A Complete vicious circle

[carlt]

Unless the Government writes them a blank cheque, even public services need to generate sufficient cash to be viable. ie: cash in > cash out

 

Chris

No it doesn't. It needs to be subsidised, in order that we don't lose an important piece of history.

 

None of the properties, managed by EH are "viable" businesses, unless turned into grotesque theme parks, like Warwick Castle (what better example of a reason not to put our heritage in private hands), they are recognised as worthy of public support.

 

I agree that the holiday making side of the canal trade should be in private hands and that those businesses pay towards the upkeep of the canals (and the licence fee, of private leisure boaters).

 

I don't think BW should be dabbling in the marina/pub/real estate business. They should be earning revenue from those enterprising souls who could do it much better.

[estwdjhn]

As has been noted elsewhere, the snag with departments like BW building a pile of assets to assist in the running costs of the canals is simple - the government will just flog it all off, and call it a "saving"...

[carlt]

As has been noted elsewhere, the snag with departments like BW building a pile of assets to assist in the running costs of the canals is simple - the government will just flog it all off, and call it a "saving"...

True.

 

But, then again, perhaps BW (or the government) should sell off anything that is not historically significant, or essential to the operation of the transport system, they are supposed to maintain.

 

Blurring the boundaries between what should be subsidised and what should be making a profit results in what should be subsidised suffering.

 

The Royal Mail is a prime example.

[chris w]

No it doesn't. It needs to be subsidised, in order that we don't lose an important piece of history.

If you read my post properly you will (this time) note that I wrote "Unless the Government writes them a blank cheque.....". If the Government doesn't subsidise them then they will run out of cash if not generating sufficent by internal operations.

 

Chris

[carlt]

If you read my post properly you will (this time) note that I wrote "Unless the Government writes them a blank cheque.....". If the Government doesn't subsidise them then they will run out of cash if not generating sufficent by internal operations.

 

Chris

A blank cheque isn't necessary, just careful and efficient handling of the budget allocated for the job.

 

Dabbling in areas that should be left to the businessmen is a needless distraction.

[chris w]

Dabbling in areas that should be left to the businessmen is a needless distraction.

It's a view.............

[carlt]

It's a view.............

As a businessman, do you not agree that the money making side, of BW, would be safer in the hands of people who are skilled in that area, rather than civil servants?

[chris w]

As a businessman, do you not agree that the money making side, of BW, would be safer in the hands of people who are skilled in that area, rather than civil servants?

I mean that just because BW is ultimately run by the Government, it doesn't mean that it can't employ skilled business people.

 

Chris

[carlt]

it doesn't mean that it can't employ skilled business people.

But with all govt. departments, this is invariably what happens or they employ people who had the skills but, as soon as they are working in the public sector, lose them and become incompetent oafs.

[saltysplash]

I mean that just because BW is ultimately run by the Government, it doesn't mean that it can't employ skilled business people.

 

Chris

 

 

And do you truly believe this?

Edited December 1, 2008 by saltysplash

[T.A]

I mean that just because BW is ultimately run by the Government, it doesn't mean that it can't employ skilled business people.

 

Chris

 

When working in a business environment someone has their neck on the line (not just their job), when working in a public sector environment it is only tax payers money, this can have a huge difference on decisions!

[chris w]

I tell you what, if i were in there, I would soon kick some arse.

[Big COL]

I tell you what, if i were in there, I would soon kick some arse.

 

Chris you would only lose your foot, right up to ankle in deep dodo

Problem is there is no singular driving force, no visionary that you get with private companies.

These jokers are all committee members. It is well known that you can not govern by committee.

[saltysplash]

I tell you what, if i were in there, I would soon kick some arse.

 

 

And the civil sevice unions would shut up the whole shop knowing full well that nobody can be sacked without at least 3 warnings and several attempts at improvemnet meetings...only one of which needs to show improvement then its back to square one in the discipline cycle....

[T.A]

So having debated the business mixed with politicking issue, what is the solution to preserving and maintaining a national heritage?

[saltysplash]

So having debated the business mixed with politicking issue, what is the solution to preserving and maintaining a national heritage?

 

 

Make it into a pay and display car park...the local council can then get the income to pay for their inadequate social services where vulnerable children are kept with so called vulnerable parents

 

 

Aternativly they can be maintained at public expence for all to enjoy and those vulnerable kids can have a week or two camping under canvas and maybe even getti g involved in restoration projects if they so desire

[carlt]

So having debated the business mixed with politicking issue, what is the solution to preserving and maintaining a national heritage?

Have it's preservation funded by the government, through taxation and accepting that some historically important assets are going to need subsidising, in order that they be maintained.

Edited December 1, 2008 by carlt

[cotswoldsman]

You are clearly not a business person. A "modest" profit will see you fail in the long term as you run out of cash. Remember, Cash generated for investment = Profit + Depreciation (to a first approximation).

 

You need to make an "adequate" profit as I explained above. It's not just all profit or no profit as you seem to make out.

 

Chris

 

- depreciation EBITDA

[johnthebridge]

In all this very knowledgeable to-ing and fro-ing, and with what appears to be a general consensus that,"Public bad, private good", nobody seems to have noticed that one or two private concerns seem to have taken a rather large chunk of taxpayers' dosh recently. The banks.

Then, of course, there are the other "private" companies---the rail companies. British Airways. Farmers. And more, all massively subsidised by US. Private good, public bad?

[Reptile Smile]

Unless the Government writes them a blank cheque, even public services need to generate sufficient cash to be viable. ie: cash in > cash out

 

Chris

 

Such utter rubbish. Schools? Hospitals? The Police Farce?

 

None are self-sufficient, and none have blank cheques.

[chris w]

Such utter rubbish. Schools? Hospitals? The Police Farce?

 

None are self-sufficient, and none have blank cheques.

We were talking specifically about BW, twit.

[Steilsteven]

Have it's preservation funded by the government, through taxation and accepting that some historically important assets are going to need subsidising, in order that they be maintained.

 

Absolutely right.

It is supposedly for all to enjoy so that is where the funds should come from.

 

 

Keith

[OptedOut]

Absolutely right.

It is supposedly for all to enjoy so that is where the funds should come from.

 

 

Keith

 

CCers should be paid for making the system look attractive.