Bruce wrote: > I don't necessarily disagree with you, but as long as they are at > least nominally on our side, we shouldn't waste powder and shot > sniping at DEFRA, IMHO. Instead,we should be making the case to our > MPs and councillors to support the DEFRA ministers in their fight with > the Treasury. It's all to play for at the moment, and I'm encouraged > that Tony Hales has come out fighting.
Well, it's certainly worth a shot but I'm afraid that I'm very doubtful (call it cynical if you wish ;-))) that you'll achieve anything of real value other than perhaps a token shift in policy. Having said that, I would love to know how the Treasury is proposing to continue even limited funding of the waterways if they take away BW's property portfolio. BW has a budget shortfall for routine work *now* so how is selling of the portfolio going to help? You only need the recent series of breaches and problems and an already over-stretched BW budget will just fall apart. I never proposed attacking DEFRA; I suggested that they are a waste of space ;-))) I shall continue to press my FOI appeal against them solely to let them know that I'm not going to fade away. The true usefulness of my appeal is, I'm afraid, now lost as it has taken so long to get no resolution so far. You are arguing, IMHO, for a re-invigorated SOW but I fear it's too late for that as IWA have, for once, got sharply off the mark and grabbed an almost identical title. It remains to be seen whether IWA continue this into campaigning rallies and member motivation etc. I reckon he's got a better > vision of where BW needs to go than Mr Evans, whose strategy must now > be seen as completely discredited. Arguably, the best thing RE can > contribute to the debate is to resign, a suicide attack that might > take a few civil servants down with him. I think you're probably correct. We seem to have, through the boom years, got a whole raft of public corporations headed by people who seem to be in it for their own benefit. Benefits that they can tweak themselves with 'targets and bonuses for achieving targets set by themselves' Gosh, my try to get my cynical hat off ;-))) > > My main point is that any campaigning statement *must* be based on > accurate info, or it just gets shot out of the sky. I'm sure we don't > need to go over it all again here, but the main points are: > > BW can't afford to lose the income from its property portfolio, it > would only add to the PSBR (or whatever we're calling it this month) > to have to increase its grant in aid to replace the lost revenue. > > There are issues of public safety in maintaining the system, and > closing canals is at least as expensive as maintaining them in many > cases. > > Inland waterways bring tourist revenue and regeneration benefits that > justify spending public funds on them. Agree with all this, but wonder how the message is to be rammed into thick heads when it's a choice between hospitals, schools, social services and........canals..... in an environment where we have MASSIVE national debt. Roger > > Not much is going to happen before the election, now, so the real > issue is what the Tories propose, after that valuable meeting Will > Chapman set up with their Waterways spokesman. (Can't find a link to a > report of it today - Martin?) It will be interesting but, don't forget, that was then. Now is now, and it's a whole different ball game under the present financial circumstances. How, for example, do you think the Tories are going to sell maintaining BW's budget while cutting those of schools and hospitals etc? Roger
