C&RT License Survey

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

'I don't take positions based on personal circumstances' 😂 Boy oh boy have you been telling yourself some porkies! Its a sweet and lovely sentiment, but we all take positions based on personal circumstances, mate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either fibbing to you or themselves.

Yes but I actually don't do this. 

 

I don't know who you have been talking to but try to be aware that not everyone is entirely self centred.

Yes it is a common issue but with a little bit of work most people do find they can overcome this if they want to. 

 

 

 

I do find your tone a little antagonistic in a number of different ways. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by magnetman
shocking error

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I guess that if you ask a majority if they would like a minority to pay more in order that they can pay less then the outcome is pretty much pre determined ...

[Colin Brendan]

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I guess that if you ask a majority if they would like a minority to pay more in order that they can pay less then the outcome is pretty much pre determined ...

Although remarkably, in this instance despite the inferential of the survey, 60% voted for solutions that did not include a ccer surcharge. Honestly, take a proper look at the survey results. They really are being misrepresente. 

 

I would love to get this survey and it's supposed results on BBC radio 4s More Or Less - it would be decimated!

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I guess that if you ask a majority if they would like a minority to pay more in order that they can pay less then the outcome is pretty much pre determined ...

 

Very true, but I don't understand why CRT felt the need to ask the punters at all. They are in charge, why not just decide what needs to be done and do it? In France they have a saying that broadly translates as "When draining a swamp, you don't consult the frogs". Its rather similar in ways to how we in the UK suspect turkeys are unlikely to vote for Xmas.

 

Of course boaters will vote for lower costs for themselves and more for others so why ask them. The EA don't ask.  No reams of 'consultations' from them before they make decisions that needs to be made on licence fees.

 

 

[Colin Brendan]

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yes but I actually don't do this. 

 

I don't know who you have been talking to but try to be aware that not everyone is entirely self centred.

Yes it is a common issue but with a little bit of work most people do find they can overcome this if they want to. 

 

 

 

I do find your tone a little antagonistic in a number of different ways. 

It is possible for someone act contrary to immediate self interest - e.g. giving someone a tow despite being in a rush - but I am still making this decision based on personal circumstances. The sense that I would be doing something good overrides my sense of urgency. But this is still a decision made from a place of self interest.

 

With the ccer issue in particular some hmers seem to be hiding behind a notion that they rent their more expensive home moorings for the good of the canal.

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Very true, but I don't understand why CRT felt the need to ask the punters at all. They are in charge, why not just decide what needs to be done and do it? In France they have a saying that broadly translates as "When draining a swamp, you don't consult the frogs". Its rather similar in ways to how we in the UK suspect turkeys are unlikely to vote for Xmas.

 

Of course boaters will vote for lower costs for themselves and more for others so why ask them. The EA don't ask.  No reams of 'consultations' from them before they make decisions that needs to be made on licence fees.

 

 

If the government were going to introduce an 'additional fee for small estates that do not contribute enough to the fabric of society to conterbalance the larger (and no doubt altruistic) council tax contribution of larger estates', this change would either be, or become arguable in Parliament. Don't forget - we are talking about people's homes here

[nicknorman]

9 hours ago, Colin Brendan said:

Ah! Apologies - i didnt realise that home moorings were a philanthropic gesture to support the canals! There I was thinking that home moorings were something that people fight each other for tooth and nail on a free market, and that was why they were so expensive! Now that I know that those bidding wars are an act of generosity by altruistic canal lovers I will have more respect 🙏 ! 

 

In fact, I would love to join the ranks of such altruism, but sadly (and as confirmed by CRT) there seems to be a stark lack of home moorings, so I can't! 

Who's next!

Oh dear resorting to sarcasm already! There is no shortage of home moorings in general, though if you are London based I can see why you might think it. Speaking for myself I don’t have a mooring out of any philanthropic tendency. I have a home mooring because we live a long way away from our boat.

 

But regardless of why people have a home mooring, the FACTS are that most people with home moorings pay additional money to CRT. Either because the moorings are owned and managed by CRT or because the marina is forced to pay 10% of the mooring fees to CRT - a sort of “marina tax”. We are in the latter category and so pay roughly an additional £300 annually to CRT via our mooring fees. This is more than the CCing supplement and so even with the supplement, we are still paying CRT more to use the system less, including using less water, sewage and rubbish facilities, compared to a live aboard CCer. And yet you still moan about how unfair it is for you!

 

Just to sum up, CRT receives more money from me than from you so I don’t think you should feel too hard done by.

[Barneyp]

10 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

Although remarkably, in this instance despite the inferential of the survey, 60% voted for solutions that did not include a ccer surcharge. Honestly, take a proper look at the survey results. They really are being misrepresente. 

 

I would love to get this survey and it's supposed results on BBC radio 4s More Or Less - it would be decimated!

I'm not sure why you think the results of the survey would be decimated if analysed by More Or Less.

There were more than two options, meaning that there was no guarantee of one option getting a majority. Yes 60% chose something other than the CC'er surcharge, but they didn't all choose the same thing.

 

And the survey was a consultation- CRT are in no bound by its results. CRT need more money to maintain the waterways, increasing licence fees is an obvious way to do that, but if they increase them by too much they will drive to many people away resulting in the total income from licences going down. The consultation gave them some information on what the current license holders would deem acceptable, and also was a way to inform and prepare people for the significant rises in the licence.

[Colin Brendan]

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I'm not sure why you think the results of the survey would be decimated if analysed by More Or Less.

There were more than two options, meaning that there was no guarantee of one option getting a majority. Yes 60% chose something other than the CC'er surcharge, but they didn't all choose the same thing.

 

And the survey was a consultation- CRT are in no bound by its results. CRT need more money to maintain the waterways, increasing licence fees is an obvious way to do that, but if they increase them by too much they will drive to many people away resulting in the total income from licences going down. The consultation gave them some information on what the current license holders would deem acceptable, and also was a way to inform and prepare people for the significant rises in the licence.

The ccer surcharge spread across all license holders would have amounted to a 1% increase. Chasing a particular minority with a bigger increase is more likely to chase license holders away (unless by license holder you mean 'your kind of license holder)?).

 

There are also other ways of raising the very small sum they will generate from targeting a minority like this so the notion that they had no other option doesn't really hold water. Don't forget - their funding doesn't start reducing to 2027, so they do have time to find a fairer way of getting themselves out of the mess they put themselves in.

[Barneyp]

18 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

It is possible for someone act contrary to immediate self interest - e.g. giving someone a tow despite being in a rush - but I am still making this decision based on personal circumstances. The sense that I would be doing something good overrides my sense of urgency. But this is still a decision made from a place of self interest.

 

With the ccer issue in particular some hmers seem to be hiding behind a notion that they rent their more expensive home moorings for the good of the canal.

Not everybody is as self centred as you, there is a big difference between making a decision based on "personal circumstances " and "self interest ".

 

Everyone's "personal circumstances" are different, there circumstances in the moment, and there upbringing, background, understanding of the world we live in, wealth, income, political and/or religious beliefs etc. All these mean they will view a specific situation differently from other people, and make different choices and decisions.

 

That doesn't mean everything we do is for self interest or personal benefit.

Yes sometimes we can get a sense of "doing something good" or "recognition" from being helpful or giving to charity, but we also do things because it is fair, logical or just, even though it will have a negative effect on our personal circumstances.

[Colin Brendan]

Just now, Colin Brendan said:

The ccer surcharge spread across all license holders would have amounted to a 1% increase. Chasing a particular minority with a bigger increase is more likely to chase license holders away (unless by license holder you mean 'your kind of license holder)?).

 

There are also other ways of raising the very small sum they will generate from targeting a minority like this so the notion that they had no other option doesn't really hold water. Don't forget - their funding doesn't start reducing to 2027, so they do have time to find a fairer way of getting themselves out of the mess they put themselves in.

Additionally- yes I agree with you - CRTs survey was both terrible and bias. At best it is a clear indication that home moorers came out against the ccer surcharge despite obvious personal advantage - with 60% voting against it. At worst the survey is just completely useless (so yes I do think more or less would shred it!)

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Colin Brendan said:

The ccer surcharge spread across all license holders would have amounted to a 1% increase. Chasing a particular minority with a bigger increase is more likely to chase license holders away (unless by license holder you mean 'your kind of license holder)?).

 

There are also other ways of raising the very small sum they will generate from targeting a minority like this so the notion that they had no other option doesn't really hold water. Don't forget - their funding doesn't start reducing to 2027, so they do have time to find a fairer way of getting themselves out of the mess they put themselves in.

You are obviously quite happy with the current disparity whereby people with home mooring contribute more to CRT than those without. A fair minded person lacking self-interest would see the CC surcharge as a good thing to go some way to redressing this unfair imbalance. But a self interested person just wants the cost for their little group to be minimised - let someone else pay.

[Colin Brendan]

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Not everybody is as self centred as you, there is a big difference between making a decision based on "personal circumstances " and "self interest ".

 

Everyone's "personal circumstances" are different, there circumstances in the moment, and there upbringing, background, understanding of the world we live in, wealth, income, political and/or religious beliefs etc. All these mean they will view a specific situation differently from other people, and make different choices and decisions.

 

That doesn't mean everything we do is for self interest or personal benefit.

Yes sometimes we can get a sense of "doing something good" or "recognition" from being helpful or giving to charity, but we also do things because it is fair, logical or just, even though it will have a negative effect on our personal circumstances.

Here I think we will have to agree to disagree....

[Alan de Enfield]

‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

Although remarkably, in this instance despite the inferential of the survey, 60% voted for solutions that did not include a ccer surcharge. Honestly, take a proper look at the survey results. They really are being misrepresente. 

 

 

This assertion seems counter-intuitive. Could you kindly bung up a link to the results please, so we can do as you request and have a proper look at the survey results? 

 

Many thanks.

[Colin Brendan]

10 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You are obviously quite happy with the current disparity whereby people with home mooring contribute more to CRT than those without. A fair minded person lacking self-interest would see the CC surcharge as a good thing to go some way to redressing this unfair imbalance. But a self interested person just wants the cost for their little group to be minimised - let someone else pay.

I think you rather miss my point. My point was the home mooring costs are not an altruistic act to support the waterways, they are the cost of something due to market pressures.

 

I dont think forcing a minority to be philanthropic in their license fee, and allowing a majority to remain un-philanthropic in their license fee is the way to go. It is after all the same licesnse with the same privileges, and so it should be charged the same fee. 

 

Don't forget some hmers don't half rack up the miles and lock over the summer! And where would the canal system be without ccers gently using it all year round? I imagine crt would have a hell of a job dredging silted up locks and dried out and cracked lock gates come summer if ccers werent using them all year round. Like a lot of systems this one benefits from regular use. Infact maybe crt should be paying ccers for the good work they do😂

Edited December 16, 2023 by Colin Brendan

[Barneyp]

2 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

The ccer surcharge spread across all license holders would have amounted to a 1% increase. Chasing a particular minority with a bigger increase is more likely to chase license holders away (unless by license holder you mean 'your kind of license holder)?).

 

There are also other ways of raising the very small sum they will generate from targeting a minority like this so the notion that they had no other option doesn't really hold water. Don't forget - their funding doesn't start reducing to 2027, so they do have time to find a fairer way of getting themselves out of the mess they put themselves in.

Logically boats with home moorings are more susceptible to being chased away by a licence fee rise as they are likely to be leisure boats, so not an essential for their owner.

Boats that CC are more likely to be the owners home, so the boat is essential to the owner and they are more likely to pay the increased fee and cut spending else where.

CRT are not trying to be fair, they are seeking to maximise revenue.

And fairness is subjective.

 

For clarity their funding has already started reducing in real terms (the effects of inflation,) and there is general agreement that the previous funding levels were not high enough to maintain the waterway.

 

[Colin Brendan]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This assertion seems counter-intuitive. Could you kindly bung up a link to the results please, so we can do as you request and have a proper look at the survey results? 

 

Many thanks.

If you Google Canal and Rivers Trust license survey, or possibly recent consultations, I'm sure it will pop up. It's the survey they used to justify the surcharge by really fiddling the results.

 

The survey shows 60% are against it. Everyone has come out against it. NABO ate against it. IWA are against it. NBTA are against it. AWA are against it. K AND A boaters are against it. In fact it's hard to find a boating org that like it

[magnetman]

There is another side to all this. 

 

It would be interesting to see the figures for how many 'new cc er' boats have been registered each month lets say for the last decade. 

 

Has there perhaps been a gradual increase? A rapid increase? An exponential increase? 

 

IF, and it would need to be shown by statistics, a rapid increase has been spotted then there could be potential for trouble. 

 

It might be wise to install the idea that coming onto boats may be more costly than it was in the past and thus potentially slow down the increase, if there is one. 

 

Everybody knows that too many people living on towpaths will eventually cause negative outcomes. This is how things work. It probably won't be the CRT who knock it on the head more likely a .gov department. 

 

As for calling the boat your 'home' this is disingenuous. It is a shelter but unless you have always lived on boats it isn't really a 'home' it is just a choice of shelter most likely made for financial reasons. 

You also would need to find out if people use the boat for example to be near work but actually live somewhere else. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Colin Brendan]

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Logically boats with home moorings are more susceptible to being chased away by a licence fee rise as they are likely to be leisure boats, so not an essential for their owner.

Boats that CC are more likely to be the owners home, so the boat is essential to the owner and they are more likely to pay the increased fee and cut spending else where.

CRT are not trying to be fair, they are seeking to maximise revenue.

And fairness is subjective.

 

For clarity their funding has already started reducing in real terms (the effects of inflation,) and there is general agreement that the previous funding levels were not high enough to maintain the waterway.

 

Relative reduction of funding due to inflation is par for the course at the moment. Everyone is having to look around for funding. Not everyone is finding that funding by fiddling survey results, ignoring objection by the majority of their stakeholders and stakeholder orgs, and targeting a disempowered and often financially disdvantaged minority for that funding.

[Barneyp]

4 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

I think you rather miss my point. My point was the home moorin costs are not an altruistic act to support the waterways, they are the cost of something due to market pressures.

.......

No, you have missed the point.

While the total price for mooring in a private (non CRT owned) marina or on line mooring is set by market pressures, the vast majority of these will include an amount of money that is paid to CRT (in addition to the licence fee). So the amount of money generated for CRT by a boat with a home mooring is higher than that of a CC'er. 

No one is being altruistic or philanthropic, they are just paying what they are required to. 

 

[truckcab79]

On 28/11/2022 at 14:29, pete.i said:

I cannot see why any "comfortably rich" or "well off" boater would want to run their gin palaces up and down a muddy and not always very navigable ditch for the increasing amount money required to do that. Far nicer for them to take their expensive deep drafted boats to a nice little marina/harbour on the sea shore where they can boat for less money in much pleasenter surroundings. I think that's the sort of thing Alan de Enfield did. I ditched owning my own boats round about the same time as Naughty Cal and M_JG. I'm still of the opinion that the ultimate aim of CRT is to get rid of boats all together.

Probably because like me they’re time poor and realistically getting to the nearest bit of sea, a few hours round trip to then spend not very much time on the boat and even less time to work on it (if that’s your thing), makes sailing boats pointless unless you live next to the sea or a handy lake, whereas the canals are far more convenient and practical

for access to a bit of water if that’s what you’re after.  

[agg221]

Just now, Colin Brendan said:

 

The survey shows 60% are against it. Everyone has come out against it. NABO ate against it. IWA are against it. NBTA are against it. AWA are against it. K AND A boaters are against it. In fact it's hard to find a boating org that like it

The survey does not show that 60% are against it because people were not asked that question. 60% of people asked did not express a preference for it, but that is a different question.

 

To illustrate the point, in a general election there has not been a majority vote for a single party for an inordinate amount of time, but someone has to form a government so the party which gets the most seats, usually corresponding to the most votes, does so.

 

 It is not a perfect system, and may not be the best system, but it is a valid system. In the same way, CRT needed an approach to increasing revenue and this is the one more people selected than any other.

 

Alec

[magnetman]

16 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

 

I dont think forcing a minority to be philanthropic in their license fee, and allowing a majority to remain un-philanthropic in their license fee is the way to go. It is after all the same licesnse with the same privileges, and so it should be charged the same fee. 

 

A boat over 7ft2 wide with a home mooring is having a higher licence surcharge than a cc er narrow boat..

 

Its not got anything to do with philanthropy its to do with what the navigation authority decide to charge people. 

 

Did you realise that the CRT are actually in charge of the situation? 

 

Are there issues here with authority? 

 

Guess what. If they wanted to they could be a lot more strict with movement patterns and make life much harder. 

 

This is what will happen if people bleat on too much. 

 

We're sorry but the lifestyle you ordered is out of stock. 

[Colin Brendan]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

There is another side to all this. 

 

It would be interesting to see the figures for how many 'new cc er' boats have been registered each month lets say for the last decade. 

 

Has there perhaps been a gradual increase? A rapid increase? An exponential increase? 

 

IF, and it would need to be shown by statistics, a rapid increase has been spotted then there could be potential for trouble. 

 

It might be wise to install the idea that coming onto boats may be more costly than it was in the past and thus potentially slow down the increase, if there is one. 

 

Everybody knows that too many people living on towpaths will eventually cause negative outcomes. This is how things work. It probably won't be the CRT who knock it on the head more likely a .gov department. 

 

As for calling the boat your 'home' this is disingenuous. It is a shelter but unless you have always lived on boats it isn't really a 'home' it is just a choice of shelter most likely made for financial reasons. 

You also would need to find out if people use the boat for example to be near work but actually live somewhere else. 

 

 

 

 

 

When can you call your house a 'home'? After a year? 2 years? 5 years? I've lived in my boat for 10 years. It's the longest I have ever lived in a single structure. I'd find it really hard to find anything that is more a 'home'! So either it is my 'home' or crt are targeting the 'homeless' with a surcharge for being 'homeless'. You decide😂

[Barneyp]

1 minute ago, Colin Brendan said:

Relative reduction of funding due to inflation is par for the course at the moment. Everyone is having to look around for funding. Not everyone is finding that funding by fiddling survey results, ignoring objection by the majority of their stakeholders and stakeholder orgs, and targeting a disempowered and often financially disdvantaged minority for that funding.

How have they fiddled the survey results?

Are you saying they made up the answers, because that seems unlikely.

 

Or are you actually saying you don't like the decisions they announced after the survey was completed, which is a completely different thing and involves no fiddling, because the survey was a consultation and in no way binding.