C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[PeterScott]

For those that have not seen it there is an update on twitter from waterscape council elections update - 33 boaters & 6 businesses standing. Names will be published once we validate sponsors

I have been following the debates hereabouts - and here is my try at explaining with an Election Broadcast why I seek to be elected:

ClickyLink There's also supporting text here

 

Happy to debate the issues if there are any questions :-)

[alan_fincher]

Well I'm surprised I'm the first to ask,Peter, but I will........

 

You are on an IWA web-site, wearing an IWA shirt, selling your candidacy........

 

But we are separately told by an IWA announcement they are encouraging us to vote for no less than 4 candidates they are putting forward......

 

Link to IWA Candidate List

 

So have you, as an IWA member, looked at those candidates and found them wanting, or are you in fact replacing the name of one of those who they said would be standing ?

 

I'm sure you may be able to see why some of us are confused ?

[Rebotco]

I have been following the debates hereabouts - and here is my try at explaining with an Election Broadcast why I seek to be elected:

ClickyLink There's also supporting text here

 

Happy to debate the issues if there are any questions :-)

 

I have to say I like what I hear in this.

 

The overriding emphasis of maintaining the navigation in my view, supersedes all other considerations. Much of the debate

 

I have heard has concentrated far too much on "representing" this or that interest or boating community. But this is not

 

the function of the Council as I see it. Its role is to assist and hold to account the CaRT in making the waterways fit

 

for their primary purpose of BOATING. That includes proper maintenance and control of costs. Any candidate who holds this

 

as their first priority will have my vote - any who do not, will not.

 

There are of course many other aspects of the waterways which are quite valid to be supported and encouraged, but they must

 

all be secondary to CaRT's primary function. It is those who have emphasised these secondary concerns as their platform,

 

who I cannot vote for and who I think have not properly understood the role of the Council. I do not belong to any of the

 

organisations who are putting up candidates, and I take Peter Scott's views as his own, rather than any organisation's

 

limited agenda. I do hope that all successful candidates will hold similar views as to their priorities.

 

Brian

[PeterScott]

You are on an IWA web-site, wearing an IWA shirt, selling your candidacy........

... because I'm a Regional Chairman and National Trustee of the IWA

 

But we are separately told by an IWA announcement they are encouraging us to vote for no less than 4 candidates they are putting forward......

Well, best to keep watch on the website and see when it gets updated to say that five IWA trustees are standing.

 

Lots of postings here and elsewhere have not had experience of Single Transferrable Vote elections. Everyone has ONE vote, and that vote or part of the vote can be transferred to other candidates, marked 2,3,4,5 etc as counting proceeds. If it all works as it's designed, it is supposed to combine the (USA) Primary election with the substantive election: the electors get a choice of candidates in the same party/interest-group as well as those from different parties/groups. If enough people support IWA trustees then the most popular / most convincing / most coherent of us will be the one/two/... candidates elected. There will probably me other IWA members standing who are not trustees. We have not had a prior-election amongst ourselves and are happy to let the boating-public choose between all of us who think we can do a good job.

 

Or at a practical level, BW/C&RT are currently validating whether our supporters all filled-in their boat numbers correctly: did we all ask people who were good at filling-in-forms? I sent in eleven supporters on a one-for-luck basis, so maybe five is one-for-luck as well :-)

[Phoenix_V]

Excellent an IWA candidate actually speaking to us plebs.

 

I hope you will offer a similar platform to Alan, Dave and other candidates on the IWA website though?

[Sir Nibble]

Will there be a second 11?

I've read the manifesto, and I have to say I rather like it but I cannot get over the IWA connection. I have nothing against the IWA and of course much to thank them for but I just don't want to see our representation at council as a virtual one party state. I'm afraid the IWA bid to become the only voice of boaters looks like a corporate takeover bid to me.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Sir Nibble

[jenlyn]

... because I'm a Regional Chairman and National Trustee of the IWA

 

 

Well, best to keep watch on the website and see when it gets updated to say that five IWA trustees are standing.

 

Lots of postings here and elsewhere have not had experience of Single Transferrable Vote elections. Everyone has ONE vote, and that vote or part of the vote can be transferred to other candidates, marked 2,3,4,5 etc as counting proceeds. If it all works as it's designed, it is supposed to combine the (USA) Primary election with the substantive election: the electors get a choice of candidates in the same party/interest-group as well as those from different parties/groups. If enough people support IWA trustees then the most popular / most convincing / most coherent of us will be the one/two/... candidates elected. There will probably me other IWA members standing who are not trustees. We have not had a prior-election amongst ourselves and are happy to let the boating-public choose between all of us who think we can do a good job.

 

Or at a practical level, BW/C&RT are currently validating whether our supporters all filled-in their boat numbers correctly: did we all ask people who were good at filling-in-forms? I sent in eleven supporters on a one-for-luck basis, so maybe five is one-for-luck as well :-)

Will watch out for you on the voting form, so I can avoid :)

[PeterScott]

Excellent an IWA candidate actually speaking to us ...

If the video sounds sensible, we should do a lot more of it when it's not 'election season'.

 

... plebs.

Ah, sting-in-the-tail there. Well, off to the dictionary ... plebian: commoner, of low birth ... what a dreadful thought. Of all the bits of life I've experienced - work, computing, bellringinging, chessplaying, photographing, university, London, Yorkshire, ... boating is the one with most levelling and mutual respect for other groups. Standing on the back of Fulbourne - GUCCCo142 - or a modern boat gets different reactionss but not in a I-look-up-to-him-and-down-on-him way. But I'm almost as tall as JohnCleese, if that's relevant.

 

As to how IWA is viewed - the problem is to persuade people to give us views and opinions we can work on: it's often the activists trying to decide what's best to do without much input from elsewhere.And iIt seems wholly logical to me to just go boating and not worry about sitting in dull committee meetings, and I'll certainly do that at some point. If people can spare some time to help us with keeping BW and their successors pointing in the right direction, we very much appreciate the effort.

 

I hope you will offer a similar platform to Alan, Dave and other candidates on the IWA website though?

It's the nice people at Youtube letting me embed their picture on my website. In the video I challenged other candidates to do one: I'd be pleased to do a link in my blog to anyone taking me up on that.

 

... I rather like it but I cannot get over the IWA connection. I have nothing against the IWA and of course much to thank them for but I just don't want to see our representation at council as a virtual one party state. I'm afraid the IWA bid to become the only voice of boaters looks like a corporate takeover bid to me.

If the boaters wanted an exclusive IWA representation, then more than 80% of them would have to put an IWA person first preference - and probably the other IWA people as 2, 3, 4, 5 as well. That's how the STV proportional system works - so a 'takeover' seems an unlikely outcome.

 

What we can bring is the link with a large membership - a consultation mechanism that exists (even if it's hard to get feedback from it) - and good experience at bringing our case to MPs, when we need that. We're also quite good at arguing between ourselves, but that's a long story in itself ... :-)

 

Will watch out for you on the voting form, so I can avoid :)

Oh dear, was it something I said?

Edited January 25, 2012 by PeterScott

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I have to say I like what I hear in this.

 

The overriding emphasis of maintaining the navigation in my view, supersedes all other considerations. Much of the debate

I have heard has concentrated far too much on "representing" this or that interest or boating community. But this is not

the function of the Council as I see it. Its role is to assist and hold to account the CaRT in making the waterways fit

for their primary purpose of BOATING. That includes proper maintenance and control of costs. Any candidate who holds this

as their first priority will have my vote - any who do not, will not.

 

There are of course many other aspects of the waterways which are quite valid to be supported and encouraged, but they must

all be secondary to CaRT's primary function. It is those who have emphasised these secondary concerns as their platform,

who I cannot vote for and who I think have not properly understood the role of the Council. I do not belong to any of the

organisations who are putting up candidates, and I take Peter Scott's views as his own, rather than any organisation's

limited agenda. I do hope that all successful candidates will hold similar views as to their priorities.

 

Brian

 

I am not the IWA's greatest fan and even less a fan of Peter Scott (for reasons probably both of us would not wish to go into). However, to my mind any candidate that advocates the primacy of navigation is worthy of consideration.

 

Sorry to say, those that avoid stating what they stand for or 'bad mouth' others simply because they members of an organisation will not get my vote.

[churchward]

Well I'm surprised I'm the first to ask,Peter, but I will........

 

You are on an IWA web-site, wearing an IWA shirt, selling your candidacy........

 

But we are separately told by an IWA announcement they are encouraging us to vote for no less than 4 candidates they are putting forward......

 

Link to IWA Candidate List

 

So have you, as an IWA member, looked at those candidates and found them wanting, or are you in fact replacing the name of one of those who they said would be standing ?

 

I'm sure you may be able to see why some of us are confused ?

This to me smacks of biased thinking. Why can't a member just decide to stand as a candidate? I know the IWA have decided to put up several nominees as representing the organisation but there is nothing to prevent anybody conforming to the terms of the election deciding to stand with or without an IWA membership. It seems an irrelevant question to me.

 

If some of the posts lately on this subject are anything to go by it doesn't bode well for the efficacy of the elected body as the infighting and point scoring may well swamp any good intentions.

[alan_fincher]

This to me smacks of biased thinking. Why can't a member just decide to stand as a candidate? I know the IWA have decided to put up several nominees as representing the organisation but there is nothing to prevent anybody conforming to the terms of the election deciding to stand with or without an IWA membership. It seems an irrelevant question to me.

 

If some of the posts lately on this subject are anything to go by it doesn't bode well for the efficacy of the elected body as the infighting and point scoring may well swamp any good intentions.

I'm sorry, I think it is a perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances.

 

The IWA had made a big publicity statement that they were putting forward 4 candidates, and listing names, which still appears to be the latest information on their web-site. (I checked that before posting my question). Peter appeared to possibly standing as an official candidate too.

 

As he has responded as follows....

 

Well, best to keep watch on the website and see when it gets updated to say that five IWA trustees are standing.

 

I assume we may eventually see the IWA change their web-site say they have 5 official candidates, (or Peter implies the number could be still higher!).

 

So now we know - the IWA are putting up (at least) 5 candidates for 4 available places.

 

I'm sorry - I can't see any infighting or point scoring to have arrived at that revised piece of knowledge.

 

Please bear in mind that most people contesting an election might now have some idea by this late stage who else is running, and some idea of who they aim to represent. We don't, (I have so far only been able to find the names of a maximum of 14 candidates out of a claimed 33), and it seems fair enough to ask reasonable questions of any that have so far publicly declared themselves. Believe me, people are asking me lots of questions - some of them a lot trickier than this simple one.

 

Sorry to say, those that avoid stating what they stand for or 'bad mouth' others simply because they members of an organisation will not get my vote.

Allan.

 

How do you define "bad mouth".

 

Can you give an actual example of one candidate "bad mouthing" another simply because they are a member of an organisation.

 

If I have done it I will retract it, but I can't say I'm actively aware of seeing any candidate do it, so far.

Edited January 25, 2012 by alan_fincher

[paddy r]

 

I've read the manifesto, and I have to say I rather like it but I cannot get over the IWA connection. I have nothing against the IWA and of course much to thank them for but I just don't want to see our representation at council as a virtual one party state. I'm afraid the IWA bid to become the only voice of boaters looks like a corporate takeover bid to me.

 

Much the same as my thinking,If Peter had left out his IWA bits, i would have put him down as worthy of consideration.

[PeterScott]

I am not the IWA's greatest fan and even less a fan of Peter Scott (for reasons probably both of us would not wish to go into).

.. Nor a fan of BW management, Allan? We should all be grateful for your seeking to hold them to account for the money they spend and the investments they make. I suspect the recent debate about whether C&RT should have to respond to Freedom of Information requests was because they wanted to avoid the expense of answering their one-man-Public-Accounts-Committee. As you say the History of OwnerShips would not be of much interest in this election (although debate here is current and fascinating), but for my part I would be content to publish all our correspondence on the issue.

 

If some of the posts lately on this subject are anything to go by it doesn't bode well for the efficacy of the elected body as the infighting and point scoring may well swamp any good intentions.

We certainly need all the passion and the commitment to the waterways. It's inevitable that we won't all agree all the time: I find the debate stimulating and valuable.

 

... we may eventually see the IWA change their web-site say they have 5 official candidates, (or Peter implies the number could be still higher!). So now we know - the IWA are putting up (at least) 5 candidates for 4 available places.

Yes, because five Trustees (and maybe other IWA members who are not trustees, and I don't know) think they can do the job: my assessment from personal observation is that all of the five trustees would be good at it, and the STV-election allows the electorate to decide both which of the IWA candidates they prefer, and how many of us they wish to elect. If the election system had been four-votes-for-each-elector, first-past-the-post, we would have had to have an 'primary' election within the IWA beforehand in order to maximize our chances.

 

If Peter had left out his IWA bits, I would have put him down as worthy of consideration.

I would be happy to debate the deficiencies of the IWA: we may just have a different list

[cotswoldsman]

I'm a Regional Chairman and National Trustee of the IWA

 

 

 

 

This just has the possibility of causing to many conflicts in my opinion and is one of the main reasons why you would be at the bottom of my list.

[paddy r]

 

I would be happy to debate the deficiencies of the IWA: we may just have a different list

I don't think the IWA has many deficiencies if any,but 5 IWA candidates seems to be making it a bit of a closed shop.

Edited January 26, 2012 by paddy r

[jenlyn]

.. Nor a fan of BW management, Allan? We should all be grateful for your seeking to hold them to account for the money they spend and the investments they make. I suspect the recent debate about whether C&RT should have to respond to Freedom of Information requests was because they wanted to avoid the expense of answering their one-man-Public-Accounts-Committee. As you say the History of OwnerShips would not be of much interest in this election (although debate here is current and fascinating), but for my part I would be content to publish all our correspondence on the issue.

 

We certainly need all the passion and the commitment to the waterways. It's inevitable that we won't all agree all the time: I find the debate stimulating and valuable.

 

 

Yes, because five Trustees (and maybe other IWA members who are not trustees, and I don't know) think they can do the job: my assessment from personal observation is that all of the five trustees would be good at it, and the STV-election allows the electorate to decide both which of the IWA candidates they prefer, and how many of us they wish to elect. If the election system had been four-votes-for-each-elector, first-past-the-post, we would have had to have an 'primary' election within the IWA beforehand in order to maximize our chances.

 

I would be happy to debate the deficiencies of the IWA: we may just have a different list

To be fair, I think Alan Richards has done quite a lot to keep BW in check, I hate to think where we would be if he did not exist. I don't think we could rely on the IWA to keep "all" boaters in touch with what BW is upto. Did'nt the IWA side with tony hales to do away with the FOIA? If you like debate, mayalid and Carlt are formidable foes, feel free to take them on.

[Cosmic]

I may be wrong here, but I think a lot of people were really quite horrified that the IWA were intending to stand four candidates and seriously threatening to use their weight of numbers to take all four boaters' places.

 

I'm sure that you're a good person who wants to do his best for the waterways but for me, and, I suspect, many others, that isn't the issue. Given the sheer numbers of voters that the IWA can potentially muster, I believe that a lot of us who are unaffiliated feel obliged to choose the best candidate from those who are not sponsored by the IWA.

 

This is why so many candidates are focusing on the issue of representation. Of course, we all want to maintain the waterways in the best possible condition but many of us feel that boaters' views will not be adequately represented if all the places allocated to us are taken by one particular group, a group that doesn't specifically represent boaters.

 

I'm not saying that the IWA shouldn't be represented on the council, and I believe there was talk at one time of positions being available for organisations representing boaters, so I can understand that perhaps the IWA (and others) feel that they have lost out. However, I think the effect of their having all four council places would be detrimental to the interests of the rest of us.

[cotswoldsman]

Well said that man

[Cheshire cat]

It seems to me that Peter is between a rock and a hard place. He could have posted his video without the clues as to his involvement in the IWA but the facts would have emerged sooner or later.

 

By declaring his involvement in the IWA he has alienated some people on here. He might even have alienated some in the IWA by standing and diluting the vote I suppose. He would have alienated far more if he had failed to declare the IWA connection and then the facts came out later.

 

He spoke with obvious passion. I think we need to look beyond the uniform and listen to the words.

[cotswoldsman]

It seems to me that Peter is between a rock and a hard place. He could have posted his video without the clues as to his involvement in the IWA but the facts would have emerged sooner or later.

 

By declaring his involvement in the IWA he has alienated some people on here. He might even have alienated some in the IWA by standing and diluting the vote I suppose. He would have alienated far more if he had failed to declare the IWA connection and then the facts came out later.

 

He spoke with obvious passion. I think we need to look beyond the uniform and listen to the words.

 

OK I will ask the question Peter are you an approved IWA Candidate and if not why not?

[mayalld]

He might even have alienated some in the IWA by standing and diluting the vote I suppose.

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that isn't how STV works.

 

Under STV, the IWA could field 300 candidates, and it still wouldn't reduce their chances of getting somebody elected.

[Cheshire cat]

Point taken but it could still alienate some within IWA if they don't realise he isn't diluting their probability of success.

[cotswoldsman]

Point taken but it could still alienate some within IWA if they don't realise he isn't diluting their probability of success.

 

I guess until Peter tells us different it is safe to say he standing as a candidate backed by IWA so not diluting IWA's aim of taking all the Boaters Places on the council. If he is not an official IWA Candidate then I assume by joining the IWA all candidates will be allowed to use their website to campaign.

[Cosmic]

The IWA page now says "IWA is fielding five IWA sponsored candidates on behalf of all boaters"

[cotswoldsman]

The IWA page now says "IWA is fielding five IWA sponsored candidates on behalf of all boaters"

 

That is kind of them!!!!!!