How many more people are moving onto the canals?

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

not?

Not what?

[system 4-50]

2 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

If so as long as they are not? causing obstruction of the highway they aren't doing anything wrong as long as the vehicles are road legal.

 

[magnetman]

The thread title would be a good if slightly awkward heading for a freedom of information request. 

 

Given that it is such a hot topic I imagine the CRT have a few tails on it. 

 

They will know more than most people think. 

[Arthur Marshall]

11 hours ago, MartynG said:

It seems a lot of narrowboaters in the UK with a home mooring think everyone should have the same type of boat and behave exactly as they do.

And C&RT are supporting this  extremely intolerant and discriminatory way of thinking targeted at minority groups.

 

I've never heard a home moorer complain about liveaboard continuous cruisers in general. I have heard them grumble about obviously uninhabited boats dumped for weeks or months in prime spots, on 48 hour moorings or in places where it makes manoeuvring tricky. We all know that liveaboards help keep the system going by spotting problems well before CRT does, as well as simply keeping it all alive all year round. And they tend to have more useful knowledge of boatery than the weekender, which comes in handy when we get stuck.

People have got to live somewhere - following the accepted rules should be no different for a boater than a house owner, that's all.

[magnetman]

 

It does not affect me any more but when I was out boating a lot on my bigger boats it was quite irritating having to listen to other peoples power generating equipment. 

 

This is a phenomenon which only happens if people move the boat as little as possible. They still run the engine every day often at antisocial hours and it is annoying. 

 

I can see why people could resent thus.

 

These days I go boating in small launches and my larger boats are on moorings where we have zero tolerance policies with regards to antisocial [word removed]s. 

 

Nobody wants to be listening to someone else's diesel engine running in the evening on a boat which is not moving. 

 

Ask anyone on a boat if they want this and nobody will say 'yes'. 

 

Its basically rude and nasty. 

 

The 8am-8pm 'rule' is really shitty. 

 

There should be a considerate to others rule but it doesn't exist. 

 

 

 

 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, system 4-50 said:

 

True fat fingers on a phone. 

We really enjoy going out with our campervan, often its only 16 miles to a pub opposite chatsworth estate, good walk around the estate nice meal in the pub and come back home. Nice Saturday and Sunday 

[MtB]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But that rather isn't the point. The point is you appear to be defending strenuously the lot who have been mismanaging it for the last twelve years and hoping desperately they will carry on destroying it. Which is odd.

 

Hardly. I think they have been an utter shitshow ever since Cameron complacently assumed a comfortable 'remain' vote was in the bag. Then it got worse with Boris, then worse again with the TrussQuake. 

 

Thing is though, I think Corbin would have made an even worse pig's ear of the economy. You obviously think he would have been ACE!!

 

Despite the utter mess Boris made of running the country, its easy to forget one thing we need to be grateful to him for, which is he saved the country from being inflicted with Corbin-omics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20 by MtB
Add last para

[john.k]

So there are two brexit forums now?

[MartynG]

I receive criticism for political comments under the general boating section of the forum. So perhaps a new topic is required in the appropriate location.

[magnetman]

In answer to the thread title. 

 

4,623. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

Thing is though, I think Corbin would have made an even worse pig's ear of the economy. You obviously think he would have been ACE!!

 

Despite the utter mess Boris made of running the country, its easy to forget one thing we need to be grateful to him for, which is he saved the country from being inflicted with Corbin-omics.

 

For what it's worth, I personally think Corbyn was a terrible mistake, and a dreadful leader of the opposition. Most of his economic policies were middle of the road standard Labour - they only looked hard left in contrast to the current ones and in the misrepresentation of the papers. Neither of us knows what would have happened if Labour had won - I suspect he'd have been replaced in a week(you won't find many MPs sorry he's been booted out). Why we're discussing this in the boaty bit I dunno, really, except that it started as the cause for people moving on to the canals , and you can't keep economics, and therefore politics, out of that.

When I moved onto the boat it was for economic reasons, and the same was true for all except one couple on my mooring at the time (about 20 of us), divorces being the usual reason. There should be no such things as "leisure" or "residential" moorings - just moorings at prices reflecting their facilities, same as houses do. Then you just need decent policing to stop junk on the towpath and boat dumping elsewhere. There's plenty of room for everyone.

[peterboat]

19 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

For what it's worth, I personally think Corbyn was a terrible mistake, and a dreadful leader of the opposition. Most of his economic policies were middle of the road standard Labour - they only looked hard left in contrast to the current ones and in the misrepresentation of the papers. Neither of us knows what would have happened if Labour had won - I suspect he'd have been replaced in a week(you won't find many MPs sorry he's been booted out). Why we're discussing this in the boaty bit I dunno, really, except that it started as the cause for people moving on to the canals , and you can't keep economics, and therefore politics, out of that.

When I moved onto the boat it was for economic reasons, and the same was true for all except one couple on my mooring at the time (about 20 of us), divorces being the usual reason. There should be no such things as "leisure" or "residential" moorings - just moorings at prices reflecting their facilities, same as houses do. Then you just need decent policing to stop junk on the towpath and boat dumping elsewhere. There's plenty of room for everyone.

Same on our moorings most livaboards are there due to divorce or failed relationships, both sexes.

[magnetman]

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Then you just need decent policing to stop junk on the towpath and boat dumping elsewhere. There's plenty of room for everyone.

 

Good luck with that! 

 

https://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-threaten-to-remove-boaters-possessions-from-towpath-between-avoncliff-and-bridge-173-in-april/

 

"This is another reason to oppose and resist CRT’s proposed changes to the Boat Licence Terms and Conditions"

 

 

Some people have a lot of attitude about this and want the right to pile up junk beside their boats. 

 

its interesting that if one has a mooring it is in the contract that one may not leave, place, hang possessions on the mooring site. 

 

If you have no mooring I wonder if there is the same condition. 

 

People will let you down on this so the CRT should have a strict zero tolerance policy but then of course they get into the problem of disposal of hazardous waste. People would just leave their rubbish and boat fitout waste on towpaths knowing it will be cleared. 

This would get expensive. 

 

 

Does the CRT have facility to fine people for fly tipping? 

 

Another reason why towpaths would be better managed by LAs who have real powers. 

Edited November 20 by magnetman
granmar

[system 4-50]

5 hours ago, peterboat said:

Same on our moorings most livaboards are there due to divorce or failed relationships, both sexes.

It is time somebody put some serious work into researching why so many relationships fail.  Our kids endure so many years of education, and how much of that is focused on helping them to make successful partnerships? Almost none?  If more were successful there would a need for fewer individual housing units.  Perhaps fewer(!) liveaboards?   A government initiative to encourage long-lived three and four-somes might even eliminate the housing shortage at the cost of encouraging 72ft narrowboats and more fatties?

Edited November 20 by system 4-50
for less mistakes

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

A government initiative to encourage long-lived three and four-somes might even eliminate the housing shortage at the cost of encouraging 72ft narrowboats and more fatties?

 

You might be right - It might just ...........................

 

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

It is time somebody put some serious work into researching why so many relationships fail.  Our kids endure so many years of education, and how much of that is focused on helping them to make successful partnerships? Almost none?  If more were successful there would a need for less individual housing units.  Perhaps less liveaboards?   A government initiative to encourage long-lived three and four-somes might even eliminate the housing shortage at the cost of encouraging 72ft narrowboats and more fatties?

Be

[Laurie Booth]

2 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

It is time somebody put some serious work into researching why so many relationships fail.  Our kids endure so many years of education, and how much of that is focused on helping them to make successful partnerships? Almost none?  If more were successful there would a need for less individual housing units.  Perhaps less liveaboards?   A government initiative to encourage long-lived three and four-somes might even eliminate the housing shortage at the cost of encouraging 72ft narrowboats and more fatties?

Fewer

Edited November 20 by Laurie Booth

[Mad Harold]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

In answer to the thread title. 

 

4,623. 

 

 

Is that the number of livaboard boats?

If so, could you post a link to where this information comes from.?

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Is that the number of livaboard boats?

If so, could you post a link to where this information comes from.?

 

A couple of years ago (maybe more) C&RT undertook a survey of boaters to find out 'usage' (liveaboard being one of the options) I remember the results for 'admitted' liveaboards being 'just under' 5000.

Maybe this is where the 4,623 came from ?

 

I'm sure that realistically it should have been many more, but I'd guess that there are a lot of folks living 'under the radar' who thought they may jeopardise their situation by admitting it.

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've never heard a home moorer complain about liveaboard continuous cruisers in general. I have heard them grumble about obviously uninhabited boats dumped for weeks or months in prime spots, on 48 hour moorings or in places where it makes manoeuvring tricky. We all know that liveaboards help keep the system going by spotting problems well before CRT does, as well as simply keeping it all alive all year round. And they tend to have more useful knowledge of boatery than the weekender, which comes in handy when we get stuck.

People have got to live somewhere - following the accepted rules should be no different for a boater than a house owner, that's all.

I am wondering how many CCs have complained seriously about the changes. My impression is that most has come from CMs

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, peterboat said:

Same on our moorings most livaboards are there due to divorce or failed relationships, both sexes.

Many, in fact most of the considerable number of liveaboards we know do it purely as a matter of choice. We vastly preferred life on a boat to in a house and only downgraded back to a house due to health reasons. Both myself and missus never wanted to own a house again, it is a case of needs must 

Most of our long term friends were likewise, I reckon you live on a boat by preference? Of course some do it for financial reasons these days but those of us that lived aboard for some years were mainly by choice.

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Many, in fact most of the considerable number of liveaboards we know do it purely as a matter of choice. We vastly preferred life on a boat to in a house and only downgraded back to a house due to health reasons. Both myself and missus never wanted to own a house again, it is a case of needs must 

Most of our long term friends were likewise, I reckon you live on a boat by preference? Of course some do it for financial reasons these days but those of us that lived aboard for some years were mainly by choice.

Alas, this scenario is not uncommon, but often unprepared. Moving onto a boat may seem attractive and, perhaps, even cheaper at the time. (And I am not for one moment suggesting that no-one should do it!) but when the time comes to move off the water it is not just an emotional issue (I know people who cannot contemplate, however often people tell them they are no longer safe living on a boat) but a practical one. It is very hard to start on the property ladder (renting as well as buying) at or around retirement age. For example, almost all mortgage companies will have an upper limit on age which may even be less than NRA. Moves into social housing are complicated by having to establish a relevant local authority to take responsibility. As far as I can see, the only reliable option is to own a property whilst living aboard and rent it out pending a move ashore. And that is not without its hazards.

[Arthur Marshall]

33 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

. As far as I can see, the only reliable option is to own a property whilst living aboard and rent it out pending a move ashore. And that is not without its hazards.

Unfortunately, I reckon a large number if them wot are living on boats , especially the ones who don't move more than the minimum, can't afford both boat and house . That's fine for a "lifestyle choice", but the people moving on now (the subject of this thread) are largely those with no other option.

I have an old acquaintance from my time living on, who has just celebrated being 80. He's got nowhere else to go, should he ever need to.

I suspect, however, that sooner or later the housing shortages will be solved.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Unfortunately, I reckon a large number if them wot are living on boats , especially the ones who don't move more than the minimum, can't afford both boat and house . That's fine for a "lifestyle choice", but the people moving on now (the subject of this thread) are largely those with no other option.

I have an old acquaintance from my time living on, who has just celebrated being 80. He's got nowhere else to go, should he ever need to.

I suspect, however, that sooner or later the housing shortages will be solved.

Unless we introduce a scheme that allows houses to be built to much lower standards (really?) then it is not easy to see a quick solution. The inherent problem is that houses (inc rental) are much more expensive (in relative terms) than 50 years ago at the height of the social housing programme started post-war. If we build much faster on an as-is basis then there is every likelihood that it will impact on the ever-rising prices of existing properties and that will risk losing the political support of their owners. In addition, it will impact on the huge profits of the developers/builders who are known to have a disproportionate impact on policy. Existing owners of undeveloped land who sell it with large development gain will also feel the effect.

 

On e view might be that, in return for lower direct taxation, including corporation tax, then all of these negative impacts should be considered in a way that governments for decades have been scared by. We have a society that still seems to believe that something can be gained for nothing - tackling any problem as large as the current housing crisis (it has been going on for so long now it is better to think of it as endemic rather than crisis) is going to cost hugely. 

 

Technically it should not be a problem to eliminate most of the housing issues, including the replacement of unsatisfactory properties, in short order, say within ten years and most within five, once someone convinces the great British public (or at least the voting ones) and influencers such as the press, that it is worth that cost and get people to stop winging about it. (That was really why Thatcher took aim at social housing aka affordable housing - it was just getting too much for local authorities to bear without a massive increase in central levies - and we all know that LAs just waste money compared with central gov!)

 

Yes, this is a political issue but not, largely, one that divides the parties. More a fact of life at the moment - one that impacts in some areas very significantly on the canals and their users. 

[robtheplod]

I cant yet see any political party that has any real plans for solving the housing issues. This is up there with NHS reform/tax reforms that they are not interested in as its too much of a minefield/takes people with real vision and will impact on their short term re-election ability, which lets face it is their number one priority - you only have to look at now - election coming so all of a sudden the Tories are doing the usual tax cuts/throwing us crusts in the hope of wining an election....   

 

Housing is crazy in this country and has turned from a basic necessity into a luxury. When my Mum was a child they lived in a 2 up 2 down in Cambridge - small terrace - 5 of them - it was a council house. He worked as a gas man, so was on standard low wages. The same house is now worth £500k, well beyond the reach of most.