BW's plans to create a mutual charitable trust?

[magpie patrick]

Because they have 2,000 miles of canal they can use that needs to be maintained and to pay for that money has to be raised. The value of the boat or the length does not make any difference to the amount of facilities a boat uses.

 

Cotswoldman, I expected better of you than that. One, it does make a difference, or it would if more people would have small boats. Why do you think BW mooted a higher charge for wide beams? because they can't share wide locks. Small boats need less room to moor, can often share narrow locks (one lock operation less and one lockful less of water to be provided) and their lesser displacement often means less damage. Your proposal would simply force them off the system, which in turn means less revenue.

 

You been drinking with Adrian Stott?

[cotswoldsman]

no, but the value might well indicate the budget a person has to spend on their "hobby"

 

Licence fee is by length not value

[Naughty Cal]

Nope I am not miffed does not bother me that smaller boats pay less than I do at present. The same that I am not miffed that a lot of people pay less tax than I do thats life. I am concerned about the maintenance of the system and how to pay for it. If you happen to have a better idea how to raise the shortfall that will not cost me any money please tell me.

 

It is evetually going to cost us all money, just not in the way you are suggesting. Mooring fees, mooring permits and licence fees are all going to rise, however i cant for one second imagine they will get rid of the length based fees scale, unless of course they go for a similar system to the EA which is based on the boat width x the boat length.

[magpie patrick]

Licence fee is by length not value

 

True, but it's not a bad proxy, although Sea Otters buck the trend a bit

[cotswoldsman]

Cotswoldman, I expected better of you than that. One, it does make a difference, or it would if more people would have small boats. Why do you think BW mooted a higher charge for wide beams? because they can't share wide locks. Small boats need less room to moor, can often share narrow locks (one lock operation less and one lockful less of water to be provided) and their lesser displacement often means less damage. Your proposal would simply force them off the system, which in turn means less revenue.

 

You been drinking with Adrian Stott?

 

I do like to be controversial and encourage debate!! Not had a drink all day.

I understand all the smaller boat use less mooring space argument and locks etc. But my argument is the revenue per boat to use 2,000 miles of canal. I am a CCer and have always supported the concept that CCers should pay more as I use the system more than most so maybe CCers should pay £1,500 pa

[magpie patrick]

I do like to be controversial and encourage debate!! Not had a drink all day.

I understand all the smaller boat use less mooring space argument and locks etc. But my argument is the revenue per boat to use 2,000 miles of canal. I am a CCer and have always supported the concept that CCers should pay more as I use the system more than most so maybe CCers should pay £1,500 pa

 

 

at a quick sum, if all the £30 million pa shortfall is to come from boaters, then the licence fee on average needs to increase by £1200...

 

We'll have to pay something extra, but boaters funding the lot isn't going to happen

[cotswoldsman]

It is evetually going to cost us all money, just not in the way you are suggesting. Mooring fees, mooring permits and licence fees are all going to rise, however i cant for one second imagine they will get rid of the length based fees scale, unless of course they go for a similar system to the EA which is based on the boat width x the boat length.

 

So I take it you don't have any ideas how to raise the shortfall in revenue.

 

True, but it's not a bad proxy, although Sea Otters buck the trend a bit

 

On that basis as my boat devalues every year my licence fee should decrease.

[Naughty Cal]

On that basis as my boat devalues every year my licence fee should decrease.

 

You could decrease your fees by hacking a bit out of the middle of your tube

[magpie patrick]

I'd start with spend less: it is bonkers that, when BW don't have enough money to keep the system in a steady state they try and make improvements (I'm talking bollards here, among other things). I expect a steady procession of things like shower blocks closing as a charitable trust decides that perhaps keeping the canal open is more important. this certainly won't bridge the gap, but it may help.

 

Rely to a greater extent on private enterprise for some provision. You can empty your elsan at Saul marina, and have a shower there, but if you're a day visitor the Elsan costs £3. I've also seen pubs offering shower and laundrette to boating customers on payment (or spending enough in the bar)

 

BW have scored an own goal with mooring tenders, as it means they can't put mooring prices up the way they do licence fees, so it'll be licence fees up I'm afraid, probably on an agreed escalator of say, 3% above inflation for 5 years

 

I guess there is going to be a funding contract with central government

 

all new canalside developments could be subject to a levy in the form of an annual payment from every property that benefits from the canal. The Hereford and Gloucester pioneered this approach at Over, but other societies do this and BW were going to do it on the Cotswolds before they pulled out.

 

This will take time to achieve results, one of the paradox's of large scale cost cutting is that it has set up costs that outweigh the initial savings. I think we will find more long term stoppages until the new system can deliver

[Naughty Cal]

So I take it you don't have any ideas how to raise the shortfall in revenue.

 

Yes encourage more younger boaters to take up boating on cheap smaller craft. Eventually they will move on to bigger craft with higher fees thus increasing revenue.

[cotswoldsman]

You could decrease your fees by hacking a bit out of the middle of your tube

 

I don't want to decrease my fees said earlier and have posted before I am happy to pay more.

[magpie patrick]

On that basis as my boat devalues every year my licence fee should decrease.

 

In many cases, but not all, length is a proxy for ability to pay rather than value. People with less money tend to buy shorter boats. Not a perfect fit by any means hence what I'll call the Sea Otter Paradox

[carlt]

The problem with charging a flat rate, for the licence, is that the concept of a "starter boat" will disappear.

 

Young people and the poor will be denied access to a resource that is owned by everyone, not just the rich.

[cotswoldsman]

I'd start with spend less: it is bonkers that, when BW don't have enough money to keep the system in a steady state they try and make improvements (I'm talking bollards here, among other things). I expect a steady procession of things like shower blocks closing as a charitable trust decides that perhaps keeping the canal open is more important. this certainly won't bridge the gap, but it may help.

 

Rely to a greater extent on private enterprise for some provision. You can empty your elsan at Saul marina, and have a shower there, but if you're a day visitor the Elsan costs £3. I've also seen pubs offering shower and laundrette to boating customers on payment (or spending enough in the bar)

 

BW have scored an own goal with mooring tenders, as it means they can't put mooring prices up the way they do licence fees, so it'll be licence fees up I'm afraid, probably on an agreed escalator of say, 3% above inflation for 5 years

 

I guess there is going to be a funding contract with central government

 

all new canalside developments could be subject to a levy in the form of an annual payment from every property that benefits from the canal. The Hereford and Gloucester pioneered this approach at Over, but other societies do this and BW were going to do it on the Cotswolds before they pulled out.

 

This will take time to achieve results, one of the paradox's of large scale cost cutting is that it has set up costs that outweigh the initial savings. I think we will find more long term stoppages until the new system can deliver

 

All great ideas. Wish they could find a way of charging dog walkers and actually doing something about fining them if they don't clear up...

 

Young people and the poor will be denied access to a resource that is owned by everyone, not just the rich.

 

Yes that is a down side need to get my head round that......

[magpie patrick]

The problem with charging a flat rate, for the licence, is that the concept of a "starter boat" will disappear.

 

Young people and the poor will be denied access to a resource that is owned by everyone, not just the rich.

 

It's not just "young and poor" as boating is optional, your term "starter" (otherwise known as entry level) is key, buy a cheap boat that cheap to run. if you like it in a few years trade up, if you don't you haven't ventured too much capital. If there is no entry level by the time you come to by the bigger, shinier boat your actually into camper vans and instead treat yourself to a bigger one of those

[Morat]

I may get shot for saying this, but I don't see the current license fees as excessive - at least not compared with being gouged for £150 for 14days on the Thames last month! The benefits of a mutual system would hopefully include some accountability for the BW board to the boaters themeselves. Who do they answer to at the moment?

[barge sara]

I may get shot for saying this, but I don't see the current license fees as excessive.

 

I'm inclined to agree, given a system where boaters are expected to make a serious contribution, the licence fee is not excessive, and I wouldn't object to paying more if I thought it would be used effectively.

 

Neither do I object to having licence fees related to boat size - we started with a 25 foot Dawncraft bought for £4K, and certainly wouldn't have done if the licence had been more than a couple of hundred pounds.

 

What annoys me is that BW is poorly managed despite having an excessive number of highly paid executives. As I pointed out a few posts back, The CEs salary alone swallows around 600 licence fees and I do not accept that significant savings couldn't be made by streamlining the management structure, and probably removing the riduculous situation where UK waterways management is shared between BW and the EA!

[Natalie Graham]

All great ideas. Wish they could find a way of charging dog walkers

 

I'm guessing that BW hope this charitable trust thing will result in this to some extent. A membership organisation formed along similar lines to the National Trust would hope to get members from those who enjoy the canals in any capacity and so get dog walkers, ramblers and anyone else who goes for a walk along the canal to join. The snag of course is that unlike NT the waterways don't have a number of specific locations that can charge admission and it is difficult to see what membership of such an organisation could offer beyond the vague feeling of being part of it and doing your bit to help.

 

If they do attempt to raise the bulk of their revenue from boaters I trust that this will mean boaters will get exclusive use of the canal system.

 

Hang on a minute though, if the canals are going to be run as a charity should not the service users be the ones who benefit from the charitable contributions? Guide Dogs for the Blind doesn't raise it's revenue from charging the people who use the dogs, Barnardo's homes don't meet their costs by dividing up the bills between it's residents. Your donation is vital, even as little as two thousand pounds can help keep one of these boaters in licence and mooring fees for a year. Or if you can make a regular donation by direct debit just £15 pounds a week can help provide beer in a canalside hostelry for a needy boater who would otherwise have to go without or pay for it themselves. Please give generously and help keep boating alive on Britain's inland waterways.

 

I'm liking the charity idea better already.

[magpie patrick]

I'm guessing that BW hope this charitable trust thing will result in this to some extent. A membership organisation formed along similar lines to the National Trust would hope to get members from those who enjoy the canals in any capacity and so get dog walkers, ramblers and anyone else who goes for a walk along the canal to join. The snag of course is that unlike NT the waterways don't have a number of specific locations that can charge admission and it is difficult to see what membership of such an organisation could offer beyond the vague feeling of being part of it and doing your bit to help.

 

I'm a member of CAMRA, and all I get for my money is "what's brewing" and 50 off at Wetherspoons vouchers, so this does work up to a point,

 

trouble is, most people supporting the canals are IWA members already

[seaandland]

When I spoke to Vince Moran about two months ago about the third sector and raising revenue one thing he mentioned was private donations from the public, being a government run business he said money would more likely to be given (bequeathed) to B/W as a charity donation rather than as business, if an amount of money was left to maintain a certain canal, that’s where it would be spent. Lots of grants will be open to B/W when they become a charitable trust, ones which will not look at you as an ordinary business and some that can not look at you, as I posted earlier, B/W have had meetings with other trusts and have gained very valuable information and im sure all they need to know about applying for them. As for the salaries of the board, Robin Evans has already sent out a memo stating that if he remained as leader of the charitable trust he would have to have a large pay cut, due to the fact that no other trusts would pay their leaders that sort of salary, as for the directors, the new regime (made up of stakeholders) will nominate executive directors and a pay package to suit, I believe the name for the new regime is, councillors. This was only revealed to B/W lower management last Monday. I am trying to remember what I was told yesterday amongst many other important things like my job security.

[sueb]

I'm inclined to agree, given a system where boaters are expected to make a serious contribution, the licence fee is not excessive, and I wouldn't object to paying more if I thought it would be used effectively.

 

Neither do I object to having licence fees related to boat size - we started with a 25 foot Dawncraft bought for £4K, and certainly wouldn't have done if the licence had been more than a couple of hundred pounds.

 

What annoys me is that BW is poorly managed despite having an excessive number of highly paid executives. As I pointed out a few posts back, The CEs salary alone swallows around 600 licence fees and I do not accept that significant savings couldn't be made by streamlining the management structure, and probably removing the riduculous situation where UK waterways management is shared between BW and the EA!

 

Excellent idea let EA take over all the navigations. We never hear half so many complaints about their management.

Sue

 

When I spoke to Vince Moran about two months ago about the third sector and raising revenue one thing he mentioned was private donations from the public, being a government run business he said money would more likely to be given (bequeathed) to B/W as a charity donation rather than as business, if an amount of money was left to maintain a certain canal, that’s where it would be spent. Lots of grants will be open to B/W when they become a charitable trust, ones which will not look at you as an ordinary business and some that can not look at you, as I posted earlier, B/W have had meetings with other trusts and have gained very valuable information and im sure all they need to know about applying for them. As for the salaries of the board, Robin Evans has already sent out a memo stating that if he remained as leader of the charitable trust he would have to have a large pay cut, due to the fact that no other trusts would pay their leaders that sort of salary, as for the directors, the new regime (made up of stakeholders) will nominate executive directors and a pay package to suit, I believe the name for the new regime is, councillors. This was only revealed to B/W lower management last Monday. I am trying to remember what I was told yesterday amongst many other important things like my job security.

 

Doesn't this sound exactly what was said about the Waterways Trust and it hasn't worked. That Trust has no money. People leave money to IWA why would they leave it to BW? Are the trustees going to be financially liable? Why aren't we being given the answers to our questions? Where is the money coming from?

Can the people who are living on the canals pay more?

Sue

[rgreg]

I too have real concerns over where the funding is going to come from. Reliance on public donations and grants seems to be an uncertain supply of money. Cutting directors pay, however popular, will be a drop in the ocean. Licence and mooring fees currently cover only a fraction of the operating costs and would need a massive increase to make up for the withdrawal of state money. There will be income potential from property but that is precarious.

I only hope that the BW board have done their research accurately and funding is assured.

[matty40s]

No, some of us can't pay any more, ...

and as to the comment about a hobby, ...

this is my home and not a hobby.

 

The excesses of the previous administration, both in budgets and debt.....along with the formation of the countless quangos to keep consultants on the payroll....are amazing. BW was just a happy partner in this.

It just goes to show that the class society never disappeared, it was purely the goalposts were moved to confuse everybody.

[barge sara]

Excellent idea let EA take over all the navigations. We never hear half so many complaints about their management.

 

It certainly raises a question.

If BW becomes a charitable trust and EA continue to manage 'their' waterways, we will end up with some navigations operated by a charitable trust, some by a government department, and the odd few such as the Bridgewater, in private(ish) management. Which is even more nonsensical than the current situation.

 

Will we move to a situation where we pay to be 'members' of BW and then pay an extra toll to transit the Bridgewater, and an EA licence for the Thames?

 

Surely before any changes to the structuring of BW there should be a rationalisation of who manages what?

 

 

 

 

It just goes to show that the class society never disappeared, it was purely the goalposts were moved to confuse everybody.

 

What?

[Natalie Graham]

I too have real concerns over where the funding is going to come from. Reliance on public donations and grants seems to be an uncertain supply of money.

 

Had the waterways always been run by a charitable trust, or if BW had handed them over to another body funded in this way, I can see that donations, bequests and so on might have been a viable source of income. However I can't see people rushing to give their money to an organisation that is not perceived as having used its money wisely in the past. How many of us would be queuing to donate to the square wooden lock bolllards appeal? The RNLI for example has always been funded by public donation and so is able to function on that basis through its tradition of being independent of government funding. If the Coastguard Service were to change to a charitable trust I very much doubt they would attract a sufficient level of donations to function. I really can't see that a former public sector organisation is going to find it easy, at least in the short to medium term, to attract voluntary funding to the level they will need.