NBTA - Which Planet Are They On ?

[Athy]

If boat moorings became social housing, how many boats would find themselves in a position of statutory overcrowding?

Not nearly as many as there would have been if that statute had been extant in 1935!

[ditchcrawler]

Its even hit Narrowboat World now

[carlt]

If boat moorings became social housing, how many boats would find themselves in a position of statutory overcrowding?

 

More than would be hit by the bedroom tax I imagine.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

 

Highlighted "they" in bigger/bolder red. I suspect the "they" here is a limited number of individuals in this instance, who have some association (maybe associate membership, maybe friend-of-a-friend-of-an-important-person with) with NBTA. As such the campaign may not be one where the entire NBTA is unified behind it, or even aware their organisation is promoting it, but a much lesser scale campaign by a few individuals more-or-less-directly affected here. It makes more sense, given its asking for an imaginitive interpretation/invention of some rules, to get a particularly specific group of people some moorings.

 

Which is fair enough - but possibly dilutes NBTAs overall objectives as the definitive group that supports CCers.

 

I believe there are a number of other active boating organisations, it would be interesting what their position is on the situation.

There are quite a few members here, including my other half, and several friends. The press releases are being put out by one person- without the support of all members.

 

Edit- this one person is also barring NBTA members she doesn't like from meetings, by not inviting them, and banning them from member's social media groups.

Edited November 5, 2016 by FadeToScarlet

[Athy]

Sounds like a truly democratic organisation.

[BruceinSanity]

A logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent", if anyone's interested.

I thought it was the fallacy of the undistributed middle, like the politicians' fallacy:

 

Something must be done.

This is something.

Therefore this must be done.

[peterboat]

 

Most 'bits of paper' are not legally binding whatever they say.

 

Which 'act of law' is this you speak of?

The bit of paper that came through our and all letterboxes in the country telling us that the referendum would be enacted whichever way we voted and the referendum act that the MPs voted on

[peterboat]

 

From their website :

 

There are two types of membership:

Ordinary membership is open to itinerant liveaboard boat dwellers

Associate membership is open to any individual or organisation who supports the aims of the NBTA

 

1.2 “Bargee Traveller” means itinerant boat dweller, boat dweller without a home or permanent mooring, travelling boat dweller, live-aboard continuous cruiser or itinerant live-aboard boater and includes anyone whose home is a boat and who does not have a permanent mooring for their boat with planning permission for year-round residential use.

 

Presumably then, they are not campaigning on behalf of their 'members', as these moorings are for 'permanent' use, so who are they campaigning for ?

Virtual greenie sir made me chuckle

[Arthur Marshall]

The bit of paper that came through our and all letterboxes in the country telling us that the referendum would be enacted whichever way we voted and the referendum act that the MPs voted on

Hmm. So that was the one true thing that the politicians said, amongst all the lies. And, sadly, as the referendum was specified as advisory, that wasn't true either.

Now, all together - how do you tell when a politician's lying?

[Mike Todd]

And why the snidy pop at landlords? Not all are 'unscrupulous'. Some in my experience are extremely scrupulous and look after their tenants assiduously. I have loads as customers. (The unscrupulous ones won't pay my prices!)

The unscrupulous ones don't maintain or even repair their boilers anyway.

 

A logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent", if anyone's interested.

Or, to a mathematician, )A=> not => (B=>A)

[magictime]

I thought it was the fallacy of the undistributed middle, like the politicians' fallacy:

 

Something must be done.

This is something.

Therefore this must be done.

 

It is, but so is:

 

Horses have four legs.

This animal is not a horse.

Therefore this animal does not have four legs.

 

...where the mistake being made is "denying the antecedent". So it's more specific to describe it as an example of the other sort of fallacy of the undistributed middle, i.e. the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Paul C]

There are quite a few members here, including my other half, and several friends. The press releases are being put out by one person- without the support of all members.

 

Edit- this one person is also barring NBTA members she doesn't like from meetings, by not inviting them, and banning them from member's social media groups.

 

I suspected something like that was going on. NBTA have potential - there is space for a non-moderate boating organisation fighting for boaters. However they can't afford to get dragged down by internal infighting etc.

[Alan de Enfield]

There are quite a few members here, including my other half, and several friends. The press releases are being put out by one person- without the support of all members.

 

Edit- this one person is also barring NBTA members she doesn't like from meetings, by not inviting them, and banning them from member's social media groups.

 

 

 

I suspected something like that was going on. NBTA have potential - there is space for a non-moderate boating organisation fighting for boaters. However they can't afford to get dragged down by internal infighting etc.

 

So she is not actually 'representing' or 'speaking on behalf of' NBTA.

You can see how easy it is for one 'bad apple' to give 'viewers' the wrong impression.

[Chertsey]

 

It is, but so is:

 

Horses have four legs.

This animal is not a horse.

Therefore this animal does not have four legs.

 

...where the mistake being made is "denying the antecedent". So it's more specific to describe it as an example of the other sort of fallacy of the undistributed middle, i.e. the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Yay, less politics, more philosophy!

[Jerra]

 

Referenda are not legally binding. Or can you show otherwise?

You may not have noticed Mike but I never suggested they were. I merely pointed out that people are getting upset about the government following what to me is a logical and legal process. If they get upset about a logical legal process then they aren't going to take kindly to being treated rough shod.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

 

 

So she is not actually 'representing' or 'speaking on behalf of' NBTA.

You can see how easy it is for one 'bad apple' to give 'viewers' the wrong impression.

To their credit, some more senior NBTA people came to a meeting last night (although not every Cambridge NBTA member was informed...) and they are keen to work alongside Camboaters (the existing organisation representing boaters' interests) and are being far more open and communicative, which is very good to see.

[FadeToScarlet]

Here's a more measured response from Camboaters- http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cam-river-boaters-unite-protect-12100768

 

Edit- I would say that, 'cos I helped write the press release.

Edited November 5, 2016 by FadeToScarlet

[homer2911]

With the cost of land, materials and labour no house will be affordable for many. The answer was to have stopped Maggie selling off council houses.

 

Too late now! It is social housing that is required not affordable housing, as has been said all houses are afforded by somebody.

If Maggie hadn't allowed councils to sell off those council houses (note that she personally didn't sell any council houses, and didn't benefit personally from the sale of any council house - she merely allowed councils to make those sales), the net result would have been that those same people would have remained in those same council houses - not a single house would have become available to other families

, and we would have the same shortage of council houses that we see today. Lazy politics in the extreme - blame Maggie for the shortage of affordable housing, and conveniently forget about the 13 years of Labour administration that came after her downfall, with every opportunity to undo the supposed damage that Maggie had wrought.

I don't doubt that more social housing is required (let's all ignore for the moment the elephant in the room that is the enormous expansion in the quite legitimate immigration from EU countries), but let us at least not be silly enough to blame all these problems on a UK administration that ended 16 years ago.

Edited November 5, 2016 by homer2911

[carlt]

and conveniently forget about the 13 years of Labour administration that came after her downfall, with every opportunity to undo the supposed damage that Maggie had wrought.

 

This confusion between Tory Blair's Thatcherite "New Labour" government and the pre-1994 Labour party is contagious.

 

Margaret Thatcher put it best when she was asked what her greatest political achievement was and replied..."New Labour".

[homer2911]

naieve

 

This confusion between Tory Blair's Thatcherite "New Labour" government and the pre-1994 Labour party is contagious.

 

Margaret Thatcher put it best when she was asked what her greatest political achievement was and replied..."New Labour".

I'm not confused in the least! The net result of your point, for the affordable housing argument is ...........?

Edited November 5, 2016 by homer2911

[carlt]

I'm not confused in the least! The net result of your point, for the affordable housing argument is ...........?

There was no way New Labour was going to right the wrongs of the Tories social housing stock sell-off because they were exactly the same.

[homer2911]

There was no way New Labour was going to right the wrongs of the Tories social housing stock sell-off because they were exactly the same.

Couldn't possibly be because they saw it as a logical move? BTW, they never repealed a single trade union legislation change enacted by the Conservatives whilst in government, despite which, they got re-elected more than once.

Edited November 6, 2016 by homer2911

[carlt]

BTW, they never repealed a single trade union legislation change enacted by the Conservatives, despite which , they got re-elected more than, whilst in government,

Why would they? As I said...more of the same.

 

They may have been reelected but with a huge reduction in the share of the vote and their popularity steadily decreased when the voting public realised that there was no need to elect a parody of the Tories when they could have the real thing.

[homer2911]

Why would they? As I said...more of the same.

 

They may have been reelected but with a huge reduction in the share of the vote and their popularity steadily decreased when the voting public realised that there was no need to elect a parody of the Tories when they could have the real thing.

Democracy buddy, rightly or wrongly.

[magictime]

Yay, less politics, more philosophy!

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but...

 

If Maggie hadn't allowed councils to sell off those council houses (note that she personally didn't sell any council houses, and didn't benefit personally from the sale of any council house - she merely allowed councils to make those sales), the net result would have been that those same people would have remained in those same council houses - not a single house would have become available to other families

 

This just isn't true - lots of council tenants would have moved out and freed up a property for another family quite naturally. My parents started out their married lives in council housing, for instance, but bought their own place when they'd saved up a deposit. Other people would have moved into the private rented sector, and others still into care homes etc.

 

There was no way New Labour was going to right the wrongs of the Tories social housing stock sell-off because they were exactly the same.

 

Oh, come on. Yes, New Labour failed to tackle the growing housing crisis. Yes, they were too casual about inequality. Yes, they had an inexplicable obsession with market-based 'reform' of public services. Yes, they bought into a global consensus on 'light touch' regulation of the financial services industry that ended in tears. Those are serious failings, and that's without getting into tuition fees, foreign policy etc. But 'exactly the same' as Thatcher's Tories? Sorry, but as someone who started out raising kids on a low income under John Major, I saw my family lifted out of poverty by Tax Credits, saw my childrens' Bradford comprehensive school rebuilt to the highest standards, saw the time it took to get a GP appointment fall from two weeks to two days, etc. etc. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my children had a better start in life because they grew up under a Labour government (or that my wife and I had better opportunities in terms of postgraduate study etc., for that matter). This idea that 'they're all the same' does no favours whatsoever to people who are now having to rely on the Tories to preserve all the public services that underpin their quality of life. Remember, all those Tory cuts are cuts to New Labour's spending on New Labour's priorities. If you oppose the former you implicitly support the latter.