A better management than CRT?

[Hawkmoth]

then explain exactly what Britain's aid budget has to do with managing the canals.

This government still subsidises the canals to some extent. As a country we are in debt, why do we give aid where it isn't really needed when that money could be spent in this country?

Bob

[cotswoldsman]

Working with CRT doesnt mean having to agree with then on every point surely it would be rather more constructive if you were to agree with them on some, or even the majority of points. Slanging C&RT off as incompentant and/or corrupt all the time as is done by some of the usual suspects on this thread is unlikely to achieve anything.

 

Why do you think CRT Boating should have such a high profile? Looking at the 2014 annual accounts I see that boaters' license fees and non BWML mooring income amounts to some £24M net after deduction of costs of collection, only slightly more than the equivalent figure for income from utilities and water sales and significantly less than that from property. That is out of a total net income of some £125M. How can you justify such an enormous subsidy for what is essentially a leisure activity enjoyed by a comparatively small number of people? The only answer is surely that we support C&RT in their aim of getting "ownership" of the canals accepted by many diverse groups across the country who will expect a significant say in how the waterways are run. Without this the future of the canals is pretty bleak. Boaters wont be prepared to pay for it.

 

Finally you want to get rid of all the committees. But it is only through such formatilities that consultation can take place. How would you propose that C&RT consult and bring interested organisations/groups into the decision making process? It cant sensibly be done on an individual basis.

I will make this a quick reply as I am about to leave my hotel. I do not remember saying that anyone should have a higher profile than anyone else, I simply suggested by that it would IMO be easier to manage by giving people clear objectives and responsibilities. I think you are wrong with your figures but even £24 million is not lose change and all those other things you talk about come a result of boats. I have no problem with non boaters and that is why I think again they deserve a seperate group to look after their needs.

Slagging off is a bit strong people express opinions and concerns the nature of Forums is that you tend to see things people have concerned about but I have also seen many posts defending CRT or congratulating them on things done well. I think you miss the point though about boaters without boats and boaters there would be no need for canals, also boaters tend to be more passionate about canals and maybe on a day to day basis are closer.

So can you give me an example maybe even more than one on what these Quangos have achieved in the last 12 months?

[NBDensie]

because that's what they do. doh. manage the waterways.

 

To what objectives and with what priorities? The waterways provide a lot more now than the ability to travel slowly from A to B. We also have anglers, cyclists, wild life enthusiasts, joggers, people who want to volunteer, people looking for somewhere cheap to live and perhaps in the future many more interest groups. I was disagreeing with any implication that boaters should expect a dominating influence.

[Hawkmoth]

 

To what objectives and with what priorities? The waterways provide a lot more now than the ability to travel slowly from A to B. We also have anglers, cyclists, wild life enthusiasts, joggers, people who want to volunteer, people looking for somewhere cheap to live and perhaps in the future many more interest groups. I was disagreeing with any implication that boaters should expect a dominating influence.

If boaters don't have priority then I can see a time when we just let the cut go and it becomes a cycle track/walk way/ fishing hole.

bob

[Boat&Bikes]

This government still subsidises the canals to some extent. As a country we are in debt, why do we give aid where it isn't really needed when that money could be spent in this country?

Bob

I think we give aid to many countries as a bribe/exchange for trade deals.

 

Ian.

[Hawkmoth]

I think we give aid to many countries as a bribe/exchange for trade deals.

 

Ian.

Sorry.

I'm sure we do. Doesn't make it right though.

Bob

Edited December 29, 2014 by lyraboat

[Jerra]

 

Finally you want to get rid of all the committees. But it is only through such formatilities that consultation can take place. How would you propose that C&RT consult and bring interested organisations/groups into the decision making process? It cant sensibly be done on an individual basis.

For me one of the major problems with CRT and its current operations is that there is no way an individual can feel that their views are being represented. Always turning to groups and organizations for consultations will result in certain view points being put forward while others are never heard.

 

In this day and age given the modern technology it should be possible to give most people a chance to have their input. Certainly more than would result in only consulting groups or organizations. With the best will in the world most organizations will say what the committee running the thing wants not necessarily what the rank and file member wants.

[churchward]

The idea of the separation between boating and what I call leisure is for policy. The maintenance is so much more than just canal infrastructure and needs to be able to stand outside the main parties and be held to accountable. Yes maybe a bit of infighting might not be a bad idea if all groups are set clear targets infighting might well mean a determination to deliver objectives

Are you planning to go there?? That would be good.

Yes maintenance is more than canal infrastructure but I still think that separating maintenance of what is needed for navigation (I don't just mean the means to move the boat) from "boating" would be a huge mistake. I see that side of things being a heuristic whole that needs each other to have a reason to exist.

[NBDensie]

So can you give me an example maybe even more than one on what these Quangos have achieved in the last 12 months?

 

The Trustees are a legal body required by C&RT being recognised as a charity. They have an ongoing management and oversight role as described on the goverment website here. I dont know what specifically they have discussed in the past year as I havent studied the minutes - they are available on the C&RT website. As I understand it the Partnership is the means by which C&RT major activities and plans in each region are reviewed by people outside C&RT. Again minutes are available if you are interested. All these bodies are relatively new and will take some time for them and the C&RT processes involving them to get fully established.

 

Suggest that people put a little effort into reading the documentation put out by C&RT and even get involved. The annual report should be required reading by all active boaters. There is no point in standing on the outside moaning and thowing bricks into the middle.

[Higgs]

 

To what objectives and with what priorities? The waterways provide a lot more now than the ability to travel slowly from A to B. We also have anglers, cyclists, wild life enthusiasts, joggers, people who want to volunteer, people looking for somewhere cheap to live and perhaps in the future many more interest groups. I was disagreeing with any implication that boaters should expect a dominating influence.

 

All of those groups have other options and are beneficiaries of the boating groups need of the canal. Boaters are the dominant reason the others have a canal environment that still functions. It's not the other way around. It is at the government's behest that the canal should be made more inclusive of other groups. The government will be pulling out in a few years. I hope then that the other groups are making a full financial addition to the coffers. I somehow doubt that will happen.

 

The boaters are the only group that will remain constant.

[jenlyn]

The Trustees are a legal body required by C&RT being recognised as a charity. They have an ongoing management and oversight role as described on the goverment website here. I dont know what specifically they have discussed in the past year as I havent studied the minutes - they are available on the C&RT website. As I understand it the Partnership is the means by which C&RT major activities and plans in each region are reviewed by people outside C&RT. Again minutes are available if you are interested. All these bodies are relatively new and will take some time for them and the C&RT processes involving them to get fully established.

 

Suggest that people put a little effort into reading the documentation put out by C&RT and even get involved. The annual report should be required reading by all active boaters. There is no point in standing on the outside moaning and thowing bricks into the middle.

A bit of a wasted post really. You have done no homework whatsoever. Plonk cotswoldsman into the search facility on here, you might learn something :-)

[NBDensie]

If boaters don't have priority then I can see a time when we just let the cut go and it becomes a cycle track/walk way/ fishing hole.

bob

 

I agree that this is a possible future. But it wont be averted just by boaters shouting that they dont want it to happen. It can only be avoided if a much larger community of people see that the preservation of the connected waterway is in their interests as well.

[Hawkmoth]

 

All of those groups have other options and are beneficiaries of the boating groups need of the canal. Boaters are the dominant reason the others have a canal environment that still functions. It's not the other way around. It is at the government's behest that the canal should be made more inclusive of other groups. The government will be pulling out in a few years. I hope then that the other groups are making a full financial addition to the coffers. I somehow doubt that will happen.

 

The boaters are the only group that will remain constant.

V good. Greenied

Bob

[magnetman]

Canals were made for boats

Water was made to drink, and for fish and.ducks. Fish and ducks were made for eating. Joggers and cyclists are just annoying. Walkers are acceptable. Land was made to till and build houses on

 

So. Fill in most of it, keep a bit for inland fisheries , duckeries (free food input from walkers) and water supply (say about 5ft wide). The rest goes to agriculture or house building.

 

Derelict locks make superb picnic sites.

 

The reality is canals were built for transport, declined then leisure use went up, that will in turn decline then decisions must be made.

 

Its not all about boats

[cotswoldsman]

 

The Trustees are a legal body required by C&RT being recognised as a charity. They have an ongoing management and oversight role as described on the goverment website here. I dont know what specifically they have discussed in the past year as I havent studied the minutes - they are available on the C&RT website. As I understand it the Partnership is the means by which C&RT major activities and plans in each region are reviewed by people outside C&RT. Again minutes are available if you are interested. All these bodies are relatively new and will take some time for them and the C&RT processes involving them to get fully established.

 

Suggest that people put a little effort into reading the documentation put out by C&RT and even get involved. The annual report should be required reading by all active boaters. There is no point in standing on the outside moaning and thowing bricks into the middle.

Can I politely suggest you read the minutes of the WP's so that maybe you understand what they do or do not do. Yes I am sad and read them all and keep a record of attendance by individual members. For your information some of the WP's were going before CRT started maybe you might also look at the last Parliament Co mite report on the WP then come back and post based on facts. I have also read all the minutes of the Trustees and I do understand the legal reasons for Trustees

Can I suggest that closely read the documents you are advising others to read.

[NBDensie]

For me one of the major problems with CRT and its current operations is that there is no way an individual can feel that their views are being represented. Always turning to groups and organizations for consultations will result in certain view points being put forward while others are never heard.

 

In this day and age given the modern technology it should be possible to give most people a chance to have their input. Certainly more than would result in only consulting groups or organizations. With the best will in the world most organizations will say what the committee running the thing wants not necessarily what the rank and file member wants.

 

On policy issues the problem is that each rank and file member will want something different. It is only by discussing, testing and consolidating views through organisations that a coherent proposal with some measure of widespread support will emerge. If you represent an organisation and wish to work jointly with C&RT my experience has been the local Region, and in particular its manager, will be more than happy to talk to you. Under the latest reorganisation the Regions have been specifically charged with this type of activity.

 

On more mundane matters such as a particular stretch of canal needing dredging or vegetation obstructing sight-lines a simple email to the local Region manager should work. My local Region has an email address for the purpose.

[Jerra]

 

On policy issues the problem is that each rank and file member will want something different. It is only by discussing, testing and consolidating views through organisations that a coherent proposal with some measure of widespread support will emerge.

I would seriously question that the only way you can get a consensus is through an organisation. Yes if you leave the consultation as a free fro all then it will be chaos but carefully constructed questionnaires will easily show where priorities are. This could be used to show what various interest areas want/need.

 

Consulting organisations has dangers that people with no interest in canals could influence the result. For example the Ramblers Association could justifiably claim the right ot be consulted but the majority of their members might never see a canal.

 

I seriously doubt that if we think of say 35,000 (ish) boaters there would not be a consensus of possible policies.

[b0atman]

Individuals are just ignored as I found when I left a written question with Richard Parry at the Banbury open meeting I put my email address and heard nothing .

So the only way is pressure groups the bigger they are the more notice will be taken .CRT is not for individuals they would soon put you down as an agitator .

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

The Trustees are a legal body required by C&RT being recognised as a charity. They have an ongoing management and oversight role as described on the goverment website here. I dont know what specifically they have discussed in the past year as I havent studied the minutes - they are available on the C&RT website. As I understand it the Partnership is the means by which C&RT major activities and plans in each region are reviewed by people outside C&RT. Again minutes are available if you are interested. All these bodies are relatively new and will take some time for them and the C&RT processes involving them to get fully established.

 

Suggest that people put a little effort into reading the documentation put out by C&RT and even get involved. The annual report should be required reading by all active boaters. There is no point in standing on the outside moaning and thowing bricks into the middle.

You suggest that people put little effort into reading the documentation put out by CaRT. I can only agree with that as you also say 'I haven't studied the minutes'!

 

With regard to minutes being put out by Partnerships, this is what I asked Richard Parry two weeks ago -

 

'All but one Partnership are recorded as having held Annual Public meetings but none have published minutes or notes. Why?'

 

I'm still waiting ...

 

[Graham Davis]

 

All of those groups have other options and are beneficiaries of the boating groups need of the canal. Boaters are the dominant reason the others have a canal environment that still functions. It's not the other way around. It is at the government's behest that the canal should be made more inclusive of other groups. The government will be pulling out in a few years. I hope then that the other groups are making a full financial addition to the coffers. I somehow doubt that will happen.

 

The boaters are the only group that will remain constant.

 

I wonder whether the anglers would see it the same way?

[onionbargee]

The management culture of lying and trying to BS their way out when they make mistakes needs to go.

[alan_fincher]

 

An example: the consultation on SE visitor moorings. The overwhelming conclusion was "find more data and make no changes until that data is collected". There would be very little disagreement that this was the conclusion. But it was never implemented, instead CRT simply went ahead with their original plan, on the way alienating many who had up to that point given them whole hearted support.

 

Hardly!

 

The proposal was for 22 sites, that Jeff Whyatt, and others considered as "priority".

 

Whilst I would agree the consultation was very badly handled, and some in CRT continued to want to believe they had been right in the first place, this is definitely not what has happened.

 

We had three pilot sites thrust upon us, but under subsequent pressure they have now retracted much at what was originally put in place at at least two of those three sites.

 

We have had the unfortunate happening of some extra getting slotted in at Stoke Hammond Three Locks, (ostensibly for a trial period only!). However that was never one of the 22 sites originally proposed.

 

At the moment, nothing has happened at the remaining 19 out of the 22 sites originally proposed, (although some like Marsworth and Oxford are still in danger of getting progressed, if we do not continue to insist on only making evidence based changes).

 

I would say 3 sites only implemented out of an original proposed 22, is hardly "going ahead with their original plan", and frankly both a bit of a slur on those who have very actively worked against it, and even those in CRT that we have so far managed to persuade.

 

My guess is that if we still had BW all these 22 sites might well all have been implemented by now, with no consultation, other than that the IWA was supportive of Jeff Whyatt's initiative.

 

It may be far from perfect, but in matters like this, we have more chance of changing things with CRT than I believe we ever had with BW.

[Tuscan]

 

On more mundane matters such as a particular stretch of canal needing dredging or vegetation obstructing sight-lines a simple email to the local Region manager should work. My local Region has an email address for the purpose.

I'm glad that you find the ability of aboat to navigate and more on the canals safely such a mandate function, I rather think it's a fairly essential function that needs to be performed by CRT as the navigation authority. Unfortunately a quick email to your local regional manager will no longer help as this has been centralised. Didn't you read the minutes?

[magnetman]

Thanks for that Alan. Its good to have a reality based view from someone at the coal face, so to speak

[cotswoldsman]

 

Hardly!

 

The proposal was for 22 sites, that Jeff Whyatt, and others considered as "priority".

 

Whilst I would agree the consultation was very badly handled, and some in CRT continued to want to believe they had been right in the first place, this is definitely not what has happened.

 

We had three pilot sites thrust upon us, but under subsequent pressure they have now retracted much at what was originally put in place at at least two of those three sites.

 

We have had the unfortunate happening of some extra getting slotted in at Stoke Hammond Three Locks, (ostensibly for a trial period only!). However that was never one of the 22 sites originally proposed.

 

At the moment, nothing has happened at the remaining 19 out of the 22 sites originally proposed, (although some like Marsworth and Oxford are still in danger of getting progressed, if we do not continue to insist on only making evidence based changes).

 

I would say 3 sites only implemented out of an original proposed 22, is hardly "going ahead with their original plan", and frankly both a bit of a slur on those who have very actively worked against it, and even those in CRT that we have so far managed to persuade.

 

My guess is that if we still had BW all these 22 sites might well all have been implemented by now, with no consultation, other than that the IWA was supportive of Jeff Whyatt's initiative.

 

It may be far from perfect, but in matters like this, we have more chance of changing things with CRT than I believe we ever had with BW.

Not sure about the BW/CRT comparison and I guess we will never know. The problem with that particular consultation was CRT learnt a lesson that it is better not to consult and just go ahead and introduce more 48 hour moorings.In one particular case based on nothing more than Parry popping in for a drink to a pub that wanted 48 hour moorings outside it is one of the few examples I can find of him listening and acting on what he heard!!