Financial incentive?

John Kerley seems to suggest that there is a financial incentive to be a continuous moorer. Other than the need not to pay for a home mooring, what incentive for declaring yourself to be a continuous cruiser does he imagine there is? Asks Mike Todd.

If the licence fee were to be increased in the way suggested it would increase the costs for everyone, regardless of how often they moored away from a paid-for mooring (home or otherwise). But there would still be no incentive to continuous moorers (those who flout the rules for moving on regularly from one casual mooring to another across the system) to have a paid-for home mooring.

Motivated to stay

Some continuous moorers will be motivated by the wish to stay in a location where there are no permanent and residential moorings available. This can be tackled by creating, or encouraging the creation of, more such moorings in pressured areas. In places, such as London where many of the problems arise, this is easier said than done although as the recent Inland Waterways Association report shows there is a number of unused former wharfs and basins that could easily be developed.

Those who do not have a home mooring but however wish to stay in the same area where moorings are available, are simply seeking to avoid any charge that they can (they certainly will not be paying casual mooring charges). In some cases financial hardship and low income is a factor. A licence fee increase on its own is unlikely to help, but could tip more into seeking to avoid licensing as well.

People on the canal system cover an especially wide range of personal circumstances, and I doubt whether simple economic nudge policies are likely to have a uniform and positive beneficial effect.