--- In [email protected], "Nigel Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 24/04/07, Roger Millin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Colin wrote: > > > He claims that there will be no reduction in cash funding. Is that > > true ? > > Translating from Whitehall speak, this means that in no year has BW > been paid less money than the year before in pure numerical terms. It > does not allow for inflation so in effect a constant cash income would > result in a reduction of purchasing power every year equal to the > inflation. > > I haven't gone through the figures but I suspect that it is true as > government statements like this are always carefully worded. BW's > problem, as others have said, is that it faced a sudden cut in the > money it was expecting and for which it had already planned to spend. > > While this is a classic bit of civil service drafting that while > (probably) all true misses the main point, the commitment to agree a > three year budget in future is positive. If it's new (and it is to me) > that is a success for the campaign. As I have said before campaigns > like SOW rarely get governments to perform U-turns, but they have the > more subtle effect of making similar behaviour less likely in the > future. Ministers now know that mucking about with BW's income will > cause a row, and has had the useful effect of building up the > waterways lobby in all the parties. > -- > Nigel Stanley > Have you read Barry Gardiners load of cobblers to the EFRA enquiry on 23rd April yet??? Same amount of spin, arrogant, lacking knowledge and cooking the books for the umpteenth time. I'm getting so hacked off. The fight has to go on, we're not taking no for an answer in terms of realistic and sustainable funding for inland waterways that means we at least keep what we've got already. We've got more stamina than they have, haven't we????
Debbi & Simon nb TIAMI Supporters of www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
