Is this a good idea?

[Paul C]

39 minutes ago, IanD said:

...................

 

How, and why?

 

Precisely because......."The government wants to get the canals and CART off their books as much as possible etc etc"....

 

This is a low priority thing for the Government, they've made a statement, and the chances of an imminent U-turn is (forgive the rounding error) 0%. So its basically a bunch of hot air; or a futile online moan, to keep going on and on and on with "Its not fair! We want more funding". Sure, its not fair* - if you happen to be a canal enthusiast. 

 

A better approach might be to address exactly how the canal system might pragmatically be best maintained/etc with the actual, current, funding which has been promised.

 

 

 

* It might actually be fair. Its an opinion.

5 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Move on to what?????

If the government don't increase funding what alternatives are there?

 

Maybe we could have a whip round?

Find a massive company willing to pay millions per year to sponsor the canals? Or smaller companies sponsoring one canal for 1/2 a million  per year?

Or.......??????

 

Or does "move on" actually mean give up?

 

I'm willing to get behind a scheme that has a chance, and currently the best plan looks like putting pressure on central government.

 

Cross-posted but see above. 

 

I believe its not the first time this topic has come up on the forum, please refer to previous threads and posts.

[Graham Davis]

7 hours ago, Jerra said:

Strangely we live just a fraction of a mile outside the official border and haven't heard of or seen a case outside.   So yes I blame the fact it is a NP.

Lucky you!
We live between Eryri and Bannau Brycheiniog and get those problems, especially in the local Forest, to the extent that they have now banned overnight camping/motorhoming on their land, as have SevernTrent Water and Dwr Cymru.

2 hours ago, Barneyp said:

Which of the current National Parks are World Heritage Sites?

A National Park covers an area far bigger than a world heritage site, and is generally undeveloped countryside which is unlikely to qualify for WHS status.

The Broads are not a WHS, and have been given "equivalent status" to a NP, so why not the canal network.

 

There are areas within National Parks that are World Heritage Sites, for example Pontcysyllte Viaduct. 

[Ronaldo47]

As the present resident of 10 Downing Street has just announced his desire to cut public spending to reduce taxes, I very much doubt that any significant additional cash for canals would be forthcoming.in the near future. 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

So can you explain why the majority of the two counties which are all very pretty and rural don't have a problem apart from inside the NP.  As I said earlier I live a fraction of a mile outside the NP.  No problems until you get 5 to 10 miles in to the park.  The scenery doesn't magically change as I cross the border of the park.

Two interrelated reasons.

Firstly, the National Park designation was given to the most scenic and attractive areas in the first place, and these are areas people most want to visit. Secondly, the whole 'brand' associated with the National Park results in it getting more marketing, more publicity in the media, more and better visitor facilities, more businesses targeted on the visitor trade etc. and that results in a self-perpetuating trend for people to visit the National Park, which just doesn't happen in the surrounding areas. And that increased number of visitors brings with it an increase in the number of inconsiderate visitors.

I see the same effect on one of my regular dog-walking routes. From home I can walk a mile or so up one side of the Hebden Water valley on public footpaths, cross over the river and walk back down the other side. The far side is part of the National Trust's Hardcastle Crags Estate. Walking that side of the river I always pass far more people than I do on our side, although the terrain and surroundings are very similar. The difference is the NT branding, and the fact it has a car park and a cafe (which is equally accessible from this side of the river).

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Precisely because......."The government wants to get the canals and CART off their books as much as possible etc etc"....

 

This is a low priority thing for the Government, they've made a statement, and the chances of an imminent U-turn is (forgive the rounding error) 0%. So its basically a bunch of hot air; or a futile online moan, to keep going on and on and on with "Its not fair! We want more funding". Sure, its not fair* - if you happen to be a canal enthusiast. 

 

A better approach might be to address exactly how the canal system might pragmatically be best maintained/etc with the actual, current, funding which has been promised.

 

 

 

* It might actually be fair. Its an opinion.

 

Cross-posted but see above. 

 

I believe its not the first time this topic has come up on the forum, please refer to previous threads and posts.

 

38 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

As the present resident of 10 Downing Street has just announced his desire to cut public spending to reduce taxes, I very much doubt that any significant additional cash for canals would be forthcoming.in the near future. 

This isn't about imminent u-turns / near future funding. Baring any major catastrophe CRT will be able to carry on as they are for several years, they could probably even cope with a Middlewich type situation in that period. 

 

The current government are highly unlikely to be in power in, at most, a little over a years time. While increased funding for CRT will not be the first priority for the new government, they maybe convinced to do something later on.

 

Getting NP status now would cost the current government nothing and could gain them brownie points and add to their "legacy". And it would help in future negotiations to increase funding.

 

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 

This isn't about imminent u-turns / near future funding. Baring any major catastrophe CRT will be able to carry on as they are for several years, they could probably even cope with a Middlewich type situation in that period. 

 

The current government are highly unlikely to be in power in, at most, a little over a years time. While increased funding for CRT will not be the first priority for the new government, they maybe convinced to do something later on.

 

Getting NP status now would cost the current government nothing and could gain them brownie points and add to their "legacy". And it would help in future negotiations to increase funding.

 

 

It might or might not help. If NP funding goes up then the canals would get a share of this. OTOH this would make it harder to give the canals more funding (relatively cheap) without also giving more funding to the entire NP programme (much more expensive).

 

So just from the canal POV, *if* the next government has a Barbara Castle-style revelation and decides that they're an important part of our national/industrial heritage and worth preserving, it would be easier to do this if they're not tied to the much bigger NP funding.

 

Chances of this happening -- not great, but I suspect higher under a Labour government (that has more belief in central funding and infrastructure and benefits) then a Tory one (which believes in privatising everything to minimise both taxes and benefits)...

[Midnight]

If this will help in any way I will sign. Of course it probably won't reach the required number of signatures unless an organisation like NABO or IWA get behind it and that's unlikely.

 

There's nothing to be optimistic about as long as Parry & Co run the waterways. And FBW will achieve nothing. Maybe a few MPs saying the right things cos it election year, but no extra money. 

[ditchcrawler]

Some bits about the Broads "national Park" in name and family only. This  bit from the Broads Authority its self admitting it is not a National Park

 

"I am delighted that Authority members have approved this move. It means we will be more able to promote the special qualities of the Broads and highlight the importance of conservation plus increased interest in the Broads from visitors will help support the boating industry."

The Authority will now use the name to refer to the Broads with immediate effect and support other organisations in doing so with the development of new branding guidelines and a revised communications strategy. It is also intending to look at possible new signage opportunities in a general review of signage for the area.

Stephen Johnson, Chairman of the Authority, said: "Branding the area rather than seeking a legal change is an eminently pragmatic move which took into account the views of all representative groups during a rigorous consultation process. 

"Members were also given comfort after it was additionally agreed to no longer pursue the long held ambition to become a National Park by law as the branding gives the area all the benefits it needs."

 

 

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

 

 

 

The current government are highly unlikely to be in power in, at most, a little over a years time.

Careful !

2 hours ago, Barneyp said:

Move on to what?????

If the government don't increase funding what alternatives are there?

 

Maybe we could have a whip round?

 

 

I know it is terribly shocking and people don't really like canals but what about those who use canals paying more money for the privilege? 

 

This could kill several birds without even needing a stone. 

 

 

 Ideally those demonstrating that it is probable they arrr using the Boat as a residence should be hit really hard. Make it cost as much as a pokey little flat. 

If they can't afford it then get state help. If they can afford it then pay. 

 

This could be a way for the CRT to get state funding but it could also backfire. 

 

Its a tricky one but at the end of the day it has to be said that the only people who actually need a canal to be functioning are those people who have Boats. 

 

yeah yeah yeah all the visitors like seeing Boats but it is easy to say that. They might like it even more if it was just a water transfer chanel with non working locks, picnic sites, extra fast separated cycle superhighways and punt hire. 

 

These big lumps of sometimes gaily painted steel with people with Harold Shipman beards on them might actually be the problem. 

 

 

Canals are land upon which somebody once thought it would be clever to put water. 

 

[ditchcrawler]

Interestingly this has just come up on Facebook about the National Park funding for the Broads. I am not prepared to copy the document and post here but it is on a public page on FB so and FB user can read it . Funding is not as straightforward as you may think.

 

  Protect the Broads we are not a National park | I have been given sight of a letter which has been sent this evening to all Broads Authority and Navigation Committee members in advance of Thursday?... | Facebook

[sigsegv]

32 minutes ago, magnetman said:

yeah yeah yeah all the visitors like seeing Boats but it is easy to say that. They might like it even more if it was just a water transfer chanel with non working locks, picnic sites, extra fast separated cycle superhighways and punt hire. 

people *do* like seeing boats, and they probably *wouldn't* like it more as just a water transfer channel with etc etc... until you make them face the costs of keeping the boats on it (were it not paid by boaters). Then I imagine they'd adopt a much less favourable view of those people messing about in boats at their expense.

 

Now, if they were instead paying for something they benefit more materially from.... towpath and picnic area access maybe.... hmmmm 🤔

 

Edited January 8 by sigsegv

[MtB]

The Basingstoke is deeply loved and appreciated by all the communities along its length and fiercely protected as a local park-type of asset. 

 

It manages this with bugger-all boat traffic on it. This demonstrates canals don't need boats to be attractive to the landies. 

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

19 hours ago, Barneyp said:

 

Which of the current National Parks are World Heritage Sites? Some are and some parts are.  I'm not going to spend my morning going through them all.

A National Park covers an area far bigger than a world heritage site, and is generally undeveloped countryside which is unlikely to qualify for WHS status. Not true.  There are world heritage sites which are larger than national parks.  The Lake District is the largest national park in England and is also a World Heritage Site, which is obviously larger than all the other English national parks.

The Broads are not a WHS, and have been given "equivalent status" to a NP, so why not the canal network.  That's very complicated question but the shortest answer I can give is that National Parks are fundamentally designated because of their landscape value.  The Broads are a distinctive and unusual landscape which (subjectively) is beautiful.  The canal network does not intrisically have any greater landscape value than much of the British countryside generally.  Some bits are rather special, and these already have some kind of protective designation.  However, it's hard to argue that the Walsall canal has exceptional landscape value.  What the canal network has is historic/heritage value, which is one of the criteria for a World Heritage Site, but not for a National Park.

 

Edited January 9 by doratheexplorer

[churchward]

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

There are some parts of the canal network already designated as a World Heritage site such as around Pontcysyllte and Chirk Aquaducts. Also portions of National Parks such as "The Slate Landscape of Northwest Wales" inside Eryri.

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, churchward said:

There are some parts of the canal network already designated as a World Heritage site such as around Pontcysyllte and Chirk Aquaducts. Also portions of National Parks such as "The Slate Landscape of Northwest Wales" inside Eryri.

 

Exactly - if an area merits inclusion as a "National Park" area, or a "World Heritage Site", it can be allocated as such, with all the benefits and responsibilities that brings. It seems too coarse to simply lump in the entire canal network (is the proposal really proposing all canals? Or just CRT ones? What about rivers? etc) to legally attach the label "National Park" to them. Sure, there's probably further areas which could be considered for inclusion. But not all of it.

[churchward]

31 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Exactly - if an area merits inclusion as a "National Park" area, or a "World Heritage Site", it can be allocated as such, with all the benefits and responsibilities that brings. It seems too coarse to simply lump in the entire canal network (is the proposal really proposing all canals? Or just CRT ones? What about rivers? etc) to legally attach the label "National Park" to them. Sure, there's probably further areas which could be considered for inclusion. But not all of it.

I guess it is in the hope that National Park status will secure more funding for future years rather than the funding gap being faced just now.

 

There is the argument that the canal network is being managed as a national resource open to everyone not just boaters.  I do think this is an argument for Government funding to continue as funding through taxation is the best way for everyone to pay a little bit towards the canal system's upkeep.

[Paul C]

I think the biggest problem with this idea is that the canal network (as a whole) simply isn't, and doesn't meet any definition of, a "National Park". It is vaguely similar to the idea of a national park in some areas, but so are many other places.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I think the biggest problem with this idea is that the canal network (as a whole) simply isn't, and doesn't meet any definition of, a "National Park". It is vaguely similar to the idea of a national park in some areas, but so are many other places.

It's also difficult to see how this would bring any benefit, in funding or otherwise. What is needed is a change in government attitude towards our national infrastructure and essential services, and a recognition that hiving it off to the private sector is often not the best way to sustain it. See canals, rail, buses, electricity, gas, water/sewage, dentists, NHS, social care...

[Tonka]

14 hours ago, MtB said:

The Basingstoke is deeply loved and appreciated by all the communities along its length and fiercely protected as a local park-type of asset. 

 

It manages this with bugger-all boat traffic on it. This demonstrates canals don't need boats to be attractive to the landies. 

 

 

You have proof of this ?

I ask because I used to live around the corner from Mytchett Canal Centre

[Ewan123]

33 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's also difficult to see how this would bring any benefit, in funding...

Unless I'm mistaken, if the government is already intending to designate one new National Park, that would suggest they are already willing to provide extra funding to said new NP, wherever it might be. It's just a case of choosing where that NP will be and who/what/where will benefit from the associated funding. 

(I don't think the canal network is a likely candidate anyway - for one the administration of changes over such a scattered "area" would be a nightmare I expect - NP's are usually large discrete areas that make for a nice clear blob on a map.)

[MtB]

42 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's also difficult to see how this would bring any benefit, in funding or otherwise. What is needed is a change in government attitude towards our national infrastructure and essential services, and a recognition that hiving it off to the private sector is often not the best way to sustain it. See canals, rail, buses, electricity, gas, water/sewage, dentists, NHS, social care...

 

Yes they should print money like mad and spend it on all of that. 

 

 

What's the point in having a fiat currency otherwise? 

 

 

 

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes they should print money like mad and spend it on all of that. 

 

What's the point in having a fiat currency otherwise?

 

 

No, they should spend government money where it can provide a better service (or infrastructure support) to the public than a profit/shareholder-oriented private sector, by prioritising the service not profit.

 

Where do you think the money comes from to fund privatised services? The answer is the user/customer, just like government-funded services (where the taxpayer pays), but with a big slice off the top to pay shareholders and executives, often all paid for by loading the company up with debt.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that since privatisation the water companies have paid out something like £60B to shareholders, while not spending enough on infrastructure and also ending up sitting on about £60B of added debt? How has this benefited their customers -- or, indeed, the government?

Edited January 9 by IanD

[magnetman]

Privatisation is legalised theft. 

[Col_T]

2 hours ago, churchward said:

I guess it is in the hope that National Park status will secure more funding for future years rather than the funding gap being faced just now.

Which is fine, right up to the point that National Parks find their funding reducing - as has already happened.

[Midnight]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

No, they should spend government money where it can provide a better service (or infrastructure support) to the public than a profit/shareholder-oriented private sector, by prioritising the service not profit.

 

Where do you think the money comes from to fund privatised services? The answer is the user/customer, just like government-funded services (where the taxpayer pays), but with a big slice off the top to pay shareholders and executives, often all paid for by loading the company up with debt.

 

Do you think it's a coincidence that since privatisation the water companies have paid out something like £60B to shareholders, while not spending enough on infrastructure and also ending up sitting on about £60B of added debt? How has this benefited their customers -- or, indeed, the government?

 

Yes they should but it ain't going to happen under any colour government. Time to think outside the box. Clutching at straws maybe, but harping on about the same old, same old is going nowhere for sure.