Fund Britain's Waterways

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

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.

I'm not being judgemental -- and if you want to indulge in boater willy-waving I've seen how the canals have changed over the last 40 years, and have probably been through a lot more badly-maintained locks than you have over that period... 😉

 

Nobody is denying that the canal system has being going downhill more rapidly for at least 10 years, maybe even 20, due to lack of maintainance and funding.

 

The question is whether to try and encourage an organisation that wants to do something about it, or just sit and moan that it's all going to get worse and do nothing to try and stop it -- and tell everyone else there's no point so they don't either, and it comes to pass.

 

If that's what you want to do then go ahead. Don't expect everyone else to agree with you though... 😉

Edited July 1, 2023 by IanD

[Barneyp]

15 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

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.

I think you have completely missed my point, I am not in any way disputing the current condition of the system or the fact that it has declined. I agree with you completely on that, and I accept that you are in a better position to judge the state of the system than me.

 

I am saying that I think we should try to make things better, and even if we fail we will at least slow the rate of decline.

 

You seem to be saying that the despite the fact that the decline was reversed 50+ years ago, and that even today the government are still willing to fund "non essential" things if the right pressure is put on them, the decline can not be reversed or even slowed so we shouldn't bother trying. 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I think you have completely missed my point, I am not in any way disputing the current condition of the system or the fact that it has declined. I agree with you completely on that, and I accept that you are in a better position to judge the state of the system than me.

 

I am saying that I think we should try to make things better, and even if we fail we will at least slow the rate of decline.

 

You seem to be saying that the despite the fact that the decline was reversed 50+ years ago, and that even today the government are still willing to fund "non essential" things if the right pressure is put on them, the decline can not be reversed or even slowed so we shouldn't bother trying. 

Like yourself and @IanD I don’t want to see the Canals decline anymore, I love being on them, but I just wish someone could come up with a future strategy plan that will work for the boaters(not cycle towpaths, paddle board launch areas and fishing platforms) Any new ideas which haven’t been mentioned before of have the slightest chance of succeeding.

[magnetman]

FBW could be taken in a number of different ways. 

 

Fund, Fix, Free, there are others. 

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Like yourself and @IanD I don’t want to see the Canals decline anymore, I love being on them, but I just wish someone could come up with a future strategy plan that will work for the boaters(not cycle towpaths, paddle board launch areas and fishing platforms) Any new ideas which haven’t been mentioned before of have the slightest chance of succeeding.

 

The first problem is that non-boater things like you mention is where the government seems to wants CART to spend its money, because they benefit far more people than 35000 boaters -- in spite of the fact that the boaters are what keep the canals open and used.

 

The second problem is that the government wants to reduce the already inadequate amount it does spend, it seems to think that it's not part of its job to preserve Britain's history and industrial archaeology.

 

Getting a shift in both these attitudes will need a lot of pressure and campaigning, and right now this is not working, there are just too many small organisations each focusing on the particular interests of their members, when what is needed is one strong voice with a lot of support.

 

If it works and enough organisations (and boaters!) back it, the FBW group might at least improve the chances of doing something about it.

 

A new government might help too, even though canals would hardly be their first priority Labour -- driven by Barbara Castle were responsible for saving them the first time, so maybe they can be encouraged to do it again... 😉

Edited July 1, 2023 by IanD

[Barneyp]

1 minute ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Like yourself and @IanD I don’t want to see the Canals decline anymore, I love being on them, but I just wish someone could come up with a future strategy plan that will work for the boaters(not cycle towpaths, paddle board launch areas and fishing platforms) Any new ideas which haven’t been mentioned before of have the slightest chance of succeeding.

Why do you see paddle board launch areas and fishing platforms as a problem? I get the objection to cycle ways on towpaths.

 

The FBW campaign that started this thread is about preserving and maintaining the waterways, surely that is good for boaters.

While your ideal world might be one where the canals are just for boaters most people have recognised that there are not enough boaters to justify the government funding the waterways, so if the wider population are encouraged to enjoy them it will make more sense for the government to continue (and possibly increase) their funding.

 

If it ensures future government funding I am willing to share the canals with canoeists, paddle boarders, walkers, bird watchers, anglers etc,  and I'm even willing to accept cyclists.

 

Are you really saying you'd only back a plan that was for the exclusive benefit of boaters?

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Why do you see paddle board launch areas and fishing platforms as a problem? I get the objection to cycle ways on towpaths.

 

The FBW campaign that started this thread is about preserving and maintaining the waterways, surely that is good for boaters.

While your ideal world might be one where the canals are just for boaters most people have recognised that there are not enough boaters to justify the government funding the waterways, so if the wider population are encouraged to enjoy them it will make more sense for the government to continue (and possibly increase) their funding.

 

If it ensures future government funding I am willing to share the canals with canoeists, paddle boarders, walkers, bird watchers, anglers etc,  and I'm even willing to accept cyclists.

 

Are you really saying you'd only back a plan that was for the exclusive benefit of boaters?

 

That's the problem with the attitude of some on here, which seem to be that boaters interests should take priority over "everyone else" (the great unwashed public, especially cyclists) -- but "everyone else" should pay for the canals.

 

To which the answer is obvious but likely to be unpopular, because it would probably mean license fees of maybe £5000/year on average -- maybe £10000/year if this drives a lot of boaters off the canals, leaving mainly hire boats and a few rich boaters.

 

Be careful what you wish for... 😉

 

20 minutes ago, magnetman said:

FBW could be taken in a number of different ways. 

 

Fund, Fix, Free, there are others. 

 

Or another obvious but obscene one for people who want them to fail... 😉

Edited July 1, 2023 by IanD

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

I don’t mind paddle boarders or fisherman, I don’t mind my license going up as long as I can use the canals and move, but I don’t want long stretches of canal with a broken down impassible lock at each end filled with paddle boarders and a nicely tarmac towpath for the E-bikes. If more funding is ever made available stipulating it has to used for recreational and well-being then that could be the end of a lot of the canals for the boats. The funding needs to be for upkeep and repairs of the navigation.

  

Edited July 1, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Barneyp]

35 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I don’t mind paddle boarders or fisherman, I don’t mind my license going up as long as I can use the canals and move, but I don’t want long stretches of canal with a broken down impassible lock at each end filled with paddle boarders and a nicely tarmac towpath for the E-bikes. If more funding is ever made available stipulating it has to used for recreational and well-being then that could be the end of a lot of the canals for the boats. The funding needs to be for upkeep and repairs of the navigation.

  

CRT spend their funds on the upkeep of the waterways under their control, they have to maintain the waterway and everything that goes with it e.g. bridges, towpaths etc.

They don't generally pay for tarmac towpaths, sustrans and other organisations fund those.

 

Boaters have 2 options:

1)We can be part of the campaign for increased funding and ensure that our needs are taken account of when those funds are spent.

2)We can choose to not be part of the conversation and allow others (eg walkers, cyclists, paddle boarders, anglers* etc) to have their needs prioritised at the expense of boaters

 

It seems you are determined to take option 2

 

 

*I could also have listed National Parks, Nature Reserves, Country Parks, Sports Clubs and many more organisations and activities that are campaigning for some form of government funding, ultimately the money is limited and we are competing against all of them.

[Midnight]

I've been through this thread and looked at the website but I still don't know what they want me to do apart from attend a protest meeting in Birmingham which I am unable to get to. It looks to me that if I join or donate the money goes to the IWA. Isn't that the toothless bunch that sit alongside C&RT and have lost the will to challenge them? Didn't the IWA lose loads of members because of that?
 

The real problem is surely C&RT itself? Quoting Toddbrook isn't going to help when the report put the blame on poor inspection and maintenance. As for "The combined annual economic and social value of CRT waterways alone has been quantified as £6.1bn, including cost savings of £1.1bn for the NHS from active use of the waterways and towpaths" this is cloud cuckoo land and more likely to convince government to reduce the NHS and C&RT grants. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Midnight

[Paul C]

37 minutes ago, Midnight said:

The real problem is surely C&RT itself? 

 

How would a replacement organisation differ?

[Midnight]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

How would a replacement organisation differ?

 

Manage the money they have a lot better!

[Barneyp]

16 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I've been through this thread and looked at the website but I still don't know what they want apart from a protest meeting in Birmingham which I am unable to get to. It looks to me that if I join or donate the money goes to the IWA. Isn't that the toothless bunch that sit alongside C&RT and have lost the will to challenge them? Didn't the IWA lose loads of members because of that?
 

The real problem is surely C&RT itself? Quoting Toddbrook isn't going to help when the report put the blame on poor inspection and maintenance. As for "The combined annual economic and social value of CRT waterways alone has been quantified as £6.1bn, including cost savings of £1.1bn for the NHS from active use of the waterways and towpaths" this is cloud cuckoo land and more likely to convince government to reduce the NHS and C&RT grants. 

I think it is the IWA joining with other organisations with the intent that they no longer sit back and let CRT and the government do what they want.

 

Given that most people who have looked in to the problem think that the major cause of the decline/lack of maintenance of the waterways is due to chronic underfunding then it's hard to blame CRT, for the most part they just spend the money they're given. Yes you can question some of their decisions and maybe they could of raised a bit more or spent a bit more wisely, but that would have only made a relatively small difference, the main issue is under funding from government which is what this campaign is seeking to change.

 

Why do you think CRT are the problem? And if they are how do we deal with them? We would need some kind of organisation or campaign group, and unless you're willing to set a new one up I think it's a good idea to support the existing ones.

 

 

"As for "The combined annual economic and social value of CRT waterways alone has been quantified as £6.1bn, including cost savings of £1.1bn for the NHS from active use of the waterways and towpaths" this is cloud cuckoo land and more likely to convince government to reduce the NHS and C&RT grants."

 

Why would showing that giving money to CRT creates a cost saving for the NHS  lead the government to reduce CRT funding? 

And why is it cloud cuckoo land? It's the way governments and the civil service work now days, everything has to have a pound notes value. In the past people just knew intuitively that things like parks, recreation grounds, walks in the countryside and other leisure activities were good for people and funded them on that basis. Now days you have to do a cost benefit analysis to show the value of or return you will get from the investment.

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Manage the money they have a lot better!

The decline started well before CRT was created. BWB were underfunded since at least the early 2000's.

Creating CRT made it easier for the government to blame some one else as CRT are allegedly independent from government, unlike BWB who were a government agency.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Barneyp said:

I think it is the IWA joining with other organisations with the intent that they no longer sit back and let CRT and the government do what they want.

 

Given that most people who have looked in to the problem think that the major cause of the decline/lack of maintenance of the waterways is due to chronic underfunding then it's hard to blame CRT, for the most part they just spend the money they're given. Yes you can question some of their decisions and maybe they could of raised a bit more or spent a bit more wisely, but that would have only made a relatively small difference, the main issue is under funding from government which is what this campaign is seeking to change.

 

Why do you think CRT are the problem? And if they are how do we deal with them? We would need some kind of organisation or campaign group, and unless you're willing to set a new one up I think it's a good idea to support the existing ones.

 

 

"As for "The combined annual economic and social value of CRT waterways alone has been quantified as £6.1bn, including cost savings of £1.1bn for the NHS from active use of the waterways and towpaths" this is cloud cuckoo land and more likely to convince government to reduce the NHS and C&RT grants."

 

Why would showing that giving money to CRT creates a cost saving for the NHS  lead the government to reduce CRT funding? 

And why is it cloud cuckoo land? It's the way governments and the civil service work now days, everything has to have a pound notes value. In the past people just knew intuitively that things like parks, recreation grounds, walks in the countryside and other leisure activities were good for people and funded them on that basis. Now days you have to do a cost benefit analysis to show the value of or return you will get from the investment.

The decline started well before CRT was created. BWB were underfunded since at least the early 2000's.

Creating CRT made it easier for the government to blame some one else as CRT are allegedly independent from government, unlike BWB who were a government agency.

Going by posts on here, maybe your last paragraph should say "boaters" not "the government"?

 

The calls to replace CART will do absolutely nothing to improve the lot of boaters, because it's not them who are the root cause of the problem, it's the government.

 

But as in so many areas of UK lifetime today they'd much rather someone else got the blame, not them... 😞

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Going by posts on here, maybe your last paragraph should say "boaters" not "the government"?

 

The calls to replace CART will do absolutely nothing to improve the lot of boaters, because it's not them who are the root cause of the problem, it's the government.

 

But as in so many areas of UK lifetime today they'd much rather someone else got the blame, not them... 😞

Does anyone really know the solution to the problem? Who’s to blame? How do the canals get more investment? How does the failing inland waterways get fixed? Anyone have the quick solution that will benefit everyone?

[Barneyp]

7 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Does anyone really know the solution to the problem? Who’s to blame? How do the canals get more investment? How does the failing inland waterways get fixed? Anyone have the quick solution that will benefit everyone?

To answer your last question: No.

 

There are no quick fixes to decades of under investment.

The simple answer is more money, getting it will take time, spending it effectively will take time (there are only a limited number of workers with the right skills etc).

And benefiting everyone involves reaching at best a consensus and more likely a compromise, which will also like time.

 

I'm not sure why people on a canal forum are demanding a quick solution, canals are and never have been* the place for doing things quickly, the only thing that happens quickly is the cycling on the towpath and that normally creates complaints. If you have the patience to live or spend your leisure on or around canals surely you can grasp the concept and benefits of a long term campaign.

 

*with the possible exception of when they were first built when they were the fastest form of bulk transport.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

32 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

To answer your last question: No.

 

There are no quick fixes to decades of under investment.

The simple answer is more money, getting it will take time, spending it effectively will take time (there are only a limited number of workers with the right skills etc).

And benefiting everyone involves reaching at best a consensus and more likely a compromise, which will also like time.

 

I'm not sure why people on a canal forum are demanding a quick solution, canals are and never have been* the place for doing things quickly, the only thing that happens quickly is the cycling on the towpath and that normally creates complaints. If you have the patience to live or spend your leisure on or around canals surely you can grasp the concept and benefits of a long term campaign.

 

*with the possible exception of when they were first built when they were the fastest form of bulk transport.

People may want a quick solution so they can use their boats and not have them locked in a Marina due to increasing stoppages all year round, it’s not rocket science. Maybe you don’t use your boat much so are happy to sit in a Marina, others want to use their boats and travel. Not difficult to understand people’s frustrations when they are paying license fees and want to use their boats.

[Barneyp]

29 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

People may want a quick solution so they can use their boats and not have them locked in a Marina due to increasing stoppages all year round, it’s not rocket science. Maybe you don’t use your boat much so are happy to sit in a Marina, others want to use their boats and travel. Not difficult to understand people’s frustrations when they are paying license fees and want to use their boats.

I'd be equally frustrated if I couldn't use my boat, fortunately I'm not effected by any stoppages at the moment but I have been previously and know how frustrating it is.

You seem to be holding me accountable for the lack of a quick solution, if you or anyone comes up with a quick solution I'll happily get behind it. Until that happens I'll give my support to those aiming to get a longterm solution, you seem intent on doing nothing.

In the 60's, 70's and 80's when the canal network was saved from being abandoned and a lot of restoration work was done there were no quick fixes, it was a lot of long term solutions.

 

You seem intent on blaming everyone else for the current problems, while saying that the only solution you would be prepared to support would have to be instant and perfect (for you), and even then you probably would be prepared to contribute financially or in any other way.

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

I can't see the government loosening its purse strings in the near future. Never mind the costs associated with illegal immigrants, today's papers report  that the government is now  facing unfunded costs of up to £20 billion to compensate patients who contracted HIV and Hepatitis C from blood transfusions using defective imported blood. 

[Tony Brooks]

19 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I can't see the government loosening its purse strings in the near future. Never mind the costs associated with illegal immigrants, today's papers report  that the government is now  facing unfunded costs of up to £20 billion to compensate patients who contracted HIV and Hepatitis C from blood transfusions using defective imported blood. 

 

Yet another example of how cost-cutting ends up with even more expense in the end and I bet the people who signed that off will never be held to account.

[Barneyp]

Just now, Tony Brooks said:

 

Yet another example of how cost-cutting ends up with even more expense in the end and I bet the people who signed that off will never be held to account.

It was 40 years ago, so most of them will be long gone. 

[Tony Brooks]

Just now, Barneyp said:

It was 40 years ago, so most of them will be long gone. 

 

Yes, but we knew about what was happening because of the imported blood decades ago. Not saying any more because it would need to go into the politics section.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

It was 40 years ago, so most of them will be long gone. 

 

Myself and Mrs M_JG often reflect on our (obviously unkown at the time) part in that complete balls up.

 

As nurses on medical wards at the time we both regularly gave factor 8 to haemophiliacs to in patients and out patients on the ward.

 

At the time we of course had no idea of where some of that had been sourced or the associated risks.

[wandering snail]

1 hour ago, M_JG said:

 

Myself and Mrs M_JG often reflect on our (obviously unkown at the time) part in that complete balls up.

 

As nurses on medical wards at the time we both regularly gave factor 8 to haemophiliacs to in patients and out patients on the ward.

 

At the time we of course had no idea of where some of that had been sourced or the associated risks.

As you say, the sources and risks from those sources were not known at the time by those using it. Tragically, a very good friend has lost her haemophilic husband to blood transfusion acquired HIV. The extent of these premature deaths is also unknown.

[haggis]

The NHS has learned from those days though and when I have had blood transfusions recently the history of the blood and the checking before the transfusion make it safe, fortunately.