On 30/10/06, Steve Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> It may well be very old fashioned to say it but I do believe that BW is
> a national asset and belongs in the public sector. It is not a viable
> business in a commercial sense simply because it has insufficient
> sources of income. Most of its customers (walkers etc.) don't pay to use
> it and there is no easy way to get them to pay except through general
> taxation. I have no enthusiasm for the contrived business models I've
> heard to privatise BW here and elsewhere in recent weeks.
I agree absolutely with you, Steve. And may I add another point to those who
who are toying with the idea that somehow half a billion of BW's property
assets can somehow be 'ring-fenced' for waterways' use? The fact is, it
simply won't happen, whatever the strength of the economic argument. No
government of whatever political hue is going to ignore a pot this large,
regardless of what they promise. You only have to remind yourself of
the debate at the time of the instigation National Lottery to realise that
government is incapable of keeping its hands off large sums of money like
this.
Steve
[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/
