I think the most significant part of this statement (unless you're one of the 100 people to get the chop) is the long term plan to turn BW into a third sector organisation. (I suspect their model is something not unlike the National Trust.)
At present BW's legal basis is essentially as one of the last vestiges of the post war nationalised industries. It seems to me that there are pros and cons to this, and I've yet to come to a judgement about whether this is good or bad overall. It makes BW more independent from government, including in technical ways such as giving it more financial independence to borrow money and raise it from other sources. But it would also make it easier for government not to fund it properly - and this move is part of a strategy to make BW self financing which in my view has always been daft. The waterways are a public good and therefore deserve public (tax payers') support. However there are big pressures on public finances as a result of the credit crunch and finanical crisis, and if as polls predict there is a change of government then the pressures will be very tight indeed, and while the government in the budget decided against a mass sell-off of BW assets, the BW proposal to put their property into a holding company would make that easier and even attractive for a new government. I suspect that whatever structure we end up with, it's going to be very tough. -- Nigel Stanley nb Laura Colleen
