Angling Trust "Finance and Politics"

[Mike Fox]

All,

I found David Mitchell's talk to be fascinating at our club meeting on Thursday 2nd February 2012, and I did talk to him afterwards about some of the points raised.

 

It's a complex topic, and I am starting to see why the Angling Trust is spread thinly, particularly relating to restoration of fish stocks available to recreational sea anglers.

 

In summary, my understanding of the 4 main issues presented were:

- Multiple "battlegrounds" on which to fight;

- Multiple stakeholders to involve and influence;

- Complex legal framework at local, national and international levels;

- Lack of funding to help make major achievements.

 

This thread I've left to last to start, as I personally believe it's the most complex.

 

On a simplistic level, the more money the Angling Trust has coming in, the more it can consider attempting on behalf of the membership, which I think we can all understand.

 

However, the real decision-makers in this country (the politicians) and the EU don't really care about the Angling Trust, they're just another emerging stakeholder.

 

DECISION-MAKING

The pressures on key decision-makers (from our RSA perspective) can be summarised as follows (not in any particular order):

- Remaining in office to serve their party's political interests (plus get their wages etc);

- Not going against the 4 "P"'s (Personal Preferences of Powerful People);

- Considering existing and potential impacts to their political party funding;

- Working within the framework of existing UK and EU legislation and assessing the practical changes that they can get agreed while in office;

- Working within their Department's financial budget (set elsewhere), including the hiring of special advisers and legal representation, as well as civil service machinery;

- The timing of controversial decisions and the implications that they might have on by-elections and General Elections;

- Considering unemployment impacts in the commercial fishing sector for direct and supporting industries, and impacts on communities (and voting) arising;

- Appreciating impacts on imports and exports arising from decisions that impact the balance of trade, potentially leading to changes to Gross Domestic Product, and Deficit implications.

- Validating commercial sector lobbying and (expensive) legal representations to favour their views over other stakeholders;

- The impacts on direct and indirect taxation from any decisions taken over the current and future financial years;

- The transition arrangements necessary to phase in change, and the phasing of cash flow implications and impact on annual financial budgets;

- The source, credibility, and evidence of advice reviewed and considered during consultation phases, taking great care to ensure this is supported by the Powerful People (see above).

- A hierarchy of political advisers are needed for decision making at this level, including Civil Servants, Government Departments, and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) and others that exist to filter information from interest groups.

- Avoid making any wrong decisions while in office to avoid impacting their re-election prospects. This means blaming the previous administration by ratifying their decisions in the first part of their term in office, and avoiding making new controversial decisions that can possibly be deferred until the next incumbent arrives.

 

Anything I've missed?

 

As you can see, decision-making at this level is fraught with difficulty, most items directly linked to FINANCE and multiple factors need to be clearly addressed before a decision will be taken. The best the Angling Trust can achieve here is exerting influence through the legitimate channels open to them (see Stakeholder thread).

 

Not sure if this thread helps (or is that exciting to read!), but I wanted to try to clarify some of these issues, and to record some of the political constraints that makes it so difficult to achieve even "sensible" change.

 

My simplistic view is that the Angling Trust needs some quick wins on it's RSA "Battlegrounds", to convince existing and potential members to back them, thereby providing them with the funding to influence more and more "Stakeholders" to assess key stock conservation and restoration topics including the RSA perspective, and achieve changes to the "Legals" that will making sea angling better for all RSAs.

 

Mike

Edited February 5, 2012 by Mike Fox