Jump to content

Email from cart


bigcol

Featured Posts

34 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I am looking forward to them ripping all those thin canals up and making them into proper canals like we have up nawth! It's only fair if they want me to pay more for my license, that they should give me use of all the waterways not a third like I currently have. I know narrowboaters will have to take a couple of years off from cruising but it's a small price to pay for a fairer system....?..........

While they are widening them for you, they can lengthen the locks for my next new 80ft narrowboat as well! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always surprised that people think Consultation means everything is up for negotiation and you can affect the outcome.

It doesn't, the best it can mean is nothing more than, this is what we are doing, no big surprises and we're being transparent in advance and during the process. All the simple stuff like how unpopular it'll be they've already done.

Of course many will leap to say that's being naïve, it doesn't even do that and it's all a con anyway. I agree of course that many times that's the case, however my point is it doesn't really mean what do you think we should do and how and when?

After all if you go to see a Consultant in a hospital, he/she doesn't say "Well I think you've got the galloping najjers, your elbows will drop off in a year and your bottom will seize up, so I'm putting you on a course of Rolos which will cure it all in a fortnight, so long as you complete the course ....... however what do you think it is? How will it end? and what remedy do you believe we should undertake? Hmmmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 09:58, Mike the Boilerman said:

 This argument taken to the limit says a widebeam dropped into say the southern Oxford between two narrow locks should pay no licence fee as he can't go anywhere.

 

Would they then have a reasonable excuse not to cc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/10/2017 at 00:49, Mike the Boilerman said:

I think people naively imagine the results of consultations will form and shape CRT policies. If this were to happen I don't think there would so much howling and damning.

 

On 22/10/2017 at 08:52, cuthound said:

In my experience consultations undertaken by large organisations are used to find out opinion and allow the organisation to produce a strategy to change people's opinions, rather than modify the intended proposal.

 

On 22/10/2017 at 09:50, bigcol said:

Exactly, 

if companies contract these consultations out, they can and properly do make sure the contractor comes up with the right result lol ...

Wow, this all seems pretty cynical. 

My first thought is this: CRT are a TRUST, not a company like a mining outfit, shoe manufacturer, City bank or Google. A TRUST has a responsibility to supervise the management of an asset. In contrast, a company represents assets and individuals with a common goal of earning profits to increase the wealth of shareholders. Big difference.

Go onto the CRT website and you will see that:

'The Canal & River Trust is a charity set up in 2012 to care for England and Wales' 200-year-old waterways, holding them in trust for the nation forever. ...'  Listed in their charter are objectives that, in almost every case, emphasise either 'public benefit' or 'public interest'.

My second thought is this: The government has clear principles on how to conduct proper public consultations (Consultation Principles 2016) In this short, interesting document, as well as saying things like a consultation should be short, concise, informative, targeted, it also states:

Consultations should have a purpose

Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view."

 

I think any trust that has been set up to protect, carefully manage and improve a public asset for public benefit and interest, and that runs a public consultation MUST allow that consultation to form and shape its policies -- and certainly NOT be a vessel for manipulating and changing public opinion, and certainly NOT an attempt to establish a preconceived policy or solution.

Any Trust that tried to engineer any of the latter with a consultation would surely be acting extremely irresponsibly, if not morally beyond the pale and against their very reason for being.  

Edited by Jim Batty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jim Batty said:

 

 

Wow, this all seems pretty cynical. 

My first thought is this: CRT are a TRUST, not a company like a mining outfit, shoe manufacturer, City bank or Google. A TRUST has a responsibility to supervise the management of an asset. In contrast, a company represents assets and individuals with a common goal of earning profits to increase the wealth of shareholders. Big difference.

Go onto the CRT website and you will see that:

'The Canal & River Trust is a charity set up in 2012 to care for England and Wales' 200-year-old waterways, holding them in trust for the nation forever. ...'  Listed in their charter are objectives that, in almost every case, emphasise either 'public benefit' or 'public interest'.

My second thought is this: The government has clear principles on how to conduct proper public consultations (Consultation Principles 2016) In this short, interesting document, as well as saying things like a consultation should be short, concise, informative, targeted, it also states:

Consultations should have a purpose

Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view."

 

I think any trust that has been set up to protect, carefully manage and improve a public asset for public benefit and interest, and that runs a public consultation MUST allow that consultation to form and shape its policies -- and certainly NOT be a vessel for manipulating and changing public opinion, and certainly NOT an attempt to establish a preconceived policy or solution.

Any Trust that tried to engineer any of the latter with a consultation would surely be acting extremely irresponsibly, if not morally beyond the pale and against their very reason for being.  

That may be the case. However there are very strong views that this stage of the consultation does not reflect the previous ones.

Where did the basis of this consultation come from if it was not from the previous two stages

 

Whilst it maybe above board, it does raise questions about the ultimate aim. 

If 100% of consultees were against the idea, do you believe they would drop any plans for change?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, thebfg said:

If 100% of consultees were against the idea, do you believe they would drop any plans for change?

 

My dictionary defines consult (from which obviously comes consultation) as:

seek information or advice from (someone, especially an expert or professional).

One noticeable thing about advice is you don't have to take it and information you are free to use as you wish.  Why does anyone assume a consultation must be taken notice of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jerra said:

My dictionary defines consult (from which obviously comes consultation) as:

seek information or advice from (someone, especially an expert or professional).

One noticeable thing about advice is you don't have to take it and information you are free to use as you wish.  Why does anyone assume a consultation must be taken notice of?

Personally I don't. I was questioning the previous post , where he quotes the alleged below rules.

Consultations should have a purpose

Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view."

Which he based his opinion of

"MUST allow that consultation to form and shape its policies"

On.

I felt, and still do feel that it was a valid question based on his opinion.

Although consulting is to have discussions typically before undertaking a course of action.

Which although does not say it but does imply to me that discussion should assist in the course of the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thebfg said:

That may be the case. However there are very strong views that this stage of the consultation does not reflect the previous ones.

Where did the basis of this consultation come from if it was not from the previous two stages

 

Whilst it maybe above board, it does raise questions about the ultimate aim. 

If 100% of consultees were against the idea, do you believe they would drop any plans for change?

 

Yes, I think we're agreeing on your first point. The NABO email that was circulated suggested this. That's what's got my ire on this consultation in the first place.

Given that CRT are a Trust, that they are entrusted with nurturing the inland waterways for public enjoyment, emphasise public benefit and public interest in their 'charter' and so on, I DO believe that they MUST allow the survey results to 'form and shape its policies'. For example, if it has already been made clear (by CRT to NABO, NAG, etc.) that developing different fees for CCers and Leisure Boaters has been rejected by (or there was no consensus in) the first two stages of the consultation, then it does seem to suggest a predetermined agenda is being aimed at by introducing it in Stage 3 in the manner it has.

I don't know if the consultation is 'above board'. For me that's still an open question. I sure as heck hope it is.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that the suggestion 'continuous cruisers' should pay more for their licence on the basis of fairness. After all, they are more likely to use the provided services, are they not.

If the above holds good then it's true to say that the poll tax was fair. Everyone has access to the same services, so the cost was shared equally. What's not to like? And then it's generally held that progressive personal taxation is fairer than a fixed rate for everyone. Why so? Wouldn't it be fairer for the fixed rate to apply? I mean, someone earning double the amount another does would pay almost twice as much tax, how could it possible to be equitable that this higher earner should pay even more? After all, both these people have access to the same services...

I think it's fair to say that the average continuous cruiser is in a worse financial position than the average person with a home mooring. This won't always hold good of course, there will be exeptions, there always are. But generally speaking, I believe this is the case.

So, with the Trust stating that the review is designed to be revenue neutral there will be be two outcomes to the 2 groups.

1/ Those with a home mooring are likely to see their licence fees drop.

2/ Those without a mooring are likely to see an increase.

The wealthy are given a discount, the less wealthy must pay more. This flies completely in the face of what is regarded as fair, in a modern so called progressive society.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Batty said:

 For example, if it has already been made clear (by CRT to NABO, NAG, etc.) that developing different fees for CCers and Leisure Boaters has been rejected by (or there was no consensus in) the first two stages of the consultation, then it does seem to suggest a predetermined agenda is being aimed at by introducing it in Stage 3 in the manner it has.

Are you (or NABO, etc) guessing or was it rejected or not?

 

 

39 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

I think it's fair to say that the average continuous cruiser is in a worse financial position than the average person with a home mooring. This won't always hold good of course, there will be exeptions, there always are. But generally speaking, I believe this is the case.

 

Why? It could be argued that a home moorer is naturally in a worse position than a CCer, because they additionally pay for a mooring. I don't think you can simply assume here. There will always be people in a broad spectrum of financial health etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Batty said:

Given that CRT are a Trust, that they are entrusted with nurturing the inland waterways for public enjoyment, emphasise public benefit and public interest in their 'charter' and so on, I DO believe that they MUST allow the survey results to 'form and shape its policies'.

One point not yet (as far as I can remember) given much prominence is that this (as I understand it) is a consultation of boaters.  Boaters are probably a very minor group of the "public" being far out numbered by dog walkers, fishermen, cyclists, bird watchers commuters and all other non boaters.  Before anyone jumps on this I mean all the alternatives as a group not each group being larger, however some will.

As a result boaters wishes may as far as CRT are concerned not be the most important.  I realise of course this is heresy on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2017 at 23:01, Paul C said:

 

Why? It could be argued that a home moorer is naturally in a worse position than a CCer, because they additionally pay for a mooring. I don't think you can simply assume here. There will always be people in a broad spectrum of financial health etc.

Not only do they pay for their home mooring, but they pay council tax too (in most cases) on their house or flat. Unlike CCers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2017 at 23:53, Paul C said:

You are assuming that CCers = liveaboards (and don't also own property) and those with a home mooring don't live on the boat (on a mooring which attracts council tax).

 

You are assuming loads too. 

I have a mooring and live on my boat. And pay council tax but not on my mooring.

Most of CCers (I hold), own no property and pay no council tax yet use CRT services more than most home moorers, who may or may not pay council tax.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Why? It could be argued that a home moorer is naturally in a worse position than a CCer, because they additionally pay for a mooring. I don't think you can simply assume here. There will always be people in a broad spectrum of financial health etc.

I think Gareth E is saying CCer's are more likely than not to have adopted the CC lifestyle as an economical way of living because they are due to low financial means in a worse financial position than most boaters and the are only cruising continuously because they cannot  afford a home mooring. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think Gareth E is saying CCer's are more likely than not to have adopted the CC lifestyle as an economical way of living because they are due to low financial means in a worse financial position than most boaters and the are only cruising continuously because they cannot  afford a home mooring. 

 

Big assumption - I think most will say it is because of their love of boats, and they don't want to live on 'an estate' (marina)

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think Gareth E is saying CCer's are more likely than not to have adopted the CC lifestyle as an economical way of living because they are due to low financial means in a worse financial position than most boaters and the are only cruising continuously because they cannot  afford a home mooring. 

 

Not always the case at all. Some of the CCers we have met have chosen that lifestyle because they enjoy boating. Not because they see it as an economical way of living. In fact most were probably in a better financial position then us in not having to pay for a boat with a home mooring and a house and all of the bills that come along with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jerra said:

One point not yet (as far as I can remember) given much prominence is that this (as I understand it) is a consultation of boaters.  Boaters are probably a very minor group of the "public" being far out numbered by dog walkers, fishermen, cyclists, bird watchers commuters and all other non boaters.  Before anyone jumps on this I mean all the alternatives as a group not each group being larger, however some will.

As a result boaters wishes may as far as CRT are concerned not be the most important.  I realise of course this is heresy on this forum.

This I believe very much sums up CRTs current thinking and focus  .Boaters need to wake up and realise they risk being marginalised 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/10/2017 at 09:01, Tuscan said:

This I believe very much sums up CRTs current thinking and focus  .Boaters need to wake up and realise they risk being marginalised 

 

I very much agree. Canals without boats will still be loved by dog walkers, anglers, birdwatchers, cyclists etc. Just look at the Basingstoke beyond the limit of navigation to see an example of a thriving canal without boats, or any of the expenditure necessary to maintain the navigation.

I think CRT would be delighted to find themselves managing a boat-free canal system (save perhaps for the odd historic here and there for colour), and I wouldn't be surprised if this is their long term goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thebfg said:

Consultations should have a purpose

Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view."

I take note of the 'Do not consult for the sake of it' part of this statement. Surely this is at odds with the fact that FOI requests have shown that C&RT in fact did not receive any complaints regarding the current system of licencing and therefore the whole basis for having the consultation based on 'complaints received' is at very best dubious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sweeny Todd said:

I take note of the 'Do not consult for the sake of it' part of this statement. Surely this is at odds with the fact that FOI requests have shown that C&RT in fact did not receive any complaints regarding the current system of licencing and therefore the whole basis for having the consultation based on 'complaints received' is at very best dubious.

I wonder when they said it was confusing, there were talking about themselves.

There is a reason to consult. To raise their income stream.

 

It will be interesting to see as a percentage, how much it rises and compare this to the increase in the maintenance budget.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief is that a CCer should pay the same as a home mooring boater and vise versa which is basically the truth but the reality is somewhat different .

A boater in a NAA marina will pay for a CRT licence and then in their marina fees pay an element which goes to CRT.Thereby paying more.

The winners in the boating on canals are the ones in marinas where a licence is not required and what does that marina pay to CRT if anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Not always the case at all. Some of the CCers we have met have chosen that lifestyle because they enjoy boating. Not because they see it as an economical way of living. In fact most were probably in a better financial position then us in not having to pay for a boat with a home mooring and a house and all of the bills that come along with that.

We also have the phenomenon of leisure boaters who permanently weekend round the system, entirely within the guidelines.

But we've been round and round this one endlessly over the years, both here and on canals-list. All that it achieves is splitting the boaters into factions, which can only benefit those who want to see boating reduced. I see new boat builds have more or less stabilised at around 200 a year, so unless that number are scrapped or taken off CRT and EA waters each year, the system is going to get more and more choked up in the popular areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this 'consultation' interesting (and chuckled a few times) in its choice of stock answers with text boxes to make one's own comments.  The questions appeared biased toward revenue raising by any means, despite the option to choose 'unfair' etc.  Naturally with myself being biased I made the comment that those already paying C&RT for a home mooring should pay less somewhere along the line... I did resist the temptation to comment how unfair it is that my home mooring is over 100 miles from my house as the rates rise disproportionately the closer they get to where I live.

It does seem to me that the liveaboard CC'ers in particular are going to end up paying more for the convenience of living in or near our Capital (or other major cities) and that everyone else will get a piece of that increase as a result. (I'm sure this comment will get the usual defamatory comments from the few) so we all may as well brace ourselves in readiness.

I don't honestly understand the comments about the 'gentrification' of the waterways, they seem to me to allude to only the rich being able to share the waterways  - I'm not rich, not even particularly wealthy, but I do fully understand that if I want to own a boat and keep it on the water it is going to cost me  - and I won't be able to dictate to C&RT that their rates are unfair when the annual price hike happens.  Nobody forced me to buy a boat so I have to live with the cost or get off the water! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.