On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:22:09 +0000, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>First, HMG doesn't react with delight at the prospect of *any* >spending, and waterways are ever lower down the list in its good >books. However, my proposal does not envisage spending of a large >chunk of capital. It envisages HMG's *lending* the endowment (note: >NOT dowry) capital to BW on a perpetual basis, interest free. It >therefore would not count as part of the Public Sector Borrowing >Requirement. [...] Lovely. Now would you mind giving us a sanity check on that? I mean, apart from yourself, does anyone --- say the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even a lowly Assistant Principal in the Treasury's office in Halifax --- think that this is a good idea? If --- as I suspect --- not, then your proposal (however you define it) is utterly unrealistic. >>Second, it is not clear that, even were it willing, HMG would be able >>to calculate the amount of the dowry that would be required. If it >>provided too much money, such that BW's income exceeded its >>commitments, it would come under political pressure to retrieve the >>excess; if it provided too little, BW would be no better off than it >>is at present. > >Certainly the amount is yet to be debated. Don't forget, though, that >BW still has a significant backlog (not least of dredging) to catch up >on too, so there is plenty of room for fudging if the endowment loan >were too large. And it would be possible to build in mechanisms to >remedy under- or over-endowing. Oh. So it wouldn't be outside government control. So how does thst differ from an annual grant? >Catastrophes would have to be covered by reserves, or insurance, just >like most organisations do. So your proposal will increase the costs of running the waterways. >Property income vs other income is, I believe, not much of a worry as >this relationship has proved to be very stable in the long run. I was thinking of property income versus non-property costs. And in the long run, we are all dead. You may (and undoubtedly will) continue to proclaim the virtues of your scheme, refining it from time to time, but with not the slightest indication that it is ever going to be accepted by the powers-that-be, or by anybody else, it is really a bit of a distraction. As someone said recently: >please stick to the real world. If you don't, sensible debate >becomes impossible. bjg
