Captain Beeky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I was thinking if I was involved with such a dilemma then instead of
>picking one project to shelve I might cut support for all but 1 or 2
>very carefully selected restorations. By showing what a good job I
>could make of them it might stimulate wider financial support from the
>government and/or other sources of finance
Colbert is reputed to have said:
"The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the
most feathers with the least hissing."
I think the same principle applies when cutting spending. The cutter
will want to save as much as possible while triggering the minimum
amount of complaining.
By chopping the T&S, BW may have felt that it would offend mostly the
Cotswold lot. If it cut a number of small projects instead, it might
offend quite a lot more people.
I feel the rational thing to do would be to rank all the projects, and
then cut from the bottom of the list. However, BW unfortunately seems
to have got cold feet about updating its seriously-flawed previous
("2025 Vision") ranking, or even updating its inadequate set of
ranking criteria.
As it has turned out, the Cotswold withdrawal has annoyed rather a lot
of people. Perhaps updating the ranking would have been less painful
after all?
Adrian
.
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
