IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
89
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
3 minutes ago, Smiles said:
who agrees or disagrees?
who doesn't like a bet... 🙂
-
1 minute ago, Smiles said:
I don't agree 😂
Neither does Peter... 😉
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Smiles said:
What's yer bet?
Let's not go there... 😉
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, peterboat said:
Ian I am not interested, I think I have decided what to do and I will let you know when it comes to pass, but it doesnt involve staying on CRT waters to become a milkcow for them
So you don't believe what you said then, it was just the usual anti-CART rant. Thought so... 😉
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, peterboat said:
I have a plan not to be on CRT waterways long before you are wrong and everybody is paying a lot for the pleasure
So if you're so confident that what you stated was correct and not your usual anti-CART rant, accept the bet.
Loser donates £100 to CWDF... 🙂
-
7 minutes ago, peterboat said:
But it wont happen as we have seen in the past! What will happen is they won't allow widebeam owners go to consultations and they will exactly as they want, applying rises across the board for everyone including those that cannot afford it! They have a long history of it
I bet you £100 that you're wrong, and that CART introduce more widely graduated fees -- including further increases (probably area-rated) for widebeams like yours... 🙂
(because that'll almost certainly be the result of the consultation, as voted for by a majority of boaters)
And if I win I'll donate the money to CWDF 🙂
-
1
-
-
"The expectation was that CRT would develop these funding streams and the new "charitable giving" funding stream such that future government support was not needed in the longer term." was always pure cloud-cuckoo-land Brexit-grade BS -- it would have needed CART to bring in sums similar to the National Trust, as well as other income streams that didn't exist but definitely were going to in the future. Yeah, right... 😞
The fact remains that the projections did turn out to be far too optimistic and the need for government grant has gone up not down, which is why CART are in a financial hole and are asking the government for more money and boaters for higher license fees.
-
Just now, peterboat said:
Who is going to sue Germany then? Burning horrible stuff they are
Is that your principle then -- it's OK to sh*t in the shower because somebody else did it first? 😉
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Unfortunately, your response shows a lack of comprehension.
The deal between Defra and CRT was not just about government giving £800m over five years. It was also about transferring most of BW's funding streams and removing some of the restrictions placed on BW (e.g. ability to make loans). The expectation was that CRT would develop these funding streams and the new "charitable giving" funding stream such that future government support was not needed in the longer term.
A report by KPMG found that projections against ex-BW and new income streams taken together with grant were reasonable but cautioned that the condition of the waterways might deteriorate slightly.
As the contribution from "Investment" and "Joint Ventures" is so low against the projection in 2021/22 (and previous years) and can not be explained, I would suggest financial mismanagement. It is certainly not due to raging inflation because that started after year end.
It is worth noting that the deal was stated to be "tough but fair" by CRT's chair who signed it. It was claimed to give "certainty of funding".
It is difficult to accuse the government of underfunding because it was agreed that grant together with other income streams was sufficient
Well, *your* response shows a lack of comprehension, so yah boo sucks... 😉
The deal between Defra and CRT when it was set up ("it was agreed that grant together with other income streams was sufficient") had some optimistic assumptions in it to put it mildly, the numbers were massaged to make everything look rosy and get the deal done -- like Brexit.
Since then it's turned out that some of the assumptions were wrong, unexpected things happened like the financial crisis, and various projected sources of (increased) income either never materialized or were much smaller than predicted -- like Brexit.
"Financial mismanagement" means that major mistakes which could have been avoided lead to significant losses; as far as I can see there's little or no evidence of this. CART were pretty much handed a brown paper bag full of sh*t and when the soggy bottom fell out the government was able to avoid any blame, even though they generated said sh*t partly by pulling the wool over inexperienced CRT management eyes when CRT was set up. CART made some decisions -- based on optimistic assumptions -- which turned out to be wrong, but that in itself is not evidence of financial mismanagement.
It's crystal clear that CART is underfunded and has been from day 1, and penny-pinching by the government -- who are perennially guilty of underinvestment in infrastructure -- is largely to blame for this, given that there's no way on planet Earth that CART were ever going to achieve some of the things that were in "the plan" such as massive increases in income from "Friends" or big reductions in costs without any resulting reduction in maintenance standards.
I'm not saying that CART couldn't have maybe done better, but that's a long was from accusations of financial mismanagement.
If you have any *evidence* (as opposed to rhetoric) of actual financial mismanagement by CART -- you know, the kind of thing that gets people sacked or even sent to jail -- then I'd love to see it, and I'll admit that I'm wrong... 🙂
-
2 minutes ago, thames s23 said:
apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I came across this program on the bbc Iplayer the other day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01rwfkm/nairn-across-britain-2-transpennine-canal
found it very interesting
Watched it several times over the years. His comments about what could be done with the canal (and weren't) are interesting, as is seeing places like Skipton in the old days -- much improved (and more crowded!) today... 😉
-
13 hours ago, Ian Sullivan said:
I am drawn towards continous cruising during the better months
If you really do plan to spend a significant part of your time actually cruising around and enjoying the canals, a widebeam will greatly limit your options -- especially because there's no sensible way to get between the northern and southern parts of the canal network other than craning the boat out and moving it by road. It will also exclude you from many of the more pleasant canals...
-
1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:One reason it is "not looking good for us"
From Facebook
"Would it be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for CRT ten years of financial mismanagement?"
Debatable -- where's the actual evidence that they could have done much better in difficult circumstances, as opposed to Facebook rhetoric?
It *would* be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for many years of government underfunding, rapidly rising costs, and an ever-worsening maintenance backlog... 😞
-
6 hours ago, George and Dragon said:
The figures I've seen relate to carbon emitted during the whole process from tree felling to combustion. I have no idea if any measurements have been taken of PM2.5 from the combustion process and how they are distributed by airflow around the plant. Drax has a reasonably tall chimney (almost 260m) so the particles are likely to be very well dispersed.
...probably to the EU and Scandinavia, going by what happened with sulphur dioxide emissions where IIRC they sued the UK... 😞
-
37 minutes ago, peterboat said:
Just a point Collingwood arnt great boats, on facebook people are always complaining of problems with them. Buy a secondhand boat yes they are expensive as well, and give it a whirl first, I have a 57 x 12 widebeam, I am on northern waters which are designed for big boats, moorings are available and not two arms and a leg! I retired at 57 best thing I did I have had a great time on my boats but sadly think CRT are going to shoot the golden goose and close the waterways down!! Not this year but the death of a thousand cuts has already started, they will turn boaters on each other and the well off ones cant see beyond the end of their nose thinking of schemes that will work. CRT will just put prices up for everybody its the easiest way
Some "well off boaters" are both concerned about the long-term future of the canals and think that less well off boaters should pay less (and well-off ones should pay more), which kind of holes your diatribe below the waterline... 😉
-
10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I suggest you read it rather than guess what it says and condemn it.
So I've read the report; it concludes that differential pricing by BW (now CART) is acceptable, that charging longer boats more is justifiable, and says nothing about boat width or the CC license. The main subject of the report is the difference between private and commercial boat pricing, and it also concludes that this is acceptable if done fairly and transparently.
-
1 hour ago, Paul C said:
But isn’t that pretty much how democracy works? What’s the better way to make decisions?
It is -- and the problem with people being asked questions like this is that some of those people will inevitably not like the answer... 😞
Lots of posters keep complaining that CART "doesn't listen to boaters" or "does things that boaters wouldn't agree with" -- well this consultation is CART openly saying "We need to increase the license fees" (which they have no choice about) and asking boaters "How do you think we should do this?", so you're finally getting what you asked for... 😉
Given that narrowboaters outnumber wideboaters several times over (4:1? 5:1? Anyone got a number?) I think it's a slam-dunk that there will be a huge majority in favour of area-based pricing. That's unfortunate for wideboat owners but it's how voting works. Everyone has known for years that wideboats are a lot cheaper per square foot of living space than narrowboats to both buy and license and that's why their numbers have expanded -- why wouldn't they? -- but there was never any guarantee that the license fee advantage would remain, especially not if all boaters were asked whether it should or not.
There's likely to be a similar view on a "CC surcharge", because most boaters are not CCers, and many of them with home moorings resent the misuse of the CC license (OK, no home mooring if you insist) by people who want to stay in one place without paying for a mooring like they do. Regardless of CARTs "CCers use more of the network so cost us more" comment, this is likely to be the overriding reason for voting for a CC surcharge -- and it *will* have a bad effect on all the "real CCers" who do actually roam round the system and are the boaters for who the exception was intended when it was introduced many years ago, but in recent years the license has been so widely abused by CMers that "real CCers" will sadly be collateral damage... 😞
Whether changes like this are "fair" or "prejudiced" isn't the point; if they're what a large majority (not 52:48...) of stakeholders vote for, it's difficult to argue that they shouldn't happen simply because some are disadvantaged by them. This is what happens whenever there's *any* change in anything like taxes, there are always winners and losers, but hopefully more winners... 😉
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, MartynG said:
Precisely as in the last consultation where the majority of inland waterways boat owners, who are narrowboat owners ,said it would be good if boats wider than a narrowboat should pay greater license fees because it had less financial impact on the majority a narrowboaters.
Another C&RT consultation , as we have seen, is on the way and is likely to have a similarly prejudiced result.
.
I don't see how you can claim it's prejudice if a majority of boaters are in favour of area-based pricing, it's a simple reflection of their views -- like in any democratic election or referendum, the minority are subject to the will of the majority.
I expect there will be a majority in favour of this, and it'll be much bigger than 52:48...
-
8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I suggest you read it rather than guess what it says and condemn it.
I will -- can you provide a link?
OK, just seen it above...
-
58 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Claiming that the world is unfair, does not excuse the behaviour of those that make it so.
With regard to licence fees and differential pricing, I suggest you read the Oxera report and subsequent consultation for understanding of the issues.
I never said that it excused such behaviour.
What I said is that -- maybe unfortunately -- we don't live in a Utopian world where all unfairness can be magically removed, we live in an imperfect real world, and if we wish to improve this by making changes to the status quo we need.to look at all the effects of this, not just the positive ones which may be obvious but also the less obvious negative ones.
For example, posters who think that it would be better -- or "fairer" -- if boaters who never leave their marina (i.e. them) didn't pay the CART license fee seem strangely reluctant to face up to the fact that the obvious consequence would be everybody else paying considerably more for theirs -- it's not just them ending up better off (hooray!), it's everyone else ending up worse off (boo!). It's how any business who offers new discounts to some customers has to recoup the lost revenue.
I'd love to know if the Oxera report reaches a similar conclusion (does it?), but if it doesn't I'd suggest that it's ignoring economic reality...
-
3 hours ago, system 4-50 said:
flout? Its a nice word, flout. I hate to see it underused.
Flout it was indeed -- I blame autocorrect... 😉
-
3 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:
I thought of hirers purely from the perspective that if a decision was made to double (for example) the cost of a business license for a hire boat it would inevitably be passed on to the hirer. Not much in the grand scheme of things but hirers are minor stakeholders in the discussion.
If you measure the "worth" of stakeholders by things like how much they've travelled on the canals over how many years, or how much time and money they've spent on the canals, or how knowledgeable about the past or interested in the future of the canals they are, I'd argue that some hirers have an equal or even better claim to be stakeholders than some who own boats -- especially those who spend most or all of their time polishing their boats in a marina and going nowhere, who have no interest in the canals other than as a cheap place to live.
Owning a boat is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for being a stakeholder, unless you're John Cleese and think that owning a boat automatically makes you an upper class boater.
P.S. I bet some people don't agree... 😉
-
11 minutes ago, Smiles said:
(No,) sorry I ment No.😂
Ooh, now you're being hireist... 😉
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, matty40s said:
It really is about time you stopped complaining about this, just move to a marina without the connection charge, or lift your boat out of the water into a local field.
It was barely adequate before Covid, unenforcable during , and is now laughable. Some people buying boats to live on now are basically sitting in the same place for months and have yet to have a first contact, most of the enforcement officers have been shifted to London.
The boats I was talking about *are* in London... 😞
-
2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I've met hirers who have spent more time on a moving boat than three quarters of the boat owners on my mooring. Out of a couple of dozen boats, three of us spend any great time cruising. Most haven't moved for years.
I've never added it up, but I must have done at least a couple of thousand miles and locks on hire boats -- does that count? 😉
Widebeam Retirement
in New to Boating?
Posted · Edited by IanD
CART are doing the consultation precisely so they *can* make increases in the license fees without loads of boaters like Peter saying "It's not fair, we weren't asked" -- they'll put the average fee up, and almost certainly introduce other changes like area-based fees and some kind of CC surcharge to make bigger differences between what different boaters pay. Like all the FAQs suggest might (will?) happen...
Why would they do anything else when this gets them more money with less protest than just increasing the fees to everyone? They'd be stupid -- but then they are, according to you... 😉
<click> <brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr>