C&RT License Survey

[Barneyp]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Difficult to see how that's the case, given that it didn't mention amounts anywhere...

 

The main point wasn't "do you agree with an increase?" either, since it's always been made clear the the license fee was going up.

 

The point was *how* should the increase -- however big -- be done and which boaters should pay more (or not), and the results were pretty clear.

 

CCers (and wideboat owners) may not be happy with the result, but it's what boaters said they wanted -- or as CART said both beforehand and in the results, what boaters disliked the least... 😉

CRT have information that we don't, they know what proportion of CCers and Widebeam owners "voted" for surcharges that would effect them directly. 

Everyone is assuming that all CCers and widebeam owners "voted" against the surcharges that would effect them and for either a flat rate rise and/or surcharges that would effect other people.

It's likely that at least some CCers would have thought they should pay more, and some widebeam owners thought they should pay more. ( not everyone is driven by personal self interest).

The proportion of people "voting" to pay more would have given CRT an idea of the strength of feeling and therefore the likely strength of any objection. 

So maybe the point of the consultation was can we surcharge CCers, and if so by how much, and how much can we make the surcharge for widebeams.

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

🤔

Hence 40% for the CC surcharge being chosen.

 

Though 46% were in favour of widebeams paying more (C and D combined) which is why CART chose the more popular of the two ways of doing this.

 

The status quo (flat increase) was clearly (14%) the loser, no matter how many times people keep trying to say it wan't... 😉

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

CRT have information that we don't, they know what proportion of CCers and Widebeam owners "voted" for surcharges that would effect them directly. 

Everyone is assuming that all CCers and widebeam owners "voted" against the surcharges that would effect them and for either a flat rate rise and/or surcharges that would effect other people.

It's likely that at least some CCers would have thought they should pay more, and some widebeam owners thought they should pay more. ( not everyone is driven by personal self interest).

The proportion of people "voting" to pay more would have given CRT an idea of the strength of feeling and therefore the likely strength of any objection. 

So maybe the point of the consultation was can we surcharge CCers, and if so by how much, and how much can we make the surcharge for widebeams.

 

The results show how all boaters voted vs. Ccers and HMers. Wideboat owners were not shown separately, maybe because the data wasn't available?

 

Certainly the CCer/HMer split on the CC surcharge shows that many boaters were voting in their own interest, as expected.

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

Hence 40% for the CC surcharge being chosen.

 

Though 46% were in favour of widebeams paying more (C and D combined) which is why CART chose the more popular of the two ways of doing this.

 

The status quo (flat increase) was clearly (14%) the loser, no matter how many times people keep trying to say it wan't... 😉

The results show how all boaters voted vs. Ccers and HMers. Wideboat owners were not shown separately, maybe because the data wasn't available?

 

Certainly the CCer/HMer split on the CC surcharge shows that many boaters were voting in their own interest, as expected.

I was pondering @Paul C’s maths in general rather than the outcome of the actual survey.

 

 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

It sounds much better when question to say "we employed a company to carry out an independent consultation"

It also means that the survey can utilise person-specific data without disclosing it to CaRT.

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I am not American. 

It is rather like practice. 

 

And advice.

 

 

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I was pondering @Paul C’s maths in general rather than the outcome of the actual survey.

 

 

If it was him who said this:

 

Percentage of all boaters choosing option B over option A - 40%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option C over option A - 20%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option D over option A  - 24%

 

then that's not what the results showed -- the percentages are the number of boaters who would favour each particular option above the alternatives after all the results of the ABC/ABD/ACD questions are combined, it's not a comparison of any one choice with another or the actual numbers who chose each option at any stage. It's a way to do valid analysis to measure people's opinions faced with more than two choices -- probably the easiest for this particular case since the alternative would have been six pairwise choices (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD) which would have discouraged answers ("too many questions!") and also not given the option of the status quo every time, so could have been misleading.

 

After this combination -- which is not dodgy or CART trying to fiddle the results, it's a standard statistical method -- the results were as follows:

 

14% most preferred option A (flat increase)

40% most preferred option B (CC surcharge)

22% most preferred option C (area-based pricing)

24% most preferred option D (bigger widebeam surcharge)

 

It's also statistically valid to combine the last two results and say that 46% most preferred wideboats to pay more.

 

So those boaters in favour of the status quo/flat increase were greatly outnumbered by those who thought that CCers and wideboats should pay more.

 

This undoubtedly isn't what CCers and wideboat owners want to hear, but it's what the results of the survey showed and what CART have implemented.

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

If the CRT were doubling the price of the licence it would get close to council tax but they aren't so it doesn't. 

what’s Council tax?

I’ve no been sent a bill, should I have?

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

what’s Council tax?

I’ve no been sent a bill, should I have?

 

 

That concept refers to the fact that boaters with a genuine residential mooring pay council tax, same as house owners. Squatters don't, nor do continuous cruisers, logically enough as they supposedly move from one council area to another. Certainly on the Macc, the several CCers who move between Bosley, Congleton and the end of the Macc never move out of East Cheshire Council, so it's arguable that they should be liable. It's totally impractical, of course.

Back when I was living on it was poll tax, and only one person was legally residential and got visited by an official, who mysteriously ended up in the water and was never seen again.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

If it was him who said this:

 

Percentage of all boaters choosing option B over option A - 40%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option C over option A - 20%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option D over option A  - 24%

 

then that's not what the results showed -- the percentages are the number of boaters who would favour each particular option above the alternatives after all the results of the ABC/ABD/ACD questions are combined, it's not a comparison of any one choice with another or the actual numbers who chose each option at any stage. It's a way to do valid analysis to measure people's opinions faced with more than two choices -- probably the easiest for this particular case since the alternative would have been six pairwise choices (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD) which would have discouraged answers ("too many questions!") and also not given the option of the status quo every time, so could have been misleading.

 

After this combination -- which is not dodgy or CART trying to fiddle the results, it's a standard statistical method -- the results were as follows:

 

14% most preferred option A (flat increase)

40% most preferred option B (CC surcharge)

22% most preferred option C (area-based pricing)

24% most preferred option D (bigger widebeam surcharge)

 

It's also statistically valid to combine the last two results and say that 46% most preferred wideboats to pay more.

 

So those boaters in favour of the status quo/flat increase were greatly outnumbered by those who thought that CCers and wideboats should pay more.

 

This undoubtedly isn't what CCers and wideboat owners want to hear, but it's what the results of the survey showed and what CART have implemented.

 

IanD may wish to apply "a standard statistical method" to the results given to the board and tell us what he finds.

I get a "most preferred" of -

Option A -  46.15%

Option B -  25.65%
Option C - 12.82%
Option D - 15.38%

Not really surprising, bearing in mind the lack of support for options B,C and D. 

I have already taken the matter up with the reports authors and also queried why the results given to CRT's board of Trustees are not to be found. Fairly obviously I will not get a reply until the new year. I may not receive a reply.
 

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

IanD may wish to apply "a standard statistical method" to the results given to the board and tell us what he finds.

I get a "most preferred" of -

Option A -  46.15%

Option B -  25.65%
Option C - 12.82%
Option D - 15.38%

Not really surprising, bearing in mind the lack of support for options B,C and D. 

I have already taken the matter up with the reports authors and also queried why the results given to CRT's board of Trustees are not to be found. Fairly obviously I will not get a reply until the new year. I may not receive a reply.
 

 

I don't think you understand how to analyse/combine multiple choice questions, and your analysis is wrong because the choices and numbers in the survey results are not what you seem to think they are.

 

No doubt you disagree...

 

What you're suggesting also doesn't make any sense when you look at the fact that CCers are outnumbered about 4:1 by HMers and wideboaters are also similarly outnumbered by narrowboaters. Which means it's unsurprising that far more boaters think CCers amd wideboats should pay more than everyone should see the same increase, which is exactly what the survey shows.

 

It *would* have been surprising if the most popular option had been to keep the status quo, because most boaters would be worse off than choosing the other options.

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[Cheshire cat]

3 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Thank you for being able to spell licence (noun) and, may I presume, license (verb).

 

 

 

You are wrong no matter how much you and I are irritated by it

 

They are interchangeable

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That concept refers to the fact that boaters with a genuine residential mooring pay council tax, same as house owners. Squatters don't, nor do continuous cruisers, logically enough as they supposedly move from one council area to another. Certainly on the Macc, the several CCers who move between Bosley, Congleton and the end of the Macc never move out of East Cheshire Council, so it's arguable that they should be liable. It's totally impractical, of course.

Back when I was living on it was poll tax, and only one person was legally residential and got visited by an official, who mysteriously ended up in the water and was never seen again.

I’m taking the piss Arthur,
I don’t pay Council Tax

 

hope you went rioting when it were poll tax 

[Arthur Marshall]

17 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I’m taking the piss Arthur,
I don’t pay Council Tax

 

hope you went rioting when it were poll tax 

I thought you probably were, but one's never entirely sure on here. I was too busy scraping a living to riot but I can certainly remember a protest or six ...

[LadyG]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I thought you probably were, but one's never entirely sure on here. I was too busy scraping a living to riot but I can certainly remember a protest or six ...

I lived in Scotland at the time of the Poll Tax which was very fair as those using more resources ie families were charged more than singles. However as soon as the English Poĺl Tax came in the majority were outraged at having to pay more just because  they were draining the Council resources!

Edited December 23, 2023 by LadyG

[magnetman]

The CRT gradually removing bin and shit disposal services is interesting. 

 

People start moaning about it. 

 

At the end of the day (and the beginning) the navigation authority is not responsible for providing services for disposal of residential waste products. This is either included in local taxation or provided by private contractors. 

 

Marinas could easily take up this demand by providing paid-for services. 

 

People will still moan because they want everything. 

 

 

 

 

 

Once the situation changes and local people in local areas start objecting to the Boats this is when the Boats are dead in the water. Sitting ducks one might say. 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by magnetman
pollution control

[Arthur Marshall]

44 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The CRT gradually removing bin and shit disposal services is interesting. 

 

People start moaning about it. 

 

At the end of the day (and the beginning) the navigation authority is not responsible for providing services for disposal of residential waste products. This is either included in local taxation or provided by private contractors. 

 

Marinas could easily take up this demand by providing paid-for services. 

 

People will still moan because they want everything. 

 

 

 

 

 

Once the situation changes and local people in local areas start objecting to the Boats this is when the Boats are dead in the water. Sitting ducks one might say. 

 

 

 

It may not be technically responsible, and that's fine as long as we can go back to emptying toilets into the canal and chucking rubbish in the hedge. I'm not convinced the fishermen , walkers, and the rest of CRT's clientele would like it, though.

[magnetman]

Thats a bad argument because it assumes the average person on a Boat is happy to break the law. I mean real laws like those around fly tipping and dumping raw sewage in waterways. 

 

Obviously everyone knows that coprorate bodies can do these things as they love shit profits its no problem but I doubt the average Joe is going to want to deliberately break the law. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The suggestion that it results in shit in the cut and rubbish in the hedges is indicating -fairly strongly- that there is a land use and management issue here. It is too defeatist to think like that. 

 

What need to happen is the management of the land must change. The CRT need bank managers. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Thats a bad argument because it assumes the average person on a Boat is happy to break the law. I mean real laws like those around fly tipping and dumping raw sewage in waterways. 

 

Obviously everyone knows that coprorate bodies can do these things as they love shit profits its no problem but I doubt the average Joe is going to want to deliberately break the law. 

 

The suggestion that it results in shit in the cut and rubbish in the hedges is indicating -fairly strongly- that there is a land use and management issue here. It is too defeatist to think like that. 

 

What need to happen is the management of the land must change. The CRT need bank managers. 

 

 

The average bloke in a boat seems happy enough to break the law and the rules about overstaying , why do you think they'll bother about fly tipping? Judging by the amount of boaters crap you see in the hedge already, not much. I'm sure the old boatmen used to pee in the cut - we'd just be reverting to tradition.

The last thing we need is more jobsworths in flotation jackets. People already whinge about vlockies, and you want more?

[Momac]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

 

At the end of the day (and the beginning) the navigation authority is not responsible for providing services for disposal of residential waste products. 

 

So why did they ever start to do so ?

There was a time when the importance of the inland waterways was supported by government.

 

[Captain Pegg]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

If it was him who said this:

 

Percentage of all boaters choosing option B over option A - 40%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option C over option A - 20%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option D over option A  - 24%

 

then that's not what the results showed -- the percentages are the number of boaters who would favour each particular option above the alternatives after all the results of the ABC/ABD/ACD questions are combined, it's not a comparison of any one choice with another or the actual numbers who chose each option at any stage. It's a way to do valid analysis to measure people's opinions faced with more than two choices -- probably the easiest for this particular case since the alternative would have been six pairwise choices (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD) which would have discouraged answers ("too many questions!") and also not given the option of the status quo every time, so could have been misleading.

 

After this combination -- which is not dodgy or CART trying to fiddle the results, it's a standard statistical method -- the results were as follows:

 

14% most preferred option A (flat increase)

40% most preferred option B (CC surcharge)

22% most preferred option C (area-based pricing)

24% most preferred option D (bigger widebeam surcharge)

 

It's also statistically valid to combine the last two results and say that 46% most preferred wideboats to pay more.

 

So those boaters in favour of the status quo/flat increase were greatly outnumbered by those who thought that CCers and wideboats should pay more.

 

This undoubtedly isn't what CCers and wideboat owners want to hear, but it's what the results of the survey showed and what CART have implemented.

 

I haven’t read a word of that but the bit I was pondering was the ‘winner’ in a four horse vote was any horse getting more than 25%.

 

You just can’t step back from ramming your point of view down folks’ throat can you?

[magnetman]

I do think the land management issue needs sorting one way or another. 

 

This is all that is actually happening. Its as old as the hills. Territorial disputes and as the lovely Englandland is gradually getting smaller in proportion to the number of people who want it territorial disputes will occur.

 

It is slightly risible for you to compare the BW 1995 Act with those around environmental pollution. 

 

You can moor your Boat for months and nothing bad happens but get on the wrong side of the environmental elf and they come down like a ton of bricks. 

 

Basically the CRT is a navigation authority and by dint of this, due to the whole 'We used to pull boats with horses' thing they are an accidental land owner. 

 

What to do with towpath land is the question moving forwards. There are no other questions really. Its a land thing. 

 

Everything is a land thing. 

 

Perhaps digging up towpaths and putting in intensive cabbage patches could work. Or christmas trees. 

 

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

So why did they ever start to do so ?

There was a time when the importance of the inland waterways was supported by government.

 

 

Waterway use changes over time. 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I’m taking the piss Arthur,
I don’t pay Council Tax

 

hope you went rioting when it were poll tax 

I too have pondered the parallel between the arguments about why boats without a home mooring should pay more and the council tax vs poll tax debate.

 

 

[magnetman]

Pay by use seems an enormously sensible model for infrastructure which nobody other than Boat users has any need for. 

 

It is entirely possible that wonderful society enhancing families of random people would find a disused lock with one end stanked orf and a bit of water flowing over the weir a considerably more useful asset for picnics and perhaps a summer dip than a working lock annexed by Boat owners with Harold Shipman beards. 

 

It not all about a small group with paid access. This is a public amenity. 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a lot more fun swimming on a lock which Boats can never use. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by magnetman
removal of extras

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I too have pondered the parallel between the arguments about why boats without a home mooring should pay more and the council tax vs poll tax debate.

 

 

Pay more what? Pay more than nothing?

[magnetman]

If people demonstrate unwillingness to put their hands in their pockets there is an obvious outcome. 

 

If you want other people to pay for your trainset then they are going to want to play as well. 

 

So there are those who like to blame the management. Nice easy option. 

 

Ask yourself 'could I do better?' 

 

Everyone knows how to solve all the problems in the world.

 

In reality the management of such an organisation is likely to be done by generic people with generic job profiles so even if you binned them all the problems would remain because the people who replace them will be the same.