Toilet communications

In a move entirely unrelated (honest) with the uproar caused by the draconian imposition of 48-hr moorings on most of the handful of mooring spots on the Lancaster Canal the Canal and River Trust has suddenly decided to communicate with boaters.
Their chosen method is a single sheet of A4 paper stapled to the inside of the toilet door at Garstang services.
And the message comes not from the Waterways Manager but from the unelected members of the Waterways Partnership who have been behind the whole ill-considered, unresearched plot from the beginning.
The note also announces that the moorings will be monitored by volunteers, who will also 'greet' visitors. I assume these are the ones taking pictures of moored boats yesterday, and I assume they have been advised to wear lifejackets as they poke and pry into the privacy of boaters.
The vigilante volunteers, armed with cameras, were conveniently unmentioned when I asked Waterways Manager Chantelle Seaborn about policing her new mooring strategy. She assured me she couldn't do that.
Meanwhile, on the overcrowded visitor moorings at Garstang, CRT has decided it is perfectly acceptable to take up space with a large workboat - you couldn't make it up.

48-hour moorings fiasco

This is the resolution passed, nearly unanimously, by a well-attended meeting of boaters at the Tithe Barn at Garstang on the Lancaster Canal last night. It is being sent to Chantelle Seaborn, the NW Waterways Manager and copied to Richard Parry.

This meeting of resident and visiting boaters on the Lancaster Canal calls on the Canal and River Trust's NW Waterways Manager Chantelle Seaborn to immediately reverse the imposition of 48-hour moorings on the Lancaster Canal, removing all signage and reverting to the previous situation.
We do so because:
1. The restrictions have been introduced without proper research or consultation, with either local or visiting boaters;
2. The restrictions will not achieve their stated objective of 'fairness' as there is insufficient usable mooring space for the number of boats wanting it, so moorings will remain first-come-first-served regardless of timing restrictions;
3. CRT has failed to measure and establish an existing problem and therefore has no means of measuring the failure or success of the 48-hour mooring experiment;
4. CRT has admitted it has no prospect of enforcing a 48-hour mooring restriction and it is pointless to make rules which cannot be enforced;
5. Introducing 48-hour moorings destroys the relaxed nature of the Lancaster canal and is already deterring visiting boats from returning, to the detriment of canalside businesses;
6. These restrictions have clearly been made at the urging of unelected members of the waterways partnership who should have no role in boating issues.
Instead, this meeting urges Chantelle Seaborn to focus on the creation of many additional mooring spaces around the most popular parts of the canal, along with a programme of dredging throughout the length of the canal as this will do most to enable resident and visiting boats to enjoy the Lancaster Canal.

A personal appeal to Canal and River Trust Trustee John Dodwell.

Dear John,


I have said elsewhere that I was disappointed that you decided to use your position of influence to support your Estates Department and Waterways Manager Wendy Capelle in their decision that it was right for the Canal and River Trust to deprive a young, hard-working man and his three children of their livelihood.
Even though very suspicious, many of us had hoped that CaRT would have a different approach, on a more human scale, to issues like this, yet we have seen canal traders and now canalside traders being pushed out of business and we don't really understand the motive. What's more we all worry about who you will target next.
What inspires a major charity to conduct a campaign to smear a young man, desperately trying to do his best for his three children and working hard?
OK, so he planted some vegetables without agreement, put up a lean-to and tried to expand his business. I dare say he wasn't very good at meetings and he was naïve enough to take the verbal assurances of CaRT officers without getting things in writing.
Despite the fact that you choose to portray him – without any proof that I can see – as 'aggressive' and difficult, Danny has massive support from boaters and local people, who see him as nothing but charming and hard-working. That is demonstrated by his popularity and the growth of his business, something we all ought to applaud.
And the mistakes here are hardly one-sided are they? A senior CaRT's manager gave Danny verbal assurances that she later refused to confirm, and went so far as to refuse to attend a meeting where she might have been questioned about them.
Your staff, whilst making much now of 'heritage value' have over the past year or more variously suggested knocking down the brick hut at the centre of the disagreement and putting a Portakabin up alongside it.
In fact, everyone thought we had agreement in December, but CaRT seems to have been pulled out because Danny George honestly explained he didn't currently have the cash to fund the building needed.
You could have helped him then, but you didn't. Instead he simply had the rug pulled from under him and a campaign mounted to blacken his reputation with those who protested on his behalf.
You make the excuse that everyone has to abide by the rules but the difficulty with that is that you change the rules according to circumstances. I know a marina on CaRT waterspace where the lessee was told five years ago to deal with coping stones that were falling in the water and a hazard to moorers. Today they are exactly the same. So much for equal treatment. I know hire firms who ignore mooring rules and obstruct the canal with nothing done – and these are firms that have the staff and knowledge to deal with CaRT.
Danny is a one-man band trying to keep his family afloat and CaRT's attitude to him is a touchstone of where the charity is heading.
I would ask you to stop this witch-hunt in its tracks. Rather than protect your senior estates manager, grab him by the ear and take him down to Audlem to discuss this with Danny and his many supporters - and sit down with him until you find a solution. That should be so much easier now that hundreds of pounds are pouring into the online fund to assist him to purchase the building needed.
CaRT would get kudos and support for acknowledging that part of the function of a charity like ours is to help small businesses that enhance and boost the waterways – and George's Pork and Poultry does that – everybody would be able to say CaRT are reasonable people after all, at least they stopped before they destroyed the income of this young family.
It would be even better for the reputation of the Canal and River Trust if you could assist Danny, perhaps, with some key issue like electricity supply?
The alternative is that CaRT's reputation gets dragged down again. Just imagine what would happen if you persist in this eviction. Danny, desperate to save his family, refuses to move. You bring in the bailiffs. The boaters and locals blockade the canal to turn them away – for make no mistake we are on his side, not that of your officials.
CaRT would be facing scenes similar to the protests against BW in the heyday of the young IWA. What an irony that the body those campaigners were trying to get set up is finally in place and finding itself the focus of boaters protesting against its lack of vision and inhumanity.
Everyone tells me you are one of the good guys, and I believe you are at least amenable to commonsense. CaRT's persecution of Danny George, for that is how it is widely regarded, needs to be wiped from the public perspective. You need to demonstrate some charity, understanding and compassion and lead your officials to a solution that does not involve this young family being made destitute at the behest of the Trust.
I would beg you to live up to that reputation as one of the good guys and use your influence to end the nastiness currently coming out of CaRT's PR department, halt the eviction and work to a solution that reflects some credit on the charity of which you are a trustee, rather than plunge it further into disrepute.



Peter Underwood

The Battle of Audlem Locks

A David and Goliath battle between one of the country's biggest and newest charities and a young father trying to establish his business and provide for his family seems about to be settled with the charity doing everything in its power to crush the young man.

The charity is the Canal and River Trust, the first and only fruit of David Cameron's Big Society, which was created to take over the former British Waterways and look after the UK's unique canal system.

The young family man is Danny George, father of two, who gained the former British Waterways' permission to establish a small shop beside a canal lock at Audlem to sell his local reared pork and poultry and to grow vegetables on the waste land by the lock.

From the start a couple of years ago passing boaters and people in the village were delighted at this innovative and sensible use of a piece of waste land and a tatty brick-built lock shed and Danny's business grew. He eventually needed more space and created a wooden lean-to addition to the lock shed and expanded his vegetable beds to take in more of the waste land.

And that was when he upset the mandarins of the Canal and River Trust (CaRT), who started to try to close him down.

A petition on the Internet, signed by hundreds of boaters, gave them some pause for thought and CaRT promised to do everything in their power to ensure Danny could remain by the lockside and keep his business.

According to boaters and others who have been giving their time to help Danny negotiate with CaRT, they exhibited little understanding of the fact that they were dealing with a young man starting out in business rather than a big company. However, just before Christmas everyone was convinced Danny and the CaRT had finally agreed a deal that would involve him replacing the the lean-to shed with something better.

CaRT had suggested a Portakabin, despite claiming to be concerned about the 'heritage value' of the lockside site. Danny wanted to put up a temporary building more in keeping with the wooden constructions used by CaRT itself to house canal stop planks.

However, he indicated that it would take some time to put the money together and that seems to be when CaRT lost patience and decided George's Pork and Poultry was the the chop.

The Trust obviously knew that the decision would bring the wrath of boaters and local people on their heads and briefed their public relations spin doctors who operate on Facebook and Twitter to make their case.

The CaRT decided to issue Danny George with notice to quit – a decision which will not only destroy his business but also make it even more difficult to care for his two children who, he says, are about to be formally diagnosed as autistic.

Despite this the Trust, led in this instance by Wendy Capelle the Waterway Manager for
North Wales and Borders, decided to have a go at Danny, all guns blazing.

In special briefing document and in emails they asserted that not only had he not submitted plans for changes on time he had grown vegetables waste land not authorised by them and had gone outside the lease agreement.

CaRT complained Danny's lean-to and subsequent building designs were out of keeping with the heritage value of the existing hut.

They also played the health and safety card, claiming to be concerned about people having to cross the lock beams to buy their vegetables. That was laughed out of court as boaters from across the country pointed out that thousands of of them cross lock beams every year and that, within 200 yards of the business there are locks that have to be crossed from the towpath to reach moorings on the offside and there is another canal-side shop by the top lock at Adderley where buyers have to cross the lock beam to buy eggs and cakes.

Wendy Capelle first distanced herself from the heritage excuse for closing down Danny's business. In an email to me she said: “With respect to the suggestion of a Portacabin we were simply trying to put the point across to Mr George that any proposals would be considered, he simply did not provide anything up until the end of January, having been initially asked in May 2012. It was used in the context that there are some available which have water and WC facilities integrated which were one of Mr George’s requirements.”

So much for heritage then, but what about the flawed health and safety argument ?

I asked Wendy Capelle: “Just how is it safe for the public to cross locks on the same flight carrying their shopping back to CaRT offside moorings, or to carry food across from the shop on Adderley locks but not safe for Danny's customers?”

Ms Capelle's response was to back away from that argument and pass the buck to the estates department. She e-mailed back: “The decision to serve notice was due to the non-compliance of the terms of Mr George’s current licence, rather than any health and safety issues regarding people crossing the locks.”

So everything her PR people had been telling online protestors and the media about health and safety is now admitted to be a smokescreen and nothing to with their decision to evict Danny.

Then boaters in Facebook forums offered to crowd-fund Danny's new building. Would Ms Capelle halt the eviction to allow that to happen?

The only answer was more buck-passing: “I will forward your email onto my national colleagues who are dealing with the tenancy.”

Meanwhile the anti Danny George campaign by CaRT's online team had escalated a further step. One Anja – no surname supplied – had taken to sending private messages on Facebook that can only be described as part of a smear campaign.

She claimed: “You must understand that we have really tried to help him again and again, this is not our fault.”

Saying she didn't 'want to slander Danny' she went on to label him as abusive and aggressive claiming 'he is not an easy person to work with'.

She also claimed, in obvious outrage: 'he started planting vegetables all over the place without our permission.'

It is not clear whether this hate campaign was authorised not at what level permission was given to CaRT's spin doctors to destroy the reputation of a small businessman working hard to provide a living for his young family.

The fact that such tactics are being employed by a large and powerful national charity must be disturbing to everyone who loves the canals and wants to see them thrive and prosper with a wealth of innovative small businesses like Danny George's popping up everywhere.

I would suggest this shows an organisation out of control and the elected and non-elected members of the Canal and River Trusts' Council need to be asking some serious questions about the motives and tactics of their paid officials.

Don't Close George's Pork and Poultry at Audlem

To: Ms Wendy Capelle (wendy.capelle@canalrivertrust.org.uk)

North Wales & Borders Waterways
Canal & River Trust
Navigation Road
Northwich
CW8 1BH
Copies to:
Crewe Guardian (crewe@guardiangrp.co.uk);
Crewe Chronicle (Editor: Michael Green crewe.news@cheshirenews.co.uk);
Shropshire Star (newsroom@shropshirestar.co.uk );
Audlem online (editor@audlem.org)



Dear Ms Capelle
I was appalled to learn that, despite a petition of support from boaters and local people you have decided to pull the rug from under a thriving canalside business in Audlem.
George's Pork and Poultry, situated beside the bottom lock at Audlem has became a feature of the canal scene and is regarded as a valuable resource by boaters like myself and local people, having transformed the derelict lock-side land with beds of delicious vegetables as well as providing local meat. It is just the sort of local family business the modern canal system needs.
Despite that – and promises to ensure the business survived – you have decided to withdraw his lease and the clearly pre-prepared excuses in your press release and being made by your public relations staff in online forums are pathetically inadequate.
Your excuses for closure seem to centre around the modest shed Danny George has erected alongside the existing brick-built hut. You complain it is out of keeping with the heritage value of the hut yet you have suggested a larger, uglier, portacabin as an alternative.
As that clearly isn't adequate as an excuse to put a family out of business you also play the health and safety card, claiming to be concerned about people having to cross the lock beams to buy their vegetables.
This is, indeed, curious as tens of thousands of boaters cross lock beams like these every year. Within 200 yards of the business there are locks that have to be crossed from the towpath to reach moorings on the offside and there is another canalside shop by the top lock at Adderley where buyers have to cross the lock beam to buy eggs and cakes.
Overall your excuses for closing down this business are entirely inadequate and will damage the public and boaters' attitudes to the new Canal and River Trust as it attempts to persuade people to support it financially and by volunteering. Who would want to give cash or time to an organisation that acts in such a high-handed manner with an innovative waterside business, established with a great deal of hard work by Danny George and his family.
I ask you to rescind this nasty, short-sighted decision immediately and, instead of seeking reasons why this business should close, do everything in your considerable power to keep it open and demonstrate that the Canal and River Trust will support waterways businesses and help them top thrive.



Yours



Peter Underwood
nb Blackberry Way, 

Perspective

Sometimes your perspective changes, snaps into a different view leaving you wondering why you hadn't seen things that way before.
It happened to me a few days ago when my youngest brother, Adrian, found some pictures in the Imperial War Museum archive of my home village, Orford on the Suffolk coast, in 1941. In a series called 'Invasion Village' they reflected life when Britain expected to be invaded by Hitler at any time and, because Orford was on an east coast estuary it would have been a prime landing site.
In fact, I recalled my mother explaining that the whole village spent the war under military control, with the coast for several miles inland playing host to our front-line defensive forces.
The pictures featured some of the people I had known as a child, but - as I was only born eight years after they were taken - I recall them as old, sometimes elderly, individuals.
Yet there they were on the front line of a genuine national effort to survive the Nazi threat - not some ersatz crisis with a PR catchphrase like "We're all in it together" which most recognise to be simply untrue.
My father would have been training as an RAF dispatch rider elsewhere, my mother a teenage girl soon to join the Land Army. One grandfather was in the Home Guard and another the village milkman.
All were in a way on the front line - genuinely expecting a landing just a few hundred yards from their village homes. Those pictures showed the District Nurse I later knew as a stern old lady on the village Invasion Committee, along with the old policeman who failed to catch us scrumping apples and plums from one of the big houses.
With all the arrogance of youth these were the people I regarded as boring old farts while growing up and had thought little about since.
Oh, I loved my family and was proud of my Dad doing his bit as a Despatch Rider in Europe after D-Day, even if I only learned about that many years later from his diaries, but all those old village inhabitants were boring, rural and unappreciative of the needs of my generation.
In a way, I became older and wiser but I moved away and my memories of the older Orford people I knew as a child became preserved in aspic, as did my attitude towards them.
Then I looked at those black and white pictures capturing those same people, 20 years younger, and facing the stark realities and choices of a country at war, currently losingthat war and under threat of invasion.
Theirs was not some fake, political, 'war on terror' but a genuine threat to their homes and lives. They dealt with it by co-operating with each other, volunteering to do what was needed and attempting to preserve as much of their own lives as possible.
And they saw it through to victory. Suddenly boring old farts have to be seen as something more, as ordinary heroes, working class and middle class people willing to go beyond their own concerns, stand up and be counted.
It was a salutary experience to have to rethink attitudes born 50 years ago, and very worthwhile.Thanks Adrian for finding that glimpse of Orford in 1941.

Death of a lovely man

We have only known Ken Maynard for a couple of years but we knew within days that he was going to be a real friend, a mate. When Chris told us of his tragically early death this morning we both sat and cried. But Ken was the perennial joker, always cheerful, always tolerant, a great family man and a great boozing mate at canal festivals all over the system.
Ken was a boater and he and Chris enjoyed exploring new waterways and living their lives on Blackbird, the boat they loved.
That we shared many a lock and travelled many miles with Ken and Chris was a privilege and a great pleasure. We will always remember joining him at a mooring on the Llangollen where he waved us into a spot with signs warning of wasps' nests. "It's OK I put them there to save you a space" he announced, with a beaming smile.
Ken would always help another boater, or anyone else for that matter. He was a loving, generous man who gave his friendship freely. He was open minded - I even managed to convert him from cider to real ale - and enthusiastic about life.
His loss leaves an empty space in our lives. Rest In Peace mate.

Joy of solar panels for full time boaters

With today's sunshine our solar panels have been producing more than our 6 110amphour batteries can store.
Our system is very basic - cheapest reasonable wattage panels on ebay. Two 80watt for £380 two years ago, so we bought 4 panels. These days they are cheaper still. Buy a bigger regulator than you need, ours cost £30 or so. They are all wired into the regulator with two cables from there to battery bank. Our 4 panels are bolted flat on the boat's roof for simplicity but other tilt and turn mountings are available if you have the patience to fiddle with them.
Our 320 watts will produce 18+amps per hour throughout a day like today and 4-6 amps even on a dull day. Length of the day is the real key and from now until October we can moor for days without charging with the engine. We have the usual fridge, watch a bit of telly and run the laptop a lot. In addition I run my CPAP breathing machine on our mains, supplied by an inverter, for 8 hours every night ( I suffer from sleep apnoea ) and the panels keep up with all those demands. We don't use electric kettles, microwave, dishwasher or other power hungry items.
Without the panels I would need to run the engine 2 hours most days so that's a couple of litres of diesel or £1.60 a day even Norbury's 79.9 price.
Work out the figures yourself - £11.20 a week or £290 or so over 6 months plus the winter contribution when it can cut your running time by an hour a day. Say its saving you £350 a year in diesel - and that's at the lowest price. Add in the saving on engine wear and servicing costs and you can see how my £800 has come back to me. The panels are guaranteed for 25 years so they will continue to contribute to the beer fund.

Tories punishing the disabled shouldn't surprise anyone

Don't be shocked by the Tories throwing thousands of disabled people out of Remploy factories.
Whatever gave you the impression that slick Tory millionaires would give a toss about the poor, sick, jobless, disabled, NHS or anything else that matters to real people?
They just want to open the doors so that their greedy rich supporters and providers of funds can exploit and buy up the health service, the police etc and exploit young unemployed by getting them to work for no pay for firms like Tesco.
Idiots who buy the 'Labour spent it all' line don't have the intelligence to ask why countries like the USA are suffering the same problems - or to see the common factor is out of control bankers, hedge funds etc.
Uncontrolled capitalism will always descend into greed and punish those like the disabled who can't fight back.

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.

When ecology meets commerce on the canals

A developer is aiming to put a 90 berth marina on the Montgomergy Canal, which will eventually link Britian's busiest canal - the Llangollen - with the pretty Welsh border towns of Welshpool and Newtown.
The marina, at Queen's Head near Oswestry, seems to have the backing of the local council and British Waterways but it will prove to be a headache for the naturalists and ecologists who see the canal as some sort of linear nature reserve rather than a navigation for narrowboats.
Currently there are severe restrictions on the number of boats able to use the canal and parts of it are within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Rare plants and insects thrive in the weedy margins of the seven mile stretch of canal currently opened and boaters are limited to speeds as low as 2mph in places with one-way traffic in some sections.
It is difficult to see that limit, or the current limit of a few hundred boats a year surviving the influx of a large marina.
It may well improve the prospect of opening the currently closed section with another 11 mile stretch around Welspool which is already re-opened. If that happens, the number of boats will increase dramatically as Welshpool will become as popular as Llangollen as a destination.
It is difficult to see the harmony of plants insects and boats surviving the return of the Montgomery canal to full working status but both the local councils and British Waterways need the extra income.

Time to turn our back on Thatcher's legacy

href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CPETERU%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">

IT has become a cliché to blame Margaret Thatcher for the current ills of our society but I am increasingly convinced that we have to turn to the mad old cow (as I like to call her) to explain what is happening to us today.

It was the Thatcher regime that decreed public sector was bad and private good – and then went on to sell off, mostly to Tory supporters, the railways, British Telecom, the electricity and gas companies and the coal and steel industries.

All, we were assured would be much more efficient run for profit in the private sector.

She also brought in what has become a touchstone of national and local government and every public institution from schools to hospitals – the idea that better value comes from contracting out ( or outsourcing as the modern terminology has it) as much as possible. Once again, market forces would be the solution to all our problems.

Thirdly she began the process that removed almost all public oversight and regulation from the banking sector, allowing them to go their own way in the name of ever bigger profits and bonuses.

The results are all around us. As the financial sector collapses from an overdose of greed and stupidity, the UK is left without any substantial manufacturing industry because it has been flogged off and then sold on to foreign buyers before being closed as ‘uneconomical’

Most people are suffering financially because the privatised energy industry is focused on profit and refuses to pass on falls in wholesale prices while it can feather its own nest with increased income.

In the public sector, private contract and private contract either fails to deliver – like the schools payment firm which has just been fired – or costs twice as much as originally planned, as can be seen from virtually every IT contract the government has let.

The result is that we are suffering from an overdose of private greed, disguised as ‘market forces’ and even the Labour Party has been unable, until now, to utter the heresy that market forces are not the answer to every problem.

Thatcher created a demon out of those ordinary people who worked for British Steel, British Rail or cleaned hospitals as employees rather than exploited contractors. She told us it was wasteful to employ people directly and much better to have the flexibility of contractors you could fire when necessary.

Now is the time to question that dogma in every sphere. If we had a regulated financial system we wouldn’t have bought bundles of doubtful debt from America.

If we had nationalised power companies we would not only be able to smooth out the price hikes they have demanded but their profits could have gone into the public purse to pay for the renewable energy development we now need.

Almost every public institution would be better served by direct employees who developed loyalty and understanding as a result of being paid and treated fairly – to say nothing of having a proper pension to look forward to. Who doubts that hospitals were cleaner when the workforce was not provided by dodgy ‘hygiene’ firms?

The mantra of capitalism that private ownership and competition results in the best of all worlds is being proven to be a big lie across the world and in our own back yard. The Labour party under Tony Blair repeated that mantra at every possible occasion to reassure the middle classes but that doesn’t make it right and there is no longer a need to do so.

The Thatcher revolution has ground to a halt amidst debt and bankruptcy because it never took account of the nature of those who ascend to the top of a system based on greed that allows the terminally stupid to control the future of others.

It is time to turn back to the concept of public service, loyalty, fairness and stability that was inherent in our system when the major elements of our economy were owned and controlled by all the people of this country, not just by a few rich individuals, many of them without any real ties or loyalties to Britain.

If it makes you nervous you don’t even have to call it socialism – let’s have a new creed of pragmatism that says never again will we let the greedy bastards take control of our work, health, education, homes and money.