Government CRT funding statement

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I think this is confused thinking, there is not a government policy discouraging the use of inland waterways. The government has a pot of money to return to the various stakeholders, and it is up to interested parties to make a case for funding.

 

So what does a grant reducing in pound terms from 2027 and even faster in real terms from today mean then? That's what the government has said is definitely going to happen, there's no get-out clause or room for manoeuvre or appeal that I can see.

 

Saying "so it's down to CART to find other sources of income" is the same as saying "please find your own magic money tree, it's your problem, we're not paying".

Edited July 20, 2023 by IanD

[Tonka]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So what does a grant reducing in pound terms from 2027 and even faster in real terms from today mean then? That's what the government has said is definitely going to happen, there's no get-out clause or room for manoeuvre or appeal that I can see.

 

Saying "so it's down to CART to find other sources of income" is the same as saying "please find your own magic money tree, it's your problem, we're not paying".

Burt isn't that how charities are supposed to run and CRT is a charity

[LadyG]

56 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So what does a grant reducing in pound terms from 2027 and even faster in real terms from today mean then? That's what the government has said is definitely going to happen, there's no get-out clause or room for manoeuvre or appeal that I can see.

 

Saying "so it's down to CART to find other sources of income" is the same as saying "please find your own magic money tree, it's your problem, we're not paying".

I agree that is the status quo, and unless a new government comes in with a new policy we are stuck with it, but there will be new government formed soon enough. The state the entire country is in, we might see some changes in taxation, and that is our only source of income from government.

I can't identify  novel sources of income, maybe energy generation needs to be looked at again. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

Burt isn't that how charities are supposed to run and CRT is a charity

I think that was one of the points Coffey made in her announcement ....

 

Quote

We have been discussing this with the charity for some time and have been offering support on how it can increase income from other sources, alongside continued government funding, which countless charities across the country do very effectively.

 

[DandV]

I actually don't think it matters as much as to what organisation best aligns to your personal interest, and or commercial interest in the inland waterways. Be it as a holiday boater, a continuous cruiser, a historic boat and structures anorak, a  historian, fisherperson or twitcher. 

Or just really  interested in your local waterway, or interested in the whole boating, or environmental scene.

 

What matters, is getting as many people participating, through these organisations the more the bette, and individually, all making submissions, and attending events demonstrating the value you place on your functional navigable inland waterways.

 

The best person to represent your interests is yourself, don't shy away from becoming involved just  because you can't find an organisation perfectly aligned with your views. You need to stir. 

[Timx]

This is my reply today,

 

 

Canal.Response.pdf

[Allan(nb Albert)]

40 minutes ago, Timx said:

This is my reply today,

 

 

Canal.Response.pdf 154.96 kB · 7 downloads

I think this comfirms what I have just said on another thread.

Quote

The C&RT’s assertion that this latest funding from the Government represents a £300 million cut in its funding - a real terms halving of public support - is wrong. It is based on two incorrect assumptions. The first is that the grant should have been inflation adjusted from 2022 to 2027; the 2012 grant agreement with the C&RT is clear that no inflationary increase will be made in this period. The second is that there is an obligation on the Government to fund C&RT beyond 2027 and that it should be inflation-adjusted; neither of which is the case. 

However, it does not excuse government from trying t convince that it is providing more income rather than less.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[IanD]

51 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think this comfirms what I have just said on another thread.

However, it does not excuse government from trying t convince that it is providing more income rather than less.

 

I think there's some confusion here between what the current grant agreement says -- a flat rate per year with no allowance for inflation, meaning a declining amount (for maintenance) in real terms -- and what most boaters (and presumably CART) think it *ought* to say, which is a constant amount in real terms since maintenance costs rise with inflation -- or probably faster given how much is material costs like wood and steel.

 

The proposed grant beyond 2027 is not only not adjusted for inflation but declines in numerical value year-on-year, meaning an ever-increasing funding gap. Yes the government seems to expect that CART will somehow find this on a magic canal money tree, just like some other government real funding cuts are being justified -- and how it's been expecting the current flat-rate grant to work, when it clearly hasn't.

 

Isn't the definition of stupidity doing the same thing that failed last time and hoping it will work this time? 😞

Edited August 14, 2023 by IanD

[Ianws]

I had a conversation with my brother and his friend who had come to help work some locks today. One had heard about the C&RT funding issue. Both said canals were a great resource for the community, walkers, bikers etc. and talked about the heritage. I menoned, unlike charities like Natoonal Trust and English Heritage most people don't pay to access it. The problem with C&RT fundraisers canalside is at least two-fold. 1. You don't need to pay. 2. Cancer, heart, dogs charities etc  are much more high profile and more likely to have a personal pull for any spare cash you might have and want to donate regularly. 

 

How many people have such an affinity with the canal heritage, landscape and  amenities they want to set up a direct debit to support C&RT, before other causes. I guess most boaters already feel they pay enough already and wouldn't want to contribute more. 

 

Its not easy (possible) to fill that gap through community fundraising. 

[Peanut]

So it appears to me, at least, that those who enjoy the canals, such as, walkers, bikers, birders, joggers, fishers, dog walkers, industrial archaeologists, historians, artists, and all sorts, pay nothing.  Yet, CRT provides for them in the mistaken belief that they will support the navigation, which is of no value to them at all.  They might even be better off if the canals closed and returned to nature, which might improve their enjoyment of them, That is if they could still access them.

CRT, though, is hell-bent on getting them on side, by spending scarce resources on improving their towpath. Yet, it seems to me the opposite would have a more direct effect on getting their attention.  Do not spend a penny more on towpath maintenance, allow them to fall into disrepair, muddy, pot holed, overgrown with bramble and nettles, and with collapsing banks.  As a health and safety issue, place notices of temporary closures due to lack of available funding, and take a desultory attitude to any repair and maintenance needed.

By inconveniencing these freeloaders, they might be spurred into pressing for more funding, to put right the heinous situation that has arisen so that they can resume their free and privileged lifestyle.  This would free up vital funds to spend on the navigation, which is what the funds are for.  There being few horses used to tow boats nowadays. :)

[Rob-M]

18 minutes ago, Peanut said:

spending scarce resources on improving their towpath.

Most money spent on towpath works come from other sources like Sustrans and local councils, it doesn't come out of CRTs pot therefore the money can't be used for other works.

[Bee]

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

So it appears to me, at least, that those who enjoy the canals, such as, walkers, bikers, birders, joggers, fishers, dog walkers, industrial archaeologists, historians, artists, and all sorts, pay nothing.  Yet, CRT provides for them in the mistaken belief that they will support the navigation, which is of no value to them at all.  They might even be better off if the canals closed and returned to nature, which might improve their enjoyment of them, That is if they could still access them.

CRT, though, is hell-bent on getting them on side, by spending scarce resources on improving their towpath. Yet, it seems to me the opposite would have a more direct effect on getting their attention.  Do not spend a penny more on towpath maintenance, allow them to fall into disrepair, muddy, pot holed, overgrown with bramble and nettles, and with collapsing banks.  As a health and safety issue, place notices of temporary closures due to lack of available funding, and take a desultory attitude to any repair and maintenance needed.

By inconveniencing these freeloaders, they might be spurred into pressing for more funding, to put right the heinous situation that has arisen so that they can resume their free and privileged lifestyle.  This would free up vital funds to spend on the navigation, which is what the funds are for.  There being few horses used to tow boats nowadays.

But they do pay. They pay via vat on goods they buy, tax on fuel, tax on beer n'fags, a bit on income tax and everything that us boaters pay. We also pay about as much as CRT can charge without killing off the boating industry and boating in general. They, like us are also paying virtually unlimited amounts to the pointless HS2, the pay rise to the King, the wages to the NHS workers, the vital help to Ukraine and everything else that makes this a country.  We are no longer able to have the country we used to have despite what the politicians tell us. The politicians of this country have done some very, very damaging things and the damage has trickled all the way down to our little world 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I think there's some confusion here between what the current grant agreement says -- a flat rate per year with no allowance for inflation, meaning a declining amount (for maintenance) in real terms -- and what most boaters (and presumably CART) think it *ought* to say, which is a constant amount in real terms since maintenance costs rise with inflation -- or probably faster given how much is material costs like wood and steel.

 

The proposed grant beyond 2027 is not only not adjusted for inflation but declines in numerical value year-on-year, meaning an ever-increasing funding gap. Yes the government seems to expect that CART will somehow find this on a magic canal money tree, just like some other government real funding cuts are being justified -- and how it's been expecting the current flat-rate grant to work, when it clearly hasn't.

 

Isn't the definition of stupidity doing the same thing that failed last time and hoping it will work this time? 😞

Unfortunately, it has always been governments intention to reduce and, if possible, eliminate the burden on the taxpayer based on CRT leveraging ex-BW funding streams and developing new ones.

 

The grant review was about deciding if a case for future funding exists and, if so how much.

 

There was never a realistic posibility of a future funding increase as CRT has been providing year on year figures showing that the condition of its waterways is slowly improving ...

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

There was never a realistic posibility of a future funding increase as CRT has been providing year on year figures showing that the condition of its waterways is slowly improving ...

 

It is really a no-win situation.

 

If C&RT were honest and reported the actual results against the KPIs (failure to meet targets) then the agreed funding would have been reduced, but, if (as they have done) they make fraudlent claims that the KPIs are being met and even exceeded, then the Government says "you are meeting and exceeding your targets with the money you have, you report that the condition of the assets is improving, therefore you don't need any additional money from us".

Edited August 15, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

Maybe the CRT should have a presence on the high street 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by magnetman

[Francis Herne]

It works for the Cotswold Canals Trust - they have two charity book and music shops which seem to be a success:

 

https://cotswoldcanals.org/support-us/the-bookshop/

[peterboat]

5 hours ago, Peanut said:

So it appears to me, at least, that those who enjoy the canals, such as, walkers, bikers, birders, joggers, fishers, dog walkers, industrial archaeologists, historians, artists, and all sorts, pay nothing.  Yet, CRT provides for them in the mistaken belief that they will support the navigation, which is of no value to them at all.  They might even be better off if the canals closed and returned to nature, which might improve their enjoyment of them, That is if they could still access them.

CRT, though, is hell-bent on getting them on side, by spending scarce resources on improving their towpath. Yet, it seems to me the opposite would have a more direct effect on getting their attention.  Do not spend a penny more on towpath maintenance, allow them to fall into disrepair, muddy, pot holed, overgrown with bramble and nettles, and with collapsing banks.  As a health and safety issue, place notices of temporary closures due to lack of available funding, and take a desultory attitude to any repair and maintenance needed.

By inconveniencing these freeloaders, they might be spurred into pressing for more funding, to put right the heinous situation that has arisen so that they can resume their free and privileged lifestyle.  This would free up vital funds to spend on the navigation, which is what the funds are for.  There being few horses used to tow boats nowadays.

They do pay out of general taxation the CRT grant comes from the government 

[LadyG]

5 hours ago, Peanut said:

So it appears to me, at least, that those who enjoy the canals, such as, walkers, bikers, birders, joggers, fishers, dog walkers, industrial archaeologists, historians, artists, and all sorts, pay nothing.  Yet, CRT provides for them in the mistaken belief that they will support the navigation, which is of no value to them at all.  They might even be better off if the canals closed and returned to nature, which might improve their enjoyment of them, That is if they could still access them.

CRT, though, is hell-bent on getting them on side, by spending scarce resources on improving their towpath. Yet, it seems to me the opposite would have a more direct effect on getting their attention.  Do not spend a penny more on towpath maintenance, allow them to fall into disrepair, muddy, pot holed, overgrown with bramble and nettles, and with collapsing banks.  As a health and safety issue, place notices of temporary closures due to lack of available funding, and take a desultory attitude to any repair and maintenance needed.

By inconveniencing these freeloaders, they might be spurred into pressing for more funding, to put right the heinous situation that has arisen so that they can resume their free and privileged lifestyle.  This would free up vital funds to spend on the navigation, which is what the funds are for.  There being few horses used to tow boats nowadays.

I was under the impression that funding for towpaths is often provided by other charitable organisations, eg Sustrans, and by local authorities so the fact that it is spent by CRT is not the whole story.

There is no way of collecting cash from walkers, cyclists, fishermen, probably many other users many of whom who just launch themselves in various craft without even realising they should be paying. Swimmers use the water, I can see them paying!

As to the government "encouraging" the CRT to move towards self funding, we see this statement  time and time again, but no one actually knows how they are supposed to do this in a significant way. 

Yes the UK government handed over the infrastructure which had a considerable cost, they were glad to get rid of it and they most certainly don't want it back!

If anyone of the 35K boaters has come up with an altenative plan to fund the waterways, let them speak now.

 

5 hours ago, Peanut said:

So it appears to me, at least, that those who enjoy the canals, such as, walkers, bikers, birders, joggers, fishers, dog walkers, industrial archaeologists, historians, artists, and all sorts, pay nothing.  Yet, CRT provides for them in the mistaken belief that they will support the navigation, which is of no value to them at all.  They might even be better off if the canals closed and returned to nature, which might improve their enjoyment of them, That is if they could still access them.

CRT, though, is hell-bent on getting them on side, by spending scarce resources on improving their towpath. Yet, it seems to me the opposite would have a more direct effect on getting their attention.  Do not spend a penny more on towpath maintenance, allow them to fall into disrepair, muddy, pot holed, overgrown with bramble and nettles, and with collapsing banks.  As a health and safety issue, place notices of temporary closures due to lack of available funding, and take a desultory attitude to any repair and maintenance needed.

By inconveniencing these freeloaders, they might be spurred into pressing for more funding, to put right the heinous situation that has arisen so that they can resume their free and privileged lifestyle.  This would free up vital funds to spend on the navigation, which is what the funds are for.  There being few horses used to tow boats nowadays.

I was under the impression that funding for towpaths is often provided by other charitable organisations, eg Sustrans, and by local authorities so the fact that it is spent by CRT is not the whole story.

There is no way of collecting cash from walkers, cyclists, fishermen, probably many other users many of whom who just launch themselves in various craft without even realising they should be paying. Swimmers use the water, I can see them paying!

As to the government "encouraging" the CRT to move towards self funding, we see this statement  time and time again, but no one actually knows how they are supposed to do this in a significant way. 

Yes the UK government handed over the infrastructure which had a considerable cost, they were glad to get rid of it and they most certainly don't want it back!

If anyone of the current 35K boaters has come up with an alternative plan to fund the waterways, let them speak now.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 hours ago, Rob-M said:

Most money spent on towpath works come from other sources like Sustrans and local councils, it doesn't come out of CRTs pot therefore the money can't be used for other works.

I believe that’s true, and I also believe ‘fishers’ pay their £,

but I can’t help sharing Peanut’s sentiments. ☹️

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If anyone of the current 35K boaters has come up with an alternative plan to fund the waterways, let them speak now

spotted this today,

it’s great, 

a lovely idea. 

 

but it’s of no direct use to the Navigation. 
while ground/gate paddles are left bust I think it’s an affront to boaters for CRT to put stuff like that up

 

I have backed the wrong horse by having shown CRT any support. 
 

Are we really asking the government to give CRT more money to fritter away?

 

 

 

 

[Rob-M]

But to have any chance of attracting more funding CRT have to try and demonstrate that canals are more than a floating playground for those that can afford to buy a boat.  Taking funding from other sources for non-navigation related projects is something they have to do.

 

Admittedly if navigation stops and the canals become smelly ditches then they might become less attractive to non boaters as well.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But to have any chance of attracting more funding CRT have to try and demonstrate that canals are more than a floating playground for those that can afford to buy a boat.  Taking funding from other sources for non-navigation related projects is something they have to do.

 

Admittedly if navigation stops and the canals become smelly ditches then they might become less attractive to non boaters as well.

yes, I understand that too,

and I had ‘given way’ to it,

 

but I’m having a change of heart 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

41 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 Are we really asking the government to give CRT more money to fritter away?

 Have you just realised how CaRT fritter away a lot of money on little projects here and there, that in the end mounts up?

[Rob-M]

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

yes, I understand that too,

and I had ‘given way’ to it,

 

but I’m having a change of heart 

I've been involved in a couple of art projects which were fully funded by arts council grants, including travel and accommodation, and they were about promoting the waterways and encouraging non boaters.  The funding couldn't have been used for anything other than the agreed art project.

[Peanut]

Oh dear, I got it off my chest anyway.

 

But:

 

All government grants come from general taxation, the only money they have to spend, is ours.  I am aware that CRT gets money from elsewhere.

 

There was no intention to make towpath users pay, as suggested it would not be possible, just to make them clearly aware of the problem so that they become engaged with the need to secure funding.  They could then bring their influence on decision makers, and the media to raise the profile of the canals as an asset to many, not just the few. Something they may not be minded to do until it affects them personally. That way, politicians, who are more interested in securing election, rather than anything else, might be minded to support an increase in the grant.

 

Oh yes, but off-topic, governments waste money, printing it, propping up failing business, giving contracts to friends, and white elephants. The biggest issue is the great, unfunded, Ponzi schemes, which by 2050 will have to collapse as the working population decreases and the retired one increases.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is really a no-win situation.

 

If C&RT were honest and reported the actual results against the KPIs (failure to meet targets) then the agreed funding would have been reduced, but, if (as they have done) they make fraudlent claims that the KPIs are being met and even exceeded, then the Government says "you are meeting and exceeding your targets with the money you have, you report that the condition of the assets is improving, therefore you don't need any additional money from us".

Yes it has always been very much a catch 22 situation. If CRT admitted they were unable meet KPI targets then governent might reduce funding for being in breach of the grant agreement.

 

At the same time government made it very easy for CRT to fidde figures because it carried out no audits.