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

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Sorry if presenting both of these is confusing. 

 

You can be the devil's advocate. You support nothing, you oppose nothing. 

 

 

[magnetman]

It isn't to do with the devil. 

 

This is simply discussion not a battle. 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

It isn't to do with the devil. 

 

This is simply discussion not a battle. 

 

It's a battle.

 

 

[magnetman]

A battle would be something you could win. 

 

I don't think anyone is going to be winning in this situation and influencing the CRT seems enormously unlikely to happen.

 

What is the intended outcome of the battle as far as you are concerned?

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

A battle would be something you could win. 

 

I don't think anyone is going to be winning in this situation and influencing the CRT seems enormously unlikely to happen.

 

What is the intended outcome of the battle as far as you are concerned?

 

I'd rather like to remain on friendly terms with home moorers. This isn't going to happen, if they are treated differently to CCers, if home moorers are saved a liability the CCers aren't.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

I'd rather like to remain on friendly terms with home moorers. This isn't going to happen, if they are treated differently to CCers, if home moorers are saved a liability the CCers aren't.

 

 

 

I've got a CRT mooring. Would you remain on friendly terms with me if your licence cost doubled and mine didn't but I was still paying 5 times more money to the CRT? 

 

Is it all about how much money the other person is paying ? 

 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

I've got a CRT mooring. Would you remain on friendly terms with me if your licence cost doubled and mine didn't but I was still paying 5 times more money to the CRT? 

 

Is it all about how much money the other person is paying ? 

 

 

 

It's the principle of discrimination that matters. 

 

 

[magnetman]

 

Money going to the CRT is exactly the same regardless of whether it is via a mooring or via a licence. 

 

The pound is the same pound wherever it comes from. 

Just now, Higgs said:

 

It's the principle of discrimination that matters. 

 

 

Indeed. The only way to sort that one out would be to get everyone to pay the same regardless of how they choose to moor their boats. Everyone needs to tie the boat up at some point. 

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

Money going to the CRT is exactly the same regardless of whether it is via a mooring or via a licence. 

 

The pound is the same pound wherever it comes from. 

 

Not all moorings are online, but of those that aren't, CRT receive 9% of the mooring fee. Not all money around the system is CRT money. 

 

 

[magnetman]

Your argument about having a mooring or not having a mooring is fallacious. A lot of the story with continuous cruising is about circumstances. 

 

You can get a bias happening here if things are not leveled up. 

 

 

This is a territorial dispute isn't it. The oldest type of dispute in the book. 

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Not all moorings are online, but of those that aren't, CRT receive 9% of the mooring fee. Not all money around the system is CRT money. 

 

 

I know that. This has already been discussed. 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Your argument about having a mooring or not having a mooring is fallacious. A lot of the story with continuous cruising is about circumstances. 

 

You can get a bias happening here if things are not leveled up. 

 

 

This is a territorial dispute isn't it. The oldest type of dispute in the book. 

I know that. This has already been discussed. 

 

I think you say what's in your head, and it might make sense - accidentally.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

I make it up as I go along. 

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Your argument about having a mooring or not having a mooring is fallacious. A lot of the story with continuous cruising is about circumstances. 

 

You can get a bias happening here if things are not leveled up. 

 

 

This is a territorial dispute isn't it. The oldest type of dispute in the book. 

I know that. This has already been discussed. 

Realistically if CRT want to monetize usage of the canal system it should be applied equally. 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Naartjie said:

Realistically if CRT want to monetize usage of the canal system it should be applied equally. 

Exactly. Charge everyone the same amount. Say £5k for a licence and take away however much you are already paying via moorings. They'd be paying me money! 

 

Residential moorings should of course be excepted from calculations as you get full services and privacy but it makes sense for everyone to be paying for moorings. 

 

Maybe add up the total income from towpath moorings, divide by number of payers and add this figure to the licence fee for anyone who has not got a CRT mooring. 

 

Everyone should pay the same. Forget the service of a towpath mooring that is a red herring. 

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Naartjie said:

Realistically if CRT want to monetize usage of the canal system it should be applied equally. 

That goes against every theory of economics, as well as the way almost everything else works in real life including taxes.

 

Income is maximised by using differential pricing to get as much money as possible out of different types of customer according to their ability and willingness to pay and the benefit they receive -- see trains, planes, cars, taxes, housing, restaurants, holidays, consumer goods, food and drink, clothing...

 

Given that people have a wide range of incomes, in all these cases this results in a wide range of prices, certainly with a far bigger range than the CART license fee -- and inceasing this range to extract more money from boaters is basically what the consultation is all about.

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Exactly. Charge everyone the same amount. Say £5k for a licence and take away however much you are already paying via moorings. They'd be paying me money! 

 

Residential moorings should of course be excepted from calculations as you get full services and privacy but it makes sense for everyone to be paying for moorings. 

 

Maybe add up the total income from towpath moorings, divide by number of payers and add this figure to the licence fee for anyone who has not got a CRT mooring. 

 

Everyone should pay the same. Forget the service of a towpath mooring that is a red herring. 

 

 

But you have the advantage of a permanent mooring or doesn't that count 😏

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Naartjie said:

Realistically if CRT want to monetize usage of the canal system it should be applied equally. 

 

Indeed it should be. As much cash as possible should be wrung from every category of boater in order to achieve the best possible chance of the canal system surviving at all.

 

This is the point Higgs seems to miss whilst trying to drive wedges between CCers and home moorers.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by MtB
Clarify a point.

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, Naartjie said:

But you have the advantage of a permanent mooring or doesn't that count 😏

 

My mooring is a full residential individual berth so yes it is an advantage but someone with a towpath mooring has just that. A towpath mooring. The fact that they can leave a boat there is related to circumstances. In a lot of cases it may be a disadvantage and a compromise.

 

Don't assume that everyone who uses a CRT mooring does so because this is their preferred option.  

In a lot of cases it may be because they are not in a position to abide by the 14 day rule outlined in statute. 

[Bod]

This will look a bit off topic, but bear with it.

Where does the Govenment get it's money from?

How much extra personal taxation would you accept, both personally and as a population?

Where should the govenment spend this extra income?

This is not a political question, any party in power has the same conundrum.

As boaters we will hopefully still receive some crumbs from the political table, but will have to look more to our own resources.

 

Bod

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I'd rather like to remain on friendly terms with home moorers. This isn't going to happen, if they are treated differently to CCers, if home moorers are saved a liability the CCers aren't.

 

Why would home moorers and genuine Continuous Cruisers fall out? I think this consultation is more about justifying getting more money from Continuous Moorers with the regretable consequence of penalising genuine CCers. If it is the CMers will think they have justification for even greater p*ss taking. You may find the wedge ends up between the CMers and the the rest of us.

[Higgs]

39 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed it should be. As much cash as possible should be wrung from every category of boater in order to achieve the best possible chance of the canal system surviving at all.

 

This is the point Higgs seems to miss whilst trying to drive wedges between CCers and home moorers.

 

The best possible outcome is not likely. It hasn't been, since who knows when. With the threat of the government grant being lost, tell me who give a shit for the canal? The shortfall certainly cannot be made up by boaters.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Why would home moorers and genuine Continuous Cruisers fall out? I think this consultation is more about justifying getting more money from Continuous Moorers with the regretable consequence of penalising genuine CCers. If it is the CMers will think they have justification for even greater p*ss taking. You may find the wedge ends up between the CMers and the the rest of us.

 

If you think penalising genuine CCers is a good argument for making life cheaper for home moorers, I don't think much of it. 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Higgs

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

34 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

My mooring is a full residential individual berth so yes it is an advantage but someone with a towpath mooring has just that. A towpath mooring. The fact that they can leave a boat there is related to circumstances. In a lot of cases it may be a disadvantage and a compromise.

 

Don't assume that everyone who uses a CRT mooring does so because this is their preferred option.  

In a lot of cases it may be because they are not in a position to abide by the 14 day rule outlined in statute. 

This is a bit of a strawman argument. Or should I say Magnetman 😁

[Paul C]

34 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

If you think penalising genuine CCers is a good argument for making life cheaper for home moorers, I don't think much of it. 

 

 

It’s only a penalty if it’s a disproportionately higher cost. CCers use the towpath (and it’s facilities, eg water, service points etc) 365 days a year, while those with a home mooring, on average, only use it 9% of that time.

 

Its a rebalancing.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Paul C

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

It’s only a penalty if it’s a disproportionately higher cost. CCers use the towpath 365 days a year, while those with a home mooring, on average, only use it 9% of that time.

 

Its a rebalancing.

 

Rubbish. You'll probably see a big difference in the amount of usage, as the season starts. There is little movement during the winter, save to remain within the rules. And mooring restrictions don't begin to apply again, until the end of March. 

 

 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It’s only a penalty if it’s a disproportionately higher cost. CCers use the towpath (and it’s facilities, eg water, service points etc) 365 days a year, while those with a home mooring, on average, only use it 9% of that time.

 

Its a rebalancing.

 

 

Indeed, and about time too. Those making a Big Fuss about it are mainly those benefitting massively from the current lack of balance or fairness in the license structure.