alan been endorsed by HNBC he would not have got my vote and I am slightly surprised that you would endorse someone without asking them first if they wanted your endorsement.

[Chertsey]

Really?

 

"You have openly promoted a candidate as an IWA representative, which is contrary to the rules, therefore that candidate is disqualified."

 

Seems enforceable enough to me.

But what would the rule actually say?

 

Can you draft a rule that would stop the IWA doing what they did without preventing members of organisations standing or organisations endorsing candidates, or prohibiting the use of certain words? Because if you can, I take my hat off to you and would happily campaign for the adoption of such a rule for the next round of elections.

 

We could go round in circles here I stated very early that I would not vote in my top 5 for any candidate promoted by an organisation, infact I posted early on that I thought Ivor would be a good candidate and was disappointed he was also endorsed. Had Alan been endorsed by HNBC he would not have got my vote and I am slightly surprised that you would endorse someone without asking them first if they wanted your endorsement.

This illustrates the point I made earlier that people do not vote rationally.

 

Did everyone on this forum who endorsed Alan ask him first? I am pretty sure that they did not. And why be surprised at that? It is much anyone's right to say who they think is a good candidate as who they think is a bad one.

[alan_fincher]

HNBC endorsed Alan (quietly) and promoted Sue Cawson openly. But she was never called HNBC's 'representative' she was just someone the committee thought would be good.......

 

Hmm - very quietly - I'll set the record straight!

 

The actual words that most HNBOC members saw after reading about Sue's nomination, (their word), were "We suggest you use your other three votes to support candidates who are also known to have a commitment to waterways heritage and navigation." My name was not in that communication, (which also perpetuated the myth you had 4 votes...... ho! hum!....). Later, (on a web page only) I was acknowledged "as another club member who is standing", but not in any way endorsed.

 

The HNBOC said....

 

The HNBOC committee has nominated Sue Cawson for the Council and urges all club members to support her election

 

The IWA said.....

 

There are five IWA Trustees standing for election to CRT Council 2012; in alphabetical order;

 

Ivor Caplan

Clive Henderson

Paul Roper

Peter Scott

Vaughan Welch

 

People can make their own mind up about the degree to which each were being put forward as an associations representative.

 

I actually voted for Sue as my number 3, because I though she was a very strong candidate, (based on her record, not her election statement), but as it turned out, being recommended by an association with as few members as HNBOC might have been a double edged sword, and with hindsight I think Sue may have just as well standing independent of them - possibly better - we will never know!

Edited March 15, 2012 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

Had Alan been endorsed by HNBC he would not have got my vote and I am slightly surprised that you would endorse someone without asking them first if they wanted your endorsement.

To be clear, early on, when people were urging me to stand, as I was an HNBOC member, I contacted them t see if they had thought about the elections, and were thinking of putting forward a candidate. I was keen to know their intentions, and told them that as I was likely to stand, I "wished to avoid any conflicts of interest". (My exact words).

 

I didn't initially get an answer, but was eventually told it would be discussed at their next committee, which was to be well after I had to make my decision to stand. By the time they nominated Sue Cawson, I was already well entrenched as running as an independent.

[Sir Nibble]

May I suggest taking inspiration from the representation of the people act which governs our national democracy. To help provide a level playing field each candidate has a set amount they are allowed to spend based per capita upon the size of the electorate. Accounts must be kept for any costs incurred such as printing or advertising and every candidate must stick to the budget. If an organisation sponsors candidates then any promotional material in newsletters for instance is charged at normal advertising rates then we could have half a dozen candidates strutting their stuff in the same newsletter and I suggest no promotion at all would be the result. Similarly a website under editorial control would have to charge advertising rates but a public forum open to all would be free. Understanding of course that any self promotion posted by one candidate is open to challenge by another.

There's plenty more but suffice to say I think the RotPA is the place to start.

[PeterScott]

One thing I don't understand is why an association or organisation shouldn't have been obliged to field its candidates in the "waterways related companies" elections. It seems a more appropriate place for an organisation that describes itself thus "The Inland Waterways Association is a non-profit distributing company limited by guarantee."...:

IWA is a (limited liabilty) company and of course we are a charity too. Ordinary volunteer boaters and other waterway enthusiasts need the limited liability to (mostly) avoid the risk of something going awry and all our houses being whisked away by the lawyers - who already live in big-enough houses of their own. We do some trading activities - running our National Festival, running the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation and selling books mainly, as well as the directly charitable work of supporting the Waterways. All the trading profits go to the charity.See here

Presumably hire boat operators have several boats with commercial licenses so their representatives had to stand in the commercial election. What sort of licences do IWA boats carry?

We don't own any boats on BW waters any more - but when we did own nbJubilee (for about 10yrs to 2006) it had a private boat license iirc, and we didn't use it for trading. It's the trading element that requires the commercial agreement with BW (the modern equivalent of the commercial boat license) and hence the different constituency for waterway traders in the election.

...if he wishes to represent his business (a bit like Clive Henderson wanted to) then he should stand as a business representative.

Clive Henderson mentioned this election at the beginning of his evidence to the EFRA Select Committee on Tuesday: Clive's evidence starts at 1h2m30s, after BW's evidence. The exchanges with Barry Gardiner are interesting. For this election he had the ten boaters' nominations, as did all the other candidates, for his personal (and privately licensed) boat. And as with being appointed by Government as an observer on the BW board, this election is in a personal capacity. As chairman of the BW Advisory Board he was elected from that board's membership and was nominated to that by IWA. As an IWA trustee he was elected directly by our members to our trustee board, and elected by that board to be National Chairman: he was also appointed by the trustee board to be a director of our trading company, but he's not chairman of it. As trustees of a charity we have to register our interests with the Charities Commission and record in our meeting minutes any apparent or actual conflicts of interest - so it is important to work out which hat any of us is wearing at any one time, and we need to answer any criticisms that we are pursuing any business interests in our charitable work. Hence this dull answer :-)

[carlt]

Sorry Peter but all you are doing is explaining how the IWA was allowed to hijack the election.

 

You do nothing to explain how it had any moral justification to do so.

Edited March 15, 2012 by carlt

[steelaway]

Re this thread

Has any body seen page 14 of this months Towpath Talk ? New Faces

 

Alex

Edited March 15, 2012 by steelaway

[Chertsey]

There are two points in danger of being overlooked here.

 

Firstly, the majority of licence holders who voted, got the representatives they wanted. Rightly or wrongly (in our view) they chose to vote for an IWA candidate. They liked the IWA brand. Are we saying they should not have had that opportunity? What sort of democracy would that be?

 

 

Secondly, coming back to Cotswoldman's prejudice against voting for a candidate endorsed by an organisation - what, please, is the difference between these two scenarios?

 

HNBC members decide that Sue Cawson would be an excellent candidate. They persuade her to stand. HNBC members sign her nomination papers. An endorsement of her is published on the HNBC website and on some supporters' blogs.

 

CWF members decide that Alan Fincher would be an excellent candidate. They persuade him to stand. CWF members sign his nomination papers. Many endorsements of him are published on the CWF website and on some supporters' blogs. In addition, he receives help and advice on campaigning from other CWF members.

 

CWF has a membership of over 10,000

HNBC has a membership of around 600

 

 

 

And please don't say that this forum is more representative of the views of boaters as a whole, because boaters as a whole clearly support the IWA candidates.

 

Hmm - very quietly - I'll set the record straight!

 

The actual words that most HNBOC members saw after reading about Sue's nomination, (their word), were "We suggest you use your other three votes to support candidates who are also known to have a commitment to waterways heritage and navigation." My name was not in that communication, (which also perpetuated the myth you had 4 votes...... ho! hum!....). Later, (on a web page only) I was acknowledged "as another club member who is standing", but not in any way endorsed.

 

 

Alan, that is a trifle disingenuous. You did in fact approach HNBC and ask if they would endorse your candidature. It was when this was raised that the possibility of Sue standing was put forward. (Yes, she was nominated by HNBC committee members). The committee then decided not to endorse other candidates by name, because we couldn't agree on one of the other possibilities. You later said that it was better that your name not be openly endorsed by HNBC as this would compromise your status as an independent.

 

May I suggest taking inspiration from the representation of the people act which governs our national democracy. To help provide a level playing field each candidate has a set amount they are allowed to spend based per capita upon the size of the electorate. Accounts must be kept for any costs incurred such as printing or advertising and every candidate must stick to the budget. If an organisation sponsors candidates then any promotional material in newsletters for instance is charged at normal advertising rates then we could have half a dozen candidates strutting their stuff in the same newsletter and I suggest no promotion at all would be the result. Similarly a website under editorial control would have to charge advertising rates but a public forum open to all would be free. Understanding of course that any self promotion posted by one candidate is open to challenge by another.

There's plenty more but suffice to say I think the RotPA is the place to start.

 

 

Indeed. I have been an election agent and this is very rigidly enforced.

This would be a fair way of doing it. The level of spending would have to be set very low though if large organisations were not to have an advantage - as parties have nationally under the current system.

 

Where would blogs stand? I would liken them to newspaper opinion columns rather than advertising. There would be lots of grey areas like this but then again the RotPA rules and interpretations could be applied.

 

The bottom line here really is that people like the idea of democracy in theory, but only as long as it produces the result they think it should. I think we got the wrong result (although none of those candidates are terrible) but I also accept that that is what the majority of people voted for. Which is more than be said for the government. (which is why STV is better than FPTP)

[Sir Nibble]

There are two points in danger of being overlooked here.

 

Firstly, the majority of licence holders who voted, got the representatives they wanted. Rightly or wrongly (in our view) they chose to vote for an IWA candidate. They liked the IWA brand. Are we saying they should not have had that opportunity? What sort of democracy would that be?

You are absolutely right of course. STV does deliver a highly representative result and the people have spoken.

Secondly, coming back to Cotswoldman's prejudice against voting for a candidate endorsed by an organisation - what, please, is the difference between these two scenarios?

 

HNBC members decide that Sue Cawson would be an excellent candidate. They persuade her to stand. HNBC members sign her nomination papers. An endorsement of her is published on the HNBC website and on some supporters' blogs.

 

CWF members decide that Alan Fincher would be an excellent candidate. They persuade him to stand. CWF members sign his nomination papers. Many endorsements of him are published on the CWF website and on some supporters' blogs. In addition, he receives help and advice on campaigning from other CWF members.

 

CWF has a membership of over 10,000

HNBC has a membership of around 600

 

 

 

And please don't say that this forum is more representative of the views of boaters as a whole, because boaters as a whole clearly support the IWA candidates.

 

The difference here is that HNBC is an organisation, that is it is organised. It has an established mechanism for communication with its members and a system wide network of workers. In short, it has resources paid for with boaters money and the ability to use those resources in an organised fashion.

CWDF is not an organisation. It is at best a bunch of people chewing the fat, at worst a mob. CWDF does not have the kind of offline real world structure to be useful on the ground. More specifically, Dan has wisely avoided taking any official standpoint and no candidate has been put forward by CWDF, but by members who have used this public forum to communicate and debate. Have HNBC given a platform to candidates other than their own? because CWDF has hosted any number of candidates beyond Alan and Dave.

 

Alan, that is a trifle disingenuous. You did in fact approach HNBC and ask if they would endorse your candidature. It was when this was raised that the possibility of Sue standing was put forward. (Yes, she was nominated by HNBC committee members). The committee then decided not to endorse other candidates by name, because we couldn't agree on one of the other possibilities. You later said that it was better that your name not be openly endorsed by HNBC as this would compromise your status as an independent.

 

By bringing in the organisation and resources of nationwide organisations this election has gone right away to a situation where only a "party" has the profile and campaigning muscle and the independant is always disadvantaged. Make no mistake, elections aren't decided by the wise deliberations of the electorate but by the volume of campaigning thrown at them. It is perfectly possible and indeed easy to buy an election. By bringing in associations to the process the bidding war has been kicked off and I would not be surprised to see some of the more credible "also rans" coming together.

[Chris Pink]

One of the things Dave Mayall said sent me thinking, he said to vote for 4 electees (is this a word?) in a first-past-the-post election each voter has four votes. So the IWA feilding four candidates in a FPTP election could get their supporters to put all four of their candidates in.

 

It seems to me democracy would be better served if each voter had one vote for four places therefore each interest group couldn't get all four of their candidates in.

 

so the IWA supporters would have to choose, other groups would probably get someone in the other three places.

[Sir Nibble]

Indeed. I have been an election agent

Thought so, I could see you know what you're talking about. Me too, fun isn't it .

[carlt]

 

The bottom line here really is that people like the idea of democracy in theory, but only as long as it produces the result they think it should.

Well this may have been the bottom line here, but onlyif people had only been complaining about it after the result.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Secondly, coming back to Cotswoldman's prejudice against voting for a candidate endorsed by an organisation - what, please, is the difference between these two scenarios?

 

HNBC members decide that Sue Cawson would be an excellent candidate. They persuade her to stand. HNBC members sign her nomination papers. An endorsement of her is published on the HNBC website and on some supporters' blogs.

 

CWF members decide that Alan Fincher would be an excellent candidate. They persuade him to stand. CWF members sign his nomination papers. Many endorsements of him are published on the CWF website and on some supporters' blogs. In addition, he receives help and advice on campaigning from other CWF members.

 

CWF has a membership of over 10,000

HNBC has a membership of around 600

 

 

 

 

 

You raise a good point, I guess I have never seen CWF as a organisation with members, I have always thought of it as a place I go to discuss many unrelated topics. Many candidates including those endorsed by Organisations came on here to put forward there views, not sure they could have done that on HNBC website. For the record I sponsored Dave but mainly campaigned for Alan though Dave did get my second vote.

[Little Else]

Perhaps next time it would be a good idea if a candidate appointed an agent. I would assume the budget would be zero but a good agent could help with planing, ie where to go to get your message across and how to spread the word. I know with independents it would be like trying to herd cats but it could make quite a difference. I haven't fought an election for some time as an agent but the thought of planing and executing a really good campaign is really exciting. This post is in not intend as as slight on any ones campaign in the recent elections but could make a difference in the future.

[alan_fincher]

Alan, that is a trifle disingenuous. You did in fact approach HNBC and ask if they would endorse your candidature. It was when this was raised that the possibility of Sue standing was put forward. (Yes, she was nominated by HNBC committee members). The committee then decided not to endorse other candidates by name, because we couldn't agree on one of the other possibilities. You later said that it was better that your name not be openly endorsed by HNBC as this would compromise your status as an independent.

 

Sarah, I think we are quibbling over words, perhaps, but in my view I didn't actively ask the HNBOC if they would "endorse my candidature".

 

I know you have seen my actual initial words, but rather than us each saying our piece, I'll put them in the public domain. I would stress this communication didn't get answered anyway, until time was running out for candidates to get the necessary names together. I don't believe I ask them to officially support me, but rather to ask whether they have considered the matter, and what thoughts they had.

 

<name deleted>,

 

We have not formally met, I think, although I have now attended this year’s HNBOC meetings at Braunston. (We have owned “Sickle” since May).

 

I am approaching you to see whether HNBOC and its committee have any formal or informal position on the topic of electing BW Licence holders to the 4 positions they will hold on the new Canal & River Trust Council.

 

It seems obvious to me that many boating groups or societies may wish to try and ensure that their interests are represented by at least some of those elected, and some almost certainly by actively supporting a candidate or multiple candidates from their own membership.

 

Obviously most of us have only just received our letters about election of these “boater” members, of the council, and frankly the detail contained there and on relevant web-sites is less than clear about the role, or the voting procedures.

 

However, I am aware the published timetable for from candidates fully endorsed by the required 10 sponsors is relatively tight, particularly with the distraction of Christmas and the New Year intervening in that period.

 

I am already aware of other people starting to think about this issue, and will be honest that I have already had people suggest I should consider getting involved, though not specifically as a historic boat owner, (in fact we also own a more modern boat as well, and plan to continue to own both).

 

It would be helpful to me if you could share HNBOC’s thoughts on this matter, as I am now seriously putting my name forward as a candidate. Obviously if I tried to get involved I would try to represent the historic boat camp to the full, but equally if HNBOC already have clear thoughts about “preferred” candidates, I would wish to avoid any conflicts of interest.

 

Subsequently, after I did establish communications with someone else, I said this....

 

I propose to say I have a working boat, but I will be selling myself on a ticket of the need to unite and represent all boaters.

 

although I think that proved to be wrong, as I had not realised how few words 150 are, and I don't think I ever mentioned the working boat.

[alan_fincher]

HNBC members decide that Sue Cawson would be an excellent candidate. They persuade her to stand. HNBC members sign her nomination papers. An endorsement of her is published on the HNBC website and on some supporters' blogs.

 

CWF members decide that Alan Fincher would be an excellent candidate. They persuade him to stand. CWF members sign his nomination papers. Many endorsements of him are published on the CWF website and on some supporters' blogs. In addition, he receives help and advice on campaigning from other CWF members.

Yes but!

 

HNBOC has a membership list, with postal addresses for every member. I received a postal mail shot, separate from the club magazine, promoting Sue, and encouraging me to vote for her as number 1 preference. (As I said it also implied you had only 3 other votes - a blunder they should not have made, if actively involving them-self in telling people how they would like them to vote).

 

Dan has not given me (for example) a list of known CWDF members email addresses, so that I can send them promotional material, (not that he should or could, of course!), nor has the forum owner at any point endorsed my candidature. Only individuals have chosen to support me, (or to oppose me!), as they see fit.

 

I don't intend this to be either Sue Cawson bashing, or HNBOC bashing - I have no desire to do either, and had a very frank and friendly conversation with Sue as voting was drawing to a close about our respective chances. I have said I think she would have made a great rep, and I placed her third on my own list - I am pleased she did so well, and hope she isn't discouraged for a next time.

 

I'm not saying I would not have been endorsed by the HNBOC had they offered, because at the time I was talking to them, I don't think anybody had thought about it that deeply, (or knew that one organisation would try and take all the seats, of course, promoting strong "anti-association" feelings).

 

However, I didn't ask that they openly sponsor me, (in my opinion!). Lesson learnt, anyway - another time I would just run purely as an "independent", and would not even have a conversation with any club I happened to be a member of. With hindsight, I wish I hadn't this time!

 

Perhaps next time it would be a good idea if a candidate appointed an agent. I would assume the budget would be zero but a good agent could help with planing, ie where to go to get your message across and how to spread the word.

For the record, someone with electioneering experience on the forum did offer them-self as my advisor, and provide me with a lot of tips and encouragement.

 

I've not openly credited them, because I am not totally sure that would have been their wish, (particularly as I suspect quite a bit gets discussed on the forum that we would not necessarily agree on! ).

 

Perhaps remiss of me not to have asked if they would like openly crediting, but they know who they are, and I am grateful for the advice and support, even if I did not always feel able to follow it 100%. (I came to the conclusion at various stages that perhaps I am simply far too honest to be in "politics"! )

[Chertsey]

I am going to have to stay away from here today as I shan't get anything done otherwise, but it is fascinating as it ties in with my professional research interests*, which include people's ideas about what makes for good democratic representation - there might even be the basis of a paper in it! I am also currently writing a teaching resource about democracy - it's all connected.

 

Now, I must get back to work - preparing for a job interview on Monday.

 

 

 

*e.g. ‘”Don’t worry if you are not already a member of a party”: Councillor recruitment and the depoliticisation of local government’, Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Manchester, April 2009. Don't hesitate to ask if you'd like a copy!!

[Little Else]

Having an advisor is not quite the same as having an agent. I refer to my earlier comment about herding cats.

[Fu Manchu]

I think Alan's point about organisations having postal addresses of their members is a key one.

 

I was very surprised that only a third of the votes were cast on-line. O.K. some people will have used the internet to choose who to vote for and then sent their votes by post, but it does suggest that many would just have the 150 word statements plus their previous knowledge of the candidates. So an "independent" whose campaign was only on the internet was at a major disadvantage.

 

I believe it has been stated that next time voting will be exclusively on-line, which is good news.

[David Schweizer]

I am going to have to stay away from here today as I shan't get anything done otherwise, but it is fascinating as it ties in with my professional research interests*, which include people's ideas about what makes for good democratic representation - there might even be the basis of a paper in it! I am also currently writing a teaching resource about democracy - it's all connected.

 

Now, I must get back to work - preparing for a job interview on Monday.

 

 

 

*e.g. ‘”Don’t worry if you are not already a member of a party”: Councillor recruitment and the depoliticisation of local government’, Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Manchester, April 2009. Don't hesitate to ask if you'd like a copy!!

Well that response does not surprise me, rather than address Alan's reply to your initial allegation, you choose to tell us how busy and important you are.

 

It is a pity that you did not utilise your political expertise to advise the HNOBC that their voting advice was inapropriate.

Edited March 16, 2012 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

Well that response does not surprise me, rather that address Alan's reply to your initial allegation, you choose to tell us how busy and important you are.

 

It is a pity that you did not utilise your political expertise to advise the HNOBC that their voting advice was inapropriate.

I'm never going to please all my boaty friends here, am I ?

 

"Allegation" is stronger than I would put it - I don't think their are any clear cut right or wrongs here. I don't think I actively sought being backed, but as I had no idea of their intentions, at least I would have liked to have known what the situation was as I sent my papers in. Because of the delays, I was in fact already committed to standing before I knew what HNBOC did or didn't intend to do. The fact they ultimately only named one candidate, I felt kept me fully "independent", and I'm happy with that.

 

I know Sarah was frustrated that bad advice was given by them about "having 4 votes", and I know she had already made efforts before that to make sure they understood the situataion. Obviously by the time it was in a letter, the mistake was out there, (although I did feel they could still have corrected it on their web-site!....). They were not alone in misunderstanding, and other "advisers" got it more wrong.

[adam1uk]

Yes but!

 

HNBOC has a membership list, with postal addresses for every member. I received a postal mail shot, separate from the club magazine, promoting Sue, and encouraging me to vote for her as number 1 preference. (As I said it also implied you had only 3 other votes - a blunder they should not have made, if actively involving them-self in telling people how they would like them to vote).

 

Dan has not given me (for example) a list of known CWDF members email addresses, so that I can send them promotional material, (not that he should or could, of course!), nor has the forum owner at any point endorsed my candidature. Only individuals have chosen to support me, (or to oppose me!), as they see fit.

 

There was nothing to stop you sending members here a PM or an email, was there? It would have been a lot of work (and risked annoying people) but certainly possible.