I dont want to pay more make him pay more.....

[GUMPY]

Its with quite a lot of sadness that I watch the reaction of people in this

place to the BW proposals.

There has been one or two constructive messages and all the rest have said that

everyone else should pay more but not me!

FFS we are all in the same boat as it were the increases may just affect

minority groups this year but trust me there will be general increases over

time for all and they will be bigger than you think!

What should be happening is that we should be presenting a united front not

all this me me me me that is going on.

 

Personally I favour the approach that the licence system needs a complete

overhaul and that the licence for any boat should be proportional to the

cruising range of that boat from its home mooring, so for example a 57ft

narrowboat would pay the most as it would have access to the while system, a

70ft narrow boat would pay less as there are canals that it cant do also a

barge larger than 70ftx14 moored on the river severn would pay less as its

range would only be the Severn and G&S.

Prices could be set as along the lines:

access to the whole system full price

access to the southern system for broad beam boats full price

access to the northern system for broad beam boats full price

70ft narrowboat full price less 7% ( a guess at how much a 70ft boat cant

access).

 

This would be far fairer than what is being proposed.

 

 

No wait Ive got a better idea

all boats whose name begins with A should pay more this year

then B next year

C the year after

 

That's about as fair as what BW are proposing

[Nine of Hearts]

I'm with you but not as far as discounting beyond 57'. My boat is longer than this and I knew the implications of that when she was commissioned. I can't get up the L&L, but that's my own stupid fault. Hey ho. Otherwise, you could launch the Queen Mary in the upper Severn and then pay no licence because you couldn't shift it anywhere.

[blackrose]

Its with quite a lot of sadness that I watch the reaction of people in this

place to the BW proposals.

There has been one or two constructive messages and all the rest have said that

everyone else should pay more but not me!

FFS we are all in the same boat as it were the increases may just affect

minority groups this year but trust me there will be general increases over

time for all and they will be bigger than you think!

What should be happening is that we should be presenting a united front not

all this me me me me that is going on.

I entirely agree with you on this Julian. Licence fee increases imposed on a minority will just be used to justify further increases across the board.

 

Personally I favour the approach that the licence system needs a complete

overhaul and that the licence for any boat should be proportional to the

cruising range of that boat from its home mooring, so for example a 57ft

narrowboat would pay the most as it would have access to the while system, a

70ft narrow boat would pay less as there are canals that it cant do also a

barge larger than 70ftx14 moored on the river severn would pay less as its

range would only be the Severn and G&S.

Prices could be set as along the lines:

access to the whole system full price

access to the southern system for broad beam boats full price

access to the northern system for broad beam boats full price

70ft narrowboat full price less 7% ( a guess at how much a 70ft boat cant

access).

I'm afraid I don't see the need for any licence system overhaul and the system you describe above seems just as unfair.

[alan_fincher]

No wait Ive got a better idea

all boats whose name begins with A should pay more this year

then B next year

C the year after

 

I've just changed my name by deed poll to Fred Zorro........

 

Seriously though, Julian, I'm not sure what the right answer is....

 

In some ways, I'd say just leave things as they are....

 

When someone has bought a boat, be it 30 feet or 70 feet, narrow or wide, they have done so understanding where it can and can't go (hopefully!), and with some idea of BW licence charging structure. So they knew, and accepted, that a 70 foot boat could not cover the whole system, but would still be charged the highest licence. If a 57 foot boat would have suited them better, they could have bought it, and saved licence costs - they knew what they were getting in to.

 

However, I see the £50 "wide-beam" thing as the thin end of the wedge. Compared to a typical licence, it's not a huge sum, (is it?), but it establishes the precedent that it's fair game to tinker with the system, and start lumping on extra charging. Once that's in, what comes next?

 

I'm not sure how much extra revenue it will bring, (clearly it's more if they strictly enforce the 2.1 metre thing), but it does seem unlikely that it will do much to control the increases in licence fees generally.

 

So I think I'm against it, and would probably just say stick with what we have now.

 

 

Unrelated to licence costs, I do have concerns about the spiralling growth of number of wide-beams on the system, particularly in the south and through London. Clearly many are being bought as main residences, but with little or no hope of finding a permanent mooring, either on or off line. I may be imagining it, but a very large proportion of new boats now seem to be wide-beams, and many of these can be found tied up at locations barely suitable for the purpose. I suppose whilst it's a way of people getting a very nice fully equipped home, possibly at around £100K (?), there is a certain inevitability to what I see going on.

 

(Incoming!)

 

 

I'm with you but not as far as discounting beyond 57'. My boat is longer than this and I knew the implications of that when she was commissioned. I can't get up the L&L, but that's my own stupid fault.

Exactly! As I have just dared to say!

[magnetman]

My boat isn't narrow beam, just in case someone assumed it was. I pay by area, or 'footprint' as I have a Thames license.

[fender]

No 'system' is going to work

 

Why dont we just all beg, cap in hand, or busk at the locks at bridge holes, and other locations where gongoozlers may congregate

 

The we can kindly give the proceeds to BW!

 

 

Music intro:

 

Now if I beg from you, it matters that you see

These sordid canal things are coming hard to me.

It's taken me some time to work out lock widths too.

I lockwheeled the whole flight before I came to you.

I have no thought at all about my own reward.

I really didn't come here to say I'm above board.

Just don't say I'm ... damned for all time.

 

I came because I had to; I'm the one who moors.

BW can't repair things like it did before.

And furthermore I know BW thinks its screwed.

BW wouldn't mind that I was begging from you.

I have no thought at all about my own reward.

I really didn't say narrowbeams should go broad.

Just don't say I'm ... damned for all time.

Edited September 19, 2008 by fender

[smileypete]

My boat isn't narrow beam, just in case someone assumed it was. I pay by area, or 'footprint' as I have a Thames license.

 

I think this is a reasonably fair way of doing it.

 

However BW are just disguising creeping license increases.

 

 

Personally I favour the approach that the licence system needs a complete

overhaul and that the licence for any boat should be proportional to the

cruising range of that boat from its home mooring, so for example a 57ft

narrowboat would pay the most as it would have access to the while system, a

70ft narrow boat would pay less as there are canals that it cant do also a

barge larger than 70ftx14 moored on the river severn would pay less as its

range would only be the Severn and G&S.

 

So people who can afford a bigger boat pay proportionately less than those who can't?

 

Or should people with a short wide boat pay less than those with a long narrow boat?

 

cheers,

Pete.

[tillergirl]

Funny I thought gongoozling was a spectator sport. Maybe BW should start to chrage for it then there would'nt be any need to put the licence fee up!!

Edited September 19, 2008 by tillergirl

[Maverick]

Having sold my boat 6 months ago BW will not be getting a penny more off me I'm glad to say. I feel as a hobby boater the prices charged for moorings and licences were rediculous for how often I used my boat.

 

I am just one of many whose income BW have lost. How many more will follow I wonder and is each one that leaves being replaced by a newcomer?

 

Livaboards are a different matter altogether and their overall yearly costs are still far lower than living in a house (regardless of what figures and statistics they will throw at you)

 

I have and will continue to monitor the boating World thru this excellent forum as it will be very interesting to see what the future holds. Who knows in 15 yrs time I may be able to return to the hobby I loved, once sanity has returned to the boating World.

 

Untill then the powers that be will continue to do exactly as they please and you WILL do as your told or leave the waterways.

[sueb]

Its with quite a lot of sadness that I watch the reaction of people in this

place to the BW proposals.

There has been one or two constructive messages and all the rest have said that

everyone else should pay more but not me!

FFS we are all in the same boat as it were the increases may just affect

minority groups this year but trust me there will be general increases over

time for all and they will be bigger than you think!

What should be happening is that we should be presenting a united front not

all this me me me me that is going on.

 

Personally I favour the approach that the licence system needs a complete

overhaul and that the licence for any boat should be proportional to the

cruising range of that boat from its home mooring, so for example a 57ft

narrowboat would pay the most as it would have access to the while system, a

70ft narrow boat would pay less as there are canals that it cant do also a

barge larger than 70ftx14 moored on the river severn would pay less as its

range would only be the Severn and G&S.

Prices could be set as along the lines:

access to the whole system full price

access to the southern system for broad beam boats full price

access to the northern system for broad beam boats full price

70ft narrowboat full price less 7% ( a guess at how much a 70ft boat cant

access).

 

This would be far fairer than what is being proposed.

 

 

No wait Ive got a better idea

all boats whose name begins with A should pay more this year

then B next year

C the year after

 

That's about as fair as what BW are proposing

I see you are proposing wide boats should pay less. Unbiased are you?

Sue

[magnetman]

Having sold my boat 6 months ago BW will not be getting a penny more off me I'm glad to say. I feel as a hobby boater the prices charged for moorings and licences were rediculous for how often I used my boat.

 

I am just one of many whose income BW have lost. How many more will follow I wonder and is each one that leaves being replaced by a newcomer?

 

Livaboards are a different matter altogether and their overall yearly costs are still far lower than living in a house (regardless of what figures and statistics they will throw at you)

 

I have and will continue to monitor the boating World thru this excellent forum as it will be very interesting to see what the future holds. Who knows in 15 yrs time I may be able to return to the hobby I loved, once sanity has returned to the boating World.

 

Untill then the powers that be will continue to do exactly as they please and you WILL do as your told or leave the waterways.

 

This is THE point. How many wide beam boats are used for leisure purposes on the canal system?

 

If people are 'getting away with' residential use of boats 'too cheaply' then it WILL be noticed and something will be done to address the situation and this usually involves a bit of wallet distortion. I know loads of people live on narrow boats as well but its clear (to me, a cynic and realist) that wide boats are being favoured by some because the license fee is proportionally cheaper than a tin tube would be. Its reasonable really, narrow boats aren't ideal living spaces.

 

The question is what is the canal system for, is it for housing or is it for leisure?

 

By raising costs for widebeam owners this makes it slightly less likely, overall, that it will become a linear housing estate. The average 'man on the street' is far more likely to see a wide boat as suitable for living on that a narrow boat, its simple and if the running costs are the same (yearly licensing, mooring and charging batteries with the engine) then he will buy the wide boat and as it is residential the geographic area the boat is able to cover is irrelevant in most cases.

[alan_fincher]

I think these are all valid points, Magnetman.

 

However, given the total cost of boat ownership, even for those not paying for a mooring, I can't see £50 as being too much of a deterrent to those intent on being wide-beam liveaboards.

[blackrose]

This is THE point. How many wide beam boats are used for leisure purposes on the canal system?

 

If people are 'getting away with' residential use of boats 'too cheaply' then it WILL be noticed and something will be done to address the situation and this usually involves a bit of wallet distortion. I know loads of people live on narrow boats as well but its clear (to me, a cynic and realist) that wide boats are being favoured by some because the license fee is proportionally cheaper than a tin tube would be. Its reasonable really, narrow boats aren't ideal living spaces.

 

The question is what is the canal system for, is it for housing or is it for leisure?

 

By raising costs for widebeam owners this makes it slightly less likely, overall, that it will become a linear housing estate. The average 'man on the street' is far more likely to see a wide boat as suitable for living on that a narrow boat, its simple and if the running costs are the same (yearly licensing, mooring and charging batteries with the engine) then he will buy the wide boat and as it is residential the geographic area the boat is able to cover is irrelevant in most cases.

 

I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me - there are far more narrow boats than widebeams that are mainly used for residential purposes.

[marcus]

Its with quite a lot of sadness that I watch the reaction of people in this

place to the BW proposals.

There has been one or two constructive messages and all the rest have said that

everyone else should pay more but not me!

FFS we are all in the same boat as it were the increases may just affect

minority groups this year but trust me there will be general increases over

time for all and they will be bigger than you think!

What should be happening is that we should be presenting a united front not

all this me me me me that is going on.

 

Personally I favour the approach that the licence system needs a complete

overhaul and that the licence for any boat should be proportional to the

cruising range of that boat from its home mooring, so for example a 57ft

narrowboat would pay the most as it would have access to the while system, a

70ft narrow boat would pay less as there are canals that it cant do also a

barge larger than 70ftx14 moored on the river severn would pay less as its

range would only be the Severn and G&S.

Prices could be set as along the lines:

access to the whole system full price

access to the southern system for broad beam boats full price

access to the northern system for broad beam boats full price

70ft narrowboat full price less 7% ( a guess at how much a 70ft boat cant

access).

 

This would be far fairer than what is being proposed.

 

 

No wait Ive got a better idea

all boats whose name begins with A should pay more this year

then B next year

C the year after

 

That's about as fair as what BW are proposing

 

I agree 100% - why shold those with access to less be asked to pay more?

 

I think this is a reasonably fair way of doing it.

 

However BW are just disguising creeping license increases.

 

 

 

 

So people who can afford a bigger boat pay proportionately less than those who can't?

 

Or should people with a short wide boat pay less than those with a long narrow boat?

 

cheers,

Pete.

 

I think you are making a sweeping assumption here that wide beam craft are more expensive than narrowboats.

 

If the licence were to be pro rata agianst craft value then would that really be popular?

[Lesd]

''I can't see £50 as being too much of a deterrent to those intent on being wide-beam liveaboards.''

 

 

Thats probably true Alan but the 30-40% alternative proposal may well do. If these proposals go ahead then a £1000+ annual licence fee wont be far away, I think that will put alot of people off. And BW should remember that just because someone has a so called expensive boat doesnt necessarly mean they have the income/ ability to pay these huge increases. I dont personally see the need to change the system that we have today, changing it to a poll tax like system based on boats values is madness.

Les

Edited September 19, 2008 by Lesd

[magnetman]

Thats probably true Alan but the 30-40% alternative proposal may well do. If these proposals go ahead then a £1000+ annual licence fee wont be far away, I think that will put alot of people off. And BW should remember that just because someone has a so called expensive boat doesnt necessarly mean they have the income/ ability to pay these huge increases. I dont personally see the need to change the system that we have today, changing it to a poll tax like system based on boats values is madness.

Les

you've got a wide boat

 

sorry, nothing personal.

[Lesd]

you've got a wide boat

 

sorry, nothing personal.

 

 

so ? Does that make my comment less relevant ?

 

BW's reply to BWAF implies that they are targetting people ''who can afford to pay'', they (and you ?) have made the assumption that everyone with a boat larger than 6'10'' has the income to do that. Im saying that assumption is wrong.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Lesd

[magnetman]

so ? Does that make my comment less relevant ?

sorry, didn't read your post properly. I was thinking you were complaining about charging extra for wide boats, but it seems you were commenting on the suggestion that boat value be taken into account when applying license fees. I admit haven't read the BW proposals properly.

 

maybe I should.

 

 

Is there really a suggestion in there that poll tax type 'by value of boat' licenses are the way ahead?

 

I thought it was about charging wide beams more. Must read things properly in future.

 

Apologies if I've got totally the wrong end of the stick.

 

 

 

 

 

addendum: just read your edit. Maybe i didn't get the wrong end after all.

[blackrose]

In terms of paying by boat value, then there are plenty of NBs around that cost in excess of £120K and budget widebeams that cost half of that figure.

[fuzzyduck]

That was the whole point of the 2 surcharge proposals, with a nod and a wink BW effectively said to leisure boaters and marina liveaboards "we were gonna make you pay 10 percent, but help us screw those nasty CCers, and widebeam owners, and it'l be 6 percent.

 

Can you really blame them for looking after themselves?

[marcus]

This is THE point. How many wide beam boats are used for leisure purposes on the canal system?

 

If people are 'getting away with' residential use of boats 'too cheaply' then it WILL be noticed and something will be done to address the situation and this usually involves a bit of wallet distortion. I know loads of people live on narrow boats as well but its clear (to me, a cynic and realist) that wide boats are being favoured by some because the license fee is proportionally cheaper than a tin tube would be. Its reasonable really, narrow boats aren't ideal living spaces.

 

The question is what is the canal system for, is it for housing or is it for leisure?

 

By raising costs for widebeam owners this makes it slightly less likely, overall, that it will become a linear housing estate. The average 'man on the street' is far more likely to see a wide boat as suitable for living on that a narrow boat, its simple and if the running costs are the same (yearly licensing, mooring and charging batteries with the engine) then he will buy the wide boat and as it is residential the geographic area the boat is able to cover is irrelevant in most cases.

 

You may well have fallen for that old chestnut of devide and rule, if the increases in the minority crfat types are allowed to come in it is us who will be asked to pay more next and we will not have or deserve any suport from others if we have not given it to them. I am happy with what I pay now, I'd like to pay less but I'd like to the the waterways properly funded. I'm not foolish enough to want to see someone else penalised to feel that I must be getting better value.

 

If I can access more waterway than others why should I pay less?

 

Folk have been living on boats for very many years and the cost of living afloat legitimatly is not significantly cheeper than shore based property, if you think it is then you are mistaken. However the proposal being discussed is to charge more for the beam of a craft not the tenure of occupancy.

[Lesd]

sorry, didn't read your post properly. I was thinking you were complaining about charging extra for wide boats, but it seems you were commenting on the suggestion that boat value be taken into account when applying license fees. I admit haven't read the BW proposals properly.

 

maybe I should.

 

 

Is there really a suggestion in there that poll tax type 'by value of boat' licenses are the way ahead?

 

I thought it was about charging wide beams more. Must read things properly in future.

 

Apologies if I've got totally the wrong end of the stick.

 

 

 

 

 

addendum: just read your edit. Maybe i didn't get the wrong end after all.

 

Try reading it, its an eye opener. The way I read the document was...they want extra revenue so they are targetting people who will pay / can afford to pay, they state that people with expensive boats (inc widebeams) fit into that catagory. That makes it a poll tax type approach in my view and I think thats wrong.

[magnetman]

You may well have fallen for that old chestnut of devide and rule, if the increases in the minority crfat types are allowed to come in it is us who will be asked to pay more next and we will not have or deserve any suport from others if we have not given it to them. I am happy with what I pay now, I'd like to pay less but I'd like to the the waterways properly funded. I'm not foolish enough to want to see someone else penalised to feel that I must be getting better value.

 

If I can access more waterway than others why should I pay less?

 

Folk have been living on boats for very many years and the cost of living afloat legitimatly is not significantly cheeper than shore based property, if you think it is then you are mistaken. However the proposal being discussed is to charge more for the beam of a craft not the tenure of occupancy.

 

any definition for this bit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try reading it, its an eye opener. The way I read the document was...they want extra revenue so they are targetting people who will pay / can afford to pay, they state that people with expensive boats (inc widebeams) fit into that catagory. That makes it a poll tax type approach in my view and I think thats wrong.

I'll do that. sorry I thought this was about wide beams

[Lesd]

any definition for this bit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll do that. sorry I thought this was about wide beams

 

It is, because BW have made certain assumptions about them and their owners. Get it now ?

[fuzzyduck]

Firstly a disclaimer I own a widebeam boat it is 27 by 9 foot 6, at the moment with the boat market crashed it's worth about 8000 pounds.

 

I support footprint licences because I accept my boat fills a 70 by 14 foot lock, using twice the water of a narrowboat, and indicating that I am in fact a millionaire.

 

Well in reality I support a footprint licence because I know that I am now a target, and I have zero trust for BW.

 

they will railroad these supplements through because they have isolated minorities that they can target to soften the blow to the majority. look at the figures "everyone shares the burden 11 percent, with these supplements 6.6"

 

The cycnic in me says if they can do it this time, will they do the same thing next time? 2011 "everyone shares the burden 11 percent, doubling these supplements 6.6" what stops them from increasing it 10 fold at some point?

 

and in 2013,2015,......

 

If they introduce a footprint licence they can only do it once, and in 2011 they have to go back to a percentage for everyone, not good for BW, in my opinion fairer for everyone. And predictable.

 

now CCers.... how the hell do we protect them from exploitation?