"Mike Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Friday, May 25, 2007 3:47 PM [GMT+1=CET], >Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "Mike Stevens" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Whereas a commercial funding mechanism is >>> not answerable to anybody except the markets and, for all Adrian has >>> tried to persuade me in the past, I still think that in the long >>> term these are no more predictable the Government grant. >> >> However, the markets *are* all of us. And they seem to react a lot >> more quickly to public sentiment than politicans do. I know which I >> would rather trust. > >So do I. And my answer'snot the same as yours.
Hmm. What is your reaction to the person who says "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."? >>>> Of course, there should be only one national inland navigation >>>> authority, and BW should take over the navigations now being run by >>>> EA. >>> >>> And any other that are in public ownership, like the Broads and the >>> Basingstoke. >> >> With suitable dowries, of course. > >Not necessary if NINA is a publicly-funded non-commercial organisation. You appear to be assuming NINA will have enough money to run properly all its waterways, and any others it will take on. Since that has never been the case for BW (or EA), I think that position is, er, courageous (Minister). Unless NINA has enough secure long-term funding to cover not only its current responsibilities once it is operational, but also those of each waterway it takes on subsequently, it (and the waterways) will experience exactly the problems we see today. >>> And they should get rid of their bit of London Docklands(if >>> anyone would have it!), which is by no stretch of the imagination a >>> navigation. >> >> Er, the WI docks started out as the Isle of Dogs canal. > >So by analogy, BW should run the railway line from New Cross to West Croydon >because it used to be the Croydon Canal, I suppose. Just as soon at it becomes navigable again (assuming BW gets an appropriate dowry, of course)! >>> But even better if all this was run by a publicly-funded navigation & >>> regulatory body with no commercial interest. >> >> No no! Don't *ever* mix management with regulation! > >A navigation authority is, by definition a regulatory body. No more than e.g. ASDA is for having the regulation saying "no Heelies in the aisles". Compare with EA, which *is* a regulatory body, but which (unfortunately) also has navigation authority responsibility. Putting those two together under one organisation is demonstrably a bad thing. >> BW will always be partly publicly-funded, so no problem there. >> >> But "No commercial interest" usually means incoherent and financially >> inept management, I'm afraid. > >There's plenty of inept management in the commercial sector! Yes, however ... "The race does not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet". Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
