On 20/11/09 14:10, "David Cragg" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...quite a bit about the Monty, most of which I don't dispute (I wasn't involved as anything more than an occasional visiting WRG volunteer in the 1980s, so lack detailed knowledge) but I think one or two of the timings are a little awry... > > Always remembering that in 1985 it was Peter Walker (pause to spit) when > Welsh secretary who blocked the restoration of the Monty (in those pre-eco > days) when the money to do the whole job to near Newtown was to be provided > by > councils and Europe (not the government) and the plans were in place. It was actually something like three or four years later: 'Navvies' reported it in early 1989. In fact I don't think Walker was even Welsh Secretary in 1985. > > But Dear Peter wanted the Europe money for to buy votes in South Wales so he > refused to sign - with Maggies blessing as she would not interfere in the > running of the Welsh office. > > He didn't get the money - we didn't get a restored canal. > > And for the record at that stage BW had not sold what would have been the 5 > million gallons of water to allow the full use of the Monty by up to 300 > boats > a week just like the Llangollen. Is that 5 million a week? That water sale - to Crewe water - was done 4 > years later after the main Monty deal fell through and BW began to change its > spots. But at the time the money was available BW - unlike the modern creeps > - > were for the restoration uncaring about anything but having a canal for boats > - walkers, fishing. BW might have been (although I remember they were very lukewarm about a proposed reopening at Frankton in the mid-80s), but by the time of the Government decision not to apply for ERDF money there were certainly nature conservation issues on that canal. We did a 'Navvies' special issue in 1988 devoted entirely to the subject, and it mentions the Mont alongside the Basingstoke and the more well-known case of the Yorkshire Derwent. For restored with enough water to have unlimited traffic > BW knew that a restored Monty would have marinas and lots of boats to get > licence money off. And equally local councils along the canal were willing to > give grants knowing that such a restored canal would bring business, jobs and > money to the area on the same scale as it did to towns like Llangollen. > > It is interesting that the figures generated then for money to be made with > full boat traffic all the way to Newtown are still touted as what will be > made > by local businesses I'm not sure how widely they are still being touted, but they can usefully be used the opposite way when trying to argue the case for navigation. I certainly remember arguments being put forward in the debate with the conservationists along the lines of "if boating is limited to the numbers that you propose, the restoration will provide so little economic benefit that the local authorities will not see any advantage in supporting it, so the canal will not be restored". if the canal is restored in the restricted modern (limited > boats if any) way. I think 'limited if any' is a slight exaggeration. Limited, yes (although far less limited than proposed by the nature interests several years ago) but I don't think anyone's currently proposing restoring it and prohibiting boating. It's the only bit of the original plan still retained as it > suits certain persons who like to use smoke and mirrors rather than true > facts. > > The bottom line its that no politician can be trusted with our waterways and, > to a great extent neither can the current BW mob either. Nor the previous BW mob either, perhaps. > Interesting quote from the then WRG Chairman Alan Jervis writing in Navvies 114, Feb 1989: "Central Government's plans for BWB, to be implemented by its new Chairman, leave little room for rejoicing on the navigable system. Clear instructions to maximise revenue and minimise the grant-in-aid will lead to cost-cutting, asset sales, increased fees and charges and unsympathetic but profitable developments springing up all over the system, but particularly in the south and midlands." A man seeing 20 years ahead of his time, or a grumpy git who couldn't foresee the waterways boom that's happened in the meantime? Discuss.
