On 26/05/07, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
What I cannot understand Adrian, is why you think that your idea of 'ring fencing' BW property assets as a form of future income is any more reliable than Mike's idea of a guaranteed five year financial settlement? The fact is, government funding in any form is never secure. Whatever is promised in the short term alters to accommodate changed circumstances. This is as evident as the sun rising. Equally evident to my mind is that given the pressures of health, education etc, no government will keep its hands off a £1 billion property portfolio for long; and indeed, it is quite clear that Brown is eyeing it up even as we speak. BW cannot be run as a business any more than a local authority can run its parks and gardens entirely for profit. That is not to say that it may not accrue some profit from its parks and gardens, but this, like BW running the waterways, will never be enough to fund it. And why should it? The function of the waterways, like that of parks and gardens, is largely to fulfil a social purpose and this implies largely social funding. Sadly, like all social funding this'll have to be justified on an annual basis. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
