C&RT Council - PJS Election Broadcast

[alan_fincher]

I'm not sure I can find the answer in a hurry, but it came from one of Allan Richards' FOI requests. It was for minutes of a BW board meeting and it said that overall numbers were flat. I'll see if I can find the exact quote, but maybe Allan will be able to get it quicker than I can.

BW's annual report figures would not on the face of it support the idea that boat numbers are static......

 

Numbers quoted......

 

Powered private pleasure boats on canals and rivers

 

26,304 in 2009/10

26,871 in 2010/11 (up 2%)

 

Overall (all classes)

 

34,944 in 2009/10

35,241 in 2010/11 (up 1%)

 

The fact the overall number is up by a lower percentage appears to be largely due to a fall in Business Craft numbers, which I think one would exclude from this debate anyway.

 

As these are published numbers, I'm not sure why an FOI request might have been needed, unless there is some different way of "counting" that might yield a different result. (We would need Allan for that).

 

As I said, as many new boats continue to be craned in, but one sees very few removed for scrap, the generally quoted 2% a year increase in boat numbers (nationally) "feels" right to me.

[Sir Nibble]

London Boaters is really just a group made up of the people who turn up so yes, if you come to London and you want to get involved, then by all means do so.

 

Having said that, we did once go through a phase of being all official, and we actually created a mission statement, and a membership statement, but I don't think anyone has ever really used them. I actually objected to having a membership statement for precisely the reason you mentioned - it creates a geographically-based group of people who, to a large extent, aren't geographically based.

Trying hard here to keep away from boats and boating and not wishing Chris to send his flying monkeys after me I have to say that I am positively 100% against public resources going anywhere near such a nebulous and unidentified grouping. This is nothing to do with CC or CM, I just don't think a group that has no members but includes unspecified numbers of people and "you just have to take my word on it there's lots" no mission statement and no identifiable goals should qualify for public money. Just as well go to any sink estate and hand the cash over to the "community" hanging around outside the offy. There is already a structure for an elected representative body charged with community resources and development and they're called the local authority.

[Cosmic]

BW's annual report figures would not on the face of it support the idea that boat numbers are static......

 

Numbers quoted......

 

Powered private pleasure boats on canals and rivers

 

26,304 in 2009/10

26,871 in 2010/11 (up 2%)

 

Overall (all classes)

 

34,944 in 2009/10

35,241 in 2010/11 (up 1%)

 

The fact the overall number is up by a lower percentage appears to be largely due to a fall in Business Craft numbers, which I think one would exclude from this debate anyway.

 

As these are published numbers, I'm not sure why an FOI request might have been needed, unless there is some different way of "counting" that might yield a different result. (We would need Allan for that).

 

As I said, as many new boats continue to be craned in, but one sees very few removed for scrap, the generally quoted 2% a year increase in boat numbers (nationally) "feels" right to me.

I'm sure there was an FOI request for board minutes, in which (IIRC) Simon Salem said that overall figures were flat. He didn't express it in numbers, but the gist of it was that overall licences weren't going up significantly. This is where I got the impression from.

 

It may well be that, as you said, the figures have risen by 1-2% per year, but BW were talking about a 40% increase in the number of boats over a 5-year period. That still means that the bulk of the increase must have come from boat movements rather than an increase in the total number of boats on the system.

[alan_fincher]

That still means that the bulk of the increase must have come from boat movements rather than an increase in the total number of boats on the system.

Yes, I was only question the statement you made about total number of boats on the system remaining "flat", which sounded intuitively wrong to me.

[Cosmic]

Trying hard here to keep away from boats and boating and not wishing Chris to send his flying monkeys after me I have to say that I am positively 100% against public resources going anywhere near such a nebulous and unidentified grouping. This is nothing to do with CC or CM, I just don't think a group that has no members but includes unspecified numbers of people and "you just have to take my word on it there's lots" no mission statement and no identifiable goals should qualify for public money. Just as well go to any sink estate and hand the cash over to the "community" hanging around outside the offy. There is already a structure for an elected representative body charged with community resources and development and they're called the local authority.

We haven't qualified for any public money. The only funds we've ever handled is when we have a whip round to cover the cost of a meeting.

 

However, there are other organisations (specifically, HACT and Locality) that are proper incorporated bodies with lots of experience of working with nebulous and unidentified groups such as ours. They are proving quite adept at getting funding for themselves to spend on projects that benefit "the community", which means that, so far, we haven't had to. BW has agreed to work with these two groups to explore what can be done in this way and, although it's still early days, the results are beginning to look very encouraging.

 

The "Big Society" branding is essentially window dressing. Much of the funding still comes from, and is approved by, central government. However, it reaches groups such as LB via organisations that specialise in this kind of work, which means they tend to be rather better at it than the average local authority. It certainly seems to be working for us.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm sure there was an FOI request for board minutes, in which (IIRC) Simon Salem said that overall figures were flat. He didn't express it in numbers, but the gist of it was that overall licences weren't going up significantly. This is where I got the impression from.

 

It may well be that, as you said, the figures have risen by 1-2% per year, but BW were talking about a 40% increase in the number of boats over a 5-year period. That still means that the bulk of the increase must have come from boat movements rather than an increase in the total number of boats on the system.

 

Below is what I wrote further up the thread. Tony is quite right in what he said.

 

The increase in the number of licenced boats last year was less than 300 (34,944 - 35,241), that's less than 1%. In previous years it has always risen by well over 3% or over 1000.

 

Source, is BW's annual reports (not a FOIA request).

 

To all intents and purposes the growth in the number of boats on our waterways can be considered almost static.

 

***** Edited to add that boats use of the waterways, as measured by lock usage was about 1% higher in 2011 than in 2010. 2010 showed a 7% drop over 2009.

 

***** Edited again as I have just found what I think Tony may have been refering to referring to. It is a report to the board (September 2010) where Simon Salem wrote - Boat Licences Boat licence income continues to run above target (year to date £7.246m +£0.228K) but this is largely due to continued enforcement and to phasing issues. Overall the market is flat.

[Cosmic]

yes, that's the one I was thinking of

[alan_fincher]

Below is what I wrote further up the thread.

Yes, sorry, enough posts that I missed it, initially.....

 

Tony is quite right in what he said.

 

Well we may be hair splitting, but no he isn't, is he ? The number is not "flat" just rising slower than previously, (hardly a surprise I would suggest, given the recession - people less likely to commission a new boat, and more likely to buy one of the many that people are trying to sell second-hand).

 

I would still say that if you are having a discussion about boat numbers that affects London, then private boats with a "canal and rivers" licence is a better measure of the type of craft you are considering. For example a fall in the number of hire boats, (if that is what has kept the overall increases lower), is hardly relevant to London.

 

I may have missed it, but how would anybody actually be able to measure the increase in boat numbers in the London area accurately. I guess BW boat checkers would be the only possible source that might have any validity at all, but is the information out there ?

 

EDITED: As I wasn't sure exactly what "hair slitting" was, having apparently typed it!

Edited March 6, 2012 by alan_fincher

[Cosmic]

Could you direct me to the print of first consultation and the LB report. I know from a Lady Muck post that cooperative work is happening on the Lea and Stort.

 

Thankyou, Higgs

I've found all the responses here. The LB report is number 168.

I think open forum is better. And anyway, I'd have to do something that I don't think is reciprocated. Remember young master Fincher in the Temple of Doom; Aka, BM forum.

 

Do you serve tea and sandwiches. I'll think on it.

Actually, we do! You'll need to look out for Lorraine on the Sandwich Barge.

 

And if you've got a trading licence, you can even vote for her too!

[Guest wanted]

The later part of this thread has inspired me to be more active and I intend to start showing my face at some of LB meetings.

[matty40s]

The later part of this thread has inspired me to be more active and I intend to start showing my face at some of LB meetings.

 

I forgot what a good read that report made, felt a little bit proud when it came out.

Interestingly, of all the 400 plus responses, almost all ones supporting the Proposals appear in the first 100.

When Damian and Sally were asked if these were received by BW first, it became clear that there was no date relevant position, it just so happened that the positive ones appeared first........

Indeed, quite a few were received in the last extension period after BW held it open a bit longer.....

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I forgot what a good read that report made, felt a little bit proud when it came out.

Interestingly, of all the 400 plus responses, almost all ones supporting the Proposals appear in the first 100.

When Damian and Sally were asked if these were received by BW first, it became clear that there was no date relevant position, it just so happened that the positive ones appeared first........

Indeed, quite a few were received in the last extension period after BW held it open a bit longer.....

IIRC suspicions were first aroused when BW extended the consultation period, despite having a massive response already. I clearly recall a suggestion that BW had approached AWCC clubs to suggest that members might like to respond individually supporting the proposals. However, I am not sure if there was any truth in this.

 

Certainly, it looked very much like BW had rigged the consultation responses such that the few that supported the proposals were at the front.

 

It was Dr Steve Haigh who best summed it up saying -

For example, of the first 10 responses (responses 1-10), 8 are broadly pro-BW / anti-continuous-cruisers. In stark contrast to this, I had to examine 65 responses (responses 291-356) before I found 8 that were pro-BW / anti-continuous-cruisers at the end of the published list (word format only).

[Lady Muck]

A boat, on a mooring with no facilities, is somewhat lower than a council house, on the housing scale so I'd say it was down there close to the "basic minimum that organised society will provide for them".

 

And northumberland Park in Tottenham and lower clapton in Hackney, the areas that border the Lee are hardly Alderley Edge. They are some of the most poverty stricken areas in the UK, I don't think you'd aspire to a home there, Dave. It's the same place where we had the riots, remember them?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Lady Muck

[PiRSqwared]

The later part of this thread has inspired me to be more active and I intend to start showing my face at some of LB meetings.

 

Yes, I like cake too...but where do they meet?

[Higgs]

I've found all the responses here. The LB report is number 168.

 

Actually, we do! You'll need to look out for Lorraine on the Sandwich Barge.

 

And if you've got a trading licence, you can even vote for her too!

 

Thanks, just got back in. And getting a trade licence is a future plan.

 

Too late to have a read of link now, but will do.

[Higgs]

Haven't read the link yet.

 

The figure of 40% in 4yrs was a figure given for London, not the system.

 

Before anyone jumps down my throat. I am receiving benefit and my mooring fees are being paid, but I have continued to pay for my licence. I have become a boater, but originally bought the boat for accommodation. When I left my job, just over a year ago, I had thought of moving down to London. Came up to my home turf instead. I have also fallen through the electoral register and cannot get credit, even though I have no debts or had any unpaid.

 

While I appreciate that housing is a problem, and people are important - I still can't understand why people choose to head to a place that is going to cause them problems.

 

I have lived in lots of places since leaving school and hardly ever, until now, felt the need to return to my home ground. Everywhere I've been had it's restrictions. I've even lived in a cave for a while. For one week, in Gibraltar, had to resort to a soup kitchen.

 

There has to be some balance in solving the problem in London. I don't think encouraging people to keep moving to London is a good one. The situation is what it has become and it is too late to try and wind things back. I can't accept that a good reason to move to London should be based on it being trendy.

 

While bearing in mind the social failings of our time, it would be irresponsible of BW and housing minister to have few plans to to back the idea of the Big Society. It is going to require that housing and the navigation can be accommodated. It is no plan to rely on the navigation itself to do the job.

 

 

PS. Matty40s. It's on my profile page. Higgs.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Higgs

[Cosmic]

The figure of 40% in 4yrs was a figure given for London, not the system.

I've finally remembered the context in which BW mentioned this. They said that this had caused unmanageable congestion in London and, even if it hadn't, then London wouldn't be able to cope if the trend continued. That's why I remembered the comment from Simon Salem saying that (across the whole country at least) numbers were largely flat, meaning that the trend wasn't continuing.

Before anyone jumps down my throat. I am receiving benefit and my mooring fees are being paid, but I have continued to pay for my licence. I have become a boater, but originally bought the boat for accommodation. When I left my job, just over a year ago, I had thought of moving down to London. Came up to my home turf instead. I have also fallen through the electoral register and cannot get credit, even though I have no debts or had any unpaid.

You should be allowed to register to vote. In some places, they will try to make you register as having a connection with the local area, but that is often taken by credit reference agencies to mean that you are homeless. If at all possible, try to register at a fixed address. That should help your credit rating.

While I appreciate that housing is a problem, and people are important - I still can't understand why people choose to head to a place that is going to cause them problems.

 

I have lived in lots of places since leaving school and hardly ever, until now, felt the need to return to my home ground. Everywhere I've been had it's restrictions. I've even lived in a cave for a while. For one week, in Gibraltar, had to resort to a soup kitchen.

 

There has to be some balance in solving the problem in London. I don't think encouraging people to keep moving to London is a good one. The situation is what it has become and it is too late to try and wind things back. I can't accept that a good reason to move to London should be based on it being trendy.

 

While bearing in mind the social failings of our time, it would be irresponsible of BW and housing minister to have few plans to to back the idea of the Big Society. It is going to require that housing and the navigation can be accommodated. It is no plan to rely on the navigation itself to do the job.

Something I've seen lately in London is that there are professional working people who can't afford to buy a house and are questioning the economics of renting (£1000 a month for a small flat is cheap). Some of these people are seriously considering boating as a viable alternative. Both the Lea and Stort and the GU are quite convenient for commuters needing to get into central London. I think this could be a significant factor.

 

Grant Shapps, the housing minister, is trying to encourage councils to create more residential moorings in places such as London, where housing costs are high and there are skilled jobs needing to be filled. I'm not sure whether his involvement will help or hinder things, but I suppose we have to try everything.

[Lady Muck]

While I appreciate that housing is a problem, and people are important - I still can't understand why people choose to head to a place that is going to cause them problems.

 

It's where the jobs are. We're here for the same reasons as every other immigrant - work. But many of us boaters were already here before we became boaters. My partner was born here but when he left home he couldn't afford to live in the area he grew up in, he'd need to be earning about $100k a year to do that!

 

We have many different reasons for getting a boat. Me? I wanted a bit of stability, you don't get that in private sector rentals, you get booted out every couple of years so the investor (i.e your landlord) can sell. This is the longest I've lived anywhere in London, very telling. If we must get rid of social housing, then we need a better system for the private sector, perhaps like in Germany, where tenants rent a property long term, a lifetime in one flat isn't unusual. We've ruined London as property is now all about making money and not about having a home. You get the daft situation where not even well-off first time buyers can afford to buy, even in areas that have a lot of poverty. Only BTL landlords can do so.

I have friends in their late forties who were so sick of private sector renting they live in a long wheelbased transit, it's not just boats.

 

I've said before that we know we get no security of tenure in a boat, well we don't get it renting in London either, at least if we get ticketed and moved on or evicted from moorings we still own the roof over our heads.

 

I can't accept that a good reason to move to London should be based on it being trendy.

Working in the fashion trade as I do, I have to be here in order to get work, I don't think I'm the only one. No one will rent a flat to a freelancer. Look at the jobs that other boat dwellers do, you'll see many like me.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Lady Muck

[Sir Nibble]

Going way way off topic, am I alone in looking forward to the day when the chickens come home to roost and London finally prices itself out of existance and vanishes up its own arse? How much longer are companies going to continue with business overheads quadruple what they would be outside the M25 on planet earth merely for, well, snobbery.

[Lady Muck]

Going way way off topic, am I alone in looking forward to the day when the chickens come home to roost and London finally prices itself out of existance and vanishes up its own arse? How much longer are companies going to continue with business overheads quadruple what they would be outside the M25 on planet earth merely for, well, snobbery.

 

I think we're about to spontaniously combust any day now to be fair....and when we do, I shall untie and head North up the Grand Union.

 

 

 

 

Oh.

:facepalm:

Edited March 7, 2012 by Lady Muck

[Guest]

Going way way off topic, am I alone in looking forward to the day when the chickens come home to roost and London finally prices itself out of existance and vanishes up its own arse? How much longer are companies going to continue with business overheads quadruple what they would be outside the M25 on planet earth merely for, well, snobbery.

 

It is remarkable I agree - given most of what goes on in a big city like London could probably done via. the internet and video/teleconferencing

[Chris Pink]

Going way way off topic, am I alone in looking forward to the day when the chickens come home to roost and London finally prices itself out of existance and vanishes up its own arse? How much longer are companies going to continue with business overheads quadruple what they would be outside the M25 on planet earth merely for, well, snobbery.

 

No you're not alone.

 

But think on this, my dear Sir Nibble; if it does then all those people nicely contained within the M25 will bring their selves and their attitudes to our neighbourhoods

 

(I nearly said communities then, but as you say there is no such thing)

 

Personally, I'd convert the M25 into a 100 foot high wall and leave them to it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But think on this, my dear Sir Nibble; if it does then all those people nicely contained within the M25 will bring their selves and their attitudes to our neighbourhoods

 

I already have!

[Guest wanted]

No you're not alone.

 

But think on this, my dear Sir Nibble; if it does then all those people nicely contained within the M25 will bring their selves and their attitudes to our neighbourhoods

 

(I nearly said communities then, but as you say there is no such thing)

 

Personally, I'd convert the M25 into a 100 foot high wall and leave them to it.

 

Tongue and Cheek Chris?

Being one of 'them' I find your remark a little at of character...

[Chris Pink]

Tongue and Cheek Chris?

Being one of 'them' I find your remark a little at of character...

 

I'm doing rudeness in bulk today, couldn't resist 8,278,251 people in one hit.

 

 

 

....but I can say is you seem a decent sort of chap, I'll help you escape.