Baton Twirlers Stage Protest (again)

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Momac said:

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.

 

don’t I get to jump the queue at locks?

[cuthound]

2 hours 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.

 

Whilst I agree with this view, it is not likely to happen with the current or any future government in the short (say 10-20 year) term. In the meantime the system will continue to degenerate so needs additional funding from its users now.

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

don’t I get to jump the queue at locks?

You can try . 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, Momac said:

You can try . 

no, I darent,

there’s some hard core women out there doing the locks for hubby,

I’d get clobbered with a windlass

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, Momac said:

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.

 

 

I think that they would have the moral high ground, in a situation where they pay more than others, because of usage. If it is the case that your fee only covers for a certain amount of usage, which could be inferred, how much usage should an home moorer be entitled to, on their licence fee.? It must be quantifiable, there has already been a precedent, with the CC'ers.

 

Any extra that a Home moorer pays for a mooring is not for anything else.

 

 

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Momac said:

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.

 

 

So on the same principle, if I pay (for example) 3x as much tax as somebody else, should I get (for example) 3 votes in the next GE?

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

In the meantime the system will continue to degenerate ...................

This is inevitable unless costs are reduced significantly  eg by closing some canals to navigation.

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

So on the same principle, if I pay (for example) 3x as much tax as somebody else, should I get (for example) 3 votes in the next GE?

the same principle is .............You might think you should get more votes morally but you don't legally get more votes.

[IanD]

Just now, Momac said:

This is inevitable unless costs are reduced significantly  eg by closing some canals to navigation.

That assumes that this doesn't cost more money in the short-term than it saves in the long-term -- since they were established by Act of Parliament closing canals is neither cheap nor easy, with legal obstacles apart from the obvious protests.

 

If CART can't find a way of increasing income -- license fees, DEFRA grant, commercial charges -- and they can't close canals, deterioration will continue... 😞 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So on the same principle, if I pay (for example) 3x as much tax as somebody else, should I get (for example) 3 votes in the next GE?

No, 

but if you pay extra at the theatre you expect the better seat,

 

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Momac said:

This is inevitable unless costs are reduced significantly  eg by closing some canals to navigation.

the same principle is .............You might think you should get more votes morally but you don't legally get more votes.

I disagree -- people pay more tax because they earn more, and tax is what pays for all the societal benefits provided by government -- as well as what they spaff up the wall, unfortunately... 😞 

 

The principle is that the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest load, not that the strongest richest get to decide what happens.

 

37 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

No, 

but if you pay extra at the theatre you expect the better seat,

 

 

Hmm, like private medicine then. So if you follow that to its conclusion with canals, those who pay the highest license fees should be able to (for example) jump queues at locks, claim priority over "poorer" boats at water points and moorings...

 

An example to the contrary is road tax (yes I know...) -- drivers who pay more don't get any privileges over those who pay less, everyone contributes to the cost of maintaning the roads. Except it's not hypothecated so they don't any more, but the principle is exactly the same as the canal license fee.

Edited April 3 by IanD
richest...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

I disagree -- people pay more tax because they earn more, and tax is what pays for all the societal befits provided by government -- as well as what they spaff up the wall, unfortunately... 😞 

 

The principle is that the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest load, not that the strongest get to decide what happens.

 

 

Hmm, like private medicine then. So if you follow that to its conclusion with canals, those who pay the highest license fees should be able to (for example) jump queues at locks, claim priority over "poorer" boats at water points and moorings...

 

An example to the contrary is road tax (yes I know...) -- drivers who pay more don't get any privileges over those who pay less, everyone contributes to the cost of maintaning the roads. Except it's not hypothecated so they don't any more, but the principle is exactly the same as the canal license fee.

don’t worry, 

it’s a little bit of humour to an otherwise repetitive subject about licenses,

I’ll not be taking any moral high ground for paying more than many others. 😉 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

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.

 

Then I should, as a home moorer, because I pay twice as much to CRT as a CCer. The argument is nonsensical.

Luckily, nobody cares what we think. It's the job of the owner to set what it considers a fair price, and that of the user to decide whether it's worth it or not.

And it's the job of the government to decide where tax money gets spent, and the job of the public to vote in one that does it the way they think best. Which is what it's done consistently for the past dozen years, saying clearly it doesn't want public money spent on services, culture or fripperies like a navigation.

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

don’t I get to jump the queue at locks?

 

Do what the neckerchief brigade do and claim working boats have priority.

 

One tried it on me once on the Cheshire locks and I said "Fantastic" and pinched the lock from him.

 

When he started spluttering I smiled sweetly and pointed out my Roving Trader's licence. 

 

"Mine's a working boat licence, yours is a standard pleasure boat licence.  You said working boats have priority."

 

He didn't help me with the lock!

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

No, 

but if you pay extra at the theatre you expect the better seat,

 

That kind of argument led to the Poll Tax - everyone pays the same as everyone has access to the same services (irrespective of amount used) And that turned out well, didn't it?

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Then I should, as a home moorer, because I pay twice as much to CRT as a CCer. The argument is nonsensical.

Luckily, nobody cares what we think. It's the job of the owner to set what it considers a fair price, and that of the user to decide whether it's worth it or not.

And it's the job of the government to decide where tax money gets spent, and the job of the public to vote in one that does it the way they think best. Which is what it's done consistently for the past dozen years, saying clearly it doesn't want public money spent on services, culture or fripperies like a navigation.

Surely you pay the same as everyone else for the licence to navigate? Mooring is a separate matter.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

So on the same principle, if I pay (for example) 3x as much tax as somebody else, should I get (for example) 3 votes in the next GE?

Or if I make a substantial donation to the political party in government, do I get to put my point of view directly to ministers on the issues of the day?

[IanD]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Or if I make a substantial donation to the political party in government, do I get to put my point of view directly to ministers on the issues of the day?

Of course, that's how politics works in the UK today... 😞 

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Do what the neckerchief brigade do and claim working boats have priority.

 

One tried it on me once on the Cheshire locks and I said "Fantastic" and pinched the lock from him.

 

When he started spluttering I smiled sweetly and pointed out my Roving Trader's licence. 

 

"Mine's a working boat licence, yours is a standard pleasure boat licence.  You said working boats have priority."

 

He didn't help me with the lock!

 

Didn't work when they tried it with me either and I don't have a traders license. 

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

don’t I get to jump the queue at locks?

Is your name Sir Adrian, that was his idea, pay more and get preferential treatment and jump queues  

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Is your name Sir Adrian, that was his idea, pay more and get preferential treatment and jump queues  

never heard of him 😃

 

but I have been looking at the maps and I’ve decided to start off for London tomorrow! and look for one of these free moorings everyone’s raving about. 
 

any advice would be welcome. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tam & Di]

I think that ditchcrawler is referring to Adrian Stoat who argues for pay-as-you-go by miles and locks used. Obviously this would be the perfect system for those who simply want to live on the towpath and move as little as possible. ☹️

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

 

Surely you pay the same as everyone else for the licence to navigate? Mooring is a separate matter.

Nope, I contribute more to CRT than a CCer does, doesn't matter what for. You can't be on the water without mooring somewhere, so it's not a separate matter at all. Ccers just rip CRT off by not paying anything to moor, wrecking the towpath with pins or bending the piling. So either I get priority or the argument, as I say, is nonsense. As is my third sentence, before someone takes it seriously...

Everyone has a valid reason for being afloat, and none are more important than any other.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Nope, I contribute more to CRT than a CCer does, doesn't matter what for. You can't be on the water without mooring somewhere, so it's not a separate matter at all. Ccers just rip CRT off by not paying anything to moor, wrecking the towpath with pins or bending the piling. So either I get priority or the argument, as I say, is nonsense. As is my third sentence, before someone takes it seriously...

Everyone has a valid reason for being afloat, and none are more important than any other.

 

and what do you get for your money Arthur?

a canal with not a lot of water and a flight of locks at either end that are rarely open in unison,

I think you’re owed some sort of a refund.

 

and let’s not forget the services at Marple that have been out of action,

 

…and the lift bridge

 

The Macc’s saving grace is its beauty…
 

That’s all meant with a smile before it’s taken too seriously 

Edited April 3 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[peterboat]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

 

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... 😞 

CRT were handed an extensive portfolio of land and buildings, the revenue was supposed to help with the costs, however I do wonder if the money is getting reinvested rather than being spent on the system 

[Sue68]

2 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

I think that ditchcrawler is referring to Adrian Stoat who argues for pay-as-you-go by miles and locks used. Obviously this would be the perfect system for those who simply want to live on the towpath and move as little as possible. ☹️

Was that a Freudian slip? Sir Adrian Stott. He kept the price down for widebeams for years. 

[IanD]

35 minutes ago, peterboat said:

CRT were handed an extensive portfolio of land and buildings, the revenue was supposed to help with the costs, however I do wonder if the money is getting reinvested rather than being spent on the system 

The revenue from land and buildings does contribute significantly to CART income if you look at their accounts, possibly not as much as was hoped by rose-tinted-glasses wearers when CART was set up.

 

Like all other income sources, it goes into the pot out of which all the expenditure comes -- I don't think CART are doing much reinvesting, they can't afford to when they haven't got enough money to run the system properly... 😞