Licences

[Ewan123]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

This is accurate and worth remembering.

 

I have a hunch that bins are a minor consideration. It seems to me as someone who doesn't go boating on canals and won't be doing so that the priority must be keeping canals actually operational rather than worrying about bins, elsan/self pump/compost points and showers. 

 

If the canals are in a bad way that is where the money should be spent NOT on domestic services for people who choose to live on boats with no local authority tax or services. 

 

Priority in times of need. 

 

 

 

Living on a boat on towpath is a choice and there is no obligation on the -navigation authority- to be concerned about your domestic arrangements. 

 

People who are in trouble should be looked after by social services and moved to land accomodation for their own welfare otherwise a major problem turns up and for some bizarre reason the navigation authority end up having to pay for it. 

 

The Ward case on the K&A must be a warning here. It took a heck of a lot of money to get rid of him and this will never be returned to the navigation authority. It is a dead loss. 

 

 

 

It's true that CRT aren't obliged to offer bins and toilet waste disposal, but they would likely end up with a big mess if they did just say "We can't provide these" with rubbish and toilet waste just getting dumped instead (not that it would be right to do so, just somewhat inevitable that some people will behave that way). So the pragmatic solution for CRT is to provide those facilities, as cleaning up the big mess would likely be more expensive.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Ewan123

[Rambling Boater]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'm pretty sure they understand what boaters biggest issues are -- stoppages due to poor maintenance, broken locks and paddles galore, lack of dredging/bank clearance, and similar others. It's blindingly obvious and they've acknowledged many times that they're not doing well enough.

 

But the simple reason is that they haven't got enough money to even keep up with this, never mind make a hole in the massive maintenance backlog which is the main reason *why* there are so many stoppages and failures, they're spending far too much time and money firefighting these emergencies rather than having a solid repair/maintenance program to stop them happening in the first place.

 

The static/reducing (in real terms) government grant is the fundamental reason behind this, and since there's little CART can do to change this with this government (except protest ineffectually) they have to try and raise more money from other sources -- and one of these is boaters.

 

Saying "oh, it's a tiny amount, they should get it from elsewhere" -- apart from being not true -- is the same argument that people keep trotting out about why they (or the UK) shouldn't bother trying to reduce emissions to combat climate change when [insert other country of choice] is emitting far more, when the truth is that *everyone* needs to do this... 😞

 

The problem is that too many people still believe the stuff these organisations churn out through their communications departments.

 

It's not so much about lack of funds, it's about how the existing funds are being used. As I said before, I don't actually mind paying more IF the locks and paddles get fixed.

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

The problem is that too many people still believe the stuff these organisations churn out through their communications departments.

 

It's not so much about lack of funds, it's about how the existing funds are being used. As I said before, I don't actually mind paying more IF the locks and paddles get fixed.

 

 

And that shows your lack of understanding of the problem... 😞

 

How do you think CART could magically increase their income by something like £100M a year, which is a reasonable estimate of what is needed so sort out the maintenance+backlog problem?

 

Stop putting up blue signs? Getting rid of "fat-cat" executive bonuses? How do you think they should use their existing (but inadequate) funds to fix the canals?

 

The numbers just don't add up, and blue signs and bonuses are a negligibly small part of the problem... 😞

Edited October 5, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

The only way to find out is to find out. Pay more and perhaps donate voluntarily up to the level you think it would be fair for the CRT to charge you. Wait and see and if things don't improve then consider something else. 

 

There is the backlog of maintenance to take into account as well. 

 

It is easy to criticise management but thats what we have. How would you realistically propose to change that? 

 

CRT isn't a local pub it is a large national organisation. Changing the landlord / management won't necessarily make any difference.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by magnetman
typo

[Allan(nb Albert)]

13 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

It's true that CRT aren't obliged to offer bins and toilet waste disposal, but they would likely end up with a big mess if they did just say "We can't provide these" with rubbish and toilet waste just getting dumped instead (not that it would be right to do so, just somewhat inevitable that some people will behave that way). So the pragmatic solution for CRT is to provide those facilities, as cleaning up the big mess would likely be more expensive.

Actually CRT told its board a while back that they did have a legal duty to provide such facilities. I think this came out when they took legal advice on statutory obligations following governments first refusal to bail them out financially.

 

Not sure what legislation applies but it does not seem to be any of the British Waterways Acts.

[magnetman]

Might it be an Act relating to pollution of waterways? 

 

Maybe there is a requirement somewhere for owners of waterways to provide rubbish and sewage disposal if they are inviting boats with accommodation onto their water. 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by magnetman
autoincorrect

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The only way to find out is to find out. Pay more and perhaps donate voluntarily up to the level you think it would be fair for the CRT to charge you. Wait and see and if things don't improve then consider something else. 

 

There is the backlog of maintenance to take into account as well. 

 

It is easy to criticise management but thats what we have. How would you realistically propose to change that? 

 

CRT isn't a local pub it is a large national organisation. Changing the landlord / management won't necessarily make any difference.

 

Changing the government might though... 😉

[Rambling Boater]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And that shows your lack of understanding of the problem... 😞

 😞

I beg to differ. I'm not sure you understand the problem which is that our government has cut the funding to C&RT. Have you read this thread through before making your assumptions about someone's 'understanding'? It doesn't look like it.

 

C&RT need to lobby the government again to get the money from the millions of tax payers who enjoy the waterways each year, and now will no longer contribute through taxation. Now our government has axed part of the HS2 project  it's the ideal time!

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

I beg to differ. I'm not sure you understand the problem which is that our government has cut the funding to C&RT. Have you read this thread through before making your assumptions about someone's 'understanding'? It doesn't look like it.

 

C&RT need to lobby the government again to get the money from the millions of tax payers who enjoy the waterways each year, and now will no longer contribute through taxation. Now our government has axed part of the HS2 project  it's the ideal time!

Have you noticed the state the country's in? Schools and hospitals are falling down, half the essential workers are on strike because they can't live on their pay or as a protest that the systems they work in are dangerous. I'm unconvinced that relatively well off people playing on boats is a priority.

[Lady M]

CRT were supposed to be self funding by the end of the initial funding scheme.  Government could have decided not to give them any more money.  The new deal is lower than the initial one but is a lot more than nil.

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

I beg to differ. I'm not sure you understand the problem which is that our government has cut the funding to C&RT. Have you read this thread through before making your assumptions about someone's 'understanding'? It doesn't look like it.

 

C&RT need to lobby the government again to get the money from the millions of tax payers who enjoy the waterways each year, and now will no longer contribute through taxation. Now our government has axed part of the HS2 project  it's the ideal time!

That's exactly what I said -- which you then said wasn't the problem, it was what they are doing with the existing funding.

 

The problem is that the existing CART funding isn't enough and hasn't been for some time, and it's going to drop in real terms in future making the problems even worse.

 

24 minutes ago, Lady M said:

CRT were supposed to be self funding by the end of the initial funding scheme.  Government could have decided not to give them any more money.  The new deal is lower than the initial one but is a lot more than nil.

Yeah, in the sunlit uplands CART were supposed to shake a magic money tree and have manna fall from heaven. That's what the government suggested, and CART management fell for it -- and indeed, agreed to it.

 

Didn't happen, and was never going to... 😞

Edited October 5, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, Lady M said:

CRT were supposed to be self funding by the end of the initial funding scheme.  Government could have decided not to give them any more money.  The new deal is lower than the initial one but is a lot more than nil.

Almost right but not quite. Yes, the intention was that CRT should be self funding in the longer termHowever, no date was set.

 

That said, it was always made clear that government was under no obligation to provide grant post 2027.

 

CRT has really shot itself in the foot by claiming government has reduced future funding from £700m to £400m because it is easy to show it is not true.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Ewan123 said:

It's true that CRT aren't obliged to offer bins and toilet waste disposal, but they would likely end up with a big mess if they did just say "We can't provide these" with rubbish and toilet waste just getting dumped instead (not that it would be right to do so, just somewhat inevitable that some people will behave that way). So the pragmatic solution for CRT is to provide those facilities, as cleaning up the big mess would likely be more expensive.

The Broads Authority don't provide them

[Rambling Boater]

57 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Almost right but not quite. Yes, the intention was that CRT should be self funding in the longer termHowever, no date was set.

 

That said, it was always made clear that government was under no obligation to provide grant post 2027.

 

CRT has really shot itself in the foot by claiming government has reduced future funding from £700m to £400m because it is easy to show it is not true.

 

Yes Allan, but don't you (maybe us too) believe that the 'general' tax payer SHOULD contribute as they have done for many years to the same degree?

 

The point being that those who enjoy the inland waterways SHOULD ALL contribute. Not just boaters. As it happens, far more money comes from wayleave charges and investments anyway. 

 

No, sorry, but I think this is an attack on boaters using divide and conquer. They tried it with wide beams and now CC'ers. Who's next?

 

Of course the purse is big enough to fix the paddles, locks and even a bit more dredging. It's just that for some reason the PTB dont want to. Don't you think it strange that about a third of the locks on the South Oxford are only working due to one remaining paddle? How easy wouid it be to justify shutting the navigation down? 

 

I wonder what your view is on C&RT using the HS2 budget to keep the navigation open?

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Yes Allan, but don't you (maybe us too) believe that the 'general' tax payer SHOULD contribute as they have done for many years to the same degree?

 

The point being that those who enjoy the inland waterways SHOULD ALL contribute. Not just boaters. As it happens, far more money comes from wayleave charges and investments anyway. 

 

No, sorry, but I think this is an attack on boaters using divide and conquer. They tried it with wide beams and now CC'ers. Who's next?

 

Of course the purse is big enough to fix the paddles, locks and even a bit more dredging. It's just that for some reason the PTB dont want to. Don't you think it strange that about a third of the locks on the South Oxford are only working due to one remaining paddle? How easy wouid it be to justify shutting the navigation down? 

 

I wonder what your view is on C&RT using the HS2 budget to keep the navigation open?

 

There are two 'hopes'

 

Bob Hope and No Hope !

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Yes Allan, but don't you (maybe us too) believe that the 'general' tax payer SHOULD contribute as they have done for many years to the same degree?

 

The point being that those who enjoy the inland waterways SHOULD ALL contribute. Not just boaters. As it happens, far more money comes from wayleave charges and investments anyway. 

 

No, sorry, but I think this is an attack on boaters using divide and conquer. They tried it with wide beams and now CC'ers. Who's next?

 

Of course the purse is big enough to fix the paddles, locks and even a bit more dredging. It's just that for some reason the PTB dont want to. Don't you think it strange that about a third of the locks on the South Oxford are only working due to one remaining paddle? How easy wouid it be to justify shutting the navigation down? 

 

I wonder what your view is on C&RT using the HS2 budget to keep the navigation open?

The problem is that so many CCers take the mickey. That's largely what's brought this on. I'd be intrigued to know how many if them are actually moving round large swathes of the system as opposed to desperately trying not to.

The vast majority of boaters, who pay a ridiculously large sum to have their boats sitting unused for most of the year, see this and get grumpy. It doesn't take CRT to encourage "divide and rule" - it just takes every holidaying boater seeing all the best mooring spots taken up by abandoned boats, or a couple of converations with CCers on the towpath proudly announcing how long they've been sat on a 48 mooring, and why it doesn't matter. I meet this several times a trip. Ccers probably don't as they don't move enough - look how often these "minimum distance" pleas come up. One woman on FB is still very cross because CRT have told her she isn't moving enough - and she covered a whole hundred miles last year!

The fat boat thing is similar. On their proper canals they are fine, but too many are now in the wrong place - again, a self inflicted injury.

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are two 'hopes'

 

Bob Hope and No Hope !

And one of those died in 2003...

[Rambling Boater]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There are two 'hopes'

 

Bob Hope and No Hope !

No hope at all, unless we ALL keep trying. And trust me, I've been told I'm very trying. 

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The problem is that some people take the Micky.

FTFY  

[IanD]

35 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Yes Allan, but don't you (maybe us too) believe that the 'general' tax payer SHOULD contribute as they have done for many years to the same degree?

 

The point being that those who enjoy the inland waterways SHOULD ALL contribute. Not just boaters. As it happens, far more money comes from wayleave charges and investments anyway. 

 

No, sorry, but I think this is an attack on boaters using divide and conquer. They tried it with wide beams and now CC'ers. Who's next?

 

Of course the purse is big enough to fix the paddles, locks and even a bit more dredging. It's just that for some reason the PTB dont want to. Don't you think it strange that about a third of the locks on the South Oxford are only working due to one remaining paddle? How easy wouid it be to justify shutting the navigation down? 

 

I wonder what your view is on C&RT using the HS2 budget to keep the navigation open?

 

Except that it isn't, as all the analyses -- not just from CART! -- have shown, even since before CART was created, at which point it was estimated that there was already a maintenance backlog of several hundred million pounds.

 

There simply isn't enough money to keep up with current maintenance needs --especially since the system was expanded with restorations at the end of the last century -- so the system is slowly decaying, more time and money is spent doing emergency repairs so there's less for longer-term preventative maintenance, so the backlog of work left undone goes up, so the failure/stoppage rate gets worse - it's spiralling the plughole... 😞

 

No amount of blaming CART management incompetence or bonuses or blue signs is going to fix this, either more money in is needed -- and the government grant is the only realistic route to this -- or expenditure has to be reduced, which means closing canals. Except the recently-restored ones which are expensive to keep open and little-used were largely financed by the likes of local councils, the Millennium Fund, and the EU, all of which are likely to want a big chunk of their money back if CART close the canals that they paid to reopen... 😞

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

expenditure has to be reduced, which means closing canals. Except the recently-restored ones which are expensive to keep open and little-used were largely financed by the likes of local councils, the Millennium Fund, and the EU, all of which are likely to want a big chunk of their money back if CART close the canals that they paid to reopen... 😞

 

Occam's Razor says close ones that this doesn't apply to - Grand Union, Regent's, Oxford ...

[Arthur Marshall]

24 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

No hope at all, unless we ALL keep trying. And trust me, I've been told I'm very trying. 

FTFY  

Unfortunately, your fix is incorrect. It's no good closing your eyes to the problem.

When continuous cruisers think travelling 100 miles a year is evidence of a genuine cruise, there's something wrong with their mindset. When others think leaving a boat on the towpath in a convenient place, then nipping down every other Saturday to move it a few miles and going home on Sunday, except when it's raining or cold, is a genuine cruise, something is being misunderstood. And, of course, most don't even do that.

Most of CRT's funding from boaters comes from those with a mooring and it obviously won't want to kill the goose that lays the bulk of fheir rather low carat golden egg. Holiday cruising is much less satisfying than it was years ago simply because there often is nowhere to moor on 48 hour moorings near pubs, shops, town centres or lock flights because of overstayers - and holidayers don't overstay because they simply haven't time. They're on a cruise, you see.

[Rambling Boater]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Unfortunately, your fix is incorrect. It's no good closing your eyes to the problem.

When continuous cruisers think travelling 100 miles a year is evidence of a genuine cruise, there's something wrong with their mindset. When others think leaving a boat on the towpath in a convenient place, then nipping down every other Saturday to move it a few miles and going home on Sunday, except when it's raining or cold, is a genuine cruise, something is being misunderstood. And, of course, most don't even do that.

Most of CRT's funding from boaters comes from those with a mooring and it obviously won't want to kill the goose that lays the bulk of fheir rather low carat golden egg. Holiday cruising is much less satisfying than it was years ago simply because there often is nowhere to moor on 48 hour moorings near pubs, shops, town centres or lock flights because of overstayers - and holidayers don't overstay because they simply haven't time. They're on a cruise, you see.

 

 

No, I'm not closing my eyes to the problem Arthur. Didn't I say 'taking the Micky'. 

 

I'm not sure if you read through threads either. Sorry. This problem has come about due to a government funding cut which I believe is very short sighted, particularly as some of them would probably like to retire to the cut like you. Ok, well , maybe a super yacht in the Carribean sea perhaps! 

 

All these labels, yet we might not be able to navigate anywhere soon. Maybe not a problem for some. 

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

 

No, I'm not closing my eyes to the problem Arthur. Didn't I say 'taking the Micky'. 

 

I'm not sure if you read through threads either. Sorry. This problem has come about due to a government funding cut which I believe is very short sighted, particularly as some of them would probably like to retire to the cut like you. Ok, well , maybe a super yacht in the Carribean sea perhaps! 

 

All these labels, yet we might not be able to navigate anywhere soon. Maybe not a problem for some. 

Point of fact - I haven't retired to the cut. I lived on board for some years a while ago, now I'm an OAP leisure boater with a very small Civil Service pension and a farm mooring, who tries to get out cruising for several months each year.

While the latest government cuts are possibly the death knell for the system, it's been underfunded for many, many years and been creaking at the seams for the last ten, at least. The transfer to CRT turned it from a navigation into a national park, mostly enjoyed by walkers, cyclists and fishermen. That's the only bit the government see any point in funding. If we want it to work for boats too, we'll have to pay for that bit .

Most of us on here could say "I told you so", and been called doom-mongers for it over the years. It's been great, enjoy it while it lasts. I doubt much will be left in twenty years.

[IanD]

35 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Occam's Razor says close ones that this doesn't apply to - Grand Union, Regent's, Oxford ...

 

Except none of these are remainder waterways, they're classed as cruising waterways, and closing them is very difficult for CART -- I believe an Act of Parliament is needed, and there's zero chance of getting the legislative attention/time to do this when there are so many more critical fires for the government to fight...

[Flying Fox]

On 19/09/2023 at 11:47, Nightwatch said:

To be honest and fair my opinion as a CC’r and not particularly well off financially, if these increases result in better proactive maintenance and resulting repairs then so be it. If, as I suspect personally, it’s just a folly to get funds for pay rises for management then this would need to be investigated thoroughly. I and many have written to our MPs for clarification on the government’s position regards funding for our national waterway system. This has resulted, in far too many cases, is a cut and pasted letter in response. It’s sad times and ain’t going to get any better in the future.

Well if the prime minister can save 32b for not extending HSR then surely he can give some back to the CRT. But not to increase the £130.000 that some of top notches at CRT are on.

 

The Canal's of the UK is a part of our history and well known around the world thanks to the many vloggers.

[Rambling Boater]

19 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Point of fact - I haven't retired to the cut. I lived on board for some years a while ago, now I'm an OAP leisure boater with a very small Civil Service pension and a farm mooring, who tries to get out cruising for several months each year.

While the latest government cuts are possibly the death knell for the system, it's been underfunded for many, many years and been creaking at the seams for the last ten, at least. The transfer to CRT turned it from a navigation into a national park, mostly enjoyed by walkers, cyclists and fishermen. That's the only bit the government see any point in funding. If we want it to work for boats too, we'll have to pay for that bit .

Most of us on here could say "I told you so", and been called doom-mongers for it over the years. It's been great, enjoy it while it lasts. I doubt much will be left in twenty years.

We both have a common friend Arthur. He told me over 12 years ago that it would all end, and enjoy it while it lasts. Yet, we are both still here. 
 

Don't give up. (and yes, I'm always happy to pay my way if I can, and if the money is used to benefit boaters).