"Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >2008/10/9 Adrian Stott [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> It was made abundantly clear that the current £30 million/year gap >> between what BW needs to spend to keep the waterways in a steady state >> of repair, and the revenue it now has, is *not* going to be made up by >> added government grant. Boaters were advised bluntly by John Edmunds >> (IWAC) not to waste any more time on that idea. >> >Interesting that you should have picked this out as a highlight since this >has been very much your view all along, hasn't it Adrian?
It has indeed been my opinion. But it appears that wearing rose-coloured glasses tends to cause deafness, so some were unable to receive it. > So did Mr Fletcher or Mr Edmunds suggest where the shortfall was coming from, > or have we been >left to work this no brainer out for ourselves? Yes. There was a *lot* of discussion about that. > In which case, I guess you'd >best be budgeting for the extra levy on that wide boat of yours. The BWAF proposals to increase the already unfair charge on larger boats would not result in *any* more money going to the waterways. The total take from boaters is already fixed. All it would mean is that owners of narrow boats would pay less. Well, that's alright then, eh? Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"? Wikipedia may be your friend. >Me, I don't care what either of these people say. They're government >spokesmen after all. What what you expect them to say? Edmunds is not a government spokesman. He is a former union official. You think they like the current government? Gummer is not a government spokesman. You may have noticed that his party is in opposition? >I believe that the the canals are a national heritage, Yes > that they are being >used increasingly by the whole of the population yes > and that the whole of the population should pay for them by a government > grant that represents their national value. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? > The alternative is your way, Adrian. Yes. > That is to squeeze as > much money as you can from hard pressed boaters. <holds face> Do you actually *read* my stuff? > That is as long as those > hard pressed boaters aren't you, in which case you will argue 'fairness' to >protect your own position until you're blue in the face. "Fairness" as used by BWAF has *never* been defined by BWAF. Or, rather, BWAF members define it in a different way every time it is used. My definition is that if you use up more or something of value , or by using something you prevent others from using it, or you buy more of something, or you impose additional costs on the provider of something, then you should pay more. However, if you happen to be different in some irrelevant way from other buyers, then you should not pay more. Red-headed boat owners should not pay more. Owners of larger boats should not pay more (actually, they should pay less). I would be interested to see your response to the above paragraph. >Interesting to hear the Tories taking the popularist line for a change A change? >It strikes me that instead of courting approval by getting cheap >cheers on what is after all an administrative matter between EA and BW Of course it isn't. They are at-the-throat rivals. >that nice Mr Gummer should be pressed on where HE stands on the public >financing >of the waterways. Did you perchance ask him? I had used my question to ask something else (guess what). Why weren't you there to ask that? Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
