On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:52:32 +0100, Adrian Stott wrote: >"Steve Haywood" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On 28/03/07, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>"Steve Haywood" wrote: >>> >>> >And Adrian, what's wrong with preserving what we've got now? Especially >>> if >>> >it's worked, as it clearly has with regards to canals. >>> >>> But it has stopped working. >> >> >> >>You can't leave it like that! My complaint is that it's worked too well. >>That in developing canals the way they have, BW has contributed towards the >>loss of what we value most about them. Is that what you're getting at? Are >>we actually, in fact, agreeing? > >I meant that the current funding approach, in particular the use of a >annually-set government grant, is clearly failing to provide BW both >with the amount of money it needs to maintain the waterways, and the >long-term security of financing that is necessary for that task.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is no long-term way to keep the Government's hands off BW without first endowing it and then completely privitising it (of course, it could still be nationalised, but that's a very unfashionable word these days). I'm not sure you've been suggesting complete independence from the government system have you? Without this, then you have the status quo: a grand-funded BW that, as the waterways go in and out of fashion, will either get decent grants, or will get the grants reduced by fairly small percentages when money is needed elsewhere - but which we can fight to restore. Or, a BW with huge "cash" assets that can suddenly be spotted and grabbed when there is a need for revenue. Suddenly leaving us with the worst of both worlds. Remember, we are talking about successive Governments that have sold the railways for a fraction of their worth, and have sold their own tax offices to a firm based in a tax haven, to lease them back at a ridiculous rate - just to get a "loan" that doesn't appear in the PSBR. >Most of the development along the waterways is nothing to do with BW. >If you don't like it, you should be making your concerns known to the >local authorities. A fair proportion of it is on BW land. But even if not, I think it ought to be part of BW's role - as custodian of a national asset - to advise Government and LAs about the effect of development on the waterways environment. Among other things, they are a lot better placed than I am to "make my concerns known" to - say - Stoke-on-Trent council about - say - a small block of flats (sorry, "a select development of exclusive executive apartments"); the first I'm likely to find out is when I boat past them. -- On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
