What Has Become Of The "waterway Partnerships"

[Laurence Hogg]

In my own area (West Midlands) I hear nothing now of any significance for a considerable time about the local waterway partnership. I considered these to be a useless toothless tiger from day one and simply a con trick as they held no real power or say over what happened, but what are they doing now, why should they still exist?

 

Are simply part of the smoke and mirrors for CRT?

Edited June 20, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[b0atman]

CRT was the chance for a new interactive partnership but hey ho! back to the world of BW

[larkshall]

No it's swung way past BW limits

[cotswoldsman]

In my own area (West Midlands) I hear nothing now of any significance for a considerable time about the local waterway partnership. I considered these to be a useless toothless tiger from day one and simply a con trick as they held no real power or say over what happened, but what are they doing now, why should they still exist?

 

Are simply part of the smoke and mirrors for CRT?

They seem to have taken over the running of the canals in some areas a competition between them and CRT to see who can do the worse job

[b0atman]

This I believe is why we need to send emails to MPs, they need to know that what is and could be even more so a major attraction in this country has no real membership.

At the moment it is lead by one man who may alone have good ideals but needs to have a membership not licence payers and elected representatives whose voice is heard.

Only my opinion

[b0atman]

Just a mention I think that the Shropshire union society have done sterling work over the years and the Macclesfield society are now getting on well .The WRG always excellent.

This is what wants rolling out as partnerships but whilst CRT are not answerable to the users then a rift will form and the canals will be the losers.

The IWA where once a great thing for the canals but having heard some of their opinions at a boaters meeting I think that they have lost their way.

[ditchcrawler]

 

The IWA where once a great thing for the canals but having heard some of their opinions at a boaters meeting I think that they have lost their way.

I think you may be right. When BW were there, basically a government department they knew what they were dealing with. Now like them its a Charity with supposedly basically the same aims as them, I think they are a bit lost on what they are supposed to do, fight or support?

[Laurence Hogg]

Can anyone put forward a significant achievement of any waterway partnership anywhere in the country?

[cotswoldsman]

Can anyone put forward a significant achievement of any waterway partnership anywhere in the country?

Come on Laurance I have never been very good at quizzes, give us a clue

[Tuscan]

Surely the main achievement is for the chairs to be the majority block in the CRT Council , which in turn has achieved ...................

 

The original idea was that they would facilitate the introduction of funds that CRT itself would not have access to, this was very quickly dropped and in fact I believe they are now still expensed by CRT. I suggest that they are now used as a sounding board between CRT and the local area to encourage greater adoption of stretches of canal and greater use by the wider community. Not necessarily a bad thing I just wonder whether CRT could not have done this themselves via a waterways manager without creating quangos across the country. They can also be used to justify and rubber stamp changes to visitor moorings as we have seen.

[cotswoldsman]

Surely the main achievement is for the chairs to be the majority block in the CRT Council , which in turn has achieved ...................

.

That is if they leave their own kingdoms and bother to turn up for Council meetings. Must be difficult for them with all the other things they do to attend 2 meetings a year

[Laurence Hogg]

Come on Laurance I have never been very good at quizzes, give us a clue

John I haven't one, which is why I posted the question. If you google "Waterway partnerships" all you get are CRT or IWA references, they appear to have not made any news anywhere.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[jenlyn]

John I haven't one, which is why I posted the question. If you google "Waterway partnerships" all you get are CRT or IWA references, they appear to have not made any news anywhere.

A pretty useless debacle. I think that should sum it up.

[cotswoldsman]

Ok here is a challenge read all 12 of the Waterways Partnership "Ten Year Strategy" documents and see if you can spot the difference other than location and use of different words that mean the same.

[Laurence Hogg]

What surprises me about the West Midlands partnership is the chair Peter Mathews is a highly respected businessman in the Black Country, what he gets involved in always moves forward and is a success, however in the case of the partnership one could say he is getting no where, and that is not the Peter Mathews I know. So what really is wrong?

 

Are these quango's a "nothing" just put there to "appear" to be engaging with local people and raising money, which clearly isn't happening.

[churchward]

In my own area (West Midlands) I hear nothing now of any significance for a considerable time about the local waterway partnership. I considered these to be a useless toothless tiger from day one and simply a con trick as they held no real power or say over what happened, but what are they doing now, why should they still exist?

 

Are simply part of the smoke and mirrors for CRT?

Personally I don't really know.

 

These committees are almost completely opaque to me I don't know what they discuss, decide or act upon. I know from posts on here folk like Alan Fincher serve on one or more of them but I have no info to have any knowledgeable view.

 

I suspect again from posts on here more than anything that folk like Alan are trying to make a difference but as there seems to be no output I can review I can only take that on trust.

 

It is a shame I think that CRT dismissed the membership model early on. If joining as a "friend" or purchasing a licence meant you were a member and then such committees had a duty to report to the membership it would be for the better and the committees would need to justify their existence by showing what they are achieving. Maybe it may even be reasonable for the membership to vote for who they wanted to have on the committee and just as important vote off those that don't do much.

Edited June 20, 2015 by churchward

[cotswoldsman]

Personally I don't really know.

 

These committees are almost completely opaque to me I don't know what they discuss, decide or act upon. I know from posts on here folk like Alan Fincher serve on one or more of them but I have no info to have any knowledgeable view.

 

I suspect again from posts on here more than anything that folk like Alan are trying to make a difference but as there seems to be no output I can review I can only take that on trust.

 

It is a shame I think that CRT dismissed the membership model early on. If joining as a "friend" or purchasing a licence meant you were a member and then such committees had a duty to report to the membership it would be for the better and the committees would need to justify their existence by showing what they are achieving. Maybe it may even be reasonable for the membership to vote for who they wanted to have on the committee and just as important vote off those that don't do much.

I agree with most of what you say except the membership bot but I have stated that many times.

They are unaccountable bodies who seem to have been given to much power and now appears a very flexible brief. As I have said before I am rather sad and keep a watch on these partnerships as best as I can from what is in the Public domain.

I think there are a few well intentioned people but they are a very small minority. I often ask myself why do these people do it they never had any interest in canals before the Partnerships. If you look at the attendance record of some they soon lose interest. If you read the minutes in detail as I do (yes very sad) nothing ever gets followed through. One partnership for example came up with the idea that all canal side businesses should be identified and contacted. The person tasked with that job then did not attend the next 3 meetings and the subject was never mentioned again.

IMO Waterways Partnerships were a good idea but there are to many some of the Partnerships could have been merged so you end up with 6. There is no joined up thinking between Partnerships (bit like CRT) They are badly managed by CRT meaning they completely lack direction. The 10 year strategies they came up with are a complete joke. When I was in business if someone presented me with with some of these 10 year strategies they would have been sacked. They don't even know what they are doing next month never mind over 10 years.

Edited June 20, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[scrumpylurcher]

There was a move late last year to promote local waterways partnerships, one was suggested for Braunston. One meeting took place with a further planned for Feb 2015. This, as far as I am aware, did not take place. Stoke Bruerne and Blisworth were put forward as good examples of what could be achieved. Blisworth works with CRT but is totally independent, there is no representation by CRT and all board members are resident of Blisworth. Stoke Bruerne is totally different and it seems to be directly linked to CRT.

I have today been informed that the Braunston Canal Partnership is again to be discussed, this would seem to show that the idea is still current and is still being pursued.

[Peter-Bullfinch]

I soon became very disillusioned with the Partnership and our local NW team. We set up and held meetings in Liverpool, Wigan and Rufford with C&RT staff. Agendas, minutes and actions were agreed. We offered our time, our expertise, our manpower and they agreed to facilitate and support our efforts.

But....and this was the disappointing part...afterwards they ignored us and wouldn't follow through with their actions and tasks which had been previously agreed. We became frustrated and the group degenerated into a small volunteering group in a quite a small area.

I don't believe there was ever any intention locally to let us help and assist. A lot of goodwill and volunteer help was lost.

I, of course, realise that getting volunteers organised needs resources but that doesn't excuse staff making promises to do something whilst quietly having absolutely no intention of doing anything. At the very least we were treated discouteously.

[cotswoldsman]

The NW Partnership have provided me with a few hours of amusement besides changing a few VM on the Lancaster Canal that were not needed or wanted they are a complete waste of time. Guess you only need to look at the NW Waterways that seem to be going backwards it is a prime example of a Partnership that has contributed nothing. I was recently talking to a Councilor in Burscough about the canal and he informed me he had contacted the Partnership to set up a meeting, somebody got back to him to set up a meeting and he never heard from them again

[Tuscan]

I drove a considerable distance to the presentation of the SE Partnerships 10 year plan , by the time CRT had finished their presentation and the chair had read out every power point bullet - of management speak . It was obvious twaddle, I did get to ask how they would measure success at say the end of year 1 and 2 but was met with silence and the chair putting his coat on as he announced their was only 10 minutes left for questions as he had over run on his presentation.

[cotswoldsman]

I drove a considerable distance to the presentation of the SE Partnerships 10 year plan , by the time CRT had finished their presentation and the chair had read out every power point bullet - of management speak . It was obvious twaddle, I did get to ask how they would measure success at say the end of year 1 and 2 but was met with silence and the chair putting his coat on as he announced their was only 10 minutes left for questions as he had over run on his presentation.

You should know better than to ask John Best an awkward question. Just as well you never asked him about the RMP that the Partnership tried to call their own until they went pear shape. Seems like we are doomed whenever he likes something seems he likes the Winter Moorings so that makes me think they are doomed now John Best and Matthew Symonds make a lethal partnership

[alan_fincher]

I know from posts on here folk like Alan Fincher serve on one or more of them but I have no info to have any knowledgeable view.

 

I suspect again from posts on here more than anything that folk like Alan are trying to make a difference but as there seems to be no output I can review I can only take that on trust.

Just to clarify then, I am only on the Boating Sub Group of the South East Partnership - I am not involved in the full Partnership, although Cath is a member of that, (as is at least one other CWDF member).

 

You can see who attends the Boating Sub Group here, and who the main Partnership here.

 

The meeing notes from both groups are published once agreed by the relevant chairs, usually a week or two after each meeting, but finding them can be a bit obscure, as like other CRT meeting notes, they get put on the calendar pages for the relevant day. [in fact, I have just looked, and can't find any, because I can't make their calendar go back beyond current month - I will enquire where I should now be looking!]. Anyway, now I realise people seldom see these, I will try and issue notification when I'm aware a set is available.

 

What I have repeaedly said in the sub-group is that I do not consider the notes show enough detail, often to the extent that if you were not present, they give the impression that we all agreed, whereas in reality there was a "robust debate"(!) Some of the more recent ones have shown more success at getting greater detail included, but there is I feel some way to go. To be honest this is not because it is related to the Partnership - most CRT meeting notes seem to be very scant by choice, and those for other advisory groups are often less informative than those or meetings I attend.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Think I have found past meeting agendas, and notes.....

 

The way in is this page, I think.

 

My groups last meeting was in March, and this page, links to both the agenda and the meeting notes.

 

So we are not actually a "secret group" as some have suggested - just slightly hard to find!

 

Edited June 20, 2015 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

Best way to find meeting notes (CRT no longer do minutes as they would require more information) is to use Google but even then you need some perseverance

 

I know it sounds like a stupid thing to be concerened abpit but replacing minutes with meeting notes is a prime way organisations such as CRT use to ensure no one actually ever knows exactly what is discussed

[Tuscan]

Here's an example of one of the more productive partnership meetings read and weep. This was this month

 

WMWP Meeting

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/560/wmwp-meeting