Jump to content

The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, Athy said:

I think you're clutching at straws there. Canals are kept open to allow the passage of boats. It may be pleasant foe people to walk beside them but it has no bearing on their income as far as I'm aware.

I think you are clutching at straws, and living in a different world to me.

Do you really believe that the government subsidises the canal network so a very small minority of people can go boating?

And that the huge number of people who like walking or cycling along side the canals, or just sitting or standing and looking at them has no influence on the government.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Fatuous true and stupid accurate comparison!

I've fixed that for you.

Don't worry, I've done so completely free of charge, so you aren't my customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

It may be pleasant foe people to walk beside them but it has no bearing on their income as far as I'm aware.

 

But surely you recently learned from this thread that the government grant occurs because so many people like to walk beside them.

 

Unless you haven't been paying attention, of course!

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I would call someone who walks on the towpath a user rather than a customer.

Oh come on, not all of them are taking drugs.

But seriously, yes, you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Hmmmm, not sure on that - a lot of marina boaters will fill up at the marina, and the water/pumpout/refuse will not need servicing thru the week, then they'll go back to their home marina and service there. Thus not using any CRT service points, instead maximising their time 'rolling'.  

I'm the odd one out, I never fill with water in the marina or buy my diesel there and have never used their pumpout. mind you I have only been there 3 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

But surely you recently learned from this thread that the government grant occurs because so many people like to walk beside them.

 

Unless you haven't been paying attention, of course!

 

 

 

 

No no, the grants are awarded for the unique benefit of fishermen who sit beside a canal and cheer the place up. I'm amazed that no one has yet grasped that.

2 minutes ago, Lady C said:

It is not much fun walking alongside a derelict canal.  Also I think that many towpath walkers enjoy seeing boats, especially moving boats.

You are 100% correct.

8 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I think you are clutching at straws, and living in a different world to me.

Do you really believe that the government subsidises the canal network so a very small minority of people can go boating?

And that the huge number of people who like walking or cycling along side the canals, or just sitting or standing and looking at them has no influence on the government.

Yes.

If someone wants a pleasant walk in the country, thjere are thousands of lanes and footpaths to accommodate them. To suggest that canals be kept open just to give them somewhere else to walk is, at best, erroneous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lady C said:

It is not much fun walking alongside a derelict canal.  Also I think that many towpath walkers enjoy seeing boats, especially moving boats.

Actually, walking the Northern stretches of the Lancaster, the still to be restored upper Stroud area, the Newport, the Newry etc are fascinating, good exercise, and fun.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to be able to explore an empty and derelict canal. Far more interesting on foot than one which is in water and used.

 

Of course boats are not a novelty for me so I suppose for others the boat thing is quite important.

 

Also the CRT have as their advertising motto "Making things better by water" .

 

This is of course meaningless claptrap but it does indicate an general aim to actually have water in the canals which I suppose is a good start.

 

My T shirt says CRT on front and "keeping people, history and nature connected" on the back. Much too complicated !

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'd love to be able to explore an empty and derelict canal. Far more interesting on foot than one which is in water and used.

 

Of course boats are not a novelty for me so I suppose for others the boat thing is quite important.

 

Also the CRT have as their advertising motto "Making things better by water" .

 

This is of course meaningless claptrap but it does indicate an general aim to actually have water in the canals which I suppose is a good start.

 

My T shirt says CRT on front and "keeping people, history and nature connected" on the back. Much too complicated !

 

 

Isn't it "Life's Better By Water"?

 

But I agree, an empty and dead canal is far more interesting when on foot than a canal full of water and boats. I want more derelict canals please, CRT.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once walk the abandoned end of the Ashby to Moira Furnace.

I don’t remember enjoying the walk

I just remember getting hot and sweaty and wished I’d gone pub instead.

There was a decent pub somewhere at the end but I forget the name.

I Remember all the mining paraphernalia in the pub and imagined a different landscape outside with pit wheels everywhere.

Taxi back. 
The furnace is worth a visit, I enjoyed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Isn't it "Life's Better By Water"?

 

But I agree, an empty and dead canal is far more interesting when on foot than a canal full of water and boats. I want more derelict canals please, CRT.

 

 

Ah yes, "Making life better by water" not things. Thank you for the correction although your version was equally incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attraction to gongoozlers (and maybe cyclists), in best to worst:

 

1. Navigable canals with exciting large structures such as Pontyxxxxxxx aqueduct, Anderton lift

2. Navigable canals with smaller fun stuff like locks and opening bridges and boats occasionally going past

3. Navigable canals with Boats moored

4. (Maybe) navigable canals but with no boats apparent

5. Obviously deteriorating canals, possibly with a bit of a whiff

6. An ex-canal, silted up so you can't tell the edge any more

 

Remember, those gongoozlers (or walkers) are potential future customers. The typical pathway of a licence paying canal boater might be:

 

1. Occasional walker along canals
2. Active walker who seeks out canals

3. Gongoozler who specifically seeks out boating on canals, possibly even interfering with the boater*

4. Day hire boater

5. Week hire boater

6. Licence paying boat owner

 

 

* Not what you think! I mean, looking closely at locks, getting in the way maybe, asking daft questions. Maybe "interacting" would be a better word than interfering.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Exactly this^^^^ however Ian wants an empty canal so he can enjoy rapid and quiet cruising!!! I would except a inflation plus say 10% rise for everyone but targeting groups is only going to cause upset. I have spoken to my MP about the consultation and he will take it up with the waterways minister. At the end of the day the waterways belong to the people not CRT they are supposed to manage it for us  clearly they are failing so perhaps a cha6of management is required not consultation 

 

 

Peter, you're talking complete b*llocks.

 

If I wanted an empty canal so I can enjoy quiet cruising, why would I keep suggesting ways to change the license fee in favour of less well-off boaters, to prevent them being priced off the canal, and to extract more money from well-off boaters like me?

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've suggested this but it seems you somehow failed to read any of them, and just attribute views to me which are the exact opposite of those I actually hold.

 

In fact what you want -- a flat fee rise for everyone so you don't have to pay a lot more as a "persecuted" wideboater -- would help to do exactly what I want to avoid, which is drive poorer boaters off the canals.

 

Are you a sock puppet for TWC?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Isn't it "Life's Better By Water"?

 

But I agree, an empty and dead canal is far more interesting when on foot than a canal full of water and boats. I want more derelict canals please, CRT.

 

 

Be careful what you wish for.

I must admit that a few years ago I thoroughly enjoyed walking along the derelict part of the Crmford Canal from Langley Mill to Butterley Tunnel and back. But part of the enjoyment was imagining the baots and people who had pased along it in days of yore, and foreseeing those who would do so in tthe future.

 

The "better by water" slogan is actually rather clever, is it can by interpreted in two ways, as "travelling by water" and "being beside water".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Boaters with a home mooring are contributing a great deal more to C&RTs coffers than CC/CMers.

Take the licence fee out of the equation as both HMs and CM/CC are paying it.

 

HMs, via various routes, are paying 'extra' in the following ways >......................

 

Direct C&RT owned moorings - £8.9m

Via the NAA - £10.8m

 

So ~£20,000,000 contribution by HMs whilst the CM/CC contribution is £0

 

It is about time that each boater paid their fair share, and until tracking, movement and payment per mile is introduced the licence fee is the only way.

 

That wasn't my question though. My question was why the hell 5000 boats should be expected to pay the same total amount as much as 30000 boats? That's like concluding villagers should be moved up to the top council tax band because the neighbouring town 6x the size has more taxpayers

 

HMs, by your calculations, contribute £66 per boat more than CCers to CRT coffers for their moorings, which I must admit is a lot less than I thought it would be (and strongly suggests that they're not making nearly as much as they should from NAA agreements). Quite happy to pay the CRT an extra £66, especially if I get a mooring with it! Fair's fair, innit.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Just now, enigmatic said:

 

That wasn't my question though. My question was why the hell 5000 boats should be expected to pay the same total amount as much as 30000 boats? That's like concluding villagers should be moved up to the top council tax band because the neighbouring town 6x the size has more taxpayers

 

 

 

 

Was that ever suggested? I believe the proposal is to charge CCers based on a fairer split of their use of services/facilities. Note, fairer, not fair. A fair split would be administratively difficult to achieve because it would need much more granular accounting of which services exactly, CCers did use which home moorers didn't, together with a matrix of their cost and possibly even a third dimension based on location and other dimensions too. Which is clearly not achievable nor collectable.

 

2.5x has been mooted.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Attraction to gongoozlers (and maybe cyclists), in best to worst:

 

1. Navigable canals with exciting large structures such as Pontyxxxxxxx aqueduct, Anderton lift

2. Navigable canals with smaller fun stuff like locks and opening bridges and boats occasionally going past

3. Navigable canals with Boats moored

4. (Maybe) navigable canals but with no boats apparent

5. Obviously deteriorating canals, possibly with a bit of a whiff

6. An ex-canal, silted up so you can't tell the edge any more

 

Remember, those gongoozlers (or walkers) are potential future customers. The typical pathway of a licence paying canal boater might be:

 

1. Occasional walker along canals
2. Active walker who seeks out canals

3. Gongoozler who specifically seeks out boating on canals, possibly even interfering with the boater*

4. Day hire boater

5. Week hire boater

6. Licence paying boat owner

 

 

* Not what you think! I mean, looking closely at locks, getting in the way maybe, asking daft questions. Maybe "interacting" would be a better word than interfering.

 

 

 

That's very lucidly put. Personally my favourite on your list of attractions would be number 2; and Mrs. Athy and I somehow skipped the earlier steps of the "pathway" and went straight in at number 5. But I realise that we aren't typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I would call someone who walks on the towpath a user rather than a customer.

But as they pay towards the cost of the towpath via both taxes and council tax, they are a customer. Either way, the words don't really matter - it's usage that matters, and they use the canals far more than anyone else, unless you're a fish. CRT runs a heritage park, and almost all the users cannot be clobbered for more money. I wonder if they've thought of running a "sponsor a fish" promotion.

Of course, if the bridges and locks had been named after prominent slave traders, the current government would be screaming blue murder if they were left to fall into the water. Unfortunately, it's not a workable solution as the next government would then junk the lot. You can't rely on anything in these uncertain times.

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

.Was that ever suggested? I believe the proposal is to charge CCers based on a fairer split of their use of services/facilities. Note, fairer, not fair. A fair split would be administratively difficult to achieve because it would need much more granular accounting of which services exactly, CCers did use which home moorers didn't, together with a matrix of their cost and possibly even a third dimension based on location and other dimensions too. Which is clearly not achievable nor collectable.

 

2.5x has been mooted.

 

It's not CRT's rationale for a 2.5x licence fee, but Alan's original post on the subject was "If we are looking for equality maybe the 5000 CCers would like to match the £8.1m paid (in addition to their licence fees) by boats with a home mooring". Since then he's added the NAA fees to our bill too. :D 

 

 

I just pointed out that what Alan's calcs actually suggested was that this would actually end up paying vastly more than the average home moorer contributed to the CRT coffers! For less entitlement. Actually amazed that, if correct, CRT is only getting an average of £66 per year extra for boaters with paid moorings

 

Anyway, it doesn't really make much sense to charge services based on usage when most of the upkeep cost is fixed and heavy users don't have more purchasing power. If all us CCers went and got moorings to mostly stay on like Good Boaters Who Definitely Shouldn't Pay More, lock repair and waste disposal contracts and bridge maintenance would be almost exactly the same, and people would still need locks and Elsan points for their summer holiday. There's a much better argument for 1.5x ing 2x ing everyone's licence from the point of view of revenue raising than 2.5x ing the licence of the subset of boaters with the fewest entitlements. 

 

-

 

Related tangent: if that £20m the CRT gets for NAA agreements comes with strings attached to restrict CRT's ability to sell competing moorings in the area (potentially residential ones for £2k+, which I'm sure would be an excellent revenue source in some parts of the country with more demand for moorings than moorings) which I think it does, they've seriously underpriced it at £10m revenue for tens of thousands of boats...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

That wasn't my question though. My question was why the hell 5000 boats should be expected to pay the same total amount as much as 30000 boats? That's like concluding villagers should be moved up to the top council tax band because the neighbouring town 6x the size has more taxpayers

 

HMs, by your calculations, contribute £66 per boat more than CCers to CRT coffers for their moorings, which I must admit is a lot less than I thought it would be (and strongly suggests that they're not making nearly as much as they should from NAA agreements). Quite happy to pay the CRT an extra £66, especially if I get a mooring with it! Fair's fair, innit.

 

Non marina moorers do, in fact, get moved up to the top rate paid by their better off neighbours. My mooring fee to CRT is twice what I pay for my personal mooring, which appears to be at the going rate for my canal (at least, its what I've paid at 2 separate moorings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.