C&RT License Survey

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

I didn't read the FAQ. I wonder how many people know it is a plebiscite on the future of canal boat licensing.

It's what the FAQ (link posted earlier) says. It's what the video (from the consultation) posted earlier says. It's what anyone responding to the survey -- sent to all boaters, remember -- can't fail to be aware of.

 

Here's the FAQ again, in case you can't find the link:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/national-consultations/consultation-on-future-boat-licence-pricing-faqs

[magnetman]

You mean this?
 

When do you expect to make a decision on future licence pricing?

We expect to make a decision in the summer, after we have considered the responses from the consultation.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Didn’t see the word vote anywhere 

The women in my avatar would be turning in their graves if they thought this is what a vote has come to.

[magnetman]

consider

verb

 

uk

 

/kənˈsɪd.ər/ us

 

/kənˈsɪd.ɚ/

 

consider verb (POSSIBILITY)

B1 [ I or T ]

to spend time thinking about a possibility or making a decision:

Don't make any decisions before you've considered the situation.

[ + question word ] Have you considered what you'll do if you don't get the job?

[ + -ing verb ] We're considering selling the house.

She's being considered for the job.

I'd like some time to consider before I make a decision.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You mean this?
 

When do you expect to make a decision on future licence pricing?

We expect to make a decision in the summer, after we have considered the responses from the consultation.

 

Yes.

 

If anyone seriously thinks CART will do anything which goes *against* what the survey results say boaters "want" (meaning, the least bad options), I'd love to see a valid explanation as to why they think CART would do this, because they'd have to be mad -- they're going to get enough screaming and shouting even if they do what was "voted" for, but if they do anything else the response will be far worse.

 

All I've seen so far is the usual "CART never listen to anybody, they're evil, they waste money" arguments -- completely ignoring the fact that this time CART *are* asking boaters what they want, because (I think) they've realised it's an easier option than trying to decide what to change themselves and then force it through against opposition -- which is exactly what happened before with widebeam and CC supplements.

 

Organisations will always do the thing that's easiest for them and delivers what they want with the least hassle. In this case, that will be implementing the consultation results...

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

I imagine the CRT do know who their customers are and also who are most likely to be vocal so even if the decisions have basically been made already the consultation will probably create the required feedback to confirm that these decisions are the right ones.

 

When they publish the results it will be interesting to see how it is laid out. Will there be percentages 'in favour' of certain things?

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I imagine the CRT do know who their customers are and also who are most likely to be vocal so even if the decisions have basically been made already the consultation will probably create the required feedback to confirm that these decisions are the right ones.

 

When they publish the results it will be interesting to see how it is laid out. Will there be percentages 'in favour' of certain things?

 

 

I can't see how else they can publish the results apart from percentage of each answer to each question, they'd just get accused of hiding stuff. And why should they, the decision about how much to increase the overall license fee has already been made, so it makes no real difference to CART how the rises are distributed.

 

My view -- which others disagree with -- is that it won't matter how loudly widebeam owners scream "unfair, we're being persecuted!" if (for example) 80% of boaters vote in favour of an area-based charge, CART can simply say "you were outvoted by 4:1 (or whatever), and we *have* to go with what the majority of our customers want". If they don't, they'll then have 80% of boaters on their case instead of 20%.

 

If they don't do this, they're even stupider than some people on CWDF keep saying.

 

48% of voters in a recent referendum were extremely unhappy, but that didn't stop the result being implemented. Well, sort of... 😞

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

It will be interesting to see how they publish the results of the consultation.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It will be interesting to see how they publish the results of the consultation.

It will. My money's on simply publishing the percentage answers directly, it's the easiest thing to do and avoids any accusations of them cooking the books or trying to hide something.

 

Some of the questions don't need any further decision; if there's a big majority in favour of area-based pricing then that's done. A CCing supplement (if that's voted for) will be more contentious, not having seen the survey yet I don't know what the question was. If they just asked "should there be a supplement or not?" then that's a dumb question, because it leaves open the argument about how big it should be.

 

The clever way would be to have given a multiple choice question (choose one) with options of (for example) 0% +50% +100% +150% -- 0% being one end of the range (no supplement), 150% being the other end (x2.5) that they tried previously. Not only tells them how many don't want a supplement, but they can then just average the results and say "boaters chose a CC supplement of +80%" or whatever the result was.

 

It'll be interesting to see whether they did this the dumb way or the clever way... 😉

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[Barneyp]

50 minutes ago, IanD said:

And the difference is...?

 

If CART count up the responses from boaters and choose the most popular options, it's a vote -- just like Brexit was... 😉

 

noun

noun: vote; plural noun: votes

a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands.

 

So it isn't a vote then.

 

There was not a single list of options (courses of action) and a requirement to pick the one you most preferred.

 

There were a few different lists which you had to choose from, and boxes to write comments in. 

 

CRT have not said anywhere they will go with what the majority or largest single group want.

They have said they will make a decision when they have "considered the responses to the consultation"

 

So can you quote the bit that says it is a vote?

And the bit that says CRT will be bound by the "vote"?

[Arthur Marshall]

29 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Yes.

 

If anyone seriously thinks CART will do anything which goes *against* what the survey results say boaters "want" (meaning, the least bad options), I'd love to see a valid explanation as to why they think CART would do this, because they'd have to be mad -- they're going to get enough screaming and shouting even if they do what was "voted" for, but if they do anything else the response will be far worse.

 

All I've seen so far is the usual "CART never listen to anybody, they're evil, they waste money" arguments -- completely ignoring the fact that this time CART *are* asking boaters what they want, because (I think) they've realised it's an easier option than trying to decide what to change themselves and then force it through against opposition -- which is exactly what happened before with widebeam and CC supplements.

 

Organisations will always do the thing that's easiest for them and delivers what they want with the least hassle. In this case, that will be implementing the consultation results...

CRt have to consider w hether the y w ill lose miney by putting various fees up, that's all. Biaters have been screaming and shouting about maintenace issues for years, which have resulted, eg, in Northwich getting flooded after a perfectly avoidable breach, Todbrook because lack of inspections, and they haven't listened yet. So why on earth do you think they will do anything with the consultation except prepare for a bit of flak? There's nothing we can do except pay up or sell up.

CRTs constituency is NOT boaters. It's fishermen, cyclists, walkers, conservationists and the government who pay a bit for it all. Boat owners are a tiny minority, and an even tinier minority of the small percentage of them that actually use the system for anything other than a holiday cottage or somewhere to squat, and an even smaller chunk who genuinely CC. No-one is going to care if we get upset.

[ditchcrawler]

52 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You mean this?
 

When do you expect to make a decision on future licence pricing?

We expect to make a decision in the summer, after we have considered the responses from the consultation.

Its a consultation so they will consider the responses, do you think it will change their plans

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

And you’re steadfastly ignoring that this ain’t a vote

and continue to make comparisons with Brexit 

yet you’ve had it pointed out several times it ain’t a vote

so here again: it ain’t a vote. 

 

I’m on his ignore list,

will someone please ask him why he continues to hammer on about a vote. 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you haven't been aware of past C&RT consulation regarding the extra charges on anything wider than a narrownost  where the results of the consultation have certainly been used by C&RT as if it was a vote.

[peterboat]

46 minutes ago, IanD said:

It will. My money's on simply publishing the percentage answers directly, it's the easiest thing to do and avoids any accusations of them cooking the books or trying to hide something.

 

Some of the questions don't need any further decision; if there's a big majority in favour of area-based pricing then that's done. A CCing supplement (if that's voted for) will be more contentious, not having seen the survey yet I don't know what the question was. If they just asked "should there be a supplement or not?" then that's a dumb question, because it leaves open the argument about how big it should be.

 

The clever way would be to have given a multiple choice question (choose one) with options of (for example) 0% +50% +100% +150% -- 0% being one end of the range (no supplement), 150% being the other end (x2.5) that they tried previously. Not only tells them how many don't want a supplement, but they can then just average the results and say "boaters chose a CC supplement of +80%" or whatever the result was.

 

It'll be interesting to see whether they did this the dumb way or the clever way... 😉

They did it to channel you to the answers they wanted! As I said they already have the answer they want 

[IanD]

43 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

So it isn't a vote then.

 

There was not a single list of options (courses of action) and a requirement to pick the one you most preferred.

 

There were a few different lists which you had to choose from, and boxes to write comments in. 

 

CRT have not said anywhere they will go with what the majority or largest single group want.

They have said they will make a decision when they have "considered the responses to the consultation"

 

So can you quote the bit that says it is a vote?

And the bit that says CRT will be bound by the "vote"?

Read the dictionary... 🙂

 

As I've said multiple times but you keep ignoring, CART are not "bound" by the "vote", but they'd be mad to do anything which wasn't "voted" for, and have no reason to do so -- even of you hope they won't (for example) change to area pricing (or a much bigger widebeam supplement, which amounts to the same thing). I assume you have a home mooring so any CC supplement wouldn't affect you?

 

And still ignoring the difficult questions, I see... 😉

 

9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

They did it to channel you to the answers they wanted! As I said they already have the answer they want 

 

You can say it as often as you want, it still doesn't make it true... 😉

 

Unless you mean that the overall license fee is going to go up by more than RPI, which CART have already told us -- and is the only answer they really want, because it's all that matters to them.

 

How they split this up will depend on the consultation results. If widebeams don't get hit hard I'll be extremely surprised. A CC supplement is also likely, for all the reasons already stated.

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[IanD]

41 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

CRt have to consider w hether the y w ill lose miney by putting various fees up, that's all. Biaters have been screaming and shouting about maintenace issues for years, which have resulted, eg, in Northwich getting flooded after a perfectly avoidable breach, Todbrook because lack of inspections, and they haven't listened yet. So why on earth do you think they will do anything with the consultation except prepare for a bit of flak? There's nothing we can do except pay up or sell up.

CRTs constituency is NOT boaters. It's fishermen, cyclists, walkers, conservationists and the government who pay a bit for it all. Boat owners are a tiny minority, and an even tinier minority of the small percentage of them that actually use the system for anything other than a holiday cottage or somewhere to squat, and an even smaller chunk who genuinely CC. No-one is going to care if we get upset.

 

And I'm sure CART are expecting a lot of boaters to get upset by license fee changes, especially those who get hit the hardest. CART will make whatever choices minimise this upset, because -- well, it's obvious, innit?

[Jon57]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

And I'm sure CART are expecting a lot of boaters to get upset by license fee changes, especially those who get hit the hardest. CART will make whatever choices minimise this upset, because -- well, it's obvious, innit?

Even with all the extra money raised won't matter a jot if CRT continues with it's current mind set. Better get back to boating now the sun out while I can. ☀️☀️🌞👍

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

Maybe you haven't been aware of past C&RT consulation regarding the extra charges on anything wider than a narrownost  where the results of the consultation have certainly been used by C&RT as if it was a vote.

Yes, a fair point.

And I’m sure I took part in that consultation.

 

.. but it’s really not a vote, for if the results/opinions are not to CRTs liking they’re under no obligation to implement them

 

 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

Even with all the extra money raised won't matter a jot if CRT continues with it's current mind set. Better get back to boating now the sun out while I can. ☀️☀️🌞👍

What current mindset is that?

 

Please, not blue signs and executive bonuses and outsourcing again... 😞

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

Even with all the extra money raised won't matter a jot if CRT continues with it's current mind set. Better get back to boating now the sun out while I can. ☀️☀️🌞👍

Yes, lovely day for boating, make the most of it.

👍

[Jon57]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

What current mindset is that?

 

Please, not blue signs and executive bonuses and outsourcing again... 😞

They can't organise a piss up in a brewery. Wrong imformatiom on their stoppages site just the small one. Getting the right crane to one site. Planning a lock gate replacement. Then realised the rain boat was not available. Pulling the pins now goodbye. 😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉

[ditchcrawler]

27 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes, lovely day for boating, make the most of it.

👍

Bit of a chilly northerly blowing here in Suffolk but you are right, it would be much nicer on the boat

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

All I've seen so far is the usual "CART never listen to anybody, they're evil, they waste money" arguments -- completely ignoring the fact that this time CART *are* asking boaters what they want, because (I think) they've realised it's an easier option than trying to decide what to change themselves and then force it through against opposition -- which is exactly what happened before with widebeam and CC supplements.

 

I don't know how long you have been 'actively' on the canals and involved but it sounds like have had no involvement in the great number of consultations that have been held, but, I have yet to see C&RT actually implement anything 'voted on' (proposed) by boaters if it was not inline with the consultation background notes.

 

If you think otherwise, you are being very naive, and will be dissapointed.

 

I posted an example earlier (from a previous licence fee consultation) of the actions resulting from the consultation

 

On the question of replacing RPI with a composite index, opinion was widely varied. Some argued for retaining RPI because it is simple and well understood. Overall however none of the arguments changed our view that the index should reflect BW’s actual costs

 

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I don't know how long you have been 'actively' on the canals and involved but it sounds like have had no involvement in the great number of consultations that have been held, but, I have yet to see C&RT actually implement anything 'voted on' (proposed) by boaters if it was not inline with the consultation background notes.

 

If you think otherwise, you are being very naive, and will be dissapointed.

 

I posted an example earlier (from a previous licence fee consultation) of the actions resulting from the consultation

 

On the question of replacing RPI with a composite index, opinion was widely varied. Some argued for retaining RPI because it is simple and well understood. Overall however none of the arguments changed our view that the index should reflect BW’s actual costs

 

 

Which is a perfect example of CART choosing the option that's best for them -- and in this case, I'm saying that this is likely to be what boaters vote for, because unlike the case you cited there's no advantage to CART doing anything else and only disadvantage. You disagree, that's your opinion.

 

Let's wait and see then, because this discussion is going nowhere... 😉

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, IanD said:

Let's wait and see then, this discussion is going nowhere...

 

Yes - C&RT have 'previous'.

 

If they don't get what they want to hear, they it will not be applied.

 

In this case I expect there will be an 80% support for increasing widebeam by a lot more than NBs, and a 90% support for CCers to pay much more than a boat with a home mooring.