Jump to content

Continuous cruising case - liveaboard homes at risk


Flossie007

Featured Posts

;)

 

And I absolutely stand by it. I think he's the worst type of hypocrit on here.

 

Gobbo plays banjo you know. Probably on the porch. Typical redneck behaviour.

 

What a constructive post. Cleary you're very educated and intelligent.

 

I hope he is rich enough to provide for his own health care when the tories wreck the NHS.

 

Don't worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What a constructive post. Cleary you're very educated and intelligent.

 

 

 

Don't worry.

I'd have to agree. Mike Cleary is one of the most intelligent people I know. I taught with him for 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Thatcherism did to GDP.

 

economic-growth-yearly-1949-2010.jpg

I don't want to be awkward (OK, yes, I do) but how can Thatcher, who took office in 1979, be responsible for the disruption of a pattern of boom & bust that, according to your graph, began in the early 1970s?

 

Isn't that a rather convenient displacement of blame?

 

I work in South Yorkshire and a colleague complains bitterly that David Cameron's rules declare that her husband, a two-times stroke victim, is fit for work. She won't have it that the rules were written by a Labour Government. She also says that Thatcher 'closed the grammar schools' and proves it by pointing out that the local one closed in 1980. It is a matter of tribal dogma that all bad things come from the Tories, and yes, she really did vote for a donkey with a red rosette on.

 

Contiguity does not imply causality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thatcher's economic policies have been in place for 30 years, enthusiastically pursued by Labour. This is not a party-political point. The neo-liberal orthodoxy - starting under Nixon but not taking a death grip until Thatcher and Reagan - has held sway for 30 years worldwide. There's no sense in splitting the periods by the name of the party which happened to be in power in any given period.

 

The oil shock of the 1970s is hardly comparable to the financial crises since then. Thatcher and Reagan used that shock to make permanent and very damaging changes to the world economy, based on the theories of an economist who was literally a laughing stock until they adopted his ideas and effected a revolution at the World Bank and IMF (see Joseph Stiglitz: Globalization and its discontents). An economic theory so sophisticated that it cannot explain unemployment except as workers deciding to take a bit more holiday. :rolleyes:

 

You are correct that there isn't enough data on that graph. Economics isn't as easy to experiment on as human beings, but it does offer more observational data than climate science, so all is not lost. There is a fair bit of data, and it shows that you cannot cut your way out of a recession. It's been tried many times since the 1970s and it just leads to stagnation. The relevant evidence is linked to from this article by Krugman.

 

If unemployment is high and interest rates low, there is nothing left to give - you just end up desperately trudging up the down escalator because you foolishly decided that it would be quicker than going all the way around to the up escalator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I see and understand all that - but you are blaming policies that were implemented from 1979 for something that demonstrably started to happen at least half a decade beforehand. Blaming the oil shock is no less disingenuous than Brown's supporters blaming 'global credit problems' for the mess we are in now: it is exactly like hearing someone else fart loudly in a lift and blaming them for your poisonous Silent But Deadly.

 

The real damage to Britain's industry was caused by the toxic combination of OPEC, public ownership of manufacturing which meant that all the effort was put into meeting political goals rather than remaining competitive, and rampant trades unions.

 

And just as we have now, socialist failings resulted in the Tories being given an open goal with a thoroughly emasculated opposition completely unable to stop them from implementing their agenda.

 

History teaches us only one thing: if people treat the Labour Party as an ideological instrument of socialism, then we get a fucking awful financial catastrophe as a result of piss-poor government followed by a decade of rampant Toryism. The people to blame are the ones who mismanaged the economy in the first place, giving voters a reason for electing the Tories.

 

Economics isn't as easy to experiment on as human beings, but it does offer more observational data than climate science, so all is not lost. There is a fair bit of data, and it shows that you cannot cut your way out of a recession.

The problem with economics is not the lack of data. It's not even an excess of data (although many people argue that it is.) The problem is that no-one has a clue which data is relevant and which is not until about three decades later. The better economists estimate; the rest of them just guess blindly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still seem to be stuck in the tribalist two party mode of politics. I don't think it's relevant.

 

Although I'd argue that the outrageous snow jobs outlined in that article are a pretty big clue as to which side is struggling for a coherent argument, you are correct about the problems in economics. Which is why a consensus like this needs to be listened to:

 

At the private conference this week convened by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 30 world-class economists talked for two days about “Macro and Growth Policies in the Wake of the Crisis.” Their discussions provided a reality test for the current economic debate in Washington, and the last decade of U.S. policymaking flunked. Economic ideology not only blinded American policymakers to the seeds of a financial crisis that never had to happen; it also has led to wrong-headed responses for both the short-run and the long-term.

 

While the United States and other advanced countries embraced large-scale stimulus in 2008 and 2009 to avoid a global depression, the panelists pointed out that the world’s advanced economies are now moving in the opposite direction, without regard for the consequences. Across a group of economists who normally argue over every assumption and decimal point, a genuine consensus emerged that the American and European economies remain too fragile today to successfully absorb major deficit cuts.

 

While congressional Republicans wield a meat axe over the budget, and many Democrats would apply a scalpel, nearly all of the economic notables gathered at the IMF concluded that additional spending and tax breaks would be much more sensible.

 

http://www.sonecon.com/blog/?p=530

 

Those leftie radicals at the IMF. Pfft!

 

You cannot take demand out of an economy which is already suffering from low demand and just expect it to magically recover. The bit of the Osborne budget that wasn't reported at the time was the OBR revising its estimates of private debt upwards by £300bn, whilst Osborne shaves just 15% of that off the public debt.

 

That's the only way he has to fill the hole in demand - assume we will borrow to make up the shortfall. But we can't, because the banks won't be lending it to us even if we wanted to borrow it. And there is no meaningful distinction between public and private debt anyway.

 

Japan dealt with its recession in the 1990s with austerity. And got their credit rating downgraded in 2000. Ireland introduced austerity before anyone else, and they've been downgraded. Portugal, Greece and Spain were forced into austerity and guess what - they've been downgraded. We're in a much better position than any of them - low interest rates and long terms on the debt, most of which we owe to ourselves - but we're on the same destructive path. 95% of the cuts haven't even bitten yet, and growth has flatlined where other economies are doing better than expected (with similar weather). Both predictable and predicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spoke at length, on this very subject, with LGOs in one of the most canal ridden regions, they have a similar attitude to the many liveaboards, with non-res moorings, they are turning a blind eye to.

 

This may of course change, as the ConDem screw turns ever tighter on Local Govt.

 

 

well said :cheers:

 

"let not those who live in Glass (or second)houses......."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still seem to be stuck in the tribalist two party mode of politics. I don't think it's relevant.

You don't, I wish it wasn't. It is self evident, however, that at the grass roots level it is far more influential than anything else.

 

 

You cannot take demand out of an economy which is already suffering from low demand and just expect it to magically recover.

Absolutely true.

 

However: even the current Labour Leader says that the previous Government overspent massively and should have started cutting back to live within the nation's needs years ago.

 

I know that domestic analogies don't fully explain economics, but this one works: if I earned £12,000 a year up to 2010 but spent £18,000 a year on my family, whose fault is it when, from 2011, I have to spend £4,000 a year paying off my debts?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cuts are horrible, inexcusable, avoidable - but inevitable. They are happening because Labour made a complete arse of running the economy and gave the Tories every excuse they could ever dream of. If you don't like cuts, then there is no point in bitching about the Tories. You might as well bitch about wolves eating children.

 

The people to blame are the Labour Party idiots who made the Labour Party unelectable and turned the Tory Party into a government.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean "even the current Labour leader". There's no "even" about it. They're on the exact same side. Their budgets are more or less the same.

 

The household analogy can be made to work. Government policy is the equivalent of cutting costs by not commuting to work any more. Incredibly dim.

 

The amount of money saved by putting a public sector worker on the dole in an economy with no jobs is trivial - about 8% of their wage costs - because you lose their income tax and have a higher benefits bill. The cost to the private sector is enormous - £1.50 lost for every £1 cut off public sector employment (so that's £1.50 lost to the private sector for every 8p actually saved by government).

 

And that's just the direct costs. You lose ~75% of the VAT they would have paid on consumption. Private sector businesses lose 75% of what would have been spent with them, so they lay off more workers who claim benefits and pay less tax and stop spending so more businesses go bust ... and the debt gets bigger because your tax take collapses and your benefits bill explodes.

 

There's zero evidence that the problem is Labour overspend. They certainly mismanaged the economy - not least by failing to reregulate the banks - but it wasn't overspend. Having lower taxes than Thatcher didn't help, of course. The slight increase in spending prior to the Northern Rock collapse was down to North Sea Oil tax receipts drying up.

 

UKdebt%25GDP.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's zero evidence that the problem is Labour overspend.

Oh, you can do so much better than that and you know it.

 

The NHS IT system. Budget, £2.3billion. Cost, over £12billion.

 

The Olympics. Budget, £2.4billion. Cost so far, £9.3billion.

 

MOD procurement (submarines, aircraft carriers etc.) Budget, £4billion. Cost of submarines & carriers alone, £6.4billion.

 

The PFI black hole. This depends on who you ask, but I've seen figures ranging from £57billion to £230billion.

 

NHS spending on management consultants: £350million pa. No-one knows why, but Labour were infatuated with consultants and these unaccountable self-appointed 'experts' have become a parasite on the public sector.

 

The only part of this debate that I find annoying and frustrating is the "It's not us! It's them! They did it!" attitude of the Labour party and their supporters. I don't care what anyone thinks of the Tory cuts because anyone who is shocked, appalled, surprised or upset by them must have spent the 80s & 90s with their head up their bum. Everyone knows what Tory MPs are like. That's why we all voted Labour in the first place - to keep the Tories out.

 

If you let a thief into your house, you only have yourself to blame when he nicks stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Olympics. Budget, £2.4billion. Cost so far, £9.3billion.

 

Of the projects you quote, this is the only one I have any experience of.

 

Lest just say that I saw estimates of the cost before we won it, and while those estimates were not published they existed. The budget still hasn't got as high as the estimates I saw.

 

Smoke and Mirrors I suspect. "we can't say it's going to cost that much"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hospital cleaner job is there for someone working their way up. You know, someone working hard, maybe studying part time, or building a business in their spare time, like most successful people have done: Work, instead of sitting on their fat lazy arses thinking the rest of the world owes them a living.

 

Your perception, maybe, but research would render a good section "thwarted" or "trapped" in their perception and that is a barrier you have so far failed to overcome.

 

Does anyone who gets a bit bogged down in the workseeking process, loses faith and hence motivation immediately turn into a "waster"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In alot of places the jobs just are not there to 'work their way up' my bf was applying for over a year in three different towns for all manner of jobs before he got one. In the mean time he had to carry on his little part time job.

 

We were lucky to still just about beable to afford our boat and mooring but if he hadn't had a part time job we might have been forced to give up our mooring. We couldn't have afforded to give up the boat as we wouldn't have had the money needed for the deposit to rent somewhere else or as others have said been able to get references and alot of places go on earnings so he wouldn't have been earning enough to get a house.

 

I don't think it takes much to be a bit more tolerant of how other people want to live their lives. Esspecially if it doesn't directly affect you.

Edited by Chickadee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the projects you quote, this is the only one I have any experience of.

 

Lest just say that I saw estimates of the cost before we won it, and while those estimates were not published they existed. The budget still hasn't got as high as the estimates I saw.

 

Smoke and Mirrors I suspect. "we can't say it's going to cost that much"

You mean *gasp* New Labour lied to us? Gosh, how shocking! I never thought they were liars as well as incompetent warmongering overspending idiots. We really must vote them back into office so we can vote them out again in protest.

 

Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only experience of this group was at last year's BW AGM when a lady representing them (I forget her name) started with (and this is as close to verbatim as I can manage) "The vision for the new waterways charity makes no reference to those who live on boats, does this mean you plan to rid the canals of liveaboards?" (For reference, it didn't make any reference to freight either, not sure angling featured highly, walking the towpath lacked prominence...) The answer was no, clearly living on board was acceptable to BW so long as the rules of BW and other agencies were complied with.

 

She then followed up by asking why BW insisted on enforcing rules that had been discredited in the courts, and referred to the case of BW v Davies (i.e the case we've been discussing) as if the ruling had been given and it had gone against BW. This was last December. BW corrected her and said the case was awaiting judgement.

This account http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/awkward-questions-at-bw-agm/#more-1189

may refresh your memory of the BW AGM - the events were slightly different from your recollection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This account http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/awkward-questions-at-bw-agm/#more-1189

may refresh your memory of the BW AGM - the events were slightly different from your recollection.

 

No they are not, the person concerned (which may be you) referred to the case and alluded to BW having lost, and the word "much" in the page you quoted speaks volumes. The subject of the case appears to have tried not to move at all, and also appears to have been advised he'd get away with it. He hasn't, even if the court has (I think rightly) decided that he should be given the chance to comply.

 

Whilst the judge can only consider the evidence before him, he is allowed to use his brain, and thus he may conclude that the suggested one hour fishing trip might be "Bona Fide Navigation" whilst it was happening, but was not enough to justify any claim that the boat was generally in use for such. We will have to wait to see the judgement.

 

Where laws are weak I do not object in principle to them being bent, and I basically support Chris Pink's view that CCers should try and comply, but that Bath to Bradford may well be enough (whether it should be is another matter). To just not attempt to comply with the law and rely on other laws to defend you is asking for trouble.

 

on a final note, as Chairman of the Coal Canal Society I ended up objecting to a retrospective planning application for travellers caravans on the line of the canal. I'm not anti traveller by any means, but given my capacity, I could hardly not object as they had filled the canal in to achieve this! I saw the quality of the application submitted on their behalf, by a consultant (who I shan't name and shame, if anyone wants to know PM me) who claimed to specialise in such things. The application was so bad it was laughable, and I would have been ashamed to take a fee for it. I do wish that those offering advice to such people would make the advice realistic. The applicant should have been advised "You haven't a hope, now lets find you another site"

 

See also Smelly's comments earlier: The NBTA have much to learn if they are to be effective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the recent posts are getting away from what this thread was about - paying your way.

 

In this society, everyone has a duty to pay for all services, whether or not they use them. This is done through income tax, VAT, Council Tax etc. Whether you can afford to pay is completely irrelevant. If you can't afford it, you will be entitled to relevant concessions and/or state benefits, which will cover some or all of them.

 

Boaters have to pay a licence fee, and (unless they move around all the time) must have a home mooring, which they pay for (unless they have a good friend).

 

You can't legally opt out of these costs, and why should you? If you do, it's unfair on the majority (of everyone, not just boaters) who contribute to the British economy. They may not want to contribute, but democracy is like that. The majority determine the rules that apply to all of us.

 

Back to boating - I have no problem with people who don't pay a mooring fee. All I ask is simple - they move round the canal system, or much of it, every few days. Moving up and down a short stretch of canal is bucking the system, and is patently unaccepatable.

 

To quote the meerkat - simples!

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.