CUK Price change.

[thirdcrank]

... Regardless of the workforce (who I hope will still be around, because they're generally dedicated, hard-working and good at their jobs) the board of trustees will still be there and will certainly be looking very closely at how this pans out. I would say "we" will be looking closely but I'm coming to the end of my 3-year term as a trustee and I don't know whether I'll be re-elected. But my colleagues will anyway.

I intentionally avoided saying anything directly about the the cUK workforce: my point was and remains that the modern charity sector attracts charity professionals and the higher up the hierarchy the more that applies. By butterfly, I meant that they seem to move move from charity to charity quite regularly. That's a comment on the nature of the modern charity sector, not the people attracted to it.

Anyway, let's see how this spins a year from now.

[PH]

By butterfly, I meant that they seem to move move from charity to charity quite regularly. That's a comment on the nature of the modern charity sector, not the people attracted to it.

How long were the CEO's in place before CTC became a charity? I know Kevin Mayne did a long stint, was that typical?
I'd be surprised if the tenure of CEO's in the charity sector was much different to that in the private, though that's based on anecdotal evidence rather than any data. I think it's just the nature of the role, they come in full of ideas and after a few years they've either put them in place or come to the realisation that it'll never happen.

[mjr]

Not confident that I will see any membership figures or breakdown so does anyone know?
Cuk used to state how many members in advertising blurb but I have not seen numbers recently which is surprising because if you were doing a good job it would be correct to promote the increase.

See Nicola's reply above. Membership is up to 70,000.

So it's back up to 2007 levels, then? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8924&hilit=70000

[thirdcrank]

I think the charity sector has mushroomed in recent years and with it people with special skills, particularly related to things like how to pitch for public funding. I suspect - and it's nothing more than that - it's useful to know things like how to avoid a policy coup. I have in mind the to-and-fro in the RSPCA over fox hunting. If you set up a system of approving trustees before accepting nominations, you can prevent a change of policy direction by new trustees of a different persuasion.

For me, one problem in any discussion is that "charity" is a GOOD THING to the point of being almost sacrosanct. Perhaps we can blame St Paul for that. It's also gone from being a sort of early welfare state to a way of lubricating the rich through the eye of a needle with increasing tax relief, to a way of governments blunting campaigns. IMO, One regrettable result is that altruism tends to be lost.

[seumasl]

We/You all have the option as members to vote (against the abolition of age reduced membership) so do it, if you don't vote you have no say, simples.

[Oldjohnw]

The reality is that all folk regarding this particular thing need to do is vote. There may be other reasons for parting company but on this proposal a vote is needed. If the motion still passes then we have to assume that is what most people want.

[gxaustin]

I am going to play devil’s advocate and ask why you feel members should be discounted just viscountess(typo but I think I get your drift) on age principal. Discount is still available to those solely dependent upon state pension, those with a supplementary income.?

I don't know anyone who lives solely on a state pension (other than myself during this lockdown), most get some form of additional help with housing allowance etc. Therefore hardly any seniors will get the discounted rate and it's Cha Ching for CUK.

While I'm all for encouraging more members from disadvantaged groups to join can I point out that we oldies are the least healthy, most prone to illness and biggest drain by far on the NHS. In my opinion we are therefore the group for whom the benefits of cycling will do most good. Additionally, older people are more likely to thrive in a club environment and to seek the reassurance of insurance cover and so on.
It will be interesting to seehow this pans out.

[Jdsk]

While I'm all for encouraging more members from disadvantaged groups to join can I point out that we oldies are the least healthy, most prone to illness and biggest drain by far on the NHS. In my opinion we are therefore the group for whom the benefits of cycling will do most good.

That might not be the case... the benefits might take a long time to appear. For prevention of atherosclerosis that's probably on the scale of a few decades. Benefits to mental health and wellbeing might be a lot quicker.

Jonathan

PS: Why "drain" rather than "expenditure"... reactive healthcare has to be used to be effective.

[seumasl]

According to a survey 66% of people think cycling is dangerous, if I were you Cycling UK I would take care of the members you have including senior members, doesn't seem you can afford to lose us seniors if this disgusting (effectively) increase goes through

[gxaustin]

the benefits might take a long time to appear. For prevention of atherosclerosis that's probably on the scale of a few decades. Benefits to mental health and wellbeing might be a lot quicker.

Benefits of Cycling for Older People
1. It is a low impact, low-stress exercise
2. Weight Loss
3. Cycling is great for your heart
4. Cycling is also great for memory
5. Good way to reduce the risk of cancer
6. Riding is a great way to exercise with fellow cyckists
7. Cycling is good for your circulation
8. Cycling is great for stamina
9. Cycling will help you live longer
10. Cycling is fun

Naturally the sooner you start the better but wieght loss, companionship, stress reduction and sheer fun start immediately - in my personal experience.

You ask why oldies are a drain on the NHS, rather than expenditure. We no longer contribute but we use proportionately much more of its resources. I know most of us contributed for years when we were working but don't kid yourself that that was ringfenced in a little pot with your name on it. The NHS is paid for by those currently paying NI. I'm on meds so I'm part of the problem

[Jdsk]

The NHS is paid for by those currently paying NI.

No. The NHS is currently funded about 80% from general taxation. National Insurance and patient charges make much smaller contributions.
https://fullfact.org/health/how-nhs-funded/

Jonathan

PS: You've got cancer in that list. That might be true. But again the effect will take decades to appear.

[thirdcrank]

The underlying point here is that National Insurance became little more than extra income tax - falling mainly on people on generally lower rates of pay - years ago. The Dead Sheep was perhaps the one who openly demonstrated it first. Paying National Insurance sounds more acceptable than paying tax.

[Jdsk]

The underlying point here is that National Insurance became little more than extra income tax...

Agreed. But the relevance to this discussion is that old people are currently paying to fund the NHS.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

It seems to me that people have been conned by successive governments into believing that what they have paid in NI contributions will fund their "cover" in times of ill health, unemployment and eventual retirement. While some benefits are still "contribution based" ie a record of contributions affects the level of entitlement, it has never been the case that an individual's contributions are somehow invested on their behalf until needed. It's just that paying insurance contributions sounds somehow more thrifty.

Put another way, today's taxpayers pay for today's benefits, except to the increasing extent that government borrowing for current spending burdens tomorrow's taxpayers.

[Cyril Haearn]

Many of this parish are retired but rich enough to pay full/normal fees

Many on state pension only, or unemployed, could not thoyle even a fiver a year. I fear many retired people have to be very careful with money