On 04/02/2008, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I must say that I think IWA's response has completely missed > the point. This is a decision that must have been very difficult > to take but I can't see that BW had other option. Would you > spend your available capital to build an extension on your house > if the very fabric of the main building was in need of major repairs? > > Of course, it is a great disappointment to those who have put so > much work into the Cotswold project, but whatever BW put into > that project would just be taking money away from maintaining > the major part of the network. Sure, I know it is being spent > on repairing the Mon & Brec which is also not part of the main > system but that will save jobs & businesses that are already > established. > > In short is a direct rebound caused by the Defra cuts. That > coupled with the fact that BW have not been re-imbursed (by Defra > or EA) for the £8-10 million spent on floods last year obviously > has left BW in an extraordinarily tight financial position. > > Our campaign for the past 18 months has been emphasising that > there was a risk that cuts like this would be forced upon BW; > why is the IWA now criticising BW for doing what was inevitable. > > IMO, the IWA should be criticising Government not BW. > Will Chapman > Save Our Waterways > www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
Will is right. BW doesn't have much choice about making cuts if its main source of income is cut. And the Guardian reports today that it could get worse: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2252554,00.html I'm not that keen on the current direction of BW, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate where cuts should fall, but we should not obscure that the main issue is that the government is not providing sufficient support for the waterways, and that BW is being punished for other issues within DEFRA. If we get diverted into only arguing with BW, we lose the big picture. -- Nigel Stanley
