RYA on TV

[TomIsitt]

I'm afraid SIBS will have to do...we have a few things to do here before heading for Southampton (the November issue to finish, Boat Show stands to sort out, vans full of mags and bags to get on the road, and about 200 other things), and it all has to be sorted now. The RYA are doing exactly the same things at exactly the same time, so it'll have to wait until the end of the week. If I get any answers I'll get back to you then.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Thank you, I fully appreciate how busy both sides are with SIBS, so I can simplify my question to:-

Will you ask about the TV interview at SIBS and report the results back on this forum please?

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[kimhollamby]

Easy tiger

Paul, the dog with a bone approach is commendable for its enthusiasm but please take it as read something will happen in terms of a conversation.

You are worried about your pasttime -- arguably some of our people here have to be worried about their livelihoods as well (the downside of mixing work with pleasure) so there is every incentive to be concerned about these matters especially when programmes such as this apparently (I didn't see it, sadly) reveal what we all suspect -- that the general public are not going to be high on the sympathy vote.

I have been an open critic of the RYA over many things but I have to say that there is an obvious sign someone is trying to do something in that organisation about fuel tax, simply because it would be far easier for the Association to have a neutral or silent policy -- it would then (as you rightly point out) appease some the yachtsmen who clearly see the removal of red diesel as a mechanism that would free up some berths and open up some wake-free water space. Instead it is winding quite a lot of them up (as it has also done with involvement in things like PWCs) but it is doing so, presumably, in the interests both of its anti creeping legislation stance and also directly for its diesel motorboat members.

I also strongly agree with Tom about interviews and cutting room floors. What happens with typical TV interviews is a nonsense -- the editors mix and match questions and answers at will so you can never be certain that the answer you hear in fact related to the original question at all, or that the question was even posed that way in the first place. Okay, so the trick is never to say something you don't want to watch on the news later but it's not so easy and plenty of more media savvy people have been caught on this one.

I personally think the whole Red Diesel saga will get fought out not on the national media (in fact I hope it gets a very infrequent or zero airing) but in the darkened corridors of Westminster. Rational private conversations with key players in government are probably the only way forward. The RYA and BMF have both been developing this side of their work for some years now. I'm sure those conversations will be happening already. Media won't be privvy to many of them, for fairly obvious reasons. And whilst it might make a great short term story, there's not much point in us blowing the gaff either if we do know something (because it won't help our collective cause).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: Easy tiger

OK Kim.

I accept your points as a properly balanced answer and I am satisfied with them.

The dog with the bone approach is simply to get answers when someone is not answering the questions posed.

I had already accepted the points about the editing - I myself have suffered with the media on this very point. However, I cannot help being suspicious about the RYA and we just do not know if it was the editing or the RYA approach being properly reported. Can that be established?

Throughout all my posting on red diesel I have taken the approach that we are not going to get public support here - its one reason why I do not have a red diesel sticker on my car. So I am in full agreement with you on that. Although I have nothing but admiration for the MBM approach.

The fact is that the RYA are the only voice we have - there is no time to organise another. So the important thing is that they really do act on our behalf ... I am concerned about that.

Naturally this concern was heightened by the MBY approach and the tatic of flaming rather than answering qustions that was adopted. I really do feel that that magazine does not properly represent us mobo's and have let my sub renewal lapse - as have some other boaters I know. That is all I can do. I have only explained that point to signify my growing concern not to reignite that issue in itself.

I am holding back on the RYA and have not left but I am concerned - especially after so much raggie support for the diesel price hike and the TV interview - all I was seeking was for a magazine to approach the RYA to establish if the TV interview represented their views. Is that too much to ask?




<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[kimhollamby]

I think we can firmly establish for you

That it is not the RYA's self-declared aim to rat out on motorboaters over this issue. The question has been asked time and time again of them already by a number of journalists. In one sense I am surprised the RYA is being as bold as it is -- this is not by any means a war that anyone can win and for the Association to stick its neck out as far as it already has, knowing it is disenfranchising some of its members, while not being at all certain it can pull it off, smacks of some bottle.

If I bump into Rod Carr, chief exec, I'll ask him what current stance is if you like but I doubt very much it has changed from where we've seen it at various journalist briefings over past few months (ie defending retention).

Can you tell me who got interviewed? It would be helpful to know.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: I think we can firmly establish for you

Kim - that was an informative message with good news and a comforting perspective on the RYA.
I am dropping the bone.
Cheers
Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[kimhollamby]

Postscript

Spoke with Rod Carr today, everything exactly as I stated before, namely RYA taking a defending stance and (it would seem from conversation) putting in a fair bit of spade work behind the scenes.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: Postscript

Excellent .... thank you for checking out the situation.
Bone is now fully buried.


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[davidbuttriss]

All well and good moaning here, threatening not to renew RYA memebership etc etc, have you made your case to;
a) The RYA or are you expecting them to know you disapprove, or are you so important they will come to you for advice and direction. How can they support your views if they have not heard them?
or b) Written to your MP, again voicing your disapproval?
Personally if the fuel is used for leisure then a tax should be levied, why is diesel different to petrol?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

I take it you haven't read the threads on the subject??
read some of the posts of emails and letters to MP's, and the RYA.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[Gludy]

David
To answer your points, I have written to my MP a few times and after what Kim has said on this thread have not resigned from the RYA.

You made a statement of opinion and asked a question:-

"Personally if the fuel is used for leisure then a tax should be levied, why is diesel different to petrol? "

Great so nothing could be more leisure than going on holiday and seeing as within a few years aircraft fuel will represent almost half the UK's CO2 emissions, I think we should use your un-thought out simplistic policies and increase aircraft fuel taxes so that instead of paying about 60p a gallon they pay £5 per gallon. Lets face it this would devastate the holiday industry just as much as the motor boat cruising industry ... buts its all leisure and so according to you that is a reason to tax it at petrol level rates.

Then most farm produce is actually purely optional and for our pleasure not for essential food so lets tax farm fuel the same as road fuel.

Then whilst we are at it, lets start really applying your logic. Sail cloth is used for just leisure purposes so lets tax that the same as petrol - after all its purely a leisure product. Throw in all petroleum derived products used to build a sailing boat - its all leisure and should, according to you be taxed at petrol rates. But then again anything that is leisure derived from oil or not should be taxed at petrol rates.

Come to think of it, past a few pints of water and a bit of food each day everything we do could be described as optional leisure - I mean the cargo ships that export/import so much leisure stuff like fittings for sailing boats, tents, sporting equipment, dvd players, epoxy for sailing boat hulls etc - they should oat full whack on their fuel tax as well ... should they not? After all 90% plus of their cargo is related to leisure....

In fact really thinking about it if we have two families both with the same disposable income and one chooses to spend their money on sport and the other on new furniture for the lounge - a totally optional choice, we really should treat the furniture as a leisure product, they do not need it just as much as those doing sport do not need it so lets tax furniture the same as petrol.... after all its leisure. Then imagine what levies we can impose on all sorts of sports.

Ok, after this huge tax hike, no one will buy some of these things again .. many will not be able to afford to go on holiday, sailors will not be able to afford the cost of their new boat - after all the huge increase in resin costs and petroleum derived products costs ( a huge range of products) means that less tax revenue will be raised not more but that does not matter does it? Lets face it, the simple world that some raggies live in means that tax decisions are based on selfish, ill thought out, simplistic reasons rather than any logic or understanding.

Devastating jobs relating to the leisure industry, that does not matter does it? Those jobs are not as important as 'essential' jobs are they? The fact that over 90% of jobs relate to totally optional products we choose to have for our enjoyment - well too bad. After all we after applying your logic will have so many airline pilots as well everyone else out of work that we will need huge tax incomes just to support the unemployed.

I think that because sailing boats are purely for leisure and use so much petroleum derived products within them anyway - we should add a boat tax to the same level as petrol tax - this would increase boat prices by about 400%. After all why should epoxy for hulls be taxed at the same rate as shoes?

Mind you this simplistic mind set of yours has been tried before, it was called Communism and was a spectacular success in ensuring that only a few enjoyed leisure whilst the majority worked like hell to just get fed and housed.

I look forward to you answering my questions in full



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[stephenmartin]

Motor Boaters are an easy target thats why the tax will probably be introduced....Motorists are also an easy target thats why road and fuel tax is increased every year and the roads remain in the same old shit state....if all of my road tax was invested on roads I would not complain about being constatly ripped off by each successive administration......

Let Brussells run the Hospitals, Roads and transport systems for us....because this country has proved time again that its governments are incapable at doing it for themselves and use it as a stick to beat the previous government

Increasing the tax on red diesel will do absolutley nothing except make sure boats stay in the harbour/marinas for longer....

I am fed up of reading spin, lies, deceit and more bloody lies from every government.....and while we're at it....Sadam should have got the chop in the first war and we wouldn't have all this bol*ox about going to war....the war was right but the reasons were lies.....and we know it

I also hate fox hunting but agree with what the hunters did....sometimes a loaded gun is the only answer

Try increasing tax on red diesel and petrol in America or France and see what happens

Sometimes you just have to grab your balls and go for it

<hr width=100% size=1>Don't make the same mistake twice...Make a different one

 

[DogsBody]

Re: Gludy

Paul,

Excellent post!

If they've any sense the RYA will be hammering on your door pleading for you to be their spokesman any time now.

DogsBody.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: Gludy

Thanks.
The problem is that I do not think we will get public support. The active anti-motor boat lobby from a lot of raggies is only adding to the problem.

Its so simple for others to simplify.... there are so many stupid simplified comments like the leisure argument I dealt with in my post. The fact is that over 98% of our consumption is related to our optional choice, not survival.

Every penny the governement collects in tax is penny they spend that removes your choice to spend it - increasingly governements pander to spin or appearance being placed above substance. Goverments simply squander taxes collected - the waste is enourmous.

In effect goverments subsidied high CO2 emmiting old industries for years in an attempt to bolster emplyment. So goverment has a history of collecting taxes and then using the tax to pollute.

Truth seems no longer to be important - perception is higher up the priority list.

I have taken Kim's comments to heart and believe him in what he says - that does not mean we will win but it means that at least at the top of the RYA there seems to be sense - I would still like to see the RYA TV interview chap held to account.

I am so fed up with the stupid arguments of many raggies that from now on they venture into this territory at their own risk

Cheers

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[moodycruiser]

It's comments like that that give us raggies a bad name.
The tax that is imposed on diesel for road use is not a leisure tax - it is what it says it is - a road usage diesel tax - the only exemptions being for plant equipment such as dumper trucks and mobile cranes etc etc, but officially they have a limit of travel from their home base.
Why on earth you feel that we should be paying a road tax for using our boats is beyond me. What are the benefits that we are going to enjoy for this extra dosh, I mean , if they decide to put a white line down the middle of Southampton water, with a pelican crossing at Calshot spit, maybe it would be worth it, but then a new set of rules would have to be put in place and I can see some really short tacking going on - there again, what about the wind tax - would you have to pay one rate when running and another when beating (there is a greater flow of air over the sail with the latter). What happens if I steal someone elses wind - can he claim a rebate or............. oops, rambling a bit now [confused]

<hr width=100% size=1>Tony

 

[Gludy]

Thank you for proving that all raggies are not the same - there is a rump that cannot wait for fuel tax to go to road rates and yes they are giving you all a bad name.

"What are the benefits that we are going to enjoy for this extra dosh"

Thats the only assumption I disagree on - if fuel prices are equated to road prices then there will not only not be extra tax but there will be a significant drop in total tax collected. There is so little fuel used by motorboaters that the tax raised is insignificant whereas the tax raised from the leisure boating industry is of the order of one billion pounds. Even if all motor boaters used the same quanity of fuel and paid four times more (this would never happen) the tax raised would still be puny and would not equate to a 2% drop in general taxation on boats in general.

In practice the drop in revenue from all boating aspects would be way over 2% - and there would be a signicant tax yield drop - the shortfall would have to come from other taxes such as a tax on selfish - 'I am alright attitudes' - now that would raise some signifciant money from some raggies

Cheers







<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[tcm]

well, i\'m, in favour of harmonisation

...of the road fuel down to current marine levels. Tax from motorists almost £90billuion, amount spent on road £2billion. Everyone has a car - it's backdoor income tax innit, really, sort of.

The harmonisation thing is rubbish. There's good reasons for major corporate taxes to be harmonsied - otherwise everyone moves assetss to cheaper areas. Same arument doesn't apply to marine diesel.

Very sadly over the whole of my adult life, only one govt has ever has the balls to do anything very much about reduciong the cost of govt. In real terms it has gone up not merely in terms of the RPI but in pace with earnings - much higher - cos they have income tax which rises in line with earnings. Worse, it's reported as a "percentage of GDP" - as tho the cost of having the same roads as in 1980 plus the M25 is really monster. It isn't.

The power of a puter now is such that one pc could hold an entire novel about every man woman and child. But still there zillions of departments of government that do nothing really, regions of councils/ rubbish collection as tho nobody has a phone. The trades unions are on their way back talking bout job creation as though if they found a free way of making food and clothes, they would outlaw it.

What's needed is a massive pay rise for civil servants, together with a reduction of bout 70% to start and more later. Govt talks bout "running the country" but they taxpayers do more "running the country" than any govt employer - filling in forms, buying decent computers than if they don't work out the right numbers the payers (not govt) go to priz, writing cheques on time and then more cheques. Oops, more ranting...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

Re: well, i\'m, in favour of harmonisation

The only difference between you and me TCM is that you have a higher opinion of government


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[cliff]

See <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm>here</A> for road fuel prices - check out Luxembourg..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[adarcy]

Re: Shoes !

<<After all why should epoxy for hulls be taxed at the same rate as shoes?>>

Paul,

Why on earth are not shoes taxed "appropriately" ? Ultimate leisure discretionary spending IMHO. Surely all the tax-paying plebs like us can walk on their own two feet. Scum like us just choose to have a more comfortable way of doing it. Like you, I reckon the Goverment has missed a real trick here but, no doubt, some raggies will tell them for us.

Keep right on ranting, it keeps me reassured that there is at least one other sane person out there.

Anthony

<hr width=100% size=1>