Retaining boatyards

[fender.]

I understand that the Mayor of London is committed to protecting all boatyards in the London area (on river and canal), as a reduction in services means a reduction in repairs and maintenance for both commercial and leisure users, both of whom he views as being vital to the London waterways economy.

 

Of course a reduction in boatyards elsewhere also means a reduction in services, this news item from Oxford says it all:

 

http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/d...s_home_sink.php

 

There should be no more boatyards closed - and especially in the light of the red diesel debacle - more support should be given to help boatyards, otherwise we lose much that is invaluable to the waterways. It is somehow implausible that there should be a increase in boating - and a similar decrease in boatyard facilities. It might be good for these so-called 'market forces' but ultimately it is self defeating.

[carlt]

I understand that the Mayor of London is committed to protecting all boatyards in the London area (on river and canal), as a reduction in services means a reduction in repairs and maintenance for both commercial and leisure users, both of whom he views as being vital to the London waterways economy.

 

Of course a reduction in boatyards elsewhere also means a reduction in services, this news item from Oxford says it all:

 

http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/d...s_home_sink.php

 

There should be no more boatyards closed - and especially in the light of the red diesel debacle - more support should be given to help boatyards, otherwise we lose much that is invaluable to the waterways. It is somehow implausible that there should be a increase in boating - and a similar decrease in boatyard facilities. It might be good for these so-called 'market forces' but ultimately it is self defeating.

 

I may be shot down in flames but why start subsidising another industry that can't keep itself afloat (unintentional pun) when our history is littered with such casualties. The British motor industry springs readily to mind.

 

If a boatyard closes it is because you're not using them enough.

[Freetochat]

If a boatyard closes it is because you're not using them enough.

 

I don't think that is strictly true, it may be that the waterside site has more lucrative uses. Housing and other development spings to mind.

[Gary Peacock]

I very nearly took the lease on a BW owned yard. I was saved by the accountant who explained in simple terms the chances of making it work were nigh on nonexistent it seemed it existed more or less totally from the revenue from the moorings rather than the services it in theory offered.

 

He also considered BW could manipulate the business and lease very much to suit their own purposes.

[carlt]

I don't think that is strictly true, it may be that the waterside site has more lucrative uses. Housing and other development spings to mind.

So could every other business in the world. That doesn't mean we should have to subsidise it. Just because it is 'waterside' shouldn't make it 'untouchable'. The answer is, don't rent your yard off rachmann, sorry, British Waterways.

[Freetochat]

I believe that there should be protections from development. Housing and leisure development will always generate more revenue for land than a craftsman, farmer or small business. If land use fall to the highest bidder, then much culture and traditional landscape will be lost. This retention unfortunately comes at a price the same as subsidising rural public transport, the railway system, classical music and the arts, historic buildings and museums. The list can go on.

[carlt]

rural public transport, the railway system, classical music and the arts, historic buildings and museums. The list can go on.

It could indeed but I personally don't know why the arts and classical music are subsidised. Elitist overpriced crap largely. If every tinker and doilie maker got subsidised because their trade is 'quaint' then I should get my boats restored for nothing, they can come and subsidise my vintage bike collection as well.

You'll be declaring Jon Suchet a national monument next.

Edited March 3, 2007 by carlt

[John Orentas]

I believe that there should be protections from development, // classical music and the arts, . The list can go on.

 

 

I have never seen the slightest justification for state subsidies of 'The Arts'. As far as I am concerned if the people who appreciate all that stuff are not prepared to finance it, it should be allowed to die out. I once saw a TV programme about the National Opera, it was absolutely obscene the way the committee or governors spent huge amounts of public money on their private hobby, champagne receptions and the like. That said the musicians and other performers were very poorly paid.

 

But then I suppose we would all have our own list of worthy causes.

[Guest]

Whilst I have no interest in the arts either way, we must be careful about the way TV programmes and other media portray such things. Many documentaries and articles are often one-sided and based on prejudice. Don't believe everything that the British Brainwashing Corporation and their counterparts tell you.

[blackrose]

I don't think it's quite as simple as saying things should be able to support themselves in the free market. Ideally yes, but many things are not able to be self-sustaining in the face of big business - they just can't compete. Should this mean it is right that they are destined to die off? By this rationale we would all soon be living in Tescoland.

 

For example, opposite my mooring are some warehouses including the last warehouse/dock which overhangs the towpath on the Grand Union - used in the past for unloading/loading Thames barges and working narrowboats. There is a preservation order on the building but also great pressure on the council from redevelopers who want to build flats. The plans for the redevelopment have already been rejected but now modified plans have been resubmitted and I'm sure that eventually if this goes on the warehouses will be demolished and area redeveloped. Amazingly I heard today that BW actually owns a share of the redevelopment company!

Edited March 3, 2007 by blackrose

[blackrose]

It could indeed but I personally don't know why the arts and classical music are subsidised. Elitist overpriced crap largely.

 

Classical music is largely crap?

 

Well, I don't pretend to understand classical music in its entirety, but I certainly wouldn't allow my ignorance to ruin my limited appreciation & enjoyment.

Still each to their own - so what sort of music do you like?

Edited March 3, 2007 by blackrose

[fender.]

I don't think that is strictly true, it may be that the waterside site has more lucrative uses. Housing and other development spings to mind.

 

That in a nutshell is how I feel about it. The canals themselves come last as usual as the drive for more development is pursued.

[Freetochat]

It could indeed but I personally don't know why the arts and classical music are subsidised. Elitist overpriced crap largely.

 

IMO we all have a responsibility to preserve our history and culture and that includes many things of which we have no personal interest. If it wasn't for this attitude, parks and open spaces in the cities would be lost, and the population would held to ransom by the development companies keeping us all in 'rabbit hutches' in a land of concrete. Quality of life issues are not always measured in financial terms.

[carlt]

Classical music is largely crap?

 

Well, I don't pretend to understand classical music in its entirety, but I certainly wouldn't allow my ignorance to ruin my limited appreciation & enjoyment.

Still each to their own - so what sort of music do you like?

Well it's a bit but as you ask. I've got over 800 cds and thousands of vinyl (lost touch with it since being on a boat though). If I was forced to name my favorites then they'd be:

William Byrd: The conflict of being simultaneously Catholic and Elizabeth 1's lead chorister lead to some of the finest music ever written.

 

Stefan Grapelli: Inspired me to grade 7 violin, until I discovered:-

 

Cabaret Voltaire and Joy Division.

 

Winton Marsalis is one of the finest horn blowers to walk the earth and

 

Jah Wobble is the best bassist.

 

I like The The for his politics and tunes as well.

 

Back on Topic though: I wouldn't give any of them a penny in state subsidy though. If they can't make money selling it then they can sit in the back cabin serenading the dog like I have to (until I torched the backcabin of course).

[blackrose]

Well it's a bit but as you ask. I've got over 800 cds and thousands of vinyl (lost touch with it since being on a boat though). If I was forced to name my favorites then they'd be:

William Byrd: The conflict of being simultaneously Catholic and Elizabeth 1's lead chorister lead to some of the finest music ever written.

 

Stefan Grapelli: Inspired me to grade 7 violin, until I discovered:-

 

Cabaret Voltaire and Joy Division.

 

Winton Marsalis is one of the finest horn blowers to walk the earth and

 

Jah Wobble is the best bassist.

 

I like The The for his politics and tunes as well.

 

Back on Topic though: I wouldn't give any of them a penny in state subsidy though. If they can't make money selling it then they can sit in the back cabin serenading the dog like I have to (until I torched the backcabin of course).

 

Well, I don't think it was me that took this thread off topic as it was originally about boatyards, but lots of different types of music have received arts council grants & subsidisation. Classical music has had a bad press because it's seen by some as elitest which of course it is not. There is the criticism that subsidisation, which was intended to allow more people to enjoy the arts, has in fact only allowed those who already enjoyed it to do so more often, and this may be true to a degree. In the the case of museums, subsidisation in the form of free entry has definately widened their appeal. Anyway the issue of subsidisation of the arts/culture and its quality are slightly different issues but I'm shocked me to hear anyone say that classical music is crap especially when that person claims to be a music lover!

Edited March 4, 2007 by blackrose

[carlt]

Well, I don't think it was me that took this thread off topic as it was originally about boatyards, but lots of different types of music have received arts council grants & subsidisation. Classical music has had a bad press because it's seen by some as elitest which of course it is not. There is the criticism that subsidisation, which was intended to allow more people to enjoy the arts, has in fact only allowed those who already enjoyed it to do so more often, and this may be true to a degree. In the the case of museums, subsidisation in the form of free entry has definately widened their appeal. Anyway the issue of subsidisation of the arts/culture and its quality are two different issues and I'm shocked me to hear a fellow music lover say that classical music is crap!

I didn't say classical music was crap. I was responding to someone else who mentioned classical music. I think most music of all kinds and most commercial art is pretentious crap, not just classical.

 

I believe in subsidies for museums (not private ones though, they're a hobby got out of hand and should be self funding) and, if necessary, obsolete crafts should be preserved in a 'museum' format not a subsidised business. My friend, though, makes a perfectly good living making shoes using medieval methods without going cap in hand to the govt. And I don't think jem bates is starving to death restoring wooden boats.

 

This thread has nothing to do with 'preserving ancient crafts' it's about state subsidies for modern boatyards who can't run a business in, possibly, the most lucrative period the waterways has seen.

 

And I resent my taxes going to reducing the price of a ticket so some hooray can go and watch a fat bird warbling away in covent garden whilst sipping champers in the interval. Or finger painting for ex miners for that matter.

[blackrose]

I didn't say classical music was crap.

 

It looks like you did, but perhaps that was not what you meant.

 

Personally I would rather my tax money went on subsidising the arts, culture, schools, hospitals and whatever other public interests & services require funding than the billions spent subsidising Trident & Iraq! War should be self funding

 

Let's get this in perspective - there is always money for war.

Edited March 4, 2007 by blackrose

[carlt]

It looks like you did, but perhaps that was not what you meant.

 

Personally I would rather my tax money went on subsidising the arts, culture, schools, hospitals and whatever other public interests & services require funding than the billions spent subsidising Trident & Iraq! War should be self funding

 

Let's get this in perspective - there is always money for war.

 

But if we reduce the tax burden that goes into defence we wouldn't have to subsidise peoples' hobbies because we could afford to participate more.

 

But the majority of art funding is done to finance people who think their minority interest should earn them a living. Removing subsidies won't stop people creating, if they want. My other half is an art graduate and beautiful painter who hasn't downed her brush and palette because she's not receiving state handouts, she does it for her own (and my) enjoyment. We don't refuse to play our instruments (quite brilliantly I might add ) because we're not getting an arts council grant. Though, if we lived in a marina, we might derive an income from neighbours paying us to stop.

 

If a boatyard is an important, historical building, then it should be listed and preserved. If someone wants to use that yard to preserve boats and restore traditional waterways artifacts using traditional methods then he should be employed by the 'working museum' I'm describing.

 

If he wants to run a business building and maintaining modern boats for profit then he should either accept the responsibilities of custodianship of an historic site and preserve it, eg. Tim Coghlan and the restoration work he does at Braunston Marina alongside running a modern brokerage and maintenance dock, or find a more appropriate modern building to ply his trade.

[adam1uk]

Isn't it slightly strange that so many of you object to subsidising the arts, yet have been so vocal in opposing the cuts to the subsidy of the canals?

 

I'm sure there are many many people who think that nearly £80million going into the canals each year isn't a good use of taxpayers money. They probably wonder why they're subsidising people who can afford to spend £100,000 on a narrow boat. They'd probably argue that people who use the waterways should pay for their hobby or lifestyle.

 

Surely we should accept that many things, such as the arts and the canals, enrich the life of the nation and deserve to be subsidised. Otherwise, people might think that we only want subsidies for the things we enjoy.

[carlt]

Isn't it slightly strange that so many of you object to subsidising the arts, yet have been so vocal in opposing the cuts to the subsidy of the canals?

 

I'm sure there are many many people who think that nearly £80million going into the canals each year isn't a good use of taxpayers money. They probably wonder why they're subsidising people who can afford to spend £100,000 on a narrow boat. They'd probably argue that people who use the waterways should pay for their hobby or lifestyle.

 

Surely we should accept that many things, such as the arts and the canals, enrich the life of the nation and deserve to be subsidised. Otherwise, people might think that we only want subsidies for the things we enjoy.

Read my posts, I haven't been vocal about opposing the cuts (though I think the proportion boaters pay for the upkeep of a national asset is disproportionate), and I certainly don't have a £100000 boat.

 

I believe the country has a duty to maintain and preserve its heritage. But the fact that the waterways is treated as a playground for boaters is a bonus.

 

Boaters subsidise a national asset by:

a: paying their taxes

b: paying the first 'boat tax' ie.the licence

c: paying the second 'boat tax' the mooring fee (or the supplement that forms part of the marina fee)

 

The notion of the struggling artist in his garret, starving in order to buy his materials is a little bit fanciful. Like I said, my partner is an art graduate who works to fund her materials. We are restoring our own, historic boats and work to fund them. We don't want govt. hand outs to practice our hobbies, which may or may not be enjoyed by others and may or may not enrich the nation.

 

Yes subsidise museums. Yes subsidise (public) art galleries and, if an artists work is good enough, then pay him a fee do display his work. But to give a grant to an artist because they're not crap enough to impress saatchi is funding a hobby and, in the interests of equality we should all get the same subsidy because we all have hobbies to one extent or other, and who is qualified to judge whether me knocking two bits of wood together or Tracy emin showing off her bed is art or not.

[adam1uk]

Read my posts

 

I did. And you said:

 

I personally don't know why the arts and classical music are subsidised.

 

And you said:

 

I resent my taxes going to reducing the price of a ticket so some hooray can go and watch a fat bird warbling away in covent garden whilst sipping champers in the interval.

 

And you weren't the only one:

 

I have never seen the slightest justification for state subsidies of 'The Arts'. As far as I am concerned if the people who appreciate all that stuff are not prepared to finance it, it should be allowed to die out.

 

I was merely pointing out that it's rather dangerous ground to call for the subsidy to the arts to be cut, at the same time as taking part in an activity which is itself subsidised. You resent paying for the price of opera tickets to be reduced; others might resent the price of boat licences being reduced. John thinks arts that can't pay for themselves should be allowed to die out; others might think that canals which can't pay for themselves should be allowed to go the same way.

 

And I never said you had a £100,000 boat. But in the same way that you portrayed every opera-goer as a champagne sipping hooray, so someone opposed to subsidising the canals might portray boaters in much the same way. As with all stereotypes, the truth is rather different.

[carlt]

I was merely pointing out that it's rather dangerous ground to call for the subsidy to the arts to be cut, at the same time as taking part in an activity which is itself subsidised. You resent paying for the price of opera tickets to be reduced; others might resent the price of boat licences being reduced. John thinks arts that can't pay for themselves should be allowed to die out; others might think that canals which can't pay for themselves should be allowed to go the same way.

 

And I never said you had a £100,000 boat. But in the same way that you portrayed every opera-goer as a champagne sipping hooray, so someone opposed to subsidising the canals might portray boaters in much the same way. As with all stereotypes, the truth is rather different.

First of all I meant read my posts on this forum. I haven't joined in with the protests on the cuts to the waterways budget. Indeed I have said I miss the good old days when the canals were run as a (albeit semi derelict) transport system, rather than a glorified theme park.

 

I wasn't denying I said I think artists and musicians should pay their way without govt. handouts. What made you think I was?

 

John Orentas hasn't got a £100,000 boat either. That sort of boat is very much in the minority on the system.

 

I am not calling for art subsidies to be cut. I personally think they should be scrapped and someone who wants to convert his hobby into a profession should make sure he can afford it. I don't feel it strongly enough to start a campaign though.

 

I didn't say all opera goers are hoorays, nor do I think all ex miners do finger painting. If a working class person or a lord wants to go to any entertainment medium then they should pay their way.

 

As to it being 'dangerous' to talk about scrapping art subsidies. What's going to happen? Is the Arts Council going to put a contract out on me.

 

I know plenty of artists who continue their interest without going cap in hand to the govt. Some of them are lucky enough to sell their work, others do real jobs to fund their hobby. If someone is interested enough to pay you for your art then lucky you, but state handouts because you're not so lucky is no better than being on JSA and not looking for work.

 

Edited to say: Isn't it strange that your post only tries to prove my hypocrisy, rather than giving a valid reason why art shouldn't be self financing?

Edited March 4, 2007 by carlt

[adam1uk]

You seem to be mis-understanding what I'm saying.

 

My point is this: by all means call for the scrapping of arts subsidies, but be prepared for others to call for the scrapping of the government grant to the waterways.

 

You're clearly not alone in thinking that people who want to enjoy the arts should pay the full price, and not have tickets subsidised by taxpayers. But there are undoubtedly people out there who think boaters, not taxpayers, should fund the full cost of running the canals.

 

Edited to say: Isn't it strange that your post only tries to prove my hypocrisy, rather than giving a valid reason why art shouldn't be self financing?

 

That would be a good point, if my previous post hadn't said:

 

Surely we should accept that many things, such as the arts and the canals, enrich the life of the nation and deserve to be subsidised.

Edited March 4, 2007 by adam1uk

[carlt]

You're clearly not alone in thinking that people who want to enjoy the arts should pay the full price, and not have tickets subsidised by taxpayers. But there are undoubtedly people out there who think boaters, not taxpayers, should fund the full cost of running the canals.

 

I don't mind if boaters pay the full cost of the canals.

 

Of course we should then ban walkers and cyclists from the towpaths, there should be no more abstraction of water for agriculture, the canals should be no longer used for moving our water supplies around the country, anglers can pay a fairer amount, we must rip up all the fibre optic cables from under the towpaths. This is what the tax payers pay for. boaters are not subsidised, they pay extra on top of that tax to put their boats in the water.

 

The only people who don't benefit from the waterway system are those who live abroad.

[fender.]

I don't mind if boaters pay the full cost of the canals.

 

Of course we should then ban walkers and cyclists from the towpaths, there should be no more abstraction of water for agriculture, the canals should be no longer used for moving our water supplies around the country, anglers can pay a fairer amount, we must rip up all the fibre optic cables from under the towpaths. This is what the tax payers pay for. boaters are not subsidised, they pay extra on top of that tax to put their boats in the water.

 

The only people who don't benefit from the waterway system are those who live abroad.

 

I think carlt you've hit it on the head.

 

Why do we pay enormous 'subsidies' for terrorists? They get millions in legal aid to defend themselves, so they can then continue to plot to blow up the country. I appreciate a fair bit of modern art - however some subjects are just crap and made soley for the 'excitement' of people's senses (Sensation is one exhibition in particular that comes to mind) These two different things are steeped in bringing about a hyperreality that most people dont even want. The canals bring a real benefit that is enjoyed by many thousands - and not some spurious, superflous thing that works to produce a distorted perspective of reality.

 

PS I dont agree with subsiding war either.