Our readers write: "Canals are vital to our way of life."

[magnetman]

Devaluing boats is probably worth doing. 

 

 

Interesting that you use the term 'way of life'. 

 

Out of interest how long have you been living on a boat ? 

 

This may seem a rude question but to me a 'way of life' indicates something which has been going on for a long time. A 'way of life' is also something people will be willing to protect by paying for it. 

 

I don't think it is possible to deny in reality that people come to boats for financial reasons. It is not all about how wonderful it is to live on boats. That just isn't what is going on. The space available on a narrow boat is way below what most people without financial constraints would see as reasonable. 

 

Yes the wildlife is nice. 

 

You have to take out the individual viewpoint and think of the bigger picture. 

 

It seems that the canals may be at risk here. Is personal interest more important than that? 

 

Maybe it is. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's odd that people who support market economics complain bitterly that some things are too cheap (as, they would argue, determined by the market) and so costs should , for no apparent reason, be doubled. Presumably to keep undesirable people from cluttering up the system? Bit like posh people whinging that council house tenants have colour TVs.

 

You've got me so wrong its funny. 

 

My woman and kids live in a council flat and my very expensive inner London mooring is paid for by the state. 

 

I AM one of the undesirables

 

Can't you work out what is happening ? 

 

Living on a boat is too cheap. I'm not talking about desirable or undesirable people I am talking about a bias occurring which the CRT need to be onto in order to get some badly needed money. 

 

 

 

 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 Edited

Edited August 31, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

I don't think it is possible to deny in reality that people come to boats for financial reasons. It is not all about how wonderful it is to live on boats. That just isn't what is going on. The space available on a narrow boat is way below what most people without financial constraints would see as reasonable

 

Living on a boat is too cheap. I'm not talking about desirable or undesirable people I am talking about a bias occurring which the CRT need to be onto in order to get some badly needed money. 

 

 

 

 

When I first moved onto the boat to live, there was one couple there by choice, and the rest of us because that's what we could afford, often after divorces or redundancy . It's as good a reason as any, probably better than most. Where you live is rarely a matter of much choice, why discrimate between land and water? And everyone has financial constraints, apart from millionaires (and they probably have some, too).
You could just as well argue that living on land is too expensive, living in a mobile home is too cheap or sleeping in a shop doorway is a lifestyle choice. It's always going to be cheaper to live on a small boat, especially if, like mine, it's fairly minimalist. I simply can't see why that should appear as a wrongness. Why try to force everyone into (non-existent) bricks? If you were arguing for a huge (tax funded) social house-building programme I could understand it, but you seem to just want to make people homeless.

Oddly, most of those on my old mooring who settled on boats because of being broke, once they'd got their lives and incomes sorted, are still on the water, cruising about.

 

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

When I first moved onto the boat to live, there was one couple there by choice, and the rest of us because that's what we could afford, often after divorces or redundancy . It's as good a reason as any, probably better than most. Where you live is rarely a matter of much choice, why discrimate between land and water? And everyone has financial constraints, apart from millionaires (and they probably have some, too).
You could just as well argue that living on land is too expensive, living in a mobile home is too cheap or sleeping in a shop doorway is a lifestyle choice. It's always going to be cheaper to live on a small boat, especially if, like mine, it's fairly minimalist. I simply can't see why that should appear as a wrongness. Why try to force everyone into (non-existent) bricks? If you were arguing for a huge (tax funded) social house-building programme I could understand it, but you seem to just want to make people homeless.

Oddly, most of those on my old mooring who settled on boats because of being broke, once they'd got their lives and incomes sorted, are still on the water, cruising about.

 

 

I don't want to make people homeless. Far from it. 

 

I would much prefer it if housing was a lot cheaper despite having no desire or intention to enter the property market. 

 

Yes I would build more social housing.

 

You started living on a boat a long time ago, so did I. Things have changed. 

 

Its not a poverty story. 

 

Anyway putting price of licence up won't make people homeless because YOU CAN CLAIM FROM THE STATE IF YOU HAVE NO MONEY. People do this all the time and yes the DwP will pay for a cc licence. They would pay whatever you can prove it costs you. If it was £5k per annum they will pay IF you can prove you have recourse to state funds. 

 

Anyway not all boats are lived on. 

 

 

 

If people who are living on boats who have no money were forced to claim from the state for their licence due to a massive rise in costs then the CRT would be getting state funds which could help to support the waterways. 

 

If people who are living on boats and renting the house out were forced to think or pay more then they would probably pay more. 

 

I know there are people with no money but you just have to look around and open your eyes to see what is actually going on. 

 

It isn't complicated. 

 

 

Nobody is going to be made homeless by raising the cost of canal boat licences. 

 

I suppose a few completely disorganised people might but they should probably be under the care of social services if they can't get their [word removed] together rather than causing massive bills for the CRT which is, in fact, a navigation authority and not a housing charity. 

 

 

2 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 Edited

Why did you delete it? It was a good post. 

[restlessnomad]

On 30/08/2023 at 11:32, IanD said:

 

Unfortunately I suspect it would need similar letters and articles in papers like the Daily Wail and Torygraph to have much chance of attracting the attention of government, not a lefty liberal woke one like the Grauniad... 😞

that's a good point. Especially if what 'lefty woke liberals' want, when added up will probably be many times UK govt income.

its better sold as 'preserving heritage, wildlife and beauty of UK' than some special interest group wanting taxpayer money to maintain their lifestyle. 

[IanD]

43 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

that's a good point. Especially if what 'lefty woke liberals' want, when added up will probably be many times UK govt income.

its better sold as 'preserving heritage, wildlife and beauty of UK' than some special interest group wanting taxpayer money to maintain their lifestyle. 

I agree -- more money should come from government for the first reason, and more money from boaters (increased license fees -- especially for CCers and widebeams?) for the second one.

Edited September 1, 2023 by IanD

[enigmatic]

So 

14 hours ago, magnetman said:

Anyway putting price of licence up won't make people homeless because YOU CAN CLAIM FROM THE STATE IF YOU HAVE NO MONEY. People do this all the time and yes the DwP will pay for a cc licence. They would pay whatever you can prove it costs you. If it was £5k per annum they will pay IF you can prove you have recourse to state funds. 

So let's see

 

The CRT decides to increase its licence fee by doubling its licence. The government sees this as reason enough to cancel the block grant

 

Casual boaters sell up or move to other waterways, and some people withhold licence payments in protest, so CRT has less money than before. The costs of replacing lock gates every five years, hiring full time staff to maintain it and putting up blue signs remain unchanged.

So the canals are actually slightly worse condition but everybody using them pays more

 

Except London based people who live on boats because they're "cheap", thanks to a massive publicity campaign about how to get DWP money, which turns out to be easier than getting social housing in your preferred area, and there are suddenly even more cruisers being basically given away. Maybe those numbers actually go up (!) but not nearly as much as the numbers of people who like to have a boat to take canal breaks on goes down.

 

So the government doesn't actually save as much money as it hopes because the DWP is shelling out for accommodation, including some £5-10k residential mooring fees. Some private sector mooring providers (London and licence-free, and the Peel Group) make much more profit.

 

This is such a bad idea I'm surprised CRT management and the present government haven't already agreed it.

[nealeST]

Some very interesting points made here. I have re-read several times over😵‍💫. Number of things I was unaware of coming to light. Like many I am trying to second guess the future and lots of things currently I'm not so happy about. Sadly I lack a crystal ball. I nearly bought a live-aboard 30 years ago and then unexpectedly found myself living in rural Sweden for decades. Things come full circle and now I'm doing my best to get back. Wow, how things have changed....interesting times. The canals have become a hot potato...they even write about it in the Guardian...

[magnetman]

15 minutes ago, nealeST said:

Some very interesting points made here. I have re-read several times over😵‍💫. Number of things I was unaware of coming to light. Like many I am trying to second guess the future and lots of things currently I'm not so happy about. Sadly I lack a crystal ball. I nearly bought a live-aboard 30 years ago and then unexpectedly found myself living in rural Sweden for decades. Things come full circle and now I'm doing my best to get back. Wow, how things have changed....interesting times. The canals have become a hot potato...they even write about it in the Guardian...

Yes and the words 'continuous cruiser' are now on a .gov website. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/energy-bill-support-if-you-do-not-get-it-automatically-continuous-cruisers

 

Things are indeed changing. 

 

I think the radar is getting upgraded and it will be more awkward to fly under it.