Oh bloody hell
SWMBO keeps on at me to get some new glasses
Anyway
Rationalisation would be better than nationalisation - can we change the title?
Nationalise the RNLI?
-
Julian
Yes, sorry, I did not mean to come across so aggressively. I do get fed up with this attitude that things must somehow only create value, a rescue or tow should be justified in some way, a statue is a waste when it can buy 4 hospital beds, a park can buy a sub post office etc.Olivepage wrote:Julian
Have a read of Para's post
I was posing a question, and after all the title of the thread is "Rationalising The RNLI"
Unless one considers a range of options then any rationalisation or any progress is unlikely to occur.
Because it is "not a business" does not mean that it cannot operate in a businesslike manner. In fact its status as a registered charity imposes a legal requirement upon it to do exactly that.
What a miserable accountants dream we would live in if everything had to make sense.
Here is an example, if you were out in the boat and found a liferaft.. A helo was on the way and the sea to rough to promise a safe pick up with your available crew. The helo asks for a smoke to guide them in and you throw in your floating orange.
Would you expect the crew in the liferaft to pay you back for the flare you used? Just interested, anyone can answer this..
Julian wrote:Yes, sorry, I did not mean to come across so aggressively. I do get fed up with this attitude that things must somehow only create value, a rescue or tow should be justified in some way, a statue is a waste when it can buy 4 hospital beds, a park can buy a sub post office etc.Olivepage wrote:Julian
Have a read of Para's post
I was posing a question, and after all the title of the thread is "Rationalising The RNLI"
Unless one considers a range of options then any rationalisation or any progress is unlikely to occur.
Because it is "not a business" does not mean that it cannot operate in a businesslike manner. In fact its status as a registered charity imposes a legal requirement upon it to do exactly that.
What a miserable accountants dream we would live in if everything had to make sense.
Here is an example, if you were out in the boat and found a liferaft.. A helo was on the way and the sea to rough to promise a safe pick up with your available crew. The helo asks for a smoke to guide them in and you throw in your floating orange.
Would you expect the crew in the liferaft to pay you back for the flare you used? Just interested, anyone can answer this..
Now this would depend on which side of the border you were from!
Err No
I'd light my tar barrel - You don't expect a Yorkshireman to use a flare if there's an alternative.
But seriously - I obviously haven't made my meaning clear.
I wasn't looking at the question in terms of payment I was thinking about priorities.
No question the first priority is to save life
But what then - The RNLI take many more calls for assistance that are not directly life threatening.
Now putting that into the context of my other post where I had raised the idea of replacing boats with helicopters.
Clearly a helicopter cannot salvage a boat. So where does that leave the RNLI in terms of what its role is. If they rescue the crew of a boat should they then send out a lifeboat to salvage the abandoned vessel?
To do so adds to the cost of the service as well as adding to the risk to the crew. What risk would you or I ask a crew to take to salvage our boats?
What risk would the crew be prepared (or be allowed) to take?
Would that risk be different in the case of a leisure vessel that would be insured and so have little financial loss to the owner, than it would be for a fishing boat which may be insured but would represent a considerable loss in terms of earnings to its owner.
Really a question of how they look at priorities and balance them against risks.
My view for what its worth is that I like the situation as it is and would not wish to change it, but one has to accept that it may not be possible to maintain the status quo - hence we float a few ideas about to look at the options.
I hope this helps you understand where I was going with the argument.
I'd light my tar barrel - You don't expect a Yorkshireman to use a flare if there's an alternative.
But seriously - I obviously haven't made my meaning clear.
I wasn't looking at the question in terms of payment I was thinking about priorities.
No question the first priority is to save life
But what then - The RNLI take many more calls for assistance that are not directly life threatening.
Now putting that into the context of my other post where I had raised the idea of replacing boats with helicopters.
Clearly a helicopter cannot salvage a boat. So where does that leave the RNLI in terms of what its role is. If they rescue the crew of a boat should they then send out a lifeboat to salvage the abandoned vessel?
To do so adds to the cost of the service as well as adding to the risk to the crew. What risk would you or I ask a crew to take to salvage our boats?
What risk would the crew be prepared (or be allowed) to take?
Would that risk be different in the case of a leisure vessel that would be insured and so have little financial loss to the owner, than it would be for a fishing boat which may be insured but would represent a considerable loss in terms of earnings to its owner.
Really a question of how they look at priorities and balance them against risks.
My view for what its worth is that I like the situation as it is and would not wish to change it, but one has to accept that it may not be possible to maintain the status quo - hence we float a few ideas about to look at the options.
I hope this helps you understand where I was going with the argument.
-
Windfinder
- Master Mariner
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:54 pm
When it comes to Charity surely value is everything.Julian wrote: I do get fed up with this attitude that things must somehow only create value, a rescue or tow should be justified in some way, a statue is a waste when it can buy 4 hospital beds, a park can buy a sub post office etc.
If charity a) saves 10 lives per million & charity b) saves 9.9 lives per million, all other things being equal I'm gonna donate my 50p to charity a).
-
Nick
- Admiral of the Blue
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 4:11 pm
- Boat Type: Albin Vega 27 and Morgan Giles 30
- Location: Oban. Scotland
- Contact:
All other things are rarely equal though . . .If charity a) saves 10 lives per million & charity b) saves 9.9 lives per million, all other things being equal I'm gonna donate my 50p to charity a).
If Charity a) is saving discredited politicians and charity b) is saving impoverished web designers then my money would go to charity b) even if they are saving fewer lives.
(Actually it perhaps wouldn't because it would be better if my competitors all perished - but you get my drift . . . )
- Nick 
-
Nick
- Admiral of the Blue
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 4:11 pm
- Boat Type: Albin Vega 27 and Morgan Giles 30
- Location: Oban. Scotland
- Contact:
I think you will find . . .
.
I think the RNLI are by and large very happy with the status quo and do not want to see it changed, so why not help keep them happy by putting all your loose change in the lifeboat box so things can continue as they are.
Lifeboat crews will risk everything to save lives, but after that they are the ones who make a decision about salvaging property etc, so lets leave it up to them.
I think you will find that most lifeboat crews would relish more opportunities to put to sea when lives were not in danger. The retained coxswains and mechanics in particular can get pretty bored sitting around waiting for their ten or twelve shouts a year.
I think the RNLI are by and large very happy with the status quo and do not want to see it changed, so why not help keep them happy by putting all your loose change in the lifeboat box so things can continue as they are.
Lifeboat crews will risk everything to save lives, but after that they are the ones who make a decision about salvaging property etc, so lets leave it up to them.
I think you will find that most lifeboat crews would relish more opportunities to put to sea when lives were not in danger. The retained coxswains and mechanics in particular can get pretty bored sitting around waiting for their ten or twelve shouts a year.
- Nick
Interesting concept -value.
Sport Scotland has an operating budget of £32.5M
What they operate is giving a mixture of taxpayers and Lottery money to sporting things in Scotland.
The exact sum that they give away is not clear to me but is in 100s of millions.
I'm not getting at Scotland - its just that for reasons I can't go into I have some knowledge of this. There is a parallel organisation in England which no doubt has proportionately larger budgets.
The point is all this money goes into people running about, jumping over things and doubtlessly kicking things.
None of these running, jumping and kicking people are in any way controlled by the government. The judgment is that their running etc is of some benefit to Scotland as a whole, despite the fact that most people see nothing of any direct benefit.
Now can a parallel argument be made for the RNLI (on a national basis, not just Scotland)
Can the Government not give grants to the RNLI not for fishing soggy yachties out of the 'oggin, but for the service to maritime communities, sport and recreation as a whole.
No-one can say that sport is "nationalised" (or indeed rationalised) - the government (surprisingly) do not try to micro-manage what runners, jumpers and kickers do or how they do it. The payments are not even performance related (fortunately)
It is arguable, I would suggest, that sailing, although supported at competitive level, is not supported at all as a recreational sport, whereas many other things are.
I would commend the notion that Sport Scotland and England should give financial support to the RNLI on the basis that sailing provides a recreation that benefits the country as a whole.
Sport Scotland has an operating budget of £32.5M
What they operate is giving a mixture of taxpayers and Lottery money to sporting things in Scotland.
The exact sum that they give away is not clear to me but is in 100s of millions.
I'm not getting at Scotland - its just that for reasons I can't go into I have some knowledge of this. There is a parallel organisation in England which no doubt has proportionately larger budgets.
The point is all this money goes into people running about, jumping over things and doubtlessly kicking things.
None of these running, jumping and kicking people are in any way controlled by the government. The judgment is that their running etc is of some benefit to Scotland as a whole, despite the fact that most people see nothing of any direct benefit.
Now can a parallel argument be made for the RNLI (on a national basis, not just Scotland)
Can the Government not give grants to the RNLI not for fishing soggy yachties out of the 'oggin, but for the service to maritime communities, sport and recreation as a whole.
No-one can say that sport is "nationalised" (or indeed rationalised) - the government (surprisingly) do not try to micro-manage what runners, jumpers and kickers do or how they do it. The payments are not even performance related (fortunately)
It is arguable, I would suggest, that sailing, although supported at competitive level, is not supported at all as a recreational sport, whereas many other things are.
I would commend the notion that Sport Scotland and England should give financial support to the RNLI on the basis that sailing provides a recreation that benefits the country as a whole.
-
Nick
- Admiral of the Blue
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 4:11 pm
- Boat Type: Albin Vega 27 and Morgan Giles 30
- Location: Oban. Scotland
- Contact:
But . . .
.
Sport Scotland already put a lot of money into sailing in Scotland . . .
Sport Scotland already put a lot of money into sailing in Scotland . . .
See HEREThursday 19 June 2008
sportscotland Chair, Louise Martin CBE and Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell took to the high seas today to announce a £337,080 investment in Royal Yachting Association Scotland (RYAS), the governing body for the sport of sailing in Scotland.
Accompanied by the National 420 Youth Champions, Peter Irwin and David Kohler, the new sportscotland Chair confirmed that the money, of which £189,080 is from the sportscotland Lottery Fund, would be used to develop the sport across the country.
- Nick
Yes I know.
I did acknowledge that
"It is arguable, I would suggest, that sailing, although supported at competitive level, is not supported at all as a recreational sport, whereas many other things are."
What I was suggesting was an additional possible route to support the RNLI financially without subjecting the organisation to all the problems of making it a government controlled "nationalised" industry.
I know the Institute is financially sound at the moment. I also know that it will be significantly affected by inflation in both current account running costs and in capital cost for new boats and other equipment. Further, as inflation begins to increasingly affect people's disposable income, it is likely that charitable donations to all good causes including the RNLI will be hit.
It would be prudent, I would suggest, to make plans to maintain the present levels of expenditure with a decrease in revenue. I am sure that the Institute's managers are actively doing this now, I certainly hope they are.
One further point that should be watched is the way other charities are increasingly being used as service providers, particularly by local authorities, for a range of mainly "caring" roles, old people's homes etc. In doing this they almost inevitably become Dependant upon taxpayer's money - usually council taxpayers. This in turn allows these authorities to exert an unfortunate level of influence and control over the running of these charities. This would most certainly be something to be very wary of.
Arguably its already begun with the beach lifeguards - could this be the thin end of the wedge?
I did acknowledge that
"It is arguable, I would suggest, that sailing, although supported at competitive level, is not supported at all as a recreational sport, whereas many other things are."
What I was suggesting was an additional possible route to support the RNLI financially without subjecting the organisation to all the problems of making it a government controlled "nationalised" industry.
I know the Institute is financially sound at the moment. I also know that it will be significantly affected by inflation in both current account running costs and in capital cost for new boats and other equipment. Further, as inflation begins to increasingly affect people's disposable income, it is likely that charitable donations to all good causes including the RNLI will be hit.
It would be prudent, I would suggest, to make plans to maintain the present levels of expenditure with a decrease in revenue. I am sure that the Institute's managers are actively doing this now, I certainly hope they are.
One further point that should be watched is the way other charities are increasingly being used as service providers, particularly by local authorities, for a range of mainly "caring" roles, old people's homes etc. In doing this they almost inevitably become Dependant upon taxpayer's money - usually council taxpayers. This in turn allows these authorities to exert an unfortunate level of influence and control over the running of these charities. This would most certainly be something to be very wary of.
Arguably its already begun with the beach lifeguards - could this be the thin end of the wedge?
-
Windfinder
- Master Mariner
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:54 pm
The RNLI is secure for the forseeable.Olivepage wrote: It would be prudent, I would suggest, to make plans to maintain the present levels of expenditure with a decrease in revenue. I am sure that the Institute's managers are actively doing this now, I certainly hope they are.
They're currently raising more than they spend and could run for 2 years with zero income.
The RNLI is awash with money. I noticed in Southend (don't ask!) they have fixed crane costing ££££ to deploy the RIB instead of davits! If times were hard they could manage without the nice-to-haves.
If there ever came a day when they were short then countless people, like me, who don't currently make serious contributions would start to make contributions.
There are plenty of struggling charities - the RNLI isn't one of them. Quite the opposite.
Just how rich is the RNLI?
According to Windfinder:-
"The RNLI is secure for the forseeable.
They're currently raising more than they spend and could run for 2 years with zero income.
The RNLI is awash with money. I noticed in Southend (don't ask!) they have fixed crane costing ££££ to deploy the RIB instead of davits! If times were hard they could manage without the nice-to-haves.
If there ever came a day when they were short then countless people, like me, who don't currently make serious contributions would start to make contributions.
There are plenty of struggling charities - the RNLI isn't one of them. Quite the opposite."
But Para has the view:-
"the only comment abt windy's post is that the funding of the RNLI is not that secure. It costs £100m annually to run and the last stockmarket collapse (1999 to 2003) hit it hard as its assets to annual running costs got close to parity and there's some clause in their Deed (or a requirement from the Charity Commissioners) which require the RNLI to have greater reserves than that. Current stockmarket is lower than 1999 (but not as low as it got 2 yrs later) and there's a dearth of spare cash the noo and legacies."
Perhaps we should suspend the debate waiting for the auditor's report.
According to Windfinder:-
"The RNLI is secure for the forseeable.
They're currently raising more than they spend and could run for 2 years with zero income.
The RNLI is awash with money. I noticed in Southend (don't ask!) they have fixed crane costing ££££ to deploy the RIB instead of davits! If times were hard they could manage without the nice-to-haves.
If there ever came a day when they were short then countless people, like me, who don't currently make serious contributions would start to make contributions.
There are plenty of struggling charities - the RNLI isn't one of them. Quite the opposite."
But Para has the view:-
"the only comment abt windy's post is that the funding of the RNLI is not that secure. It costs £100m annually to run and the last stockmarket collapse (1999 to 2003) hit it hard as its assets to annual running costs got close to parity and there's some clause in their Deed (or a requirement from the Charity Commissioners) which require the RNLI to have greater reserves than that. Current stockmarket is lower than 1999 (but not as low as it got 2 yrs later) and there's a dearth of spare cash the noo and legacies."
Perhaps we should suspend the debate waiting for the auditor's report.
RNLI 2007Olivepage wrote:Perhaps we should suspend the debate waiting for the auditor's report.
The free reserves (what windy refers to as capable of supporting the RNLI for 2 yrs with zero income) are at 12 months, not 2 yrs.
The capital reserve including the free reserve is £280m of which £160m is directed reserve ie it comes from a donation for which the giver has specified how the legacy will be spent.
The £280m is invested £121m in equity, £14m in property, £52m in fixed interest, £13m in cash and £81m in real/absolute return fund. Taking a weighted average, the total loss on these investments *could* be £32m as at this morning.
If you then reduce the free reserve proportionately, the reserve stands at 10months. Earlier this decade the RNLI did some sums under the scrutiny of the government & Charity Commissioners and restated their free assets requirement from 1 to 3 years free assets to 8 to 16months. Some vehemently objected to this because it was part of this governments assumption that, to put it crudely, the good times would continue ad infinitum. It was the same strategy that forced pension funds to divest their surpluses. What the strategy did was to increase expenditure in the UK economy at the expense of the holders long term security.
The suggestion earlier by another that the RNLI was not a business and that "you don't get it" is an utterly abysmal misunderstanding of what the RNLI are engaged in.
Gosh
Need to think about that a bit.
Am I right in assuming that the £160M directed reserve will only or almost only be available for "capital" spend - new boats equipment etc.
If so that will leave £120M available for "current" spend - actually running the organisation - paying wages buying diesel etc etc.
Also the possible loss of £32M as of today will be a reduction totally in the £120M figure since the directed reserve would not be available for current expenditure?
Does the £32M include a reduction in the values of property owned by the institution?
If my assumptions are correct - and you will have gathered i'm not an accountant - it would seem things are not quite as rosy as one might believe.
Or have I got it wrong
Again
PS
Thats the quickest audit I've ever known!
Need to think about that a bit.
Am I right in assuming that the £160M directed reserve will only or almost only be available for "capital" spend - new boats equipment etc.
If so that will leave £120M available for "current" spend - actually running the organisation - paying wages buying diesel etc etc.
Also the possible loss of £32M as of today will be a reduction totally in the £120M figure since the directed reserve would not be available for current expenditure?
Does the £32M include a reduction in the values of property owned by the institution?
If my assumptions are correct - and you will have gathered i'm not an accountant - it would seem things are not quite as rosy as one might believe.
Or have I got it wrong
Again
PS
Thats the quickest audit I've ever known!
Not always. A gift might be for a particular station; leaving it to the Trustees discretion how its spent.Olivepage wrote:Am I right in assuming that the £160M directed reserve will only or almost only be available for "capital" spend - new boats equipment etc.
Not quite and not given. The *possible* £32m is across the whole £280m.Olivepage wrote:Also the possible loss of £32M as of today will be a reduction totally in the £120M figure since the directed reserve would not be available for current expenditure?
Does the £32M include a reduction in the values of property owned by the institution?.
I'm not including the potential deficit on their pension fund. In fact, the fund Trustees seem to have made a decent fist of it.
In isolation, the RNLI is in fine shape but it comes after a few years of asset growth and the public's generosity. The picture ahead is much less favourable. Most would be happier if there was more fat on the bones ...