"Nigel Stanley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 20/10/06, Steve Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Where do you get this information about Conservative policy, Adrian? Can you
>> source it for me?
Sorry. It was told to me in confidence.
>> 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 believe no change has been publicised.
>Conservatives are instinctively against things owned by the state and
>public spending. BW fails both.
>
>That is not to say that we cannot persuade enough of them that BW
>should be an exception, or that mucking about with it would be
>politically dangerous. And I am sure there are many individual
>Conservatives who will support the campaign.
Yes, the Tories (I believe) and I (for sure) prefer the government
not to run *anything*. However, you can't (normally) get a business
to take over something that is making a loss, without providing a
countervailing subsidy to go with it.
In effect, BW *is* a business, but because it makes a loss it is still
in the government's ownership, and the subsidy is the annual grant
plus the income from BW's property (which has, in effect, been
provided to it by the government). I think no-one at the moment is
suggesting moving to the railway model (give it to a private operator,
and pay the subsidy to that operator), although it is theoretically a
valid alternative.
On the assumption (which I think is reasonable) that the Tories will
want to retain the waterways, and given that they will always make a
loss, then the remaining questions are how to run them most
efficiently, and how to provide the subsidy most efficiently,.
I think the Tories will feel (as I do) they should be run like a
business. Fine. They already are (the BW ones that is; the EA ones
are not - hence my liking for transferring the latter to BW). BW has
business accounting and organisation, and generally follows commercial
principles. So, we should be OK there if the Tories come to power.
We now have prime evidence that providing the subsidy via annual grant
is a hopeless method for waterways. I feel the only rational
alternative is increasing BW's investment property portfolio through
an endowment. I believe it should not be difficult to get the Tories
to agree with that, as it, too, is based on sound business principles
-- match long-term liabilities with long-term (secure) income.
I think the concern about the Tories wanting to confiscate BW's
existing portfolio will not be substantiated, as all it would do would
make BW even more dependent on a much bigger annual grant. I believe
that the Tories have already come to realise, on sober reflection,
that this would not be a good thing.
OTOH, we have another lot in charge at the moment, which thinks that
BW should pay for incompetence in doling out farm subsidies. Now that
really *is* something to worry about.
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/
