Licences

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Especially if you ask a member of the other big group of canal users, the fishermen. 

 

Boats of any description are a PITA to anglers, in multiple ways.

 

 

 

In the past I believe that it has been demonstrated that canals quickly become unfishable if navigation ceases.

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Whatever the real or alleged disparity in use or benefit might be, I don't see how you can make the licence for those without a Home Mooring more than that for those who have one.

 

When 'in business' we would sell the same product to different customers at very different pricing levels. The prices were based on what the customer was prepared to pay, or we may decide to match a competitors price if we wanted the business.

 

I remember a potential customer calling the sales office and asking for a quotation, on being given the price they asked to speak to the MD as the price was 'unreasonable'. The MD spoke with him and confirmed that was our price, the customer responded that a competitors was about 50% of our price so the MD suggested that he go and buy them from our competitor. The customer then said that our competitor did not have any and no idea when they would be back in stock.

 

My MD told him, that when we had no stock our prices were also 50% lower.

 

If you want something you pay the asking price or do without.

 

CCers (as all boaters) have a choice, if they want to be on C&RT waters they must pay whatever C&RT decide to charge them, if they do not want to pay there are plenty of other inland waters they can go to.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

Some people seem to think canals should not be subject to market forces. 

I don't know why this is but it is quite a prevalent view. 

 

The CRT basically own the towpaths and claim a right to charge a fee even if you moor at the end of your own garden. 

 

This is a good cash cow for them they need to be milking seeing as so many people seem to want to live on boats !

 

 

[Tonka]

25 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Whatever the real or alleged disparity in use or benefit might be, I don't see how you can make the licence for those without a Home Mooring more than that for those who have one.

 

I understand that there is no requirement for you to keep the boat on the mooring you paid for, and you may explore the system as you like, for as long as you like, within the rules that apply to cruising.  There would be no point in paying extra for a "Cruising Licence" when you could do so with a cheaper Mooring Licence.

 

The increased demand for Moorings would lead to a shortage, and an increase in price. This would cause a rise in cost for all boaters, and due to the shortage, and difficulty in finding one where you would like it. Some boaters would be priced out completely, and the CRT would have to find new mooring sites to satisfy the increased demand.

 

If intent on cruising continuously, then there would be no need for a serviced mooring, and an offside Farmer's Mooring at a lower cost would seem to become an attractive proposition.

 

It would seem inequitable to charge someone more, who is unable to find a mooring due to a shortage, when those with a mooring can use the system in the same way.

not following your thinking

A serviced mooring is nice but not a necessity

A secure mooring is a necessity.

 

[Peanut]

6 minutes ago, Tonka said:

A secure mooring is a necessity.

 

Not if you have no intention of using it.

[adam1uk]

21 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

That's interesting. Have you got the source for that info? Is that for all towpaths, or just in towns/cities?

Richard Parry, in his Q and A at the Crick Show.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

Whatever the real or alleged disparity in use or benefit might be, I don't see how you can make the licence for those without a Home Mooring more than that for those who have one.

 

I understand that there is no requirement for you to keep the boat on the mooring you paid for, and you may explore the system as you like, for as long as you like, within the rules that apply to cruising.  There would be no point in paying extra for a "Cruising Licence" when you could do so with a cheaper Mooring Licence.

 

The increased demand for Moorings would lead to a shortage, and an increase in price. This would cause a rise in cost for all boaters, and due to the shortage, and difficulty in finding one where you would like it. Some boaters would be priced out completely, and the CRT would have to find new mooring sites to satisfy the increased demand.

 

If intent on cruising continuously, then there would be no need for a serviced mooring, and an offside Farmer's Mooring at a lower cost would seem to become an attractive proposition.

 

It would seem inequitable to charge someone more, who is unable to find a mooring due to a shortage, when those with a mooring can use the system in the same way.

I keep trying to explain, apparently pointlessly, that a cheap farm mooring, isn't. On top of the cost of the mooring, the poor old boater looking to get away with it, has to pay a relatively enormous sum to CRT as a mooring fee, which is set as half their own local rate for a mooring. The fee CRT charge me is twice what the farmer does and in some cases can be five or six times the cost of the licence. My mooring (which is a cheap farm mooring), in total, costs me a fair bit more than the cost of my licence.

Cheap moorings are a myth - BW put a stop to them and CRT have whacked the cost up a lot, and it makes no difference whether it's a CRT or a private one.

Unless the surcharge exceeds the cost of a licence, it's always going to be cheaper to CC than to try and diddle it via a mooring.

(Edited to add, for clarity) and so it should be!

Edited September 28, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Rambling Boater]

32 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

Richard Parry, in his Q and A at the Crick Show.

Thanks for that.

 

Actually I found reference to it in Page 12 of the C&RT's annual report.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46785-canal-and-river-trust-annual-report-2021-22.pdf

 

So if very little of our licence fee is spent on fixing towpaths, that's great. More money to fix all of the, closed down facilities, broken paddles and do more dredging  🙄

[magnetman]

The closed facilities don't need fixing because the provision is not part of the remit of the navigation authority.

 

The clue is in the word 'navigation'. 

 

Its all about boating and using boats for navigating. 

 

Dredging and broken paddles and lock works yes but facilities no. 

 

 

[adam1uk]

7 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Thanks for that.

 

Actually I found reference to it in Page 12 of the C&RT's annual report.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46785-canal-and-river-trust-annual-report-2021-22.pdf

 

So if very little of our licence fee is spent on fixing towpaths, that's great. More money to fix all of the, closed down facilities, broken paddles and do more dredging  🙄

According to the latest annual report, for 2022/23, boat licenses and moorings brought in £47.3 million.

 

Spending included major infrastructure work of £47m, dredging of £7.4m, £8m on vegetation, and £35.4m on ‘caring for our waterways’.  So it’s difficult to argue that any boating income is spent on anything other than boating.

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, adam1uk said:

....................... and £35.4m on ‘caring for our waterways’.

 

 

Blue Signs - grrr, woof, bark 😆

Note to @IanD
I promise to not ever mention blue signs again if we both manage to get over the Rochdale without a stoppage.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Midnight

[PeterF]

I am going to make a wild guess without the benefit of any hard data that some CRT "facilities" that get more use by boats without a home mooring are the licensing, enforcement and legal departments.

[magnetman]

You are not wrong. 

The cost associated with this is one of several elephants in quite a small room.

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, adam1uk said:

According to the latest annual report, for 2022/23, boat licenses and moorings brought in £47.3 million.

 

Spending included major infrastructure work of £47m, dredging of £7.4m, £8m on vegetation, and £35.4m on ‘caring for our waterways’.  So it’s difficult to argue that any boating income is spent on anything other than boating.

Yes, Alan mentioned this earlier.

 

We were discussing licence fees, so what has the C&RT mooring fee income got to do with it? Despite that, this slice of the income pie is just a small slice of the overall income pie of well over a billion (yet seems to be creating the most discussion l!)

 

Also, I wonder how the 'caring for our waterways' spending bit really breaks down, seeing that is the largest part of that spending slice?

How much is specifically being spent on repairing paddles for example?

 

About a third of the locks on the South Oxford has U/S paddles. If the other side of just one of these locks goes U/S then the navigation stops. Surely this should be the highest priority.

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

just a small slice of the overall income pie of well over a billion

 

Isn't a 'billion' a thousand million ? (1,000,000,000) - and I thought my maths was bad !

 

C&RTs total income from all sources in 2022-23 was £225 million.

 

Boat licences amounted to £25 million so it is a respectable 10% 'slice'/

[Rambling Boater]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Isn't a 'billion' a thousand million ? (1,000,000,000) - and I thought my maths was bad !

 

C&RTs total income from all sources in 2022-23 was £225 million.

 

Boat licences amounted to £25 million so it is a respectable 10% 'slice'/

 

Sorry, I was looking at the investment pie which is over a billion. Yes, C&RT have a lot of assets too.

 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

44 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

 

About a third of the locks on the South Oxford has U/S paddles. If the other side of just one of these locks goes U/S then the navigation stops. Surely this should be the highest priority.

 

 

This has been a problem for quite a number of yars. 

The original canal builders will be rolling in their graves and they will be like "we put two paddles there so you can get away with it while you fix the broken one - it wasn't just for a giggle" 

 

There has been systematic and deliberate lack of maintenance on canals for ages. It is caused by a question that needs to be asked. 

 

What are canals actually useful for in the greater scheme of things. They are basically just land upon which some enterprising fellows with an eye on the profits managed to get a lot of people to dig great big holes in a lot more than a hundred yars ago. 

 

In those days the idea was to get money out of it. There will have been winners and losers as there always are in these investment schemes but now we are here in the present what is actually going on?

 

If it is a land use question then it gets complicated but to be fair eco homes are often best built partly below the ground so one could say that it was nice of someone else to dig it out. Get rid of the canal and use the land for housing. 

 

On the other hand you get the boats. 

 

They are only there because someone with a capitalist profit-driven motive arranged for a great big linear hole to be dug into the land. 

 

Anyone on any boat on any canal objecting to market forces aka capitalism is in denial about the reason for the thing existing in the first place. 

 

Canals are not some sort of wonderful hippy paradise maaan where you do what you like and can only go in one direction if your boat is over about 37ft long. They were made to gain profit. This is a basic reason for the existence of the hardware and it is important to not ignore it.

Maintenance therefore needed. 

 

Pay more money or [word removed] off.

 

It is getting serious now. 

 

People have to start paying or we lose canals. 

 

[Rambling Boater]

56 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

This has been a problem for quite a number of yars. 

The original canal builders will be rolling in their graves and they will be like "we put two paddles there so you can get away with it while you fix the broken one - it wasn't just for a giggle" 

 

There has been systematic and deliberate lack of maintenance on canals for ages. It is caused by a question that needs to be asked. 

 

What are canals actually useful for in the greater scheme of things. They are basically just land upon which some enterprising fellows with an eye on the profits managed to get a lot of people to dig great big holes in a lot more than a hundred yars ago. 

 

In those days the idea was to get money out of it. There will have been winners and losers as there always are in these investment schemes but now we are here in the present what is actually going on?

 

If it is a land use question then it gets complicated but to be fair eco homes are often best built partly below the ground so one could say that it was nice of someone else to dig it out. Get rid of the canal and use the land for housing. 

 

On the other hand you get the boats. 

 

They are only there because someone with a capitalist profit-driven motive arranged for a great big linear hole to be dug into the land. 

 

Anyone on any boat on any canal objecting to market forces aka capitalism is in denial about the reason for the thing existing in the first place. 

 

Canals are not some sort of wonderful hippy paradise maaan where you do what you like and can only go in one direction if your boat is over about 37ft long. They were made to gain profit. This is a basic reason for the existence of the hardware and it is important to not ignore it.

Maintenance therefore needed. 

 

Pay more money or [word removed] off.

 

It is getting serious now. 

 

People have to start paying or we lose canals. 

 

Yes, but this discussion is all about WHO should pay more money. I have made no secret that I'm not adverse to an increase in boat licence fees IF that money is really going to go back into maintaining the infrastructure for the benefit of all boaters.

 

However, from what I've seen over the last 20 years, I'm not convinced the money is being well spent (I'm not the only one it appears).

 

C&RT are getting donations from the general public who care about the future of the canals. Many volunteers are active in maintaining canals without any financial motive. Others are completely renovating canals and donating time as much as money.

 

 

Maybe you could get involved if you really feel that strongly about it. Or, maybe it's more fun being here every day?

[Arthur Marshall]

14 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Yes, but this discussion is all about WHO should pay more money. I have made no secret that I'm not adverse to an increase in boat licence fees IF that money is really going to go back into maintaining the infrastructure for the benefit of all boaters.

 

However, from what I've seen over the last 20 years, I'm not convinced the money is being well spent (I'm not the only one it appears).

 

C&RT are getting donations from the general public who care about the future of the canals. Many volunteers are active in maintaining canals without any financial motive. Others are completely renovating canals and donating time as much as money.

 

 

Maybe you could get involved if you really feel that strongly about it. Or, maybe it's more fun being here every day?

Who "should" pay more isn't really the matter, we're all going to. It's whether it's fair to bring CCers contributions up to the level that moorers pay, make them pay more because they possibly use more facilities, or what.

Nor does it matter much what we think about how CRT spends the money, I doubt many of us know much about organising such an odd organisation on a shoestring, though I admit it doesn't look like the current lot do either.

Partly, it seems to be educational, as most CCers seem to have no concept of how much moorers contribute to CRT, apart from the ones on direct CRT moorings. It's also a bit of a debate as to what it means to be a continuous cruiser and to try to second guess CRT's view on the matter, and what they might want to do about those who they don't think qualify. The last point might be crucial.

[MtB]

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Who "should" pay more isn't really the matter, we're all going to

 

Well I certainly hope so. For the following reasons:

 

1) Boats should pay in proportion to their size. Currently, fatties get the far better deal and this needs to stop

2) CCers use the system more than home moorers but currently pay less. This needs to be reversed

3) CRT coffers are empty as the system costs more to maintain in a navigable state than boaters collectively pay. This needs to stop

4) Licence fee income probably needs to double or triple at least, to make CRT financially viable. However this is carved up all boaters are going to have to suffer massive increases, hopefully. Or the canal system will continue to descend into dereliction. 

 

Just my opinion. 

 

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

33 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Who "should" pay more isn't really the matter, we're all going to. It's whether it's fair to bring CCers contributions up to the level that moorers pay, make them pay more because they possibly use more facilities, or what.

Nor does it matter much what we think about how CRT spends the money, I doubt many of us know much about organising such an odd organisation on a shoestring, though I admit it doesn't look like the current lot do either.

Partly, it seems to be educational, as most CCers seem to have no concept of how much moorers contribute to CRT, apart from the ones on direct CRT moorings. It's also a bit of a debate as to what it means to be a continuous cruiser and to try to second guess CRT's view on the matter, and what they might want to do about those who they don't think qualify. The last point might be crucial.

 

One crucial point which has been mentioned before is that those who are paying for a mooring can access all the facilities CC'ers have access to. It's up to you whether you want to cruise or stay on your mooring.

 

However, CC'ers don't have access to the same benefits as those in a marina and some on-line moorings. Security is better and there is no restriction on how long you stay there.

 

The contribution which moorers pay to C&RT through their mooring fee seems the main issue for you.  However isn't a similar fee paid to C&RT if you wish to leave your boat in C&RT waters outside a waterside property? Isn't that fee like a retainer to allow access to the navigation, rather than navigating it and using the facilities?

 

 

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well I certainly hope so. For the following reasons:

 

1) Boats should pay in proportion to their size. Currently, fatties get the far better deal and this needs to stop

2) CCers use the system more than home moorers but currently pay less. This needs to be reversed

3) CRT coffers are empty as the system costs more to maintain in a navigable state than boaters collectively pay. This needs to stop

4) Licence fee income probably needs to double or triple at least, to make CRT financially viable. However this is carved up all boaters are going to have to suffer massive increases, hopefully. Or the canal system will continue to descend into dereliction. 

 

Just my opinion. 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe, it's not so much about funding and more about there not being enough qualified people to do the front line work.

 

Or, dare I say it, maybe they don't care if parts of the system do get shut down.

 

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Or, dare I say it, maybe don't care if parts of the system do get shut down.

 

 

Who is "they"? And why should "they" care?

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Who is "they"? And why should "they" care?

 

 

TPTB.

[Ronaldo47]

When I was at school, a billion was a million million in the UK and Europe, and a thousand million in the USA. My recollection is that a Chancellor of the Exchequer started using the US definition in his speeches in the 1970's, also saying that it meant a thousand million,  and everyone has followed suit, although I believe that the journal "Thr Economist" had started using the American definition some years earler. In Germany and some other European countries, a billion is still a million million, and a thousand million is called a milliard.

 

Some international scientific journals ask contributors not to use "billion" in order to eliminate ambiguity, and, for large numbers, to use the scientific notation of a number times 10 to the power of whatever.

[Ianws]

1 hour ago, Rambling Boater said:

TPTB.

Acronyms are a real PITA. I had to Google TPTB to see what you meant.