On 20/05/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Stevens wrote: > > On Friday, May 18, 2007 1:26 PM [GMT+1=CET], > > Will Chapman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Steve Haywood wrote: > >>> Personally, I can't say at this stage whether it's true, that BW's > >>> presentations on the whole of the cuts issue has been devised to > >>> hide the fact that they've been getting more from their property > >>> portfolio than they have declared; I can't say whether they have > >>> 'wilfully withheld information' from the government; that they have > >>> done this 'with the intent of deceiving the general public.' All I > >>> know is that the government believes this, and > >> Wrong..government don't necessarily believe this - we will have > >> to wait for the EFRA sub-Committee report before we know what > >> they believe. At the moment all you can say is that Gardiner > >> appears to believes that he has been misled; > > > > I'm not even convinced of that. What we know is that Gardiner, or the > > spin-doctors behind him, curently find it convenient to claim that he > has > > been misled. That's not the same thing at all. It may be a stratagem > to > > prepare the way for a change of approach without losing face (by no mean > > > unknown in negoatiating situations - remember,I was a professional > > negotiator for some years). > > > > I think you have a point there Mike. Also we do know that two key > people that where part of the link between defra and BW have > gone. The day-to-day link, Sabine Mosner, has left altogether and > Robert Lowson (her boss?), the civil servant that took Gardiner's > place at the BW AGM, has also moved on so it could well be that > Defra are having trouble finding a paper-trail.
I am intrigued that you and Mike are coming at this issue from the direction you are. And surprised that you are both in your own way complicating it. In political terms the matter is very simple. For better or worse a decision was taken that the costs of the rural payments fiasco would not be absorbed into contingencies. DEFRA then took soundings from its spending agencies and apportioned the cuts accordingly. The question is did BW deal honestly with its department? Did it give it the full facts on which to be able to make a decision? To claim that we do not know what government thinks about this is as spurious as saying that when the police start a murder enquiry they do not know the culprit is. The fact is, they know there's been a murder ;-) There is no reason whatsoever why the minister needs any sort of stratagem for doing what he's doing, least of all spin. And there's no question of losing face. This isn't a negotiation, Mike: it is government saying what is going to happen. It is called governing. IMO what is going to happen is self evident. DEFRA will soon disappear and that part of it dealing with BW matters - all of four of them - three if you don't count the secretary (and if they all survive Gershon) - will appear elsewhere under a different departmental organisation. But don't do running away with the idea that BW will be the same too. Certain parties from will be allowed to keep face, it is true. Others will be culled, either sooner or later, by this government or the next. Forgive me if I don't think that any of this is good news for the waterways. Forgive me if I think that most of it has come about by a bad BW management too centred on its bottom line and not centred enough on its customer base. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
