C&RT License Survey

[IanD]

30 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I completed the 'consultation' yesterday. The style was more one of a research questionnaire than a true consultation.

 

You could summarise the exercise as "Are you a turkey? Yes/No" and "Do you vote for Christmas? Yes/No". Folk will in general vote for what what benefits (or least disbenefits) them and in that sense the outcome could probably be arrived at by downloading CRTs licensing data into a spreadsheet, knocking up a pivot table, and spending about 15 minutes analysing it.

 

The whole issue seems to be steeped in assumption about how and why people boat and many boaters don't fit those assumptions. I gave up a £1,000 a year home mooring last year when I gave up full time employment and since then have spent £1,200 on short term moorings around the network because I don't liveaboard and I prefer to keep my craft in a secure location when not aboard. If there is a hike in licence fee for boaters without a home mooring then it may be pragmatic for me to buy the cheapest linear mooring I can find, no matter where it is, and spend my time invoking the reciprocal mooring arrangements whenever possible. That's the one thing I miss about not having a CRT linear mooring.

   

 

Yes it probably could, but then you can guarantee an outcry from boaters protesting that CART were riding roughshod over the interests of boaters and not consulting them... 😉

 

This way, whatever the outcome (e.g. charging by area, 100% CC surcharge -- or 50% discount for a home mooring, which amounts to the same thing but switches the burden of proof around) CART can say "But we asked boaters, and 80% of them (my guesstimate given the numbers of each) said this is what we should do".

 

That will make it much more difficult for the 20% (wideboats, CCers, NBTA members...) to claim "we're being persecuted", when they were simply outvoted 4:1 by their no-longer-fellow-boaters... 😞

 

It's human nature that given a choice most people will vote for whatever they think is best for them and their family. The only way to win is to make sure you're not in a minority that gets outvoted... 😉

Edited March 14, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Yes it probably could, but then you can guarantee an outcry from boaters protesting that CART were riding roughshod over the interests of boaters and not consulting them... 😉

 

This way, whatever the outcome (e.g. charging by area, 100% CC surcharge -- or 50% discount for a home mooring, which amounts to the same thing but switches the burden of proof around) CART can say "But we asked boaters, and 80% of them (my guesstimate given the numbers of each) said this is what we should do".

 

That will make it much more difficult for the 20% (wideboats, CCers, NBTA members...) to claim "we're being persecuted", when they were simply outvoted 4:1 by their no-longer-fellow-boaters... 😞

 

 

I never notice the EA running consultations. They decide what needs to be done, and do it. None of this pandering to whining boaters for them. 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Yes it probably could, but then you can guarantee an outcry from boaters protesting that CART were riding roughshod over the interests of boaters and not consulting them... 😉

 

This way, whatever the outcome (e.g. charging by area, 100% CC surcharge -- or 50% discount for a home mooring, which amounts to the same thing but switches the burden of proof around) CART can say "But we asked boaters, and 80% of them (my guesstimate given the numbers of each) said this is what we should do".

 

That will make it much more difficult for the 20% (wideboats, CCers, NBTA members...) to claim "we're being persecuted", when they were simply outvoted 4:1 by their no-longer-fellow-boaters... 😞

 

Which is the whole point.

 

Hence my thoughts have turned to how I'll best make it work for me. In hindsight I think I should have kept the mooring.

[magnetman]

NBTA will moan whatever happens. They seem to want itinerant living on boats outlawed so will stop at nothing to ensure this outcome.

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

I never notice the EA running consultations. They decide what needs to be done, and do it. None of this pandering to whining boaters for them. 

 

 

 

Different crowd to play to.

 

Truly, a consultation should be specific to a firm proposal. The only useful thing likely to come out of one is that a respondent highlights some unforeseen outcome. Generally they are a walkover and the phrase "this is a consultation not a negotiation" applies. Unfortunately CRTs current effort appears to be neither a negotiation or a consultation.

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I never notice the EA running consultations. They decide what needs to be done, and do it. None of this pandering to whining boaters for them. 

 

 

Is that another vote for an EA take-over?

PS no blue signs either 😆

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

NBTA will moan whatever happens. They seem to want itinerant living on boats outlawed so will stop at nothing to ensure this outcome.

 

 

I'm just waiting to see their reaction if CART do go for area-based pricing and a 100% CC surcharge ("as voted for by boaters") when they realise that a CMer on a 14' wideboat will see their license fee go up to 3.3x what it is today -- or 3.6x if there's also a 10% overall increase for inflation... 😉

Edited March 14, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

😂

i don’t think a 100% surcharge for CC’s was mentioned 

 

 

 

 

or was it

🧐

 

[matty40s]

7 minutes ago, Goliath said:

😂

i don’t think a 100% surcharge for CC’s was mentioned 

 

 

 

 

or was it

🧐

 

Someone will produce the .pdf in a minute.....from 2005....

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Someone will produce the .pdf in a minute.....from 2005....

Before Alan does -- that was x2.5, which would put a widebeam CCer on x4.2 compared to today, or x4.6 with 10% for inflation... 😉

 

Whatever the exact number, expect the usual "think of the children!" outrage but in spades...

Edited March 14, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Someone will produce the .pdf in a minute.....from 2005....

 

No need, the proposal was actually a 250% (2.5x) for CCers vs Home moorers

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

..so nearly 20 years ago and then not a figure of 100%. 
 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

..so nearly 20 years ago and then not a figure of 100%. 
 

 

 

Correct  - it was 2 1/2 times the increase that 100% would be.

[Paul C]

Same as hire boats seems about right.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Correct  - it was 2 1/2 times the increase that 100% would be.

👍 

you’ve proved my point,

the said figure of a forthcoming 100% increase for CCs is a whimsical figure 

 

it may be much more

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Yes it probably could, but then you can guarantee an outcry from boaters protesting that CART were riding roughshod over the interests of boaters and not consulting them... 😉

 

This way, whatever the outcome (e.g. charging by area, 100% CC surcharge -- or 50% discount for a home mooring, which amounts to the same thing but switches the burden of proof around) CART can say "But we asked boaters, and 80% of them (my guesstimate given the numbers of each) said this is what we should do".

 

That will make it much more difficult for the 20% (wideboats, CCers, NBTA members...) to claim "we're being persecuted", when they were simply outvoted 4:1 by their no-longer-fellow-boaters... 😞

 

It's human nature that given a choice most people will vote for whatever they think is best for them and their family. The only way to win is to make sure you're not in a minority that gets outvoted... 😉EEtue

Deleted due to fat finger error.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[enigmatic]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

I never notice the EA running consultations. They decide what needs to be done, and do it. None of this pandering to whining boaters for them. 

tbf, on some EA waterways it looks like they barely notice there are any boaters

[Higgs]

13 hours ago, IanD said:

This way, whatever the outcome (e.g. charging by area, 100% CC surcharge -- or 50% discount for a home mooring, which amounts to the same thing but switches the burden of proof around) CART can say "But we asked boaters, and 80% of them (my guesstimate given the numbers of each) said this is what we should do".

 

If you are going to think of surcharging or discounting by area, there will be thousands of boaters moored on private property, whose discount should be 100%., for never leaving this private property. It will become more relevant, more noticeable, that some boaters are not on the canal, never use the canal. 

 

There's no such discountable possibilities for those with online moorings, they are floating on CRT territory. 

 

 

[Colin Brendan]

A lot of the comments on here are based on the idea that CCers are in the gravy and should be charged more. There are significant time costs when you cc - time when you might otherwise be working - so it's actually a lot more expensive than it seems. The big worry for ccers is that crt will make it too expensive by gradually increasing the surcharge until livelihoods become unlivable for current ccers and crt can price them out in favour of a more affluent client base, or expanded their private mooring programme across vacated towpath.

 

My big question is this - if ccing is such a cash-cow, how come the average ccer sticks it out for 1.5 years only? Obviously not such a great deal once you factor in the time costs I mention above.

[cuthound]

50 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

My big question is this - if ccing is such a cash-cow, how come the average ccer sticks it out for 1.5 years only? Obviously not such a great deal once you factor in the time costs I mention above.

 

Perhaps because a lot of Ccers, particularly those in London are looking for cheap housing, rather than embracing boating?

Edited December 15, 2023 by cuthound
Clarification

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Colin Brendan said:

A lot of the comments on here are based on the idea that CCers are in the gravy and should be charged more. There are significant time costs when you cc - time when you might otherwise be working - so it's actually a lot more expensive than it seems. The big worry for ccers is that crt will make it too expensive by gradually increasing the surcharge until livelihoods become unlivable for current ccers and crt can price them out in favour of a more affluent client base, or expanded their private mooring programme across vacated towpath.

 

My big question is this - if ccing is such a cash-cow, how come the average ccer sticks it out for 1.5 years only? Obviously not such a great deal once you factor in the time costs I mention above.

Regarding your big question, what is the source of your data that CCers only last an average of 1.5 years?

 

But I think the main point is that CRT are not interested in whether living as a CCer is a ”great deal” vs living ashore. They are only interested in balancing their books and getting a fair income for services and maintenance costs generated. Remember that most marina based boats end up paying CRT far more than a CCer even with the surcharge. And the other point is that lots of CCing boats do not have people living aboard, they are simply storing their boats on the towpath when not in use because it is cheaper than paying for a mooring.

[magnetman]

Its odd that people think this is all about cc ers.

 

It isn't. People on boats over 7ft2 wide who have paid for home moorings are going to have a larger 'surcharge' applied than people with narrow boats who continuously cruise.

 

So the narrow boat, which can go everywhere, sees a lower increase in their yearly licence than the moored boat which doesn't move.

 

People need to stop being victims about this having a go at cc ers. Thats not what is happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

21 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Regarding your big question, what is the source of your data that CCers only last an average of 1.5 years?

 

But I think the main point is that CRT are not interested in whether living as a CCer is a ”great deal” vs living ashore. They are only interested in balancing their books and getting a fair income for services and maintenance costs generated. Remember that most marina based boats end up paying CRT far more than a CCer even with the surcharge. And the other point is that lots of CCing boats do not have people living aboard, they are simply storing their boats on the towpath when not in use because it is cheaper than paying for a mooring.

 

A lot of posters seem to have this really odd idea that by CCing they are doing CRT favour, CRT should be grateful and have some sort of obligation to make sure CCing is financially viable. 

 

As you say, CRT wouldn't care one jot if all the CCers vanished. Or all boaters, even. CRT is a quango with no soul or conscience (just like all organisations). Its only interest is its own continued existence. 

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Its odd that people think this is all about cc ers.

 

It isn't. People on boats over 7ft2 wide who have paid for home moorings are going to have a larger 'surcharge' applied than people with narrow boats who continuously cruise.

 

So the narrow boat, which can go everywhere, sees a lower increase in their yearly licence than the moored boat which doesn't move.

 

People need to stop being victims about this having a go at cc ers. Thats not what is happening.

 

 

Nobody is "having a go" at CCers, except perhaps in your head. As Nick pointed out, it's all about CART trying to raise more money, and CCers contribute considerably less to the CART coffers than HMers (and use the canals more, according to CART), so the surcharge is an attempt to correct this.

 

The higher surcharge for wideboats is similarly to get more money from them to make up for the fact that they occupy more space and get more "value" from their boat. And it's still smaller than most places outside CART waters which use area-based charging, only 50% surcharge for a 14' instead of 100%...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

53 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

A lot of the comments on here are based on the idea that CCers are in the gravy and should be charged more. There are significant time costs when you cc - time when you might otherwise be working - so it's actually a lot more expensive than it seems.

I get your point, it’s an interesting angle,

and something I’ve given thought to and have to say it’s not something I can really grumble about as I knew what I was letting myself in for. 

 

I tend to find a mooring when the balance has to swing more towards work than travel. 

 

55 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

My big question is this - if ccing is such a cash-cow, how come the average ccer sticks it out for 1.5 years only? Obviously not such a great deal once you factor in the time costs I mention above.

yes, I’d like to know where that 1.5 figure comes from,

 

perhaps there are folk who move on in spring, enjoy the summer, hate the winter and have sold up by the following autumn. 😂