On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:55:58 +0000, Adrian Stott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At present, the government can, in effect, appoint (or dismiss)
>individual BW directors. It does not have to use the nuclear option.
>There are many aspects of BW I didn't mention. I think it would be a
>more reasonable assumption that I expect those aspects to remain
>unchanged, rather than that I want to scrap them.
You seem to want to change the entire funding basis, which would also
change the reporting relationship, so it is hard to assume anything
about what your proposals would entail.
>Not a person, but the result of a process -- its design. And some
>machines do tend to be discovered later to be good at unexpected
>things.
You've suddenly become a Stalinist, or perhaps a Creationist. Central
Designing (or Central Planning) will set up organisations that will be
able to run for ever, without being controlled by anyone external.
Neither The People nor their representatives will ever want (or be
allowed?) to change what the Central Designer has put in place, but
there would be no need to, because The Machine would be perfect.
It all sounds a little unlikely to me. Given the, er, success of the
Great Plans implemented in the UK in the last twenty years, I am sure
that your proposal would be greeted with glad cries by the usual gang
of thieves --- accountants, bankers, lawyers, consultants --- who get
to stuff their pockets on these reorganisations, but I expect the
citizens to be slightly more cynical.
><Possibly inaccurate quote> "The race may not always go to the swift,
>not the battle to the strong, but that is the smart way to bet".
Again, that is no more than your perception.
>I think it is more to do with civil servants' concern for their jobs,
>which tend to be at risk if politicians get embarrassed by them. Doing
>nothing is usually less likely to embarrass than doing something.
Not so. I am not entirely familiar with HM Civil Service, but in the
Irish, which took its rules from the British, it takes a Cabinet
decision to fire an established civil servant. That may have changed
in recent years in the UK, which seems to be run by Friends of Thieves
and Murderers, but the relative independence from pressure of civil
servants was one of the strengths of the system.
As for doing nothing, I am sure that civil servants would welcome a
short period without the mad initiatives of the present gang: if civil
servants have acted to oppose the destruction of working British
systems, they are to be commended.
>As far as BW is concerned, looking after the waterways *is* the
>policy, and BW is required to follow it. That's its goal. Making a
>profit (but not at the expense of achieving that goal) is the way of
>showing that it is efficient in its work. Guarding the waterways
>might better be done by another outfit ("Quis custodiet ipsos
>custodes") , but isn't that (at least in part) what IWAC is for?
A moment ago, you said
"A corporation designed to produce a profit will tend to try to do so.
This usually requires it to try to be efficient, and to attract/keep
its customers."
So is your new BW to be designed to produce a profit or is it not?
>I believe I have presented a reasonable outline. I think it is not
>reasonable to expect me to provide a detailed blueprint.
I don't think your outline is reasonable. I am sure that there is
somebody who does, but such person has yet to be identified.
>Hey this is a day for quotes -- "When you have eliminated the
>impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Vox populi, vox Dei.
bjg
