Government Considers £1bn sale of BW
- Thread starter Nautorius
- Start date
jaws
Member
Time for me to move back to the coast if this causes prices to go up any further.
tcm
...
\"it should belong to us all\"
well, of course, it does belong to you. And in the same way, the money you pay in tax is "yours" too. The government is supposedly your representative. Very interesting how so few of us see it like that...
well, of course, it does belong to you. And in the same way, the money you pay in tax is "yours" too. The government is supposedly your representative. Very interesting how so few of us see it like that...
boatone
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Time for me to move back to the coast if this causes prices to go up any further.
[/ QUOTE ]
That wont save you /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Fact is that whether we like it or not everythiing costs and as time goes by its going to cost more. Government can only spend money it takes from the people or it collects from selling off 'assets'.
British Waterways have actually been doing quite well in this as they do have substantial assets such as canal side property and the use of towpaths as cable ways etc from which they have been able to generate income.
In contrast, the Environment Agency have virtually no assets so all income comes either from licence fees (boats, fishing) or government handouts.
However, the role of the Environment Agency is much wider than BW in that they have responsibility for managing flood control and river maintenance which is a whole different ballgame. I question any attempt to make boat and fishing licence fees comensurate with the big picture as their responsibility for the rivers and maintenance would not disappear even if there were many fewer boats.
Local authorities also have some sins to answer for as they do little or nothing in many places to make the river more attractive for users - no dredging, poor moorings, high overnight fees with few facilities etc etc.
Time for me to move back to the coast if this causes prices to go up any further.
[/ QUOTE ]
That wont save you /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Fact is that whether we like it or not everythiing costs and as time goes by its going to cost more. Government can only spend money it takes from the people or it collects from selling off 'assets'.
British Waterways have actually been doing quite well in this as they do have substantial assets such as canal side property and the use of towpaths as cable ways etc from which they have been able to generate income.
In contrast, the Environment Agency have virtually no assets so all income comes either from licence fees (boats, fishing) or government handouts.
However, the role of the Environment Agency is much wider than BW in that they have responsibility for managing flood control and river maintenance which is a whole different ballgame. I question any attempt to make boat and fishing licence fees comensurate with the big picture as their responsibility for the rivers and maintenance would not disappear even if there were many fewer boats.
Local authorities also have some sins to answer for as they do little or nothing in many places to make the river more attractive for users - no dredging, poor moorings, high overnight fees with few facilities etc etc.
Steve Clayton
New member
[ QUOTE ]
British Waterways have actually been doing quite well in this as they do have substantial assets such as canal side property
[/ QUOTE ]
On a radio interview earlier this evening BW were identified as being no. 3 in ownership of listed buildings in the UK.
British Waterways have actually been doing quite well in this as they do have substantial assets such as canal side property
[/ QUOTE ]
On a radio interview earlier this evening BW were identified as being no. 3 in ownership of listed buildings in the UK.