Open letter to Tom Isitt

[Observer]

Tom,

I am shocked and astounded by your pathetic defence of the status quo concerning duty on marine diesel (Editorial, MBY April '04).

You are the editor of the largest circulation motor boating magazine in the country and the best you can come up with is "Imagine how expensive that would be if [the wealthiest members of society who are burning 45 gallons an hour] were paying forecourt prices for their fuel".

For heaven's sake man - do you not think you should be defending the interests of motorboat owners instead of sabotaging them? If you can't think of anything intelligent to contribute - at least have the sense to keep quiet.

Yours disgustedly,

Tim Spring

p.s. When I've calmed down a bit, I'll post some reasoned arguments to supprt the status quo.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PGD]

Hi, yes I bit of a rant but underneath this is a very good point.

Consumers (boat owners) look to such publications for help and support but the question is do they really get it ?

IPC (MBM) have to balance what they publish to aid the boating public with the needs of their advertisers, who pay to advertise to consumers.

If MBM were to constantly slate he marine industry they’d have no ad revenue and we’d have no magazine.

I fully support where you are coming from but I do detect a favouritism towards the marine industry not the readership on the part of MBM.

I’m quite sure they don’t look on what I’m trying to achieve as newsworthy /forums/images/icons/wink.gif.
Well all I can say is that the EA have started taking a lot of interest and the RYA have contributed to the consumer survey !!

So MBM are you in a position to start to support the readership on this and, no doubt, a few other issues that will be aired on this thread ???

Ladies and Gentlemen, the stage is yours to comment.

Regards

Peter


<hr width=100% size=1>Complete the Consumer Survey <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk>http://www.mssa.org.uk</A> Marine Service Standards Assistance

 

[[2068]]

Apologies for cross-posting, but this is too important to let slide into obscurity.

This isn't something we should be sitting on the fence and wringing our hands over, it should be nothing less than a robust defence, or we are are destined to fail.

####

Part 1 - What will most likely happen if Red Diesel is abolished (as sent to the RYA)

In the case of the largest Motor Cruisers (50ft+), such an increase will have no effect. Nada. Nix. Nil. They have already spent £400k+ on the boat, and a yearly increase of a few thousand on their diesel bill will simply reinforce the impression of exclusivity that surrounds their hobby. Financial obstacles are not meaningful in any way to the rich.

Mid-size boats (28-50ft) will be hit, in that to actually cruise anywhere will now cost a few hundred of pounds each time, so trips will probably be shorter. I predict the number of "go nowhere" marina cottage boats will increase.

As usual, increasing prices will have most effect at the bottom end of the market (under 28ft), particularly on those that can just about afford to go boating (e.g. me). You can expect the current fleet of diesel engined small cruisers that trundle around at 18-20 knots to pretty much disappear over the next decade or so, to be replaced by smaller, lighter, higher performance craft powered by petrol engines. Speeds of 40-50 knots will be common, as will 5.7 litre inboard petrol engines or high performance outboards.

Trips will be shorter and for thrills, rather than for all-day exploration and passage making. Also expect more fires, explosions, collisions and sinkings ... in fact, very similar to the situation in the USA at the moment.

####

Part 2 - The thin end of the wedge: Budget Speech 2014

..."It has long been accepted that fuels for propulsion should be taxed taking into account all the relevant economic, social and environmental factors. The abolition of Red Diesel in 2006 had the effect of reducing the number of licensed motor boats by 60% compared to the 2002 peak.

The resulting drop in revenues from the leisure watercraft industry has led us to seek an alternative source of taxation revenue to fund our education programs, the continuing reform of the NHS, and the Strategic Rail Authority.

The introduction of "Sail Area Duty" (incorrectly referred to in some tabloids as the "keel charge") will harmonise this situation, and will also provide proper funding for the expansion of the leisure user licensing, training, and tracking system, which will become compulsory for all vessels sailing in UK waters in 2016.

The tracking system will enable the phasing in of "Graduated Sail Area Duty", a system of sliding charges such that vessels that sail in the most congested waters (e.g. The Solent), will pay proportionally more than those sailing in less congested waters. This will reflect the increased costs in these areas of buoyage and lighting, Coastguard facilities, and the impact to commercial vessels.

Automated Fines will be issued to vessels that sail outside the "regions" that they have purchased in their Graduated Sail Area Duty. It is the responsibility of the master of the vessel to ensure that all regions have been correctly purchased before the commencement of the voyage. Appeals against automated region violation fines in the case of genuine emergency will be considered on a case by case basis by the "Graduated Sail Area Duty Region Violation Tribunal".

A typical 35 foot sailing vessel would expect to pay approximately £2500 per year to sail in an area that was moderately congested, for example, the area 10 miles offshore from Weymouth to Christchurch.

####

dave vinell.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Greg2]

Good point.
I also agree with other posters in that as someone who has to make sacrifices to enable me and my family to go boating there is a real danger that we will be priced out of the market. This applies to other costs as well e.g. mooring fees, which are pretty high and in my area seem set to increase over the next few years.

The magazines (MBM, MBY, PBO etc) should take a very robust line on our behalf and that of the industry, because lets not forget that any reduction in the number of people boating will have an impact on business.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re:Special pleading..We are skint Guv ..honest.

Cannot agree that our little hobby should be bleating and citing poverty in order to prolong a situation from which we were not supposed to benefit from anyway.
Having run,like most of us a fuel guzzling petrol boat,the prospect of having to pay the going rate for fuel does not have me reaching for my revolver.
If I am unable to afford to run a Aston Martin then I buy a (gulp)Kia if I cannot afford to pay the council tax on my 5 bedroom house in Chelsea then I sell it and buy a nice little 1 bed flat in Shadwell./forums/images/icons/laugh.gif
Quote from my desk diary"If you want to create enemies,then try to change
something"
For the owner of a large beast the extra fuel cost will be minor and for smaller craft the cost or mooring/maintaince/insurance involve far greater amounts of money.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[boatone]

Oh dear.....

.....if theres one thing i really hate its the voice of reason.../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boatsontheweb.com/> Website, Photo Gallery, Chat Room, Burgees</A>

 

[tcm]

I agree

Tom is correct that there's no reason for boaties to get it cheap. But he may have accidentally taken a slightly Blairist view of how this should be achieved. Tax is OUR money, and it is not the divine rioght of government to just hoik it out of your pocket to make "things fair".

The route to making "things fair" is NOT for all taxes to be raised to the same high levels, but for the tax on non-marine diesel to be reduced. Then everyone would have cheap diesel. Then it would be fair.








<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: I agree

Hear . Hear .. Time the govt spent its energies on providing value for money to its citizens rather than treating the electorate as a resource to further its political ends.

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..

 

[[2068]]

Re: I agree

Have to disagree. Current taxation levels are set for "Road Fuels", from which Red Diesel is an exemption. Boats don't use roads...

A more valid question is why marine petrol is also not available at exempted rates. Red Unleaded ?

dave.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re:Cripes.

I have bin accused of many things.............../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[oldgit]

Re:Our Daily Mail correspondent Comments.

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[tcm]

Roads bollox

er just a minute - the fuel duty raises 60 billion quid and they spend 2 billion quid on roads.

Hence REDUCING the tax remains fairer than raising it. Cars get roads, we get canals and ports and the thames barrier, so all very fair indeed IMHO

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re.Cor whats everybody doing up this early.

Thought it was a rule that keyboard handbaggiins only happened after 11PM or second bottle of meths and no raggies allowed.

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[tcm]

Re: Re.Cor whats everybody doing up this early.

er yes. Have the clocks gone forward eight hours or wot? Excuse me whilst i rush off and drink some emergency whisky....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[whisper]

Re:Special pleading..We are skint Guv ..honest.

We have only recently exchanged 4 stroke outboard power for lovely diesel. If we now have to pay around 90p per litre then the cost of our boating will double. The expenditure on fuel will be easily the largest item of our budget. It will severely curb our activities and may in fact lead us to pack it in altogether. The proposals are therefore significant to some of us "smaller" boaters. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re:Our Daily Mail correspondent Comments.

Bollox .. never been a Daily Mail propaganda reader .. however I do have a modicum of political and economic awareness .. and I keep my ears and eyes open. The waste in the NHS is astronomical .. I have a sister, Brother in law and crew who work in the primary care sector of the NHS .. yes they are overworked .. but outnumbered by administrators. Also personal experience .. my youngest daughter is diabetic .. on Wed we had an appointment with the Doctor to change the insulin regime she's on .. first class service .. until it came to getting the prescription at the hospital pharmacy .. wait 50 minutes until they told us they did'nt have the pens and to come back tomorrow .. during that period one other person was served .. also could hear much laughter and general hilarity by at least 4 staff. Next day received phone call saying the pens were there .. wife went to get them, waitefd 70 minutes whilst various staff came and went for lunch, eventually was told she could only have one as they wanted to keep the other one in case anyone else wanted one ... came home .. received phone call saying they had found another one and would post it on 45 minutes received phone call from someone else saying the same thing. ????
Friend works in the Royal Courts of Justice ... various extensive unecessary refurbishments staff down the pub at lunchtime and working paid overtime at weekends.
MOD .. join the MOD and get your education free!! Never mind the extensive waste ... I've stood in the pub ar sat in the train hearing officers talking of how they can spend their budget so they'll get it next year. Shells buried on Salisbury plain cos they have'nt time to fire them
Education ... 1 teacher for every 10 addministrators

The list is f#cking endless .. as a country our burden of tax as a % of GDP is one of the highest in the world .. provision of service is not.


And .. I voted for TB first time around ... and I've never read the fecking Daily Mail in my life!

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..

 

[jimi]

Re: Re.Cor whats everybody doing up this early.

rudder's broke/forums/images/icons/frown.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..

 

[longjohnsilver]

Re: Re.Cor whats everybody doing up this early.

How broke is broke? Partial or complete.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Re.Cor whats everybody doing up this early.

Partial .. nowt that a bit of Sikaflex won'nt sort .. but .. it getting a lift out (& its cost) at this time of year that's the problem. Got a lift and hold arranged for next w/e.

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..

 

[[2068]]

Re: Roads bollox

Now you're mixing up what the tax is spent on with the tax itself.

The tax is on fuels and oils used in Motor Vehicles. That's all. There's nothing that says that tax has to be spent on the roads, and as you point out, it isn't. The tax exists solely to raise lots and lots of revenue, which is then spent on schools, the reform of the NHS, and the Strategic Rail Authority.

In France, every time there are attempts to raise fuel prices, the country gets paralysed by trucks.


<hr width=100% size=1>