Government CRT funding statement

[Jen-in-Wellies]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So despite all the negotiation between CRT and government, CRT have been caught off-guard by the announcement. That shows something of the contempt they are held in by ministers!

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could be just incompetence on the governments part, rather than contempt. Or contempt and incompetence of course.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So despite all the negotiation between CRT and government, CRT have been caught off-guard by the announcement. That shows something of the contempt they are held in by ministers!

Two other points I have noted. Firstly CRT are now acknowledging that closures might be a part of balancing the books. And secondly, the battle isn't really with the current government. As with so many other aspects of politics at the moment, CRT are looking to a future Labour government for a better settlement. Just another example of how irrelevant the current government is for the next year to 18 months!

 

Reducing the real value of the grant by more than 70% from 2020 -- when it was already too low! -- to 2036 says it all about what value the government actually puts on the canals, as opposed to their fine-sounding platitudes about the benefits of the canals... 😞

Edited July 10, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

46 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

I followed the link to the detail and it quoted Therese Coffe. Are you sayin'... 

Want she once the minister for waterways before Fabricant and unfortunately also my MP

 

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Want she once the minister for waterways before Fabricant and unfortunately also my MP

 

Government funding cut will lead to canal closures, charity says (msn.com)

 

[Budge]

Considering the government could have literally said £0.00 I don't think a 5% year on year reduction for decade from 2027 is a complete disaster. Given the grant only accounts for 25% of its income, it'll jyst need the CRT to focus it's head on where  £ wastage can be prevented. 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 minute ago, Budge said:

Considering the government could have literally said £0.00 I don't think a 5% year on year reduction for decade from 2027 is a complete disaster. Given the grant only accounts for 25% of its income, it'll jyst need the CRT to focus it's head on where  £ wastage can be prevented. 

That's the thing about governments. Things are never so bad that they can't make them worse. With this one in particular, you learn to manage your expectations and keep them very low.

[frangar]

If CRT want the support of boaters then I strongly suggest they don’t see them as a cash cow

to be milked dry. If they keep them as is then they will have a fair amount of people on their side. Start heavy increases and expect a massive backlash and zero support.  I personally have little faith in CRT senior management at present. 

[matty40s]

51 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Want she once the minister for waterways before Fabricant and unfortunately also my MP

 

Government funding cut will lead to canal closures, charity says (msn.com)

 

She is now the Minister for Sewage

[magnetman]

In reality the only people who need locks to work are those who have boats and want to navigate. 

 

It would be perfectly feasible to have canals with no working locks and just pass the water over weirs or through energy generating turbines. The wildlife would like it. The cyclists would like it. The no boats travel anywhere would like it (section drained yearly for a week for hull maintenance jobs), the anglers would like it. Paddle boarders and canoeists would like it. Eco worriers would like it. 

 

What is not to like? 

 

 

Councils would like it as they would be able to create ways of extracting tax from static residents. 

 

Genuine cc ers are probably mostly dead by then or in care homes / psychiatric units. 

 

 

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Genuine cc ers are probably mostly dead by then or in care homes / psychiatric units. 

 

 

Probaby killed by the 12v Gamma wave transponder fitted in a nationwide rollout, by order of CRT to their boats by IanD Enterprises in 2024.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Rob-M said:

With the prospect of a general election next year, and a new government (of whatever party) in place, with a fresh five-year term, we believe the case for providing sufficient funding for the nation’s canals, and all the benefits they deliver, will be overwhelming.

 

 

 

A Government of any 'colour' is going to struggle to pay for what is really necessary.

 

The only source of income the Government has is taxation, and it looks as if currently their income is going to fall away as the £28 billion received from fuel duty is going to be drastically cut as EV come to be a higher and higher percentage of the 'car-pool'.

 

Inflatiob and general 'cost of living' will continue to rise, people will want higher pay to be able to afford to live, the Government will have to pay out more and more in benefits as familes cannot afford to live.

 

Taxes on EVs will have to be introduced.

 

It is a vicious circle but I do not see that there will be any spare money for subsiding the 'rich mans playground'.

The benefits of a green / blue space can be achieved without having navigable waterways,

 

C&RT are even saying in the press release :

 

 

 Nevertheless, we are issuing a warning today that such a steep reduction in grant will inevitably lead to a decline in the condition of the network and the alarming prospect of canal closures. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

In reality the only people who need locks to work are those who have boats and want to navigate. 

 

It would be perfectly feasible to have canals with no working locks and just pass the water over weirs or through energy generating turbines. The wildlife would like it. The cyclists would like it. The no boats travel anywhere would like it (section drained yearly for a week for hull maintenance jobs), the anglers would like it. Paddle boarders and canoeists would like it. Eco worriers would like it. 

 

What is not to like? 

 

 

Councils would like it as they would be able to create ways of extracting tax from static residents. 

 

Genuine cc ers are probably mostly dead by then or in care homes / psychiatric units. 

 

 

 

I would say if boats were prevented from moving the number of visitors to places like Foxton, Caen Hill, Hawkesbury, Bingley etc etc would plummet.

 

Gongoozlers go to canals to see boats, not to get knocked over by a speeding cyclist on the tow path.

[magnetman]

I'm sure a change of government would be meaningless. 

 

I do think it was slightly dodgy for Richard (the CRT guy) to include politics in his statement which was posted earlier. This is not very professional and could come across to 'some people' as "Vote Labour and the canals will survive'. 

 

It isn't cool to do this. 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I would say if boats were prevented from moving the number of visitors to places like Foxton, Caen Hill, Hawkesbury, Bingley etc etc would plummet.

 

Gongoozlers go to canals to see boats, not to get knocked over by a speeding cyclist on the tow path.

 

Yes this is the obvious answer but what do gongoozlers -actually- bring to canals apart from extra feet on the towpaths? In reality what use are they? 

 

 

[magpie patrick]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I would say if boats were prevented from moving the number of visitors to places like Foxton, Caen Hill, Hawkesbury, Bingley etc etc would plummet.

 

Gongoozlers go to canals to see boats, not to get knocked over by a speeding cyclist on the tow path.

 This ^^^^

Scottish Canals overstated the case for their waterways being tools of regeneration and neglecting the role that boats play in that, when one or two swing bridges failed the regeneration benefits started to go backwards - there is a difference between few boats and no boats

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

So despite all the negotiation between CRT and government, CRT have been caught off-guard by the announcement. That shows something of the contempt they are held in by ministers!

 

 I think they knew it was coming and weren't happy about it - the tone is less "off guard" and more "cheesed off"

[Midnight]

4 hours ago, GUMPY said:

I used to say the K&A would be the first to go. It's probably going to be the HNC now.

 

Some up here in Yorkshire would say the HNC closed two years ago along with the Rochdale and Leeds & Liverpool.

 

3 hours ago, Tonka said:

what is most likely to happen is that charities like the Shropshire Union Canal Society and the Birmingham Canal Navigation Society will be expected to do more maintenance. 

 

Not sure if that's not a bad idea especially if the government offer grants to such organisations.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Midnight

[Arthur Marshall]

2 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I would say if boats were prevented from moving the number of visitors to places like Foxton, Caen Hill, Hawkesbury, Bingley etc etc would plummet.

 

Gongoozlers go to canals to see boats, not to get knocked over by a speeding cyclist on the tow path.

But people who just like walking their kids or dogs would like it just fine, and there are a lot more of them than those who goggle at locks being worked. Few in this country give a toss about "heritage" - most are more bothered about grocery and rent bills. Relying on a future Labour government is pointless -  their old joke about there being no money left is coming back to bite them goood and proper (assuming they win the next election, which I suspect the Tories are praying they do).

It's an old system, creaking at the seams, and, like a fair few of us, sadly ready for retirement.

[magnetman]

You may well find that the average person with the average family would much prefer to engage with wildlife and perhaps use a small craft safely on water rather than watching a few people with Harold Shipman beards moving around over the water on gaily painted metal boxes with pointed ends. 

 

Access is a big question and if one wanted to take the Lady for a short punting session 15 tonnes of metal in the hands of someone who may well be a CAMRA member could be viewed as somewhat hazardous especially for the Lady ! In a number of different ways. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm sure a change of government would be meaningless. 

 

I do think it was slightly dodgy for Richard (the CRT guy) to include politics in his statement which was posted earlier. This is not very professional and could come across to 'some people' as "Vote Labour and the canals will survive'. 

 

It isn't cool to do this. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes this is the obvious answer but what do gongoozlers -actually- bring to canals apart from extra feet on the towpaths? In reality what use are they? 

 

 

 

You are missing the point.

 

They are meant to be opening up the canals to as many people as possible. Boats and boaters are crucial to this and boats should be seen as a crucial asset in achieving this. 

 

From where I sit they seem to treat boaters more like an irritating nuisance.

[ditchcrawler]

8 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

I would say if boats were prevented from moving the number of visitors to places like Foxton, Caen Hill, Hawkesbury, Bingley etc etc would plummet.

 

Gongoozlers go to canals to see boats, not to get knocked over by a speeding cyclist on the tow path.

And does that matter, will the world stop if people don't visit Foxton, OK the carpark may not make so much money, same with the others mentioned

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

But , as I understand it, if CRT is unable to operate and maintain the waterways with the resources available to it, it has the option to hand them back to government, in which case the obligation to fund the waterways does indeed fall to government...

 

Now there's a thought. What would the government do in that case - hand it to the EA maybe - privatize (would any private company want it) ? 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Midnight

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Probaby killed by the 12v Gamma wave transponder fitted in a nationwide rollout, by order of CRT to their boats by IanD Enterprises in 2024.

You're getting confused in your old age, that wasn't me -- I wanted everyone to have a 5G mobile which can spy on them while frying their brains... 😉

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But people who just like walking their kids or dogs would like it just fine, and there are a lot more of them than those who goggle at locks being worked. Few in this country give a toss about "heritage" - most are more bothered about grocery and rent bills. Relying on a future Labour government is pointless -  their old joke about there being no money left is coming back to bite them goood and proper (assuming they win the next election, which I suspect the Tories are praying they do).

It's an old system, creaking at the seams, and, like a fair few of us, sadly ready for retirement.

 

Wel I speak as a 'hardened' gongoozler. 🤣🤣

 

I can (and do) see wildlife and walk the dog just about anywhere. 

 

Take the boats out the equation and I would see little point in visting canals, other than creating a photograhic record of their demise.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, M_JG said:

 

You are missing the point.

 

They are meant to be opening up the canals to as many people as possible. Boats and boaters are crucial to this and boats should be seen as a crucial asset in achieving this. 

 

From where I sit they seem to treat boaters more like an irritating nuisance.

Boaters are an irritating nuisance because they require the locks to be working. Boaters also moan about their costs going up.

 

This is a basic problem. 

 

Who in the real world would think that £1500 a year to be able to travel around 1500 miles of canals at leisure is expensive? 

 

I mean really. Does anyone actually think this is not an outrageous bargain given how few people actually so it? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Now there's a thought. What would the government do in that case - hand it to the EA maybe - privatize (would any private company want it) ? 

 

 

Virgin canals? 

 

Oh maybe don't google that !

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

And does that matter, will the world stop if people don't visit Foxton, OK the carpark may not make so much money, same with the others mentioned

 

I dont think I suggested the world would stop did I?

[magnetman]

I think Richard Parry is saying it will if people don't vote Labour. 

[matty40s]

Just now, M_JG said:

 

I dont think I suggested the world would stop did I?

I think the world is going to stop anyway soon with the worldwide temperatures , sea temperatures and disappearing sea ice/glaciers. 

By 2037, we will all be in the shite anyway.