Lovely canal - so why neglect it?

We have just completed a week or so on the Upper Peak Forest, a canal we visit at least annually and where we used to have moorings.
It is one of the most attractive and scenic canals in the country, with wide views of the Peak District and is likely to see more visitors than ever this year, thanks to southern drought restrictions and the Olympics.
So why is it so neglected by British Waterways?
From Marple to Whalley Bridge it is in dire need of dredging and if it were not for the weekly visits by coal boats even boats of a normal draft of 30" or so would have even more problems.
The offside vegetation is so overgrown that it is difficult for two boats to pass in many places, especially if there is a moored boat.
Mind you he would have been lucky to have found a mooring as collapsed banks and submerged coping stones are the order of the day. The moorings on the Peak Forest section of Marple are in bad condition for almost their entire length and have been for at least 4-5 years. There are collapsed banks at almost every swing bridge making it an art form to drop crew without grounding.
At Disley on a narrow section of towpath just where the canal breached a few years ago a collapsed edge has been fenced off with orange rash and ignored for at least a year and the same is true for a long section of the visitor moorings in Whalley Bridge.
Add in a couple of trees that fell earlier this year but have been left for boats to scrape past at the expense of their paintwork and the sad picture is complete.
Why has BW chosen to let this lovely canal deteriorate?
We don't have an answer - just a suspicion that all these problems affect boaters rather than walkers, cyclists or fishermen. Somehow boaters' needs are bottom of the list. Certainly well below paying bogus bonuses to BW bosses.

Is charity a dirty word?

Charity for me is something handed out from the haves to the have-nots. The givers, whether they are wealthy individuals, religious groups or even ordinary people get to feel good about themselves. They can polish their self image and tell themselves they are good people, even if they spend the rest of the week exploiting their employees and ripping off customers or fellow believers.
The recipients of charity get to feel demeaned and diminished, forced to beg for help and to hope they are one of the prefered good causes of the 'philanthropists' currently so praised by politicians of all pastel shades.
That is one of the key failings of charity, it is not help handed out to those most in need, it is help given to those causes rich individuals or organisations with a particular religious or social agenda decide are worthy of help.
Charity is not only a cold and shameful thing for the recipient, it is discriminatory and benefits the giver at least as much as the recipient - even without a tax break.
The proper way for a society to look after its people, culture, landscape and whatever else is precious to the members of that society is collectively.
That means all the members of that society making a contribution through the tax system which is commensurate with the individual's means and collectively sufficient to do whatever is necessary.
That is how a civilised society looks after its poor, sick and weak, defends its borders, polices its citizens, educates the young and cares for the old.
In America the total tax take is smaller than ours and those in need depend much more on the whims of philanthropists. The result is more homeless, hopeless people at the bottom of the pile.
In Scandinavian countries the total tax take is larger than ours, around 50% of income. They have universal health care and education, proper pensions for the retired and a social security system that doesn't produce abject poverty.
This government wants to drive us towards the American approach. If they succeed the poor, the old and the sick will be increasingly beholden to the whims of eccentric millionaires and extreme religions.
I have no liking for 'philanthropy' I want a society that looks after all its members properly and equally. That means taxation and more of it. If it falls more heavily on the rich, as it should, they must stop whingeing and see it for what it is - enforced philanthropy for the benefit of the society which has rewarded them so well.

A matter of class

George Galloway's humiliation of Labour in Bradford highlights one distinction between socialist parties and Labour - a willingness to ackowledge that class is not a thing of the past.
New Labour under the slimy Tony Blair and friends began the drift away from the party's working class roots by deciding they couldn't get elected as the party of the working class because key middle ground voters didn't want to be identified as working people. They made the cynical decision that those who still saw themselves as working class had nowhere else to go so it was OK to sell out to middle England with all it's pretentions and prejudice.
That was probably true but Milliband would be deluded if he calculates that him and his current batch of university educated, middle class, well-heeled ministers and MPs can continue to depend on the loyalty of the mass of working class voters.
Quite apart from those running into the disturbing embrace of the far right, an increasing number are realising Labour has abandoned them for the white van men who see no further than the next hike in petrol prices and need to be wooed by regular attacks on the poor (scroungers) and non whites (asylum seekers).
If Labour wishes to return to its roots, a large if, then it needs to return to the analysis of class, especially at a time when the redefined upper classes, judged by wealth as well as birth these days, is unashamedly tipping the balance in favour of capital and the controllers if wealth by removing or selling off anything owned by society as a whole and benefiting the poor more than the rich. That runs from reducing the rights of unions to selling off the NHS. Difficult, of course, as Blair and Brown had been doing something very similar.
Most of all - instead of abandoning class - we need to revisit the concept of class.
We may no longer have legions of blue collar workers. Instead they wear suits and work in call centres or office jobs, or they wear uniforms and help Tesco make its billions.
The problem is that many of those people have been conned into believing they are not part of the working class.
A socialist Labour Party would be working with the unions to recruit that mass of white collar working class people, explaining how they are being exploited and convincing them that by joining together they can and should challenge the owners of capital.
This country is still overwhelmingly working class, even if the bank workers, shop salespeople, call centre employees and other labourers at the technology workface have been encouraged to see themselves differently.
The task facing Labour is to out itself at the head of an angry new, white collar working class and teach them that having to wear a tie doesn't turn them into little Tories.
Stand up for these working people, encourage them to join unions, tell them they should and must stand together against rapacious employers.
It is still all about class, us and them, and Labour's tragedy us that has allowed the Tories to change perceptions, ever since Thatcher's massive con-trick of council house sales.
Time to reattach testicles, get some real working class people at the top and claim back the working class voter, whatever they currently think they are.

How credible are IWA council members of the Canal and River Trust?

Four IWA candidates have been elected for the four positions designated to represent boaters on the council of the Canal and River Trust - but are they credible representatives of all boaters on British Waterways waters?
To begin with they were elected by just a quarter of those entitled to vote - hardly a ringing endorsement.
Secondly they were backed by the IWA, the biggest waterways charity and the most able to influence boater members by producing recommended candidates.
That makes this result predictable (in fact I predicted it to John Dodwell when the Boaters' Manifesto group met with him) especially with the inevitable low turnout of a hurried election conducted in the winter season.
Thirdly there will be those who conclude that the IWA is a campaigning organisation of boaters so what does it matter that they have all four seats? The answer is that the IWA is no longer a campaigning body but a collection of committee people happy to do business behind closed doors. It is run by and for often elderly hobby boaters and no longer represents the whole boating community. That is amply demonstrated by its hostility to full-time boaters, especially continuous cruisers.
So we now have the CaRT council with too few boater representatives and those handful that are in place completely controlled by just one view of boating - and that view hostile to thousands who boat as continuous cruisers.
Not only that, they were elected by just one in four voters in an election which allowed a single body to distort the result by jamming the list with nominees.
I suspect that some of the so-called apathy that led to the pathetic 25% turnout was a boycott by boaters who see the election and CaRT as a stitch-up between a Government anxious to offload responsibility, a BW management happy to take perks for as long as possible and 'trustees' from the 'great and good' unwilling to challenge or question the BW management propaganda.
That can only leave full-time boaters more wary and more suspicious of CaRT than we already were.
Here is a so-called charity that is being run by the same people as mismanaged British Waterways - Hales, Evans and the other bonus boys - being monitored by a handful of IWA yes-people who are, in any event outnumbered on the council.
Of course, there are also increasing doubts about the power or relevance of the council as the trustees appear to be colluding in the establishment of commercial structures within CaRT that may end up making the financial and commercial decisions that will decide the future of our waterways.
Those IWA council members may be powerless to prevent Evans, Hales and co from awarding and collecting yet more undeserved bonuses, flogging off more key equipment, investing in more failing ventures as they spend what little funds there are available on anything except the waterways themselves.
I began the Boaters' Manifesto because I feared just such a stitch-up amongst the greedy BW bosses and the professional committee people of the trustees, the IWA and others.
Along the way I met with, argued with and enjoyed the company of a lot of proper boaters.
As I have been politically active for nearly 50 years I never really expected to win but it is always worth getting important truths an airing.
Boaters like me are now privately resigned to more bonuses, more financial failures, less spent on the network.
We can't look to the IWA council members to fight for our interests and we are reduced to standing on the sidelines once more keeping a beady eye on this ridiculously over-committeed structure that will probably become CaRT evetually.
They are not our friends and we will to continue to question, criticise and complain when necessary.

Bridge too far?

Work was finished on Middle Lock at Fradley Junction on Friday and the walkway across by the bottom gates has now acquired some ugly wooden railings.
I can only assume there is some reason for defacing a listed structure in this way. BW may well use the health and safety card but the lock has been used safely for more than 200 years, that's a hell of a risk assessment.
And do they have listed building consent for this act of vandalism?

Hit supermarkets that use forced labour

<p>Tesco, Sainsbury and Poundland are using unemployed youngsters who are forced to work for them or lose their meagre benefits.<br>
They work for nothing, enabling these billionaire businesses to not spend on proper jobs. The Nazis had a similar scheme for slave workers.<br>
It is called workfare, but it is not either proper work - or fair on youngsters who don't end up with a proper job. After all why should the greedy supermarkets give them a job when they can have the next bunch of slaves for free?<br>
I am boycotting all businesses that use forced labour and I urge you to do the same.<br>
Even better, cancel your Tesco or Sainsburys reward card and tell them why. They only give you a tiny discount on all the money you spend but the supermarkets find them a very valuable source of information about our habits.
Go on, kick em where it hurts and they may learn that exploiting young  people is not the way civilised buinesses behave.

BWML buys another marina

It seems British Waterways Marinas Ltd has bought Cowroast Marina on the Grabd Union - and sent a flutter through the commercial canal sector and boaters who want all cash spent on upkeep.
Although BWML fails to show much profit to BW thats mosly because it follows the BW template of high pay for bosses and letting inexperienced junior staff run the marinas.
What profits it does make have come in the past from high charges for 'Class 1' berths for liveaboards - and I have been one of them. At present it is getting formal planning permission for those berths and hiking prices by 50% as a result - apparently with the endorsement of the Residential Boat Owners Association, which I find odd.
If the NWC is to be self-funded there is an argument for it maximising BWML income but it should allow other marinas to compete on the same basis with comparable lease charges and no conditions imposed that are not also part of BWMLs contracts with BW/NWC