Nick Atty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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.
You are right, in that there is no way that you can prevent the government doing any particular action in future. That has to be the case -- you really wouldn't want a future government's hands to be irrevocably tied by today's. However, there are ways to make it more difficult for a future government to reverse the decision of a present one. Perhaps the strongest is to have a formal constitution, changes to which require a super-majority vote. But there is a spectrum. For waterways, an annual grant is much easier for a government to change than an endowment, both practically and politically. The endowment would not be an absolute guarantee (I mean, look at what has happened to double jeopardy and the right to silence) , but a big improvement over the present arbitrary situation,IMHO. But I'd be pleased to hear of any allegedly better ones. Even complete independence from the government via privatisation wouldn't give such a guarantee. Look at what has happened with the railways! I think we should accept that a government-owned but arms-length corporation like BW is probably the best model available for the management of the waterways. The variance forms of charity/trust managed by bureaucracy instead of on business principles, really aren't as good (yeah, yeah, a longer discussion could be had about that, but I still think thank it's the case). Also, we already know that such a corporation cannot support itself financially based on charges to boaters, but must have additional funding from government (and that such funding is justified). So we should focus on supporting the concept of BW, and on persuading the government on how much funding is needed (we can now start to use BW's Steady State maintenance estimates) and how best to provide it. To give BW the funding it requires, and to make it as secure as possible, I believe the process should be removed as much as possible from annual Treasury whim. And I think that a real estate portfolio managed by BW is the best way to do that. Not perfect, just the best available. >>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. Fair, but rather small. >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. But it already does! It is a statutory consultee on all development applications along the waterways. >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. Agreed. And BW does do that. Do you think it is not doing it well/often enough? Can you substantiate that feeling? Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
