Cavalcade and the NBTA

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Which you do because you want security, don’t wish to move every 14 days and can afford the fee.

 

 

No thats's not it at all. I do it because those are the rules.

 

Society has framework for setting rules (laws) for everyone to abide by, which helps everyone get along together. When too many people ignore the rules society begins to break down. 

 

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The NBTA is the opposite extreme of many here, it’s not the “association of boaters without a home mooring”.

 

It would likely be one that didn’t lead to people seeking to live on boats when they’d really prefer to live on land.
 

Forcing such people to pay more to live on boats is a solution that doesn’t seem to achieve much other than increasing the self satisfaction of wealthy leisure boaters.

 

For sure there would still be some hardcore that really do subscribe to the off-grid kind of lifestyle but their pioneer is one Mr Rolt.

 

Since that's clearly a dig at the likes of me, I'll rise to the bait... 😉 

 

CART need more money, and some of this has to come from boaters. CCers have for many years been making a smaller contribution to CART funding (which pays for the canals their boat is on) than home moorers -- some of who pay CART directly, some via the 9% levy on other mooring fees -- and this low-cost living aboard is one factor that has lead to the large rise in the number of CMers, many of who (not all) seem to do their best to bend/break the rules which law-abiding boaters follow.

 

The CC surcharge on the license fee goes at least part-way to correcting this anomaly (and increases CART income), and simply means that everyone -- CCer or CMer or HMer or EOGer -- pays a similar amount to CART. Or at least CCers don't continue to pay less -- some HMers who pay CART directly or via EOG obviously pay much more. It's a bit like closing a historical tax loophole that some people have taken advantage of but now protest when this is corrected... 😉 

 

You might also care to note that I've suggested several measures to raise further money for CART (like boat-age-related surcharge/discount) which would result in "wealthy leisure boaters" like me paying more money *and poorer people in old boats paying less* -- which hardly smacks of self-interest or prejudice against poorer boaters, does it?

 

Nothing to do with self-satisfaction, just fairness (those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load), and trying to help close the gap between CART funding and the expenditure needed to maintain the canals.

 

Now expecting accusations of being a "champagne socialist" -- well if that means being well-off and thinking I should pay more and those less well-off should pay less, guilty as charged... 😉 

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Momac]

People who feel they should pay more and wish to pay more to C&RT are free to do so since C&RT are a charity and they  accept donations.

 

I don't think license fees should have any connection with the age of the boat although I believe some very old boats are already  licensed at a favourable rate . An old boat has the same navigational requirement as a new boat of the same size. My boat is 20 years old. Does that count as ''old''?

 

As for means testing of the boater  that's a non starter since C&RT are not in a position to ask questions about income and savings. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

14 hours ago, frangar said:

There are bookable moorings to allow visiting boats a hopefully guaranteed spot…maybe a few more of those would help

I can’t say how frequent it happens but I have heard from one boater who had paid to go Paddington Basin how they had to turf someone out of their spot,

 it’s most likely pretty common or standard practise to squat them without paying while not being used,

the eco moorings I passed all seemed to be occupied,

looking on line would tell me if they were booked or no,

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Paul C said:

I am not sure if you meant MtB or the non-moving boater as the idiot

I was referring to mtb who was referring to himself as feeling like an idiot

[frangar]

24 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I can’t say how frequent it happens but I have heard from one boater who had paid to go Paddington Basin how they had to turf someone out of their spot,

 it’s most likely pretty common or standard practise to squat them without paying while not being used,

the eco moorings I passed all seemed to be occupied,

looking on line would tell me if they were booked or no,

 

 

Thus proving those in london have no respect for others…I’d also rather not tie up to a boat of unknown pedigree….both the boat and occupier. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The NBTA is the opposite extreme of many here, it’s not the “association of boaters without a home mooring”.

Exactly so,

and why people always connect an overstayer with the NBTA always puzzles me,

especially as overstaying will inevitably increase when home moorers come out for the season,

 

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, Momac said:

People who feel they should pay more and wish to pay more to C&RT are free to do so since C&RT are a charity and they  accept donations.

 

I don't think license fees should have any connection with the age of the boat although I believe some very old boats are already  licensed at a favourable rate . An old boat has the same navigational requirement as a new boat of the same size. My boat is 20 years old. Does that count as ''old''?

 

As for means testing of the boater  that's a non starter since C&RT are not in a position to ask questions about income and savings. 

Thanks but I already give to various charities -- and who I give to and how much is personal, and I'm not going to post it on here... 😉 

 

Age of a boat is a good -- but not perfect -- proxy for boater wealth, without means testing. Anyone who can afford to buy a new shiny boat can afford a higher license fee, those who are of limited means are much more likely to have an older boat and would pay less.

 

If you keep the total license fee take constant and have a 2:1 fee variation with age, this could mean something like +40% for a brand new boat, 0% for 12yo, -30% for 25+yo which is what insurers count as "old". On this scale you'd get about 20% off compared to the current flat-fee-with-age, I'd pay 40% more.

 

What's your objection to this?

Edited April 18 by IanD
typo

[cuthound]

15 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

as long as they don’t go Tipton I’m not bothered,

Ive realised this week I am a NIMBYist. 

 

To be fair, you being a continuous cruiser in every sense of the phrase, it does give you a very large back yard...

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, frangar said:

Thus proving those in london have no respect for others…I’d also rather not tie up to a boat of unknown pedigree….both the boat and occupier. 

I’m neither defending or attacking them,

but yes, just like anywhere it makes sense to be cautious,

but I would say doubling up with the majority of boats around central London would probably not be an issue,

on the whole they appear to be a friendly bunch

[Lady M]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Thanks but I already give to various charities -- and who I give to and how much is personal, and I'm not going to post it on here... 😉 

 

Age of a boat is a good -- but not prefect -- proxy for boater wealth, without means testing. Anyone who can afford to buy a new shiny boat can afford a higher license fee, those who are of limited means are much more likely to have an older boat and would pay less.

 

If you keep the total license fee take constant and have a 2:1 fee variation with age, this could mean something like +40% for a brand new boat, 0% for 12yo, -30% for 25+yo which is what insurers count as "old". On this scale you'd get about 20% off compared to the current flat-fee-with-age, I'd pay 40% more.

 

What's your objection to this?

Not all boats can be date identified.

 

[IanD]

Just now, Lady M said:

Not all boats can be date identified.

 

But most can. If they can't be identified, they'd go on the default (0%=12yo?) fee, same as today.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

To be fair, you being a continuous cruiser in every sense of the phrase, it does give you a very large back yard...

 

It does for sure,

but I’m very much not a Southerner, it’s always felt like a different world to me down here,

as if it’s someone else’s back yard 😃

[Tam & Di]

57 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

but I’m very much not a Southerner, it’s always felt like a different world to me down here,

as if it’s someone else’s back yard 😃

and with some owners having bits and pieces and their dog(s) etc on the bank it very much is effectively their back yard.

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Since that's clearly a dig at the likes of me, I'll rise to the bait... 😉 

 

CART need more money, and some of this has to come from boaters. CCers have for many years been making a smaller contribution to CART funding (which pays for the canals their boat is on) than home moorers -- some of who pay CART directly, some via the 9% levy on other mooring fees -- and this low-cost living aboard is one factor that has lead to the large rise in the number of CMers, many of who (not all) seem to do their best to bend/break the rules which law-abiding boaters follow.

 

The CC surcharge on the license fee goes at least part-way to correcting this anomaly (and increases CART income), and simply means that everyone -- CCer or CMer or HMer or EOGer -- pays a similar amount to CART. Or at least CCers don't continue to pay less -- some HMers who pay CART directly or via EOG obviously pay much more. It's a bit like closing a historical tax loophole that some people have taken advantage of but now protest when this is corrected... 😉 

 

You might also care to note that I've suggested several measures to raise further money for CART (like boat-age-related surcharge/discount) which would result in "wealthy leisure boaters" like me paying more money *and poorer people in old boats paying less* -- which hardly smacks of self-interest or prejudice against poorer boaters, does it?

 

Nothing to do with self-satisfaction, just fairness (those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load), and trying to help close the gap between CART funding and the expenditure needed to maintain the canals.

 

Now expecting accusations of being a "champagne socialist" -- well if that means being well-off and thinking I should pay more and those less well-off should pay less, guilty as charged... 😉 

I have yet to see evidence that boat age and licence holder income are sufficiently well correlated to make a viable basis for differentiated charging. 

 

Insofar as government subsidies help to maintain the network then there is already a degree of income related charging. 

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

I have yet to see evidence that boat age and licence holder income are sufficiently well correlated to make a viable basis for differentiated charging. 

 

Insofar as government subsidies help to maintain the network then there is already a degree of income related charging. 

There appears to be some well off owners that own ex working boats. So that breaks the rule

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Tonka said:

There appears to be some well off owners that own ex working boats. So that breaks the rule

 

If they own a historic boat then they are probably 'ex' well off owners.

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I have yet to see evidence that boat age and licence holder income are sufficiently well correlated to make a viable basis for differentiated charging. 

 

Insofar as government subsidies help to maintain the network then there is already a degree of income related charging. 

Might I suggest that if you think less well-off people own expensive new boats -- or expensive new EVs, or expensive new houses --  when common sense suggests the opposite is true, you provide some evidence?

26 minutes ago, Tonka said:

There appears to be some well off owners that own ex working boats. So that breaks the rule

Rejecting something that generally works for most people because it's not 100% perfect is rarely a valid argument... 😉

 

No boat charging scheme will be 100% perfect in all cases without the boater filling out a massive questionnaire covering many things, which will cost a fortune even if boaters agree to disclose such information.

 

The challenge is to find a scheme which is not perfect but is better/fairer than what we have today, while being cheap and simple to administer. Boat age seems to do that...

 

(as does the CC surcharge, and increased width premiums).

Edited April 18 by IanD

[Tonka]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Might I suggest that if you think less well-off people own expensive new boats -- or expensive new EVs, or expensive new houses --  when common sense suggests the opposite is true, you provide some evidence?

Rejecting something that generally works for most people because it's not 100% perfect is rarely a valid argument... 😉

 

No boat charging scheme will be 100% perfect in all cases without the boater filling out a massive questionnaire covering many things, which will cost a fortune even if boaters agree to disclose such information.

 

The challenge is to find a scheme which is not perfect but is better/fairer than what we have today, while being cheap and simple to administer. Boat age seems to do that...

 

(as does the CC surcharge, and increased width premiums).

But your scheme means the Crt management have to behave differently to the way they have been doing.

When forum members have suggested changing the management team to bring in fresh ideas you have been anti and had a go at them and even called them Parry bashers.

You have even called me one.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But your scheme means the Crt management have to behave differently to the way they have been doing.

When forum members have suggested changing the management team to bring in fresh ideas you have been anti and had a go at them and even called them Parry bashers.

You have even called me one.

Well you do repeatedly make posts about how useless CART are and how replacing the management will miraculously fix things, while ignoring the real reasons the canals are in the state they're in today. So if the hat fits, I suggest you wear it... 😉

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

..............but your scheme means the Crt management have to behave differently to the way they have been doing.

 

 

If C&RT is going to survive (and it would be nice if the could actually thrive) then they are going to need more 'business development' and Marketing minded people (not printing nice posters and blue signs - proper 'Marketing & placement' of the company) at the top, and a whole different ethos throughout the company.

People with a background in the marine industry, rather than a Director of a Railway, or, 'working with' a US based 'anti-slavery' charity to raise money bring little to the table.

 

At the end of the day, they are not a 'charity' under the normal 'man on the omnibus' interpretation, they are a commercial enterprise that has responsibility for keeping a 200 year old 'themepark' running after 40 (ish) years of underspend.

 

When C&RT were handed the 'poison chalice' in 2012 it came with a backlog over over £100 million of repairs, 

They never stood a chance.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

If C&RT is going to survive (and it would be nice if the could actually thrive) then they are going to need more 'business development' and Marketing minded people (not printing nice posters and blue signs - proper 'Marketing & placement' of the company) at the top, and a whole different ethos throughout the company.

People with a background in the marine industry, rather than a Director of a Railway, or, 'working with' a US based 'anti-slavery' charity to raise money bring little to the table.

 

At the end of the day, they are not a 'charity' under the normal 'man on the omnibus' interpretation, they are a commercial enterprise that has responsibility for keeping a 200 year old 'themepark' running after 40 (ish) years of underspend.

 

When C&RT were handed the 'poison chalice' in 2012 it came with a backlog over over £100 million of repairs, 

They never stood a chance.

I agree with a lot of what you say -- especially the last paragraph -- except that the "nice posters and blue signs" are a direct consequence of the general-public-targeted KPIs imposed by the government, so there's little CART can do about them.

 

It's easy to say "bring in new management, they'll do better" but it won't change CARTs financial problems -- including the massive maintenance backlog -- which are the real root cause. There are few new magic ways of raising more money from "Marketing & Placement" that I can see, whatever happens to CART's ethos -- and from what I can see, Parry genuinely does understand the problems boaters are having and sympathise with them, but there's little he can do without more money.

 

Which isn't coming from the government -- at least, not this one -- so it has to come from elsewhere, and boaters are the obvious cash cow because they actually use and benefit from the canals. But even the relatively small and gradual fee increases CART have proposed have been met with howls of protest from those who will have to pay a bit more, especially if they pay more than others -- and funnily enough these often seem to be the same people complaining about the state of the canals... 😞 

[PaulJ]

3 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

on the whole they appear to be a friendly bunch

Couldnt agree more.

Ive often found London to be one of the friendliest places to boat and often had my new neighbours stop to say hello, offer help  etc. 

Though to be fair it was also they only place Ive ever been robbed too 😀

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, PaulJ said:

Couldnt agree more.

Ive often found London to be one of the friendliest places to boat and often had my new neighbours stop to say hello, offer help  etc. 

Though to be fair it was also they only place Ive ever been robbed too 😀

There's no doubt they're friendly, and there are lots of them -- but also no doubt that many move little if at all, and don't contribute as much to CART as the majority*** of boaters, and those are the reasons they're seen as a problem by some other boaters who move more and/or pay more... 😉

 

*** 80% of boaters have a home mooring and currently pay more to CART via mooring fees or marina levies than CCers

Edited April 18 by IanD

[PaulJ]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

There's no doubt they're friendly, and there are lots of them -- but also no doubt that many move little if at all, and don't contribute as much to CART as the majority*** of boaters, and those are the reasons they're seen as a problem by some other boaters who move more and/or pay more... 😉

 

*** 80% of boaters have a home mooring and currently pay more to CART via mooring fees or marina levies than CCers

Lol Glad you explained that. 😀

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, PaulJ said:

Lol Glad you explained that. 😀

I expect he’ll explain it again before the day is out.