Countryfile

[cuthound]

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Isn't a canals usage measured by lock cycles ?

 

Not on the Ashby it isn't... 😂😅

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Not on the Ashby it isn't... 😂😅

 

 

Or if it is, that would explain why they never dredge it! 

 

[IanD]

10 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

As mr parry implied in his piece,  when you have less money than is really needed, then you gave to make judgement calls in what has to be omitted. In this case they cut it too fine but CaRT are really not where the buck should stop - the real decision lies with the Gov, proxy for the Great Britushh Public. Same goes for many if the long term non-maintenance problems in Local councils. Gov has been forcing councils to cut maintenance budgets to fund tax cuts for decades. They oft try away with it because the time lag before the impact us felt is too much for mist folk to join the dots.

 

More to the point, they then blame the body responsible -- CART, councils -- for being wasteful and inefficient, when the real blame lies with their austerity-driven funding cuts. And even worse, lots of people seem to believe this... 😉 

Edited March 5 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

 

More to the point, they then blame the body responsible -- CART, councils -- for being wasteful and inefficient, when the real blame lies with their austerity-driven funding cuts. And even worse, lots of people seem to believe this... 😉 

Part of justification for BW becoming a charity was the efficiences it could acheive by change of legal status ...

 

There is a basic difference between CRT and councils in that reduction and elimination of funding was agreed between the parties informally at the outset.

 

 

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Part of justification for BW becoming a charity was the efficiences it could acheive by change of legal status ...

 

There is a basic difference between CRT and councils in that reduction and elimination of funding was agreed between the parties informally at the outset.

 

 

It was, and it largely turned out to be optimistic pie-in-the-sky thinking -- it's always easy to say "find other sources of funding" until confronted with the reality of actually having to do it...

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Part of justification for BW becoming a charity was the efficiences it could acheive by change of legal status ...

 

There is a basic difference between CRT and councils in that reduction and elimination of funding was agreed between the parties informally at the outset.

 

 

 

If it was informal, and not part of the written contract, then it should be ignored. You won't find the government sticking to "informal" promises, like manifestos, for example. Bit daft one side being 'honourable' when the other very definitely isn't. So I suspect it wasn't informal at all, and it's written into the gubbins setting up CRT, or it wouldn't be happening.

The inescapable fact is that without government support the system will collapse and reurn to being a muddy ditch full of stagnant water and old mattresses. Was good fun while it lasted, though.

Edited March 5 by Arthur Marshall

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If it was informal, and not part of the written contract, then it should be ignored. You won't find the government sticking to "informal" promises, like manifestos, for example. Bit daft one side being 'honourable' when the other very definitely isn't. So I suspect it wasn't informal at all, and it's written into the gubbins setting up CRT, or it wouldn't be happening.

The inescapable fact is that without government support the system will collapse and reurn to being a muddy ditch full of stagnant water and old mattresses. Was good fun while it lasted, though.

The fact is that government has stuck to this informal agreement. 

CRT has had the opportunity to hand back responsibility to government but has failed to to do so.

 

[Orwellian]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Part of justification for BW becoming a charity was the efficiences it could acheive by change of legal status ...

 

There is a basic difference between CRT and councils in that reduction and elimination of funding was agreed between the parties informally at the outset.

 

 

 

The DEFRA objective of eventually removing public (ie government) financial support was contained in a formal signed Memorandum of Understanding completed alongside the statutory transfer and grant agreements. See Annex 8 in attached.

Canal-rivers-MOU.pdf

Edited March 6 by Orwellian
correct spelling

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

The DEFRA objective of eventually removing public (ie government) financial support was contained in a formal signed Memorandum of Understanding completed alongside the statutory transfer and grant agreements. See Annex 8 in attached.

Canal-rivers-MOU.pdf 306.58 kB · 0 downloads

Correct. I say informal because the mou was not legally binding. It is interesting to note that, having served its purpose, government now wishes to "retire" the MOU.

[Arthur Marshall]

13 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Correct. I say informal because the mou was not legally binding. It is interesting to note that, having served its purpose, government now wishes to "retire" the MOU.

Which presumably it can. CRT, however, as lower in the contractual pecking order, has no say in the matter. I'm sure the guys who run CRT are doing well out of it, as all heads of charitable organisations do. When the money runs out, they move on to another sinecure about which they know (and care) nothing, usually for a higher pay rate. As I once pointed out, Parry knows an awful lot about trains.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The fact is that government has stuck to this informal agreement. 

CRT has had the opportunity to hand back responsibility to government but has failed to to do so.

 

But at that time the Gov was also promising to keep, with the help of the Bank of England, to keep inflation to levels that now seem almost mythical. Hence the bargain was broken long ago.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

37 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But at that time the Gov was also promising to keep, with the help of the Bank of England, to keep inflation to levels that now seem almost mythical. Hence the bargain was broken long ago.

The "bargain" regarding inflation was written into the grant agreement rather than the MOU. It is legally enforceable by both parties.

It should also be understood that government have actually exceeded its legal obligations in respect of grant payments. 

 

That said, the grant agreement has worked out well for government (i.e. the taxpayer) who will be saving about £60m on the estimated £800m estimated spend over 15 years. 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The "bargain" regarding inflation was written into the grant agreement rather than the MOU. It is legally enforceable by both parties.

It should also be understood that government have actually exceeded its legal obligations in respect of grant payments. 

 

That said, the grant agreement has worked out well for government (i.e. the taxpayer) who will be saving about £60m on the estimated £800m estimated spend over 15 years. 

It hasn't worked out so well for CART who are short of money for maintenance though, has it?

 

I struggle to understand why you keep banging the government drum on this issue, when it's CART -- and ultimately, boaters -- who are losing out, as in so many other areas where government grants have fallen in real terms over the last 14 years... 😞

 

Or do you really believe that the government has it right, public spending should be cut to the bone (and beyond), the private sector will sort it all out, and the devil take the hindmost?

 

Because that certainly doesn't seem to be to the benefit of canals or boaters, just Tory dogma... 😞

[Orwellian]

The fundamental issue is that those who were running BWB prior to 2012 campaigned successfully to become a charity independent of Government which they considered to be an improvement. The 15 year grant was consideted to be much better than the annual deficit grant it replaced. The trustees at the time resolved that they could take on the waterways on that basis. They made a virtue of being free from government 'constraints'. Now they complain about it and are campaigning for it to continue. They made a huge error.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

The fundamental issue is that those who were running BWB prior to 2012 campaigned successfully to become a charity independent of Government which they considered to be an improvement. The 15 year grant was consideted to be much better than the annual deficit grant it replaced. The trustees at the time resolved that they could take on the waterways on that basis. They made a virtue of being free from government 'constraints'. Now they complain about it and are campaigning for it to continue. They made a huge error.

They did indeed... 😞

 

But in other areas of life, you get the chance to correct errors made 14 years ago, in fact I believe there's an important one coming up shortly... 😉

 

Unless you believe that a stupid decision can't ever be reversed because you were in favour of it, like Brexiteers.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

The fundamental issue is that those who were running BWB prior to 2012 campaigned successfully to become a charity independent of Government which they considered to be an improvement. The 15 year grant was consideted to be much better than the annual deficit grant it replaced. The trustees at the time resolved that they could take on the waterways on that basis. They made a virtue of being free from government 'constraints'. Now they complain about it and are campaigning for it to continue. They made a huge error.

Sad but true. 

[Ronaldo47]

My experience is that, whenever a government encourages you to do something different, its not to benefit you, but to save itself money. So you are usually better of maintaining the status quo.  As per the encouragement to  contract out of SERPS and move your occupational pension to a private pension debacle a couple of decades ago. 

Edited March 6 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Arthur Marshall]

14 hours ago, IanD said:

They did indeed... 😞

 

But in other areas of life, you get the chance to correct errors made 14 years ago, in fact I believe there's an important one coming up shortly... 😉

 

Unless you believe that a stupid decision can't ever be reversed because you were in favour of it, like Brexiteers.

That's as may be, but I suspect the government will get in anyway. And it won't be much bothered about a failing canal system, being, as usual, more concerned with sorting out well paid employment for when it gets kicked out again.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's as may be, but I suspect the government will get in anyway. And it won't be much bothered about a failing canal system, being, as usual, more concerned with sorting out well paid employment for when it gets kicked out again.

By "mistakes" I was of course referring to the current government and Brexit, not the canals... 😉

 

Assuming Labour get in, the chance of them improving the lot of the canals is tiny, as you correctly say -- but unlike the current government it's not zero. Actually, less then zero since they've committed to reducing funding... 😞

[Mad Harold]

On 05/03/2024 at 23:10, Arthur Marshall said:

If it was informal, and not part of the written contract, then it should be ignored. You won't find the government sticking to "informal" promises, like manifestos, for example. Bit daft one side being 'honourable' when the other very definitely isn't. So I suspect it wasn't informal at all, and it's written into the gubbins setting up CRT, or it wouldn't be happening.

The inescapable fact is that without government support the system will collapse and reurn to being a muddy ditch full of stagnant water and old mattresses. Was good fun while it lasted, though.

But hopefully Arthur, we should get another couple of years before this decline becomes too awful to be enjoyable any more.

[Mike Todd]

16 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The "bargain" regarding inflation was written into the grant agreement rather than the MOU. It is legally enforceable by both parties.

It should also be understood that government have actually exceeded its legal obligations in respect of grant payments. 

 

That said, the grant agreement has worked out well for government (i.e. the taxpayer) who will be saving about £60m on the estimated £800m estimated spend over 15 years. 

I am not sure that it is right (even if beloved of politicians) to say that the taxpayer has 'saved' money - it has simply spent it. 'Saved' implies getting what you originally wanted but for lower cost.

 

In the case of the canal network, the fundamental issue, as with rather a lot else, is the absence of a basic principle on which to make decisions - does the public want a viable network and on what basis? (ie for boats, walkers, fisherfolk, neighbours with a view) If so, at what price does support change to not support? As is the fashion at the moment, reducing spend whilst alleging waste seems to be acceptable - no mention of the waste associate with ventures such as PPI! Perhaps MP's should be paid on a performance basis . . . with OBR assessing the degree of success of each promise. One of my long term grips is that so many projects (public or private) are justified on a cost saving or cost benefit basis. But when the next idea comes along, well before the predecessor has paid back its cost with savings or benefits, that 'loss' is ignored. 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I am not sure that it is right (even if beloved of politicians) to say that the taxpayer has 'saved' money - it has simply spent it. 'Saved' implies getting what you originally wanted but for lower cost.

 

In the case of the canal network, the fundamental issue, as with rather a lot else, is the absence of a basic principle on which to make decisions - does the public want a viable network and on what basis? (ie for boats, walkers, fisherfolk, neighbours with a view) If so, at what price does support change to not support? As is the fashion at the moment, reducing spend whilst alleging waste seems to be acceptable - no mention of the waste associate with ventures such as PPI! Perhaps MP's should be paid on a performance basis . . . with OBR assessing the degree of success of each promise. One of my long term grips is that so many projects (public or private) are justified on a cost saving or cost benefit basis. But when the next idea comes along, well before the predecessor has paid back its cost with savings or benefits, that 'loss' is ignored. 

 

Or even worse, that the apparently brilliant cost-saving ideas don't save anything like as much money as was promised, or even cost more when everything is taken into account including the negative effects that are ignored. Like "saving money" by closing down Sure Start, which has almost certainly cost society (meaning, real people...) and the economy far more than the direct and obvious budget saving... 😞 

 

Loads more examples of this, all caused by short-sighted over-optimistic penny-pinching while ignoring the longer-term consequences -- presumably driven by the fact that the "cost saving" makes the government of the day look good, and the bad side-effects appear in the future when somebody else will probably be in power who can take the blame...

 

With infrastructure in particular, it always costs *far* more in the long-term to fix the problems resulting from short-term cost savings from things like reduced maintenance -- this applies to roads, rail, water pipes, sewers, canals... 😞 

Edited March 7 by IanD

[Orwellian]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's as may be, but I suspect the government will get in anyway. And it won't be much bothered about a failing canal system, being, as usual, more concerned with sorting out well paid employment for when it gets kicked out again.

The government always gets in Arthur.

[Stilllearning]

On 06/03/2024 at 10:12, Arthur Marshall said:

Which presumably it can. CRT, however, as lower in the contractual pecking order, has no say in the matter. I'm sure the guys who run CRT are doing well out of it, as all heads of charitable organisations do. When the money runs out, they move on to another sinecure about which they know (and care) nothing, usually for a higher pay rate. As I once pointed out, Parry knows an awful lot about trains.

On your final point, my wife, an ex TfL employee and erstwhile pa to Parry, would disagree.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Mad Harold said:

But hopefully Arthur, we should get another couple of years before this decline becomes too awful to be enjoyable any more.

I reckon so. I've only got a few more years anyway, as age and infirmity creep up and I've given up expecting to go where I'd like to (the L&L again) as there's too much risk of not getting home, so it's back to pottering round old haunts.

32 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

The government always gets in Arthur.

That's what I meant...

23 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

On your final point, my wife, an ex TfL employee and erstwhile pa to Parry, would disagree.

That's messed up an entire song lyric...