Jump to content

Colin Brendan

Member
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,307 profile views

Colin Brendan's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (4/12)

11

Reputation

  1. Yet by splitting the anti-ccer-surcharge vote between 2 options, votes on the ccer surcharge option are distorted, and in fact the 60% who voted for options that do not include a ccer surcharge outweigh the 40% that voted for a ccer surcharge. As I've said - at best this survey is a clear indication of lack of support for the CCer surcharge. At worst the survey is completely useless because of it's selective questioning and because it conflates issues rather than dealing with them independently, which means CRT positioning the survey as a key justification for their ccer surcharge in their opening announcement about new license fees is entirely absurd.
  2. There are many things that are not subject to market pressures. Many public assets are deliberately exempt or buffered from these pressures because it is generally recognised that an unrestricted market disproportionately favours wealthy people and screws over others people. A lot of common land is exempt from market pressures. I imagine you yourself benefit from public assets that are not subject to market pressure - perhaps the NHS for example! I guess the canal is public/common land even if CRT manage it on behalf of the public - so the idea that common land like public parks and the canal should be subject to unchecked market pressures is a worrying one. The canals are an asset that fell into disrepair, revived largely by voluntary and public effort - I cannot think of a better case for free market pressure exemption. Saying that people can rely on the social state is a fallacy(i wish it wasnt!). You may have found yourself in the fortunate position of state/dwp funded mooring and license, but I think you are the exception, not the rule. I know of many instances where people are being denied financial support by dwp, and many instances where this struggle has become so difficult that people give up. Saying that people can rely on the welfare state is often used as justification for introducing unfair market pressures. It is fine on paper, but often or perhaps rarely translates to the real world. There is a strong possibility that the welfare state will only be reduced in future. Generally when people argue 'life is tough, get used to it', they actually mean 'your life is tough - get used to it (I'm alright jack)'
  3. It is the unanimity of your reactions that makes it a cabal. And yes, my psychological quirks are many, and often found in child hood to some extent, as most psychological quirks are - all part of the human tapestry. though, I really do suggest turning that lense on yourself at some point - having listened to your rather imposing words, 'boss', I find myself being so very glad that I am not one of your 'girls'.
  4. No - like most people - sustaining the place I live is pretty important to me. The problem I have is the organisation who run it don't want me or the CCer community to exist. Not dissimilar from this forum I think. In fact, maybe I took a wrong turn coming here! The cabal seems fairly fixed! And they do say no useful debate happens on social media. I guess they are right. If crt tried to work with ccers for once this would be a whole different story. Like many ccer and hmers alike - I will do everything I can to support the canals, but cannot support CRT with their current discriminatory agenda. And the thing no-one seems to be addressing - how come IWA, NABO, K&A Boaters, nbta, and AWA all came out against the surcharge? These orgs represent hmers too?
  5. In that case rather than forcing other people to be philanthropic on your behalf - donate them some money!
  6. And then when the prices are in line we'll all be after your moorings and your mooring prices will go up! You dont honestly think crt will stop hiking mooring fees because of this? Let's all look forward to a future where we are all unhappy!
  7. Maybe but their statistics suggest otherwise 60% against the surcharge. Also I think first past the post is a bad system for everything but particularly for public surveys - so comparing it with the government voting system carries very little meaning It's just the thin end of the wedge though, a way of pricing out the current ccer community
  8. The 40% is the largest percentage because the anti ccer surcharge vote is split, whereas the pro ccer surcharge vote is not split. This is reflected in tha fact that all the boating orgs - NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters- all came out against the surcharge Is mooring their main expenditure? I suspect its other things.
  9. Yes... I'm not sure we should get into the pros and cons of PR here So as I've said above: At best that survey shows 60% voting against the ccer surcharge (despite its obvious personal advantage it would give them) because they found it unfair. Which is quite heartwarming! At worst the survey is so useless it is void - in which case why do CRT cite it as justification for the ccer surcharge in their opening statement about this?
  10. I'm saying what they haven't stated is that despite the inherent bias within the survey demographic 60% of people still voted for options that did not include a ccer surcharge. Have a look at the results. This is backed up by NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters - all of whom have publicly opposed the ccer surcharge. It's an unpopular policy which for an org managing an asset on behalf of the populous is a strange thing to ignore. (Just to add fiddling stats is not surprising - its CRTs modus operandi!)
  11. Here I am talking about the affordability of home moorings via dwp - so yes that would involve moving to a different part of the country (And - no - most ccers don't cruise the entire of the UK, and they do keep to specific areas, but they do none-the-less cruise. If they weren't able to cc around a certain area it would be impossible to cc with a family or job which would be sad indeed)
  12. The key thing is that crt are not creating the housing - so I think I many ways this os a great thing. It allows opportunity for people who would otherwise have none
  13. The widebeamer debate isn't contested as much because it so broadly crosses so many demographics, where as the ccer is quite obviously targeting in more financially disadvantaged. Tbh I think the wide beam surcharge is a massive issue for many who live in 5k tuperware that is only just 'wide' - many of whom are a step away from homelessness. I hope these people will be able to access the DWP mentioned above - and how sad that an opportunity for them to find their feet in other ways is being stripped away for such a spurious reason
  14. Yet I know many boater who struggle to get support from the dwp. I think the current government has clearly illustrated a desire to reduce this bill, so far many this is not as easy as you say - especially if you can't find a mooring anyway (without moving to a cemetery different part of the country which is a bit of an ask). Also, its just passin the issue on to another part of society that understands the situation less. In fact in a sense you are the exception that proves the rule. When casting about for where to find additional funds why would you target the demographic that includes the most financially disadvantaged without public support, and with out any concrete justification for these additional charges. The Elephant in the room is that rather than working with the communities it already has CRT are introducing a lever to price out the community it doesn't want to replace it with a more affluent community. They are curating who they want on a public asset that they inherited which falls well outside the remit of the organisational objectives that were established for them. As already proven by The quick turn over of ccers - there is no slack in the ccer livelihood - you would simply be choosing to remove a community, including many who are a step away from homelessness. One beauty of the canal is that it is a place where 200k barges sit alongside 5k tuperware. There are so many places in society dictated by other forces and silo'd by wealth that it makes the canal quite unique in that. When there are so many other ways of funding the canal, and when this ccer surcharge would make such a small difference in the Grand scheme of things at the expense of removing a key diversity within the community. When the surcharge is contended by 60% in the survey and by every boat org around the country - why wouldn't you concentrate on other options. CRT are not a corporate entity- they are custodians
  15. This is something you should take up with CRT. I believe there are some moorings that do not pay the license fee as well. If moorings are so tumultuous maybe you should uproot yourself and move to one of these. As things stand, you at least have the option to stay where you are and the option to move around if you like as you can obviously afford it. Whereas there are many ccers that do not have this option because they cannot afford it. So forgive me if my attention is on their plight rather than yours. Bear in mind that the ccer surcharge as it stands, although sligght, is no doubt the thin end of the wedge.
×
×
  • 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.