Fund Britain's Waterways

[haggis]

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

But if they reduced membership to £1 per year they would have many more members, so that argument alone does not hold water.

And how much do you think it would cost to run the secretarial systems to get these members then charge them £1 a year ? Most/all of the organisations which represent boaters and fight on our behalf are run by volunteers but it still costs them to run the organisation. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, LadyG said:

But if they reduced membership to £1 per year they would have many more members, so that argument alone does not hold water.

 

The cost of processing each individual membership would cost significantly more than a quid.

[LadyG]

11 minutes ago, haggis said:

And how much do you think it would cost to run the secretarial systems to get these members then charge them £1 a year ? Most/all of the organisations which represent boaters and fight on our behalf are run by volunteers but it still costs them to run the organisation. 

I don't know how much it costs, these days there won't be postage which would have been significant at one time, phones and computers also much cheaper. 

I am not proposing a charge of £1.

There must be a reason for lack of membership of existing organisations, and one major reason is "perceived value".

Edited June 30, 2023 by LadyG

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I don't know how much it costs, these days there won't be postage which would have been significant at one time, phones and computers also much cheaper. 

I am not proposing a charge of £1.

There must be a reason for lack of membership of existing organisations, and one major reason is "perceived value".

 

If by that you mean "ineffectiveness in actually getting things changed for the benefit of boaters" then I'd agree -- nobody want to give money to organisations who make no difference, however noble their motives are, and that's pretty much how it's seen today -- lots of fragmented groups all representing small subsections of the boating community.

 

If FBW do have enough clout to get something done by pulling all the boating organisations together then I suspect a lot of boaters would be happy to pay a lot more than £1 a year to support them.

 

This does mean that said organisations might have to recognise that it's better for them to pull together with everyone else for the greater good -- even if their specific objectives are not emphasized -- rather than focusing on what matters most to their particular members and getting absolutely no attention, which is pretty much what happens today.

 

I think it really is a case where joint/collective action could do a lot more than a ragtag bunch of uncoordinated ones. Whether the people inside all these separate organisations can be persuaded to see it that way might well be the stumbling block -- Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea, anyone? 😉

Edited June 30, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

But if they reduced membership to £1 per year they would have many more members, so that argument alone does not hold water.

I was not suggesting they should reduce the cost to attract members but how more effective they could be if all boaters joined. Even if they dropped it to a pound lots still wouldn't bother. Better to let someone else do it.

Edited June 30, 2023 by ditchcrawler

[Paul C]

1. Has there been an actual, government announcement yet?
2. What is the overarching strategy of any campaign group? What are they fighting for? More government funding? How much more? How long for? etc

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

1. Has there been an actual, government announcement yet?
2. What is the overarching strategy of any campaign group? What are they fighting for? More government funding? How much more? How long for? etc

No government announcement yet, but even the most optimistic are not expecting a grant that will enable CRT to fully maintain the waterways. And this isn't just about CRT.

 

 

Quote from the opening paragraph of the FBW webpage:

"We are campaigning for national and local government to act now and protect the public benefit and natural capital of our waterways."

 

To answer your specific questions:

What are they fighting for? - the preservation of the waterways.

 

More government funding? How much more? - enough to preserve the waterways, or more realistically as much as they can get.

 

How long for? - for as long as possible. 

11 hours ago, LadyG said:

I would like to support an organisation that intends to lobby government.

I need to understand what plans they have for the year and what costs are involved. 

I assume a lot of the work is going to be voluntary.

The Early Day Motion pulled together MPs, is this the route envisaged?

Then you need to do some research, any campaigning organisation is going to have a lot of different strategies in play at the same time.

The EDM is one way of raising awareness amongst MPs, but it is not a solution in its own right.

On 29/06/2023 at 00:25, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 That’s it I’m not. I just wanted to know a bit more about them from members. 
  Maybe they could campaign to get something done about the Northern canals, as I hear all the routes over the Pennines are closed due to stoppages. Maybe they’re more active campaigning in the South East and West?

So you'd only support them if there campaigns have already been successful- at which point they wouldn't need yours or anyone else's support.

The closures are the direct responsibility of CRT, and indirectly of the government for not providing enough funds. FBW and the organisation behind it are trying to do something to increase the funding - if you want the waterways to be better funded you need to do something rather than hope others do it for you.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

34 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 

So you'd only support them if there campaigns have already been successful- at which point they wouldn't need yours or anyone else's support.

The closures are the direct responsibility of CRT, and indirectly of the government for not providing enough funds. FBW and the organisation behind it are trying to do something to increase the funding - if you want the waterways to be better funded you need to do something rather than hope others do it for you.

 What are you doing, Are you joining the cause?

 I pay CaRT money and have done for several years. I would rather my licence be increased to raise funds than donate to flag waving organisations. I don’t see the IWA or any of the other organisations mentioned helping me when locks malfunction., or out refilling pounds. There’s no perfect solution and I doubt this new organisation will do anything spectacular anytime soon.😱😱

[Paul C]

47 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

No government announcement yet, but even the most optimistic are not expecting a grant that will enable CRT to fully maintain the waterways. And this isn't just about CRT.

 

 

Quote from the opening paragraph of the FBW webpage:

"We are campaigning for national and local government to act now and protect the public benefit and natural capital of our waterways."

 

To answer your specific questions:

What are they fighting for? - the preservation of the waterways.

 

More government funding? How much more? - enough to preserve the waterways, or more realistically as much as they can get.

 

How long for? - for as long as possible. 

 

 

Thank you. Are they addressing the "value for money" angle with a well-thought out argument?

[sueb]

Boater apathy is the biggest enemy of the waterways. For years boaters have believed that spouting on the internet is sufficient. I wish the collective group all the best. 

[Barneyp]

30 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 What are you doing, Are you joining the cause?

 I pay CaRT money and have done for several years. I would rather my licence be increased to raise funds than donate to flag waving organisations. I don’t see the IWA or any of the other organisations mentioned helping me when locks malfunction., or out refilling pounds. There’s no perfect solution and I doubt this new organisation will do anything spectacular anytime soon.😱😱

 

CRT is a charity, if you want to give them more money you can.

 

Licence fees account for less than 10% of CRT's income, even doubling them would not make up the shortfall in funding. 

 

Realistically we can either accept that the canals will continue to decline, or we can try to change things, if we all had your attitude it clear that they will decline.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

42 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 

CRT is a charity, if you want to give them more money you can.

 

Licence fees account for less than 10% of CRT's income, even doubling them would not make up the shortfall in funding. 

 

Realistically we can either accept that the canals will continue to decline, or we can try to change things, if we all had your attitude it clear that they will decline.

 Please tell me something that hasn’t been said on here before, your repeating everything that has been discussed and said on here over many years.

  The problem of funding will not be fixed by some new boater funded organisation, maybe someone from the organisations signed up to it can give us their thoughts and aims, Maybe Torksey Yacht Club?
  Or you can give us your solution how to save the canals and I guarantee it’s been said before. The canal infrastructure is old, getting worn out and there’s more people buying boats and using it. The issues are many.

[magnetman]

It is a shame there aren't any ridiculously rich people with a philanthropic/tax avoidance attitude who could throw endless millions at the canals as a personal project. 

 

Why is it that such a wonderful piece of heritage infrastructure does not attract tech billionaires? 

 

Is it the boats ?

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

Just now, magnetman said:

It is a shame there aren't any ridiculously rich people with a philanthropic/tax avoidance attitude who could throw endless millions at the canals as a personal project. 

 

Why is it that such a wonderful piece of heritage infrastructure does not attract tech billionaires? 

 

Is it the boats ?

 Their more interested in going into space or trying to see the Titanic and killing themselves. Or they could be like many people and don’t appreciate what’s on their own doorstep. 

[Barneyp]

8 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 Please tell me something that hasn’t been said on here before, your repeating everything that has been discussed and said on here over many years.

  The problem of funding will not be fixed by some new boater funded organisation, maybe someone from the organisations signed up to it can give us their thoughts and aims, Maybe Torksey Yacht Club?
  Or you can give us your solution how to save the canals and I guarantee it’s been said before. The canal infrastructure is old, getting worn out and there’s more people buying boats and using it. The issues are many.

Yes, I know I'm repeating what has been said before, I'm repeating it because you and others don't seem to be able to hear it, or prefer not to hear it because you would rather do nothing.

 

To answer the specific points you raise:

"The canal infrastructure is old, getting worn out and there’s more people buying boats and using it." 

It was even more worn out, and most of the equipment (lock gates, paddles, swing bridges etc) were older and in far worse condition when the government stepped in to save it in the 1960's. And the number of boats and boaters was increasing.

 

"The problem of funding will not be fixed by some new boater funded organisation,"

The boater funded organisation is not trying to supply the funding, it is trying to make the government do that. The IWA did this successfully in the 1960's and other organisations continue to influence government policy in a whole range of policy areas today.

 

The biggest threat to the canals is those that use and benefit from them ( boaters including canoeists and paddle boarders etc, walkers, cyclists(!), anglers and others) not bothering to try and preserve them.

 

10 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Thank you. Are they addressing the "value for money" angle with a well-thought out argument?

I don't know, I assume they will use any angle that will have some effect.

For some MP's the heritage angle will work, for others it will be the health benefits - mental and or physical, for others the tourism/economic value.

[Paul C]

50 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 

 

I don't know, I assume they will use any angle that will have some effect.

For some MP's the heritage angle will work, for others it will be the health benefits - mental and or physical, for others the tourism/economic value.

 

I think you might have misunderstood my point. It is that, yes there's heritage, heath, tourism etc benefits but compared to others that want government money (energy bill relief, more hospitals, more police, nurses pay, rail network, etc etc) its poor value for money, because the general public only perceive the benefit the canal brings in a very marginal way (ie they wouldn't miss it if its gone).

 

Answers like "I don't know, I assume....." don't inspire confidence that there is a coherent argument to keep the canals. Of course, there is the heritage aspect, and that "once its gone, its gone" but I think this area needs further exploration. For example, "is it possible to retain a significant heritage value by downsizing the network, whilst making a significant cost saving?" It seems the mindset of keeping it 100% and treating the govt funding as an infinite money tree, is in place.

 

We need to be realistic. Some areas of the canal network are very sparsely used, and some areas of the canal network cost disproportionately more to maintain navigable. And that those who want to retain these areas are in a minority.

 

If there is a flaw in my logic, let me know. If there's some key aspect I've missed, let me know too. If its just an emotive reaction, sure go ahead, but it won't actually further the cause with the purse-holders.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

2 hours ago, Barneyp said:

Yes, I know I'm repeating what has been said before, I'm repeating it because you and others don't seem to be able to hear it, or prefer not to hear it because you would rather do nothing.

 

To answer the specific points you raise:

"The canal infrastructure is old, getting worn out and there’s more people buying boats and using it." 

It was even more worn out, and most of the equipment (lock gates, paddles, swing bridges etc) were older and in far worse condition when the government stepped in to save it in the 1960's. And the number of boats and boaters was increasing.

 

"The problem of funding will not be fixed by some new boater funded organisation,"

The boater funded organisation is not trying to supply the funding, it is trying to make the government do that. The IWA did this successfully in the 1960's and other organisations continue to influence government policy in a whole range of policy areas today.

 

The biggest threat to the canals is those that use and benefit from them ( boaters including canoeists and paddle boarders etc, walkers, cyclists(!), anglers and others) not bothering to try and preserve them.

 

I don't know, I assume they will use any angle that will have some effect.

For some MP's the heritage angle will work, for others it will be the health benefits - mental and or physical, for others the tourism/economic value.

I take it you haven’t been on the Canals long as you seam to be living in the rose coloured Rosie and Jim world.

 Do you live on your boat CCing?

  Totally different world from Rolts 1960’s and the IWA maybe hasn’t got any clout with Government, very few young people and even the new £200k boat owners haven’t got a clue about and aren’t  interested in the heritage of the canals, the ones living on them just want a cheap place to live and don’t move, taking what they can then moving off, the new £200k boaters seam to be more interested in putting themselves on social media than anything else.

 I know what the funding is for, as you say not for repairs but to shout about things and lobbying, how much will be eaten up be administration, wages and expenses?

 The Funds friendly MP’s aren’t going to seriously lobby about the canals, their constituents have more pressing things to worry about, cost of living rises, increased crime, Policing the streets, NHS, closing down of social and health facilities, should I go on. They would rather want their local MP to fight for these rather than fight to restore/maintain a canal that they might see only used by the more wealthy.

  Sorry but the reality is the canal system may be on a slow decline for boaters and the towpath may just become a cycle leisure path. 

   

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

I think you might have misunderstood my point. It is that, yes there's heritage, heath, tourism etc benefits but compared to others that want government money (energy bill relief, more hospitals, more police, nurses pay, rail network, etc etc) its poor value for money, because the general public only perceive the benefit the canal brings in a very marginal way (ie they wouldn't miss it if its gone).

 

Answers like "I don't know, I assume....." don't inspire confidence that there is a coherent argument to keep the canals. Of course, there is the heritage aspect, and that "once its gone, its gone" but I think this area needs further exploration. For example, "is it possible to retain a significant heritage value by downsizing the network, whilst making a significant cost saving?" It seems the mindset of keeping it 100% and treating the govt funding as an infinite money tree, is in place.

 

We need to be realistic. Some areas of the canal network are very sparsely used, and some areas of the canal network cost disproportionately more to maintain navigable. And that those who want to retain these areas are in a minority.

 

If there is a flaw in my logic, let me know. If there's some key aspect I've missed, let me know too. If its just an emotive reaction, sure go ahead, but it won't actually further the cause with the 

I'm not sure what you want, other than a cast iron guarantee that any funds given to a pressure/campaign group will definitely mean they will get 100% of what they want, and obviously that's not possible.

 

I accept that expecting the government to fully fund the whole system is optimistic, but as with all things the more pressure that is put on them the more they will do, so if the boating organisations mount a strong campaign to preserve the waterways it's likely that government funding will be more than it otherwise would have been. 

 

Yes there are other demands for government money, but they've always been there and previous governments have found money for the canals and other things that are not as "essential" or "important" (eg the Arts, local parks, National Parks etc). The "wellbeing" argument for funding the canals has always existed- it just wasn't called wellbeing.

 

1 hour ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I take it you haven’t been on the Canals long as you seam to be living in the rose coloured Rosie and Jim world.

 Do you live on your boat CCing?

  Totally different world from Rolts 1960’s and the IWA maybe hasn’t got any clout with Government, very few young people and even the new £200k boat owners haven’t got a clue about and aren’t  interested in the heritage of the canals, the ones living on them just want a cheap place to live and don’t move, taking what they can then moving off, the new £200k boaters seam to be more interested in putting themselves on social media than anything else.

 I know what the funding is for, as you say not for repairs but to shout about things and lobbying, how much will be eaten up be administration, wages and expenses?

 The Funds friendly MP’s aren’t going to seriously lobby about the canals, their constituents have more pressing things to worry about, cost of living rises, increased crime, Policing the streets, NHS, closing down of social and health facilities, should I go on. They would rather want their local MP to fight for these rather than fight to restore/maintain a canal that they might see only used by the more wealthy.

  Sorry but the reality is the canal system may be on a slow decline for boaters and the towpath may just become a cycle leisure path. 

   

 

No I don't live on my boat, i do spend a lot of time on the canals, and I talk to liveaboards and leisure boaters. Very few are either £200k boat owners or those just wanting a cheap place to live, I think the majority of boat owners do not fall into either category.

 

I agree the IWA ( or any other boating organisations) have any very little clout with the government, and they didn't in the 1950's or early 60's. And if people like you get your way they never will again.

 

Alternatively if a large number of boaters were prepared to lend their support to this new campaign and the organisations behind it they could get some clout with the government.

 

The arguments about there being stronger demands for money from the NHS, police, education etc. don't stack up, its always been that way and yet governments have always found money for the Arts and leisure activities.

[Paul C]

28 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I'm not sure what you want, other than a cast iron guarantee that any funds given to a pressure/campaign group will definitely mean they will get 100% of what they want, and obviously that's not possible.

 

I accept that expecting the government to fully fund the whole system is optimistic, but as with all things the more pressure that is put on them the more they will do, so if the boating organisations mount a strong campaign to preserve the waterways it's likely that government funding will be more than it otherwise would have been. 

 

Yes there are other demands for government money, but they've always been there and previous governments have found money for the canals and other things that are not as "essential" or "important" (eg the Arts, local parks, National Parks etc). The "wellbeing" argument for funding the canals has always existed- it just wasn't called wellbeing.

 

 

Yeah, maybe you're right, I'm being too optimistic here. I was hoping for a "golden egg" of some new angle or persuasive argument for the continued 100% funding of canals. But it looks like its not coming, and that there's an inevitability - if logic is applied - that it will decline in some way or another. Indeed it may be argued that its already declining. Whether that decline will accelerate, and by a lot or a little, and how it will pragmatically play out, is perhaps a better area to focus on. A mature sense of realism rather than a simplistic, but doomed, stance?

[Tony Brooks]

On 28/06/2023 at 21:36, GUMPY said:

It will be much the same as the Save Our System protests in 2009/10 about BW funding.

Protests including blocking the use of canals and what happened SFA !

Well not exactly true it pushed the formation of CaRT forward.

 

There was even an EDM in parliament

 

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/39776/inland-waterways-and-funding

 

Yes, there were two and my MP refused to sign both without what I consider a valid reason. One reason was he was putting his political career above constituents interests (he actually said the convention prevented him signings it - since when was convention law?) The other reason was that he could not be bothered to get of his backside to sign it (he actually said "I do not sign EDMs because they do no good).

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

44 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The arguments about there being stronger demands for money from the NHS, police, education etc. don't stack up, its always been that way and yet governments have always found money for the Arts and leisure activities.

Of course they stack up, people want a better future for their kids and want money spent on education, policing, NHS and public services rather than the canals. Maybe you came to the Canals too late and are hoping or clutching at the dream. Reality is the world is changing both economically and Environmentally, the general public have more concerning issues than supporting  millions of pounds being spent on the canals, they want it spent on issues that effect real world living. 

[Barneyp]

7 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Of course they stack up, people want a better future for their kids and want money spent on education, policing, NHS and public services rather than the canals. Maybe you came to the Canals too late and are hoping or clutching at the dream. Reality is the world is changing both economically and Environmentally, the general public have more concerning issues than supporting  millions of pounds being spent on the canals, they want it spent on issues that effect real world living. 

And did they not have the same concerns 20, 30, or 40+ years ago?

 

People have always wanted a "better" future for their kids, and for many part of that better future includes access to wildlife and nature, a chance to see some of our industrial heritage etc.

They don't want our canals and rivers to become stagnant ditches ( and I know that could be prevented without maintaining navigation).

 

Every year the government spend billions of pounds on things that you would categorise as not "effecting real world living" (£12.88 BILLION on "recreation,  culture and religion" in the financial year 21/22). The canals are only asking for a tiny fraction of that. And I would argue it does have a positive effect on real world living.

 

 

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

And did they not have the same concerns 20, 30, or 40+ years ago?

 

People have always wanted a "better" future for their kids, and for many part of that better future includes access to wildlife and nature, a chance to see some of our industrial heritage etc.

They don't want our canals and rivers to become stagnant ditches ( and I know that could be prevented without maintaining navigation).

 

Every year the government spend billions of pounds on things that you would categorise as not "effecting real world living" (£12.88 BILLION on "recreation,  culture and religion" in the financial year 21/22). The canals are only asking for a tiny fraction of that. And I would argue it does have a positive effect on real world living.

 

 

You'ne not going to convince @BoatinglifeupNorth that he's wrong, this is basically an argument between pessimists like him and Alan and optimists like you and me, and what we all think might happen in the future.

 

Of course if all boaters take his pessimistic view that it's all going to go to hell in a handbasket and do nothing to support campaigns like FBW, this increases the chance of it happening -- then they can say "I told you so" 😞

 

My view is that such a campaign -- if it has any effect -- can only decrease the chance of a downward spiral to doom, so it would be better for boaters to support it 🙂

Edited July 1, 2023 by IanD

[Barneyp]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You'ne not going to convince @BoatinglifeupNorth that he's wrong, this is basically an argument between pessimists like him and Alan and optimists like you and me, and what we all think might happen in the future.

 

Of course if all boaters take his pessimistic view that it's all going to go to hell in a handbasket and do nothing to support campaigns like FBW, this increases the chance of it happening -- then they can say "I told you so" 😞

 

My view is that such a campaign -- if it has any effect -- can only decrease the chance of a downward spiral to doom, so it would be better for boaters to support it 🙂

Unfortunately the two people you mention and others like them love to be right, and hate to be proved wrong. So they would actually be dissapointed if there was a significant increase in funding.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

43 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Unfortunately the two people you mention and others like them love to be right, and hate to be proved wrong. So they would actually be dissapointed if there was a significant increase in funding.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I live on the canals full time unlike yourself and @IanD I’ve felt and seen the decline in the canal system over the last few years like everyone else that lives on the water. I see the stoppages, water shortages and closed/broken service stations, unlike you and @IanD who has just had a bit of reality check trying to find moorings for his boat, with very few available in his desired area. So don’t be so judgmental with people’s views until you do it for real and not just play at it.

Edited July 1, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth