Where do you get this information about Conservative policy, Adrian? Can you
source it for me?
I have been told by Central Office as recently as last week that the policy
derived from the James Committee was still official policy, though as I
understand it, responsibilty for examining the waterways lies with John
Gummer's Quality of Life Commission, part of Cameron's policy review
process. You seem to be suggesting that this has reached some conclusion
that has been publicised.
I agree with you about the IEA piece. Dreadfully written. But its relevance,
and the relevance of the Bob Spink piece, is that they betray a thinking at
the heart of the party. The fact is, try as I might I cannot believe that
government of any clour will keep its hands of BW's assets.
I sense that what we are seeing at the moment is the first signs of the
erosion.
Steve
On 20/10/06, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve et al.,
> 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.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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/
