How the Boaters' Manifesto happened

Find something positive to say about the Canal and River Trust was the challenge thrown down by former canal magazine editor Kevin Blick– and I responded like a dog chasing a bone.

My trust in BW, at least at senior management level, had evaporated and - as much as I believe the waterways should be cared for properly by the taxpayer - I was reluctantly having to admit that the current bunch of right wing ideologues in government were unlikely to abandon their cost saving plan of tossing the waterways away to save a few quid.

That left the Canal and River Trust and I could see that boaters, and especially those who live on the system or spend much of their lives on the water did need to face the new reality of the Trust and tell those creating it what was needed.

So was born the Boaters’ Manifesto. I asked for contributions online, some of you may have seen my requests on a whole variety of Facebook pages, or on Twitter and then I put them all together.

Everyone looked at it again and we fine-tuned it before the manifesto, created by a group of boaters, was sent to the Transition Trustees, the IWA and the members of the parliamentary waterways group.

It is now being discussed by the IWA and members of the parliamentary group and a direct meeting is planned with the Transition Trustees of the proposed new Canal and River Trust.

I think the manifesto is a worthwhile document and gives a voice to real boaters – well I would, wouldn’t I?

Getting it together has been interesting, especially as the contributions have all been made online and opinions vary according to perspective, with everyone, including me, having their axes to grind. I am pleased that we have got agreement from such a disparate bunch on a simple set of demands.

If the Transition Trustees can move some way towards us there is a tremendous reward in sight for the new charity because experienced boaters who spend much if not all of their lives on the system have already got a great deal of personal and financial capital invested in it.

We need to see a successful organisation running our waterways and doing so in a way that allows our investment to remain worthwhile. If the Canal and River Trust can convince us they are the people to do that there is a great wealth of enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge amongst boaters that can be tapped in a way that BW could never manage.

My next task is to put together a team to present the Manifesto to the trustees from amongst boaters I have only met electronically, each speaking on a section of the manifesto and possibly doing so from a variety of BW regional offices on a video link.

Remind me again why I started this?

Boaters Manifesto

This manifesto was compiled as the result of responses to a request made on half a dozen boaters’ groups on Facebook (total membership around 2,500) and through various individual boaters’ Twitter networks and discussion groups.

Boaters were asked to let the transition trustees know what they actually need from them so that they can respond to the new charity with enthusiasm and commitment. A first draft was produced and offered to boaters for further amendments and additions and this is the final result.

Key Points


1. Waterways are about boats and boaters and the Canal and River Trust needs to listen to boaters more closely and have more representatives on the board.
2. Before the Canal and River Trust accepts the legal burden of running the waterways it must ensure proper funding to keep all waterways open, navigable and properly maintained, otherwise it should refuse to do so.
3. Boaters have lost faith in the most senior management of British Waterways and believe that the government should accept the cost of making them redundant to give the Canal and River Trust a fresh start.
4. The Canal and River Trust must develop a system of working that values full time paid staff and their skills above the expediency of using cheap contractors in order to maintain the skilled workforce the waterways require.
5. The Canal and River Trust must enforce a simplified set of mooring rules across the entire waterways system without fear or favour.
6. The Trust must make it a priority to ensure non-boating users of the system make a financial contribution to its upkeep and that their use of the system does not impinge on its primary purpose of navigation.
7. The Canal and River Trust must ensure it is open to Freedom of Information Act requests and operate in a totally transparent fashion if it is to earn and retain confidence.
8. Those for whom the waterways are a home have a special interest in and value to the Canal and River Trust and should be clearly represented at board level and consulted on all navigational issues.

Why the Canal and River Trust should listen to boaters

Navigable waterways were not only created for boats, they are only still with us today because boats and boaters found a new use for them as commercial traffic came to an end.
It has been boaters – not cyclists or walkers or fishermen – who have fought to reopen neglected canals in the face of official opposition; with British Waterways only jumping on the bandwagon in recent years.
Canals without boats don’t last very long for other users as there is no longer a reason to keep the unique industrial heritage in working order, the structures crumble, the water silts up and little is left. Waterways need boats as much as boats need waterways.
Boaters are the only group that has already made a substantial financial and personal commitment to the waterways as well as the only collection of individuals that pays substantial annual fees for their upkeep.
Boaters, especially those with many years of experience and those who live on their craft and travel widely on the system have a wealth of expertise that has been largely ignored by British Waterways and those who helped to compile this manifesto fear that the Canal and River Trust may continue this policy.
Most of all we would like to see many more experienced boaters, proper users of the system, taking a role at national and regional level than the current proposals suggest. Just five out of 35 (7 if you include boating business representatives) at a national level is simply inadequate. It is vital that many more than the proposed 50 per cent are elected by people concerned with the function of the waterways, primarily boaters.

Navigation

Boaters need to be assured that all existing navigations are sufficiently well maintained to enable the vessels designed to use them to travel the whole length of those waterways at all times of the year and operate locks and other equipment with relative ease and safety.
Waterways must not be allowed to deteriorate through lack of maintenance and the Canal and River Trust must have sufficient contingency funds to deal with a major breach – on the scale of those on the Shropshire Union Canal the Monmouth and Breconshire Canal in recent years - without delay.
This means that sufficient government funding is a prerequisite for the Canal and River Trust and if the levels of funding do not fill the massive gap identified by the IWA, and the specialist waterways MPs group, the trustees should refuse to sanction the creation of the charity. It will not be enough to depend on optimistic projections of future charitable income and would be dangerous to do so.
We believe some of the financial projections offered by British Waterways and Defra are simply wrong as they do not model the true cost of creating a well maintained system and accept the projections of a ‘steady state’ with a massive maintenance backlog and need to be tested far more critically than seems the case at present.
If the funding is not adequate to keep all waterways open, navigable and well maintained the Canal and River Trust should refuse to accept the task of running the waterways.

Management

Executive management
Boaters and many others have completely lost faith in the most senior levels of British Waterways’ management in recent years and almost all those who contributed to this manifesto want to see the current directors removed before the Canal and River Trust begins to run the system. It is our belief that government should bear the cost of making these people redundant as the new charitable role is essentially different. Our concern centres on the enormously expensive pay, pension and perks packages of the most senior directors and their willingness to grab bonus payments when staff are being penalised by pay rise well under the rate of inflation and we believe that their continued presence will make it extremely difficult to create any trust among boaters in the Canal and River Trust. That is especially the case as many of the commercial ventures in which they are supposed to be experts have failed to produce promised results.
Boaters do not believe the Canal and River Trust should be willing and will not be able to pay such large scale remuneration and feel that the removal of a group of directors who have little understanding of waterways or boats would do more to give the Trust a fresh start than any new logo.

Middle management
British Waterways’ workforce has become disconnected from the system it looks after. This is due to attempts to farm out much of the bankside and construction work to the cheapest available contractors, along with a policy that obliges the workforce to work in teams covering large areas.
Boaters would like to see visible individuals responsible for a particular stretch of waterway, with clear responsibilities and accountability in the event of failures.
We believe the skills of the workforce should be valued, encouraged and passed on, especially as caring for a 200 year old artefact requires special expertise. We would like to see work brought back in house and apprenticeships encouraged along the lines of those provided by the National Trust.

Mooring

Whatever else the Canal and River Trust does it will achieve most with most boaters if it applies the same rules on mooring to all parts of the waterways system and enforces them without fear or favour.
This does not exclude setting up special rules in hot-spot areas; but they should then be available for all hot-spots in the country that want to adopt them. We do not believe there is anything wrong with the current mooring guidelines but feel they must be applied equally and effectively across the country. Don’t make rules the Canal and River Trust can’t enforce.

Towpath issues.

Boaters do not mind sharing the towpaths with fishermen, walkers, cyclists and dogs – although we draw the line at motorised vehicles and horses, other than those used to tow boats.
We do believe it is essential the Canal and River Trust finds ways of ensuring all those users contribute to the costs of upkeep and abide by a national set of rules.
Once again enforcement will be the key to stopping dog fouling, rubbish and speeding cyclists putting lives at risk.
We would encourage the new Trust to get into schools, angling clubs, cycling, ramblers etc and educate them about the policies on the towpath, and about canals and waterways in general so we can all enjoy them


An open society?

The Canal and River Trust needs to be completely open with boaters and other supporters and we would urge Trustees to stop avoiding the inclusion of the charity in Freedom of Information legislation.
Given the sensitive existing issues over directors pay, commercial operations such as BWML, pub chains and property development it is essential that the Canal and River Trust’s supporters are able to assure themselves that the murky goings on under British Waterways are brought out into the open and that complete transparency is the rule as soon as the charity begins business.
The Canal and River Trust is vitally important to boaters. Other users can always find what they're looking for somewhere else, if the new trust is not up to scratch, their stake is minimal. If the canal system crumbles then where are all the boat users going to go?


Liveaboard boaters

The Canal and River Trust should endeavour to help those who live on their boats by the provision of more residential moorings where needed and perhaps usable postal addresses (BFPO can do it for the forces), recycling facilities, more potable water and sewage disposal points.
Those who live on the waterways system, several thousand people, should have specific representation on the board of the Trust.

Transition Trustee responds to Manifesto's first draft

People may be interested to know that one of the eight transition trustees, John Dodwell has written a commentary on the first draft of the Boaters’ Manifesto and defended many of the actions the manifesto complains about.
I find it somewhat condescending in parts but this needs to be an open discussion so I have decided to post it here.
John seems to feel that the existence of the manifesto means that boaters support the Canal and River Trust and the only point I would make is that most serious boaters feel the charity has been foisted on them by a government that is refusing to take financial responsibility for a great national asset. We are trying to mitigate what we fear will be a disaster.
It is also worth noting that his response has already drawn criticism from those who feel he should be more aware of the funding gap and from those who feel his defence of retaining the current BW directors is misguided.

Here is what John Dodwell said...

Your draft Boaters’ Manifesto interests me as I am one of the eight Canal & River Trust trustees. I also have a longstanding interest in the waterways (e.g. IWA General Secretary in the 70s) and 10 years ago finally bought a boat – a 51ft long 3 ft draft BCN historic tug. I’m not the only boat owning trustee – so is Lynne Berry (recently retired from running the WRVS – 65,000 volunteers).
I agree with you that waterways need boats as much as boats need waterways. The role of boat owners and others in saving the waterways is undisputed. I am sure the Trustees will want to read the final version of the Manifesto but I thought it might help if I made a few comments so the Manifesto can’t be faulted on its facts.
And as I want to do justice to your draft, I want to respond in detail.
THE COUNCIL
The Trust’s Council – the top level in the Trust’s governance - needs a good representation of passionate and knowledgeable boat owners. Boat licence holders will have the biggest user representation (elected by licence holders). With two from boating businesses, boating representation on the Council will be seven – 20% of the 35 members. Another 13 will be the chairs of the Waterways Partnerships from around the country – and if you look at the people on the first Partnerships, you’ll detect about half have links to boats. The remaining 15 places include people from the Waterway Recovery Group, the Railway and Canal Historical Society and four in aggregate from walkers, anglers, cyclists etc. The composition of the Council will be reviewed after 3 years and there is a commitment to move to 50% being elected.
In addition, there will be a Navigation Committee to help the Trustees and the executive staff. And I encourage boat owners to get involved with the Waterway Managers and let them know – nicely! – when they find things are not right.
And I wonder if you are aware of the meetings between BW Executives (and non-executive directors) and the British Waterways Advisory Forum, made up of various national waterways groups; or of the Waterway Users Special Interest Groups meetings and meetings with the boat trade where views are exchanged?
MONEY
The Trustees are currently negotiating hard to get the right financial deal with Defra; this means increasing the £39m p.a. on offer. But Defra isn’t the only source of money. About £100m p.a. comes from other sources – split roughly equally between property rents; income from cables running under the towpath and water sales; and boats. Personally, I can’t see that the Government will fill the gap to the extent that everything is perfect and there is then no need to seek donations etc. Donations also need to be seen in context. If we were lucky enough to get to £7.5m p.a., that’s about 5% of the current £150m p.a. spent on the waterways. I know people say users who don’t pay should contribute – I see generating donations from the wider public as a way of spreading the load to some of the other 13m or so people who enjoy visiting the waterways.
You say you believe some of the financial projections are wrong. Can you help me by saying which ones you thinking of?
MANAGEMENT
Sorry but getting rid of the current directors now – in the midst of much change – doesn’t make business sense to me. Let’s get the handover to CRT completed first!
As CRT is taking over all the obligations and duties of BW, it will take over the existing pay contracts of all staff (and anyway TUPE applies). Although you suggest tearing up existing contracts, I wonder how you’d feel if you were transferred to a new employer who changed your pay terms? So getting to the desired level from the existing level will need careful thought.
You know the background of the new trustees – one from Oxfam, one from the WRVS, one from the Ramblers; another from English Heritage. They know what is paid in those organisations and in other major charities.
I began looking around and came across “Charity Finance” magazine whose September 2011 issue carried a survey of CEO pay levels (including bonuses) of the top 100 charities (by income). These ranged from £710k at Nuffield Health via £400k (Welcome Trust) to under £50k (Salvation Army). Many were in the £100k-200k range.
I think the start point on pay levels has to be to consider what level does CRT have to think of offering when it next needs to recruit?
Having got the other CEO information I mention above, I tried to compare these charities with CRT – and hit a problem. With what do I compare CRT? National Trust (CEO £160-170K) has historic buildings but nothing like the same engineering problems – nor the question of keeping potentially dangerous water in the right place. Network Rail? Not a charity; larger than CRT; also has an old infrastructure and a big network – but again no “nasty” water; their CEO is on £560k. Oxfam (CEO £110-120k) has no similar infrastructure or commercial assets to manage. Unlike many charities, CRT will have very substantial non-donation income – see above. CRT needs to employ the right people to maintain that income.
You can, I hope, see the problem. So you won’t be surprised to hear that outside consultants have been brought in. Their report is being considered by the Trustees – Tony Hales (Chair) said at the Birmingham annual meeting last month that performance related pay in the charitable sector is awarded more by exception and then at lower levels than those currently applying in British Waterways. Tony Hales has also said that the Trustees will make public the advice they receive from the specialist consultants and will make a clear statement of future policy on executive pay before CRT starts in April. You might like to bear in mind that in pushing for the charity idea, BW directors knew it would mean pay changes.
You mention middle management. Please do talk to the Waterway Managers. Invite them on your boats. Email them with problems you find – if you don’t, will they know? Bear in mind that central contracts mean using bulk buying power to reduce costs. They provide flexibility. For example, this winter there will be a large tree cutting programme. Instead of diverting staff from stoppages etc or taking on more staff for a short life project and then laying them off, tree cutting contractors will be brought in The reality is that efficiencies have bought around proportionately more maintenance for the reduced money available. That’s certainly not to say that the waterways don’t need considerably more maintenance – see my point about striking the right deal with government.
MOORING
I understand BW’s enforcement team has been concentrating on driving down licence evasion – with quite some success. I agree that the Trust must also tackle mooring abuse and I understand that it is next on the enforcement team’s agenda. And you know from the Trustees’ October announcement that moorings and residential boating are on the list of policy matters to be reviewed.
TOWPATHS
Boat users already share the towpath. Like others, I’ve suffered from noisy motorbikes, etc. But how to control them – and dog fouling? I’d welcome ideas. We can’t afford towpath rangers all over the place. Barriers don’t seem to work. I’d welcome people taking up your suggestion of going into schools etc etc and helping us to talk to angling clubs, cyclists and walkers about the etiquette of the towpath.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Defra have just closed their consultation of whether this Act should apply to the Trust – and I hope you all sent in your views. At one level, the charity world is worried that if the Act applies to this Trust, then it will affect other charities; not being Government agencies, charities are not generally covered by the Act. At another level, the Trust would anyway follow closely the spirit of the Act. Defra’s 12 September consultation paper set out how this might be done. Let’s wait and see the outcome of the consultation. BTW, it’s already been decided that the Ombudsman scheme should continue.
LIVEABOARD BOATERS
Yes, they are part of the waterways scene – as are continuous cruisers and unrestricted travelling. I’d just ask that people obey the rules and don’t overstay in wrong places. More residential moorings are on the cards - subject to the planners’ views. Some people already have arrangements with the post office. As to more boating facilities, please help me and let me know where you’d like them – there’s quite a lot already available for the general boat user. Not sure whether liveaboards should be singled out from other boat owners when it comes to Council representation but give me the arguments – or put someone up for election! Bear in mind RBOA have an open line to BW/CRT.
It’s good that you want to make the Trust a success – we need all the support we can get. I’d welcome the opportunity to meet you and others and discuss this further. And do make sure you finish the Manifesto and send it to the Trustees.

John Dodwell
john.dodwell@rolandon.com
07802-961485

Boaters' Manifesto

Boaters Manifesto – 1st draft

This manifesto was compiled as the result of a request made on half a dozen boaters’ groups of Facebook (total membership around 2,500) and through various boaters’ networks on Twitter.
Boaters were asked to let the transition trustees know what they actually need from them so that they can respond to the new charity with enthusiasm and commitment.

Why the Canal and River Trust should listen to boaters

Navigable waterways were not only created for boats, they are only still with us today because boats and boaters found a new use for them as commercial traffic came to an end.
It has been boaters – not cyclists or walkers or fishermen – who have fought to reopen neglected canals in the face of official opposition; with British Waterways only jumping on the bandwagon in recent years.
Canals without boats don’t last very long for other users as there is no longer a reason to keep the unique industrial heritage in working order, the structures crumble, the water silts up and little is left. Waterways need boats as much as boats need waterways.
Boaters are the only group that has already made a substantial financial and personal commitment to the waterways as well as the only collection of individuals that pays substantial annual fees for their upkeep.
Boaters, especially those with many years of experience and those who live on their craft and travel widely on the system have a wealth of expertise that has been largely ignored by British Waterways and those who helped to compile this manifesto fear that the Canal and River Trust may continue this policy.
Most of all we would like to see many more experienced boaters, proper users of the system, taking a role at national and regional level than the current proposals suggest. Just five out of 35 at a national level is simply wrong.

Navigation

Boaters need navigations that are sufficiently well maintained to enable the vessels designed to use them to travel the whole length of those waterways at all times of the year and operate locks and other equipment with relative ease and safety.
Waterways must not be allowed to deteriorate through lack of maintenance and the Canal and River Trust must have sufficient contingency funds to deal with a major breach – on the scale of those on the Shropshire Union Canal the Monmouth and Breconshire Canal in recent years - without delay.
This means that sufficient government funding is a prerequisite for the Canal and River Trust and if the levels of funding do not fill the massive gap identified by the IWA, and the specialist waterways MPs group, the trustees should refuse to sanction the creation of the charity. It will not be enough to depend on optimistic projections of future charitable income and would be dangerous to do so.
We believe some of the financial projections offered by British Waterways and Defra are simply wrong and need to be tested far more critically than seems the case at present.

Management

Executive management
Boaters and many others have lost faith in the most senior levels of British Waterways’ management in recent years and almost all those who contributed to this manifesto want to see the current directors removed before the Canal and River Trust begins to run the system. Our concern centres on the enormously expensive pay, pension and perks packages of the most senior directors and their willingness to grab bonus payments when staff are being penalised by pay rise well under the rate of inflation.
Boaters do not believe the Canal and River Trust should be willing and will not be able to pay such large scale remuneration and feel that the removal of a group of directors who have little understanding of waterways or boats would do more to give the Trust a fresh start than any new logo.

Middle management
British Waterways’ workforce has become disconnected from the system it looks after. This is due to attempts to farm out much of the bankside and construction work to the cheapest available contractors, along with a policy that obliges the workforce to work in teams covering large areas.
Boaters would like to see visible individuals responsible for a particular stretch of waterway, with clear responsibilities and accountability in the event of failures.
We believe the skills of the workforce should be valued, encouraged and passed on, especially as caring for a 200 year old artefact requires special expertise. We would like to see work brought back in house and apprenticeships encouraged along the lines of those provided by the National Trust.

Mooring

Whatever else the Canal and River Trust does it will achieve most with most boaters if it applies the same rules on mooring to all parts of the waterways system and enforces them without fear or favour.
This does not exclude setting up special rules in hot-spot areas; but they should then be available for all hot-spots in the country that want to adopt them. We do not believe there is anything wrong with the current mooring guidelines but feel they must be applied equally and effectively across the country. Don’t make rules the Canal and River Trust can’t enforce.

Towpath issues.

Boaters do not mind sharing the towpaths with fishermen, walkers, cyclists and dogs – although we draw the line at motorised vehicles and horses.
We do believe it is essential the Canal and River Trust finds ways of ensuring all those users contribute to the costs of upkeep and abide by a national set of rules.
Once again enforcement will be the key to stopping dog fouling, rubbish and speeding cyclists putting lives at risk.
We would encourage the new Trust to get into schools, angling clubs, cycling, ramblers etc and educate them about the policies on the towpath, and about canals and waterways in general so we can all enjoy them


An open society?

The Canal and River Trust needs to be completely open with boaters and other supporters and we would urge Trustees to stop avoiding the inclusion of the charity in Freedom of Information legislation.
Given the sensitive existing issues over directors pay, commercial operations such as BWML, pub chains and property development it is essential that the Canal and River Trust’s supporters are able to assure themselves that the murky goings on under British Waterways are brought out into the open and that complete transparency is the rule as soon as the charity begins business.
The Canal and River Trust is vitally important to boaters. Other users can always find what they're looking for somewhere else, if the new trust is not up to scratch, their stake is minimal. If the canal system crumbles then where are all the boat users going to go?


Liveaboard boaters

The Canal and River Trust should endeavour to help those who live on their boats by the provision of more residential moorings where needed and perhaps usable postal addresses (BFPO can do it for the forces), recycling facilities, more potable water and sewage disposal points.
Those who live on the waterways system, several thousand people, should have specific representation on the board of the Trust.



ANYONE WANTING TO SUGGEST AMENDMENTS CAN DO SO HERE OR ON THE BOATERS’ MANIFESTO PAGE ON FACEBOOK OR THROUGH EMAILING ME AT PETERUNDERWOOD2@GMAIL.COM

Why is this bridge being demolished?

We have just hurried past bridge 15 on the North Oxford as BW are closing the canal for ten days from May 9th to allow Punch Taverns, who apparently own the bridge, to pull it down.
That gives rise to many questions.

How does a pub company come to own what looks like a normal canal bridge and, as such is part of the historic structure of our canal system?
Why are they allowed to pull it down - shouldn't it be protected as an historic structure?
As BW admits it has been in a bad condition and dangerous for some time why have BW bosses allowed it to get to the stage where destruction is claimed to be the only option?
Even if that is the case, why wasn't this done in the stoppages season and why is a third party allowed to close a busy canal in the boating season - and for 10 days?
Why haven't BW insisted this bridge is repaired? Could it be because they have problems looking after other bridges on the same canal?
This is bridge 80 on the same canal and it has been in the same state for several years.

Any chance of some answers?

Has tolerance gone out of the window?

Think canals and you think 'laid back,' 'chilled,' and 'relaxed.' You don't think obsessive, narrow-minded, intolerant and bossy.
When I started boating it was because I wanted something that forced me to slow down and stop becoming irritated at the unimportant and the British canal system has delivered that. Most of all I have had great enjoyment from the idiosyncratic population of the waterways, the characters who use, inhabit and deal with the problems of boats.

Boats with character on the bottom end of the Grand Union



Now I hear a lot more complaints about almost everything. Some people are as disparaging and unpleasant about continuous cruisers and live-aboards as others, in earlier times, used to be about Jews or immigrants, and with little reason other than either jealousy or bigotry.
Others complain about the number of boats moored on-line because it means they can't rush past in their hurry to get somewhere. I always assume these are the people who can afford the fees charged by marinas and think every canal user has the same resources.
Surely the whole point of boating on the canal system is the slow pace? What does it matter if it takes you an hour more to get somewhere?
Now we have the row over moorings on the River Lee in London. BW claims they are not carrying out social cleansing because of next year's Olympics when they decide to crack down on the people who use boats on the river, threatening large fines and making extremely aggressive noises through their inaptly titled Head of Boating Sally Ash.
I would like to know whether any of the local towpath users or visiting boaters are upset by these people? Certainly different rules seem to apply to mooring limitations in London as a whole, but in my time there I have not felt excluded by the presence of a floating population. They are part of the scenery and usually pleasant and sometimes fascinating individuals.
Of course, you actually have to be travelling slowly enough to get off your boat and meet and talk to people to appreciate that.
Unfortunately British Waterways senior managers rarely talk to anyone, never mind real boaters, and are sadly out of touch. If they were not they would realise just what most boaters actually feel about them retaining their grossly inflated salaries whilst sacking far to many real workers on the bank.
And if you think this attack on boaters is limited to London and the Olympics, think again. BW has just announced plans to set up more @local Waterways Partnerships@ in the Midlands and North West following on the one on the Kennet and Avon where Sally Ash managed to become heartily disliked by boaters and local councillors.
These partnerships aim to give a say to local councillors, and other parts of the 'establishment' in the running of their local canals. You can bet your life there will not be a live-aboard boater, a continuous cruiser or anyone who actually uses and knows the canal system represented on such boards.
Headed by BW's regional managers and, I suspect backed by the wealthy, shiny boat brigade as well as the sort of people who want to live by canals without the inconvenience of having real boats on the water, they are likely to focus on making life as difficult and expensive as possible for those who have made the canals their way of life.
Expect more restrictions, more fines and more attempts to make canals fit for the denizens of expensive marinas when they bring their boats out for the annual airing.

How not to make friends for the waterways

Sally Ash strikes again! The poorly titled Head of Boating for British Waterways has acquired a reputation as something of a pit bull when it comes to dealing with boaters.
She seems to find it difficult to relate to boaters in any way and usually fails to understand how valuable boats are to the waterways. Many report the feeling that her ideal is a canal and river system with all the boaters neatly penned in marina.
Now, as the Guardian reports, she is using the Olympics as an excuse to hound live-aboard boaters off the River Lea.
If British Waterways is to become an effective charity it will need something more than local councils and the 'great and good' to enable it to keep the canal system going. Most of all, it will need the support of those people who know the canals and rivers best, the people who spend most of their lives on boats on the system.
Sally Ash has done little in her time in office but alienate not just boaters but several of the voluntary organisations linked with the waterways. I wonder if she hasn't become more of a liability than an asset at a time when British Waterways needs friends like never before.
Two things would help - the departure of Sally Ash and the over-paid directors like Robin Evans halving their enormous salaries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/mar/09/houseboaters-socially-cleansed-olympics

The myth of contracting out work

It was the Conservatives under Thatcher who first persuaded us to believe as a country that when any sort of work or service went out to the private sector for tender we were in some way saving money.
That was the same belief that led to the selling off of our railways, coal mines, water, electricity and gas industries to say nothing of our steel and even our airports and ports.
We see it now in every organisation that has any link to government and British Waterways has been a prime example. In order to tick the box of competition they not only use contractors to repair the canals and canal structures they even brought in the ludicrous moorings auctions before distorting them by setting ridiculous reserve prices to avoid boaters getting a mooring for £10.
The results are also all around us. We no longer have a coal industry because it was not sufficiently profitable for the private owners and we now import coal and are having to pay ever-increasing prices as we compete with the Chinese and Indian markets.
Our multitude of railway companies are interested solely in profit and, in addition to rising fares whenever possible also fail to invest in their rolling stock. In stead of the entrepreneurs we were promised we have companies who treat rail franchises as cash cows.
If we still owned the water and power companies then at least their enormous profits would be going into the public purse and there would be more of that invested in green energy.
As for contractors on the canal system, it still seems that BW and others have a problem with some simple arithmetic. Contractors employ staff on the lowest possible rates and use the materials that give them the biggest profit margin.
If British Waterways used their experienced staff, who are not paid much more than basic rates, and utilised their expertise they would not be paying the contractors' profits and would get a better job from staff who would know they are valued.
The same is true throughout the system but now we have Cameron wanting everything to be up for grabs by private companies so the taxpayer can pay for their profits - including the NHS, education and any other service the poorest of our community needs.
That will not be cheaper for the taxpayer and it certainly will provide a lower and nastier service, ruled by the profit motive, for every user of every school, hospital or even job centre.
That will take us to a grubby commercial world in which the spivs and cowboys of business, especially those who donate most to Tory party funds, controlling every aspect of our lives, with the government able to wash its hands of any responsibility. "We will, of course, investigate whether the private firm concerned has been ripping you off," they will promise and, of course, nothing will happen.
If we allow this we deserve to be taken to the cleaners - and we surely will be.