More Dismal Reading

[Creaking Gate]

21 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

Now there's rant! 
You are so far off the mark 
 

decrease the license fee,

decrease mooring fees,

make everything cheaper,

reopen closed canals

fix everything and add more facilities.    

 

Fix more - waste less!
Therese Coffey didn't mention 'Well being' or 'Cycling' or any of the other wasteful non-essentials. Maybe if Parry stuck to the knitting we would be in a better situation than we are now. Try planning a cruise from Yorkshire before writing rubbish.

 

Fix more - waste less....  There we go.  Cycling / Well being are what secured the grant at all without that there would be NO grant at all.  You really think the income from boaters is so high that the grant is not needed.  Lads on the canal, don't always know the full situation either, and more often than not give you what they think it is, not what it actually is - they just give their take on it.  

 

The grant is a real terms cut because it will not track inflation, and so the value of the grant has diminished year on year, and will continue to do so in the new grant period. You don't even know what you are on about, just spouting nonsense with Alan occasionally coming in to spoon feed you (Alan does know his onions). 

 

I cannot engage with you because you cannot be objective about it.   

 

You love a good old bash CRT story, anything that's negative sure as eggs, you're name is in it somewhere.  Plenty of routes from the North to the South. But for the love of god, do not use them and stay up north.

 

I don't need to rant, i just need to ignore you're twaddle.  

Edited October 26, 2023 by Creaking Gate

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Here is an example of "fiddling the numbers" from the annual report that fed into the Defra grant review. Visitor numbers more of less double from the previous year presumably to give the impression that public benefit had also risen

It has to be said that even allowing for Covid etc. a 2x change in numbers in successive years seems unlikely...

 

Whether this was by caused deliberate fiddling, incompetence, or a change in the questions/methodology remains to be seen. Remember, never ascribe to conspiracy what could be caused by sheer incompetence... 😉

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

I assume you've read the documents/briefings from the government setting out their policies/plans for CART, and read the documents (and watched the videos) from CART about what they're doing with the canals and why?

 

If you disagree that these make it pretty clear where the government's priorities apply -- getting millions of people to make more use of the canals, not tens of thousands of boaters -- then you're just ignoring the evidence.

 

Various estimates of the funding gap have been put forwards, including the maintenance backlog something like £100M/year is probably the shortfall to adequately maintain the canals. Nobody's saying this is an exact figure because there are too many unknowns, but it's something like this.

 

I have actually read all the founding documents and all the revisions. The main one that applies is the Memorandum of Understanding which sets out governments objectives for funding.

Government has asked CRT to agree to "retire" this document such reasons for funding change to the recent ministerial announcement.

There are no government set targets for visitor numbers as you have claimed.

I was asking about the funding gap because I have been trying to get a sensible answer out of CRT using Environmental Information Regulations for about six months.

Yesterday CRT provided a response to third party claiming the gap was about £20m.

[Midnight]

4 minutes ago, Creaking Gate said:

I cannot engage with you because you cannot be objective about it.   

 

You just did!

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I have actually read all the founding documents and all the revisions. The main one that applies is the Memorandum of Understanding which sets out governments objectives for funding.

Government has asked CRT to agree to "retire" this document such reasons for funding change to the recent ministerial announcement.

There are no government set targets for visitor numbers as you have claimed.

I was asking about the funding gap because I have been trying to get a sensible answer out of CRT using Environmental Information Regulations for about six months.

Yesterday CRT provided a response to third party claiming the gap was about £20m.

 

I never claimed that, so please don't put words into my mouth.

 

I said that the position as stated by government and CART is clear, to increase public (non-boater) engagement with/use of the canals, because there are millions of people who do this compared to 35000 boaters.

 

Since all boaters are already 100% engaged with the canals (or CART waterways), there is obviously no possibility of increasing this.

 

I haven't read it, but I expect the gap CART are talking about is between the future (and current?) funding proposed by the government and what it would be if it had remained constant in real terms i.e. increased with inflation.

 

This ignores the fact that it was starting from a level already known to be insufficient to maintain the canals in even their present state, much less catch up with the maintenance backlog which IIRC was estimated to be >£100M >15 years ago, so must be several times that by now since it's been increasing (more stoppages) as well as with inflation.

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I never claimed that, so please don't put words into my mouth.

 

I said that the position as stated by government and CART is clear, to increase public (non-boater) engagement with/use of the canals, because there are millions of people who do this compared to 35000 boaters.

 

Since all boaters are already 100% engaged with the canals (or CART waterways), there is obviously no possibility of increasing this.

 

I haven't read it, but I expect the gap CART are talking about is between the future (and current?) funding proposed by the government and what it would be if it had remained constant in real terms i.e. increased with inflation.

 

 

You said - "Since one of CARTs KPIs -- set by the government and agreed by CART -- is to increase use of the canals by the general public ......"

Please note that I would never try and put words in your mouth when you are speaking out of your backside ....

I also suggest that you try not to comment on what you have not read. 

Here is what CRT were asked in the information request (Full request  - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/funding_278

Quote

 

Your article "A reflection on our funding challenges, by chief executive Richard Parry" says

"... there is a growing gap between the resources we have available and the cost of giving the whole network the care and attention it requires whilst also meeting all of our legal obligations."

Please give me the value of this gap for the last three financial years.

Please give me information on how the figure is calculated.

 

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You said - "Since one of CARTs KPIs -- set by the government and agreed by CART -- is to increase use of the canals by the general public ......"

Please note that I would never try and put words in your mouth when you are speaking out of your backside ....

I also suggest that you try not to comment on what you have not read. 

Here is what CRT were asked in the information request (Full request  - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/funding_278

 

 

I see that as usual you just can't help resorting to insults when your arguments are challenged... 😉

 

You also cherry-pick statements and take them out of context. As far as I can tell from the information available, that £20M gap is between CART funding and what would be required to meet their legal obligations, which are basically to keep the canals mainly open in whatever state of dilapidation they're currently in.

 

What I actually said was that the gap between CART funding and what was needed to maintain them in good condition and pull back the ever-worsening maintenance backlog -- as shown by the ever-increasing number of stoppages -- is much higher than this. If the backlog 15 years ago was >£100M (was it £200M? can anyone remember the actual figure?) then it's certainly far bigger than that now, due to inflation and the worsening canal conditions. Given CARTs current budget of £250M a year or thereabouts, it seems unlikely that this could all be fixed in a reasonable time -- say, 5 years -- without a pretty big increase in funding of the order of £100M per year.

 

Do you disagree?

 

And yes I realise that this is a lot of money and well-nigh impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not what would actually be needed to fix the problems -- just like the 35% pay rise that junior doctors asked for to put their pay back to where it was 10 years ago... 😞

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Midnight]

@IanD
You said "You keep banging on about publicity and media as if all this can be got rid of and the money saved used to fix paddles, but this is entirely ignoring the government-driven policy to get more use of the canals for non-boaters -- which means spending money on this.

 

You might not agree with this policy but it's one CART have zero chance of changing because it's not their choice. ...."

It would seem it is their choice i.e a 'nice to do' but not essential. You didn't respond when I mentioned C&RT's incredible visitors figures. Would you agree now that given it's a choice, the figures show usage is very, very high and many, many FBers promote waterways anyway, maybe the publicity budget could be scaled back and used to fix at least one paddle somewhere, thereby avoiding an inevitable forthcoming stoppage when the other side paddle fails too. 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, Midnight said:

@IanD
You said "You keep banging on about publicity and media as if all this can be got rid of and the money saved used to fix paddles, but this is entirely ignoring the government-driven policy to get more use of the canals for non-boaters -- which means spending money on this.

 

You might not agree with this policy but it's one CART have zero chance of changing because it's not their choice. ...."

It would seem it is their choice i.e a 'nice to do' but not essential. You didn't respond when I mentioned C&RT's incredible visitors figures. Would you agree now that given it's a choice, the figures show usage is very, very high and many, many FBers promote waterways anyway, maybe the publicity budget could be scaled back and used to fix at least one paddle somewhere, thereby avoiding an inevitable forthcoming stoppage when the other side paddle fails too. 

 

 

I did respond saying that a 2x increase was indeed unlikely -- but not necessarily due to a conspiracy/fiddling... 😉

 

I don't have the figures to hand (do you?) but IIRC the publicity budget -- like the blue signs budget -- is many times smaller than the maintenance one. Significantly cutting it to fix one paddle (which one?) isn't going to make any real difference, but is likely to cause problems with government funding by "failing to encourage wider use of the canals" -- so it's not really a "free choice" for CART, is it?

 

You keep looking at everything from the boater point of view without looking at the other viewpoints involved -- CART, the government, and the general public. Which would be fine if 35000 boaters were paying for the majority of the cost of running the canals and could be the #1 priority, but the simple fact is that they're not and never will be. He who pays the piper calls the tune... 😞

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

I managed to 'discover' canals many many years ago. Long before CRT even existed and long before blue signs, social media and way before I had a boat (or even hired a canal boat).

 

[Midnight]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I did respond saying that a 2x increase was indeed unlikely -- but not necessarily due to a conspiracy/fiddling... 😉

 

I don't have the figures to hand (do you?) but IIRC the publicity budget -- like the blue signs budget -- is many times smaller than the maintenance one. Significantly cutting it to fix one paddle (which one?) isn't going to make any real difference, but is likely to cause problems with government funding by "failing to encourage wider use of the canals" -- so it's not really a "free choice" for CART, is it?

 

You keep looking at everything from the boater point of view without looking at the other viewpoints involved -- CART, the government, and the general public. Which would be fine if 35000 boaters were paying for the majority of the cost of running the canals and could be the #1 priority, but the simple fact is that they're not and never will be. He who pays the piper calls the tune... 😞

 
To quote a recent advertising campaign "Every paddle helps"
You still didn't say whether you agreed or not that the publicity budget could be reduced.

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

You keep looking at everything from the boater point of view without looking at the other viewpoints involved -- CART, the government, and the general public. 

 "The Trust is responsible for maintaining navigability and safety of its waterways ... "

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[Allan(nb Albert)]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I see that as usual you just can't help resorting to insults when your arguments are challenged... 😉

 

You also cherry-pick statements and take them out of context. As far as I can tell from the information available, that £20M gap is between CART funding and what would be required to meet their legal obligations, which are basically to keep the canals mainly open in whatever state of dilapidation they're currently in.

 

What I actually said was that the gap between CART funding and what was needed to maintain them in good condition and pull back the ever-worsening maintenance backlog -- as shown by the ever-increasing number of stoppages -- is much higher than this. If the backlog 15 years ago was >£100M (was it £200M? can anyone remember the actual figure?) then it's certainly far bigger than that now, due to inflation and the worsening canal conditions. Given CARTs current budget of £250M a year or thereabouts, it seems unlikely that this could all be fixed in a reasonable time -- say, 5 years -- without a pretty big increase in funding of the order of £100M per year.

 

Do you disagree?

 

And yes I realise that this is a lot of money and well-nigh impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not what would actually be needed to fix the problems -- just like the 35% pay rise that junior doctors asked for to put their pay back to where it was 10 years ago... 😞

I was not taking issue with your £100m but rather you commenting on CRT's £20m before understanding where it came from.

Now you have, I find myself in general agreement that CRT are suggesting they have a funding gap of £20m ( "funding gap" is the difference between needed spend and actual spend, Needed spent is the amount that needs to be spent to keep the waterways in a condition where they are not deteriorating but not improving either.)

Needed spend is estimated using BW/CRT's "steady state" model but after six months trying CRT have not produced any figures. Indeed, they have lied to me saying that they have never used the model.

Bearing in mind the CRT overspent by £20m last year but refuses to do so this year, I wonder if the true funding gap is £40m or even higher.

I understand your figure includes dealing with a backlog but it seems that this was never part of the CRT scenario due to lack of funds.

Backlog was £200m in 2007, however this did not include a dredging backlog. From a CRT document -
 

Quote

 At 2006/07 prices we believe we need to spend £35m p.a. on repair of our major engineering assets and £89m p.a. on routine waterway maintenance (minor repairs, vegetation management, customer service provision), a total of £124m p.a. These costs assume the network is in good order but we know there is the backlog of circa £200m of outstanding repair needed before a steady state can be achieved.

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

 
To quote a recent advertising campaign "Every paddle helps"
You still didn't say whether you agreed or not that the publicity budget could be reduced.

 "The Trust is responsible for maintaining navigability and safety of its waterways ... "

Of course the publicity budget *could * be reduced. The question is whether this is a sensible thing to do given the government's stated aims for the canals -- which certainly don't agree with the best interests of boaters (spend it all on fixing paddles!), but then boaters aren't paying, the government (largely) is -- and the relative sizes of the publicity and maintenance budgets.

 

I think given this it would be a stupid thing to do but then I'm looking at all sides with skin in the game -- you may well disagree but you only seem to be considering the narrow interests of boaters, and ignoring the consequences of such a change.

 

Let's say -- just for example -- that CART decide to halve the hated (by you...) publicity budget, and take the £1M saved (only a guess!) to fix more paddles -- hurrah, I hear you say 🙂

 

But then the government says to CART "Hey, you're prioritising 35k boaters over 65M taxpayers, so we're going to cut your grant by £10M" -- again, a guess, but they seem to be looking for any excuse to reduce the CART grant.

 

Net result, £9M lost from the CART budget, boaters end up worse off not better.

 

Yes this is all guesswork, but given the relative budget sizes and government attitude it's a damn sight more likely to happen than your idea that cutting the publicity budget would have a positive net effect on boaters -- but I expect you'll disagree... 😉

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Of course the publicity budget *could * be reduced. The question is whether this is a sensible thing to do given the government's stated aims for the canals -- which certainly don't agree with the best interests of boaters (spend it all on fixing paddles!), but then boaters aren't paying, the government (largely) is -- and the relative sizes of the publicity and maintenance budgets.

 

I think given this it would be a stupid thing to do but then I'm looking at all sides with skin in the game -- you may well disagree but you only seem to be considering the narrow interests of boaters, and ignoring the consequences of such a change.

 

Let's say -- just for example -- that CART decide to halve the hated (by you...) publicity budget, and take the £1M saved (only a guess!) to fix more paddles -- hurrah, I hear you say 🙂

 

But then the government says to CART "Hey, you're prioritising 35k boaters over 65M taxpayers, so we're going to cut your grant by £10M" -- again, a guess, but they seem to be looking for any excuse to reduce the CART grant.

 

Net result, £9M lost from the CART budget, boaters end up worse off not better.

 

Yes this is all guesswork, but given the relative budget sizes and government attitude it's a damn sight more likely to happen than your idea that cutting the publicity budget would have a positive net effect on boaters -- but I expect you'll disagree... 😉

 

Just a point of order Mr. D as I know you demand such precision in others responses.

 

There arent 65 million tax payers in the UK.

 

Its actually no where near that figure.

[Midnight]

44 minutes ago, IanD said:

Of course the publicity budget *could * be reduced. The question is whether this is a sensible thing to do given the government's stated aims for the canals -- which certainly don't agree with the best interests of boaters (spend it all on fixing paddles!), but then boaters aren't paying, the government (largely) is -- and the relative sizes of the publicity and maintenance budgets.

 

I think given this it would be a stupid thing to do but then I'm looking at all sides with skin in the game -- you may well disagree but you only seem to be considering the narrow interests of boaters, and ignoring the consequences of such a change.

 

Let's say -- just for example -- that CART decide to halve the hated (by you...) publicity budget, and take the £1M saved (only a guess!) to fix more paddles -- hurrah, I hear you say 🙂

 

But then the government says to CART "Hey, you're prioritising 35k boaters over 65M taxpayers, so we're going to cut your grant by £10M" -- again, a guess, but they seem to be looking for any excuse to reduce the CART grant.

 

Net result, £9M lost from the CART budget, boaters end up worse off not better.

 

Yes this is all guesswork, but given the relative budget sizes and government attitude it's a damn sight more likely to happen than your idea that cutting the publicity budget would have a positive net effect on boaters -- but I expect you'll disagree... 😉

 

Blinkin 'eck Ian you are almost agreeing. You certainly seem more friendly since I opened Battyeford Lock for you 😆  If we accept your guestimate of £1M saved on publicity, times that by all the other non-essentials where savings could be made and that has fixed quite a few paddles, leaks and swing bridges.   Throw in closing (by stealth) the Rochdale below East Summit (a reliable source mentioned this to me) and maybe they could keep the Leeds & Liverpool open for a whole year.
 hurrah, you hear me say 🙂 

Just one point. The Government want C&RT to be self-funding so unlikely to cut the £400m until after 2037 at which point I won't be around to complain.
hurrah, I hear you (and a few others) say 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Blinkin 'eck Ian you are almost agreeing. You certainly seem more friendly since I opened Battyeford Lock for you 😆  If we accept your guestimate of £1M saved on publicity, times that by all the other non-essentials where savings could be made and that has fixed quite a few paddles, leaks and swing bridges.   Throw in closing (by stealth) the Rochdale below East Summit (a reliable source mentioned this to me) and maybe they could keep the Leeds & Liverpool open for a whole year.
 hurrah, you hear me say 🙂 

Just one point. The Government want C&RT to be self-funding so unlikely to cut the £400m until after 2037 at which point I won't be around to complain.
hurrah, I hear you (and a few others) say 🙂

 

 

You still keep ignoring the likely knock-on consequences of such a cut to the CART publicity budget -- do you really think the government would do nothing faced with CART essentially saying "We don't agree with how you want us to treat canals and those who use them, we're going to do what *we* want to do which is fix paddles not attract more non-boaters to a linear green space"?

 

The government is desperately looking for any way to reduce spending, such a rebellion by CART would be a golden opportunity for them to chop the grant back in response... 😞

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Midnight]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You still keep ignoring the likely knock-on consequences of such a cut to the CART publicity budget -- do you really think the government would do nothing faced with CART essentially saying "We don't agree with how you want us to treat canals and those who use them, we're going to do what *we* want to do which is fix paddles not attract more non-boaters to a linear green space"?

 

The government is desperately looking for any way to reduce spending, such a rebellion by CART would be a golden opportunity for them to chop the grant back in response... 😞

 
But C&RT's visitor usage figures suggest an incredible amount of non-boaters already enjoy the canals. Would there be room on the towpath for more?

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Midnight said:

 
But C&RT's visitor usage figures suggest an incredible amount of non-boaters already enjoy the canals. Would there be room on the towpath for more?

 

You know as well as I do that those figures are not only a guesstimate (and may be "fiddled"!) but just show that lots of people each spend a small amount of time (on average) on the canals -- most towpaths are empty most of the time, as any trip along the canals shows. "Number of visits" is meaningless when each may be only a few minutes... 😉

 

You're still ignoring the likely knock-on consequences of your proposal... 🙂

[Midnight]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You know as well as I do that those figures are not only a guesstimate (and may be "fiddled"!) but just show that lots of people each spend a small amount of time (on average) on the canals -- most towpaths are empty most of the time, as any trip along the canals shows. "Number of visits" is meaningless when each may be only a few minutes... 😉

 

You're still ignoring the likely knock-on consequences of your proposal... 🙂

Come on are you suggesting C&RT would fiddle the numbers? I have an idea, cut the publicity budget and fiddle a bit more. 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Come on are you suggesting C&RT would fiddle the numbers? I have an idea, cut the publicity budget and fiddle a bit more. 

It wasn't my suggestion, but it's one that seems very popular amongst the anti-CART conspiracy theorists on CWDF... 😉

 

Still ignoring the consequences... 🙂

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Midnight said:

Come on are you suggesting C&RT would fiddle the numbers? I have an idea, cut the publicity budget and fiddle a bit more. 

 

I think its called "doing a Nero" (Fiddling whilst C&RT burns !)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

22 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

a good example of money wasted,

I reckon,

I wonder how much this advert campaign, which died quietly, cost?

there were perhaps 3 versions released and rarely shown,

I believe a small toy was made too but have never seen them available to buy

 

 

 

I am suprised that mention has not been made of the Well-B TV campaign.

 

 The campaign ceased very suddenly when CRT started getting free publicity on news programs. Not that the Toddbrook incident was the sort of publicity CRT wanted.

[Arthur Marshall]

The problem with trying to increase public perception and use of the canals is that most of the population don't live anywhere near one. It wouldn't cross my mind to take a walk on the towpath, and I live in Macclesfield, which has got one. It's a waste of money. As, I suspect, the government think the whole caboodle is.

[magnetman]

Also land use is an interesting question. Unlike rivers the canals are actually land someone decided to cut into and make waterways. 

 

Perhaps there is an argument going forwards that they are actually just obsolete and rather pointless. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Perhaps there is an argument going forwards that they are actually just obsolete and rather pointless. 

 

 

Bit like everyone of retirement age, really. Which it looks like the majority of us are, but they keep on funding us...