Robih
regular
Reged: 29/11/2002
Posts: 1241
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
In reality the loss of red diesel will make very little difference on the rivers/canals as consumption is so low when compared to sea boats. Most river/canal folk would spend more money on beer whilst cruising than on diesel. A non issue.
In general the low tax anomaly is an indefensible argument with many folk struggling to pay £1.05/l to put in their cars to go to work. Blokes whizzing around in 30gall/hour £50k mobo who whinge about fuel price increases will be laughed out of court. RIP red diesel.
I'd best not start on the environmental aspects...................
|
Andrew_Fanner
regular
Reged: 13/03/2002
Posts: 5319
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
>
I'd best not start on the environmental aspects...................
>
Because they are statistically trivial for _all_ UK boating activity combined, compared with just one week's output from aircraft.
Inland consumption may be lower per hour but inland boats often run for very many more hours than those at sea. If I, on the river, want to run up to Windsor for the weekend that's five hours or so each way. OK, 200 horses at 1200rpm isn't using terribly much, say 5l per hour (guesstimate). 50 litres or about £25. If I was narrowboating from Brentford to Oxford, with not dissimilar consumption, 'cos the smaller engine is running a lot harder, and a common enough trip, say 20 hours running time that would be £50 or so. Without red, that becomes £100+. Suddenly a big hit, especially if you are on any sort of budget.
In my narrowboat hiring days I used to reckon 50 or so hours of running in a week's trip. OK, my approach was "I've paid to use this, so I'll use it" and average hire use is lower, even so, say average 30 hours running per week at 4l/hour, 120l/week and so almost 5000l per year taking into account dead periods and high use. I wonder how many sea boats burn that much annually.
Assume I have overestimated fuel use by 100% and its only 2500l per year per hire narrowboat. I think the point stands, the hire process would become far more pricey.
Ask the IWA how relaxed they are, I suspect that the answer is "not at all".
£1.05 is the fundamentally indefensible part where tax issues are concerned.
--------------------
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
|
Robih
regular
Reged: 29/11/2002
Posts: 1241
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
"Because they are statistically trivial for _all_ UK boatingt activity combined, compared with just one week's output from aircraft"
Andrew,
I get really fed up with people making the comparison with aircraft as a way of justifying fuel useage on leisure boats. Yes of course aircraft use a lot more fuel and create more emmissions that mobo's - but does that really justify continuing to burn diesel at a high rate in leisure mobo's? It's that kind of "playground" thinking which results in a spiralling down situation in many walks of life. I still say that "two wrongs don't make a right" so any comparison with aircraft useage is, for me, infantile.
I hear what you say regarding your personal fuel useage meaning that the pricing will be an issue for you - but I would suggest that 40hrs cruising per week is a very high number compared to the average user and also using 200hp to go up the river to Windsor is mad - 10hp would do nicely. So I think your situation is a little extreme.
|
Andrew_Fanner
regular
Reged: 13/03/2002
Posts: 5319
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
>>>
I get really fed up with people making the comparison with aircraft as a way of justifying fuel useage on leisure boats
>>>
Why? As much aircraft "mileage" is for the pleasure travel of the passengers I would have thougth that the same justification exists. Two wrongs most certainly do not make a right, but both wrngs need equal treatment, or is leisure motorboating more wrong than leisure flying?
Fair remark re 200HP to WIndsor, but there again 10HP on the Tideway is a bit too little:-) Might be some value in being able to turn cylinders "off" when a lower power output is required.
It all returns to the issue that fuel taxes are unjustifiably high, and that tax rates for road fuel are inappropriate for amrine purposes.
--------------------
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
|
whisper
regular
Reged: 31/08/2002
Posts: 4006
Loc: Stratford upon Avon & S.Devon
|
|
Hi Simon. Sorry for the delay in my reply but I've been away.
With regard to the interview, I think that it was fine and your trolling around the S.Coast marinas may get you/us a few more supporters. I think though that in this case you are preaching to the relatively converted and/or those with connections with the marine environment.
However, if the whole picture was revealed to Joe Public, I believe the reaction would be surprise and probably anger that "the rich" people that own boats can buy fuel so cheaply. If this resulted in members of the public contacting their MPs about it then I believe the awareness campaign would almost certainly have been harmful to our cause.
Edited by whisper (12/09/2005 23:21)
|
SimonC
MBM editor
Reged: 22/07/2005
Posts: 155
|
|
To be honest, I think I agree with you on this.
We deliberately targeted areas where the 'average person' would be sympathetic to the boat industry as a whole. In truth, we met people with no obvious connection to the industry - pub landlords, tea room owners etc - who were genuinely aghast at the idea the the government would do *anything* to upset boaters. They weren't shy to tell us that their businesses rely to a huge extent on income from boaters, and they would have to consider laying people off or even closing down altogether if red diesel increases had a significant effect on the numbers of boaters spending money on their premises.
BUT, as you say, the country as a whole might not agree. Selling the benefits of red diesel is much easier to a landlord in Gosport than one in Birmingham.
So did we do any good? I don't know, but I'd rather go down fighting than sit around complaining about the Government never listening to us. If you want them to listen, you have to speak out.
--------------------
Editor
Motor Boats Monthly
|
Andrew_Fanner
regular
Reged: 13/03/2002
Posts: 5319
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
>>
BUT, as you say, the country as a whole might not agree. Selling the benefits of red diesel is much easier to a landlord in Gosport than one in Birmingham.
>>
Pick a landlord near Gas St Basin or by the cut in Tipton, better yet canalside just out of the urban sprawl and you might well get an answer similar to that from Gosport. At risk of harping on that the issue does not stop at HWST:-)
--------------------
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
|
Gludy
regular
Reged: 19/08/2001
Posts: 6644
Loc: Brecon, Wales
|
|
Frankly part of the benefit of the campaign has been the fact that it has drawn the attention of boaters to the issue. A year ago very few even knew about the issue - today it seems that most know about it.
Whilst Joe public may not support the campaign - a fact I accept, the reason for the that lack of support is not logical. In essence we should be fighting the change because:-
1. It damages the UK boating industry.
2. It damages many coastal communities
3. It does not raise any more tax and is likely to raise less - it only takes a 2% drop in the UK boating business to wipe away all the tax collected on diesel.
4. It does not achieve any environmental targets - I for one may well be Med based and using more air fuel.
5. It is impractical to police.
6. Its is disruptive in as much as almost every marina will find it uneconomic to install two pumps - one for commercial red and the other for the leisure boats.
7/ It is likely to cause a political backlash from many coastal communities that is just not worth the hassle.
--------------------
Paul
St Francis 50 Cat
Photo Gallery
How to post images onto the forum the Easy Way!
|
Frontier
regular
Reged: 11/05/2005
Posts: 1365
Loc: Oxfordshire, England
|
|
If it's indefensible now why has it not always been so? Someone must have though it was justified in the beginning.
As for the cost of fuel for cars, it's also gone up for boats. The differential may have even got worse for boats, yet some cars are now getting 60+ mpg and your avg mobo only does 1-2 mpg.
And why should we pay road prices when we are not using the roads, and do not have the advantage of thousands of fill up places such as Tesco’s 
|
SimonC
MBM editor
Reged: 22/07/2005
Posts: 155
|
|
Great summary Paul - I think that sums it up nicely.
We've been concentrating on the first three purely because it's hard to get more than one or two points across in one go, but I think you're absolutely spot on.
We've got some good ideas for drumming up support more effectively in parliament. We'll get on the case after Southampton - so watch this space!
Simon
--------------------
Editor
Motor Boats Monthly
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
