Baton Twirlers Stage Protest (again)

[cheesegas]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I don't think I should - the business news headlines from the IOD and Senior Business managers cite horrific stories about employing GenZ and the 'entitled generation'.

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Surely even the Gen Z have enough about them do do some investigation into what is required before handing over big chunks of money.

 I think you've been suckered in by all the clickbait ariticles unfortunately - written to cause a fuss and sell clicks on ads but with very little grounding in reality. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'journalists' had gone out with an agenda and interviewed people until they find someone who matches it.

 

As someone who is a bit older than Gen Z, in my early 30s, I'm a freelancer working with what I think is supposed to be Gen Z (20-25) in the technical entertainment industry. Electrics, video signals, technical stuff which needs one to keep on top of the industry and carry on learning. Hours can be long too. Anyway, when I have my project manager hat on, I'm in charge of hiring other freelancers who can be of any age and usually recommended via word of mouth; it's how the industry works.

 

Gen Z tend to be the ones who are very much into the job for the love of it, and are constantly learning, constantly researching all the time and rarely ask daft questions. There's exceptions but few have an ego; they will be the ones staying late, first to help out and arriving early. Contrast this with someone 45-50 who is jaded, hasn't kept up with the industry for the past decade and despite knowing a fraction of what the 25 years olds do, still act like they're entitled to the same day rates. They'll much rather chase me around and ask a daft question than pull out their phone/laptop, download a manual, do some research and solve the problem.

 

Attitude is terrible too - turn up late, always find an excuse to avoid doing something even slightly physically demanding and if something unexpected needs doing, they'll have gone for a smoke break. My best crews have been 25-35 years old; I took 100 of them out to the middle east with me towards the end of last year for a very high profile event and we only had two bad apples.

 

That's not to say it's not the case in other industries, but I trust what I see rather than a clickbait article on the internet. Bear in mind too that I won't come into contact with the Gen Z failures...

 

There's a similar pattern elsewhere - I also do some boat electrics on the side (yes I have insurance etc!), mainly Victron programming and of course mainly in London as that's where the majority of the boats are. Younger folk tend to have bought a cheap boat which is a bit knackered and needs work, but are willing to learn and most have done a lot of research on forums/youtube etc to learn about the various systems. I know one girl who bought an ex lifeboat never having picked up a screwdriver, and a year in she's refitted the kitchen, fixed several plumbing issues and is working through the electrics with my help. I tend to see less older people, but the ones nearer 50 tend to be very stuck in their ways and will abjectly refuse to learn anything despite the info being out there, and feel entitled enough to constantly call me about the smallest thing rather than do some research first. They're the ones who get annoyed that I don't answer the phone when I'm busy...

 

I once met a nice couple in their 50s who had bought a very shiny boat second hand, and wanted me to go over the electrics. They'd moored up in Leighton Buzzard on the towpath for the first time and were shocked to hear they couldn't just stay there forever, they'd have to move! No research at all.

 

 

3 hours ago, matty40s said:

Actually, CRT have more than a small part of blame in this.

I don't think so - the info is out there online, and it's very easily accessible now; a starter pack isn't going to assist. Any Google search terms vaguely around what you want to know returns good results. Admittedly younger generations are more likely to have done this research, so it might be of use to older folk who are less inclined to go online but even still I'd expect them to do research by talking to people at brokers etc who would hopefully point them somewhere useful.

 

Besides, I think the people who flaunt the rules by staying in one place for too long etc know perfectly well of the rules and choose to ignore them...a little pamphlet isn't going to make a difference.

Edited April 2 by cheesegas
punctuation

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

You should see some Facebook posts

I do they if they wernt serious would be hilarious 

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, cheesegas said:

 

 

Besides, I think the people who flaunt the rules by staying in one place for too long etc know perfectly well of the rules and choose to ignore them...a little pamphlet isn't going to make a difference.

The little pamphlet would have given CRT the first points in the battles with the Lee Anderson, JonathanGulis types who are coming to the waterways and saying after 6 months, .

"I didn't know, nobody told me, why should I?"

[Peanut]

38 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The little pamphlet would have given CRT the first points in the battles with the Lee Anderson, JonathanGulis types who are coming to the waterways and saying after 6 months, .

"I didn't know, nobody told me, why should I?"

Just add the cost of it onto the licence fee, or make it a fee for first application.

[matty40s]

7 hours ago, Peanut said:

Just add the cost of it onto the licence fee, or make it a fee for first application.

Forgive the pun, but compared to the cost of enforcement , the pamphlet cost would be peanuts.

[cheesegas]

7 hours ago, matty40s said:

The little pamphlet would have given CRT the first points in the battles with the Lee Anderson, JonathanGulis types who are coming to the waterways and saying after 6 months, .

"I didn't know, nobody told me, why should I?"

To be honest I've only heard of people not knowing the rules twice. Most people are fully aware of the rules and those who overstay are also aware and try to get around them; as someone who's worked on boats, I've been asked many many times 'what's a serious breakdown I can tell to the CRT so I can overstay here for a few weeks, I like it here'.

 

The info is out there and I think the vast majority of people have read it, or make a Facebook post etc about buying a boat and are pointed towards it.

Edited April 3 by cheesegas

[MtB]

Is this not the cause of the change a few years ago, where current licences ceased to be transferrable to a new owner when a boat is sold? Boaters claiming not to be subject to the rules because they have not signed anything agreeing to them? 

 

CRT now cancel a currnet licence and issue a refund on transfer of ownership, in order to force the new owner to agree to the T&Cs from the get-go, when purchasing their own new licence AIUI. 

 

No need for booklets or whatever now. 

 

 

[cuthound]

23 hours ago, cheesegas said:

Totally - I agree that there’s a lot of people who just hover around the same area simply because it’s cheap, and don’t let anyone else have that spot. However, it’s not just scruffy boats who do that, plenty of new widebeams are at it as well for example! Walthamstow Marshes in London is notorious for that behaviour. I also echo your thoughts on the NBTA, I’ve joined their zoom meetings out of interest and it’s like a student politics club, only more angsty and with less direction and meaning. 

 

I’ve got a lot of snootiness from shiny boaters over the past couple of years when I chat to them at locks etc and mention I don’t have a home mooring. ‘You’re one of them’…‘trying to avoid tax eh’ and so on. I did some of the Oxford loop last summer and it seemed especially bad - my boat is a little scruffy and could do with a repaint at some point as it’s fading, and I have a tarp on the roof covering the inevitable two bags of coal I didn’t use over winter! Unmistakably liveaboard, along with the solar panels. 

 

Strange, I always talk to all boaters, and say hello as I pass and am really envious of people like you and @beerbeerbeerbeerbeer who genuinely continuously cruise but recently have found a kind of "reverse snobbism" from some of the bridge hoppers, where they deliberately ignore you because you are "not one of them".

 

Pity really, because I have had great pleasure from canalling over the last 50 years, but don't want to see it come to an end or some canals closed because too many people are not prepared to pay their share to keep it properly maintained.

[MtB]

54 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Pity really, because I have had great pleasure from canalling over the last 50 years, but don't want to see it come to an end or some canals closed because too many people are not prepared to pay their share to keep it properly maintained.

 

 

Its 'chicken and egg' territory though isn't it. There are "too many people" because CRT/BW have kept licence fees artificially low and relied on govt handouts which are now stopping. In the meantime through patchy to non-existent enforcement they have allowed the canals to be over-run with cheap-homers whose only interest is low running costs. Some of them with £1/4m widebeams but many with £20k sinkers that get no maintenance from one decade to the next.

 

Had licence costs for the last 40 years genuinely reflected the cost of running the system, we probably would not be where we are now. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Its 'chicken and egg' territory though isn't it. There are "too many people" because CRT/BW have kept licence fees artificially low and relied on govt handouts which are now stopping. In the meantime through patchy to non-existent enforcement they have allowed the canals to be over-run with cheap-homers whose only interest is low running costs. Some of them with £1/4m widebeams but many with £20k sinkers that get no maintenance from one decade to the next.

 

Had licence costs for the last 40 years genuinely reflected the cost of running the system, we probably would not be where we are now. 

 

 

If license costs reflected the cost of running the system, there would be no boats and no system.

If the thing is supposed to be a resource for the general public, walkers, cyclists, fishermen, leisure boaters, hirers,, then it should be publicly funded. It's not been a commercial waterway for a century.

Bit like the water industry, really. Trying to run it is a private concern when it's meant to be a utility is to guarantee failure. It can't be both.

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If license costs reflected the cost of running the system, there would be no boats and no system.

If the thing is supposed to be a resource for the general public, walkers, cyclists, fishermen, leisure boaters, hirers,, then it should be publicly funded. It's not been a commercial waterway for a century.

Bit like the water industry, really. Trying to run it is a private concern when it's meant to be a utility is to guarantee failure. It can't be both.

 

 

Ah yes, public funding. AKA print the money. 

 

And economists know exactly where THAT leads! 

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If license costs reflected the cost of running the system, there would be no boats and no system.

If the thing is supposed to be a resource for the general public, walkers, cyclists, fishermen, leisure boaters, hirers,, then it should be publicly funded. It's not been a commercial waterway for a century.

Bit like the water industry, really. Trying to run it is a private concern when it's meant to be a utility is to guarantee failure. It can't be both.

 

There's no way that license fees -- direct to CART and indirect via marina fee slicing and commercial licenses -- can pay 100% of the cost of running the canals, and neither should they given the other sources of CART income including property, water extractions and the DEFRA grant, and the use of the canals as a resource by non-boaters.

 

But it's clear that they are artificially low, and -- even after the recent changes, which will take 5 years to come into effect -- are not graduated enough, the differences between different types of boats and boaters are too small, and there is insufficient enforcement of the rules about moorings, especially overstaying CMers.

 

Just like the current tax system this has been to the detriment of less well-off boaters with smaller older cheaper boats and to the advantage of better-off boaters with bigger newer more expensive ones, and also has favoured those who bend (or break) the rules to their own advantage (cheap living) while effectively penalising those who follow the rules.

 

It's also clear that the reduction of the government grant in real terms in recent years and even more so in the future is going to have a severe impact, and doesn't even make sense given their stated view of the canals as a "national treasure" or part of the national infrastructure -- but it's just another example of Tory privatisation-by-stealth, anything to get stuff to disappear off the government books and make it Somebody Else's Problem -- in this case CART, who can do very little about it.

 

The result of all this has been an ever-increasing maintenance backlog combined with more and more money spent on emergency repairs, more stoppages making it difficult for boaters to actually use the canals for -- well, boating, and a system parts of which are increasingly clogged up with CMers to the point of being well-nigh inaccessible to boaters who actually boat.

 

The problem is that the two things which would fix these problems -- restoration of the central grant (in real terms) to at least what it was when CART was formed, and a significant and rapid increase in license fees with more graduation (bigger and faster than CART have proposed, with a bigger surcharge for wideboats and CCers to discourage CMers) -- are being blocked, the first by the government and the second by the boaters who would be worse off as a result, including the NBTA... 😞 

[Higgs]

20 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Ah yes, public funding. AKA print the money. 

 

And economists know exactly where THAT leads! 

 

It's by and large a public facility. 

 

The towpath I'm on can best be described as a bog. Churned up by bikes and walkers.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Higgs

[dmr]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

 

The problem is that the two things which would fix these problems -- restoration of the central grant (in real terms) to at least what it was when CART was formed, and a significant and rapid increase in license fees with more graduation (bigger and faster than CART have proposed, with a bigger surcharge for wideboats and CCers to discourage CMers) -- are being blocked, the first by the government and the second by the boaters who would be worse off as a result, including the NBTA... 😞 

 

Putting a big surcharge on CC'ers in order to deter CM'ers is a really bad and unfair way to solve the CM'er/cheap housing problem. CC'ers, often older retired people with a real interest in the canals, are an essential part of the canal community.

[Higgs]

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

surcharge for wideboats and CCers to discourage CMers)

 

Someone needs to help me with the logic here. How does increasing the cost to CC'ers somehow work to discourage CM'ers? I thought the only premise of the increase was that CC'ers used the system more.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Higgs

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Putting a big surcharge on CC'ers in order to deter CM'ers is a really bad and unfair way to solve the CM'er/cheap housing problem. CC'ers, often older retired people with a real interest in the canals, are an essential part of the canal community.

Yes I know -- but still they're paying less for their use of the canals than HMers are, so I think some surcharge is fair, the existing 25% is easy to justify from this point of view.

 

I did suggest the way to fix this -- which is also more redistributive -- is to also make the license fee a function of boat age, so those with shiny new expensive boats pay more and those with old cheap boats pay less. Easy to administer, but no doubt would cause howls of anguish from many (not me!) who would pay more as a result. Something like a 2:1 variation with boat age would solve that particular problem, for example new boats might pay 40% more and old ones 30% less without affecting the total license fee take for CART.

 

Then a bigger CC surcharge (e.g. 40%) would put the older retired boaters back to where they were before it was introduced), but with more income for CART from new shiny boaters who would be paying double what the oldies pay (100% more than before the CC surcharge).

 

The numbers could be changed to alter either what oldies pay or newbies pay but the principle is clear, link the license fee to boat age which is a reasonable proxy for boat value.

 

The trouble with any change like this is that the people who have to pay more make a big fuss, and the people who pay less don't, so it's difficult to push through... 😞 

[Momac]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Someone needs to help me with the logic here. How does increasing the cost to CC'ers somehow work to discourage CM'ers.

 

 

It doesn't make any difference as folks who are going to overstay will do so anyway.

Perhaps could be said  the CC'ers and wide beams should be given enhanced rights and  priority as they are paying more for their license

Edited April 3 by Momac

[Higgs]

22 minutes ago, Momac said:

It doesn't make any difference as folks who are going to overstay will do so anyway.

Perhaps could be said  the CC'ers and wide beams should be given enhanced rights and  priority as they are paying more 

 

That's precisely what I think.

 

Anyway, I've worked out how much CRT will cost over the coming year = £0.00. I'm having the boat hauled out, to work on it and do other things with my time. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If license costs reflected the cost of running the system, there would be no boats and no system.

If the thing is supposed to be a resource for the general public, walkers, cyclists, fishermen, leisure boaters, hirers,, then it should be publicly funded. It's not been a commercial waterway for a century.

Bit like the water industry, really. Trying to run it is a private concern when it's meant to be a utility is to guarantee failure. It can't be both.

For me, I'd want to advocate somewhere between you and MtB: neither a fully public utility, free at the point of use, nor a fully commercial operation is really going to work. In the first case, there are just too many areas where sustained reductions in public maintenance have led to situations of near collapse (OK I'm biased having just has a pothole damaged tyre to replace) with canals rather lower down the priority scale, compared with hospitals, schools and roads all in dire need. In the second case, a fully commercial operation would need to find ways of monetising all the non-boating users, including walkers and cyclists, with a real problem over controlling access and monitoring payments/permits or w.h.y.

 

As with most of these challenges, a real problem is a complete lack of a political philosophy that can give a principled underpinning yo the separate decisions. At one extreme we do have the Corbynist approach that really only values publicly owned activities - and is principled in doing so - and at the other we have the 'tax is wrong' brigade of Farage and Rees-Mogg. Until we can find a way that says that the mixed economy - some things are best done for the public good and some better for those who need/can afford it, we will struggle to do anything better than ad hoc decision making that generally quickly fails because it is a fine balance of opinion which changes with the daily winds.

 

But I still lie in hoe that we can find a way of doing this with the canals!

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, Momac said:

It doesn't make any difference as folks who are going to overstay will do so anyway.

Perhaps could be said  the CC'ers and wide beams should be given enhanced rights and  priority as they are paying more for their license

It does make a difference because it puts the cost of living on the cut up for the CMers, which must reduce the numbers doing it since they're in it for the cheap housing.

 

CCers and widebeam owners are paying more to get more money for CART; they don't get any extra privileges any more than people paying more tax do.

[Higgs]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

It does make a difference because it puts the cost of living on the cut up for the CMers, which must reduce the numbers doing it since they're in it for the cheap housing.

 

CCers and widebeam owners are paying more to get more money for CART; they don't get any extra privileges any more than people paying more tax do.

 

I know you won't see this, but...

 

Your rationale is that CM'ers will decide to leave the canal. Because, IMO, increasing the cost does not impose altered habits on people, it increases the cost. 

 

.

Edited April 3 by Higgs

[sigsegv]

31 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Because, IMO, increasing the cost does not impose altered habits on people, it increases the cost. 

The only quick example that came to mind for me was minimum alcohol pricing - which when introduced, I expected to not considerably reduce drinking among problem drinkers, just make them more poor. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in-between. Reduced deaths caused by alcohol by 13.4% and related hospital admissions by 4.1% [1]. Of course, those addicted (which we can use as a vague analogy to those on the system that are not in a position to change their circumstances) cannot stop and will simply pay more and end up poorer.

 

[1] - https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1477.full

[mrsmelly]

40 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I know you won't see this, but...

 

Your rationale is that CM'ers will decide to leave the canal. Because, IMO, increasing the cost does not impose altered habits on people, it increases the cost. 

 

.

I will quote your post so she can see it.............Oh, hang on a minute 😂

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I will quote your post so she can see it.............Oh, hang on a minute 😂

 

Yep. You're blocked (ignored) (solipsism) too. I think. ??

 

 

Edited April 3 by Higgs

[Momac]

51 minutes ago, IanD said:

CCers and widebeam owners are paying more to get more money for CART; they don't get any extra privileges any more than people paying more tax do.

I agree they don't have any privileges  legally but they might claim that they have privileges morally  because they  pay a higher license fee.