Nick wrote: > This seems as good a post as any to hang a general comment on about 20 > emails in this thread - and to try to pour some oil (red, while we still > have some in our tanks) over these troubled waters. > > You are all right! > > Steve Haywood is right that BW were going to cut 180 jobs anyway and > that this is a bad thing for the waterways. > Adrian is right to suggest that DEFRA policy and pressures probably > helped to make this BW's plans. > Richard is also right in saying this is bad for the waterways. > Will is right that because of DEFRA this has happened more quickly than > would have happened and this is worse for the waterways > Mike is right that compulsory redundancies are worse than natural > wastage and this is bad for the individuals. > Steve Hays is right to say that in the short-term office jobs going will > hurt the waterways least > Dorothy is right to say that office jobs also matter and in the > long-term BW will suffer if it cuts any jobs. > > Which takes us back to what should our "posture" be on BW at the moment. > I think it's the opposite of the US in Vietnam - BW must be saved in > order to destroy it. > > There's a lot wrong with BW, and in particular how its funded. We have > different views on what the outcome should be, but can continue to work > these out through robust debate. > > In the meantime, we ought to support BW - not uncritically and > unhesitatingly - but in principle: because we need a healthy BW in > charge of well maintained waterways as a starting place to change things > from. > > Attacking DEFRA should be tactics, and this includes supporting BW, but > our strategy does not include "BW are great"
Well done Nick, a refreshingly candid and unbiased assessment of the true situation without the rhetoric getting in the way. As I see it, a (loose) analogy could be the alliance in World War 2 between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. I'm sure that R and C didn't agree with lots that S did and represented (master of the understatement here ;-)) but, during the fight with the common enemy (the Nazis), they set aside their differences and got on with the fight. After they had won the war they rapidly returned to bickering and tub thumping at each other (hence the Cold War that lasted so long). I see no reason why we can't all get behind BW in the short term while the fight with Defra/the Treasury/the Government goes on. When that war is won or lost we can return to the minor skirmishing that goes on between the waterway users and BW, and occupies many of your thoughts. In the meantime though, let's not publicly attack BW, creating a second front that will divert BW's energies away from the main war. IMO that would only help Defra and the Government, it certainly wouldn't help us (the waterway users). Roger
