JohnK

I just had a quick scan through Hansard and whilst I agree 100% the 1988 Broads act didn’t make the Broads a National Park it links it very closely to them. Personally, I’d be extremely worried that the outcome of the “its not a National Park” chant is complete disassociation from National Parks and the support they get including funding. In a couple of places in Hansard they even talk about Broads funding being the same as National Parks funding. As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Perhaps the outcome of this is in ten years time nobody calls the Broads a National Park because it isn’t fit to be called a National Park. Would that be a win? You can’t use the “that won’t happen” argument unless I’m allowed to use it for Sanford [emoji6]

The Broads funding comes from the same pot as National Parks doesn’t it? What if all this talk of “the broads isn’t a National Park” ends up with a civil servant somewhere saying “excuse me minister, I have a plan to save you three million pounds a year and get a lot of people off your back. We stop calling the broads a National Park and withdraw funding” Would that be ok?

I understand that but CNP supports national parks doesn’t it? [edit] by support I don’t mean financially. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’ll open that question up a bit .... Those of you that would like to see BA stop referring to the Broads as a National Park: Would you be happy to remove any link with national parks along with the funding that entails and the promotion / marketing that goes with it? It’s a genuine question that I’m really interested in hearing your answer to, I’m not trying to make a point. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Are you hoping they will also stop supporting the broads? Their tag line is So isn’t there a danger that you force them into a corner where their only option is to drop support for the Broads? Is that a price worth paying for a label? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well they seem fairly sure the Broads is a National Park: [emoji6] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Would that be the group that’s now called the campaign for national parks that lists this as one of their achievements? Or a different group? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you use one of the bigger yards to do the work I believe they will let you use one of their sets of trade plates whilst the work is in progress and until you’ve passed the BSS and paid your toll. When that service was offered to me my boat was moored at the same yard doing the work so maybe they were just doing me a big favour. I don’t know if it’s standard. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like it happened: BA’s own numbers but they’d be the only people with the numbers wouldn’t they? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very well put PDO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We try not to mention that [emoji57] My better half is an accountant so she tries to mention it a lot and make me drive her Devil Spawn Astra [emoji3] 15mpg from the disco just over 20 from the Merc (both auto). Both better than the petrol disco 2 I used to have that got 12! I work in the premise that two unreliable cars are nearly as reliable as one reliable one and the money I don’t lose on depreciation pays for a lot of fuel! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the biggest problem with forums is opinion is often presented as fact. This can catch the unwary out. The only way to avoid opinion and advice (asked for or not) is don’t post or only post on a blog with comments turned off. If you only want positive comments you need a different universe [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vaughan, I didn’t read the figures in detail but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of variable costs does there? Even the moorings wouldn’t be entirely variable based on the number of boats would they? You could have smaller moorings but less mooring sites wouldn’t be entirely acceptable would they? I suspect maintaining a mooring with ten berths would be a lot more than half the cost of maintaining the same mooring with twenty berths. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah but does a tacking sailboat cause other boats to use more fuel trying to avoid them negating the benefit? [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very old and knackered 4.4 V8 Petrol Discovery 3 and even older and more knackered 5.0 V8 merc. I’m not on strong ground arguing my green credentials [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My road tax is much higher than my Broads toll ☹️ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think I’ll ask them if they’ll put up the tolls for polluting diesels so they can reduce it for nice clean petrols and electric like mine. That’s the same for cars too isn’t it? [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn’t it? Damn, I wish someone had told me, I wouldn’t have ordered all those fleeces [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those 2016/2017 figures split the incomes and expenditure from the two main sources very well in my opinion. Have they now stopped doing that? However, you can’t complain they’re spending too much on admin then complain when they spend less time doing it by combining budgets [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be honest I’m comfortable looking at how things are now and look like they’re heading in the future to determine if I’m ok with them. Because I haven’t been exposed to what’s gone on in the past I’m not really influenced by it. That said, I have a lot of respect for the people who do compare current practices with past practices. Especially those of you that have taken the time to study in detail what’s happening and has happened. I’m not sure I’ll ever agree with your group on some of what’s said but I’d be very unhappy if you stopped saying it (except for “it’s not a National Park” [emoji57]) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That makes sense thank you. And thank you for taking the time to write it. I guess you and I are seeing it differently because I see the latest figures and think “they seem fair”. But I’m not comparing it to how things were done in the past. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are they obfuscating? I’ve seen people claim the Broads isn’t in the NP family (can’t remember who or where though so you’ll have to take my word for it [emoji57]). A genuine question for you (and other like minded individuals) ... if you could make the whole NP thing go away (including the money) would you? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the sake of argument let’s assume that if we wanted less boats on the Broads we’d have to pay higher tolls to cover the fixed costs. Conversely if we wanted to pay lower tolls we’d need more boats to cover the costs. If it really was that simple which would you pick? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JM, you always suck me into these debates [emoji57] I’m not seeing that .... I looked here: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/965886/Financial-Strategy-2016-17.pdf And it reads to me that just over 3 million was raised in tolls 2016/2017 and 2/3 of that spent on nav operational costs. A significant amount of the remaining toll income seems to be spent on admin around navigation. What am I missing? [flippant mode on] why are national parks giving the BA more money than is raised in tolls if we’re not part of the NP family? [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those National Park fleeces don’t look cheap. Money well spent IMHO [emoji56] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk