.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
D46
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by D46
-
-
15 minutes ago, riverman said:
Well, I wish I hadn't said anything now.... From what I understand from listening to the budget, the end of red use in construction is more to do with reducing N²O output and improving air quality than it is about 'saving the planet'. The idea being to push firms into investing in hybrid and full electric alternatives, which do exist and have been well proven. However, this will in my opinion disproportionately affect small firms with slimmer margins and less buying power. I would argue the cost of fuel in this country is already a road block for enterprise, social mobility and entrepreneurship, this just adds to it.
This same principle could be applied to the maritime sector to some extent, where larger boat builders with deeper pockets can more easily invest in the r&d required to create and install reliable hybrid and full electric alternatives. Personally I don't think this is such a major issue as a great deal of this technology already exists. As I said in my original post, this issue is one of security, if you have to put white diesel in your boat, immediately it become a much bigger target for thieves.
The only problem for the Marine sector is the timeframe of 2 yrs and it certainly won't work on the Broads as the infastructure to recharge isn't there , as fir going to sea that's completely out of the question .
Regarding safe guarding fuel let's not forget that it's not the fuel that's changing it's the taxation , it extremely likely boats will be running still on red diesel or it would cause major problems for the owners and the yards , that's not been surgested by the government only the tax has .
If someone managed to strike a deal with a farmer for example , then who's to say where that fuel came from , the only be way is by fuel receipts and who keeps those ? .
Farmers and indeed people with heating oil tanks are a far bigger target for theft than boats are although there is still a target issue there .
Me I've a valve on the fuel delivery pipe that gets shut when away from the boat , therefore it's impossible to syphon fuel , doesn't affect the engine as the filler cap is sealed anyway and there's a breather on the tank , only thing yo remember is open the value before refilling .
-
20 minutes ago, grendel said:
actually one thing even more key to construction is having the utility infrastructure in place I work for a company that can provide up to 7 utilities to a site all in house, my part of the company deal with electricity gas and fibre data. without the possibility of getting infrastructure utilities to a site (and that generally means a whole lot of digging) you wont have a site.
digging involves diggers and gangs of workmen, and they use a lot of diesel (be it red or any other colour) so costs for utility infrastructure will rise, thus everyones utility bills will rise too. small changes like this can cause all sorts of unforseen cost rises throughout the chain of supply.
Exactly my point the big picture is quite enormous really
-
42 minutes ago, grendel said:
if the construction industry pay more, then the final product costs more, and the people paying the bills are the ones that foot the cost, like all overheads the costs get passed upward, with every level in the chain adding their margin to the final cost, so say it costs £1000 to dig a hole (not an unreasonable estimate in fact) then the contractor digs the hole and the utility that needed that hole gets charged £1250 (1000 +25%) the utility then charges the person that wanted their utility and add their margin (£1250 +25%) and charges £1562.50. the developer that built the property and arranged for all the utilities then charges their customer (the house owner for example £1953.12 (£1562.50 +25%) or more likely takes a look at it and rounds it up to £2000.
so that change in fuel costs, will only affect the end user as each stage in the chain up until them will have added profit margin to the price of that rise and will be quids in pocket.
Agreed but the end user isn't just one person as this surely is all construction that involves using plant powered by diesel fuel , that would then include all locals council's , highways departments etc , that currently funded by Grant's and council tax so expect a cost increase there .
Even BA don't escape as all their work boats are diesel powered as is their plant etc , therefore probably an increase in tolls to fund the navigation budget is likely .
Either way it will directly affect many people regardless of if the own a boat or not .
Construction is absolutely key to this country and it certainly won't just affect those having things built such as houses as many things are affected and therefore many people affected .
It would ( unfortunately if that's the word ) even affect the visitors center at Acle , on less it built really quickly , personally I won't loose sleep over that one , but I really can't understand how some think this is such a none event and will not affect them other than boating .
-
45 minutes ago, grendel said:
I believe in the view of the eu, that the use of red (or low duty) diesel for leisure craft was actually not legal, which is why there is the push to abolish it, I am sure we had the whole discussion some 6 months ago on this topic. I believe we should have stopped using it several years ago already.
Technically we should have stopped using it back in 2008 it was HMRC that introduced the current situation.
The law was already in place within the EU they just pushed us to fall in line with them .
That however I believe only affected boats not construction , however the current government has decided to include that sector presumably under the banner of climate change , how can the smaller sector of red diesel use have anything more than a token gesture on climate change .
Clearly some see this as no problem not just for the marine industry but also for construction , me I beg to differ on that but if they don't care about additional taxation which is all it is effectively then fine refuse the rebate and pay full duty on your boat fuel ( which you can currently do for the next 2 yrs ) , and please feel free to part with more money when you call in Bob the builder etc .
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, marshman said:
So why does any one think that the marine leisure sector should continue to, realistically, justify from continued lower taxation? It is surely an unjustifiable anomaly?
I can see the point for perhaps farmers and possibly the fishing industry, but why should construction benefit for example and road hauliers do not?
Nonsensical in my view when to most who own a boat, fuel cost or indeed the extra tax on it, is unlikely to be the final straw that breaks the camels back! Well in my case, I hope not!
Perhaps because construction is so very important to this country as far as the economy is concerned , it thought that was very widely known TBH , all construction projects will as soon as this comes in be more expensive including housing etc , that also includes government schemes that are funded by the tax payers .
-
21 minutes ago, MotorBoater said:
Why do I feel I'm being taken for granted - again ? This is a perfect example of screaming environmental harpies winning out over common sense.
How can the minority of red diesel users possibly be “some of the biggest contributors to our air quality problem”. I would have thought buses and lorries were in a class of their own there, and I doubt that there are more boats than tractors.
Doesn't anybody think things through any more ?
It beggars belief that any government, let alone a Conservative one, would seek to drive British citizens off the water that has been their natural home for over a thousand years, and if you think that is overstating the situation just wait and see. Even Tony Blair didn't fall for that one.
The UK construction industry has hung in there over the last 10 years or more only to be hit with a major increase in a vital cost.
The effect on the marine sector goes far beyond a few people messing around in boats, either hired or private, no mention was made of trawlers, coasters, ferries etc.
The devil may well be in the detail but that detail needs to be out there now, not a couple of months before some arbitrary deadline.
Meanwhile the attitude that "It was good while it lasted" needs to be resisted at all costs.
If the aforementioned harpies want something to get their teeth into I suggest they look at proposals to allow building on flood plains such as we are looking at here in north Sussex where an application to build 2000+ homes is currently up for "discussion".
If the government wants to reduce reliance on carbon fuels then up the investments on alternative propulsion options like fuel cells and battery capacities.
The powers that be just won't get that you can't expect the public to swallow changes such as this if you haven't got alternatives lined up first, and not at twice the price.
Thank goodness for common sense , the total amount of red diesel use actually equates to 15% of diesel used , that includes construction , rail , farming , boats the hole lot , rail and farming keep their rebate and they are by far the biggest users ..this isn't don't for climate change it's pure taxation that can and probably will have an negative impact on the Marine industry and tourism to say nothing of private boats .
Anyone who felt guilty about being a rebate on fuel could have quite easily paid tax on 100% of the fuel purchased the 60/40 split is a total fantasy it doesn't and never has existed in the eyes of the law and the RYA .
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Smoggy said:
As someone that does use their boat a lot (about 1000+ litres last year) I've never felt able to defend me getting a tax break for it, even more so if construction businesses are not allowed.
It was nice while it lasted but hey-ho all good things come to an end, my tanks will be full before it stops though.
I don't think anyone would wish boats to be given the tax break and construction not given it .
Personally I can't understand why the government would wish to increase increase fuel duty for the construction industry , the industry is extremely important to the country's economy and as a result of increased costs has a impact on the housing market and indeed inflation as a whole .
Regarding boats this decision has a impact on tourism as well as private boat ownership , it may well be just enough to cause a struggling hire yard to consider it's options .
The marine industry as a whole will feel the effect including Marina's who may well be faced with vacant spaces due to people selling up , if a lot of folk do that then second hand prices get reduced as do brokerage commissions .
Incidentally if anyone is feeling the slightest bit guilty in not paying full duty in the none propulsion side of the fuel they are buying , then the can if they do choose declare it all to propulsion and pay the full duty on 100% of the fuel , that's simple to do in the self declaration form , that is cause if the yard actually produce one not many do , that said it is a legal requirement required by HMRC .
Some how I doubt many will feel guilty enough to pay full duty on fuel when they don't have to , and I would expect the tanks on those owner's boats completely full before full duty has to be paid in boat fuel .
-
1 hour ago, psychicsurveyor said:
The extra cost to a private boater is going to be small compared to the ever increasing cost of moorings.
This year the increase is being accompanied by enhanced CCTV and better Wifi, so at least it feels like I am getting something for the extra.
As with everthing in life, it will always cost more next year.
The large mark up needed by riverside vendors means that the probable short term reduction in garage pump prices will not filter through to boaters.
Council tax, road fund licence, general insurance, everthing goes up. Next year or possibly the year after the fuel duty will rise. A packet of cigarettes is now about £10.
This is the way governments avoid raising taxes and start weaning people off things.
It will have greater impact on the hirer fleets if they lose the concession, this will be past on to the customer, but like all things, it will eventually be accepted.
Who even thinks about the surcharge on flights, they just pay it.
A couple of years ago hotels abroad were forced to charge guests a local tourist tax, a few euros a night, we all grumble, but still go abroad and pay it.
It will be a small cost if you don't go out very often I'll accept that but those that use their boat will feel it , moorings with WiFi / CCTV etc are a personal choice as is the type/ size of car anyone drives along with how big their house is hence council tax band , smoking , all of that is personal choice and by no means essential .
It's the same going abroad it's not essential to life .
I'm not saying you can't do it , what I m saying is if you go then don't moan about it .
What has happened today regarding fuel for boats has a impact on not just the casual boater but the whole of the Marine industry as well as tourism both of which are quite fragile and I completely fail to see how the hire boater is hit harder than the private one , sure they use diesel but only for a minimum period pee yr , like I said if you don't use your boat that much it won't make much difference , but I also said that I thought boater's were on the same page singing from the same hymn sheet and I'm all right jack didn't come in to it on any level .
You did get me laughing though regarding fuel prices Riverside being adjusted to suit market prices , never ever happened and never ever will .
-
30 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:
Private boater have had a considerable tax benefit for a long time, it was nice while it was available but like all good things, it comes to an end.
If it is required for heating then a separate tank will be required although that probably wouldn't be cost effective.
Tax reliefs have been cut in many areas, time to join the ranks of Landlords and business owners.
You sound like you don't care TBH , it has been fine with our own government for decades , this action is forced on the UK by the EU no one else.
Mind you it depends how much you actually use your boat , use it a lot it will cost you , don't do then you probably don't care .
That said I'm of the opinion that boater's stand together regardless of how much or little it's costing another , I guess that's another vision distroyed .
Thing is all governments don't worry about taxing the public , so explain to me why since 2004 this has been consistently ignore by 2 party's and HMRC ? , Labour under Tony Blair vetoed this move 3 times , had it been in their interest they would have instantly taken it onboard , fact is they and successive governments and HMRC didn't implement it as all of them know it's extremely difficult to enforce and costs more than it gains in revenue to do that .
-
2 hours ago, riverman said:
I entirely agree we need to see the small print.... It wasn't so much a comment on who it will affect, more the practicality of it. Mostly the practicality of leaving large quantities of a very desirable commodity unattended for potentially months at a time. We've had red diesel stolen from our tug boats and equipment. Red, at 50p a litre, I can't imagine how much will go missing if we have to put white in.
Believe it or not even BA got fuel removed from a launch approximately a yr back !
-
42 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
Budget extract
Red diesel
While fuel costs and were largely left alone, the Chancellor did announce that he was ending tax relief on “red” diesel for most sectors, saying its users were “some of the biggest contributors to our air quality problem”.
The current system allows some businesses who operate “off-road” vehicles (such as construction firms) to pay far less duty than on regular diesel. From 2023 this rebate will be removed for most sectors, although agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture, forestry and rail will continue to be eligible for duty relief.
Doesn't mention boats or heating so lets wait till we see the small print, plenty of time left for the hire fleets and RYA etc to lobby..
Fred
While it doesn't mention boats directly I'm pretty sure they are tied up in this , as for doing this to construction which is very very important this is a serious blow .
Incidentally this includes all construction on government projects including HS2 .
More taxation to pay for that ?? I wouldn't be at all surprised .
-
36 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
I understood that this was covered by an arrangement with HMRC.
Fred
It is is the self declaration you need to make when re fuelling , the responsibility is on the person refueling to do that why else would there be self declaration forms ?
-
6 minutes ago, marshman said:
Surely all those who now use red and who continue to have that exemption, will be able to use red - but the rest including recreational boating, will have to buy white, although how long it will take to "wash" through, might remain a moot point.
This has been coming ever since they introduced the 60/40 ruling for this industry several years ago, and if thats what it means it will make only a marginal difference to me ,but perhaps more to those with bigger engines.
Perhaps we need to see the small print though , before jumping to conclusions?
It means only a marginal difference to me says everything ! .
What about the bigger picture in what I means to others , thousands of people in just Norfolk are involved in the boating industry so to say it hardly effects me is basically selfish .
Without trying to be too critical you obviously have fallen into the trap of the 60/40 split , the law states it's up to the purchaser of the fuel to designate the % split and that is why you are ( as are the yard ) legally required to sign a declaration everytime the tank has any fuel put onto it no matter how much .
Many boats don't have diesel heating but there's another misconception as it also discounted for the generation of electricity .
In the eyes of the law as you have to at every fill up disclose the amount going to propulsion and elsewhere , anyone not doing is breaking the law , just as yards that fill boats on 60/40 are , how do they know how that fuel will be used ? .
Lord knows how yards are Getty away with it or some yards I should say , I went for yrs at one yard without signing a thing now I have to as from a few months back , the incentive is on the person filling the tank to remain with in the law , when was anyone other than the person using the car on a road convicted of tax evasion ???
-
2 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:
Or go with the tide
Nothing wrong with learning especially learning to sail it teaches you boating skills ie using the wind and tide etc.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, marshman said:
Not even the BA would be foolish enough to take spoil from Oulton to Rockland - thats an 8 hr round trip!
And the Postwick tip (a 12hr round trip!) is a "lined" tip to specifically take the contaminated spoil from the upper reaches of the Yare - use that and where would you put that spoil as they are the only lined pits the BA have access to.
I would also question how much good in the short term, are loads of wet slurry to the SWT? I am sure PW will tell us exactly what they are going to do with it, but normally you cannot touch it for a couple of years - are they going to use the pump that is currently up in Hickling to pump it ashore? Perhaps he can furnish us with the details as I am interested!
If Rockland is the nearest place the it goes there , regardless of how long it is , infact quite alot when Rockland was dredged went to postwick and I'm well aware as to why that was as the original idea was to dump it close by but due to the nature of the product it had to go to postwick . I did notice you completely failed to give an alternative site !!! Maybe had you done your attack of another's comment would have got more credibility .
-
16 minutes ago, floydraser said:
As I thought then: now it doesn't look like such a bad deal after all, and I note that the BA don't just get the use of the land for the moorings, ownership will be transferred so they get an asset.
Is it as you thought and yet neither you or marshman come up with any alternatives ??? .
What on Earth makes you think SWT will give the land ( transfer ownership ) to BA ?
-
16 minutes ago, floydraser said:
So if the SWT didn't take the spoil, where would it go and would there be a cost involved? If so, how does that compare to the agreement?
If they didn't take it it could go to Rockland or postwick , obviously there's a cost to that but I doubt it's as high as the mooring's are costing .
However the fact is they actually want it and at that point it should have been sign on the dotted line , these moorings were given away at no cost to SWT just the toll payers when there's a perfectly good mooring the other side of the river , anyone wishing to go to the reserve can just as easily get to it by mooring at oulton broad .
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, marshman said:
Nothing of real interest added to the topic then????? I shall use the pontoon if available and will not give a jot out of which pot it comes - its all the same to me!!
Better things to be interested in methinks - like spring!!
I think alot might disagree that it does make a jot of difference , after all it's money's contributed in tolls being used .
To me if there's a case where a project is benifical to both the navigation and conservation etc then the costs should be split on a percentage basis to each budget .
How on earth can BA be hoped to be seen in a good light if they don't act fairly and with transparency especially when spending public money .
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, marshman said:
Its all about the control of the boats in a confined spot - the New Inn was always fairly straightforward because you can see what is going on but the Ferry was very different. It was on a blind corner and you just would not be able to stop if you saw someone in trouble manoeuvring and taking up the whole river. Quay attendants were trialled at the Ferry but there were several issues with their control and abilities - thats why the experiment failed.
I must admit I was unaware of even a trial at Bramerton - is that one where they allow double mooring? When double mooring was originally proposed it caused an outcry - but in all honesty is there much difference to stern on, except it takes up less room in the river? If Church Fen is full, I just go onto to Bargate - nice too!! To me stern on would not be appropriate in either position and in any case not really necessary for most of the time. Is it really necessary to have boats sticking out into the navigation by up to 45'?
Bramerton is indeed double mooring as is postwick and church fen , stern on at church fen was really stupid to me the quay zig zags so it would work .
I fully understand why the ferry was rejected as it would have been rather dangerous given its location .
Pick your time going into bargate these days it's very slited up , I believe BA were going to look into that , the good news there though is the abandoned boat was removed last month .
-
3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
I take it you havnt moored there then, it can be quite a bit quite a bit faster than most of the Bure for first timers, Gus used to walk out to a boat with difficulties or even board it if necessary no harm done.
Fred
Actually I most certainly have moored there , for first timers any mooring is a huge eye opener especially since they no longer have the help of the yards personal as the had at hand over , personally I don't see that much difference in the new inn and many other moorings and I certainly don't see several knot's of tide at anytime in the area of the swan .
-
23 minutes ago, TheQ said:
The river is squeezed at Horning particularly outside the Swan, if you look from the staithe, towards the sailing club. You'll see the quay heading is a straight line where the river was filled in . it's several knots of water at maximum tide change, a bit less at the New Inn where it opens out a bit..
Several knot's? There's me thinking yare ran fast no wonder some boats head south if that's the case .
-
49 minutes ago, SteveO said:
Slightly off topic, but I observe that the virus has curtailed travel plans in a number of geographic areas and reduced China's economic growth by around 1 to 1.5% . This probably goes less than 1% of the way to meeting the aims of the climate change activists, yet already a UK airline has collapsed, the oil price has fallen through the floor and global financial markets have been in meltdown with trillions of dollars wiped off the value of equities. If we want to make the changes that we are told are necessary in order to save the planet, we had better make them very, very gradually.
It's ok virgin Atlantic are doing their best to keep up pollution by flying empty aircraft due to drop in booking , all that's brought about by having to protect their landing and take off slots or they will lose them thanks to EU law .
Not too sure the oil price everything to do with the virus I thought that came about because of a price war ?
-
1 minute ago, vanessan said:
Very, very different to the southern rivers. A couple of years back, if I remember correctly, the BA were considering making part of Bramerton Common stern-on mooring. I think there were various reasons that did not happen, (no doubt BA Tom could elaborate). I expect a lot of us are glad it didn’t happen.
It wasn't just at bramerton church fen was also down for a Stern on mooring trial , at least at bramerton the quay heading is a straight line unlike church fen
-
1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:
As MM said it is because that stretch of river is narrow quite fast flowing and very busy totally different to a large Broad, the same stipulation applied at the Ferry Inn when they were trialling stern on mooring there.
Fred
Fast flowing there ?? Lord help those that venture on the southern rivers to the ferry house at surlingham where it's considerably faster and more exposed to wind , they don't have a mooring attendant , besides what on earth can the atendent do stood on the bank if the boater gets it wrong or doesn't listen ??? .
Budget
in The Broadscot Lounge
Posted
What government coffers ??? The government dont have any money all of it is deducted via tax hence it's public money not the government's as quite rightly was Stated in the house yesterday by ex PM Mrs May .
How on Earth can you claim the government projects will not affect the tax payers that crazy they always have done , just as most of them over run most have vastly increased costs when completed , is there some sort of money tree at Westminster ?
" Increases in new house building costs will be absorbed by the developer " Really !! Since when has that ever happened , developer's ain't a charity group they are there to make money , most of which funds further projects , costs go up prices go up , just as it always has been .