Jump to content

Lack of maintenance


Tom766

Featured Posts

Same old..... 

If maintenance was paramount then there wouldn't be a tail back of boats at wheelton, we'd also be confident of getting through the Wigan flight trouble free. 

I've resorted to road transport, wonder if I can off set the cost against my license fee? 

Then there's the weed and debris we hit just below the surface grrrr

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If taxes went up to pay for hospitals,  schools, police etc, there might be a bit left over to fund British waterways... Except it's now a Trust with a remit for general use, not just navigation, and designed to be not supported by taxation. And nobody votes for higher taxes.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If taxes went up to pay for hospitals,  schools, police etc, there might be a bit left over to fund British waterways... Except it's now a Trust with a remit for general use, not just navigation, and designed to be not supported by taxation. And nobody votes for higher taxes.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

If what I've read is correct, licences and mooring account for about 20%- 25% of CRT income so does that entitle us to use 20% - 25% of the waterways?:huh:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

If what I've read is correct, licences and mooring account for about 20%- 25% of CRT income so does that entitle us to use 20% - 25% of the waterways?:huh:

Perhaps it do. There's the wide bit with the water in it (usually), and then there's acres of towpath, bridges, bits where they dump sludge,  all the bits that have signs saying "CRT Facility" and one or two working yards. Add all that lot up and the dry stuff, plus the resevoirs  probably adds up to more than wot we get to play on.

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revenue from licences goes nowhere near the cost of maintaining canals for boaters. 

 

It's not sustainable, it's the same as motorists complaining about the state of the roads when the true cost of motoring is actually much higher than the revenue generated though VED and fuel duty.  

 

So as Arthur says, better to enjoy the waterways now as things are going to get worse.      

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ianws said:

Johnson's Hillock locks are closed to replace a damaged cill. Not sure if this is recently discovered damage or "planned" maintenance. I'm guessing not planned given it is happening n August. 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/20402-lock-63-johnsons-hillock-leeds-and-liverpool-canal

 

 

They have been messing with the lock for months It is a contractor repairing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tom766 said:

I thought licenses covered maintenance, my license isn't for dog walkers, fishermen or mountain bikers it's for cruising. 

 

Where on earth did you get that idea from?

 

Honestly, where? 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom766 said:

You're right, it's like asking the BBC to show non far left garbage after buying their licence. 

Opt out....... 

Interesting, as the lefties all complain endlessly that all you get from the BBC is Tory propaganda. I suspect one should listen with one's brain instead, as so many do, with one's prejudices.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expecting the canal system to be maintained by licence fees is as ridiculous as expecting the NHS, Universal Credit and old age pensions to be paid for by NI contributions. But people still do.

The canal system made a profit when it was a solely commercial venture, for a very short time and not all of it at that.  When I were a lad, tax rates went up to 90%. You may have noticed that they don't, now, and there are a hell of a lot more millionaires than there were then, a fair number of them in Parliament, running the country, mostly for the benefit, quite understandably, of people like them.  Of course, it used to be run by landowners in just the same way, so that's fair enough.

Some people don't seem to realise that you get what you pay for, and if you don't pay for it, then you don't get it. Everyone likes low taxes, and hardly anyone gives a toss about the canals. So either campaign for higher taxes or enjoy the system while you've got it, because you can't have the latter without the former for very long.

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

The fact that both sides are complaining about too much coverage of the other side's views suggests to me that the BBC is generally pitching things about right.

To the serious annoyance of whichever party happens to be in charge, which is why the current one is cutting support and skewing the leadership. Labour  of course, would probably do the same. Objectivity is not prized by zealots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

When I were a lad, tax rates went up to 90%.

Up to 98% for some I believe. But with taxes that high it just isn't worth the effort of pushing your business to earn you even more money, but it is worth spending quite a lot on lawyers and accountants to find ways around paying all that tax, neither of which is very good for the wider economy. Which is why those very high tax rates were abolished.  But I am minded to agree that maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

 

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Expecting the canal system to be maintained by licence fees is as ridiculous as expecting the NHS, Universal Credit and old age pensions to be paid for by NI contributions. But people still do.

The canal system made a profit when it was a solely commercial venture, for a very short time and not all of it at that.  When I were a lad, tax rates went up to 90%. You may have noticed that they don't, now, and there are a hell of a lot more millionaires than there were then, a fair number of them in Parliament, running the country, mostly for the benefit, quite understandably, of people like them.  Of course, it used to be run by landowners in just the same way, so that's fair enough.

Some people don't seem to realise that you get what you pay for, and if you don't pay for it, then you don't get it. Everyone likes low taxes, and hardly anyone gives a toss about the canals. So either campaign for higher taxes or enjoy the system while you've got it, because you can't have the latter without the former for very long.

To the serious annoyance of whichever party happens to be in charge, which is why the current one is cutting support and skewing the leadership. Labour  of course, would probably do the same. Objectivity is not prized by zealots.

Canada (which is generally viewed as a low tax country) regards it's historic canals as a national asset and they are maintained by Parks Canada none of this nonsense about them paying their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

The fact that both sides are complaining about too much coverage of the other side's views suggests to me that the BBC is generally pitching things about right.

The BBC tends to skew right on news and current affairs and skew left on entertainment and comedy.

 

Do that mean it balances out?  Debatable.  Until recently one of their top political broadcasters was Andrew Neil and yet people still say it's all lefty propaganda!  Imagine if Polly Toynbee or Owen Jones had their own daily politics show - think of the outcry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you observe the numbers of people piling onto the canals at the moment, previously half full marinas that now have waiting lists, and boats selling for twice what they were worth two years ago... I don't consider the licence fee to be anything like high enough.  

 

I have always argued that it would be far better if boaters made a realistic contribution towards the upkeep of the canals because it would place them in a position of power, and make CRT more accountable.  As it is, it suits CRT very well that licence fees make up less than half the expense as it's a convenient excuse for a third rate service.  

 

Of course the day will come when exchequer support is withdrawn altogether, and things really will fall apart then.  Not enough people really care that much about the waterways, and certainly not if it involves parting with money.  It's about time organisations like the IWA got real and started giving canal users the inconvenient truth.

 

  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neil2 said:

When you observe the numbers of people piling onto the canals at the moment, previously half full marinas that now have waiting lists, and boats selling for twice what they were worth two years ago... I don't consider the licence fee to be anything like high enough.  

 

I have always argued that it would be far better if boaters made a realistic contribution towards the upkeep of the canals because it would place them in a position of power, and make CRT more accountable.  As it is, it suits CRT very well that licence fees make up less than half the expense as it's a convenient excuse for a third rate service.  

 

Of course the day will come when exchequer support is withdrawn altogether, and things really will fall apart then.  Not enough people really care that much about the waterways, and certainly not if it involves parting with money.  It's about time organisations like the IWA got real and started giving canal users the inconvenient truth.

 

  

So the walkers Bikers Better by waterist should have a toll booth to enter the tow path and pay their way like boaters who pay license and mooring fees

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sunny said:

So the walkers Bikers Better by waterist should have a toll booth to enter the tow path and pay their way like boaters who pay license and mooring fees

 

Why the hell not?  I'm old enough to remember when cyclists used to have to buy a permit to cycle along the towpath - and only certain towpaths at that. 

 

Anglers expect to pay to fish on the waterways, why shouldn't cyclists expect to pay to use those nice new graded towpaths?

 

The general point I'm making, and others have too, is that in the UK we seem to have slipped into a mindset that we can enjoy certain facilities without having to pay for them.  I suppose that's what you get if you elect a PM who says he's all for having your cake and eating it.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Mack said:

Up to 98% for some I believe. But with taxes that high it just isn't worth the effort of pushing your business to earn you even more money, but it is worth spending quite a lot on lawyers and accountants to find ways around paying all that tax, neither of which is very good for the wider economy. Which is why those very high tax rates were abolished.  But I am minded to agree that maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

 

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

 

It could be effectively over 100% for one year,  I think 1949 or 1950, because for the very wealthy there was a tax on capital on top of the 95% income tax, levied on the interest from savings and other unearned income.  

Edited by Ronaldo47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.