Steve et al., "Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>there is a >strong vein of feeling in the Conservative Party critical of BW. Put >succinctly, the feeling is that the way BW has acted under Robin Evans' >tenure has made it BW 'akin to a state subsidized property speculator.' >This was the conclusion of the James Committee which was commissioned by >Michael Howard prior to the last election and which led to suggestions that >they would 'privatize' BW. > >I have for some months been trying to squeeze current policy out of Central >Office, but under Cameron, as we all know, they are very guarded about being >specific about ANY policy. > >However, it's it unlikely that thinking has changed significantly. Fortunately, the unlikely occasionally comes to pass. AIUI, the Conservatives have indeed reconsidered their attitude towards BW, and no longer believe it s property should be confiscated and should be sold off. I believe it has becoming convinced that a structure not unlike BW is actually the most appropriate way to manage the waterways, and that funding it via property income may make more sense than giving it annual grant to cover its deficit. I tthink/hope that your inability to "squeeze current policy out" is that the old policy has been abandoned, but the new one not fully put in place yet. At least, there is room to hope. >Look at a >piece posted recently on the site of the Institute of Economic Affairs, the >respected right-wing think tank >http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?ID=354&type=news Not for a long time have I read such a poorly-written piece. It is hard to know where to start to point out the errors in it, but I'll go from the top: "In many city centres, British Waterways owns acres that lie mostly underdeveloped." Mr Blundell seems to be unaware that BW is actively developing as many of these properties as it can, having strategically reviewed its entire portfolio and entered into partnerships with developers for the most potentially profitable. "The unused stretches of canal are termed remainders. These could be cherished and dredged and turned into delightful byways." This is, er, rich from a man who wishes to deprive BW of funding. He appears to have no idea of the costs involved, and no suggestions of how they could be met. "The Competition Commission has investigated British Waterways twice." And the last time was when? Mr B's information seems to be rather, er, dated. "The Competition Commissions investigations into British Waterways faulted the company on its corporate planning, inability to cost projects, board membership and even recording of decisions. It added the canals monopoly was poor at contracting out services. It could be much better at planning applications and was weak at controlling its staff costs too. In other words, British Waterways is a typically flawed public agency that often tries to emulate commercial competence but falls far short of its own ambitions." He seems to have ignored that BW took these comments to hear, and has restructured itself very significantly since then. "However, money spent on the canal system . . . will in town centres do something to mitigate the surrounding dark satanic mills . . . and will give access to our green and pleasant land." Well, we can be sure Mr B hasn't been to (e.g.) Rochdale, Slaithwaite, central Birmingam, let alone the "green and pleasant" projects like the Cotswolds, etc. etc. etc. Again, this comment is entirely obsolete. "For all its failings, it has evolved from being a subsidy recipient to realising it has lucrative options charging for boat traffic and for boat residents." I seem to recall BW has actually been charging for those things for decades. "The Caledonian Canal links the North Sea with the Atlantic, passing through not only superb scenery but including the Loch Ness Monster. I would love to see the merchant bankers prospectus describing that as either a tangible or intangible asset. " Again, Mr B seems unaware of just how much has had to be spent to keep this route open. The recent repairs to the locks alone would almost certainly outweigh the revenue even a merchant banking genius could raise. "The Crinan Canal in Knapdale is where Kenneth Graham dreamt up The Wind In The Willows. " And here I always thought it was the Thames! and so on ... I conclude this man is ignorant, lazy, and careless with his facts. Out hunting in the forest, he hears a large animal moving, and shoots before he realises it is actually a cow from a well-run herd. If this is the calibre of opponent we have to deal with, I'm feeling relaxed. >For a more general sense of the attitude of your average right-leaning Tory >look at Bob Spink's site, MP for Castle Point in Essex. > >http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Robert+Spink/94dbfd03-243d-41a3-a185-eda37e463c41.htm > >The concern he voices about the development of Wood Wharf in Docklands is >one which in my experience as a journalist is shared pretty widely within >the Conservative Party. And FWIW it's one I share myself. It would have helped if he referred to it as "BW", not "BWB" which it abandoned quite a while ago. Mr Spink ways "Wood Wharf is not part of the canal system." Is he unaware that BW became the navigation authority for the Isle of Dogs docks when LDDC wound up? It is therefore quite reasonable it would seek development opportunities from its holdings there. You can't have it both ways. Either BW should be developing its properites (Mr Blunden), or it shouldn't (Mr Spink). Do these guys talk to each other? The real problem with Mr Spink's piece is that he provides no model for how he would cover BW's deficit if he removed all its non-grant income. Or, to put it another way, how the non-customer public's interest in retaining and operating the waterways is to be funded. Perhaps when he gets around to trying to prepare one, he will understand that there is a very strong case that BW's being supported by the income from an investment property portfolio may be the most appropriate funding approach. Does anyone on this ng know him? It might be an idea to show him a clearer picture over a pint or two. BTW I couldn't find a date for this piece. When was it written? Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966 Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
