Save The Waterways - proposed strategy
g...@sdfg.co.uk
Well, you've seen the (Waterways World) article, you've had the
harangue, now you get the posting.
The following is how I think we should proceed. I've already put it to
a couple of waterways organisations, and will be on the phone to others
tomorrow. I hope you (individually and your local organisations) can
support it too. Please.
Adrian
************
The initial reaction has naturally been to focus on reversing the cuts
in the government
grant and budgets which have brought things to a head. However, we
need to
recognise that those cuts are just a symptom, and deal with the
underlying issue.
The real problem is that grant and departmental budgets have never been
a suitable
way for the government to support the waterways. They are set
annually, and are very
dependent on the politics at the time and the competition by other
functions for funding.
This makes this approach unreliable. However, the navigation
authorities need
dependable long-term income, because waterway structures need
maintenance every
year. If they don't get it, usability and safety decline, and the
deferred work costs much
more to do later. Also, government is never going to put waterways
further up the
funding list than (e.g.) schools and hospitals, so once grant is
reduced, it is very unlikely
to be restored permanently.
A crisis can be both a threat and an opportunity. I think we have an
opportunity here to
change the waterways funding approach beneficially and permanently.
I am proposing to achieve this through an endowment. This would be a
one-time
capital transfer of a large additional real estate portfolio from the
governement to BW,
which BW would then manage for capital gain and income. This new
income would
allow the grant to be completely eliminated.
BW would then be financially secure, because it would be living off its
own investments.
It already has a significant property portfolio, and manages it
reasonably well (getting a
substantial amount of its annual income from it now), so although BW
might need to
gear up its property staffing, but it would not be taking on a new or
unfamiliar task.
As BW would be required to maintain the value of the capital, this
value would remain
on the books and the transfer would not be seen as additional
government spending
overall. On the other hand, the elimination of the grant *would* be
classed as a
(politically attractive) cut in government spending. The endowment is
thus both
politically and financially attractive.
The government has a huge amount of real estate (which does not have to
be by the
water) it could transfer.
Note, though, that this approach could not be applied to EA, as it is
part of a
government department and not allowed to hold property. So, part of
the plan would be
the transfer of the EA navigations to BW, something which is long
overdue anyway.
This would result in further savings, e.g. by elimination of EA
Navigation's head office
(its operational staff would transfer to BW). It would also very
desirably make
unnecessary the current EA Harmonisation scheme, through which EA is
trying to push
length X beam charges on to its other regions, which will result in
further large
increases for boaters on those waters (Nene, Great Ouse, Medway, etc.).
I estimate that the value of the endowment needed to replace all annual
expenditure by
government on BW and EA waterways to be about £1.5 billion. BW
already has a
portfolio worth about £0.5 billion.
So, there are two parts to the funding problem.
- First, we need to persuade the government to reverse the cuts for a
year or two, so
that the current maintenance programs do not have to be damagingly and
uneconomically interrupted.
- Second, we need to use that year or two to establish a long-term
secure funding basis
for the waterways.
If we do only the latter, we are sure to lose. If we do both, we and
the waterways as a
whole can win significantly.
roger...@yahoo.co.uk
snipped
> I am proposing to achieve this through an endowment. This would be a
> one-time
> capital transfer of a large additional real estate portfolio from the
> governement to BW,
> which BW would then manage for capital gain and income. This new
> income would
> allow the grant to be completely eliminated.
>
> BW would then be financially secure, because it would be living off its
> own investments.
I support the principle of this suggestion entirely as it would allow
BW to become masters of their own destiny. I would like to see an
independent body do the calculations for size of endowment portfolio to
give a £60 million plus, return *and* identify the property endowment
that could be transferred. I have some doubts whether the Government
would be willing to relinquish such a large portfolio of property, even
if some useful spin could be generated from such action (the saving of
such a 'large' (?) grant) as it could open the floodgates for similar
requests from other grant maintained bodies. And, putting my cynical
hat on, we'd have to make sure that the returns on this new portfolio
of investment property were allocated to maintenance and restoration
rather than flash new headquarter's buildings etc ;-)
I also wonder how we could ensure that a future Government wouldn't be
able to grab the portfolio back again from BW (as the Tories have, I
understand, indicated that they might do with the existing set up).
Roger
Nick Atty
>I am proposing to achieve this through an endowment. This would be a
>one-time
>capital transfer of a large additional real estate portfolio from the
>governement to BW,
>which BW would then manage for capital gain and income. This new
>income would
>allow the grant to be completely eliminated.
One thing that bothers me at first glance at this is it seems exactly
the opposite of standard policy - and in particular PFI.
In PFI, instead of making a one-off investment of government money in
government infrastructure, the government prefers to pay something each
year for the use of it.
This seems to me to be closer to the way they currently operate BW (pay
something each year) than the way you propose (where, if BW are to have
the ability to sell the property it has to, effectively, be a move out
from the government books).
I'm not saying this is a show-stopper; many PFI deals have been part
funded by the transfer of government land to the private sector, but I
would like to hear a lot more about the details of this before I leapt
in to back it.
I seem to remember us discussing this vaguely the last time you floated
the idea, but I don't think it got us anywhere.
Is there any precedent for it, in this country or elsewhere? Is it
your idea, or does it have some sources elsewhere? Has it been
proposed to the government (or any government-connected body), and if
so, what sort of reaction did it get?
We also I think, as a group, need to decide whether to make a specific
solution like this part of our central thrust, or just have it in
reserve (although worked out in scrupulous detail, of course) to use as
a reposte when challenged to "find a better way to do it". I'd much
prefer the latter: the danger of saying "you must save the waterways,
and here's how we want you to do it" is that they can fight us on the
second half, when it's the first that really matters.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Canaldrifter
All this could quite simply be Adrian trying to hijack a damned good
campaign to steam-roller through one of his looney ideas.
Beware.
Tony H
Nick Atty
<canald...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>All this could quite simply be Adrian trying to hijack a damned good
>campaign to steam-roller through one of his looney ideas.
If we're going to run a campaign here, we need people with energy,
enthusiasm and the spirit for a fight. Adrian certainly has those.
And his idea doesn't come across as utterly bonkers.
But we also mustn't let the thrust of it get diverted away from the key
issue: the waterways need decent funding. Where it comes from is - as
I said - not only incidental, but something we need to avoid getting
diverted onto.
It's "their" job to provide the funding. But it will be of great
benefit to us to have some comeback when they say it can't be done -
"what about this idea". Hence my questions - we need to establish
exactly how many legs the idea has.
Incidently - and this isn't aimed directly at you Tony, just prompted by
your posting - we must remember that this is a public newsgroup -
accusing each other of looney ideas isn't really the image we want to
project (and at the other extreme, the idea that the government has set
up a sophisticated monitoring operation to keep an eye on us dangerous
revolutionaries doesn't help to avoid the idea that we might just be
slightly unhinged around the edges).
Although this started here, I wonder if we need a closed email list for
batting ideas around out of the public eye (where the "public" includes
a very professional publicity machine that - if we start to have an
impact - will be used against us).
Canaldrifter
Sigh.... that's the troule with t'internetYou can't tell when someone's
serious or not.
Tony H
Canaldrifter
Nick Atty wrote:
we must remember that this is a public newsgroup -
> accusing each other of looney ideas isn't really the image we want to
> project (and at the other extreme, the idea that the government has set
> up a sophisticated monitoring operation to keep an eye on us dangerous
> revolutionaries doesn't help to avoid the idea that we might just be
> slightly unhinged around the edges).
>
> Although this started here, I wonder if we need a closed email list for
> batting ideas around out of the public eye (where the "public" includes
> a very professional publicity machine that - if we start to have an
> impact - will be used against us).
If we were plotting something that was illegal or a protest based on an
unfounded concern I might agree with you, but we aren't. On the
contrary I think that anything we plan to do in the way of publicising
our campaign should be wholly legal and above board. I think we should
have our own 'openness and accountability'. What do WE have to hide?
On the other hand I'm sure that private emails are already winging
their way through cyberspace between certain concerned individuals.
Already there does seem to be some secretiveness. Do we really have a
'steering committee' in the making, for example?
Are we quite sure what our aims are? Is this the right time to be
proposing solutions to the problem? What is the problem?
Keeping things as simple as possible, the problem as I see it would be
the threatened withdrawal of grant-in-aid. If we want the waterways to
continue as a heritage linear park and navigable system, then it must
continue to receive grant-in-aid, and government must take
responsibility for it, paid for from our taxes. If government thinks it
can get away with diverting funds from our heritage to other concerns,
then it is wrong. We as boaters can, and should, pay our fair share.
Establishing where the level of that fair share is, should be a matter
of consultation, not imposition.
But as there is no way of excluding other waterway users who pay little
or nothing at all, then government must pay ITS fair share too, and as
boaters are a minority user, that share is considerably bigger than
they think it is.
If we go down the road of suggesting alternative means of income for BW
such as Adrian's idea, we would then be turning the navigational body
into a private organisation who's main function is making profit from
properties in order to fund our navigations. They are not far from it
now, and look what controversy that causes. I would much rather see a
suitable government department do this, and see BW, or a Waterway
Trust, actually doing what it says on the can.... looking after our
waterways as its primary function.
Leaving the joking aside, ('loony' was OTT... sorry Aid,) I think
Adrian's idea is very short-sighted, is a diversion from the main
issue, and is not far from Thatcherite Asset Stripping in concept. It
is frought with dangers. Did all the money raised from demolishing
psychiatric hospitals and selling off the land or building on it, and
leasing new proprties, go into the NHS? No.... of course it didn't.
What guarantees could we have that properties designed to give income
from rental or leasehold would not be asset stripped too? BW does not
have a good track record on this, already.
No.... we tell government in no uncertain terms, that we want the money
to keep our waterways heritage open and maintained, or they don't get
back in power. How they find the money is up to them. The general
public's interest in waterways is proven.
And... with regard to titles and acronyms, do we really want to form
yet another waterways organisation? I don't think that would be
necessary or desirable. Our campaign should exist to co-ordinate the
input of existing organisations and individuals into meaningful
nationwide protest. I see nothing wrong with simply calling it 'The
Campaign'.
Tony H
Andrew Instone-Cowie
> Keeping things as simple as possible, the problem as I see it would be
> the threatened withdrawal of grant-in-aid. If we want the waterways to
> continue as a heritage linear park and navigable system, then it must
> continue to receive grant-in-aid, and government must take
> responsibility for it, paid for from our taxes. If government thinks it
> can get away with diverting funds from our heritage to other concerns,
> then it is wrong. We as boaters can, and should, pay our fair share.
> Establishing where the level of that fair share is, should be a matter
> of consultation, not imposition.
>
> But as there is no way of excluding other waterway users who pay little
> or nothing at all, then government must pay ITS fair share too, and as
> boaters are a minority user, that share is considerably bigger than
> they think it is.
That is the nub of the immediate problem - swingeing cuts imposed with
practically no warning, and that is where any immediate campaign should
be aimed.
The problem of funding in the longer term, although important, is
another matter, and we do need debate and discussion of possible
solutions, but they should not, IMHO, cloud the immediate issue that so
much good work will be undone by these cuts.
Adrian's suggestion may be one possible longer term solution, but the
longer term stuff is probably not going to be decided by the present
incumbents of No10 or No11 Downing Street (at least not in their current
capacities). I know Tony Blair is desperate for "his legacy", but I
suspect that saving the waterways probably isn't what he had in mind.
--
nb Regal Suki
http://www.savethewaterways.org.uk/
(Email goes to my first name at this domain)
g...@sdfg.co.uk
> it could open the floodgates for similar
> requests from other grant maintained bodies.
Not necessarily. BW is one of the very few government-owned
corporations that this idea would work with.
> And, putting my cynical hat on, we'd have to make sure that the returns on this new portfolio
> of investment property were allocated to maintenance and restoration
> rather than flash new headquarter's buildings etc ;-)
BW is trying hard to sell its current headquarters, as it is much too
large for its current HQ staff complement, and worth a lot more as a
development site than for the current offices. Naturally, BW would
move to modern premises, which I suppose you might describe as "flash"
and "new", but the net result would be a significant capital gain and a
reduction in annual accommodation costs.
> I also wonder how we could ensure that a future Government wouldn't be
> able to grab the portfolio back again from BW (as the Tories have, I
> understand, indicated that they might do with the existing set up).
I understand the Tories have now admitted the error of their ways on
that.
On Oct 8, 2:43 pm, Nick Atty <1-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> Is there any precedent for it, in this country or elsewhere? Is it
> your idea, or does it have some sources elsewhere?
There are many, many precedents. Funding institutions though
endowments is very common among universities, for example. Harvard
runs that way, and Oxford has a major one.
> Has it been proposed to the government (or any government-connected body), and if
> so, what sort of reaction did it get?
That is what I'm suggesting savethewaterways does.
> We also I think, as a group, need to decide whether to make a specific
> solution like this part of our central thrust, or just have it in
> reserve (although worked out in scrupulous detail, of course) to use as
> a reposte when challenged to "find a better way to do it". I'd much
> prefer the latter: the danger of saying "you must save the waterways,
> and here's how we want you to do it" is that they can fight us on the
> second half, when it's the first that really matters.
I think it is not up to us to work out all the details. We don't have
all the information, anyway. However, I think we *do* need to propose
the idea (or any other funding alternative idea that would work), as
the current funding approach of government grant is clearly unsuitable,
and has actually led to (caused?) the current crisis.
On Oct 9, 4:56 am, "Canaldrifter" <canaldrif...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Keeping things as simple as possible, the problem as I see it would be
> the threatened withdrawal of grant-in-aid. If we want the waterways to
> continue as a heritage linear park and navigable system, then it must
> continue to receive grant-in-aid, and government must take
> responsibility for it, paid for from our taxes.
I'm afraid the waterways movement has already lost that battle. The
governement's current response is "You want to go boating? Then you
can pay for it!"
> If we go down the road of suggesting alternative means of income for BW
> such as Adrian's idea, we would then be turning the navigational body
> into a private organisation who's main function is making profit from
> properties in order to fund our navigations. They are not far from it
> now, and look what controversy that causes. I would much rather see a
> suitable government department do this, and see BW, or a Waterway
> Trust, actually doing what it says on the can.... looking after our
> waterways as its primary function.
But BW *is* that "suitable government department", except that it is
more sensibly structured for the job than an actual department (or EA).
BW already earns a large chunk of its income from property. All I'm
suggesting it that it earn more, by having more property.
In effect, BW already has, and would continue to have, two parts. One
makes the money, the other spends it. Sort of like a family, I guess.
What's the problem with that?
> Adrian's idea is very short-sighted, is a diversion from the main
> issue, and is not far from Thatcherite Asset Stripping in concept. It
> is frought with dangers. Did all the money raised from demolishing
> psychiatric hospitals and selling off the land or building on it, and
> leasing new proprties, go into the NHS? No.... of course it didn't.
> What guarantees could we have that properties designed to give income
> from rental or leasehold would not be asset stripped too? BW does not
> have a good track record on this, already.
Er, it's exactly the opposite of asset stripping. It is asset
providing.
The NHS example fails, because the NHS did not have the type of
accounts that BW does, i.e. able to handle capital invested for profit
or income. BW is a corporation, with its own capital, specifically
designed for the task.
Yes, the government could take the property back. But why would it, if
it has just transferred it to BW? That would be much less politically
tempting than simply cutting the grant.
> No.... we tell government in no uncertain terms, that we want the money
> to keep our waterways heritage open and maintained, or they don't get
> back in power. How they find the money is up to them. The general
> public's interest in waterways is proven.
Agreed, except that the government has not come up with a suitable way
to "find the money". IMHO it it in our interest to show it that there
is such a way, and that it is much less painful than grant.
On Oct 9, 7:45 am, Andrew Instone-Cowie
<address-not-r...@datagram.co.uk> wrote:
> That is the nub of the immediate problem - swingeing cuts imposed with
> practically no warning, and that is where any immediate campaign should
> be aimed.
>
> The problem of funding in the longer term, although important, is
> another matter, and we do need debate and discussion of possible
> solutions, but they should not, IMHO, cloud the immediate issue that so
> much good work will be undone by these cuts.
I agree. There are two part, and both must be addressed.
We need to fight this year's cuts, as they will damagingly interrupt
already committed maintenance programs.
But although we might be able to get (some) of the grant cut reversed
this year, there will be another cut next year. We can't win that way.
We have to find a better way to fund the waterways in the long term, to
replace the grants that are going to continue shrinking. We can't put
it off.
Think of a man adrift on the ocean in a lifeboat. Fighting the cuts is
like his being careful with his drinking water supply. That will
extend his life, but he will still die of thirst in the end if he
doesn't get rescued, so he should also be keeping a sharp lookout and
sending up flares whenever he thinks he sees a ship nearby. The
endowment scheme is the rescue, and we've already seen it on the
horizon.
> Adrian's suggestion may be one possible longer term solution, but the
> longer term stuff is probably not going to be decided by the present
> incumbents of No10 or No11 Downing Street (at least not in their current
> capacities). I know Tony Blair is desperate for "his legacy", but I
> suspect that saving the waterways probably isn't what he had in mind.
Hmm. How many years do you plan to wait, and how many ships are you
prepared to see pass by, before you send up a flare?
Adrian
Uncle Marvo
1160383212.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, I, Marvo, say :
I bow to your superior knowledge of stuff, but would venture to comment on
these bits ...
> I'm afraid the waterways movement has already lost that battle. The
> governement's current response is "You want to go boating? Then you
> can pay for it!"
>
That's right and it's fair too. I don't mind paying for some navigability.
I'm jiggered if I'm paying for fishermen/anglers, birders, twitchers,
walkers, Tom, Dick and Harry, not to mention gongoozlers, pubs, etc.
I already pay that, and I'm happy to do that, certainly at EA rates which to
my mind are reasonable and I get my money's worth.
The other thing I WILL NOT PAY FOR is someone to firkup the computers
somewhere and get fined by the EU, because that is utter, utter bolleaux.
Unargueable goldplated 24 carat horsesh't. If this happenbed anywhere else,
in industry for instance, then there would be a big problem, and people with
the problem would meet and the chap who lost the money would lose. Probably
his job.
>
> Agreed, except that the government has not come up with a suitable way
> to "find the money". IMHO it it in our interest to show it that there
> is such a way, and that it is much less painful than grant.
>
Simplistic young upstart that I am, may I suggest that the best way to find
the money is to stop p'ss'ng it up the wall on computer systems that don't
work?
Our waterways are part of our heritage. They are not owned by the
government. The country isn't either. The government's brief and raison
d'etre is NOT to reduce everything to money and do what they want to try to
get the odd vote by taxing a penny in the pound less. It IS to do what they
said they were going to do when they were voted for, and if they don't do
that then they should go. MUST go.
If we ever get to that, I'll be happy.
This will help.
Sometimes I imagine a world where the only thing that matters is money, and
I get very sad indeed. Then I wake up and realise it wasn't a dream.
Unc
Nick Atty
<canald...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>If we were plotting something that was illegal or a protest based on an
>unfounded concern I might agree with you, but we aren't. On the
>contrary I think that anything we plan to do in the way of publicising
>our campaign should be wholly legal and above board. I think we should
>have our own 'openness and accountability'. What do WE have to hide?
I'm not worried about anything underhand by the authorities, nor that we
are doing anything that would attract unwanted interest.
It's just that I've recently finished a rather bloody industrial dispute
in which comments made by individuals (well, ok then, me) on an
(internal) newsgroup were attempted to be used by the other side as
evidence that our actual position was different to what we were claiming
it was.
So I'm a bit sensitive that we might suddenly find one of us making a
press statement, when the opposition says "isn't this just one man's mad
plans to change the world economy - and aren't you all a lot of paranoid
internet freaks anyway?".
>On the other hand I'm sure that private emails are already winging
>their way through cyberspace between certain concerned individuals.
>Already there does seem to be some secretiveness. Do we really have a
>'steering committee' in the making, for example?
>
>Are we quite sure what our aims are? Is this the right time to be
>proposing solutions to the problem? What is the problem?
>
>Keeping things as simple as possible, the problem as I see it would be
>the threatened withdrawal of grant-in-aid. If we want the waterways to
>continue as a heritage linear park and navigable system, then it must
>continue to receive grant-in-aid, and government must take
>responsibility for it, paid for from our taxes. If government thinks it
>can get away with diverting funds from our heritage to other concerns,
>then it is wrong. We as boaters can, and should, pay our fair share.
>Establishing where the level of that fair share is, should be a matter
>of consultation, not imposition.
>
>But as there is no way of excluding other waterway users who pay little
>or nothing at all, then government must pay ITS fair share too, and as
>boaters are a minority user, that share is considerably bigger than
>they think it is.
That's an excellent summary of the position. Worth working up into some
sort of background info if it isn't already.
Agree with all of this.
Peter Stockdale
"Nick Atty" <1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote in message
news:js4li2p33b6q0n954...@4ax.com...
>
> Agree with all of this.
Thanks for you thoughts - Tony.
I also agree with all that you wrote.