EU funding for UK Canal Projects

[BlueStringPudding]

Where does DEFRA get its funding from...

 

Oh yes! A big chunk of it comes from the EU. And they give some of it to CRT.

The EU doesn't get listed as a line on management accounts!

 

 

Anyway, I've made it clear that in my career experience working with organisations like local authorities all over the UK, heritage sector and charities like CRT, how leaving the EU will decimate the waterways, boaters' lifestyles and wallets, and affect us all socially in terms of what we think local and central government currently pays for.

 

People who want to learn and make an informed decision when they vote next month will do so. People who don't will rant with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut and have no intention of emerging from the primordial soup of their own naivety. Some people are just like that.

 

It's your decisions, fellow boaters.

[Athy]

 

 

People who want to learn and make an informed decision when they vote next month will do so. People who don't will rant with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut and have no intention of emerging from the primordial soup of their own naivety.

 

 

Sorry, we had to take primordial soup off the menu. E.U. regs, innit.

But seriously, what a marvellous expression!

[Phil.]

Where does DEFRA get its funding from...

Oh yes! A big chunk of it comes from the EU. And they give some of it to CRT.

The EU doesn't get listed as a line on management accounts!

And where does the EU get its money from, us. So let's just cut out the middle man or woman and then instead of paying a cut to them we can spend it on 'the cut' instead.

[billS]

Where does DEFRA get its funding from...

 

Oh yes! A big chunk of it comes from the EU. And they give some of it to CRT.

The EU doesn't get listed as a line on management accounts!

 

 

Anyway, I've made it clear that in my career experience working with organisations like local authorities all over the UK, heritage sector and charities like CRT, how leaving the EU will decimate the waterways, boaters' lifestyles and wallets, and affect us all socially in terms of what we think local and central government currently pays for.

 

People who want to learn and make an informed decision when they vote next month will do so. People who don't will rant with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut and have no intention of emerging from the primordial soup of their own naivety. Some people are just like that.

 

It's your decisions, fellow boaters.

 

It may help some of the undecided if you could put an actual number on it. Of CaRT's £180M income - how much of it comes directly or indirectly from the EU?

Edited May 10, 2016 by billS

[bizzard]

It began as the common market. My mum went looking for it but couldn't find it, so she carried on going to Romford market.

[Jerra]

 

The thread is fine so far - political topics can be discussed if they relate to canals/boating.

Ah! so not a complete ban on politics. You will be telling me next religion is OK if it relates to boats and canals.

 

If that (politics is OK if it relates to boats) how is the circle squared by banning it in parts of the forum specifically for discussion of non boaty things e.g. Virtual Pub.

 

Seems strange logic to me.

[billS]

Ah! so not a complete ban on politics. You will be telling me next religion is OK if it relates to boats and canals.

 

If that (politics is OK if it relates to boats) how is the circle squared by banning it in parts of the forum specifically for discussion of non boaty things e.g. Virtual Pub.

 

Seems strange logic to me.

 

Really? Presumably the ban on political discussion in a non-boaty section of the forum is because by definition, then the political discussion would be about non-boaty things.

[Athy]

 

Really? Presumably the ban on political discussion in a non-boaty section of the forum is because by definition, then the political discussion would be about non-boaty things.

....and would thus just be about...er...politics.

I wonder what Sister Mary of Stoke Bruerne would have thought...whoops.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Athy

[Paul C]

Ah! so not a complete ban on politics. You will be telling me next religion is OK if it relates to boats and canals.

 

If that (politics is OK if it relates to boats) how is the circle squared by banning it in parts of the forum specifically for discussion of non boaty things e.g. Virtual Pub.

 

Seems strange logic to me.

 

Its a strange logic but its what's been decided upon, and made clear, by the site owner.

[bag 'o' bones]

Members are reminded that flagrant political references relating to non boating subjects are not allowed.

 

That includes vote for this vote for that type of posts.

[furnessvale]

The so called EU money spent on canals is only part of what we give to the EU being returned to us, but with strict instructions attached to it as to what we may spend it on.

 

When we leave the EU our government will be at liberty to spend the same amount of money on canals or whatever else it decides. It will be up to us to lobby the government as every other interested body will be doing.

 

The only difference will be that the pot of money will be bigger, so we could end up with MORE being spent on canals if that is what our own democratically elected government decide to do.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[cotswoldsman]

Where does DEFRA get its funding from...

 

Oh yes! A big chunk of it comes from the EU. And they give some of it to CRT.

The EU doesn't get listed as a line on management accounts!

 

 

Anyway, I've made it clear that in my career experience working with organisations like local authorities all over the UK, heritage sector and charities like CRT, how leaving the EU will decimate the waterways, boaters' lifestyles and wallets, and affect us all socially in terms of what we think local and central government currently pays for.

 

People who want to learn and make an informed decision when they vote next month will do so. People who don't will rant with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut and have no intention of emerging from the primordial soup of their own naivety. Some people are just like that.

 

It's your decisions, fellow boaters.

You get my vote as does staying in now you have explained the effect on CRT funding

The so called EU money spent on canals is only part of what we give to the EU being returned to us, but with strict instructions attached to it as to what we may spend it on.

 

When we leave the EU our government will be at liberty to spend the same amount of money on canals or whatever else it decides. It will be up to us to lobby the government as every other interested body will be doing.

 

The only difference will be that the pot of money will be bigger, so we could end up with MORE being spent on canals if that is what our own democratically elected government decide to do.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I think far more chance of getting the money from EU just look at all the money they paid into Dutch Canals

[Wanderer Vagabond]

And where does the EU get its money from, us. So let's just cut out the middle man or woman and then instead of paying a cut to them we can spend it on 'the cut' instead.

Do you seriously think that there is the remotest chance of that actually happening? The policy is to try to get all these things to be 'self-financing' in the long term, how does a bigger Government grant square with that?

[Paul C]

Do you seriously think that there is the remotest chance of that actually happening? The policy is to try to get all these things to be 'self-financing' in the long term, how does a bigger Government grant square with that?

 

Because the breadth of areas money will be given to by the government may increase, if they had more money (via a net saving leaving the EU).

 

I don't think its fair to say that funding for canal projects will collapse if we left EU, but its fair to say there's an uncertainty on the short term future of specific funding streams. Mid or long term, I'd say its either the same or better though.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Because the breadth of areas money will be given to by the government may increase, if they had more money (via a net saving leaving the EU).

 

I don't think its fair to say that funding for canal projects will collapse if we left EU, but its fair to say there's an uncertainty on the short term future of specific funding streams. Mid or long term, I'd say its either the same or better though.

If they had more money all you'd get is more tax cuts, there is little likelihood of any cash for a 'minority sport' like the canal system. A lot of other things would be well ahead of us in the field, have you noticed how Third world our roads are becoming due to lack of maintenance? That would be a far higher priority than a bunch of boaters.

[Paul C]

If they had more money all you'd get is more tax cuts, there is little likelihood of any cash for a 'minority sport' like the canal system. A lot of other things would be well ahead of us in the field, have you noticed how Third world our roads are becoming due to lack of maintenance? That would be a far higher priority than a bunch of boaters.

 

That's why I was careful to say "may" rather than "will". There would certainly be a restructuring of funding for things like Chesterfield canal restoration, for sure.

[Athy]

have you noticed how Third world our roads are becoming due to lack of maintenance?

[quote

 

 

 

Eh? So what are those groups of workmen doing at the several sites on our local roads which are currently controlled by temporary traffic lights? I really thought that they were maintaining them.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

That's why I was careful to say "may" rather than "will". There would certainly be a restructuring of funding for things like Chesterfield canal restoration, for sure.

The stated policy however is for smaller Government so the thinking would be that they reduce the amount taken off you in tax and you can then pay for the canal system, is that going to work

 

 

have you noticed how Third world our roads are becoming due to lack of maintenance?

[quote

 

 

 

Eh? So what are those groups of workmen doing at the several sites on our local roads which are currently controlled by temporary traffic lights? I really thought that they were maintaining them.

 

I think you'll find that they are filling the holes in, not maintaining them so that the holes don't appear in the first place. This isn't specific to any area, I've gone through some pretty affluent areas in which the roads are absolutely dreadful (Oxford being a good example).

[Athy]

 

 

I think you'll find that they are filling the holes in, not maintaining them so that the holes don't appear in the first place.

ER, file under "hair bisection". Very few roads get maintained when there's nothing wrong with them, surely? The important thing is that, when there is something wrong, they are improved. I don't know which of the two things, or both, the roadmen are doing around here.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

ER, file under "hair bisection". Very few roads get maintained when there's nothing wrong with them, surely? The important thing is that, when there is something wrong, they are improved. I don't know which of the two things, or both, the roadmen are doing around here.

We're sort of getting away from the subject, my point is that there are a lot of more important priorities for any money that we may save coming out the the EU, Canals have no chance of any look in, we are a minority sport.

 

As support for my 'Third world' comment on the state of the roads, last time I hired a car I was travelling down the M5 past Taunton and had to steer around three quite large areas where the surface had broken up, the last time I remember doing that was in Cuba. This is a so-called 'motorway', if they can't maintain them what chance has the High Street got? Roads wear out and should be re-surfaced periodically, this is no longer in the maintenance schedule, it is fire brigade maintenance now, wait until the holes appear and then try to fill them in.

[Paul C]

We're sort of getting away from the subject, my point is that there are a lot of more important priorities for any money that we may save coming out the the EU, Canals have no chance of any look in, we are a minority sport.

.

 

I see your point and I don't disagree, however for whatever reason, under the current funding streams which are part of being in the EU they DO have sufficient merit (in some cases) to qualify for funding. So it leads to the question "why are they entitled while we're in the EU but won't be in some future equivalent funding stream if we left EU?" I believe the long term picture is that if we left, there would be an equivalent scenario where the merit of canal restorations can be evaluated just as well as now, or perhaps even better. If this means available funding is prioritied more to schemes other than canals.......well that's the interesting question really.

[Theo]

Ah! so not a complete ban on politics. You will be telling me next religion is OK if it relates to boats and canals.

 

If that (politics is OK if it relates to boats) how is the circle squared by banning it in parts of the forum specifically for discussion of non boaty things e.g. Virtual Pub.

 

Seems strange logic to me.

 

Jerra, it seems that you are trying to wind up the mods. Therein lies the path to all sorts of nameless horrors. Don't do it.

 

 

Please!!

 

Theo

[BlueStringPudding]

 

I see your point and I don't disagree, however for whatever reason, under the current funding streams which are part of being in the EU they DO have sufficient merit (in some cases) to qualify for funding. So it leads to the question "why are they entitled while we're in the EU but won't be in some future equivalent funding stream if we left EU?" I believe the long term picture is that if we left, there would be an equivalent scenario where the merit of canal restorations can be evaluated just as well as now, or perhaps even better. If this means available funding is prioritied more to schemes other than canals.......well that's the interesting question really.

To answer your first question, sufficient merit is laid out in the application criteria of each of the three funding streams I listed earlier. Those criteria have been agreed by panels of industry relevant and governing officials from multiple EU countries. They have a much more socially progressive ideology than our current Tory government meaning our country benefits from the EU's more open minded view that the waterways, culture and heritage have a social value not just a financial one.

 

And in response to your second question about what makes one think that our government won't take the EU money and give it to the waterways, heritage and cultural sectors which currently are a few of the canal-relevant programmes: past performance is what! The equivalent funding streams in the UK have already been cut, Paul. Central government have put their money where their mouth is with regards to waterways, the heritage sector, cultural sector and the like. And taken it away. The charities that ran the programmes have already been made bankrupt. They're gone for good. the government even closed down their own Waterways governing body in favour of a trust that now has to compete for money with all other charities in the country. What's left of these sectors is hanging on by a tiny and precarious financial thread. Why would anyone, based on that track record assume our government would suddenly start throwing money at this area?

Edited May 10, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[Paul C]

The equivalent funding streams have already been cut, Paul. Central government have put their money where their mouth is with regards to waterways, the heritage sector, cultural sector and the like. And taken it away. The charities that ran the programmes have already been made bankrupt. They're gone for good. the government even closed down their own Waterways governing body in favour of a trust that now has to compete for money with all other charities in the country. What's left of these sectors is hanging on by a tiny and precarious financial thread. Why would anyone, based on that track record assume our government would suddenly start throwing money at this area?

 

Long term or short term?

[BlueStringPudding]

 

Long term or short term?

Please note I've edited my above response.

 

Also: both long and short term. As I've put above, our government is not ideologically motivated by projects for social gain. Only financial.