OK, here is a radical change of direction. So radical that, in its basic principals at least, it owes much to the thinking 60 years or more ago of Robert Aickman!
First of all, fighting ongoing increases in licence fees, mooring costs coupled with insufficient funding of essential maintenance and repairs and the provision of adequate facilities etc. is self defeating. As long as the basic model, of a quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation owning and operating the waterways and depending on direct government funding from taxation for a substantial proportion of its operating budget, remains the same there is always going to be intense pressure on that organisation to maximise revenue from those elements of its customer base that are susceptible to higher charges. At present, there is an increasing application of the market forces principal although this may change in the short term due to the current financial climate (a situation that, incidentally, is a direct consequence of market forces at work). For example, if 100 boat licences can be sold for an average of £1000 a year that raises £100,000 in revenue. If 50 boat licences can still be sold even if the cost increases to £3000 a year that raises £150,000 - an increase of £50,000 Not only that but along with a 50% increase in revenue you also get a 50% reduction in the size of your customer base. That will lead to a significant reduction in direct and indirect costs. Fewer moorings will have to be provided, there would be less wear and tear on the infrastructure, lower administration costs etc. etc. On a straightforward business model this is a complete no-brainer. Under the present structuring and funding of British Waterways there is always going to be a significant element of business modelling in the management of navigation charges (ie; licences and moorings). What is needed is the aforementioned radically different approach. The first principal which needs to be established is that the inland waterways system has a value to the nation as a whole on a par with National Parks and Ancient Monuments. As such, the waterways must be maintained and, to a significant extent at least, funded by the nation, The second principal should be that no one section of the user base of the waterways should be asked to bear a more than their fair share of the revenue generation. To put it another way, boat licences should be directly related to the direct costs of providing services specifically for boaters above and beyond the maintenance that would be required even if there were no boats actually on the system. And even then, in that equation some allowance must be made for the non-financial value of having boats on and about the waterways. A canal without boats is a ditch when all's said and done. The third principal is that, in order to protect the management and finances of the waterways from the vagaries of changing political direction etc., the system should be managed and financed independently of the government and the treasury. Whilst there are undoubtedly a number of problems which would need to be addressed, the only potentially viable solution I have ever heard proposed is that of a conservancy funded principally by a one off endowment from the treasury. The politics of how to manage such a body are a hell of a problem I accept (just look at the National Trust!) and Aickman's naive belief that a body of the great and good could be formed to run the waterways in a purely altruistic way was never going to work (just look at the National Trust!!) but despite the difficulties it is the best hope for the waterways. Whilst, in various forms, this idea has been kicked about for well over 60 years now, it has never really been brought right to the front line of the battle to save the waterways since the Aickman and Rolt factions in the IWA fell out right back in the early days. And make no mistake, the battle to save the waterways is far from over. Bru
