> > Cilin writes: though everyone attacks Adrian for constantly pointing it > out he is at least living in the real world and trying to find > a solution. Just shouting him constantly down with the manta "The taxpayers > should pay but not me" will not find a solution.
But with any solution, the taxpayer will have to pay. It is a question of HOW the taxpayer pays. If I understand Adrian correctly - and I am sure he will put me right if I don't - he believes in some market-based solution founded on property investment. Quiiet apart from the wisdom of relying for the future of a national asset like the canals on something as volotile as property values, this can anyway only come about by taxpayers paying. Either they pay in the form of a one-off government grant or they pay by underwriting BW in terms of allowing it to go into the marketplace to raise money for itself. Well, excuse me while I chuckle at the idea of anyone raising money in current conditions. But even if they were able to do it, we know from current events what 'underwriting' means in this situation when the governments are underwriting the whole financial structure. It just means the taxpayers pay in another way. Talking about the cyclical nature of the markets, and arguing that 'things can only get better' doesn't fill me with confidence either. In fact, I find it amusing that the Right should hold onto this mantra of enconomics while they laugh at the Left for espousing Marx's cyclical view of history. I believe an annual grant based on a continuing political debate is the only way to continue. Oh, say the doubters like yourself. 'Given a choice between spending money on drugs for cancer patients, relieving child poverty' how can the canals ever hold their own? But arguing these difficult choices is in the nature of democratic politics and I don't want to see the waterways debate taken out of the political field where at least I have a voice. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
