Government plans for BW

[TheWilk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/de...ts-brown-budget

 

It will be 'reorganised as a mutual', apparently.

 

Any idea what that means?

[journeyperson]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/de...ts-brown-budget

 

It will be 'reorganised as a mutual', apparently.

 

Any idea what that means?

 

Building Societies are mutuals, so maybe as investors and members we will all become the owners.

[Neil TNC]

Building Societies are mutuals, so maybe as investors and members we will all become the owners.

 

...so nothing new then?

[Dominic M]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/de...ts-brown-budget

 

It will be 'reorganised as a mutual', apparently.

 

Any idea what that means?

Without more detail, no. Who will be the mutual owners? Just boaters and anglers who are the only ones (correct me if I am wrong) that pay money to use the waterways at present? If so, it will be unaffordable. Massively unaffordable. We need to see the flesh on this very bare bone to make any sense of it at all.

[luctor et emergo]

Without more detail, no. Who will be the mutual owners? Just boaters and anglers who are the only ones (correct me if I am wrong) that pay money to use the waterways at present? If so, it will be unaffordable. Massively unaffordable. We need to see the flesh on this very bare bone to make any sense of it at all.

 

 

What are you saying? That the canal can not be maintained without taxpayers money?

 

considering that the canal does not have a nesseccary function for the tax payer, why should the tax payer be expected to pay for your privelige to float a boat?

 

[Jason Wilson and Family]

What are you saying? That the canal can not be maintained without taxpayers money?

 

considering that the canal does not have a nesseccary function for the tax payer, why should the tax payer be expected to pay for your privelige to float a boat?

 

 

In part, the same reasons you fund any museum or historical property. Preservation of important bits of history and tourism.

[David Schweizer]

Building Societies are mutuals, so maybe as investors and members we will all become the owners.

That satement needs some clarification, Most Financial Institutions calling thamselves Building Societies are no longer Mutual Societies, but Banks. The only major Building Society to remain a Mutual Society is The Nationwide Building Society Society. Tghere are still a significant number of small local Mutual Building Societies, but they are gradually being merged with others or absorbed into larger partneships.

[Graham Davis]

What are you saying? That the canal can not be maintained without taxpayers money?

 

considering that the canal does not have a nesseccary function for the tax payer, why should the tax payer be expected to pay for your privelige to float a boat?

 

 

But it does have a function for the tax payer. It provides a massive amount of drainage, especially in urban areas, and as a water supply function in other areas.

It also provides many miles of Rights of Way, and is a recognised provider of educational facilities.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But it does have a function for the tax payer. It provides a massive amount of drainage, especially in urban areas, and as a water supply function in other areas.

It also provides many miles of Rights of Way, and is a recognised provider of educational facilities.

 

A mutual society can be a society for the benefit of the community. Mutuals are regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

[carlt]

A mutual society can be a society for the benefit of the community. Mutuals are regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Will Robin Evans lend me £50000, then?

[NB Alnwick]

Seriously, this statement (that managed to get the briefest of mentions in the Guardian) may be an indication that the IWA campaign is being listened to in Westminster.

 

I sincerely hope that is the case . . .

[mayalld]

What are you saying? That the canal can not be maintained without taxpayers money?

 

considering that the canal does not have a nesseccary function for the tax payer, why should the tax payer be expected to pay for your privelige to float a boat?

 

 

Public parks have no necessary function for the taxpayer either.

 

Broadly speaking, the money that the canals receive as grant in aid pays for the use of the canals by those who cannot be effectively charged directly for their use of the canals.

 

Walkers, Cyclists, kids feeding the ducks, gongoozlers, etc.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Seriously, this statement (that managed to get the briefest of mentions in the Guardian) may be an indication that the IWA campaign is being listened to in Westminster.

 

I sincerely hope that is the case . . .

 

I very much doubt that - I would suggest it is simply the outcome of the April OEP report (and takes into account what the opposition have been saying regarding Whitehall inefficiencies, quangos, fat cats etc.)

 

.............. British Waterways and the Department

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will work closely with HM Treasury and

Shareholder Executive to take forward this change, and on the company's long-term strategy

which will consider the appropriate business model to provide a sustainable future for the

waterways and ensure delivery of a wide range of public benefits.

 

The change referred to is that BW were told to put the property portfolio into a separate subsidiary company. BW have been dragging its feet but it will happen by April.

 

What will happen to BW's property portfolio may be announced on Monday or Wednesday. If nothing is said then then it is safe for the time being.

 

The worst case scenario would be that the government takes the portfolio, reduces government grant dramatically (up to last year it was higher than when Robin Evans took office) and leaves it up to to BW to change into a mutual.

 

On the other hand, it could be a change for the better.

 

Has anybody considered the possibility, that following talks between the four parties above, BW have already been told that government are going to take its property portfolio and turn it into a mutual because it is not maintaining the system properly?

 

BTW, last year BW spent £100m on maintenance. 75% came from government, 25% from boaters and 0% from property and other business interests. In governments mind it is easy to justify taking the property portfolio away because BW is not using it to benefit the public.

[Ben2542]

I wonder if this term "mutual" has emerged from the debate in the Commons just a few days ago (30/11/09), where one MP said "There is a third way: to put the assets and liabilities into a mutual public interest model, to the benefit of the Government, the public, the users, the economy and the environment. Is not that the right way forward?", a statement that the minister agreed with, saying it was part of the recent BW consultation. Details at ...

 

Link to Commons discussion

 

Ben

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Public parks have no necessary function for the taxpayer either.

 

Broadly speaking, the money that the canals receive as grant in aid pays for the use of the canals by those who cannot be effectively charged directly for their use of the canals.

 

Walkers, Cyclists, kids feeding the ducks, gongoozlers, etc.

 

I would agree with Dave. BW measures use of the canal on visitor numbers. 96% of visitors are not boaters. This 96% can not be effectively be charged by a mutual except via the same mechanism that is currently used - government grant.

[journeyperson]

That satement needs some clarification, Most Financial Institutions calling thamselves Building Societies are no longer Mutual Societies, but Banks. The only major Building Society to remain a Mutual Society is The Nationwide Building Society Society. Tghere are still a significant number of small local Mutual Building Societies, but they are gradually being merged with others or absorbed into larger partneships.

 

Yes I should have been clearer, I was referring to the mutual societies, which are the only true Building Societies.

[David]

I wonder if this term "mutual" has emerged from the debate in the Commons just a few days ago (30/11/09), where one MP said "There is a third way: to put the assets and liabilities into a mutual public interest model, to the benefit of the Government, the public, the users, the economy and the environment. Is not that the right way forward?", a statement that the minister agreed with, saying it was part of the recent BW consultation. Details at ...

 

Link to Commons discussion

 

Ben

 

Well done Ben, I wonder how many other boaters watched the adjournment debate, what was noticable to me was the only MP's in the chamber appeared to be labour, apart from the waterways Minister I think there was about 6 or 7 others all on the goverment side of the chamber obviousley part of the support for the motion, the rest of the place was empty apart from officials. If anyone reads the link to the bottom they may wonder why it ends part way through a sentence thats because a lady in a wig and black suit picked up the "head bonker" (mace) and took it home, end of play when that happens.

david

[journeyperson]

Well done Ben, I wonder how many other boaters watched the adjournment debate, what was noticable to me was the only MP's in the chamber appeared to be labour, apart from the waterways Minister I think there was about 6 or 7 others all on the goverment side of the chamber obviousley part of the support for the motion, the rest of the place was empty apart from officials. If anyone reads the link to the bottom they may wonder why it ends part way through a sentence thats because a lady in a wig and black suit picked up the "head bonker" (mace) and took it home, end of play when that happens.

david

 

Yes, how significant is it that the only MPs who seem to care about the issue are Labour MPs?

[Pluto]

What are you saying? That the canal can not be maintained without taxpayers money?

 

considering that the canal does not have a nesseccary function for the tax payer, why should the tax payer be expected to pay for your privelige to float a boat?

 

The money BW receive at the moment probably just about pays for the land drainage function which canals provide. Given the increasing amount of building, which creates faster run off for rain water, this aspect of canals is becoming increasingly important. All the rest, such as leisure, heritage, etc, comes free, with additional charges for specific uses.

[Nightwatch]

I have received a response to a letter sent to our local MP about BW and the 'future'

 

I had asked for his views and his support in the commons, he wrote (or his PA did)

 

 

"I apologise for the delay in my response.

At a time of huge pressure on public finances when there is an urgent need to review the functions and performance of all Government bodies, we welcome the fact that British Waterways are themselves looking at how they can reform their organisation to offer the best value foe money for the tax payer.and secure the future of our canals and waterways.

 

The challenge is to ensure the proper maintenance and upkeep of our waterways in the future while releasing any available surplu capital. We reconise the crucial role British Waterways plays in the upkeep and development of our canals and the conservation, business and recreation benefits that this brings.

 

thank you etc. for contacting me and so on.

 

David Willetts MP"

 

I may be wrong but I think I have been fobbed off. What do others think?

 

Martyn

[sueb]

I have received a response to a letter sent to our local MP about BW and the 'future'

 

I had asked for his views and his support in the commons, he wrote (or his PA did)

 

 

"I apologise for the delay in my response.

At a time of huge pressure on public finances when there is an urgent need to review the functions and performance of all Government bodies, we welcome the fact that British Waterways are themselves looking at how they can reform their organisation to offer the best value foe money for the tax payer.and secure the future of our canals and waterways.

 

The challenge is to ensure the proper maintenance and upkeep of our waterways in the future while releasing any available surplu capital. We reconise the crucial role British Waterways plays in the upkeep and development of our canals and the conservation, business and recreation benefits that this brings.

 

thank you etc. for contacting me and so on.

 

David Willetts MP"

 

I may be wrong but I think I have been fobbed off. What do others think?

 

Martyn

 

MP's usually ask BW for their response which they then send to you.

Sue

[Jason Wilson and Family]

I have received a response to a letter sent to our local MP about BW and the 'future'

 

I had asked for his views and his support in the commons, he wrote (or his PA did)

 

 

"I apologise for the delay in my response.

At a time of huge pressure on public finances when there is an urgent need to review the functions and performance of all Government bodies, we welcome the fact that British Waterways are themselves looking at how they can reform their organisation to offer the best value foe money for the tax payer.and secure the future of our canals and waterways.

 

The challenge is to ensure the proper maintenance and upkeep of our waterways in the future while releasing any available surplu capital. We reconise the crucial role British Waterways plays in the upkeep and development of our canals and the conservation, business and recreation benefits that this brings.

 

thank you etc. for contacting me and so on.

 

David Willetts MP"

 

I'd agree with Sue. BW doesn't maintain the Waterways do they?

 

I may be wrong but I think I have been fobbed off. What do others think?

 

Martyn

[fender]

This item from Wikipedia says it all:

 

"A mutual exists with the purpose of raising funds (or money), from its membership or customers (collectively called its members), which can then be used to provide common services to all members of the organization or society. A mutual is therefore owned by, and run for the benefit of, its members - it has no external shareholders to pay in the form of dividends, and as such does not usually seek to maximize and make large profits or capital gains. Mutuals exist for the members to benefit from the services they provide.

 

Profits made will usually be re-invested in the mutual for the benefit of the members, although some profit may also be necessary in the case of mutuals to sustain or grow the organization, and to make sure it remains safe and secure."

 

Seems a mutual could fleece the boater even more.... Glad one thing's sorted - there'll be no more bonuses for Evans & Co! They'll have to do with busking in our town centres if they want a 'bonus' in future!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

This item from Wikipedia says it all:

 

"A mutual exists with the purpose of raising funds (or money), from its membership or customers (collectively called its members), which can then be used to provide common services to all members of the organization or society. A mutual is therefore owned by, and run for the benefit of, its members - it has no external shareholders to pay in the form of dividends, and as such does not usually seek to maximize and make large profits or capital gains. Mutuals exist for the members to benefit from the services they provide.

 

Profits made will usually be re-invested in the mutual for the benefit of the members, although some profit may also be necessary in the case of mutuals to sustain or grow the organization, and to make sure it remains safe and secure."

 

Seems a mutual could fleece the boater even more.... Glad one thing's sorted - there'll be no more bonuses for Evans & Co! They'll have to do with busking in our town centres if they want a 'bonus' in future!

 

It is, of course possible that the chief executive used the word "mutual" as a euphemism for some other type of "third sector" setup (e.g. trust or charity).

 

Two of the advantages for government regarding a mutual. It would be reasonably easy to set up and government could wash its hands of future responsibility. Having just had a look round the FSA site and elsewhere is seems to me if BW were a mutual it would have to register with the FSA but need not be regulated by them.

 

At the end of the day its all about good governance and adequate funding. Time will tell if we get either or both!

 

The news is now on Waterways World and Narrowboatworld (excellent quote at the end of the NbW article!) but adds little to what is already known.

 

Regards

 

Allan

[bag 'o' bones]

But it does have a function for the tax payer. It provides a massive amount of drainage, especially in urban areas, and as a water supply function in other areas.

It also provides many miles of Rights of Way, and is a recognised provider of educational facilities.

.....not to mention an income stream for none canal based businesses such a pubs, cafes and grocery shops.