doratheexplorer

Too late! I don't mind much though, it means it's clearly my own words and not a copy and paste. I'm sure not all boaters agree with what I've said and maybe the impacts won't be as bad as I predict. It does worry me though. The issue of it costing more per mile isn't the whole picture and, as boater's we should fight against anything which threatens the canals or the boating way of life. The principle of taxing fuel doesn't really bother me. Taxes are necessary but they should be fair and they should consider the wider impacts, both postive and negative. We heavily tax things which are bad for us - eg tobacco. We give tax breaks to things which as deemed to be good - eg charities. CRT is a charity so clearly the state accepts that preseving the canals is a good thing. That being the case, HMRC, as a branch of the state should not be working to undermine this. UK canals are not like mainland Europe canals and shouldn't be treated as such. I'm sure that's ultimately why we got the fuel duty derogation in the first place.

My response to HMRC: "Dear Mr Satchell, I would like to express my concerns at the unintended impacts the planned phasing out of the current system of paying duty on diesel for craft on canals and rivers. As a boater, I am likely to lose out personally in financial terms as I currently declare a split regarding the fuel I put in my boat, with the propulsion part paying the full level of duty and the domestic part paid at red diesel rate. I am aware that lots of boaters are unhappy at this as it seems unfair that the vast majority of boaters will end up paying full duty on their domestic fuel, simply because it's not practicable to install two seperate fuel tanks. However, I have other concerns. When these changes come in, I expect the majority of canalside and riverside fuel suppliers will stop stocking red diesel as these are small businesses and it won't be economic for them to offer both, with the additional costs they would incur. I would also expect plenty of sellers to close as they wouldn't be able to complete on price with big roadside petrol stations. This would have 2 main impacts: 1. With the loss of available red diesel direct to boats, commercial operators wouldn't be able to access red diesel and would be forced to use white diesel, thus affecting the viability and profitability of their businesses. 2. With existing waterside fuel sellers disappearing, and with cost savings in mind too, boaters would likely start trekking from their boats on foot, along busy trunk roads to buy diesel from roadside petrol stations, filling jerry cans. This is in itself hazardous and it also raises the likelihood of spillage of fuel into canals and rivers, causing increased pollution incidents. Further to this, the additional costs of diesel, along with reduced availability could easily have a negative influence on boating generally, putting people off boating. The regeneration of our canal network over the last 50 years or so has been nothing short of a miracle and should be treasured by all. Risking this success in order to bring us in line with the rest of Europe seems narrow-sighted and fraught with danger. The viability of European canals is very different to ours. Over there, commercial freight haulage on canals and rivers is alive and kicking so there is little or no risk to the future of those waterways due to diesel cost. Over here, it's different. Our canals are overwhelmingly populated with leisure boaters. These people do it for the enjoyment. If their costs go up and they are always worrying about where they can get fuel from, that enjoyment is reduced. The brings the risk of them abandoning the canals and that's a step back to what happened to the canals during the first half of the 20th Century. Please think hard before you allow that to happen."

picture?

I wonder if it would be different if someone did some kind of wacky paintjob on a well known historic boat?

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure.

In a thread about UK canals!!!! And if the OP had enquired about exploring the canals of France, I wouldn't be recommending a narrowboat. But he didn't, he enquired about exploring the canals of this country. In fact he made it quite clear that wanted to explore the whole network. Then up pop a couple of widebeam cheerleaders, ignoring the wishes of the OP and dismissing his budget, claiming he should get a widebeam instead. In the light of the OPs enquiry, this was a daft suggestion. Nobody has suggested that widebeams don't provide a more comfortable living environment but the OP was clear in their request. The internet generally is full of this sort of nonsense. No sooner has someone asked a question like, can anyone recommend a nice place in Spain to go on holiday, then someone jumps in with 'don't go to spain, go to greece!" Totally unhelpful.

You highlighted my comment about which canals are best, not which boats are best, so you may be a bit confused. FYI I have plenty of experience of all sorts of boats on inland waterways and out on the big wide ocean. I recently started a thread on which canals people liked best. Every single answer given by a narrowboat owner was a vote for a narrow canal. So yes, the narrow canals are the best canal in general and I stand by my statement. This idea that there's some tiny strip of land with narrow canals just isn't true. The narrow canal system starts in Oxford in the South to Huddersfield in the North. The Grand Union from Napton to Camp Hill is nominally wide but very few widebeams go up there, for good reason. For those who prefer canals to rivers, a narrowboat could head south to north up the Oxford, to Coventy, Trent & Mersey, Macc, Peak Forest, HNC or into Birmingham and onto the Shroppie, taking in the Ashby, S&W, W &B, Llangollen, B&F, Caldon, and Montgomery along the way. That's a lot of canal.

I didn't like to mention that!

At least that was just about his works. My example was incorrect personal information. Not good at all.

It's not simple at all though. That's the problem. The fact that you think it's simple is indicative of your failure to grasp this,

Such an odd proposition. We vote in MEPS, who actually have the power to get rid of commisioners. Unlike, say, members of the house of lords, whom our elected representatives can do nothing to get rid of. When did you last vote for a Lord, or head of the civil service, or a judge, or a monarch? You don't seem to understand how democracy works, least of all representative democracy. Nor do you understand how parliament works.

Yes. We do have a re-run of every General Election, approximately every 4-5 years. Sometimes much sooner if there's a good reason.

What gave you that idea? In a free democracy people have the right to make their voices heard and to protest against things they don't like. Much as then anti-EU people did before the referendum. "Revolution happens when the people's voice is denied." - I presume you're strongly in favour of a confirmatory referendum on the options we now have then?

Horses for courses. Doesn't mean it won't have been edited back if you check again in a week though.

Nothing is ever truly sewn up. If a tipping point is reached where there is sufficient dissatisfaction with what we're being offered, there will be a revolution. That there hasn't been one is evidence that we haven't reached that tipping point.