> > I almost agree with you so far. The only point of difference is the phrase > "arms-length". I'd prefer to see more direct public control. See below for > my reason.
I agree with Mike, but I'd thought I chip with some thoughts on the review. The cynical who think that there is a fait accompli hidden away may be right, but I'm a bit more optimistic. My take would be that government has been taken aback by the campaign against the cuts, and that waterways issues, which had rather gone on the backburner a bit after the higher profile of a few years ago. This kind of review is a standard way of government signalling that something needs to change but we want some external validation so it doesn't look like a U-turn. It gives us the chance to make the case for public subsidy because of the waterways's contribution to the public realm, and for combining the BW and EA navigation responsibilities (I rather like the quirky bits run by the NT and the Middle Level Commssioners. so would leave them out of it). Given there have been some genuine efforts to plan public spending on a longer term cycle through the three yearly Comprehensive Spending Review, it may be possible to argue for more stability in BW funding. On the other hand it also raises the issue in quarters that we'd probably prefer didn't notice that there is still what is in effect a nationalised industry (and let's hope the scary Shriti Vadera is too busy getting ready for No 10). It is therefore more likely that BW will end up looking less like Adrian's model as the review may conclude that valuable bits of docklands don't fit well with a navigation authority. Cross-subsidy is very unfashionable. This is all speculation on my part, with no inside knowledge, but drawn from some experience of closely watching government. -- Nigel Stanley
