2008/9/27 Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Steve Haywood" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >This puts Adrian in a very interesting position, Richard. > > > >As far as I can see he has four options (though others may see more): > > > >1. He denies that there is a social dimension to BW's activities > >2. He accepts it and concedes that his pure economic models are only > >applicable to pure economic circumstances and changes his mind about most > of > >what he's been saying on the subject these last four years > >3. He accepts it what you say but takes no notice of it. > >4. He ignores your posting completely. > > > >Steve > > > >> The FM also says: > >> > >> "Under powers contained in the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts BW has > >> responsibility for over 3,200km of canals and rivers, including > statutory > >> navigation and safety functions. It carries out these responsibilities > >> within a > >> wider context where, subject to economic and environmental appraisal and > in > >> partnership with others in the public and private sectors, it aims to > >> promote > >> and accommodate conservation and regeneration; to maintain and enhance > >> leisure, recreation, tourism and educational opportunities for the > general > >> public; and to facilitate waterway transport." > > >> Richard > > I accept that BW's duties are as Richard has quoted.
No you don't, you go on to dispute them > > > The government has decided it wants the waterways retained (or has > it?), for a variety of reasons. It caused BW to be created, and > retained, to ensure this occurs. Is that a "social dimension" of BW? > I don't think so. I think it is the provision of a mechanism to > pursue a policy goal. I don't care whether you call it a social dimension of a fifth dimension; I am not going to get distracted by one of your aarchetypal linguistic cul-de-sacs. The fact is the goverment has charged BW a social and environmental role which is must carry out within ' a wider context.' Not just the context of maximising resources which is where all your arguments start and end > > > So BW's job is to retain and maintain the waterways, for the reasons > quoted above. However, if the government has a policy that the > provision of access to the waterways is to be preferentially priced > for the less well off, as part of a more general transfer-of-wealth > approach, I think it has (a) not made that clear, and (b) not made > that a duty of BW. In fact, the oppositer, as its direction to BW is > that it is to market price. Of course it doesn't have a stated policy of preferentially pricing the waterways for the less well off, don't be absurd. Merely that in line with the FM it has a 'wider context' for its activities than just maximising revenue which is what you always argue in every circumstance except ones where it would maximise revenue at your expense. Then you start bleating. > > > So my final answer is "1", Mr Tarrant, even without phoning a friend > (and certainly without asking the audience). > > Adrian > I think most people would think your answer is 2. You are accepting what Richard says but taking no notice of it. But it is so easy, isn't it Adrian, to go through life with evangelical certainties either of the market of Marx? Saves thinking, doesn't it? Steve ps apologies to the rest of you. I dont think anyone else is following this strand now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
