Jump to content

Licence Fees


Arthur Marshall

Featured Posts

2 hours ago, Goliath said:


Those who go boating, I reckon.

 

regardless of boat type, distance travelled or ownership

 

I think this also includes everyone whose priority is keeping the canals functioning -- dredged, maintained, with working locks -- as opposed to being a place to live cheaply or use for recreation where this is of no interest.

 

So it would include hire companies and the few canal businesses who rely on (moving) boaters as customers -- and any marina boaters who ever emerge from their berth.

 

I think "boaters" and "non-boaters" are as good short names as we're likely to find, even if each isn't 100% accurate.

 

And looking at the numbers posted (thanks Alan), boaters overall pay less than non-boaters (the DEFRA grant). On the principle of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and that money is all the government seems to care about, it's hardly surprising that CART seems to put boaters below everyone else in the priority list... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

I think this also includes everyone whose priority is keeping the canals functioning -- dredged, maintained, with working locks -- as opposed to being a place to live cheaply or use for recreation where this is of no interest.

 

So it would include hire companies and the few canal businesses who rely on (moving) boaters as customers -- and any marina boaters who ever emerge from their berth.


you complicate things,

whilst having a priority to maintain the canal is a noble attribute it isn’t a prerequisite to boating. 
 

companies cannot be boaters but their customers certainly are. 
 

and whether it’s liked or not, those who use a boat as a static home are still boaters (especially in CRT’s view who welcome the money)

 

 

24 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I did not realise Goliath was a Springer


sadly no 😃

but I thought Arthur’s is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

I think this also includes everyone whose priority is keeping the canals functioning -- dredged, maintained, with working locks -- as opposed to being a place to live cheaply or use for recreation where this is of no interest.

 

So it would include hire companies and the few canal businesses who rely on (moving) boaters as customers -- and any marina boaters who ever emerge from their berth.

 

I think "boaters" and "non-boaters" are as good short names as we're likely to find, even if each isn't 100% accurate.

 

And looking at the numbers posted (thanks Alan), boaters overall pay less than non-boaters (the DEFRA grant). On the principle of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and that money is all the government seems to care about, it's hardly surprising that CART seems to put boaters below everyone else in the priority list... 😞

You are minimising the non-boater element as this is not just the DEFRA grant but all the other categories of income that CRT don't classify as 'boating'. This is roughly 80%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

You are minimising the non-boater element as this is not just the DEFRA grant but all the other categories of income that CRT don't classify as 'boating'. This is roughly 80%.

 

 

They get almost as much from water extraction licences and charging for 'drainage' into the canals (£37.7m) as they do from boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

They get almost as much from water extraction licences and charging for 'drainage' into the canals (£37.7m) as they do from boaters.


would you know if CRT have increased the extraction licences at any rate like they’ve applied to our boat licences?

 

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Goliath said:


you complicate things,

whilst having a priority to maintain the canal is a noble attribute it isn’t a prerequisite to boating. 
 

companies cannot be boaters but their customers certainly are. 
 

and whether it’s liked or not, those who use a boat as a static home are still boaters (especially in CRT’s view who welcome the money)

 

 


sadly no 😃

but I thought Arthur’s is?

I don't think mine's a Springer. It's been mistaken for one before but while I have no idea who built it, the shape doesn't quite fit, and it's flat bottomed. And I agree you have to include static boatlivers, dumpers and anyone who steps regularly onto one as a boater.

 

Maggot1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't think mine's a Springer. It's been mistaken for one before but while I have no idea who built it, the shape doesn't quite fit, and it's flat bottomed. And I agree you have to include static boatlivers, dumpers and anyone who steps regularly onto one as a boater.

 


ok, my mistake

 

then go to the top of the list for best name 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

I think this also includes everyone whose priority is keeping the canals functioning -- dredged, maintained, with working locks -- as opposed to being a place to live cheaply or use for recreation where this is of no interest.

 

So it would include hire companies and the few canal businesses who rely on (moving) boaters as customers -- and any marina boaters who ever emerge from their berth.

 

I think "boaters" and "non-boaters" are as good short names as we're likely to find, even if each isn't 100% accurate.

 

And looking at the numbers posted (thanks Alan), boaters overall pay less than non-boaters (the DEFRA grant). On the principle of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and that money is all the government seems to care about, it's hardly surprising that CART seems to put boaters below everyone else in the priority list... 😞

But, in that context, boaters are also non-boaters (assuming they pay tax that is)

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No - no idea.

IIRC a few years ago (perhaps 5 years) CaRT discovered that their extraction charges (and the converse) had not been reviewed for a long time and were well out of line with market levels. They then upped the prices significantly to a squeals from those using them but, I am guessing, most paid up, thereby proving the original point. Maybe someone with closer contact to CaRT can comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

You are minimising the non-boater element as this is not just the DEFRA grant but all the other categories of income that CRT don't classify as 'boating'. This is roughly 80%.

You're missing the point. The rest of CARTs income comes from other sources who don't care either way what happens to the canals. The question here is who should get priority for spending money on the canals, "boaters" (meaning, everyone who wants to keep the canals usable as canals) or "non-boaters" (meaning -- in this case -- everyone else (walkers/cyclists/canoeist/fishermen/gongoozlers) who pays taxes which the DEFRA grant comes out of). It's a question of who gets the benefit of which way the money is spent, and who puts in how much money.

 

Everyone keeps complaining about how CART seem to be prioritising "non-boaters" and issues like wellness, cycling, walking -- mostly to do with the towpath, really -- instead of fixing locks and dredging, which only "boaters" care about.

 

If you want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a boater or whether the names I'm using are wrong, feel free to come p with your own -- but this is avoiding the fundamental problem seen by many posters on here, which is how to get CART to take more notice of what "boaters" need (working locks, dredging, maintenance) and spend more on this and less on "towpath tarting-up" (blue signs, resurfacing...).

 

The numbers Alan showed is that everyone who is likely to fall into the "complaining about broken locks and paddles and lack of dredging and..." group ("boaters") is paying less than the DEFRA grant, which is funded by the "we want nice towpaths to walk/cycle/fish on" group ("non-boaters" -- or taxpayers). I don't see how else this can be interpreted... 😞

 

If this is correct, probably the only way to get the government (and DEFRA, and CART...) to change their priorities is if "boaters" -- those who want the canals to work properly and be able to move around on them, presumably including most posters on here -- pay more, because money talks.

 

Assuming the government doesn't respond by cutting the DEFRA grant, this would also give CART more money to spend, which -- if they use it "properly" -- has to be a good thing. Doesn't it?

 

Or do people just not want to be told that if they want better-maintained canals they need to pay more money -- is that the real problem?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

You're missing the point. The rest of CARTs income comes from other sources who don't care either way what happens to the canals.

That if I may say so is bollocks. So the people who pay to extract water from or discharge water into the canals don't care what happens to them? I think not. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

Or do people just not want to be told that if they want better-maintained canals they need to pay more money -- is that the real problem?

 

Well of course it is. "Do you have a degree in stating the bleedin' obvious?" (To paraphrase one of the Monty Pythons. John Cleese probably.)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

That if I may say so is bollocks. So the people who pay to extract water from or discharge water into the canals don't care what happens to them? I think not. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

Nice polite answer -- not... 😞

 

They don't care whether the locks and paddles work and the canals are properly dredged and other things needed by boaters who actually move round the system work properly.

 

That's what everyone is complaining CART aren't spending enough money on, because they're prioritising "towpath users" -- or CMers, or boats-who-never-leave-marinas -- who don't care about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well of course it is. "Do you have a degree in stating the bleedin' obvious?" (To paraphrase one of the Monty Pythons. John Cleese probably.)

 

So if people are saying there isn't enough money for maintenance and they're not being prioritised but don't want to pay more, how do they think this is going to be fixed -- money from a magic canal tree?

 

Or are they just going to carry on moaning about how the whole system is going to hell in a handbasket with blue signs on, nothing can be done, and that's why they're going to sell their boat and leave the canals?

 

It's almost as if they want to see the canal system fall apart just so they can sit back smugly and say "I told you so"... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

So if people are saying there isn't enough money for maintenance and they're not being prioritised but don't want to pay more, how do they think this is going to be fixed -- money from a magic canal tree?

 

Or are they just going to carry on moaning about how the whole system is going to hell in a handbasket with blue signs on, nothing can be done, and that's why they're going to sell their boat and leave the canals?

 

It's almost as if they want to see the canal system fall apart just so they can sit back smugly and say "I told you so"... 😞

 

Well yes to all of that, obviously.

 

Do you not see this exact attitude being expressed in so many posts on here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well yes to all of that, obviously.

 

Do you not see this exact attitude being expressed in so many posts on here? 

Yes... 😞

 

I expect all the people and volunteers who worked hard to stop the canals closing and then restored them would be appalled at what some people now seem to hope will happen to them... 😞

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes... 😞

 

I expect all the people and volunteers who stopped the canals closing and restored them would be appalled at what some people now seem to hope will happen to them... 😞

I don’t think anyone is hoping for an end to the canals. If that’s what your implying?

 

People are generally pissed off that CRT are not keeping the canals fit for navigation.

If you’d been up North of Harecastle Tunnel over the last few years you’d understand the frustration.

It’s bad up there, I’ve spent 3 to 4 years travelling around the North West and its been allowed to get in a proper poor state.

 


It makes me wonder if places are left to rot so CRT can plead poverty.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

People are generally pissed off that CRT are not keeping the canals fit for navigation.

 

I too am pissed off CRT cannot keep the canals fit for navigation while they only charge boaters 20% of what it costs. 

 

 

Edited by MtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes... 😞

 

I expect all the people and volunteers who worked hard to stop the canals closing and then restored them would be appalled at what some people now seem to hope will happen to them... 😞

I think they're probably quite appalled at the state they're in at the moment, what with towns being flooded when embankents collapse and being evacuated in fear of reservoirs going the same way.

But I don't think a few thousand boaters paying three times their current fees would make a great deal of difference, any more than whacking council tax up by thirty percent would get the potholes in your road fixed. It's down to what bits of infrastructure a government thinks is worth splurging taxpayers' resentfully contributed money on. Neither roads nor canals are going to make a profit in themselves, you have to consider the service they provide. And, like it or not, the bulk of the service users of the canals are walkers, cyclists, fishermen and dogs looking for a toilet (ie, apart from the last, taxpayers).

The majority of boaters that go out at all, go out for a fortnight a year, and most of those either only go a few miles or go round a ring. They don't care about the rest of it. The majority of boaters on my mooring don't care at all because they haven't moved off the mooring for years. I think there are 3 that are away for more than three weeks in a year.

Some of us have seen this coming for twenty years, and many of us have tried to get some action. We haven't just whinged on here. You can see how successful we've been.

The only way to get it funded properly is to use it for relatively cheap city housing and charge accordingly.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

 

Everyone keeps complaining about how CART seem to be prioritising "non-boaters" and issues like wellness, cycling, walking -- mostly to do with the towpath, really -- instead of fixing locks and dredging, which only "boaters" care about.

 

 

 

 

The Trust doesn't spend its own funds on towpath improvements - all funded by third parties - except where necessary for navigation e.g. around locks.

David L

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I too am pissed off CRT cannot keep the canals fit for navigation while they only charge boaters 20% of what it costs. 

 

 

Try navigating up North and you’ll understand the difference. 
 

..or don’t you like hard work?

 

  • Greenie 1
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.