|
Post by peterboat on Mar 10, 2018 20:00:15 GMT
Cheers for that Steve glad that the IWA have now realised that CRT have well and truly shafted them shame they didnt listen to the members! Oh thats right they know whats best so dont bother consulting them
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 10, 2018 21:12:39 GMT
Edit to add that this was in response to what had been the immediately prior post by another idiot.Don’t know about swearing, but I certainly had some trenchant criticism in submissions on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Brentford Waterside Forum, to the EFRA Select Committee of 2006-2007, in their Report on BW’s performance to date. I also helped draft the submission of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Planning Committee of the London Borough of Hounslow, so I had 3 bites at the cherry [not that any of it did any good; there was too much fawning over BW by too many others]. My contribution reference EV355 (p362); BWF reference EV331 (p338-340); IBAC reference EV379 (p386-388). publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvfru/345/345ii.pdf The most relevant bit to the present discussion was the final IBAC paragraph – “ We hope that the Select Committee will take note that there is an acute dichotomy between the values of those in BW who have the waterways themselves at heart, and those employed in BW’s upper echelons who see their roles as that of pure market guided businessmen. For so long as this continues, any balance between the needs of the waterways and the needs of the accountants will always be resolved to the detriment of the waterways. We value our rivers and canals too much to be happy with this state of affairs.” Plus ca change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 22:50:35 GMT
Edit to add that this was in response to what had been the immediately prior post by another idiot.Don’t know about swearing, but I certainly had some trenchant criticism in submissions on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Brentford Waterside Forum, to the EFRA Select Committee of 2006-2007, in their Report on BW’s performance to date. I also helped draft the submission of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Planning Committee of the London Borough of Hounslow, so I had 3 bites at the cherry [not that any of it did any good; there was too much fawning over BW by too many others]. My contribution reference EV355 (p362); BWF reference EV331 (p338-340); IBAC reference EV379 (p386-388). publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvfru/345/345ii.pdf The most relevant bit to the present discussion was the final IBAC paragraph – “ We hope that the Select Committee will take note that there is an acute dichotomy between the values of those in BW who have the waterways themselves at heart, and those employed in BW’s upper echelons who see their roles as that of pure market guided businessmen. For so long as this continues, any balance between the needs of the waterways and the needs of the accountants will always be resolved to the detriment of the waterways. We value our rivers and canals too much to be happy with this state of affairs.” Plus ca change. Very very well put.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 22:55:15 GMT
There does seem to be an unusual amount of unrest this time. Talk of barricades and protests are often bandied about, and seldom do we see any more than comment. I have noticed a group that seems to be very vociferous, but obviously it remains to see if it's just talk. I would happily use the boat as a barricade if called upon to do So.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Mar 10, 2018 23:59:51 GMT
The ‘update’, however, noted: “ Bonus schemes for the wages grades have been almost eliminated. Bonus schemes for Departmental Directors and Regional Managers have been introduced”!!! [my bold] Insert swear words of your choice on my behalf please. The bonus scheme for staff was never eliminated. In 2016/17, 44% of C&RT female staff were paid a bonus and 44% of male staff according to C&RT's gender gap statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 8:34:18 GMT
There does seem to be an unusual amount of unrest this time. Talk of barricades and protests are often bandied about, and seldom do we see any more than comment. I have noticed a group that seems to be very vociferous, but obviously it remains to see if it's just talk. I would happily use the boat as a barricade if called upon to do So. If there are plans of barricades to protest against CRT. I hope this is being planned with owners of all types of boats, not just widebeam owners. If the action is carried out just by wide beam owners it will just create a divide which will play right into CRT’s hands! Divide and conquer only works if people are daft enough to get drawn in by this crap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 8:50:40 GMT
There does seem to be an unusual amount of unrest this time. Talk of barricades and protests are often bandied about, and seldom do we see any more than comment. I have noticed a group that seems to be very vociferous, but obviously it remains to see if it's just talk. I would happily use the boat as a barricade if called upon to do So. If there are plans of barricades to protest against CRT. I hope this is being planned with owners of all types of boats, not just widebeam owners. If the action is carried out just by wide beam owners it will just create a divide which will play right into CRT’s hands! Divide and conquer only works if people are daft enough to get drawn in by this crap. I've not yet seen a Fat boat mentioned, hence my offer.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 11, 2018 8:58:22 GMT
I attended one of the CRT consultation sessions and actually most people present felt that a fat boat should pay a bit more than a same length narrowboat. So whilst I have sympathy for fat boats, I doubt they will get much support from most narrowboaters. a lot of the total maintenance costs are, in effect, being subsidised by widebeam owners who are unable to access those waterways. Thanks to everyone who has a longer boat, you are helping us with our 40-footer a lot! We pay around £700/year for our CRT licence.At the start of these "consultations" it was said that it would be cost "neutral" but it is not, it is a major price hike I knew this from the start. I mean, it was obvious, wasn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 9:32:18 GMT
If there are plans of barricades to protest against CRT. I hope this is being planned with owners of all types of boats, not just widebeam owners. If the action is carried out just by wide beam owners it will just create a divide which will play right into CRT’s hands! Divide and conquer only works if people are daft enough to get drawn in by this crap. I've not yet seen a Fat boat mentioned, hence my offer. It’s mentioned in this threads title though!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 11, 2018 10:12:19 GMT
a lot of the total maintenance costs are, in effect, being subsidised by widebeam owners who are unable to access those waterways. Thanks to everyone who has a longer boat, you are helping us with our 40-footer a lot! We pay around £700/year for our CRT licence.At the start of these "consultations" it was said that it would be cost "neutral" but it is not, it is a major price hike I knew this from the start. I mean, it was obvious, wasn't it?You "knew it from the start" ....... most of us suspected it from the start, but that is irrelevant. It was nothing to do with who believed or didn't believe ....... it was about a statement by CRT that shows their contempt for boaters intelligence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 10:42:48 GMT
I've not yet seen a Fat boat mentioned, hence my offer. It’s mentioned in this threads title though! I didn't choose or write the title.. 😊
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 11, 2018 10:50:30 GMT
From the Summary of Recommendations in the M&M 1994 Report, in the section relating to charges – 42 “BWB has unduly emphasised short-term gain at the expense of longer-term market development and revenue growth and boat licence fees have been out of line with the market. In setting boat licence fees BWB should put less emphasis on purely short-term gain at the expense of longer-term expansion.”
Not quite sure how that recommendation was intended to read, but the prima facie principle is sound. Part of any difficulty in applying it would have to relate to the licence and registration fee levels for comparative boats in all the other navigation authorities schemes, as well as the criteria relied upon. As others have pointed out too, many other schemes take width into account, although most usually the fee is based on area, which seems a simpler and fairer method than using 'bands' with surcharges. For long-term viability and encouragement though, whatever was introduced ought to have made keeping a boat on CaRT waters, a more attractive proposition with some assurance of controlled/curtailed annual increases.
Changing the parameters is possibly the most irksome of changes. I remember decades ago, considering the economy of various narrowboat lengths in terms of what charge bands applied - I think that any decision based on those would have been regretted at some point.
The argument over available lengths of waterway does have some traction I believe, and the EA Anglian Region, while not basing it on boat size, do offer reduced charges for only using certain of those rivers. From their website: "Registration charges for powered boats depend on a number of different factors including length, engine size, type of boat and where you use the boat."
An example is the choice to only register for the Ancholme, Glen, Welland and Black Sluice waterways, or for the River Stour only. It would have been simple enough for CaRT to have done something along those lines, offering the possibility to licence only for wide beam waterways, as an alternative to licensing for all. It is not as though a wide beam vessel could cheat, and try sneaking along the Oxford Canal for example, even though not licensed for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 10:51:54 GMT
It’s mentioned in this threads title though! I didn't choose or write the title.. 😊 I know!
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Mar 11, 2018 11:07:24 GMT
It’s mentioned in this threads title though! I didn't choose or write the title.. 😊 I know but I was waiting for someone to do something and when it didnt happen I jumped in, I dont think CTR come out of this review looking at all well, we all know that none of the extra revenue will go towards maintaining our failing system, and that is the point it is ours CRT dont own it they have been set up to maintain it for future generations. This Review was always about setting boater against boater and extracting more dosh off as many boaters as possible, I for one dont believe this is the end its just the beginning, which is why I am going to move to the Broads, event though I would have preferred to stay on CRT waters.
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Mar 11, 2018 12:40:41 GMT
No need to blockade the canals. All that's needed is a regular Limehouse to Braunston fatboat challenge. Several fatties set off from Limehouse and make their way in convoy to Braunston doing their best to navigate the difficulties enroute especially if the trip coincides with such events as Canal Cavalcade and other IWA gatherings.
A special BBQ and fatboat parade can be organised just by the Wyvern Shipping base.
|
|