Not looking good for us

[Allan(nb Albert)]

58 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

 People who have paid years of license fees and moorings, running into several Thousands of pounds may have a different outlook to someone who hasn’t and may want a different way to increase revenue., especially when they may of seen how much money CaRT waste.

  Your 50%-200% increase in license fee estimate will simply not work for the majority of these people, also along with the increase in mooring fees, electric, diesel and gas, things that you’ve never really dealt with, would make most sell their boat and leave. As I’m seeing happening now, especially with the more senior boaters. I think a large increase in License fees would be the final nail in the Coffin for a lot of boaters who are borderline with leaving at present.

  

  

As I have said elsewhere, the number of licenced craft on CRT's has started to fall. It cannot be explained by an increase in evasion.

 

... and also as I have said before, the fall cannot be explained by an increase in evasion. 

 

 CRT has stated that its licence income might drop next year despite the April 1 increase

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

57 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

continuous cruisers who, as mentioned before,  currently get their moorings for free.

 

Not much use if you can't pull in to moor. It goes with the territory. Everyone using the cut gets their mooring mostly for free. The requirement for a home and paid mooring went out ages ago. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Higgs

[Momac]

52 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

 you can’t have a system which makes the rich pay more and the elderly less for the same size or same boat.

You appear to assume the elderly are not rich  which is not necessarily so.

 

 

 

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

 CRT has stated that its licence income might drop next year despite the April 1 increase

 

Then further increase in charges might result in further decline.

It's almost like C&RT would prefer if there were no boats .

 

 

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As I have said elsewhere, the number of licenced craft on CRT's has started to fall. It cannot be explained by an increase in evasion.

 

... and also as I have said before, the fall cannot be explained by an increase in evasion. 

 

 CRT has stated that its licence income might drop next year despite the April 1 increase

 

 

So where are all these disappearing boats going? 

 

I haven't noticed a whole load of narrowboats being scrapped. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

23 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Not much use if you can't pull in to moor. It goes with the territory. Everyone using the cut gets their mooring mostly for free. The requirement for a home and paid mooring went out ages ago. 

 

 

Mine costs me over a thousand quid a year. If that's your definition of free, I'd be interested in what you think is expensive.

The legal requirement for a home mooring went out, as you say. The requirement for somewhere to moor your boat, however, didn't, unless you're the Flying Dutchman.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, M_JG said:

 

So what is this exactly?

 

An attempt to bring it to a halt?

 

You really do need to stand back and realise just how hypocritical you can be sometimes. Only you cannot see it it would seem.

 

As I said, it takes two.

Yes, I'm resisting the temptation to vomit out ad hominem attacks like you and several others -- though it's very tempting... 😞

 

You're the one who started them, and keeps on with them. I was trying to pour oil on troubled waters, you keep on throwing lighted matches back in. Accusing me of hypocrisy -- as usual, with no details -- is just another example.

 

Let's leave out the personal attacks and get back to the subject under discussion.

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

Yes, I'm resisting the temptation to vomit out ad hominem attacks like you and several others -- though it's very tempting... 😞

 

You're the one who started them, and keeps on with them. I was trying to pour oil on troubled waters, you keep on throwing lighted matches back in. Accusing me of hypocrisy -- as usual, with no details -- is just another example.

 

Let's leave out the personal attacks and get back to the subject under discussion.

 

Incredible, just incredible

 

The fact that I have accurately described you as a hypocrite is once again proven to be correct.

 

How you cannot see you saying:-

 

'You just have to keep it going'

 

Whilst doing exactly that is hypocrisy pure and simple. Its truly incredible you cannot see it.

 

The discussion in case you missed it had actually moved back to the original topic, yet you dragged it right back. 🙄🙄

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

37 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

And when was this Arthur?

The invention of the mooring "licence", which is how we thought of it. I can't remember when it came in,  1995 was it? It was what started one of Tony Dunkleys's hobby horses, as he maintained it was illegal and none of us should pay it, and got (as usual) quite abusive about it. Arguments were many and heated - they are probably in the archive on here if you look hard enough. Many things were tried to avoid it - arguing we were moored over farmland not the canal bed was one.

Someone will I'm sure remember the year. Before then I'd just paid rent to the farmer.

[peterboat]

43 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As I have said elsewhere, the number of licenced craft on CRT's has started to fall. It cannot be explained by an increase in evasion.

 

... and also as I have said before, the fall cannot be explained by an increase in evasion. 

 

 CRT has stated that its licence income might drop next year despite the April 1 increase

 

 

 

 

People moving boats to other waterways? River Hull no licence fee, so maybe EA etc gaining from CRTs making a mess of things?

As I have said I would move to the Broads except it's to long a boat

[IanD]

Your (M_JG) definition of hypocrisy seems to be anyone who disagrees with you, especially me -- what's your problem?

 

You also seem to be incapable of having any discussion without resorting to personal attacks, especially when  challenged.

 

So I can't be arsed engaging with you any more, you can go and join the likes of Welsh Cruiser and Higgs... 😞

Edited February 12, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

Just now, IanD said:

Your definition of hypocrisy seems to be anyone who disagrees with you, especially me -- what's your problem?

 

You also seem to be incapable of having any discussion without resorting to personal attacks, especially when  challenged.

 

So I can't be arsed engaging with you any more, you can go and join the likes of the Welsh Cruiser and Higgs -- good company, they have similar characteristics to you... 😞

 

See what I mean? Even when others bring it back on topic, off you take it yet again.

 

No. My definition of hypocrite is clearly set out above. You fit it perfectly.

 

Its you that has a massive problem with anybody who's views and opinions dont chime with yours.

 

 

[Orwellian]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The invention of the mooring "licence", which is how we thought of it. I can't remember when it came in,  1995 was it? It was what started one of Tony Dunkleys's hobby horses, as he maintained it was illegal and none of us should pay it, and got (as usual) quite abusive about it. Arguments were many and heated - they are probably in the archive on here if you look hard enough. Many things were tried to avoid it - arguing we were moored over farmland not the canal bed was one.

Someone will I'm sure remember the year. Before then I'd just paid rent to the farmer.

BW provided directly managed moorings way back in the 1970s and granted mooring permits entirely separate from a boat licence and not a statutory charge but one based on owning the waterway and sufficient bank/land to access them . They had 3 classes or price bands A, B and C. They were never a mooring 'licence'. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Guest]

Just now, Orwellian said:

BW provided directly managed moorings way back in the 1970s and granted mooring permits entirely separate from a boat licence and not a statutory charge but one based on owning the waterway and sufficient bank/land to access them . They had 3 classes or price bands A, B and C. They were never a mooring 'licence'. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

Ours was called a 'mooring permit'. And it was paid for separately.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

License fees based on ability to pay just wouldn't work without a significant increase in processing staff costs. I suspect C&RT may be simply looking at increases across the board or even £x,000 registration fee for new boats, length x width as the EA do and 200%  for continuous cruiser licenses. No solution is going to be easy but it's inevitable we will all get a pain in the wallet regardless of ability to pay.

Again, ability to pay as such -- means testing -- was not something I suggested, because of the difficulties in administering it and the obtrusiveness of asking people what their means are, which is why such things are unpopular.

 

Varying the fee with boat size (length*width) is trivially easy for CART to do, since they already have the information. It would also be very easy to make it vary with age of boat, on the principle that boat value drops over time -- again, this is making the fee track the value of the boat, at least approximately, so those on new boats pay more and those on old boats pay less -- which looks like a fair way to keep the fee increase down for people who are less well off and live on old boats. It's not perfect but it's "fairer" than not doing this, if you want to avoid pricing people off the canals.

 

A discount for pensioners is also easy to do, just like many other things in life which do this like entrances to venues -- and again it's not perfect because there are poor non-pensioners and rich pensioners, but on average it's still "fairer" than doing nothing, again to avoid pricing older people off the canals. Though of course there are an awful lot of pensioner boaters, so this would also put the cost up for non-pensioners... 🙂

 

A surcharge for "CCers/CMers" would also be very simple since this is part of the license anyway, and would do two things; the first is to make it less financially attractive for CMers compared to getting a home mooring, the second is more controversial because it means "real CCers" who actually cruise around the system pay more because they use more locks and water. Cue howls of protest from such boaters -- who I do have sympathy for.

 

Put all these together and it's not inevitable that everyone would get a "pain in the wallet", some people would pay the same (or maybe even less, depending on things like pensioner discount) -- but a significant number would pay more, and some would pay a *lot* more, and no doubt object that "it's not fair".

 

But making changes like this seem to be a lot "fairer" to me -- even though I'd end up paying a lot more! -- than a flat-rate rise on the existing fees. Any time a system is changed there are winners and losers, but that doesn't mean such changes are a bad idea.

Edited February 12, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

Your (M_JG) definition of hypocrisy seems to be anyone who disagrees with you, especially me -- what's your problem?

 

You also seem to be incapable of having any discussion without resorting to personal attacks, especially when  challenged.

 

So I can't be arsed engaging with you any more, you can go and join the likes of Welsh Cruiser and Higgs... 😞

 

I've always found the same. His hobby is low level provoking people whilst staying (just) within the posting guidelines. Very skilful at it.

 

Eventually got banned for it but re-registered a near-identical username. Odd howTeam Mod tolerate this as Dan says it's the person that gets banned not the unsername. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As I have said elsewhere, the number of licenced craft on CRT's has started to fall. It cannot be explained by an increase in evasion.

 

... and also as I have said before, the fall cannot be explained by an increase in evasion. 

 

 CRT has stated that its licence income might drop next year despite the April 1 increase

 

 

 

 

Any idea how much it costs  CRT for a “National Consultation”?

They’ve begun one for license fees, which they’ve given out to an independent company.

 

Do they publish these costs? Is it something that’d require a freedom of information request to find out?

 

My angle, for I’m not particularly happy thinking any off our license fee goes towards these costs, is this money well spent or are the costs simply a waste and further mismanagement of money?

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I've always found the same. His hobby is low level provoking people whilst staying (just) within the posting guidelines. Very skilful at it.

 

Eventually got banned for it but re-registered a near-identical username. Odd howTeam Mod tolerate this as Dan says it's the person that gets banned not the unsername. 

 

 

...and then blaming them for an argument that he provoked, hoping that other posters jump in on his side -- see the last couple of pages. And then gaslighting by making himself out to be the injured party... 😞

 

As you said, he's good at it -- he's done it multiple times with me (and others). Me, I've had enough of him, as far as I'm concerned he can shout insults into the void until he's blue in the face...

Edited February 12, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I've always found the same. His hobby is low level provoking people whilst staying (just) within the posting guidelines. Very skilful at it.

 

Eventually got banned for it but re-registered a near-identical username. Odd howTeam Mod tolerate this as Dan says it's the person that gets banned not the unsername. 

 

 

 

Given you indulge in your own 'low level' goading guess what that makes you too?

 

Eg

 

Less than inflation then. How fortunate you are!
 
https://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/117483-not-looking-good-for-us/&do=findComment&comment=2895908

 

Welcome to the real world. Us landies have had serious rises in costs already. 
 

 https://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/117483-not-looking-good-for-us/&do=findComment&comment=2895889

 

36 minutes ago, IanD said:

...and then blaming them for an argument that he provoked, hoping that other posters jump in on his side -- see the last couple of pages. And then gaslighting by making himself out to be the injured party... 😞

 

As you said, he's good at it -- he's done it multiple times with me (and others). Me, I've had enough of him, as far as I'm concerned he can shout into the void all he wants...

 

Ian I have now lost count of the number of times you claim you have put me on ignore. And then started responding to me, up to the point I disagree with you and so it repeats.

 

Its frankly rather strange if not very strange.

Edited February 12, 2023 by M_JG

[PD1964]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

You appear to assume the elderly are not rich  which is not necessarily so.

 

 

 

  I know, but there are a lot of elderly living on just their combined pensions, I’m talking about the ones living on their boats, not the ones that pop down to the Marina for a G&T on the back deck with the Commodore.

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

  I know, but there are a lot of elderly living on just their combined pensions, I’m talking about the ones living on their boats, not the ones that pop down to the Marina for a G&T on the back deck with the Commodore.

Definitely on our moorings a serious rise in costs would be disastrous for them 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

Definitely on our moorings a serious rise in costs would be disastrous for them 

 

 

Welcome to the real world. Us landies have had serious rises in costs already. 

 

 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

  I know, but there are a lot of elderly living on just their combined pensions, I’m talking about the ones living on their boats, not the ones that pop down to the Marina for a G&T on the back deck with the Commodore.

There's no way of devising a licensing fee system which is "fair" to *everybody* without finding out a lot of information about them, their boat and their personal circumstances, which nobody is ever going to agree to.

 

Without this all you can do is weight the fee so that *on average* it's fairer, for example charging more for bigger/newer boats and maybe CCing, and a discount for (for example) pensioners. There will always be some "unfair" winners and losers, but right now it seems there are an awful lot of them, and would be even more with a flat fee increase.

 

It's no different to state pensions, or fuel allowances, or free/discounted travel -- some people will get it who don't need/deserve it, but it's still better than treating everyone the same.

Edited February 12, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

 

When discusing all these 'discounts / increased charges, one must remeber that there is a legal requirement that the Rivers only 'licence' (registration) must be 60% of a 'standard canal & river licence.

 

It will also need someone to work out each permutation for both 'canal's and for 'rivers' licences.

[Guest]

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

Welcome to the real world. Us landies have had serious rises in costs already. 

 

 

 

People who live on boats have also been exposed to the same cost of living increases as people who live on land.

 

Welcome to the real world.