On 29/01/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Haywood wrote: > > On 29/01/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> could we please recognise that the enemy is based in Whitehall not > >> Watford. > > > > > > I am sorry to break ranks here, but I do not agree with this simplistic > > appraisal of the situation.
As ever life is complicated. This is my take. The cut in government funds to BW (and I say government as I blame the Treasury much more than DEFRA) is the most urgent threat to the waterways. We need to work with everyone including BW to resist these. I think everone on this list agrees with resisting these cuts. In addition the current leadership of BW have a long term strategy of reducing their dependence on government grant, and instead maximising income from users and their property holders. Eventually they wish to become self-sufficient. This in my view is mistaken, as the waterways are a public asset that should be supported as such. (Although where it's appropriate for BW to earn an income they should do so in an efficient and business-like way - as long as they understand that they are more than a business.) Although I think this does threaten the future of the waterways, it is not as severe or as urgent an attack as the current cuts - and I don't doubt is honourably intentioned. Some members of this list have sympathy with this or a similar approach. So I would argue that we work with BW (and others) to tackle the urgent threat of the cuts, while also engaging with them to oppose their long term strategy - but not in a way that threatens the short term campaign against government cuts. (and I think George Galloway would probably include me!) -- Nigel Stanley
