CRT has to say sorry - I think this is really bad

[magnetman]

 

edit to add: I was perhaps too hasty. Depending upon the route taken in getting back to the cut, it could be subjected to extra charges for drainage easements - but hopefully that won't affect you, the contributor; not directly anyway.

Ahh that's a relief

[churchward]

 

Of course it is a subsidy. CRT is now a private body, it would be insolvent without the grants from the Treasury.

 

I don't think that it is a subsidy no "of course" about it or at least should not be seen that way.

 

The government (therefore the taxpayer) is paying to make sure that access is maintained for all who wish to use the system. We as boaters pay an additional fee ie the licence to be able to go boating as well.

[NilesMI]

Dictionary.com says:

 

Subsidy [suhb-si-dee] noun

 

1.

a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

 

 

When BW was a publicly owned body, the cash it recieved from the Treasury might not have properly been described as a subsidy. Now that CRT is a private body, albeit a charitable, not for profit trust, I don't see how the grant it gets from the government could be described in any other way.

 

There may be good reasons why it's in the public interest for the government to subsidise CRT. I'm not sure that providing me with a whole year's boating for a few hundred quid is one of them, but the plain fact is, that is what it does.

 

Of course.

[NigelMoore]

Ahh that's a relief

Was that a gentle smile creeping over your countenance as you wrote that?

 

[Jerra]

If you want to drive for a day, you can insure for that day and take it out. If you want a fortnight’s driving holiday, or to take several trips within a month or so, you can pay your 6 month licence and return the discs for the refund on your return.

Surely you can not take a SORNed car out for a day even if it is insured, the first Police ANPR car will pick it up as untaxed. Similarly you can't pop out for a couple of weekends spread over a couple of months you need to tax it. OK you could tax for 6 months and reclaim provided you knew you weren't wanting to pop out again.

 

That isn't quite the easy I want a short term license situation which was being proposed other wise you would be able to tax for a weekend. You can license the boat and claim back when you leave CRT waters can't you? So the situation would be the same as your suggestion for several trips within a month or so.

[matty40s]

Surely you can not take a SORNed car out for a day even if it is insured, the first Police ANPR car will pick it up as untaxed. Similarly you can't pop out for a couple of weekends spread over a couple of months you need to tax it. OK you could tax for 6 months and reclaim provided you knew you weren't wanting to pop out again.

 

That isn't quite the easy I want a short term license situation which was being proposed other wise you would be able to tax for a weekend. You can license the boat and claim back when you leave CRT waters can't you? So the situation would be the same as your suggestion for several trips within a month or so.

you really have got your head stuck up your stern tube havn't you.

CRT do not work weekends, data checkers, enforcement officers and anyone in the office.

Cruise out Friday evening and back in Sunday no-one will ever know, especially if your boat is called Kingfisher or Me-and-Er or Narrow Minded.

[Jerra]

you really have got your head stuck up your stern tube havn't you.

CRT do not work weekends, data checkers, enforcement officers and anyone in the office.

Cruise out Friday evening and back in Sunday no-one will ever know, especially if your boat is called Kingfisher or Me-and-Er or Narrow Minded.

So you are encouraging license evasion are you? I suspect if licenses were not required within marinas then many would do exactly as you suggest. This would result in a drop in income for CRT which may very well see data checkers etc working weekends.

[NigelMoore]

Surely you can not take a SORNed car out for a day even if it is insured, the first Police ANPR car will pick it up as untaxed.

 

An ANPR equipped police car will identify you as untaxed and without an MOT, and will very quickly follow and pull you over. At that point there will be the usual “‘allo, ‘allo, ‘allo sir, do you know why we pulled you over?”

 

You reply “Yep; I can guess anyway. As I was driving beautifully, and within the speed limit, you can only have detected that I was untaxed and without an MOT.”

 

They say “Any good reason for that sir?” and you say “Yessir, young man [they all are these days you will notice] I have shortly departed from the MOT station, having just successfully obtained a pass, and am now enroute to London where I shall be handing the vehicle over to the chap I have sold it to.”

 

Having shown him your fresh new MOT, he says “Thank you sir, do make sure the new owner realises he must tax the vehicle ASAP won’t you?”

 

Answer: “Most certainly officer, without fail.”

 

Police: "You have a nice day now."

 

 

edit to add: see also NilesMI example, previous page, #200 [and yes of course, it is not the same as paying a daily road tax]

Edited September 7, 2015 by NigelMoore

[matty40s]

So you are encouraging license evasion are you? I suspect if licenses were not required within marinas then many would do exactly as you suggest. This would result in a drop in income for CRT which may very well see data checkers etc working weekends.

No I am not.

I am stating a reason why many marina dwellers currently have to have licences.

CRT and BW before them recording and data checking is woefully inadequate, and this on busy canals, on the rivers it is next to non-existent.

I state facts, not what your twisted mind wants me to state.

[NigelMoore]

You can license the boat and claim back when you leave CRT waters can't you? So the situation would be the same as your suggestion for several trips within a month or so.

 

Yes indeed; or it would be if the non-CaRT waters were not subject to an NAA contract.

 

Back in the day, it was far easier than with a road vehicle, because you had a choice of weekly, monthly or quarterly boat licences, additionally to the 6 month & annual licences. It is relatively recently that they have denied these short term licences to boats on connected waters [or at least, if the connected waters are comprised within a marina].

[churchward]

Dictionary.com says:

 

Subsidy [suhb-si-dee] noun

 

1.

a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

 

 

When BW was a publicly owned body, the cash it recieved from the Treasury might not have properly been described as a subsidy. Now that CRT is a private body, albeit a charitable, not for profit trust, I don't see how the grant it gets from the government could be described in any other way.

 

There may be good reasons why it's in the public interest for the government to subsidise CRT. I'm not sure that providing me with a whole year's boating for a few hundred quid is one of them, but the plain fact is, that is what it does.

 

Of course.

Try and see past trying to prove your definition of your choice of words. The government are not paying for you to go boating your licence does that. The government are paying for the system as a whole to be free to access along the tow path and help C&RT transition from BW. What we need to focus on is that the best way for the waterways to continue for the nation as a whole is for taxation to make a reasonable contribution for people to access the assets. We as boaters will continue to pay our licence to use our boats on C&RT waters no subsidy any more than the income from property and other investments is a boaters subsidy. These funds are just part of the revenue stream that funds what the C&RT does in maintaining the system for all.

Edited September 7, 2015 by churchward

[jenlyn]

Try and see past trying to prove your definition of your choice of words. The government are not paying for you to go boating your licence does that. The government are paying for the system as a whole to be free to access along the tow path and help C&RT transition from BW. What we need to focus on is that the best way for the waterways to continue for the nation as a whole is for taxation to make a reasonable contribution for people to access the assets. We as boaters will continue to pay our licence to use our boats on C&RT waters no subsidy any more than the income from property and other investments is a boaters subsidy. These funds are just part of the revenue stream that funds what the C&RT does in maintaining the system for all.

Yes ^^^^^^^^^. I'd give you a greenie, but am out of them.

(No mention of cars and road tax either). Common sense.

[bassplayer]

as I said earlier, if you don't wish to navigate, all you need is a gravel pit (not necessarily wet) to place your boat in.

you won't have to pay for a CRT licence. Win Win !!

Well I doubt that idea would take off.

 

It does make you wonder if some people are more driven by having the option to live their dream than actually live it. Maybe that's why so many boats spend all their time in a marina. It's often the same story with classic cars (sorry Jenlyn) and private aircraft.

 

My bruv moved to the coast because he wanted to live by the sea. He admitted he rarely goes down to the beach.

 

Looking into back gardens along the Thames I rarely see people sitting on their huge well mowed and manicured gardens.

 

Perhaps it's all about showing off for some....or maybe everyone is too busy staring at a screen

[robert anthony]

you really have got your head stuck up your stern tube havn't you.

CRT do not work weekends, data checkers, enforcement officers and anyone in the office.

Cruise out Friday evening and back in Sunday no-one will ever know, especially if your boat is called Kingfisher or Me-and-Er or Narrow Minded.

Had a CRT bloke take my boat details on Saturday at Hanbury locks.

[NilesMI]

The government are not paying for you to go boating your licence does that.

 

I don't agree at all. Quite apart from the subsidy CRT recieves from government, it funds itself through other commercial interests, such as property and not forgetting BWML, which is where this thread came in. Only about 25% of CRT's income comes from boat licencing.

 

Excuse the fag packet again, but if the average annual licence fee is £800, with 30,000 boats, that puts CRT income from licence fees at roughtly £24m. Defra core grant is £39m per year and conditional grant another £10m per year. The combined grant is roughly double the value of the licence fees and is intended for covering the cost of maintaining the waterways as well as other activities.

 

The test of whether I am right will be what happens when the government discontinues all its payments to CRT some time in the 2020's or perhaps before that. If by then, CRT hasn't replaced the grant money with income from commercial ventures, or sponsorship, or donations or the lottery, there will be a financial hole. And potentially a £49m one.

 

If you are right, boaters will still have a network to use because their licence fees will continue to pay for it. CRT will be able to fill their financial hole by cutting out the bats, the voles, the heritage preservation, recreation, flood protection and all the other amenities which the grant is supposedly paying for and everything boat related will continue to work in the mildly shambolic way it does now.

 

We will see.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I don't agree at all. Quite apart from the subsidy CRT recieves from government, it funds itself through other commercial interests, such as property and not forgetting BWML, which is where this thread came in. Only about 25% of CRT's income comes from boat licencing.

 

Excuse the fag packet again, but if the average annual licence fee is £800, with 30,000 boats, that puts CRT income from licence fees at roughtly £24m. Defra core grant is £39m per year and conditional grant another £10m per year. The combined grant is roughly double the value of the licence fees and is intended for covering the cost of maintaining the waterways as well as other activities.

 

The test of whether I am right will be what happens when the government discontinues all its payments to CRT some time in the 2020's or perhaps before that. If by then, CRT hasn't replaced the grant money with income from commercial ventures, or sponsorship, or donations or the lottery, there will be a financial hole. And potentially a £49m one.

 

If you are right, boaters will still have a network to use because their licence fees will continue to pay for it. CRT will be able to fill their financial hole by cutting out the bats, the voles, the heritage preservation, recreation, flood protection and all the other amenities which the grant is supposedly paying for and everything boat related will continue to work in the mildly shambolic way it does now.

 

We will see.

You rather miss the point regarding funding.

 

All CaRT's income with the exception of charitable giving comes directly or indirectly from government.

 

Government funding comes via grant (about £50m this year), income from operational property and income from non operational property (and assets).

 

The only difference in funding under CaRT is the addition of charitable giving which is currently making a loss!

 

The financial hole you speak about is nothing new. CaRT are currently spending about £50m less than needed to maintain its waterways.

 

 

[Jerra]

 

An ANPR equipped police car will identify you as untaxed and without an MOT, and will very quickly follow and pull you over. At that point there will be the usual “‘allo, ‘allo, ‘allo sir, do you know why we pulled you over?”

 

You reply “Yep; I can guess anyway. As I was driving beautifully, and within the speed limit, you can only have detected that I was untaxed and without an MOT.”

 

They say “Any good reason for that sir?” and you say “Yessir, young man [they all are these days you will notice] I have shortly departed from the MOT station, having just successfully obtained a pass, and am now enroute to London where I shall be handing the vehicle over to the chap I have sold it to.”

 

Having shown him your fresh new MOT, he says “Thank you sir, do make sure the new owner realises he must tax the vehicle ASAP won’t you?”

 

Answer: “Most certainly officer, without fail.”

 

Police: "You have a nice day now."

 

 

edit to add: see also NilesMI example, previous page, #200 [and yes of course, it is not the same as paying a daily road tax]

But that doesn't allow you to use the car in the way it was suggested for a boat. You have to have either a booked MOT appointment or the bright new MOT. Been there done that got the T shirt. I was on the way and they did check there was a booked MOT.

 

Unless you book and have an MOT every tinme you want to use the SORNed car for a day it doesn't work.

[NilesMI]

You rather miss the point regarding funding.

 

All CaRT's income with the exception of charitable giving comes directly or indirectly from government.

 

Government funding comes via grant (about £50m this year), income from operational property and income from non operational property (and assets).

 

The only difference in funding under CaRT is the addition of charitable giving which is currently making a loss!

 

The financial hole you speak about is nothing new. CaRT are currently spending about £50m less than needed to maintain its waterways.

 

 

 

You say that all CRT's income comes from the government (directly or indirectly), then in the very next sentence you point to income from property, which does not generally come from the government. Even if it did, it would be commercial income from the proprty CRT owns, rather than a grant/gift/pecuniary aid, or as I would have it, subsidy.

 

As for the hole, CRT remains solvent while the gap between income and expenditure on all its operations and commercial activities is met my the grant. It is when the grant ceases to be paid, or paid in full (and we don't know when that will be) that it will cause a hole in the finances.

 

It may be true that CRT isn't spending as much as it needs to, to maintain the waterways. It may be true that it isn't spending sufficient to the tune of £50m per year, but that is a different gap, a different hole, to the one I was referring to.

 

I would be interested to hear where you think the missing £50m per year on maintenance could be found. An even larger government grant? An endowment from Bill Gates? Boaters' licence fees?

[churchward]

 

I don't agree at all. Quite apart from the subsidy CRT recieves from government, it funds itself through other commercial interests, such as property and not forgetting BWML, which is where this thread came in. Only about 25% of CRT's income comes from boat licencing.

 

Excuse the fag packet again, but if the average annual licence fee is £800, with 30,000 boats, that puts CRT income from licence fees at roughtly £24m. Defra core grant is £39m per year and conditional grant another £10m per year. The combined grant is roughly double the value of the licence fees and is intended for covering the cost of maintaining the waterways as well as other activities.

 

The test of whether I am right will be what happens when the government discontinues all its payments to CRT some time in the 2020's or perhaps before that. If by then, CRT hasn't replaced the grant money with income from commercial ventures, or sponsorship, or donations or the lottery, there will be a financial hole. And potentially a £49m one.

 

If you are right, boaters will still have a network to use because their licence fees will continue to pay for it. CRT will be able to fill their financial hole by cutting out the bats, the voles, the heritage preservation, recreation, flood protection and all the other amenities which the grant is supposedly paying for and everything boat related will continue to work in the mildly shambolic way it does now.

 

We will see.

I am fully aware of how the revenue CRT is made up that is how I can say what I do. I know that the licence fee is about 20-30% of total revenue depending on what you include or not such as mooring fees and NAA charges. The property investment and other commercial income is significant too as is the government contribution. This total revenue does not only cover boating related items.

 

You seem to have a very boating centric view that since it is all about boating then all revenue must be paying for that activity. A good chunk of it is our licence. But there are many more people who use the canal system for non boating activities this does not happen for free.

 

What I am saying is that in order for that to continue the taxpayer needs to keep contributing to the income so it can continue to be free at the point of access as any other means of income is going to be a problem and likely impractical. I have been clear I do not wish the government contribution to stop. If you read all of my post rather than selecting a quote out of context it would be obvious.

Edited September 7, 2015 by churchward

[mango]

Making donations and leaving an inheritance to support maintenance of the waterways are established ways of making a difference for those who really care about their future. Perhaps the money could be ring fenced to ensure it is spent on projects of interest to boaters.

[churchward]

Making donations and leaving an inheritance to support maintenance of the waterways are established ways of making a difference for those who really care about their future. Perhaps the money could be ring fenced to ensure it is spent on projects of interest to boaters.

Your seem to be assuming only boaters would contribute in this way. Anybody may leave money to CRT in their will. They may wish it to be spent on wildlife projects for instance why should you assume that it must be for boating?

[mango]

Your seem to be assuming only boaters would contribute in this way. Anybody may leave money to CRT in their will. They may wish it to be spent on wildlife projects for instance why should you assume that it must be for boating?

I suggested this because there have been many comments about the urgent need to tackle the maintenance backlog. CRT have an Environment Team headed by Peter Birch and a Heritage Team led by Nigel Crowe. Both are doing valuable work that deserves support, but I suspect most boaters would prefer money spent on sorting out broken paddles and leaking lock gates.

[NilesMI]

If you read all of my post rather than selecting a quote out of context it would be obvious.

 

I have read your posts, and actually I agree with much of what you have said. I selected to quote the part of your last post which was relevant to the point I wanted to make. I am not in the habit of cluttering up a thread by quoting a long post in its entirety just to respond to a single aspect of it.

 

I am not convinced, looking at the broad allocation of income and expenditure within CRT, that you can legitimately say that the costs involved in keeping the waterways navigable for boats is covered completely or even substantially, by licence fees paid by boaters and income from CRT's commercial and property interests.

 

As for being boater centric, I am quite aware of the other amenities which the waterways provide, as I have mentioned (perhaps you haven't read all of my posts?) and I am more than happy to see them funded out of general taxation as well as contributing to the general maintenance of the waterways to a navigable standard. I don't want it to stop any more than you do.

[magnetman]

Maybe towpaths could be handed over to local authorities and the canal and infrastructure -required- for boats kept by CRT or another management structure simply to maintain a navigable and safe waterway. 100% of cruising license fee goes to the canal.

 

There may be towpath mooring fees associated with this arrangement...

[Jerra]

Maybe towpaths could be handed over to local authorities and the canal and infrastructure -required- for boats kept by CRT or another management structure simply to maintain a navigable and safe waterway. 100% of cruising license fee goes to the canal.

 

There may be towpath mooring fees associated with this arrangement...

And probably a lot of speeding bikes as I would expect local authorities to make towpaths into tarmaced paths ideal for cyclists.