NBTA - Which Planet Are They On ?

[Alan de Enfield]

Here's a more measured response from Camboaters- http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cam-river-boaters-unite-protect-12100768

 

Edit- I would say that, 'cos I helped write the press release.

 

Is 'Camboaters' the local chapter of the NBTA, or a totally separate organisation lobbying solely for boaters on the Cam ?

Are the Camboaters and the NBTA (as a whole - excluding the rogue) working together ?

What is the NBTA (as a whole) policy ?

 

Going back to a previous point - what is the NBTA's involvement as they claim to represent boaters WITHOUT a mooring, yet this whole 'Cam campaign' is about permanent, liveaboard moorings.

 

Edit to add :

 

I do not think that this press release (rant) is likely to 'make friends and influence people'

 

Printed in the "Cambridge News" 5th November

 

Boaters attack city council and 'white male privileged elite' rowers, as anger grows over riverboat eviction consultation

 

The National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) River Cam branch represents the rights of those living on a boat without a permanent mooring, known as Bargee Travellers.

 

Rowers are the real issue on the river Cam, with their huge over capacity, noise pollution from amplified headsets, erosion of riverbanks with their huge wakes, who kill wildlife with their blades, who are abusive towards those living on boats, calling us 'gypos' and 'pikeys'. These rowers display an astounding level of arrogance when they cause criminal damage to houseboats, that comes from a long established white male privileged elite ruling class background, allowed free reign for too long.

 

This attack on society's poor and working class by a Labour council is shocking indeed and looks set to damage Labour's political standing in Cambridge due to overwhelming outrage expressed by Cambridge residents in reaction to their plans for the River Cam Bargee Traveller Community. If revenue needs to be generated, the Council should raise business rates from the rich rowing clubs and universities who have millions in their coffers. Why evict taxpayers when rowing students who have a detrimental effect on river life, row for between three months and three years, often just so that they can put on their CV that they 'rowed for Cambridge' to further their careers. Where are the proposals to evict rowers from the River Cam?

 

The NBTA again strongly urges the Council to begin a dialogue between us as representatives of the Bargee Traveller community, who are those most threatened by the proposals and as such should be allowed to be an active part of the consultation process, not merely given a council survey to complete. The council's recent apology for telling the community about the proposals by press release is welcome, and if it is genuine, let us start a real consultation on this matter, collaboratively.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[FadeToScarlet]

 

Is 'Camboaters' the local chapter of the NBTA, or a totally separate organisation lobbying solely for boaters on the Cam ?

Are the Camboaters and the NBTA (as a whole - excluding the rogue) working together ?

What is the NBTA (as a whole) policy ?

Camboaters is a completely separate organisation, started in 2004/5 when the moorings were first regulated- previously, there had been no regulation, but also no access for boats longer than 50', so not much take up. We represent the interests of all boaters, with or without moorings.

 

We've had issues previously about working together, as the article's author is the local NBTA rep, and hasn't wanted to at all. However, some more central people have come to meet, and that has been very productive and cooperative so far, so I'm very hopeful that can continue.

 

I don't know what the policy of the NBTA as a whole is, regarding this.

 

Going back to a previous point - what is the NBTA's involvement as they claim to represent boaters WITHOUT a mooring, yet this whole 'Cam campaign' is about permanent, liveaboard moorings.

 

It is a very mixed up situation.

 

There are a few people (5-6 boats) CCing the local area. Officially, there's no such thing as CCing, they just move around moorings. All the moorings are 48 hours, and having done this when we first got the boat, it is exhausting. There is, as you can imagine, a lot of overstaying, which justifiably annoys visiting boats.

 

Then there are the 70 boats on the Councils residential moorings scheme. This is where Camboaters and the NBTA rep disagree, over how moorings should be allocated. The issue here is that the council are proposing a doubling of mooring fees, which would price out many people and make the moorings less affordable.

 

Then there are 40-50 boats, not all residential, who have moored unofficially on the Railings, some for over 20 years. This area has had a dispute over the ownership between the City and County councils, and the highways agency, neither of which was willing to take responsibility for the boats moored there. The council is proposing to remove all mooring in the area, as they do not think access can be made safe enough for them to charge for mooring there. The problem is there are no alternative moorings, and some of the people mooring there are very vulnerable and have the choice between an unheated old cruiser or homelessness. They are represented too by Camboaters, and making mooring on riverside safe and regulated so it can be continued is a central part of Camboaters campaign. They are also represented by the NBTA.

 

Finally there are a very few people with moorings with local landowners, some of which are temporary- like the one used by the NBTA rep- and others that are more permanent.

[homer2911]

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but...

 

 

This just isn't true - lots of council tenants would have moved out and freed up a property for another family quite naturally. My parents started out their married lives in council housing, for instance, but bought their own place when they'd saved up a deposit. Other people would have moved into the private rented sector, and others still into care homes etc.

 

 

Oh, come on. Yes, New Labour failed to tackle the growing housing crisis. Yes, they were too casual about inequality. Yes, they had an inexplicable obsession with market-based 'reform' of public services. Yes, they bought into a global consensus on 'light touch' regulation of the financial services industry that ended in tears. Those are serious failings, and that's without getting into tuition fees, foreign policy etc. But 'exactly the same' as Thatcher's Tories? Sorry, but as someone who started out raising kids on a low income under John Major, I saw my family lifted out of poverty by Tax Credits, saw my childrens' Bradford comprehensive school rebuilt to the highest standards, saw the time it took to get a GP appointment fall from two weeks to two days, etc. etc. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my children had a better start in life because they grew up under a Labour government (or that my wife and I had better opportunities in terms of postgraduate study etc., for that matter). This idea that 'they're all the same' does no favours whatsoever to people who are now having to rely on the Tories to preserve all the public services that underpin their quality of life. Remember, all those Tory cuts are cuts to New Labour's spending on New Labour's priorities. If you oppose the former you implicitly support the latter.

 

A well thought out argument, but no mention of Labour's open doors policy that swelled the population of the UK by several hundreds of thousands. Add in the religious factor - muslim or catholic - that results in much larger families, and the population growth becomes exponential. All these people have to be housed, educated and treated by the NHS. By the way, the racist jibe has long since lost its currency in these matters.

[Alan de Enfield]

It is a very mixed up situation.

 

 

 

Thank you - it looks a 'mess'.

 

CamBoaters seem to be taking a reasonable approach to negotiation and consultation, whist the NBTA (or the local representative) appear to be looking at 'all out war'.

 

As an outsider, it looks to me as if the NBTA (as that is what the person claims to be representing) are going to do more harm to your cause than good.

If 'you get up the nose' of the local officials you can be sure that they will go out of their way to be difficult.

 

Good luck in your efforts.

[erivers]

Camboaters is a completely separate organisation, started in 2004/5 when the moorings were first regulated- previously, there had been no regulation, but also no access for boats longer than 50', so not much take up. We represent the interests of all boaters, with or without moorings.

Its roots go back earlier than that!

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20000901220301/http://www.cam.net.uk/home/StKilda/home.html#START

 

Robert Laws was living on his 58' boat on the railings in 1999 so I don't understand your "previously, there had been ..... no access for boats longer than 50 feet".

Edited November 6, 2016 by erivers

[magictime]

 

A well thought out argument, but no mention of Labour's open doors policy that swelled the population of the UK by several hundreds of thousands. Add in the religious factor - muslim or catholic - that results in much larger families, and the population growth becomes exponential. All these people have to be housed, educated and treated by the NHS. By the way, the racist jibe has long since lost its currency in these matters.

 

This always seems like a red herring to me. For a start, the rate of population growth in the UK isn't particularly high; it's about half the global average, I think, just over half a percent a year. (Yes, it's closer to 'baby boom' levels than the low rates we had from the 70s to the 90s, but still...). And in any case, a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing. This is especially true insofar as population growth is the result of immigration by economically active, working-age adults rather than high birth rates and low death rates. (Of course, the proportion of GDP spent on public services etc. isn't actually fixed; the present government is trying to bring it down from a long-term average of 40% or so to something more like 35%, which is why we're continuing to experience a squeeze on those services in spite of economic growth.)

[Dave_P]

 

Oi!

 

That's my line!

Solidarity comrade. Solidarity.

 

 

Actually you're right. Reduce house prices and falling values lead people into negative equity, meaning they can't move, I think.

 

People stuck in negative equity and unable to move leads to lack of supply at the entry level into the market. So even though prices have fallen, no-one is selling because to do so, involves stumping up a wedge of cash they don't have to pay off the mortgage negative equity.

 

Falling house prices help very few people due to this effect.

Quite true but a symptom of the lack of house building over recent times. A day of reckoning is inevitable. House prices in the uk have been over-inflated for most of my lifetime. If the worse outcome from dealing with this is negative equity then I'll be very relieved. Obviously, this is small consolation to those affected but the population of this country seem to have an obsession with mortgaging themselves 'to the hilt'. And end to this obsession would be a very good thing IMO.

And why the snidy pop at landlords? Not all are 'unscrupulous'. Some in my experience are extremely scrupulous and look after their tenants assiduously. I have loads as customers. (The unscrupulous ones won't pay my prices!)

Some are, some arent. But the vast majority of unfit housing in the UK is in the private rented sector.

I can see the ambiguity - a sort of "horses have four legs; this animal has four legs; therefore it is a horse" argument, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks. I've had many landlords myself. Some were lovely people who cared about their properties and their tenants. Some were outwardly lovely people who didn't give a sh*t about their tenants. Some were just sh*ts.

If boat moorings became social housing, how many boats would find themselves in a position of statutory overcrowding?

Very few canal boats would meet the requirements of the Decent Homes Standard. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7812/138355.pdf

 

Neither would they meet the requirements of Local Planning Authority's SPDs on residential development.

 

By any official measure, most boats would be classed as unfit housing. Of course, these measures weren't really designed with boats in mind.

[Dave_P]

If Maggie hadn't allowed councils to sell off those council houses (note that she personally didn't sell any council houses, and didn't benefit personally from the sale of any council house - she merely allowed councils to make those sales), the net result would have been that those same people would have remained in those same council houses - not a single house would have become available to other families

, and we would have the same shortage of council houses that we see today. Lazy politics in the extreme - blame Maggie for the shortage of affordable housing, and conveniently forget about the 13 years of Labour administration that came after her downfall, with every opportunity to undo the supposed damage that Maggie had wrought.

I don't doubt that more social housing is required (let's all ignore for the moment the elephant in the room that is the enormous expansion in the quite legitimate immigration from EU countries), but let us at least not be silly enough to blame all these problems on a UK administration that ended 16 years ago.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because of a flawed assumption, this: You assume that dear Maggie only had two choices -

 

1. The status quo.

2. Sell off the council houses in the exact way she did.

 

There were a multitude of options, all leading to different outcomes.

[Dave_P]

 

This always seems like a red herring to me. For a start, the rate of population growth in the UK isn't particularly high; it's about half the global average, I think, just over half a percent a year. (Yes, it's closer to 'baby boom' levels than the low rates we had from the 70s to the 90s, but still...). And in any case, a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing. This is especially true insofar as population growth is the result of immigration by economically active, working-age adults rather than high birth rates and low death rates. (Of course, the proportion of GDP spent on public services etc. isn't actually fixed; the present government is trying to bring it down from a long-term average of 40% or so to something more like 35%, which is why we're continuing to experience a squeeze on those services in spite of economic growth.)

Well said. Greenie.

[BruceinSanity]

Well said. Greenie.

And from me.

 

The dinosaur in the room, of course, is worldwide population growth, stretching planetary resources ever further. As a general rule, these things go only one way in ecological terms – pop overgrowth eventually exhausts available resources such as food and room and there is a population crash, a mass die off of the species concerned. It's not hard to see how that could happen with Hom sap. The planet will survive, but it could take geological time periods for life to re-emerge beyond the insects and grass stage.

 

Sorry, that's getting very but it's wise to remember that this is not a little local difficulty in the UK.

[FadeToScarlet]

Its roots go back earlier than that!

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20000901220301/http://www.cam.net.uk/home/StKilda/home.html#START

 

Robert Laws was living on his 58' boat on the railings in 1999 so I don't understand your "previously, there had been ..... no access for boats longer than 50 feet".

Because of the locks in the Middle Level, which were only all lengthened to take a full length boat in the early 2000s, you could either cross the Wash, or have your boat craned in. There wasn't a large increase in the number of moored boats until the locks were all lengthened, which made access significantly easier.

 

I should've said "difficult access" or "no direct access" instead, for greater clarity.

[ditchcrawler]

Because of the locks in the Middle Level, which were only all lengthened to take a full length boat in the early 2000s,

 

I didn't realise it was that late

[erivers]

I didn't realise it was that late

Not quite that late!

 

Marmont Priory Lock lengthened Spring 1997 and Ashline in 1999.

 

Still more to be done, of course, to re-open the southern route through the Middle Level with restoration of the Forty Foot and repair of Welches Dam. http://www.project-hereward.org

 

Hopefully, one day, both Horseway Lock and Welches Dam will also be lengthened to enable full sized boats to use that route.

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

Hopefully, one day, both Horseway Lock and Welches Dam will also be lengthened to enable full sized boats to use that route.

When I said that to someone they said there wasn't room to get a longer boat out of Welshes Dam

[erivers]

When I said that to someone they said there wasn't room to get a longer boat out of Welshes Dam

It will be tight but possible after the soft vegetation on the far bank is removed.

 

[ditchcrawler]

It will be tight but possible after the soft vegetation on the far bank is removed.

 

Welches_Dam.jpg

I'm not sure what the piling is suppose to be doing, when we were there the water was the same level both sides. the only differential was across the gates.

[erivers]

I'm not sure what the piling is suppose to be doing, when we were there the water was the same level both sides. the only differential was across the gates.

Precisely!

[Murflynn]

it's a cofferdam.

when/if they need to work they will pump out the water, the dam leaks, but the water will not flow in faster than it can be pumped out.

[ditchcrawler]

it's a cofferdam.

when/if they need to work they will pump out the water, the dam leaks, but the water will not flow in faster than it can be pumped out.

But it wasn't put there to work on the lock, it was because the lock supposedly leaked and they lost the water up the Horseway from what I understood. The duff lock holds water, their dam doesn't

[homer2911]

 

This always seems like a red herring to me. For a start, the rate of population growth in the UK isn't particularly high; it's about half the global average, I think, just over half a percent a year. (Yes, it's closer to 'baby boom' levels than the low rates we had from the 70s to the 90s, but still...). And in any case, a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing. This is especially true insofar as population growth is the result of immigration by economically active, working-age adults rather than high birth rates and low death rates. (Of course, the proportion of GDP spent on public services etc. isn't actually fixed; the present government is trying to bring it down from a long-term average of 40% or so to something more like 35%, which is why we're continuing to experience a squeeze on those services in spite of economic growth.)

Interesting reading here: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html

 

Great when you say it quickly! Half a percent a year equates to over 3 million people needing to be housed, educated, treated. Factor in higher birth rates and greater longevity and problems start to arise. Your argument that 'a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing' ignores the fact of a changing demographic - a greater and greater proportion of our population is having to be supported by a smaller and smaller proportion who are actually in work.

[Paul C]

Interesting reading here: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html

 

Great when you say it quickly! Half a percent a year equates to over 3 million people needing to be housed, educated, treated. Factor in higher birth rates and greater longevity and problems start to arise. Your argument that 'a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing' ignores the fact of a changing demographic - a greater and greater proportion of our population is having to be supported by a smaller and smaller proportion who are actually in work.

What did you use as a figure for UK population, to get 0.5% as 3 million people?

[Dave_P]

Interesting reading here: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html

 

Great when you say it quickly! Half a percent a year equates to over 3 million people needing to be housed, educated, treated. Factor in higher birth rates and greater longevity and problems start to arise. Your argument that 'a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing' ignores the fact of a changing demographic - a greater and greater proportion of our population is having to be supported by a smaller and smaller proportion who are actually in work.

1. You have your decimal point in the wrong place.

 

2. The changing demographic issue is helped by immigration, not hindered.

[magictime]

Interesting reading here: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article50256.html

 

Great when you say it quickly! Half a percent a year equates to over 3 million people needing to be housed, educated, treated. Factor in higher birth rates and greater longevity and problems start to arise. Your argument that 'a growing population generally goes hand in hand with a growing economy and a growing workforce, so assuming a fixed proportion of GDP is spent on schools, hospitals, training etc., there shouldn't be any particular problem with providing services to a population just because it's growing' ignores the fact of a changing demographic - a greater and greater proportion of our population is having to be supported by a smaller and smaller proportion who are actually in work.

 

Dave_P has already pointed out that you've got a decimal point in the wrong place somewhere along the line - the population is growing by around 300,000 people a year, not 3 million people.

 

Now fair enough, anyone can slip up doing a simple calculation and end up with a figure that's completely wrong. But the fact that you didn't realise that figure must be wrong - that you came up with a figure that exaggerates population growth by a factor of ten and thought 'that sounds about right' - strongly suggests that your assessment of the 'problem' is completely divorced from reality, and is based less on genuine, informed concerns about the manageability of the actual rate of population growth, and more on a perception that the country is being overrun by 'hordes' or 'floods' or 'swarms' of migrants.

 

And as Dave_P also points out, the fact that

 

a greater and greater proportion of our population is having to be supported by a smaller and smaller proportion who are actually in work

 

is a reason to favour more immigration, not less, because immigrants are almost always working-age people coming here to work.

[dmr]

 

 

is a reason to favour more immigration, not less, because immigrants are almost always working-age people coming here to work.

 

Surely this is short term thinking?

People live longer so we have more old people, so we need more young people to look after them, so we import lots of immigrants. However these will themselves get old and need looking after, and likely have a lot of children (as is their culture) who will also get old. This looks like a situation that can only be sustained by exponential growth, which is itself not sustainable.

 

..............Dave

[biggles47]

 

Surely this is short term thinking?

People live longer so we have more old people, so we need more young people to look after them, so we import lots of immigrants. However these will themselves get old and need looking after, and likely have a lot of children (as is their culture) who will also get old. This looks like a situation that can only be sustained by exponential growth, which is itself not sustainable.

 

..............Dave

This is the knub of the problem. Too many people in the world and stuff not being shared out fairly.