Brian J Goggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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.
Well, not quite. I want to expand the use of one part of the current funding arrangement (income from real estate), and close down another (annual grant). I do not want to change the reporting relationship at all. BW would still report to the government through the existing shareholder relationship. >>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. Oh No I Haven't! See my paragraph above about the reporting relationship. >><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. And, at least, of the person who said it originally. And a few others, I think. >>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. But it is very easy to affect his career. >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. "Was" is right. Many appointments are now much more political. >As for doing nothing, I am sure that civil servants would welcome a >short period without the mad initiatives of the present gang: Indeed. But that does not mean that they would not welcome sane initiatives. > if civil servants have acted to oppose the destruction of working British >systems, they are to be commended. "Working" in whose estimation, though? And as opposed to "working well"? >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? It is already designed to do so. Within the framework of the government's policy wrt the waterways. I have no wish to change that. Although I might have a go at parts of the policy, of course. >>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. That's your privilege. >>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. Vauxhall astra? Adrian >bjg > > > > Adrian Stott 07956-299966
