On 31/10/06, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, none of that means that BW should not be run in a
> businesslike manner. Business principles are most likely to produce
> an efficient use of resource IMHO. Neither does it imply that it must
> be supported by an annual and undependable handout. Having a more
> secure source of income (such as from a property endowment) will make
> the waterways more secure, which I think is something most waterway
> enthusiasts want?
>
> > 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 agree (with some minor exceptions). The endowment would,
> indirectly, have been provided by general taxation.
>
> Adrian
Actually there's quite a lot of agreement in this thread, now that it
bas been thrashed out.
We agree that BW should be kept in the public sector.
We agree that it is not a business, but a guardian of an important
part of the nation's heritage, but that this is not incompatible with
the relevant bits of BW being run in a business like manner.
We agree that BW needs funding to carry out its functions and to
represent the benefit that non-chargeable users such as walkers and
the nation in general gets from it.
Where we differ is how that funding should be supplied. Adrian thinks
it can be delivered through a property endowment. Others think that it
needs direct support from the tax payer.
Of course I've simplified some of these points, and a few may be
outside that basic consensus, but I think it captures most people's
views.
So what about the property endowment?
Of course BW already has a significant source of income from
commercial property dealings. I'm no expert at this, but my impression
is that it does this quite well by forming partnerships with people
who do know how to make money out of property. Of course there is
always a threat that these commercial interests can divert BW from its
heritage and public service duties, but on the whole it's been getting
these right of late.
So why not make this the sole source of BW additional funds?
1) It breaks the connection with the public. It's good for BW and us
to see that they are responsible to the public, because they receive
funding from it. Without this there is even more danger it would
become a property company with some wet bits attached. Believing in
the importance of the public realm is not the slightest bit
old-fashioned. Views may change about the boundaries over time, but
there's nothing wrong in saying some things should not be left to the
market.
2) It couldn't work unless BW was effectively privatised. Otherwise a
future government could simply grab back the property as the Tories
proposed at the last election. BW finances would also continue to show
up as part of the public sector accounts so no government could resist
interfering. Of course it could be privatised, but the dangers of this
are even greater.
3) It puts too many eggs in one basket. The property market can be
volatile, as can politically determined decisions about public grant
(as we know to our cost). The best way to deal with this is to ensure
that BW has a number of revenue streams.
--
Nigel Stanley
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/
