2009/11/17 Bruce Napier <[email protected]> > > 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 is a perfectly valid argument that the annual grant is better for BW than the existing system. This is because there is never going to be a situation where BW can be entirely self sufficient of government grants. Even Robin Evan's discredited policies of recent years only ever aimed at being 'largely' self sufficient of the grant. Even if it allowed BW to retain the property portfolio, ggovernment would still have complete control over BW's finances. If BW's property income rose, it could and would simply trim its annual budget accordingly. However, if there was a crisis in waterways maintenance the existence of the property portfolio would allow the government to distance itself from difficult decisions that would have to be taken. If there was another serious breach somewhere, for instance, it would argue that it not only finances BW adequately on an annual basis, but that BW has resources of its own which it can use as it thinks fit. The advantage of the annual grant is that while it may marginally limit BW's ability for forward planning (which may not be such a bad thing, anyhow), it does make the government vulnerable to continuing political pressure in a way that, as boaters, we have proved we can exploit. On the other hand BW has proved itself intransigent to pressure under it's existing structure, and it will certainly be no more democratic under the National Trust-like charity model it is mooting. I think we should all pause and think very carefully before jumping on this bandwagon. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
