Steve Haywood wrote: > On 18/05/07, Sue Burchett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Any idea what happened to the 'don't knock BW agreement'? >
> Of course, there never was an 'agreement' not to knock BW. What there was, > was a unilateral declaration by certain on this list, It wasn't a unilateral declaration. It was a suggestion, plea if you like, that we should concentrate for a while on opposing the cuts rather than bashing BW. My by-line at the time was 'Save the Waterways first, argue the details later.' > encouraged by BW itself, to get us to fall in line on the basis > that we were fighting the same battle in opposing the DEFRA cuts. I don't recall any encouragement from BW. It just seemed obvious that it could be seen as a weakness by Defra if we were supporting BW with one hand and knocking them with the other. > As a direct result, over the past year BW has hit us harder than > they've done for years, screwing us for more money on everything > from pump out charges to moorings. > So you are suggesting that BW has purposely used the SOW campaign to implement cost increases that they would not normally have put forward? > But a greater success of the strategy is that most of us now believe that > the future of the waterways is best left in the hands of BW rather than the > government. I don't know who you have been talking to Steve but a lot of the people I know have actually LESS confidence in BW policies as a result of the campaign than they had at the beginning. For example, I personally have changed my views radically on the ways that of BW is managing it's property portfolio and its policy on freight and a number of other issues (some of which were raised in the SOW submission to the EFRA sub-committee) > We have had so much BW propaganda thrown at us that we believe > that every failing in policy, every attempt to make money out of the > waterways, every move towards making it 'self sufficient' whether by cutting > services or laying off staff, is not the fault of BW at all, but of the > government. I think there is a touch of journalistic licence there Steve. First, the SOW campaign was launched in October 2006 so how does it come about that we suggesting 'that every failing in policy etc.' is the fault of government? We have in fact praised government for the significant investment it has made in the waterways since Labour has been in power; our campaign was all about our concern that cutting budgets would reverse that good and again put the waterways at risk. > > Frankly, I'd back the government - any government - over BW any day. At > least I can get rid of the government which is more than I can do with the > atrocious Robin Evans whose dreadful policies have set the climate for this > debate, and whose leadership is now effectively being accused of > maladministative dishonesty. > I see, you are judging someone before EFRA has made their judgement. Do you base your conclusion on your reading of the oral submissions of Gardiner and Evans to EFRA. Did you watch Gardiner's performance at Michael Fabricant's Adjournement debate and listen to the questions posed to him by MP's of all parties? Being a professional journalist I'm sure you have studdied all of these, so could you enlarge upon how you came to such strongly worded conclusions. > Personally, I can't say at this stage whether it's true, that BW's > presentations on the whole of the cuts issue has been devised to hide the > fact that they've been getting more from their property portfolio than they > have declared; I can't say whether they have 'wilfully withheld information' > from the government; that they have done this 'with the intent of deceiving > the general public.' All I know is that the government believes this, and Wrong..government don't necessarily believe this - we will have to wait for the EFRA sub-Committee report before we know what they believe. At the moment all you can say is that Gardiner appears to believes that he has been misled; at the moment I'd put my money on Evans surviving longer than Gardiner does. > for better or worse, when the relationship between government and BW has > broken down to this extent the only loser is going to be the waterways > itself. I agree that the relationship between Gardiner and BW has broken down but that, IMO, does not mean that the waterways will be the loser. To the contrary, I believe - and so do many MPs (we ahev over 300 supporting the campaign) - that the campaign has greatly improved the understanding and awareness of the waterways and that can only be for the good. Cheers Will -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
